For Me (and For Many), It’s a Two-Man Contest.

With my first post on the Mitt Rocks site, I have to say that if the election were held today, I’d vote Mitt Romney. The recent rise of Mike Huckabee has been surprising and has even caused me to consider him as a candidate, which is why I consider it a two man race. Before I compare Romney and Huckabee and talk about Romney's upcoming speech, let first explain a bit about my background and then mention why I would discount the other leading candidates.

I am one of those who might be classed as an evangelical conservative, though unfortunately it seems necessary to define both of those terms. By evangelical, I believe in and respect the Bible as God’s primary message to people on earth. While I do not discount the fact that God can and does answer prayers and speaks through individuals (such as pastors, teachers and ordinary people), all of these sources should be secondary to what has been clearly communicated in the Bible. Second, as a conservative, I have a lot in common with Kennedy’s vision of asking what each of us can do for our country rather than what our country can do for us. In that way, I am generally for lower taxes, smaller government and increased personal responsibility. Government should assist individuals where appropriate and do things such as build bridges, provide for national defense, fair trade and safety regulations that individuals cannot effectively do on their own. I should also make it clear that I am not a Mormon.

It would be tough for me to vote for some of the current candidates currently under consideration for the Republican nomination. I could not bring myself to vote for Giuliani for any reason, as his past support of abortion, gun control and other liberal ideals. Regarding Fred Thompson, it seems like the public was looking to be inspired by the fictional D.A. Arthur Branch rather than the real Fred Thomson who does not have the same charisma. John McCain has my respect for his service to the country in war and peace, but I do not believe he can win the election nor inspire the party, which is why I believe it is down to Huckabee and Romney.

America has a tradition of nominating and electing former governors, including Bush, Clinton, Reagan and Carter in recent years and both Huckabee and Romney have this executive experience. Both Romney and Huckabee have supported increasing heath care coverage for the most vulnerable residents of their states, factors that should assist them in the general election and appear to be the right course of action. In addition, both have solid conservative credentials though they have had to make some compromises with Democrats.

Huckabee can be considered a dark horse candidate, and that makes him a threat to a number of the other rivals, including Mitt Romney. As of mid-summer, he regularly had less than a single percentage of the primary voters and a miniscule campaign infrastructure. That allowed him to fly under the radar, and his record as governor is only now being scrutinized in depth. I really did not consider him as a legitimate candidate until the past few weeks. Still, I have some reservations about the appearance of some of his decisions, both in terms of raising taxes and illegal or improper benefits he may have obtained. Keep in mind some of those same sorts of questions were raised about another famous Arkansas governor who later became President: The nation came to find out that some of Clinton’s alleged past practices as governor continued as President. As a dark horse, we do not know enough about these issues and we may never know. Yet to his credit, Huckabee has performed well in the debates. He would be an interesting nominee for the Republicans and would be a credible rival to Hillary Clinton (and her famous husband) in particular.

Still, if the election were held today, I would vote Mitt Romney. Romney has good credentials as a leader, as a governor and as head of the Salt Lake City Olympics. His business experience definitely appeals to me as well, and Romney has built a large and comprehensive campaign organization. I also am not aware of any ethical questions regarding Romney, in contrast with some allegations against Huckabee. Romney also would be a credible candidate against any of the Democratic challengers, and he would put Massachusetts and Michigan in play for the Republicans for the first time in 20 years.

On Thursday, Romney is slated to discuss his Mormon faith. While I do not believe that this should be a campaign issue, it is important for Romney to address this issue in the same way Kennedy did in 1960. Both Kennedy and Romney have been victims of ignorance and bigotry. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge about a subject. Bigotry is an ill-formed prejudice or a lack of respect for persons or opinions different from your own. Unfortunately, many people in the U.S. are ignorant of LDS teachings. If you asked the average American if Mormons practice polygamy, many would answer yes even though polygamy has been officially denounced for more than a century. That is ignorance, not bigotry. Incidentally, many people would ignorantly say that Catholics worship Mary, though the official Catholic doctrine on the subject is far more nuanced on that subject. Unfortunately, many of those same individuals would have an unfair prejudice against a Mormon candidate.

Romney will not succeed erasing ignorance about what Mormons believe. I know that really learning about LDS teachings requires quite a bit of in-depth study, and this is not realistic for the average American. However, what Romney can do is provide a pathway that would allow people to get past their own bigotry. For example, Thomas Jefferson is regarded as a Deist rather than a Christian, yet he was one of our greatest leaders in part because his faith was a foundation for is worldview that treasured human rights. Romney can do the same, but he cannot do this by defending Mormonism: There are a number of fundamental doctrinal differences between Mormonism and the traditional Christian faith. Yet if Romney outlines some of the key formative and personal experiences of his faith and how these translate into his life, he may succeed in combating bigotry against his candidacy. People fear the unknown, and Kennedy had to assure a public that he would not take orders from the Pope. Similarly, Romney has to convince people that he would be a President who has a strong faith who shares the same foundational values as the average voter.

Regardless of our faith tradition, be it Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Mormon or any other faith, we all would do well to abide by the words of the Old Testament prophet Micah:

No, O people, the Lord has told you what is good,
and this is what he requires of you:
to do what is right, to love mercy,
and to walk humbly with your God.

If each of us (and each of our leaders) worked hard for these traits, we would have a country that would be the model for the world. This is the country we should seek, both in the leaders we choose and in how we put our own beliefs into action every day.

Brent M

Introducing...The Huckster!

As I mentioned in an earlier post, sooner or later Huck's past will catch up to him...

From http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/editorial2/20071203-9999-mz1ed3bottom.html

Quote:

Over the years, Huckabee has:

-Used campaign funds to pay himself $14,000 for being his own media consultant.

-Used campaign funds to pay himself $43,000 for use of his private plane while attempting to hide what the payment was actually in return for.

-Used an account set up to cover operational costs of the governor's mansion to pay such obviously personal expenses as fast-food and dry-cleaning bills.

-Set up a nonprofit organization that paid him $23,500 without disclosing the source of the money.

-Attempted to take $70,000 of furniture with him when moving out of the governor's mansion.

-Took more than 130 gifts worth more than $300,000 – while suing to overturn a law that made him disclose the gifts.

We could go on in this vein, but space is limited. The bottom line: Mike Huckabee has an awful lot of explaining to do. And neither voters nor the national media should let the man Arkansas journalists call the “The Huckster” get away with pretending that tough questions over his tawdry ethics record amount to mudslinging.

Huckabee Claims Endorsement from God

Huckabee has just claimed that he has been endorsed by God. And I thought that evangelicals didn't believe in living prophets. If Huckabee is speaking for God, then he must have the spirit of prophecy, and he must be a prophet himself. I suppose that the canon of scripture isn't closed and that there is continued revelation and a continuation of a scriptural narrative.

"Mr. Huckabee also said that Divine providence was responsible for his recent surge in the polls in Iowa..."

See story here

Be careful here Huck, because if you do not go on to get the nomination, then either you have done something to displeasure the Almighty, or your Divine providence is not all it's cracked up to be.

Romney to give speech he shouldn't have to give

“Governor Romney has made a decision to deliver a speech titled “Faith in America.”

“The governor has been invited to The George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas to deliver this address on Thursday, December 6.

“This speech is an opportunity for Governor Romney to share his views on religious liberty, the grand tradition religious tolerance has played in the progress of our nation and how the governor’s own faith would inform his Presidency if he were elected."

“Governor Romney understands that faith is an important issue to many Americans, and he personally feels this moment is the right moment for him to share his views with the nation.”

“Governor Romney personally made the decision to deliver this speech sometime last week.

“While identifying a venue for this address, the campaign consulted with President George H.W. Bush’s office last week about Governor Romney’s decision. President Bush was gracious enough to extend an invitation to deliver the speech at the presidential library.

“The invitation to speak at the presidential library is not an endorsement of Governor Romney’s campaign.

I can only assume that the data-driven Governor is giving this speech as a direct result of evidence of anti-Mormon bigotry against his candidacy. It is sad that America needs a speech like this! But it was sad that America needed a Lincoln to address slavery. I suppose that sometimes you have to acknowledge evil and confront it head on.

I do like the fact that Romney is going to give a speech right before Dobson endorses Huckabee. Dobson may end up looking like a bigot.

Another highlight of the speech will be the introduction by former President Bush. His is not officially an endorsement...but close enough if you ask me. I am sure that the other candidates would love to have Bush introduce them for a speech three weeks before the first primary!

I think that Romney ought to quote Joseph Smith in his speech. Since you are talking about Mormonism, why not quote from its founding leader? The quote that I would use is the following:

The Saints can testify whether I am willing to lay down my life for my brethren.
If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a "Mormon," I am
bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the
rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination;
for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day
Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other
denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves.

The Next President Will Be a Democrat (Unless We Nominate Mitt Romney)

I just had an epiphany. In the general election, the Republicans are at a serious disadvantage. For a variety of good and bad reasons, popular sentiment has been moving in the Democrats' direction. This is proven out in two ways:

1. In head-to-head match-ups, virtually ANY Democrat beats virtually ANY Republican. It's been like this for months now.

2. In fundraising, the Democrats have out-raised the Republicans by 39%! A HUGE and insurmountable advantage.

I can guarantee you that the Democrats will receive more campaign contributions than the Republicans during the general election. This is a very important consideration as expensive national advertising is SO critical to winning elections these days. Think about it: If advertising has had such a major effect during the primaries, when only the most hard-core politically savvy people vote, imagine what kind of effect it will have during the general elections, when WAY more people vote. When the masses come out the the general election, they will most likely be more influenced by campaign ads than the more thoughtful primary voters.

What does all this mean? Well, it means that the Democrats are almost guaranteed a win come November 2008. Kinda sucks huh? We'll, there is some good news. It just so happens that there is one Republican who can not only mobilize significant donors on his behalf (as shown in the chart above), but has a personal fortune that could dwarf even the most ambitious fundraising goals of the Democrats. And the really good news: This candidate (Mitt Romney if you haven't figured it out yet) has already shown that he's ready and willing to throw his own money into the race.

Bottom line: Republicans will not be able to raise enough money to win the Presidency unless they nominate Mitt Romney.

Mitt's Gonna Win the Nomination!

In one of the most idiotic articles I've read in recent months, Dick Morris says Mitt is in a tough position with attacks from Huck on the "right" and Rudy on the left. First off, as mentioned in the post below, Mitt is solidly more conservative than Huck. Secondly, neither of these guys can beat Mitt. Here's my rebuttal to Morris' asinine article:

In your article "Trouble on the Romney Trail", you miss a couple of shockingly obvious points:

1. Giuliani is dead. How can you not see this? Scandal after scandal (along with leftist positions on moral issues and immigration) will cause Rudy's numbers to plummet nationally to the low levels he's experiencing in the early states. (In the latest Iowa poll Rudy is at 9%, and in the latest NH poll he is at 15%). Take my word, a conservative will win the Republican nomination - Rudy is not even a threat to Romney.

2. Huckabee is a flash in the pan. He's peaking way too early. His numbers will top out in the next 2 weeks and then his horrible record of fiscal irresponsibility (both personally and as Governor) and his McCain-like liberal immigration position will cause his numbers to fall just as quickly as they rose. At best he'll come in second in Iowa, but he'll get crushed in NH.

Also, for you to equate voting for a Mormon with voting for a Democrat is ridiculous and irresponsible. Evangelical conservatives' and Mormons' political views are in PERFECT harmony. Please don't feed anti-Mormon sentiment by making such irrational and unwarranted statements.

Finally, where do you get off calling Romney's abortion story a "flip flop flip"? This is a completely misinformed and misleading statement. Being the freakshow that I am, I have probably put 10 times as much time and energy into researching Romney's abortion story as you have, and can promise you that you are wrong on this one.

There are a variety of personal moral views that a candidate may choose NOT to espouse in his/her political platform. (Is a teetotaler like Romney obligated to run on a prohibitionist platform?) It's certainly okay for Democrats and Libertarians to be personally pro-life but politically pro-choice. I can easily understand Mitt's reluctance to impose his moral views on others. Romney's single "flip" (more accurately termed "evolution") on this issue occurred when he was forced to make a life/death decision on an embryo-farming issue. His careful, well-deliberated, and heartfelt conclusion was that he would have to veto the measure - thus protecting life. I find it very believable that, when theory met reality, he allowed his moral view to have greater influence on his political platform.

Please give Romney a fair shake next time.

Another prediction: Huck's surge will help Romney

by David Alvord

The Huck surge is helping the Romney campaign because it is hurting Fred Thompson and John McCain. Thompson has been second in the National polls and wants to be the conservative alternative to Rudy. Now that Huck is surging, I predict a Thompson and McCain decline. So, how does Huck's surge help Romney? His rise is taking steam away from the other two candidates who are strong on all three legs of Reagan's three-legged stool.* Yet Huck is only strong on two of those legs. This January, I predict some Romney wins and one or two Huckabee wins...which will leave Thompson and McCain winless and out of the game.

This February, Florida will only have these three to choose from:

Rudy
Pros: fiscal conservative, pro-military
Cons: Pro-choice, pro-gun control, sanctuary city mayor, scandal ridden, socially liberal, thrice married, against the line-item veto
SUMMARY: TWO LEGS OF THE STOOL

Huck
Pros: Pro-life, pro-second amendment, social conservative
Cons: not a fiscal conservative, weak on immigration, big taxer, is an ideologue, in favor of the so-called "fair-tax"
SUMMARY: TWO LEGS OF THE STOOL

Romney
Pros: pro-life, pro-second amendment, socially conservative, fiscally conservative, strong on immigration, will not raise taxes, will control government spending, will fight war on terror, free from any scandals, and is ridiculously pro-family
Cons: was once pro-choice (no longer), belongs to a Christian church that isn't currently in the majority.
SUMMARY: ALL THREE LEGS OF THE STOOL

Only Rudy and Romney have the money to go the distance. Romney has the most endorsements and the best campaign. But even if all things were equal, I believe that Republicans will choose the most conservative candidate on Super-Duper Tuesday. Thanks to Huck, Mitt will be the most conservative candidate left standing!

*NOTE, THE "STOOL" REFERS TO RONALD REAGAN'S THREE-LEGGED STOOL:
LEG#1: Strong Families
LEG#2: Strong Economy
LEG#3: Strong Military

A Mitt Rocks prediction: Dobson to endorse Huck

by David Alvord

Focus on the Family's James Dobson has withheld a formal endorsement of any of the major candidates. He has threatened to help a third-party candidate run if Rudy ends up with the nomination. The only candidate who has a chance of beating Rudy is Mitt. So why not endorse Romney? Answer: anti-Mormon bigotry. Yes, I believe that this so-called Christian has been waiting for another not-so-Mormon candidate to emerge. Now he has that candidate: Mike Huckabee. WATCH FOR A DOBSON ENDORSEMENT THIS MONTH!

Instead, Dobson ought to take our advice and Focus on the Family.

A Vote for Huckabee is a Vote for Hillary

Casting a vote for Huckabee is the best way to ensure that Hillary becomes our next president. It's time for Huckabee supporters to get over the novelty and look at the facts. Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani are the only two candidates with enough money, experience, and ground organization to beat Hillary. Political insiders know this, and so does Hillary. Why do you think Hillary is so tickled with Huckabee's latest rise in the polls?Huckabee takes votes away from the only two candidates who have a chance of keeping the Democrats out of the White House. A vote for Huckabee is a vote for Hillary.

Mitt's Quiet Service, Minus the Press Cameras

I was thoroughly delighted and unsurprised by this San Diego man' account of how Mitt Romney and his sons helped him dig out from the recent wildfire disaster in California. They performed their service without reporters and without cameras. It was not a publicity stunt, just a genuine effort to to help those in need. This is exactly why I think Mitt Romney has the kind of character America is seeking in a president. My favorite part is the photo of Mitt digging out a big tree root. To read the man's first-hand account and see the photos click here.

Huckabee Shamelessly Capitalizing on Anti-Mormonism Among Evangelicals

Okay, I've tried to be civil in my previous posts about the inexcusable anti-Mormonism that Mitt Romney's candidacy has exposed. It stops now. Hot of the press from the New York Times is this little gem from a 54-year-old Iowa woman named Barbara Heki, an evangelical and zealous supporter of one Mr. Michael Huckabee:

“Mormons spend two years of their lives as missionaries, preaching an anti-Christian doctrine,” she said. “I don’t want someone out there, if I can help it, who’s going to be acting on an anti-Christian faith as the basis of their decision-making.”

And then this zinger, from Danny Carroll, another evangelical Christian and co-chairman of Huckabee's Iowa campaign team. Carroll was formerly (are you kidding me?) the speaker pro tem of the Iowa House:

“I think [Mitt Romney's Mormon faith] causes some uneasiness as to how somebody is going to respond when heavy responsibility is placed on them.... I think the Christian would like to know that the person has a strong anchor and prays to the God of the Bible.”

Finally, we are treated with this piece of "wisdom" from Glenda Gherkey, yet another evangelical from Iowa and fervent supporter of Huckabee:

“I’m concerned a lot of Christians are thinking about the values issues and forgetting about the creator behind the values issues.... I guess I feel like this country and this world needs a president who would be able to pray to the God of the Bible and he would be able to hear his prayers.... [And I'm not sure Mitt Romney's prayers would] even get through."

Okay, how in the world could any individual with a good heart and a normal IQ make any of the above three statements? All three are so ludicrous as to not even merit a rebuttal. It is absolutely disgusting that someone would use any of these reasons as a basis to select a president. Some might say, "Hey it's America. People can vote for whoever they want." And you know what, that's right. And maybe this is just the problem with our political system. Even idiots can vote. But you know what, as a Mormon who is the target of these obscene comments, I'm not going to stand idly by and let these bigots spew their religious hatred without saying something. I'm not going to be play nice and let their poisonous rhetoric slide by the wayside. These people need to be called to the carpet and sharply criticized for their ignorant, mean-spirited comments. Of course I know that these bigots do not represent all evangelical Christians. I am acquainted with several fine evangelicals who would never even think such foolish thoughts. Nevertheless, I am concerned that these comments represent the thinking of a large number of evangelicals, perhaps even a majority.

I think it's obvious by now that I am extremely upset with this kind of rhetoric, not because of any political agenda, but because, as a Mormon, this kind of talk is deeply hurtful. It's impossible not to take it personally. When someone says I could never be trusted to hold a position of political responsibility because of my faith, that's hurtful. When someone says that my life doesn't have a "strong anchor," that's hurtful. When someone says that God won't listen to my prayers, that's hurtful.

I get the impression that the only suitable candidate for these people is another evangelical Christian who believes exactly the same as they do. In their minds, nobody else could possibly do a good job. How ridiculous is that? It scares me to death that bigots like this actually have a voice in our political process. But what scares me more is that these venomous comments will go largely ignored by the media, the same media who would absolutely crush any voter or political candidate who made disparaging comments about blacks, gays, Jews, or women. For some inexcusable reason picking on Mormons is still acceptable. And let me be clear: it is inexcusable. People might think they have good reasons for bigotry. But that's what the lynching mobs thought. That's what the Nazis thought. That's what the anti-suffragists thought.

You would think that the presidential candidates themselves would harshly condemn such crazy talk. I guarantee that if people started criticizing Mr. Obama because of his skin color that Mitt Romney and the other candidates wouldn't tolerate it for a minute. But when Romney's religion is attacked so viciously nobody says a thing. I don't see Rudy condemning it. I don't see Hillary condemning it. Yet perhaps most surprisingly, I don't see Huckabee condemning it. I mean, here's a man who claims to be a Christian, a former pastor for goodness sake, who just stands there and lets his supporters (even his own campaign managers) spew this garbage. What's worse, Huckabee is actually using the anti-Mormon sentiment among his evangelical supporters to benefit his political ambitions. Of all things! Are you kidding me? What kind of a Christian is Huckabee anyway, or is he? Listen to what The Huckster says here, from the same New York Times article:

Sneakily drawing a contrast between Romney's supposedly bizarre religious views and his supposedly "Christian" views, Huck says: “My views are what they are. I don’t think I’ve ever hidden where they come from." Nice job Huck! Way to criticize Romney's religion, implying that he's embarrassed of it, while slyly exalting your own! You even did it without actually stating your intentions explicitly. This kind of subtle trickery has found its way into Huck's TV ads in Iowa, where he brands himself "The Christian Candidate." Here again Huck is appealing to those suspicious of Mormons, implying that he is the true Christian candidate while Romney, as a Mormon, is just a pretender.

Huck tries to claim that he is above the fray, that he will refrain from mudslinging. But comments like these show that he's just another politician playing the game. Sometimes he'll even let his guard down and reveal his true colors. Acknowledging the anti-Mormon comments from one of his supporters, he actually had the nerve to joke: “I’m glad you’ve made your choice for me. I don’t care why. I’m just glad you did” (emphasis added). That's the equivalent of Hillary Clinton saying she's happy to accept the Ku Klux Klan vote even though she knows it's based on the hatred of Mr. Obama's black skin.

Shame on you Mr. Huckabee. Anti-Mormonism is not funny. Using it to benefit your political ambitions qualifies you as a genuinely shady character. You are certainly not presidential material. And you certainly may not call yourself a Christian.

For the full text of the New York Times article click here.

Who does Rex Kwan-do endorse?

By David Alvord

Has everybody seen this ad? The one with Chuck Norris? LINK TO VIDEO

This has to be the crappiest campaign ad I have ever seen! Are these guys for real? This ad could have been cool for a high school class election...maybe.

Question: Does Huck actually think Chuck is cool? Or, does Chuck know that those jokes are mocking him? If you watch the video a few times, I think that you will notice, like I did, that Chuck looks a little bit sad. Like he knows he's a joke...

I have to admit that the ad is hillarious! But I come away from it asking: What office is this guy running for? Would Ronald Reagan or Winston Churchill have ever thought of running an ad like this? Would Romney or Giuliani or even Clinton take a chance on an ad featuring, say, Peewee Herman at this stage of the election? If this is really what America values then Mitt might have to bust out with fellow-Mormon Napoleon Dynamite!

I take it as a sign that even the Huckster himself doesn't think that he has a real shot at it.

But the one thing the ad may accomplish is that it may give the press something new to write about. Instead of the press asking: Is America ready for a Mormon President?, they can ask: Who does Rex Kwan-do endorse?

Huckabee, the False Conservative

New article by Robert Novak here.

Some excerpts:

Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist, big-government advocate of a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans.

Until now, they did not bother to expose the former governor of Arkansas as a false conservative because he seemed an underfunded, unknown nuisance candidate.

There is no doubt about Huckabee's record during a decade in Little Rock as governor. He was regarded by fellow Republican governors as a compulsive tax increaser and spender. He increased the Arkansas tax burden by 47 percent...

Huckabee simply does not fit in normal boundaries of economic conservatism, as when he criticized President Bush's veto of a Democratic expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Calling global warming a "moral issue" mandating "a biblical duty" to prevent climate change, he has endorsed the cap-and-trade system that is anathema to the free market.

Huckabee clearly departs from the mainstream of the conservative movement in his confusion of "growth" with "greed." Such ad hominem attacks are part of his intuitive response to criticism from the Club for Growth and the libertarian Cato Institute for his record as governor. On Fox News Sunday Nov. 18, he called the "tactics" of the Club for Growth "some of the most despicable in politics today. It's why I love to call them the Club for Greed because they won't tell you who gave their money." In fact, all contributors to the organization's political action committee (which produces campaign ads) are publicly revealed, as are most donors financing issue ads.

Quin Hillyer, a former Arkansas journalist writing in the conservative American Spectator, called Huckabee "a guy with a thin skin, a nasty vindictive streak." Huckabee's retort was to attack Hillyer's journalistic procedures, fitting a mean-spirited image when he responds to conservative criticism.

That's what politicians do...

Two items to be thankful for this Thanksgiving (and some great conversation items over turkey):

1. Be thankful for the primary schedule, now finally ironed out:

Jan. 3 - IA (caucus)
Jan. 5 - WY (convention)
Jan. 8 - NH
Jan. 15- MI
Jan. 19- SC, NV (caucus)
Jan. 29- FL
Feb. 2 - ME (caucus)
Feb. 5 - Super Tuesday

Romney is leading or polling well in all six of the pre-florida states. Romney is now polling in second place in Florida...and you have to admit that five or six victories has to give the guy a bounce. Watch for a possible win in FLORIDA!

2. Be thankful that many voters will soon start to see it like Leon H. Wolf has (read full story here):

Speaking on the issue of abortion, Wolf writes:

"For a while, the Fred Thompson campaign gave me hope for someone who might be a little more solid on the issue, but looking at the polling right now leads me inescapably to the conclusion that Fred Thompson is toast. He's not polling any higher than third in any state right now, and Romney has even moved into second in the crucial state of Florida. I just don't know that Thompson has what it takes to get back up off the mat right now. And while I feel a lot better about supporting McCain than I did a year ago, I still just can't make myself trust him at all. I made it a special point to get on McCain's conference call last week so that I could hopefully get just that little assurance I needed to sway me into his camp - and in my estimation, he blew the question. Like I said, I could get behind McCain a lot more easily than I could at this point last year, but he still isn't my first choice. As for Huckabee? Well, let's just say that I lived in Arkansas while he was governor, and my state tax burden was higher than my federal tax burden. And also that I worked on Jim Holt's 2004 campaign. I hope that explains why I have never seriously considered voting for him."

"You know, I think one of the things about blogs and the internet is that it's made it a lot easier to go back and nitpick what people have said and that doesn't always do us a service. We're not always going to get a guy who's been a doctrinaire conservative from birth, although the internet has made it so that we expect that. And if it appears at times that Romney is a relentless triangulator - well, for Pete's sake, he's a freaking politician. That's what politicians do. And if the end result of their triangulation is that they pretty consistently come down where you are, then I guess it's time to be happy about that."

"In the end, if I had to choose between seeing Romney and Rudy standing, it wouldn't even be a close call. When I examine the field, I see only one candidate left standing with a reasonable shot of winning the White House who would govern as a conservative, and that candidate is Mitt Romney. So from now on, I'm tossing in with him, for better or worse."

Better late than never, Mr. Wolf! Welcome aboard.

A CEO in the White House?

What? The question isn't "is America ready for a Mormon in the White House?" Well done Fred Barnes! You are asking the question America should be asking. Is America ready for a CEO in the White House? Is Washington ready to be scrutinized and over-hauled by someone with vast experience in the private sector?

See his excellent article here.

To Ron Paul Supporters

This was an email that I sent a friend who is a Ron Paul supporter, but who also is considering Romney:

Great to see you involved politically! I would love to see either Romney or Paul take our country in a new direction. I was glad to see that your endorsement included Romney. I hope that Paul, if not nominated, doesn't run as a third-party candidate. That could be Ross Perot all over again: with the similar result; a Clinton Presidency.

I really think that Romney would get our house back in order. Our national debt is very concerning. Our energy dependence is also frustrating. Time magazine had a fantastic article about the way Romney was able to find a solution to the Health care problem in Massachusetts. What he found, once he collected all the data, was that most of the uninsured in Mass, were not poor single women or minorities, but were in fact, middle-class single men! With that information, Romney was able to come up with a plan to get those guys insured and lower the price of health-care for everyone.

It is that kind of data-collecting and problem solving that I look forward to in a Romney presidency. Romney has a talent in that he can take a lot of data and find solutions to practical problems. And the war? I think that Romney will take a more Reagan-like approach to foreign relations; More show, and less go. But he can't talk about it right now. You know, speak softly but carry a big stick. I think that he would increase the military, but not use it. Bush, carried a big stick and used it! I think that he was right to do so...Saddam Hussein was a loose cannon in an unstable part of the world...and we DO rely on the middle east for oil. Was Iraq a scapegoat for the attacks of 911? Maybe, but now that terrorists know how the united states will react (or over-react) to a major terror attack...maybe they'll think twice? Anyway, I know that you might feel differently, but just keep in mind that I do not believe that a Romney presidency would be a continuation of a Bush presidency.

Oh and by the way....Go Utes!

Dave

Huck isn't the story

The real story is that Giuliani is in third place in Iowa. Huckabee is in second place...because he is strong on one of the three legs of the conservative stool. He is the flavor of the week...but after voters have a little more time to examine him...they will find the other two legs missing.

But just imagine if Obama was leading in Iowa...and Clinton couldn't even get into the second spot. That is the story we have with the Republicans. Mitt's on top, Huck is second...and Giuliani is way down there:

Strategic Vision Iowa Poll:

Mitt Romney 30% (27%)
Mike Huckabee 19% (12%)
Rudy Giuliani 12% (13%)
Fred Thompson 11% (10%)
John McCain 7% (5%)
Ron Paul 5% (4%)
Tom Tancredo 2% (2%)
Duncan Hunter 1% (1%)
Undecided 13% (22%)


CBS Iowa Poll:

Mitt Romney 27%
Mike Huckabee 21%
Rudy Giuliani 15%
Fred Thompson 9%
John McCain 4%
Ron Paul 4%
Tom Tancredo 3%

For Romney, the outliers come first

by David Alvord

Today's Rasmussen Report puts Romney in second place nationally. See link here

This is the first time that the National polls are starting to catch up with what Mitt Rocks! has been making the case for these past six months!

Some may say that this is an outliers poll, but I have observed that whenever Romney shows higher on any poll, the others will soon follow. It has to do with the trends of Romney's campaign. And finally, people are starting to get to know Mitt. Had Sept. 11 happened to Massachusetts during Romney's term, we'd all be asking "Giuliani who"? The press loves to criticize the Romney campaign's spending. But how else would a candidate become known? Mitt is a self-made politician. He did not star in a prime-time television show. He was not Mayor of a city that was hit by one of the most horrific and visually stunning attacks in modern history. No, Mitt's success has come by hard work, sacrifice, and brains. I have to wonder, had Romney been mayor of New York, would the twin towers have already been rebuilt?

Look out Rudy, the socially conservative Republicans are split between Romney, Thompson, and Huckabee. But soon, they will coalesce around the most viable candidate: Mitt Romney.

Speech or No Speech?

If Romney dedicates an entire speech to his faith, what will happen? I believe too much of anything isn't good. But would it be too much? I say that is Mitt's call. Romney's advisors don't recommend it. However, Romney says he likes the idea. I too feel that given the right timing and intent, a Mormon speech will enhance his solid candidacy for President.

-David McEntire

Excerpts from the Salt Lake Tribune Article:

"Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor who studies religion and government, said Romney is the strongest and most qualified candidate, "the perfect candidate for this moment in time" compared to his rivals. "

"Is there going to be a special speech? Perhaps, at some point. I sort of like the idea myself. The political advisers tell me no, no, no - it's not a good idea. It draws too much attention to that issue alone."

Rudy's third-place showing in Iowa

So, the big news lately has been Mitt's strong poll position in the three early states. But it is Rudy's third-place status in Iowa that has gone largely unnoticed.

According to a November 7 Zogby poll:

IOWA

Mitt Romney: 31%

Mike Huckabee: 15%

Rudy Giuliani: 11%

Fred Thompson: 10%

What? The so-called front runner is running in third place in the first contest? Giuliani thinks that he can skip Iowa and wait for the "big" states to hold their elections. The problem I see with that logic is that the media (and America) are going to be following the election in Iowa very closely. With Obama and Hillary duking it out in Iowa, Americans will be watching closely for the results of that election. One can only assume that the result of the Republican election would hardly go unnoticed. A third or fourth place showing in Iowa could be not only embarrassing to Rudy, it could be fatal.

Romney Winning in Supposedly Unwinnable South Carolina

Mitt Romney has accomplished something few thought possible: He's winning in South Carolina. Many had supposed Romney could never carry South Carolina, primarily because he is Mormon. But Romney is winning anyway. "I would say that if he didn't have the Mormon issue that he would be the clear front-runner and the race would be almost over," said Beltram, the Spartanburg County [South Carolina] GOP chairman. This quote comes from a recent CNN story highlighting Mitt Romney's dramatic rise in South Carolina.

The story contains an all-too-frequent flaw, implying that Mitt's rising popularity is due to his money rather than the way his message is resonating. But other than that the article is a good read. I was saddened to see, yet again, that blatant discrimination against Mormons is still politically correct in some circles. Can you imagine, for instance, if the state GOP chairman of Florida said something like, "Wow, if this candidate weren't black he'd already have this election in the bag." I'm sure the chairman was just stating the facts. But the fact that so many in South Carolina would base their entire vote on a candidate's religion is utterly ridiculous, especially when that religion happens to be a respectable faith like Mormonism. But I suppose this just shows how much growth we have ahead of us as a country. The growing pains are particularly hurtful to we Mormons, but if that's what it takes to move past the discrimination of the past 177 years then I guess that's reality.

But for now at least, people in South Carolina are taking Romney seriously. And that's a good thing, because if Romney captures Iowa and New Hampshire (both states looking pretty good at this point), then a victory or even a strong showing in South Carolina will propel him to the nomination. For the full text of CNN's article click here.

Romney Leads All GOP Candidates in Congressional Endorsements

Mitt Romney is the top choice for the GOP nomination among current members of the U.S. Congress. As of November 8, 2007, Mitt Romney leads all Republican candidates with 33 congressional endorsements. These endorsements are highly influential, not only because members of Congress have heavy sway in their own states, but because the support from political insiders shows heavy confidence that a candidate can get the job done. To see an up-to-date congressional endorsement list click here.

Romney Better Off Without Robertson's Endorsement

Yippee! Pat Robertson decided to endorse Guiliani rather than Romney. This is a major boost to Romney's campaign. Pat Robertson has consistenly shown a mean-spirited unwillingness to tolerate those with values different from his own. He has also proven himself time and again to be among the worst critical thinkers of our time. Mitt's got to be glad he won't be associated with crazy-man Robertson. Phew!

Rasmussen Poll Shows Romney Closing the Gap on Guiliani

A poll released today by the highly respected Rasmussen Reports shows Mitt Romney quickly closing the gap on Rudy Giuliani. Whereas 61% believe it is very likely or somewhat likely that Rudy will get the Republican nomination, 43% percent now believe it will be Romney. McCain (32%) and Thompson (30%) are now a distant third and fourth. These new numbers demonstrate a huge increase in support for Governor Romney, who until recently was considered by some to be a long shot. Romney is already leading by a wide margin in the early voting states of Iowa of New Hampshire. With momentum gained from those early victories he could easily surpass Giuliani in the next few months. Rudy should brace himself for what could be the biggest battle of his political life. Mitt Romney is for real. To see the full text of the report click here.

Huge Endorsement for Romney

Today has been a great news cycle for the Romney campaign. Read here to learn about Romney's latest get.

Extrapolation is fun!

Just discovered some wonderful graphs from Pollster.com (The rising brown line - yeah, the one that was basically zero 18 months ago - is Mitt Romney)

Click on the graphs for more detail.

Look at the general trends and extrapolate where things will end up in a few month's time...

Help Wanted! Aptitude results for the candidates...

by David Alvord

As a soon-to-be entrepreneur, I am in the process of hiring a new staff for my dental clinic: Oquirrh Mountain Dental. This has allowed me to reflect upon what personality attributes are needed for the respective positions in a dental office.

So, what are the personality attributes of the leading presidential candidates, and where would they most appropriately serve?

The following are what Mitt Rocks! think would be the job most suited to each leading candidate:

Rudy Giuliani: President of the Yankees baseball club.
Rudy is hilarious, likable, and a true New-Yorker. Rudy is a man's man and would find himself at home in the sporting world. The fact that Giuliani is weak on family values wouldn't be a problem to the Yankees fans. Just win games and the people will love you. Not quite a Republican, not quite a Democrat, Rudy would find common ground with almost all New Yorkers.

Fred Thompson: President of the NRA or some other conservative special-interest group.
Are the rigors of a presidential election too demanding? Try a special interest group. Fred is also likable and truly wants to make a difference in the political world. But Fred is not getting any younger and his new baby and wife need him at home to help with the diapers. The demanding schedule of president might break him. Instead, Fred needs to find something that is part-time but still fulfilling. A job that he can feel good about, but also leaves him time for his family and for his 2 o'clock naps. Charleton Heston, a former actor, was president of the NRA too.

Hillary Clinton: U.S. Senator
Hillary is one of the few candidates who has actually already gotten it right! As a senator, she can truly represent the people. Depending on which way the wind blows, Hillary can vote in that direction. Does the country favor war with Iraq? She can vote for that. Do Americans want the war ended? Hillary can do that too! So it would seem that Hillary is already in the right place. She can give speeches, pursue a career in politics, and avoid the icky task of actually leading the country.

Huckabee: Pastor/leader of evangelical political coalition
Huck gives great sermons. Huck is a kind and decent man. As a pastor, Mike can be an idealist. He can throw out heavenly ideas without the responsibility of understanding the details. After all, God has already worked out the details of His commandments. But the details of the so called "fair tax"? What verse in the Bible supports that? Where Mike Huckabee has been weak on political issues, he would shine on religious ones.

John Edwards: talk-show host
Look out Oprah, because there is a new host in town! Those baby-blue eyes and Breck-shampoo-soft hair are going to waste in politics. That southern drawl and home-cooked appeal shouldn't be taken for granted. The American people deserve to see Edwards daily! And the women? They absolutely love John! The two Americas would both tune in to him as his ratings go through the roof! Besides, he isn't really a democrat anyway! Edwards is a rich guy, with the biggest house in North Carolina and a conservative family. But he would love to be on TV and give strong opinions on social issues. Just like Oprah did, he could have the one America give cars to a studio audience from the other America.

Obama: rock-star pastor (see Mike Huckabee)
The audacity of hope. That sounds like a sermon to me. Again, like our friend Huckabee, Barack is an idealist, but gets lost in the details. His inexperience could be overshadowed by his passion for speaking. But unlike Huck, he is a rock-star. In other words, Obama is a celebrity. People love to throw money at him. Imagine the passing of the plate at an Obama sermon!

Mitt Romney: President, CEO, POTUS, or any other type of leader
If a person was ever born to be President, it is Mitt Romney. The office of President is in his genes. Like his Governor father before him, Romney is a leader in every respect. His personal life is exemplary. His children are raised. And Romney looks like a president! Romney can give speeches, he can analyze data, he can lead, and bottom line...he gets things done. Romney will be a leader that will work hard for the American people...and will probably wear out his cabinet in the process. His experience and education are unmatched in the current field. Romney, like Bush, has an MBA from Harvard...but unlike Bush, Romney has a Law degree from Harvard as well. But most importantly, every organization that Mitt has touched has turned to gold. Why not America?

Is Mormonism as Bad as Murder? Yes, Discrimination is Alive and Well

I was raised to believe that discrimination is wrong. I came of age well after the US Civil Rights Acts of 1964 outlawed racial segregation, sparking a number of new laws that barred discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion. Thus I cannot imagine a world where discrimination would be acceptable. Having grown up alongside others who received this same training, I am utterly disappointed to discover that many Americans still think it’s okay to discriminate. We still pay women lower wages than men for the same work. We still engage in racial profiling. We still prohibit openly gay people from serving in the military. Finally, we still mistreat others solely on the basis of religion. A good example of the latter is the widespread discrimination against Mormons that has revealed itself as a result of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. What's wrong with the following statement, written by Jay Cost for Real Clear Politics?

“I would be highly surprised if Giuliani or Thompson tries to make [Mitt Romney’s] Mormon issue salient. If I were advising either one, I would suggest that he not try--any political victory he achieves from the issue might be quite pyrrhic. Such an attack leads itself right into a discussion of the role of religion in the lives of the candidates - and that, in turn, could make the once divorced Thompson (who seems to have lobbied for a pro-abortion outfit) and the twice divorced Giuliani (who is pro-choice) look worse than Romney” (bold italics added).

This statement, like its many cousins across the media networks, is not overtly discriminatory. It does not explicitly state that Mormonism is a suspicious religion. Nor does it suggest that nobody vote for Romney because he is a Mormon. However, what it does say ought to invoke shock and outrage. Intentional or not the author places Mormonism on similar footing with divorce and abortion—as if being Mormon is a flaw that compares to culpable marital failure or (gasp!) murder. Even though Mormonism is considered the lesser "offense," it is still mentioned as something that gives voters similar heartburn. He goes on to state:

“I think Romney may have caught a real break with Thompson and Giuliani as his two major opponents. If, per chance, Huckabee or Brownback had ascended to the top tier—they could possibly have exploited the Mormon angle without undue damage to their candidacies. But not Thompson and Giuliani. I do not think that either of them has the "standing" to get into the thick of a battle over personal religious beliefs.”

The ironic thing about Mr. Cost's statement is that he probably didn't realize it was discriminatory. Likewise, most non-Mormon readers would probably fail to find it discriminatory. And that's sad, because it only demonstrates how insensitive people can be in their treatment of Mormons. Can you imagine if someone were to make a similar statement about Jews, comparing Judaism with questionable behavior? "So and so was responsible for a nasty divorce. So and so is pro-abortion. So and so is a Jew." You can bet that few media outlets would dare publish something so outrageous. The politically correct police and Jewish support groups would be all over them, and rightfully so. For some reason Mormons don't enjoy the same support. Perhaps it's because they are a forgiving people who tend to turn the other cheek. Perhaps it's because they are a relatively new religion. Regardless of the reason, it's obvious that discrimination against Mormons is alive and well.

So where do we go from here? Mitt Romney's candidacy has clearly exposed that many Americans still have a big problem with religious discrimination. It is a problem that casts a dark shadow on America's professed values of equality, justice, and freedom of conscience. It is a problem that highlights the inability of many Americans to respect people with different or unfamiliar beliefs. Finally, it is a problem that won't go away until we start asking ourselves some hard questions. Will we choose to persist in religious bigotry, or will we choose to respect people solely on the basis of their being human? Will we continue to compare a person’s religious preferences with outright objectionable behavior, or will we rise up and see The Difference?

For the full text of Jay Cost's article click here.

Higher and higher...

Romney is really starting to squish the competition in Iowa:

Romney 36.2

Giuliani 13.1

Huckster 12.8

source UI Hawkeye Poll

"I think being pro-life is more than saying you'll appoint strict constructionist judges"

Recent MyWay article on Romney's latest...

"Those of us who represent that base will find that we can get that support and ultimately face up one-to-one with Mayor Giuliani," Romney said. "At that point he'll have a more challenging time because I do not believe the Republican Party is going to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House by acting like Hillary Clinton."

"I think being pro-life is more than saying you'll appoint strict constructionist judges," said Romney.

"I hope it comes down to me and Mayor Giuliani," said Romney.

All I can say is, "Bring it!"

Honestly, out of all the political candidates, who inherently wants to serve the country the most?

Two syllables...Romney

-David McEntire

My advice to Romney...skip the Mormon speech

Dear Governor Romney,

Skip the Mormon speech.

There are those who have been waiting for you to give a "Mormon speech". In this speech you are supposed to give a Kennedy-like speech to reassure the American people that you won't take orders from the Pope, or the Prophet in your case.

But I don't think that a speech like that would accomplish much. The bigots will still be bigots, the tolerant will still be tolerant, and the Mormons will still be Mormons.

And people don't really care anyway. Only 28% of Americans polled said that they wouldn't vote for a Mormon because of his religion. Compare that to the 50% of Americans who wouldn't vote for Hillary...because she's Hillary.

What's at risk is that you will look defensive, and almost apologetic for your faith. The speech could stir up more controversy than it puts aside.

The speech will put too much focus on your religion, and you won't have enough time to clear up the misconceptions and cover all the bases.

The questions that people should be considering are:

Do we want to put someone in the White House who will cut spending and balance the budget? Do we want someone who has turned around dozens of corporations and governments and made them profitable?
Do we want someone who GETS THINGS DONE?

And the questions we don't want people worrying about are:

Am I "ready" for a Mormon in the White House?
Sure he says that he won't take orders from Salt Lake City, but what if he secretly does?
What's the deal with Polygamy anyway?

The press would love the speech. They'd sell tons of newspapers and TV time would be through the roof.

Instead, Governor, you need to pick an issue and make it yours. Make the issue be about change...and make it something that America desperately needs. Your supporters should be able to say I am supporting Mitt Romney because______________. And it shouldn't be too complicated.

You have spent the past year telling us what your stance will be on the various issues. So most of us know that you will be a good Republican president. But you need an issue that will distinguish you from the rest of the pack. You need a mandate. Find that, and people won't care what religion you are.

Replace the long-awaited Mormon speech with a speech about what you will change once elected. Instead of simply laying aside fears, you give us something to be excited about! You have done a great job so far, just focus your message to one or two passions...and then the American people will follow.

Maybe at the end of the speech you can say: "the only orders I will be taking from Salt Lake City are the same orders I will take from the American people everywhere, to protect the homeland, to clean up Washington, and to grow the economy".

That's all us Salt Lakers want anyway.

Sincerely,

David Alvord

Scout-O-Rama Trade: J.D. for Family Values?

Recently, a Politico article described Guliani's recent speech at the Family Research Council summit meeting. Guliani's attempt of a self-effacing speech was apologetic for his flaws. We are all human, and we all have flaws. It is unrealistic to expect a flawless president. However, America can expect to elect the best "human" for the office of President.

The article describes Guliani after the speech:

"The former mayor, who left the stage grinning amid applause after his 40-minute speech, went for an authenticity contrast with Romney, substituting his law and order credentials for the family values emphasis of Romney, a long-married father of five."

If having a solid family and impervious values is up to trade for a couple of court wins, what will be next? Anyone want to trade Romney's sense of duty and patriotism for Guliani's ability to conduct legal research?

Didn't think so.

-David McEntire

Giuliani at the FRC...and some thought on abortion

by David Alvord

Giuliani showed little remorse for his liberal stances at the FRC conference.

He said that he was: “not always the best example of faith”

and then went on to say: “Isn’t it better that I tell you what I really believe instead of changing all my positions?”

No. I would rather you change your positions that are wrong. Instead of just being honest about the fact that you do not want to protect the unborn, I would rather you change your mind about that issue.

I would much rather you change all of your wrong positions than to openly and "honestly" promote evil. You see, change is not bad if you are changing from a bad policy to a good one!

What Giuliani was implying was that Romney is not saying what he "really believes" and that he is secretly pro-choice.

This, of course, is false!

Romney had always asserted that he was personally pro-life. Even when Romney was running for Governor, he maintained that he was personally pro-life. Check the record and you will find it's true. What Mitt promised was that he would not change the laws of Massachusetts in regards to abortion. And he did so because he knew that one would have a better chance of getting Texans to agree to communism than to take away the abortive "rights" from the people of Massachusetts. It just wasn't the will of the people to elect someone who would change the laws in regards to abortion. So Romney said, "OK, then what are some conservative goals that we actually could achieve for the State?"

What is most remarkable is to observe the conservative agenda that Romney pursued in spite of such a liberal climate. Is it not in our best interests to put the man into the white house who is so GOOD at dealing with the opposition?

Sorry Mayor, but your characterization of the Governor is false. It would be nice for you if Romney was a flipper, or worse, that he was hiding his true identity from the Republican party. The truth is that Romney is pro-life...and the only thing that may be secret is the fact that he has always been pro-life. He tells of his conversion story of when he realized he had to take a stand against abortion publicly...(and possibly lose his career in the process, I might add). Romney had always known that abortion was wrong, but at a pivotal moment, he realized just how wrong it was.

Let me ask one simple question: Is there any doubt that the Mayor, who is openly pro-choice would appoint pro-choice judges? I don't think that many people realize just how pro-choice Rudy is. He may lose the nomination over this...and yet Rudy is sticking to his guns. For a man to go against the will of the people, and then to go against the counsel of his church, and still swim upstream on this issue must make him ridiculously pro-choice.

I believe that Romney has always been pro-life...and that politically he has "come out of the closet". Just check his record as Governor and you will find that he had a pro-life agenda.

But for those who are still skeptical, let me ask just one last question: If it were down to these three (and there are many who believe it is...) who would be most likely to appoint conservative, pro-life judges? Is it Hillary Clinton? Is it Rudy Giuliani? or Is it Mitt Romney?

see story

Fox News Republican Orlando debate this Sunday, Oct. 21

ORLANDO. The Republicans will debate this Sunday on Fox News Channel 8pm ET. This event has been so poorly publicized that I thought we ought to get a post up. Go Mitt!

By the way, here are the remaining debates for the year (did you notice that Iowa's January 5th debate comes AFTER the primary - Jan. 3?):

October 21, 2007 - Orlando, Florida
October 25, 2007 - Sioux City, Iowa
November 6, 2007 - Cedar Falls, Iowa
November 28, 2007 - St. Petersburg, Florida
January 5, 2008 - Johnston, Iowa
January 10, 2008 - Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
January 30, 2008 - Los Angeles, California

I think that based on these dates, December would be an ideal time for Romney to give his "Mormon speech" because there will be a vacuum of election coverage...and the press could be hungry for just such a story. Also, New Hampshire may move their primary into December. There are those who question whether Romney will give the speech at all. But if he does, I think he should do it in December, or just after his win in Iowa.

-David Alvord

...add Bob Jones III to the list

That's right...Bob Jones himself has endorsed Romney!

see story

What? Bob Jones' dean endorsed Romney?

It's true.

A top official at Bob Jones University, the Evangelical Christian school with a history of anti-Mormon rhetoric, plans to throw his weight behind Mormon presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.
Robert R. Taylor, dean of the university’s college of arts and sciences, said he believes the former Massachusetts governor is the only Republican candidate who both stands a chance of winning the White House and will reliably implement the anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun agenda of Christian conservatives. (link to article)

Thank you Robert, perhaps your endorsement combined with other's will get Romney the nomination. And we Mitt Rockers believe that Romney can not only run against Hillary, but that he will defeat her!

A few months ago, I predicted that a potential Hillary presidency could unite America around Mitt. Is this the first sign of that prophesy's fulfillment? (see BORG QUEEN)

Dobson ought to focus on the family

Pictured above are Mitt and Ann Romney at a recent campaign event in New Hampshire. The Romneys are one of the few candidate-couples who have actually lived a life of family values.

It would be natural for James Dobson, the highly influential leader from the Christian group "focus on the family", to endorse these pro-life, pro-family candidates, right?

Instead, Dobson has proposed that a third party be formed if Giuliani gets the nomination, and has made no mention of a Romney endorsement. Why? Because Romney is a Mormon?

Dobson ought to focus on the family and set aside his religious bigotry.

There is a chance, and I think that it is probable, that Dobson may lose his credibility by suggesting a third party instead of rallying around the Pro-life candidate who actually has a chance of beating Hillary...

So these are my suggestions for Dr. Dobson:

1)Focus on the fact that Romney will appoint conservative supreme court justices.

2)Focus on the fact that your third party candidate will only torpedo the Republican nominee.

3)Focus on the power of example that the Romneys would put on display for the American people, and the world for that matter.

4)Focus on the things you have in common with Romney. You both pray, you both read from the Old and New Testament and worship the same Savior.

5)Focus on the fact that any doctrinal differences you may have with Romney will be sorted out in the next world, but that good things can happen when people who share common values are united.

6)Focus on the family by endorsing Mitt Romney.

Mitt Rocked the Rally for Romney

The Mitt Rockers were proud to support Governor Romney at the Rally for Romney held in Salt Lake City Sept. 28, 2007. We had the support of David McEntire, David Alvord, Heidi Lebaron, and Allyse Sheppherd. Our team was able to raise thousands of dollars for the Romney campaign.

Mitt's speech was fantastic. He touched on many of the themes heard in his stump speech; strength for our economy, strength for our families, and strength of our military.

Also, he talked about a conversation he had with Neal A. Maxwell. During the conversation, Elder Maxwell asked Mitt if he thought that our country was about to encounter another "inflection point". What is an inflection point? Mitt asked. Elder Maxwell explained that an inflection point was a moment in history when the country changes its direction. In other words, an inflection point is a pivot point in policy and perspective. One example of an inflection point is when the US had its revolutionary war. For the first time in History the government was the servant of the people instead of the people the servant of the government.

Romney then went on to list several of the inflection points in History and made the remark that he believes that our country is at such a moment in regards to the war on terror and our fiscal responsibility. What remains to be seen is whether we will be able to rise to the occasion, or whether we will take a sharp left turn by electing Hillary Clinton.

Keep your ears open for Mitt to talk about these "inflection points"...as I have already heard this theme in other speeches.

Phenomenal speech

Romney's speech at the Defending the American Dream Summit, in Washington DC, was one of the best I've heard Romney deliver.

Or as one blogger put it: "it was freaking phenomenal"

I have to say that if Mitt keeps putting on performances of this calibre, with this level of detail, humor, and competence, then not only can we look forward to a Romney presidency, but also his reelection in 2012!

Watch the speech:

Here and then here.

$62 Million!

Last quarter, Romney raised 10M...then add to that another 8.5M of his own money and Mitt has claim to 18.5M for the third quarter!

We here at Mitt Rocks believe this to be a wonderful success for the governor. There have been three quarters in a row of solid fund-raising! For Fred Thompson to have only raised 8M during his first quarter...and then for Romney to continue his impressive fundraising haul can only be seen as a sign that Mitt should be taken seriously!

So, that gives Romney a Total of 62M for the year...right at the heals of Senator Clinton 63M.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071004/ap_po/campaign_fundraising;_ylt=AuTZv_rRmeNBgCfEI_shBx2yFz4D

The CEO President

The president of the United States wears many hats. He or she is a symbol of our country, a role model for our citizens, and an advocate for peace. But above all, the president of the United States is an administrator, a person who must ensure the country runs smoothly on a day-to-day basis. The US government is a large, complex organization with hundreds of thousands of employees, a vast number of departments and agencies, and multi-billion dollar budgets.

Of all the 2008 presidential candidates, which one can be most trusted to handle such high-level administrative responsibilities?

Is it a lawyer from Arkansas who spent her professional life working as an employee of law firms and riding the political coattails of her husband?

Is it a Hollywood actor who spent his time memorizing lines for TV shows and lobbying legislators as a hired gun?

Is it a junior Senator from Illinois who spent his short professional career in the courtoom and teaching school?

Is it a lawyer from New York who spent his career as a government employee and whose greatest administrative accomplishment was to fulfill his mayoral duties when disaster struck the city he served?

Finally, is it Mitt Romney, a Harvard Business School graduate who has advised the world's largest private corporations on how to efficiently manage their large budgets and complex operations?

Is it Mitt Romney, a man who founded highly regarded Bain Capital and led it to finance and manage some of the world's largest and most successful companies, including Staples, Brookstone, and Domino's Pizza?

Is it Mitt Romney, a man who as CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympics successfully managed 20,000 volunteers and turned a multi-million budget deficit into a multi-million dollar profit?

Is it Mitt Romney, a man who as governor of Massachusetts inherited a 1.2 billion dollar deficit and in just three years tranformed it into a $700 million surplus?

The results speak for themselves. Mitt Romney is not only a man of solid character, intelligence, and polished presentation, but he is an outstanding administrator, a proven manager who has demonstrated his ability to successfully lead large, complex organizations. No other presidential candidate can boast such an impressive track record of administrative experience. No other candidate is so well equipped to handle the challenges of running the massive US government. Only Mitt Romney has the deep administrative experience this country needs to lead us out of the current quagmire and back to a position of economic and political stability.

Michigan will be the spark that leads to Romney's nomination

So the traditional thinking is that whoever does well in Iowa, New Hamshire, and South Carolina, will win the nomination. That still may be true, except this year Michigan is third on the calander.

Here are the results from last weekend's Mackinac Straw Poll (Michigan)

Romney 39% (383 votes)
McCain 27 (260)
Paul 11 (106)
Giulaini 11 (104)
Thompson 7 (70)
Huckabee 3 (25)
Hunter 1 (12)
Brownback >1 (3)
Tancredo 0 (0)
Uncommitted 2 (16)

Again, here is the primary schedule along with our predicted winner:

January 5: Wyoming - MITT
January 14: Iowa - MITT
January 15: Michigan - MITT
January 19: Nevada - MITT
January 19: South Carolina - THOMPSON OR GIULIANI
January 22: New Hampshire - MITT

By January 22, it is a real possibility that Mitt will have won five of the six early contests!

Rudy's response?

“I hate to compare all this to baseball, but I probably know more about baseball,” Mr. Giuliani said in an interview this summer. “It is always important to win the first game of the series, and the second game of the series. But teams have won World Series that have lost the first two games, including, by the way, the Yankees.”

That may be true for the Yankees...but has any team gone on to win after losing the first 5 of 6 games?

Romney is strong where Bush is weak

By David Alvord

Let me begin by saying that I am a Bush supporter. President Bush has succeeded in cutting taxes, rebuilding the military, defeating the taliban, appointing conservative supreme court justices, foiling terror attacks, and has seriously wounded Al Qaeda world-wide.

Mitt recently commented: "Thank goodness Barack Obama was not our president last year".

Governor Romney has vowed to continue fighting for conservative values and to win the war on terror. If Iraq can succeed in establishing a strong central government that is committed to standing against terror groups, Al Qaeda will be in retreat. We will be closer to our ultimate objective of defeating radical Islam world-wide.

Mitt will continue the calling of this generation and is well equipped to do so because Romney is strong where Bush was weak.

Bush was governor of Texas, where even the democrats are conservative.
Romney was governor of Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states in the union.

While Bush had it easy in Texas, Romney was tested and refined by Massachusetts. Romney learned that the only way you can change the tone in government is by defeating liberals.

I was proud of Mitt when I saw him stand up to the Mass. Supreme court on the issue of gay marriage.

One of the reasons for President Bush's low approval numbers is that he has disappointed conservatives and has allowed congress to spend almost as much as they did during Clinton years. The Bush presidency has been marked by a surprising low number of vetoes.

Romney, on the other hand, has said that "he likes vetoes" and will cap government spending.

President Bush has sometimes had a hard time articulating some conservative policies. Romney will not have that problem. Romney is so good at answering questions that he has the press baffled! All they can say about him is that he is too good or too polished.

Romney will be strong where Bush is weak because he has already sailed in shark-infested liberal waters and still succeeded in promoting a conservative agenda. If Governor Romney was able to do so much in Massachusetts, think of the possibilities of a President Romney, where no longer will he be that red speck in a sea of blue.

Florida might become "winner take all"

Thanks to a recent comment, we at Mitt Rocks! have done some investigating as to the status of Florida's primary election for president.

Thanks to Marc Ambinder's blog for the following information:

Some news that every Republican presidential campaign has taken note of: the winner of the Jan. 29 Republican primary in Florida could get all the delegates. The current winner-take-all-by-congressional-district rules might be jettisoned.

Here's how.

By holding its primary on Jan. 29, Florida is likely to violate the Republican National Committee's delegate selection rules. The number of delegates sent to the convention would be cut in half. If that happened, it's very likely that state chair Jim Greer would, under new powers granted to him on Saturday, elect to grant the winner of the state's primary all of its delegates.

Why? Greer wants to make sure Florida has a large presence at the RNC convention regardless of what the RNC does. And he wants to make his state remains a campaign beacon to candidates. 57 delegates is not as attractive as 114, but it's a lot more attractive, than, say, 30 delegates -- or the number of delegates the winner would have earned under the old rules.

Here is the full text of Article M, which the state party's rules committee passed Sat.:

In the event that the RNC imposes the 50 percent delegate cut, Florida's 57 delegates will be Winner Takes All, selected by the Chairman (as opposed to current hybrid of selection by Congressional District caucuses and At Large appointments), and the WTA delegates will bound to that winner for the first 3 rounds of voting.

Of the early states, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Delaware are winner-take-all, thanks to the direct intervention of Giuliani partisans on the state committees. If Giuliani's Feb. 5 strategy pays off, he can thank his campaign's behind-the-scenes political maneuvering.

All the more reason to "Rally for Romney"! The governor just might need Florida's 57 delegates to take the wind out of Rudy's sails.

New schedule looks good for Willard

Here is the primary schedule. The States listed in red are those that Mitt Rocks! predict that Romney will win...and slingshot him to February 5, then on to the nomination:

January 5: Wyoming (12 of 28 awarded, presumably cut in half to 6)
January 14: Iowa (41)
January 15: Michigan (61, presumably cut in half to 30)
January 19: Nevada, South Carolina (81)
January 22: New Hampshire (24)
January 29: Florida (114)*
February 2: Maine (21)*

SUPER TUESDAY February 5: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia (968)

* the January wins may cause Romney to Sweep Florida and Maine. Watch for a Thompson win in South Carolina and some votes for Rudy in Florida. But these states are not winner take all and a decent showing for Romney in Florida will wipe Giuliani off the board! By February 5, Fred will want to go back to Law and Order while Rudy can make a date to appear on Saturday Night Live; dressed as a transvestite for a sing along with John McCain.

Brownback...where are your supporters?

Anti-Romney Ad: $100,000
New suit: $1000
Speechwriter: $3000
Banners: $2000
Haircut: $100
After hours of work and preparation, having no one show up: Priceless!

UK article...a great read

"And now, a shiver of a breeze rustling the trees in the heart of the city, there is Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, aspirant Republican candidate to succeed Bush, winner of the Iowa caucuses, possessor of a certain momentum his adversaries lack, champion fundraiser and champion non-needer of funds (because he's worth $250m) - and, like his wife and father before him, follower of the Mormon faith."

see article

Thompson: a novice CEO

I’m very worried about entrusting the most complex CEO job in the world to someone or anyone who’s never run anything bigger than a six person law firm. Thompson has no executive experience, and it shows in the way he’s run his campaign. The indecision, the lack of direction, the organizational incoherence – these are hallmarks of a rookie CEO. Anyone who’s ever run anything knows what I’m talking about. You get better at it as you go along, and there’s a pretty steep learning curve.

Unfortunately for Fred, POTUS isn’t an entry level CEO position.

see article

Romney doubles the competition in Iowa

This from strategic vision:

1. If the 2008 Republican presidential caucus were held today between Sam Brownback, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, and Fred Thompson, for whom would you vote? (Republicans Only; Names Rotated)
Mitt Romney 31%
Fred Thompson 15%
Rudy Giuliani 13%
John McCain 8%
Mike Huckabee 8%
Newt Gingrich 3%
Ron Paul 3%
Tom Tancredo 3%
Sam Brownback 2%
Duncan Hunter 1%
Undecided 13%

National polls don't matter...but trends do!

Alright...so we've argued that National polls aren't significant at this stage of the nominating process. But there does seem to be an upward trend for Governor Romney. Fred Thompson is on the down, McCain is down, and Romney is climbing up in the polls.

What is that on your forehead, Rudy? Is that sweat forming?

Polling Data
If the 2008 Republican primary for president were being held today, and the candidates were (the following), for whom would you vote?

----------------Aug. 2007 --------Jun. 2007 ---------Apr. 2007

Rudy Giuliani--- 28%--------------- 27%---------------- 27%

Mitt Romney ----15%---------------10%----------------- 8%

Fred Thompson- 12%--------------- 15%----------------- 14%

John McCain-----11%--------------- 15%---------------- 19%

Source: Quinnipiac University Polling InstituteMethodology: Telephone interviews with 611 likely Republican voters, conducted from Aug. 7 to Aug. 13, 2007. Margin of error is 4 per cent.

Ames poll shows that Mitt can lead!

First, the results:

1. Mitt Romney 32%
2. Mike Huckabee 18%
3. Sam Brownback 15%
4. Tom Tancredo 14%
5. Ron Paul 9%
6. Tommy Thompson 7%

Then . . . the "also rans":
7. Fred Thompson 1%
8. Rudy Giuliani 1%
9. Duncan Hunter 1%
10. John McCain 0.7%
11. John Cox 0.5%

What kind of executive does America want? Our wonderful country is facing some serious problems and she needs strong leadership. For Romney to come from out of obscurity and win this thing shows nothing less than a leader who can get results. And to see Rudy and McCain sit this one out reveals a lack of character in each of them. It shows that if they do not think they can win something they throw in the towel without even trying! Don't we want a president who will fight for conservative principles even if it seems to be against the odds?

To think about what Romney has accomplished thus far, with so little name-recognition, and with so much opposition to his religion, one can only expect greater things from the man when he takes the reigns as POTUS.

-David Alvord

Mitt landed the best two lines and won the Iowa debate

Obama, it's time to stop worrying and love the bomb...you are already half way there: Obomb-a.

Mitt landed the best two lines in the debate:

Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.), who is the clear leader in Iowa, joined in on the bashing of Democrats with several one-liners directed at Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). "He's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week," Romney said in characterizing the military strategy of the Illinois Senator.

and then to Brownback:

"I get tired of people who are holier than thou because they have been pro life longer than I have."