America deserves Mitt

Dear Iowa,

If the Republicans want one of their own in the White House, then conservatives must be united! I was disappointed to hear Huckabee criticize our President concerning the Iraq war. (see story)

It appears that Gov. Huckabee's rise in the polls has come at the expense of Sen. Thompson. This also saddens me because Fred is a more true conservative than Mike. At least Thompson understands that we have to win the war on terror. And at least Thompson does not criticize the sitting president!

Now, it's true that Thompson may not have the energy to run a campaign. And it may be true that his lackluster performance as a candidate may not give him enough sparkle to win, but at least he is a conservative...in more ways than just one!

The more I get to know Gov. Huckabee, the more I realize that he is only a conservative on social issues. His main connection to fellow conservatives is his Christianity. What's most disturbing is that his religion may be his only connection.

But the Republican party is much more multi-faceted than Mike Huckabee. Our nominee will need to unite every brand of conservative: social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and military conservatives. Our nominee needs to be tough on crime and tough on immigration.

The editors of the National Review said it well:
"[Rudy Giuliani] and Mike Huckabee would pull apart the coalition from opposite ends: Giuliani alienating the social conservatives, and Huckabee the economic (and foreign-policy) conservatives."

Shining through all of this is the candidacy of Mitt Romney. These are perilous times in which we live. The Democrats are on the move. They want to take our country in the direction of Europe. The Democrats will raise taxes and abandon the war on terror. They are not dedicated to seeing us through to the end in Iraq. Instead of keeping America in a position of strength, Democrats will bog us down with controversial social issues like gay marriage, gun control, and amnesty to illegals.

Now is not the time for conservatives to be divided. America needs conservative leadership. The Republican party will need to inspire every brand of conservative. The evangelicals cannot do it without the social conservatives of every religion. And the fiscal conservatives cannot do it without the social conservatives. When united, the conservative movement is the most dominant force in America. We saw that during the Reagan years. The Republican party will need Mitt Romney to unite us all. The Republican party deserves Romney and so does America.

This Jan. 3, please consider the candidate who can lead us to victory this November.

Sincerely,

David Alvord

Season's Greetings from the Huckabees & Romneys

Bye bye Huck, it was nice knowin' ya.

Mitt Rocker quoted in National Media

Today's Bloomberg article features a quote from Mitt Rocker David Alvord:

David Alvord, a dentist from South Jordan, Utah, said that in addition to agreeing with Romney's positions, he believes his candidacy will help clear up misconceptions about Mormons.

``When people see that our president has one wife, they can no longer wonder, `Are Mormons polygamous?''' Alvord, keeper of a blog about Romney, said.

See full story

Again from Rush...

Rush has the most listened to show in America... so I think that his comments are important here.
This issue that was discussed was Huckabee's comment that Mormon's believe that Jesus and the Devil were brothers.

"Now, let's talk about Huckabee for a second here and this Lucifer and Jesus comment. Aren't Jesus and the Devil brothers in Mormons' belief? What I think Huckabee is -- you know, Iowa is one thing, but he's gotta take that beyond Iowa. And right now he's at 9% in New Hampshire. He's got a ten-point lead in Iowa and he wants to build on that. The audience he's shooting for is the evangelical crowd in Iowa, latest numbers I saw, 48, 49% of the evangelical crowd is for Romney. I saw another poll, I think yesterday, that said 17% of evangelicals said they would never vote for a Mormon. So I think what Huckabee is trying to do is really build that lead, not just win Iowa, but have a smoking win to give him some momentum to go elsewhere, because the evangelical crowd in New Hampshire is not as big a crowd, even if he got them all, he wouldn't move up. Romney is way ahead there. So I think he's just trying to capitalize on the strength that he's deriving in Iowa from the evangelicals. "

And here is the important part:

"It is an unfortunate comment, and Romney came back and said, yeah, these religious comments are over the top. It was what his speech was about last week, which I thought, as I said many times, I thought it was a fantastic, inspirational, and uplifting speech, and it wasn't so much about religion as it was about religion's ties to the founding of this country, and very, very important. I think Huckabee is showing us who he is, and he thinks this is what it takes to win, and he's a Baptist minister, and his religion is very serious to him, too. He's using it for all it's worth for him, and I think I understand why."

Then Rush continues with suprise that Huckabee got the endorsement of the minuteman guy:

"Huckabee, he got the endorsement of the minuteman guy. Do you realize what Huckabee's immigration positions have been in the past? That endorsement stunned everybody. I couldn't figure it out. I thought I was performing a service by staying out of this because I don't take sides against or for candidates during primaries. But believe me, this thing you said about Romney and Jesus and Lucifer, this is not the first time that statements have been made from the Huckabee campaign that you go, "What?" "

Huck wanted the Title, but it was Romney who was the Moses of the final debate

by David Alvord

I love it when debates come on my lunch break. The focus group following the debate almost unanimously declared that Romney won the debate and looked "presidential".

One of my favorite parts was when Huckabee was asked about gov. spending. He said: "I may not be able to part the Red Sea, but I can cut red tape." After that corny line, Huckabee went on to speak in cliches and was non-specific about spending.

Romney, when asked, said like Moses to Pharaoh: "Let the programs go!".

"The sacrifice we need from the American people is saying, 'Let the programs go that don't work. Don't lobby for them forever"

Romney then went on to list several of the specific programs that would get the axe. I mean let's face it folks, the guy is ready to be president. He has done his homework.

Now kids, let's all sing along...

When Romney was in Egypt's land: Let those programs go!

More lift from the speech for the "full-spectrum conservative"

If only Romney could give another speech. He could call it "faith in America part 2". The numbers are just starting to come in and Romney is polling higher ever since he spoke in Texas. Where is the drudge headline: "Mitt-mentum"?

According to the latest ABC / Washington post national poll Romney has caught up to the Huckaboom in a statistical dead-heat. (if you count the margin of error)

Giuliani 25
Huckabee 19
Romney 17
Thompson 14
McCain 12

The editors from the National Review (see below) summed up the top three candidates nicely:

"[Giuliani] and Mike Huckabee would pull apart the coalition from opposite ends: Giuliani alienating the social conservatives, and Huckabee the economic (and foreign-policy) conservatives."

"Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest."

Will Huckabee fall as quickly as he rose? Watch for a plateau this week and then a decline by the end of the month. (Huck will be Thompson part II).

National Review Endorses Romney: Iconic Conservative Magazine Calls Romney Most Electable

Today the editors of the National Review endorsed Mitt Romney. As their editorial so eloquently states, Mitt Romney is the most electable conservative in the race. In addition, they point out that his superior executive experience is exactly what America needs at this point in our history. Finally, they agree that Romney is the only Republican in the race that can hold together both wings of the party (the social conservatives and fiscal conservatives). It's refreshing to see American conservatives finally begin to realize what the Mitt Rockers have been arguing for months. Mitt Romney is the superior candidate in this election. He is our best chance to keep the Democrats out of the White House. He is the best candidate to advance the Republican agenda. Below please see the full text of the National Review editorial or click here to go to their website:

Romney for President

By the Editors of the National Review

Many conservatives are finding it difficult to pick a presidential candidate. Each of the men running for the Republican nomination has strengths, and none has everything — all the traits, all the positions — we are looking for. Equally conservative analysts can reach, and have reached, different judgments in this matter. There are fine conservatives supporting each of these Republicans.

Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest. While he has not talked much about the importance of resisting ethnic balkanization — none of the major candidates has — he supports enforcing the immigration laws and opposes amnesty. Those are important steps in the right direction.

Uniting the conservative coalition is not enough to win a presidential election, but it is a prerequisite for building on that coalition. Rudolph Giuliani did extraordinary work as mayor of New York and was inspirational on 9/11. But he and Mike Huckabee would pull apart the coalition from opposite ends: Giuliani alienating the social conservatives, and Huckabee the economic (and foreign-policy) conservatives. A Republican party that abandoned either limited government or moral standards would be much diminished in the service it could give the country.

Two other major candidates would be able to keep the coalition together, but have drawbacks of their own. John McCain is not as conservative as Romney. He sponsored and still champions a campaign-finance law that impinged on fundamental rights of political speech; he voted against the Bush tax cuts; he supported this year’s amnesty bill, although he now says he understands the need to control the border before doing anything else.

Despite all that and more, he is a hero with a record that is far more good than bad. He has been a strong and farsighted supporter of the Iraq War, and, in a trying political season for him, he has preserved and even enhanced his reputation for dignity and seriousness. There would be worse nominees for the GOP (see above). But McCain ran an ineffectual campaign for most of the year and is still paying for it.

Fred Thompson is as conservative as Romney, and has distinguished himself with serious proposals on Social Security, immigration, and defense. But Thompson has never run any large enterprise — and he has not run his campaign well, either. Conservatives were excited this spring to hear that he might enter the race, but have been disappointed by the reality. He has been fading in crucial early states. He has not yet passed the threshold test of establishing for voters that he truly wants to be president.

Romney is an intelligent, articulate, and accomplished former businessman and governor. At a time when voters yearn for competence and have soured on Washington because too often the Bush administration has not demonstrated it, Romney offers proven executive skill. He has demonstrated it in everything he has done in his professional life, and his tightly organized, disciplined campaign is no exception. He himself has shown impressive focus and energy.

It is true that he has less foreign-policy experience than Thompson and (especially) McCain, but he has more executive experience than both. Since almost all of the candidates have the same foreign-policy principles, what matters most is which candidate has the skills to execute that vision.

Like any Republican, he would have an uphill climb next fall. But he would be able to offer a persuasive outsider’s critique of Washington. His conservative accomplishments as governor showed that he can work with, and resist, a Demo­crat­ic legislature. He knows that not every feature of the health-care plan he enacted in Massachusetts should be replicated nationally, but he can also speak with more authority than any of the other Republican candidates about this pressing issue. He would also have credibility on the economy, given his success as a businessman and a manager of the Olympics.

Some conservatives question his sincerity. It is true that he has reversed some of his positions. But we should be careful not to overstate how much he has changed. In 1994, when he tried to unseat Ted Kennedy, he ran against higher taxes and government-run health care, and for school choice, a balanced budget amendment, welfare reform, and “tougher measures to stop illegal immigration.” He was no Rockefeller Republican even then.

We believe that Romney is a natural ally of social conservatives. He speaks often about the toll of fatherlessness in this country. He may not have thought deeply about the political dimensions of social issues until, as governor, he was confronted with the cutting edge of social liberalism. No other Republican governor had to deal with both human cloning and court-imposed same-sex marriage. He was on the right side of both issues, and those battles seem to have made him see the stakes of a broad range of public-policy issues more clearly. He will work to put abortion on a path to extinction. Whatever the process by which he got to where he is on marriage, judges, and life, we’re glad he is now on our side — and we trust him to stay there.

He still has some convincing to do with other conservatives. Romney has been plagued by the sense that his is a passionless, paint-by-the-numbers conservatism. If he is to win the nomination, he will have to show more of the kind of emotion and resolve he demonstrated in his College Station “Faith in America” speech.For some people, Romney’s Mormonism is still a barrier. But we are not electing a pastor. The notion that he will somehow be controlled by Salt Lake City or engaged in evangelism for his church is outlandish. He deserves to be judged on his considerable merits as a potential president. As he argued in his College Station speech, his faith informs his values, which he has demonstrated in both the private and public sectors. In none of these cases have any specific doctrines of his church affected the quality of his leadership. Romney is an exemplary family man and a patriot whose character matches the high office to which he aspires.

More than the other primary candidates, Romney has President Bush’s virtues and avoids his flaws. His moral positions, and his instincts on taxes and foreign policy, are the same. But he is less inclined to federal activism, less tolerant of overspending, better able to defend conservative positions in debate, and more likely to demand performance from his subordinates. A winning combination, by our lights. In this most fluid and unpredictable Republican field, we vote for Mitt Romney.

Huckabee is "EASY KILL" in the General Election

THIS IS A BIG ONE, FOLKS!

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashhu.htm

Quote from Drudge:

DEMS HOLD FIRE ON HUCKABEE; SEE 'EASY KILL' IN GENERAL ELECTION

Tue Dec 11 2007 10:27:53 ET
**Exclusive**

Democrat party officials are avoiding any and all criticism of Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee, insiders reveal.

The Democratic National Committee has told staffers to hold all fire, until he secures the party's nomination. The directive has come down from the highest levels within the party, according to a top source. Within the DNC, Huckabee is known as the "glass jaw -- and they're just waiting to break it." In the last three weeks since Huckabee's surge kicked in, the DNC hasn't released a single press release criticizing his rising candidacy. The last DNC press release critical of Huckabee appeared back on March 2nd.

DNC Press Release Attack Summary: (Who are the Dems the most scared of?)

Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) – 37% (99 press releases)
Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY) – 28% (74)
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) – 24% (64)
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) – 8% (20)
Governor Mike Huckabee – 2% (4)

In fact, as the story broke over the weekend that Huckabee said he wanted to isolate AIDS patients back in 1992, the DNC ignored the opportunity to slam the candidate from the left. "He'll easily be their McGovern, an easy kill," mocked one senior Democrat operative Tuesday morning from Washington.

"His letting out murderers because they shout 'Jesus', his wanting to put 300,000 AIDS patients and Magic Johnson into isolation, ain't even scratching the surface of what we've got on him," DNC insiders said. The discipline the Democrats have shown in not engaging Huckabee has earned the praise of one former Republican Party official: "The Democrats are doing a much better job restraining themselves than the GOP did in 2003 when Howard Dean looked like he was on the brink of winning the nomination." A close friend to Huckabee explains: "Look, Mike is Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare. They should be squirming." Developing...

Mitt's Looking Good in Iowa

Okay, so Mitt has lost his lead in Iowa, but all this is a good thing, let me tell you why...

Remember when Huckabee won the Iowa Straw Poll? ...Oh yeah, that's right, Mitt won the Straw Poll! But you would have hardly known it due to the relentless news coverage of Huck's big (second place) finish. The reason for the media's breathless coverage of Huck's showing is because it was NOT what everyone expected. Most folks thought that Brownback would get second place and EVERYONE KNEW Romney would win - no news there. So when Huck beat Brownback, that was big news and he got showered with good press. So what does this have to do with the upcoming Iowa caucuses?

Over the next few weeks Huck's lead in Iowa will become common knowledge. The outcome of Jan. 3 will become a foregone conclusion - Iowa is Huck's to lose! Over those same few weeks Mitt, the other candidates, and the media will be hammering on Huck's horrid record on fiscal responsibility, crime, immigration, and religious divisiveness. So although he will maintain a lead in Iowa, it will soften and Mitt's numbers will inch closer and closer. Right before the caucuses, Mike and Mitt's numbers will be really close, but hopefully Huck will have a slight lead. That way, when Mitt's stellar ground game kicks in and provides him with a win, it will be a huge upset for Huck. The news will be that Romney is surging. He came from behind, against incredible odds, and beat the Huckster! The news will be everywhere! He will go on to dominate in NH and SC, and the rest is history...

Evidence That "The Speech" Helped Romney?

Real Clear Politics has just listed two national polls in a row that show Romney at 16%. Both of these polls are post-speech. What is the significance? Romney has rarely been higher than 13% Now we have two in a row at 16%.

Also, it is worth mentioning that Romney is now leading Fred Thompson and McCain in the last three polls.

Huckabee's surge does not seem to be hurting Romney's standing in national polls. Yet, all of the other candidates are dropping.

So the real question is: Is Huck's surge for real? Only time will tell, but as Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard has pointed out: As soon as the election comes back to the important issues like the war, immigration, and the economy, Huckabee will be left wanting.

CBS poll 12/9

Giuliani 22
Huck 21
Romney 16
McCain 7
Thompson 7


CNN 12/9

Giuliani 24
Huck 22
Romney 16


source RealClearPolitics

A Romney Presidency Portends a Bright Future for America

As I watched a very presidential Mitt Romney deliver his magnificent Faith in America speech, I glimpsed the future. And what I saw gave me hope. I saw Mitt Romney, a gifted communicator, reuniting the divided Republican party. I saw Mitt Romney, a financial wizard, restoring fiscal order to Washington. I saw Mitt Romney, the patriot, protecing America from dangerous threats. I saw Mitt Romney, the believer, fostering mutual respect among the religious and non-religious. I saw Mitt Romney, the tireless worker, giving every last ounce of his energy to his presidential duties. I saw Mitt Romney, the ultimate manager, assembling the most brilliant and effective administration in the history of this country. I saw Mitt Romney, the family man, held up as a shining example of what a husband and father should be. Finally, I saw Mitt Romney, the results getter, fulfilling his word on every single campaign promise. And the future was bright! Finally!

Romney's Faith Speech Draws High Praise From Influential Conservative Leaders

Well, it looks like Mitt Romney's big speech convinced a large number of America's most influential conservative leaders to take a serious look at his candidacy. These leaders were impressed with what Romney had to say, especially his ability to articulate the relationship between religion and government. Here are a few of their glowing reviews:

RUSH LIMBAUGH (conservative Methodist Christian):
"This speech, the kind of stuff he said today is the kind of stuff I've been dreaming of hearing in a presidential campaign in a long time in terms of what this country is and where we're headed. Do you realize how long it has been since a political person, a presidential candidate of either party, spoke extensively of the founding of this country and how crucial everybody's understanding of that is to maintaining American exceptionalism? Mitt Romney took the long view of this country, from its founding to its future, farther than we can see, and he described what it is that binds us together and defines us as Americans. It is crucially important that people understand this. This was a speech of the long view, a speech of leadership and of vision. It didn't attack anybody. It was optimistic. It was positive. It had reinforcement of American traditions and values."

DR. JAMES DOBSON (conservative evangelical Christian):
"You know, it was not a speech about electoral politics, presidential or otherwise. And it was also certainly not about Mormon theology. And if it had been, I would have written a very different kind of response. It was a magnificent speech...and I was personally moved by it. He was addressing...the issue of who we are as a people, and what the source of our strength has been. And it’s directly related to our spiritual commitment since the days of the founding fathers. He was passionate when he delivered it, and he looked into the camera, at one point, I think he choked up. And it was just a very well-delivered, well thought out speech about the American people. And I loved it."

HUGH HEWITT (conservative evangelical Christian):
"Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech was simply magnificent.... [It was] a brilliant explication of the American political theory of faith and freedom. Romney used the moment to defend not just himself but the American tradition of faith in the public square, of vigorous and valued religious plurality, and, crucially, why that tradition has allowed America's role in the world to be so unqualifiedly good. The unexpected but brilliant connection of our tradition of religious liberty with our ability to move in the world to save it again and again from evil and to rebuild it without demands for territory or treasure lifted the speech very far above the ordinary campaign speech, and in so doing lifted the Romney candidacy. Americans watching the speech were listening to a great communicator talk with pride and obvious skill and passion about America and its long history of freedom. This is a much loved and too infrequent thing: An American leader talking with unashamed love and reverence for the country and its shining tradition of tolerance and fierce attachment to liberty.

DENNIS PRAGER (conservative Jew):
"I thought it was magnificent, and I have not been in the Romney camp. I have not been anti-Romney, but I’ve certainly not, you know, been a partisan here. It was a terrific speech about the role of religion, about the role, what it means to be open, the role of religion in American society, what we are, how he takes truths, how he sees beauty in all of the religions, but he’s still deeply committed to his own. I had zero fault with it."

MICHAEL MEDVED (conservative Jew):
"I can’t believe that anyone would not be favorably impressed. This is not just the best speech of this campaign so far, it’s one of the best campaign themed speeches I can remember. It’s vastly better than the John Kennedy speech to which it has been compared.... I will tell you what impressed me about his handling this speech is how beautifully, how masterfully he handled what looked to be contradictory messages. Message number one was hey, don’t judge me based on my religion, don’t get my religion too much involved in politics. And message number two was we want a general involvement of religion in politics. And yet by affirming our common values, our civic religion, what Lincoln called our political religion, Mitt Romney hit a home run."

FOR THE FULL TEXT OF SOME OF THESE COMMENTS CLICK HERE.

Mitt's two endorsements (that he didn't get)

There were two very symbolic endorsements today as a direct result of the big speech. They were from Bush 41 and from Rush Limbaugh. Each of them claimed that they weren't endorsing Romney (wink) but then each went on to heap lavish praise on the Governor.

Bush 41: He introduced the Romney family and spoke nostalgically of his relationship with Mitt's parents and the good example and mentor that George Romney was to him. Then he turned his attention to Mitt and his sons, naming each of them one by one. Folks, it looked like the red carpet was laid for Mitt by our good former President. Not an endorsement, but good enough... and perhaps better in some regard.

Rush Limbaugh: the most listened to host in America had this to say:

"This speech, the kind of stuff he said today is the kind of stuff I've been dreaming of hearing in a presidential campaign in a long time in terms of what this country is and where we're headed."

"Do you realize how long it has been since a political person, a presidential candidate of either party, spoke extensively of the founding of this country and how crucial everybody's understanding of that is to maintaining American exceptionalism? Mitt Romney took the long view of this country, from its founding to its future, farther than we can see, and he described what it is that binds us together and defines us as Americans. It is crucially important that people understand this. This was a speech of the long view, a speech of leadership and of vision. It didn't attack anybody. It was optimistic. It was positive. It had reinforcement of American traditions and values.

"So the criticism I'm hearing of this really does a disservice, I think, to the critics and the whole process here. Politics is dirty, I understand that, but this speech today that he gave was -- when I do speeches, when I do the Rush to Excellence Tour, I go out and I'll do two hours, sometimes an hour-and-45 minutes, depends on whether or not I run out of water. But that's a theme of every one of them: American exceptionalism; American greatness. How did we get here? Why are we here? Why are we who we are? What defines us? Why are we as human beings so much more advanced in any way you can imagine than other human beings? We're all human beings on this planet, what is it about us? Our DNA's not special; it's not better. We're not any brighter, smarter than anybody else. But there is an answer to the question. I've given the answer on this program, it's very simple. Freedom.

But it is the understanding and the documentation in our founding documents, by our Founding Fathers, that our freedom is bestowed by our creation, or our creator. It is the natural yearning of the human being to be free. Now you can destroy that, you can imprison a human being for so many years they don't know what to do when they get out of the cage, but until such time, the natural yearning of each human being is to be free. I don't care what some say, "Rush, some people just want to be controlled." No, they can be conditioned to be controlled, trade their freedom for security; trade their freedom for a welfare check, whatever, they can be conditioned to that, but that's not the natural yearning of the human spirit.

"All Romney was doing today was answering all these charges and criticisms that his religion makes him unfit to lead, and he was trying to, and I thought did a bang-up job, of defining this country. He gave a brilliant analysis of what he thinks the country is and where we're headed as a country, filled with optimism that's been sorely lacking in the campaign. This was not a speech that was designed to say to various members, "Okay, you want health care, I'm going to give it to you and here's my plan, and my religion is not going to get in the way. You're worried about the environment, don't worry. I'm going to make sure we cut our CO2 emissions and, by the way, my Mormonism is not going to get in the way. You're worried about these forest fires and the lead in the toys from the ChiComs, I'm going to make sure there's no lead in the toys from the ChiComs and I'm going to make sure my Mormonism is not going to get in the way." It's not what it was about today. It's not what he was doing. It was grander than that. "

Indeed it was.

Faith Speech Shows Romney's Sincerity

Mitt! Wow! Your speech was excellent! It exceeded my expectations. What I appreciated most was your sincerity and genuine love for freedom, the American people, and your religion. I'm glad America was finally able to see that you are a sincere individual and not a robot. The criticisms of you in that regard are unfair. You were finally able to give a speech without having to worry about the whirl of bullets that surround you in a formal debate setting. This more natural environment allowed you to be you be more relaxed. You were more yourself. I think this is what people needed to see: Mitt Romney--the man. I was very impressed with your human side. Your sincerity was evident, and the emotion in your voice as you spoke about human unity was touching. I'm also glad that you reached out to people of other faiths. As you said in your speech, if you become our President, you will need the prayers of all people. Bravo, Mitt, for a job well done! Thank you for your sincerity. You've earned my vote--again.

Will America pass the test?

On the eve of the big speech, our thoughts are with Governor Romney. Even though the speech has already been written, there have been thousands of writers giving advice as to the contents of that speech. There are many who worry that Romney will fail. There are more who worry that he will succeed. It is as if a candidate, along with all twelve million members of the LDS faith will be on trial, with a single advocate: Mitt Romney.

But it is not Romney who is on trial, but America.

Is she willing to elect the best candidate? Even if that candidate belongs to a religion that is currently in the minority? Or, would she rather choose the candidate who shares a popular religion, but who is wrong on so many issues and is less qualified?
Romney will deliver a fine speech tomorrow. But it will be America who will be asked to pass the test this Winter.

David Alvord

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?