The Dems Debate Reaffirmed Why I support Romney and Conservatism

Watching the Democratic debate tonight, I realized three things:

First, I realized how much I disagree with some of the Democratic views expressed (it was more of a reaffirmation than a revelation). Conservatism, even though it doesn't seem so at first, is about hope. It is about lifting people up and giving them confidence and self-respect. To those who truly understand, it is far more merciful to people that liberalism.

Second, I was impressed with Barrack Obama's ability to not only listen to his opponent, but give her respect (at least at this particular debate). This is the polar opposite to McCain who only showed pure hatred, immaturity, lack of humility and inability to talk about the issues, instead evading tough questions by taking shots at Romney or stating who endorsed him. If Romney had an opponent like Obama (not Clinton, because she is much like McCain), imagine the debate. For once the issues would be discussed and voters would simply choose which stance they prefer. It would be an incredible discussion. As much as I disagree with Obama on a lot issues, at least he sticks to talking about them. Every time McCain is confronted with a tough question he never actually answers it. Like when he was asked about whether he would be good for the economy his answer was something like "well if I wasn't good why would Jack Kemp, Phil Graham, yadda, yadda endorse me". No John, we asked why YOU would be good for the economy, not who your friends are. Why the heck can't McCain answer a friggin' question? Evading the issue is a Huckabee technique, and it's definitely not straight talk by any standard. I think last night Republicans saw the real McCain, full of hate, pride and contempt, and were left with a bad taste in their mouths. He's like that delicious bubble gum that has a burst of flavour for about 10 seconds, then becomes tasteless, and eventually (after about a minute) just tastes nasty and hurts your teeth.

Third, and I know I've said this many times but, Romney is the only Republican with a shot at taking down Clinton or Obama. Common, does anyone really think that liberals will choose McCain (a half liberal) over a full out liberal like Obama or Clinton. No way! And since he doesn't appeal to the conservative base, this group might not show up for McCain at all. Who's he left with? A few moderates and independents. He'll get the support of a Ross Perot or a Nader. It may not seem like this is the case while looking at the polls right now, but the polls change drastically every week and aren't always very accurate anyway. Take away McCain's support from the media when they turn on him to endorse the Democrat nominee and who is left to fight for him. It certainly is not going to be the conservative radio hosts or grassroots groups that led Bush to victory, many of which currently support Romney. He will be like the child superstar who grew up and suddenly wasn't cute anymore, used to being a star, but sadly has been terribly forgotten. Make no mistake, Romney is the only hope for a conservative to become president. I really hope that Evangelicals will realize this, and also that a vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain. They will help make or break Mitt's chances at a nomination.

Read more!

A Good Night For Mitt Romney

I was especially excited for tonight’s Fox News South Carolina debate in Myrtle Beach as I was very curious how it would play out. It was evident in the last two debates that McCain, Huckabee and Thompson all ganged up on Mitt, even with personal attacks (which made them huge hypocrites by the way). But with the South Carolina primary approaching and Huckabee and McCain doing well in the pre-polls and Thompson badly needing a victory there, I wondered if their alliance would have to be broken and if they would turn on each other. Would they leave Mitt alone because, in their view, he is no longer a threat, or would they try to finish him off once and for all. Well it turns out that Fred Thompson went hard against both Huckabee and McCain and performed very well. I am glad for this because if he gains popularity, it will really split the vote up, and I have a feeling that it will increase Romney’s chances of a strong showing in South Carolina, an integral primary.

As for a post-debate evaluation, I was thoroughly impressed with Mitt Romney’s performance. Despite getting much less camera time than he usually does, I thought that the answers and comments that he gave were clear, concise, and powerful. Instead of focusing on others weaknesses, he purely convinced voters why he is needed in Washington. He did not deviate from his message that “Washington is broken” and it’s not going to get fixed by putting the same people there, only in different chairs. He made an extremely powerful case for himself in his closing remarks. He talked about how he has been an agent of change his whole life, whether it be in business, in the Olympics, or in government office. He is constantly criticized for the amount of money he has and how much he is spending on his campaign. This is jealousy at its best. Why should we penalize a man for being successful and showing that he has the money to back up his national campaign against the democrats if he is elected the Republican nominee? Isn’t this a good thing? Heck, he didn’t even take a salary as Governor of Massachusetts. I guess anything can be negatively spun by both the liberal media or the other candidates. Clearly he is doing this because he wants to make America stronger for future generations and is a fine example of patriotism. One thing I think Mitt should stress even more is his superiority in both talent and experience in economics over any other candidate both Republican or Democrat. I say this not only because it is a hot topic for Michigan voters (a state he needs to win), but because many other issues hinge upon the economy. For example, many of the candidates, including McCain and Huckabee say that they want to spend more on the military (up to 6% of the GDP in Huck’s case). So where will these magic funds come from? The US already has a 9 trillion dollar debt owned partly by the Chinese. It’s nice to deliver that kind of lip service but if you don’t have the goods to back it up, it’s useless. Tonight Mike Huckabee said in response to a question, that he HAD to raise taxes in his state, but that the fruits of the increases were things like better education. No one will argue that better education is a bad thing, but the fact is that Mitt Romney could have done it without raising taxes. He did it in Massachusetts with health care. How is Huck going to increase the military? I’ll give you a clue. It rhymes with axes and starts with a ‘T’ (oh ya, and true conservatives hate them). The best candidate to fight recession with a strong economy is Mitt. A stronger economy and smarter spending are the only things that can support a bigger military without levying extra taxes. Neither McCain or Huckabee have great skills or ideas to strengthen the economy. With Huck it’s just obvious (no one-liner can hide that blunt truth) and McCain even recently told voters in Michigan that he didn’t know much about the economy when he said “I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated”. Strong military, strong education, and strong families with good jobs are all based on the foundation of a strong and vibrant economy, which only Romney can effectively produce. The further we get into the race, the more we have a chance to examine not only the other candidates, but also what is a stake, and the more apparent it becomes that America NEEDS Mitt Romney at this fragile stage of its history.

To see what some of the pundits said about Mitt’s performance click here.

Read more!

The Man With a Plan Dominates Team McThompsabee in New Hampshire Debate

It was clear that Mitt Romney dominated the ABC and Fox New Hampshire debates on Saturday and Sunday. He stuck to the issues while team McThompsabee and, to an extent, Giuliani teamed up on him, attacking him at every opportunity (like a pack of ravenous hyenas on a three-legged dog). It's pretty laughable that these guys who are whining about Romney's negative attacks on them, calling them "desperate", are now the ones on the offensive. But as Mitt said in the debate, he is not attacking them personally through his ads, but showing the public FACTS about their records, important for voters to know in order to make wise and informed decisions. At first I found it unfair that everyone (except Ron Paul) was teaming up against Mitt, but soon realized that all the attention puts him in an excellent position. As voters watched that debate, they must have really thought that Mitt was big news as he was the object of so much attention. By all joining against Romney, they made him look totally unique, and gave up key opportunities to show why they differed from each other. For the most part the majority of their comments were fairly generic and relatively unimpressive. Heck, I thought Thompson was going to drop dead half way through one of his comments....that guy could put a kid to bed that just finished drinking a couple cans of Coke (McCain too, but not because he's boring, but just extremely old, bitter and likely suffers from extremely high blood pressure).

What also made Mitt unique, besides the fact that he focused on the issues instead of attacking others' character, was that he is the 'man with a plan'. He is one of the only candidates, Republican or Democrat, who actually says he wants to do something and then talks about HOW he plans to accomplish it. This is where the businessman in him really shines. In contrast, take Huckabee for example. He is notorious for quoting Abraham Lincoln, the Bible, or spouting off some other inspirational words for five minutes, and then talking about what he actually wants to DO for one minute, but almost NEVER tells us how he actually plans to make it happen. Take the ABC debate where he said that he wants America to become totally non-dependent on foreign oil in 10 years ("anything is possible in America", he says), but gives absolutely no strategy on how to do it. That's like saying, "I'd like to have all the children of the world join hands in a spirit of harmony and peace, but don't ask me how to do it, I'd just said it because it looks good." Conversely, when you hear Romney's ideas, he is clear, concise, to-the-point, and wastes less time with a semi-inspiration preamble and more time in Realityville, telling us how it's gonna go down. The last thing Washington needs is another talker. Talk is cheap. Mitt Romney does what he says and does it well.

The other major thing that impressed me about Romney were his words about leadership. Paraphrasing, he said that America doesn't need an expert in a specific field, it needs a leader. For example, John McCain makes about 100 (times pi) references to his military experience every time he opens his mouth. No disrespect to McCain for his service (it's very honourable), but half the time it's not exactly pertinent to the discussion at hand. There is nothing wrong with his experience, but it doesn't necessarily make him the right man to sit in the Oval Office. I mean, maybe with his military expertise he should apply for some national position in the military. What Mitt Romney said is that we need a leader in power, someone who can make executive decisions, listen to others, perform well under pressure, and inspire others. McCain is not that guy (especially with that nasty temper of his and excessive winking). Romney has these traits. He has the skills needed to be a great leader and will be able to gain any experience he lacks quickly.

Romney demonstrated in the New Hampshire debates that he has the goods, and made many of the other candidates look foolish in the process. After the debate was over Fox News showed how voters in New Hampshire reacted to the debate. In a room full of New Hampshire residents the question was asked "how many of you were planning to vote Mitt Romney before the debate?" A few hands went up. Then they were asked (after the debate was over) "how any of you want to vote for him now?" Almost every single hand shot up, and several individuals were interviewed explaining why they thought Mitt was the best choice. At this pace, Mitt is well on his way to victory.

Read more!

Romney wins debate in Iowa according to many

I read an excellent post from the site Race 4 2008 today. Even though this site is not a "For-Mitt" site, the writer actually admitting to be a Thompson supporter, he feels that Mitt Romney did extremely well in today's Iowa debate. Furthermore, he feels that Huckabee is running out of one-liners and tricks, not to mention that he doesn't have the depth of experience and skill to be an effective president. The article also briefly speaks to the fact that neither Giuliani or McCain really made a mark today, basically getting lost in the crowd. The article goes through each the major candidate's performance, but I will make note of two on here and post a link at the bottom to visit the full article. Many other sites also felt that Mitt performed best, and I have noticed that this has been common in most of the debates in which he has taken part. I found this article inspiring as the author admits that he has been a Romney skeptic for a while, but recently has begun to be won over by him. This is the kind of result that Mitt needs with each and every voter.

"Mike Huckabee- D: Like McCain, I have usually have given Huckabee high marks on his performances. I think he has performed so well on each occasion that he has set high expectations for himself, and today he failed to meet them. He not only didn’t stand out, but stood in opposition to many a conservative position. He failed to perform up to the standard expected of the frontrunner, and he has worn out his one liners. Everyone following the campaigns know he is a supporter of the FAIR tax and is socially conservative, but what else defines him as a candidate? What are his plans to fight the War on Terror? How does he plan to deal with entitlements? In his prior performances, Huckabee has been able to steal the show with one liners and his appealing mannerisms, but as a frontrunner, much more is expected of you. Nothing he said stood out today. The stakes of the campaign are much higher than who has the best understanding of the Gospel, and frankly, he didn’t do anything to prove to me that he is ready for the presidency. Huckabee has been under intense scrutiny for the last week, and how he handles it could be what determines his chances of victory. In Arkansas, he was notoriously thin skinned to criticism, and he must show that he has what it takes to lead the country."

"Mitt Romney- A: Thompson gains the top spot because he scored the defining moments of the debate, but Mitt Romney showed that he has the command of the issues and the presence required to be on the main stage. His bullet points hit on all the major themes, but his attention to detail scored him points with me. Although I have never qualified as one of the “Antibots,” I have been one of Governor Romney’s biggest skeptics. Lately though, he has been turning in performances that I have been thoroughly impressed with, and he has shown a human side, which I doubted to exist for a while."

For full article visit: http://race42008.com/2007/12/12/personal-reaction-to-the-debate/

Read more!