Ross Perot Endorses Romney ... and Slams McCain!

Some poignant excerpts from the article "When Ross Perot Calls…" from Newsweek.

The author starts, "The phone rang and it was Ross Perot , who hasn't given an interview in years. Perot, who won 19 percent of the vote in the 1992 presidential election, making him one of the strongest third-party candidates in American history, got straight to the point."Remember what you wrote about John McCain in the March 13, 2000, NEWSWEEK?" 'Sure,' I lied."

He then goes on to talk about his days back in 'Nam' with McCain.
The Texas billionaire, now 77, still has some scores to settle from the Vietnam era, and his timing is exquisite. Just days before the South Carolina GOP primary, he wants me to know that McCain "is the classic opportunist--he's always reaching for attention and glory. Other POWs won't even sit at the same table with him."

"Perot's real problem with McCain is that he believes the senator hushed up evidence that live POWs were left behind in Vietnam and even transferred to the Soviet Union for human experimentation, a charge Perot says he heard from a senior Vietnamese official in the 1980s. "There's evidence, evidence, evidence," Perot claims. "McCain was adamant about shutting down anything to do with recovering POWs."

After rippin' on McCain, he then goes on to praise Mitt Romney:

"Perot says he intends to vote for Mitt Romney in the Texas Republican primary on March 4, citing Romney's experience in business and his family values. "When I went to the Naval Academy and met my first Mormons I asked why so many were excellent officers," Perot recalls. "I learned it was because of their strong family unit."

Even though I don't share the same view with Perot on every issue, I totally think he nailed this idea right on the head:

The founder of a data-processing empire is still sharp in diagnosing what ails the United States. "The situation in 1992 was not nearly as bad as it is now," he says. "If ever there was a time when it was necessary to put our house in order, it's now." And he believes that the best person to do that is Mitt Romney.

Read more!

It Looks Like McCain’s Straight Talk Express Made A Surprise Stop in BSville

How much more double talk, lies and deceit are we supposed to take from John McCain before we stop hearing how much of an honest “straight talker” he is (about as straight as a question mark … and no, not in that way)? When will we start hearing the truth that he claims to ALWAYS tell? McCain, like Huckabee, keeps getting a free pass whenever something negative comes up about him, mostly due to the left-wing media loving him (aka – setting either him or Huck up to get demolished by the Dems in the nationals).

The media, for the most part, simply ignores these stories and talks about what a great candidate he is. They say just a few negative things about him, enough to convince the public that they are not biased (which is a bold-face lie).

Yesterday the straight talker McCain who, according to…..hmmmm, let’s see….oh ya, HIMSELF (the guy who ripped Mitt up for making ‘negative’ ads), send out negatives mailers in South Carolina accusing Mitt Romney of not supporting president Bush’s tax cuts early enough (even though he himself VOTED AGAINST those same tax cuts and even told Tim Russert last week that he was proud of his vote). As Joe Scarborough said “this smells of DIRTY POLITICS and DIRTY CAMPAIGNING!” Not to mention that the mailer contains several misleading claims (click here to see them). So much for straight talk “my friends” ("my friends" is something McCain say about every 3 seconds in his speeches).

The other thing I don’t understand is why McCain would attack Romney, who is actually polling fourth in SC? Why would you attack a competitor running fourth? I thought the media said that Mitt Romney was done after Iowa and then again New Hampshire (note -they were just kidding about Iowa). Well the answer is that his attacks wouldn’t make sense, unless … he is an angry, ill-tempered, cranky old man who is seriously hating on someone. I mean, wouldn’t it make more sense to target the other frontrunners (like Huckabee for example – oh wait – I forgot, he’s practically your boyfriend)? I guess the city of Common Senseville is one place the straight talk express didn’t visit.

So what are we to make of his changes and repeated lies on immigration and taxes? John the way you describe the immigration thing still sounds like amnesty to most people. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.

I guess it all boils down to this: If one of the BIG reasons people are supporting John McCain is that he is “honest” and is a “straight talker”, they really need to do their homework because, to the non-ignorant, McCain is being less than honest with people and to believe otherwise, well, your only fooling yourself and you must be an absolute McCainiac.

Read more!

McCain - A Sore Loser

Can I speak bluntly with you guys? Thanks. John McCain is REALLY starting to get on my nerves. He is SUCH a sore loser, SUCH a big baby, SUCH a friggin' angry man, and can't graciously accept defeat.

In his speech tonight after losing Michigan to Mitt Romney, McCain congratulated him on his victory, just as Mitt humbly did for McCain in New Hampshire. However, his congrats didn't come without a negative a negative jab attached, as he attributed Romney's success to being the "native son" of Michigan. That is complete B.S if I've ever heard it, and ironic, because John McCain's success can only be attributed to democrats and independents pulling for him in N.H. The real reason that Romney won is because he cares about what Michigan (and America for that matter) needs and wants and is basing his platform around it (when you listen to the people John, that called de-moc-rac-y .... do you need me to talk slower for you?) Mitt focused on the economy (currently the number one issue in America) and other important issues and his message simply resonated with voters...End of story...none of this "native son" crapola. Hugh Hewitt reported these numbers from tonight and more on his website:

Romney won conservatives 41-23%, with 20% for Huckabee. ALMOST DOUBLE

Romney won Republicans 41-27%. AGAIN ALMOST DOUBLE

Romney won Evangelicals 34-29% for Huckabee. McCain took just 23%. WOW, EVEN AFTER HUCK ASKED EVERY PASTOR IN MICHIGAN TO GET THEIR CONGREGATIONS TO VOTE FOR HIM.

It looks to me like Romney won with Republican voters again, just as he did in New Hampshire (remember who voted in McCain - that's right, the independents)

So who voted for the other guys tonight?

• McCain won Democrats 41-33%. WELL DONE. GEE, WHO DO DEMOCRATS WANT TO SLAUGHTER IN THE ELECTION?
  
• McCain won pro-choice voters 39-35%. CAUSE HE'S BASICALLY HALF LIBERAL
  
• He won among those who never attend church by 11 points — 39-28. HE DOESN'T FAIR WELL WITH THE RELIGIOUS VOTE
  
• The “architect of the surge” won with Iraq war disapprovers 36-29. BECAUSE HE'S A FLIP-FLOPPER ON THE ISSUES
  

Hugh said "Cue the fat lady for Huck and McCain. The former can’t get above 15% with a huge effort, and McCain can’t win in an open primary state, one crucial to the fall, even when the Dems take a bye?"

It looks like McCain and Huckabee's love affair might have to end, as their tag-team effort against Romney just ended up making them look like complete fools (they remind me of the two burglars on Home Alone that get absolutely smoked by the kid). Plus, South Carolina is a key state for both of them and they are both in each other's way. They will be two hungry dogs fighting over the same bowl. Although I'd hate to see them break up, as it's just getting entertaining, it's inevitable. They are probably on the phone right now "Mikey, baby, this just isn't working out"..."Ya, Johnny, you've change, you're not the influential man you used to be".

Bottom line, Mitt won tonight, fair and square, and McCain has the right to shut his jealous yapper until he can actually pull out some real Republicans and Conservatives to vote for him on a consistent basis. Remember Johnny boy, this is the REPUBLICAN NOMINATION you are going for. One positive thing about McCain and Huck though is that they will make a great villains for Mitt's "How I became president" story.

ADDED:
Great article Dave! I just wanted to add that in leading up to the election McCain was down playing Romney’s connection to Michigan as if he (McCain) had a bigger connection. He said during an interview on his bus that he was on an automotive industry committee and so on and added that Mitt hasn’t lived in Michigan since he was a kid years ago. Now he credits that shallow connection as being the main reason Mitt won. You can’t have it both ways Johnny boy if you want to ride the straight talk express.-Ken

Read more!

Race Update - Mitt Romney Wins Michigan by a Hefty Margin

Mitt Romney did an awesome job in Michigan convincing voters that he is the best man to fix the economy, secure the border, fight the war on terror, and strengthen families. I'm am extremely proud that Mitt is finally getting the recognition that he deserves. Even though Mitt had the most delegates, more pure votes than any other candidate, and was WINNING the race, the liberal media made it look like he was doomed to lose, while lovin' up Mike Huckabee and John McCain (who were actually losing). I think it absolutely crazy how negatively they can spin things against Mitt even as he is ACTUALLY WINNING. You watch the commentary after Mitt's win and I'm sure you will pick up on some of the negative things they say. For example they just let a caller say tell her perspective on the race, and she said that she was sad that Huckabee didn't win, and that Mitt won only because he was a Michigan native (John McCain also said that in his post-speech). This lady must be pretty ignorant, since almost ALL of Huckabee's supporters only vote for him because of his religion, ignoring his obvious slimy demeanor (he should be a used car salesman). They will probably say that Mitt only won because of democrats and independents voting for him, even though they didn't say that for John McCain in New Hampshire (no, no, for him it was because he's great - even though Mitt kicked his butt if you only count the Republican vote). They'll probably say that it was because of his money, even though both Obama and Clinton both have more (and they love those guys). You look at the stats after though, and you will see that Mitt not only won Michigan, but would have also won if it was just Republicans voting (actually, it just came on CNN, Romney won 2 to 1 against McCain for only conservatives). Mitt Romney is going to win Nevada and then has a really good chance at the nomination since he is one of the only ones who has enough money to continue. Oh, and by the way Mike Huckabee, John McCain and Mainstream media, why don't you just shut your dirty mouths about Mitt Romney having money. Republicans should be glad that SOMEONE has enough money to compete with the Democrats. Mitt now has two gold medals and two silvers.

Here is the Medal Count

1) Romney - 2 golds, 2 silvers
2) McCain - 1 gold, 1 silver, 1 bronze
3) Huckabee - 1 gold, 2 bronzes
4) Thompson - 1 silver, 1 bronze
5) Hunter - 1 bronze

PS - The way I knew that Mitt would win, even before the polls started coming in, I saw that CNN was sent Dana Bash to cover the story at Romney headquarters and she always covers the candidate that wins (or at least so far).

Read more!

McCain Booed By Michigan Crowd While Talking About Illegal Immigration

I agree with Mitt Romney that "immigration" is necessary to strengthen America, but "illegal immigration" brings America down. As sad as it is to deport people illegally living in the US, it is equally sad that thousands of others who are legally trying to immigrate are denied because of those who basically budded in line by breaking the law. John McCain, no matter what he tells you, basically will give amnesty to illegal immigrants if they pay enough money ($5000) and meet a few other conditions. Considering that it costs money to legally immigrate anyway, that's like telling someone "if you steal, you better watch out because we'll make you pay for the stuff you took", without any other action or punishment taken. Obviously if this happened, theft would be far more rampant. Evangelicals for Mitt pointed out that in the video McCain "uses his tired old line about how he's not going to deport the mother of a soldier serving in Iraq. Seriously -- how many soldiers have moms that are here illegally? Come on, Senator. Let's deal with the issue without trying to manipulate the patriotic feelings of Michiganders." Mitt Romney is the strongest on this issue. He understands that making exceptions to the rule only sends a message that it is okay to try to sneak into the country and if you happen to get caught you'll get a slap on the wrist. John McCain, despite his claims, is weak on this issue so important to many Americans. Here is McCain getting booed by Michiganders who understand how much of a true hypocrite he is. At the end there are a few cheers, probably from his democratic supporters!

Read more!

Romney - Fixing the Economy is the Name of the Game

According to the most recent poll conducted by CNN, the state of the US Economy has surpassed the war in Iraq as the top issue in America. This might be attributed to the US is doing better in Iraq than they were a year ago, coupled with the fact that many Americans feel that the US is either in or soon heading into recession. If you think about it, the economy is an integral issue, as so many other issues are directly related. Take the war on terror for example. How is the US going to support billions upon billions of dollars of spending on the military if the economy is weak? As it is, the US is getting deeper and deeper into debt at an alarming pace to fund it now. What about better education, tighter border controls, and other important and much needed improvements and upgrades? These things are far from free, although the Democrats will make it seem like paying for them is not a big deal. All these things are directly impacted either positively or negatively by the strength or weakness of the economy.

Mitt Romney is by far the strongest candidate, Republican or Democrat, when it comes the economy. Why you ask? Well to answer that we must ask another question? How do we get out of a recession or at least prevent one? Without getting too deep into economic theory, the most obvious way is to bolster consumer confidence and spending. We know that one dollar spent in the economy turns into about six through what is called the 'multiplier effect'. It works like this ... you make 100 dollars running your restaurant and go and spend it on a new watch. The watchmaker spends the profit he makes from the watch on landscaping. The landscapers take her profit and spends it on lunch at your restaurant. Now you have not only purchased things you needed and wanted, but also have a portion of what you originally spent returned to you to go spend again (plus others have made money as well). The cycles starts over again. When hundreds of millions of consumers spend money, it stimulates growth and creates prosperity in the economy. What is the surest way to crush consumers' desire to spend? Taxes! Enter Mike Huckabee and all of the Democrats, who either have an irrefutable record of raising taxes or have expressed desire to do so if elected. Mitt Romney is the polar opposite of these guys.

Mitt's strengths regarding the economy are many, but I will focus on the three points that I feel are the most important and expand on each:

1) He wants to cut taxes. This will put more money in the pockets of consumers who will then spend it in the free market. This is far better than the government taxing them and then spending it themselves, as the government is spends money WAY less efficiently than consumers, and much of our hard earned money that is taxed ends up in their own corrupted pockets through scandals and such (see Mike Huckabee to find out more). However, the thing that separates Mitt from the rest is that he still wants some of the things that Democrats hold dear, like universal health care, better education, and other social programs, but plans to accomplish them without raising taxes. How can he do this? The answer is that he, unlike many of the other Washington politicians in the race, is an extremely successful and savvy businessman and executive. If businesses ran themselves like the government they'd be bankrupt multiple times over (they don't have the luxury of raising taxes whenever they want to save themselves). Businesses are masters of cutting out inefficiencies, unneeded spending and superfluous departments to maximize profits for shareholders. Romney would do the same in Washington, but in this case the shareholders are the American people who pay taxes and expect the best possible return on investment. We all know that there are much needed cuts in the government who is notorious for having eight departments that all do the same thing. The government is running an embarrassingly large trade deficit and debt. Less taxes and better quality social programs, sounds pretty good to me.

2) Mitt wants to invest in technology and innovation. Wait a minute ... that's government spending money ... isn't that a Democratic thing to do? Well, one thing Mitt knows how to do is get a good return on his investment. The US and most other wealthy nations can not compete with other countries when it comes to labour costs and other expenses related to production. That is why many things are "Made in China". But they don't have to compete with these countries if they can make innovative products that lead the marketplace. Take Blackberry for example (I'll use it since it's a Canadian company and I'm Canadian). Research in Motion (RIM, the maker of Blackberry) is the world's leader in producing innovative, high-quality devices. They don't have much major competition around the world yet because they have the best technology, and their growth in stock price reflects this. The US needs to create more products (even though they already have a lot) like this, that are impervious to competition due to their superior technology, quality, and uniqueness. Mitt has said time and time again that if he were President, he would invest in technology and innovation, especially for the automakers in Michigan who are struggling against foreign competition. This will cost a lot of money, but will produce a healthy return and help American in the long-run.

3) Mitt wants to eliminate the tax on interest, dividends and capital gains for Americans who make $200,000 or less (which obviously include the middle-class). Currently, when you invest money and make any kind of return, it will fall into one of the three categories mentioned above and will be taxed accordingly. Tax on investments does two things. First, it discourages people to save and invest money, as they will have to give a hefty chunk of their return to the government. Two, it creates class inequality, as rich people have money to access high level accountants and financial planners who know every trick in the book to help them pay little to no tax on their investments. So who ends up paying the tax? That's right the little guys - the middle class. Romney's strategy would benefit the little guys and offer no special treatment to the ultra-rich. This would help the economy in several ways. It would encourage people to save more money for retirement or for a rainy day, putting less stress on the government to provide social security and welfare programs in times of recession. It would also stimulate more investment in the stock market, which would put more money into the hands of American companies who would expand and create more jobs, which would create more income, which would increase both consumer spending and investment and further fuel the upward cycle of prosperity.

It is obvious that the economy is not only a hot topic these days, but a genuinely important one. It affects so many other issues that voters are concerned about. Mitt Romney is the best man for the economy by a long shot. Choosing who to vote for shouldn't be a difficult decision. Although, on second thought, you could vote for John McCain who said "the issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should" and "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."

Here are a few links that show why Mitt and a strong economy mix:
Staples founder tells us why Huckabee would be bad for economy and Mitt good
Romney talks about the economy and about Michigan
McCain and economy not a good match

A video of Mitt talking to Michigan voters, about the economy and other issues.

Read more!

Movie 'The Princess Bride' Endorses Romney!

Evangelicals For Mitt just posted this video and I think it's hilarious. I loved this movie. Check it out!

Read more!

Oh, and While I'm at It, Here's the Real McCoy...I Mean McCain

The liberal media loves John McCain and makes it seem like he can do no wrong, only to butter him up to be slain by the Democrats if he wins the GOP nomination (tricky, eh?). According to pundit, Rush Limbaugh, the media and even McCain supporters hate talking about his record (gee, I wonder why?). In his article, "Rush Recaps the GOP Debate" he speaks of "the media's unwillingness to actually report, for example, on Senator McCain's record". It's is an excellent article and I recommend it to anyone who wants to know what is actually going on in this race (and to explore his website in general). Here is a video that does something no one else will....talk about John McCain's record.

Read more!

No One-Liner Can Hide Huckabee's Record of Corruption and Liberalism

Since Mike Huckabee will A) NEVER admit he's wrong, even in the face of irrefutable evidence, B) duck any issue he's confronted with using a lame joke or one-liner, and C) almost never actually talk about his policies (or at least in any kind of detail, no one really knows what he's actually all about. One thing I will give the Huckster is that he is a good speaker who can be captivating to listen to at times, although the more you know about him the faster his charm wears off and eventual just starts to make you sick.

This video is just a friendly reminder that Huckabee is NOT a conservative. As Fred Thompson said, "He believes we have an arrogant foreign policy in the tradition of blame-America first. He believes that Guantanamo should be closed down and those enemy combatants brought here to the United States to find their way into the court system eventually. He believes in taxpayer funded programs for illegals, as he did in Arkansas. He has the endorsement of the National Education Association, and the NEA said it was because of his opposition to vouchers. He said he would sign a bill that banned smoking nationwide. So much for federalism, so much for state's rights, so much for individual rights. That's not the model of the Reagan coalition. That's the model of the Democratic Party."

Read more!

Democrats Encouraged to Vote for Mitt Romney in Michigan

Hmmmmm.....sounds kind of fishy, but it is true none the less. The popular left-wing blog "Daily KOS" is encouraging Democrats in Michigan to vote for Mitt Romney. Why you may ask? Well, it turns out that the democratic party stripped Michigan of its delegates after it violated party rules. In turn, Hilliary Clinton is the only candidate on the ballot. However, since Michigan is an open primary, anyone can vote for the Republicans who are contending there, even Democrats.

This is the basis for Daily KOS' idea to encourage its Michigan Democratic readers to vote Romney. The rational behind the idea is to help Mitt win Michigan and stay in the race. Why would they want to do this you ask? Well, since many believe that Romney needs to win Michigan to stay in the race, and Huckabee and McCain are lined up in first and second in the national polls, Daily KOS feels that Mitt staying in the race would be the best thing that could happen to the Democrats. This way the Republican vote will continue to be fragmented and the candidates will continue to battle each other fiercely for votes causing the GOP to lose unity.

Sounds like a pretty good idea to me! Although, I only support it because I genuinely feel that Mitt is not only the best candidate on either side, but because he can defeat the Democrats (which would be funny if this blog helped him stay in). They even feel that this plan will hurt Romney too, as his win will look unearned and humourous. They say "How 'legitimate' will the Mittster's victory look if liberals provide the margin of victory? Think of the hilarity that will ensue." A fair enough statement, but it will only put him on the same level as McCain and Huckabee, who were propelled to victory in New Hampshire and Iowa, on the wings of Democrats and Independents. We already know that Mitt would have won New Hampshire if only Republicans picked up the ballot, and would have done so by a margin of 7%. So who really cares if the media spins it that Mitt won because of Democrats voting him. It's a heck of a lot better than him losing because democrats vote Huckabee. Then with Mitt back in the race with more of a shot than ever, the states that actually have a majority of Republicans will vote for the real conservatives and the men will be separated from the boys.

When asked about this blog's strategy to vote for him, Mitt said that his only goal is to convince Republican voters to choose him. When Mike Huckabee was told about it, he said to tell the Democrats to vote for him. Ironically, he could probably actually run for the Democrats considering his liberal record on many issues.

Read more!

Independents and Democrats Decide Early GOP Primaries

The funniest, yet disturbing thing about the race for the GOP nomination is that it might be decided by Democrats and Independents. Now I’m not talking about the effect that the liberal Mainstream Media has on the public, propping up the Republican candidates that they want and criticizing the ones they don’t (for their own benefits of course). I’m not talking about influence from these groups, but actually cold hard votes from them in open Republican caucuses. Interestingly, the first few “major” state primaries in the race are actually made up of decisively less Republican voters than most.
Rush Limbaugh said about this very topic, “Now, this is really fascinating, and it also illustrates how the little people actually knew before all these primaries began. All this hype about who has to win where and who has to win what, is meaningless -- except for what I said. You have Iowa, New Hampshire, two states that do not feature conservatives. The caucuses are a weird setup in Iowa, and, of course, New Hampshire anybody can cross the state line and vote, and among conservatives Romney beat McCain by seven points! It was with independents he won. Now, we're Republicans, and theoretically we're out there trying to nominate a conservative to run as president here, as close to one as we can get, and yet the guy who wins New Hampshire is going all over the board, and the guy who wins Iowa getting votes from independents, who by definition are not conservatives! This is why, folks -- this is precisely why -- McCain and Huckabee are feverishly trying to get Romney out now, as soon as they can, and this is why they are being vicious in their attacks on Romney.”

If it wasn’t for independents, Mitt would have actually taken New Hampshire by a comfortable margin. If only Republicans were voting for their Republican candidate, the results would have changed. Now Mitt goes into Michigan where the voting dynamics are completely unique. Here’s what is going on there (again, taken from Rush Limbaugh). “Michigan is the same. Now, the Democrats in Michigan, they got a little bit different problem because Michigan violated party rules and is running ahead of when the party wanted to, so Michigan's getting no delegates. The Republican Party is penalizing Michigan a little but not totally, so there are delegates at stake for the Republicans in Michigan. So Hillary is the only person on the ballot in Michigan. Nobody else is competing there. The Democrat Party in Michigan is urging people on the Democrat side to vote nobody. They don't want them crossing the aisle. They want nobody, because they're trying to get even with the party and make amends at the same time to try to get some delegates that can vote and count at the convention.” Despite this, if democrats see Mitt as a threat, they could go vote as Republicans for Huckabee or McCain, just to stop him. In a way, that’s why it’s good that, at the moment, Huckabee is looking so good in the media’s eyes ( because Michigan voters might perceive Romney as the weaker candidate and vote for him instead, just as they may have done for McCain in New Hampshire).

The key for Mitt Romney is to hold strong and do well until Super Tuesday when actual conservatives get to vote and represent the majority. This is why Limbaugh points out “that the states that allow independents and even Democrats to vote in their Republican primaries are not indicative of the Republican Party, which is why McCain and Huckabee have shots in them. McCain and Huckabee are winning these early states, where Republicans are outnumbered. It's not Republicans; it's not conservatives in majority who were electing Huckabee or McCain, so far, voting for them.”

If you look at Romney’s success with actual Republicans, an interesting trend can be seen. “Rich Lowry posted something interesting yesterday at National Review Online. He entitled it "The McCain Weakness." This is what he wrote: "This is it: Conservatives were 54% of the electorate [in New Hampshire] and McCain lost to Romney among them by seven points. When the race moves south, conservatives will probably be 75-80% of the electorate, and they will presumably dominate in closed primaries. But this is the thing: At the outset, it looked like the way the early states were stacked up would help Romney. But once Romney lost Iowa, they were stacked up to help McCain.”

The media keeps saying that Romney will be out with each in every state that he doesn’t win. It’s an absolutely ludicrous view. They’re saying this about Michigan, but they just finished saying the same thing about New Hampshire. The Mainstream Media might as well just come out and officially endorse one of the Democrats because that is exactly what they do, despite claiming to be “news” or “unbiased”. It is sad, however, that if these early states prove to take Mitt out, that he would go before ever getting to the states where as Limbaugh says, “a majority of Republicans, conservative Republicans are going to vote” and if this turns out to be the case “by Super Tuesday, Republicans might have as their two choices people that are not conservatives, I should say, and have their leads based on votes from Democrats and independents. Can you say "screwed?”

Now I don’t think this will be the case, and neither does Rush, but it is hilarious that the RNC allows the first few states to be ones ruled by independents and democrats. Even though in this race, no candidate currently has true momentum, this setup has the potential to create momentum for non-conservative candidates who don’t represent Republicans and destroy it for those that do! Mitt Romney will truck on, but unfortunately he has a much harder battle than the other less conservative candidates who benefit from these first few unusual, backward primaries. Fortunately, I believe that this battle is one that both Mitt and his supporters are both willing and able to fight.

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!

A Closer, More Personal Look at Mitt Romney and His Family

Undoubtedly, Mitt Romney is strong on the issues and would be an excellent president. However, it is obvious that many voters in the election don't necessarily care about the issues, but rather about who the funniest candidate is or who gives the most stirring speeches. Frankly, many Americans want to see more in a candidate than just their accomplishments and plans for America. It is unfortunate that many put these trivial things before the issues (as a President's personality and likability fleets in the face of poor decisions and failure) , but none the less it is true. I thought this video that I found on YouTube would help us see more of the man Mitt Romney. He is, evidently, a family man who loves to have fun and deserves it because he works so hard. It portrays Mitt and his family having a blast at their cottage on Lake Winnipesaukee in New Hampshire.

Read more!

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - Tearing Apart the Conservative Coalition

Ronald Reagan created a conservative coalition that he claimed could beat the democrats in every single election. He realized that conservatives would win united or fall divided. Even though individuals are conservatives for various reasons, Reagan categorized conservatives into three major groups: Social Conservatives (concerned with morality issues such as abortion and gay marriage), Economic Conservatives (desiring prudent and minimal government spending, less taxes, and a thriving free market), and Foreign Policy / Defense Conservatives (concerned with border control, strong military, strong foreign policies to help the US). These groups still exist today and still have the potential to take on the democrats if they can be united under the banner of one candidate. The liberal media is aware of this and will use its power and influence to try and tear apart the coalition and strip it of its strength. But the Mainstream Media is only one of the four horsemen of the proverbial Conservative Coalition Apocalypse. There are three more: Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and Rudy Giuliani.

Today, my friend that knows I support for Mitt, said "hey, you're guy Romney is losing pretty bad isn't he?" Wow, that is so far from the truth it's crazy. Now I don't blame her for thinking that. Anyone who turns on CNN without reading the truth first would think the same. It's all doom and gloom reported for any candidate they see as a threat to the democrats. First they said Mitt Romney would be out of the race if he lost New Hampshire. He came second. Now they are saying he's out if he loses Michigan. They are so biased that it's hard to even call it news. The reality is that Mitt Romney is actually winning. He has the most delegates and the most votes. Here is the pure vote count:

Romney - 97,287 (29.8%)

McCain - 94,320 (28.9%)

Huckabee - 64,397 (19.7%)

Paul - 28,014 (8.6%)

Giuliani - 22,383 (6.9%)

Thompson - 18,464 (5.7%)

Hunter - 1,607 (0.5%)

Clearly the media is just trying to discourage Romney voters. But why would they do this to poor old Mitt? Rush Limbaugh (link) had some good insight when he said:

"The Drive-By Media would love to destroy the conservative coalition. They would love to destroy the conservative base to the Republican Party. That's why they are promoting Huckabee; it is why they are promoting McCain.

The Drive-By Media, ladies and gentlemen, will tell us each and every day who the true conservatives in the Republican primary are, and they will tell us by virtue of who they attack and also by virtue of who they prop up. They are propping up McCain; they are propping up Huckabee. The Drive-By Media hate conservatives. They want to destroy conservatism. It is the bulwark standing in their way of power and monopolistic control of all the apparatus of the country, government, media, and everything else. It's one of the best indicators I can offer you. If you're asking who is the genuine conservative out there or who is most conservative, who is most liberal on the Republican side, just take a look at who the Drive-Bys are enamored of and you will be able to answer the question yourself without me having to tell you. Why do you think that Senator McCain is making his big stand in New Hampshire? Because he did well there in 2000 and because he knows he runs really well with independents. He knows that New Hampshire is not a big conservative state.

This is based on truth, and it is in fact truth: the media are out to break up conservatives. I was instant messaging with F. Lee last night, and to me, there is no question. I spent this weekend in intense study of what's going on up there. I watched more political TV this weekend than I have watched probably in the last six months. My instincts were confirmed: Media are out to break up conservatives, dispirit us, destroy us, destroy the Republican coalition of the evangelicals; the social and fiscal conservatives; they're out to destroy that."

The Media would love for Mike Huckabee to win, because he would hand an easy win over the democrats in the general election and the Evangelical voters would finally lose their power. Huckabee breaks up the coalition as he does not represent the fiscal and defense conservatives. McCain and Giuliani don't appeal to social conservatives and McCain is also weak on immigration. These are the ones (especially Huck and McCain) that the democrats can't praise enough. It makes you wonder, why would they praise Republicans? Gee, that's sort of strange, but proves that Rush is on the money with his views.

The problem is that many Americans rely on the news as their sole source of information regarding the election, so unfortunately it has a much greater influence on their decisions than it should. But if Mitt continues to show a strong first or second in each state, through the vote of informed conservatives, he will win the nomination and go on to be the strongest Republican candidate to face the either Obama or Clinton.

Read more!

What Can Mitt Do for Michigan?

The next state to hold Republican primaries is Michigan. It is Mitt's home state and the state in which his father, George Romney, was governor. As far as strategy goes, it is an important state for Romney to win, holding 30 Republican delegates. All this being said, these reasons are not in any shape or form valid reasons to vote for Mitt (just as the fact that Huckabee is Evangelical is no reason for other Evangelicals to vote for him, ignoring merit and the issues). But there are plenty of really important reasons for Michigan to support Mitt.

Michigan is in dire need of someone who can turn it around economically. Michigan was largely built on the backs of the "big-three" auto makers and many other companies which manufacture parts for or are directly related to the auto industry. You don't need me to tell you that the "big-three" aren't exactly doing the greatest as of late, and thus the auto industry in Michigan (again, an overwhelming portion of the state's economy) is pretty beaten up. Enter Romney, a shrewd businessman who has turned many a company completely 180 degrees, from being destitute to profitable. Frankly, Michigan needs Mitt Romney. He would be the best candidate to stimulate the economy, among all the other positive effects he will have. Hopefully Michigan voters will stick to the issues, rather than less important things as was done in Iowa and somewhat in New Hampshire.

Jason Bonham of Race 4 2008 wrote a pertinent article on the matter, entitle "Why Romney Speaks to Michigan Voters". I highly recommend taking a look.

Here is the Romney Michigan ad "It's personal to Me"

Read more!