Mccain is not the most electable candidate.

Mccain is not the most electable candidate.
Reasons to agree

1. The fact that McCain agrees with the democrats on immigration will not help him. The majority of Republicans and Democrats disagree with McCain (Washington) on that issue.
2. One of the best arguments that we have against the democrats is that they don't have any executive experience. They have never run a corner store. Neither has McCain. Both are senators. So is McCain.
3. The fact that McCain agrees with the democrats on campaign finance will not help him. Moderates don't jut want democrats and republicans to come together so they can smile for the cameras. They want republicans and democrats to work together to produce legislation that actually fixes the problems. The problem with McCain isn't that he is too liberal, its that he is incompetent. Every bill that has his name on it, has done the exact opposite of what it promised it would do. McCain-Feingold had the exact opposite effect: there is more dirty money that is not transparent now than ever. You know how Bush coined the phrase, "compassionate conservative." I would love to have Romney use the words "competent conservative." Its not just about saying that you have compassion, or saying that you are a conservative, its about accomplishing something that is able to deliver compassion in a conservative manner. Any of this talk, I'm sorry to say, is many levels over McCain's head. All that matters to him is working with the other side, not actually fixing problems. That's what happens when you look at the world from behind a committee, and that is why we don't elect senators to be presidents.
4. Mitt Romney was elected in Massachusetts, a far more liberal state than Arizona.
5. Romney will come off a lot smarter in the debates against the democrats than John MCain ever could.
6. McCain will come off a lot angrier than Hillary or Barak.
7. McCain will not be able to instill confidence in the future as much as Hillary or Barak.
8. McCain can not claim to be an agent of change, as much as Obama.
9. Obama and Hillary are far more appealing to independents. We need a candidate who can unite the base.
10. Romney is more likely to raise the type of money that he will need in the general election.
11. It is not just that McCain agrees with the democrats on many issues, and so he is bad. The point is that the issues that he agrees with the democrats happen to be issues that the Republican Party is correct in apposing.
12. Healthcare is the #1 democratic issue. Romney beats Hillary and Barak by accomplishing something significant that helps people in a conservative way. McCain has no healthcare plan.

Reasons to disagree

1. Mccain can appeal to independents.
2. Mccain agrees with the democrats on global warming.
3. Mccain agrees with the democrats on closing Guantanamo.
4. Mccain agrees with the democrats on water boarding.
5. Mccain agrees with the democrats on immigration.
6. Mccain agrees with the democrats on limiting freedom of speech.

Snap us out of the Blue State Blues!

Hello Illinois! Vote for Mitt!

STRATEGIST, ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT

TO: INTERESTED PARTIES

FROM: ALEX GAGE

STRATEGIST, ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT

DATE: JANUARY 31, 2008

RE: THE CONSERVATIVE VOTE

As we move towards February 5th, it's worth taking a close look back at exit polling from the past

few primaries. The coalitions that John McCain assembled in New Hampshire, South Carolina,

and Florida have been strikingly similar—and are strikingly tenuous. Public polling shows McCain

ahead in many states, but

we are now in a two-man race and a few points' movement

among conservatives is all that's needed to tip the scales in favor of Gov. Romney.

In all three states where he was victorious, McCain's margin of victory rested on moderates, selfidentified

independents, and voters who disapprove of the Bush administration. None of these

groups is a majority of the Republican electorate. In fact, every GOP primary this year has been

at least 55% conservative, 61% Republican, and 50% supportive of the Bush administration—

explaining why McCain has failed to win more than 36% of the vote in any of them.

New Hampshire South Carolina Florida

McCain Romney McCain Huckabee McCain Romney

Liberal

45% 15% 47% 20% 49% 24%

Moderate

44% 27% 51% 21% 43% 21%

Conservative 30%

38% 26% 35% 29% 37%

Independent

40% 27% 42% 25% 44% 23%

Republican 34%

35% 31% 32% 33% 33%

Neg. Opinion of Bush

40% 26% 39% 26% 45% 23%

Pos. Opinion of Bush 27%

32% 31% 33% 31% 35%

In Florida, a state where McCain spent nearly $2 million on paid media in the final two weeks;

had the endorsement of the state's sitting Republican governor, the Republican senator, and five

GOP congressmen; and benefited from an electorate where one in three voters was over the age

of 65, he failed to come within 8 points of Gov. Romney among conservative voters.

In fact, according to exit poll data,

if Gov. Romney had won conservatives in Florida 41%-

25% over McCain, rather than 37%-29%—just a four-point shift—he would have won

the state.

Former Giuliani and Thompson supporters in February 5th states will be looking for a

new candidate over the next week, and it will not take very many conservatives moving to

Romney to disrupt McCain's victory formula.

The McCain formula for success worked in a divided field when conservatives were fractured, but

even a small coalescence of conservatives around Gov. Romney would reveal his

support as a coalition too small to win the nomination of the Republican party.

Conservatives, self-identified Republicans, and voters who approve of President Bush are likely to

be majorities of the electorate in all of the February 5th states. It is therefore easy to see how

we defeat McCain in a two-main race by focusing on traditional Republican primary voters.

We still have an uphill battle in front of us—the mainstream media is ready to anoint John McCain

and he will have advantages in many states from running for president for the past eight years—

but Gov. Romney has a clear path to victory on February 5th and beyond.

Great Photo

McCain

Anger

1. McCain does not have the diplomacy skills necessary to be a president.
2. McCain has an anger problem.
3. McCain has made a lot of enemies.
4. McCain is mean.
5. McCain has problems with self control.
6. McCain is arrogant.
7. McCain holds grudges.
8. McCain is in denial with regard to his anger problem.
9. McCain personally attacks anyone who disagrees with his policies.
10. Anger is a problem.
11. Mccain uses personal attacks instead of talking issues.

Flip-Flops

1. McCain flip-flops.
2. Mccain changed on Jerry Falwell.
3. Mccain flip-flopped on Abortion.
4. McCain flip-floped on Bush tax cuts.
5. McCain flip-flopped on torture.
6. McCain flip-flopped on Kyoto.
7. McCain flip-flopped on gay marriage.
8. McCain flip-flopped on ethanol.
9. McCain flip-flopped on the confederate flag.
10. McCain flip-flopped on the Iraq War.
11. McCain flip-flopped on immigration.
12. Mccain flip-flopped on taxes.
13. McCain flip-flopped on ethics reform.
14. Mccain flip-flopped on Mcccain-Kennedy.
15. Mccain flip-flopped on the bush tax cuts.

Economics

1. Mccain uses class class warfare. Class warfare is bad.
2. Mccain does not understand the economy.

Leadership

1. Mccain has not had executive experience.

Hypocracy

1. Mccain is a hypocrite.
2. Mccain supported the same kind of benchmarks that Romney did.

Lies

1. Mccain lied about Romney.

Democrats

1. Mccain is the Democrats' favorite Republican.
2. John Mccain has more democrat friends that republican.
3. John Mccain is not a very good republican.
4. Mccain is friends with Hillary.
5. Mccain is friends with John Kerry.
6. Mccain is friends with Ted Kennedy.

General

1. John Mccain is not the best republican candidate.

Women

1. McCain will have a problem getting female voters, especially against Hillary.

Senate

1. Few people like Mccain in the Senate.

Issues

1. John McCain is not very good on taxes.
2. John McCain is not very good on the economy.
3. John McCain is stubborn.
4. John McCain will loose to the dems.
5. John McCain will hurt the republican party more than Bush.
6. If we don't stand for issues, and we are just a party of personalities we have nothing.

• Jan 26, 2008; Research Briefing: "She And John McCain Are Very Close"
• Jan 26, 2008; MCCAIN: "LEADING THE CHARGE ON THE OTHER SIDE"
• Jan 23, 2008; Straight Talk Detour: Sen. McCain: "I Would Clearly Support Not Extending Those Tax Cuts..."

Too Much Bunker Mentality

Forgive me - I don't step up in this group very often.  For the Article 6 blog to be maximally effective, it requires a certain aloofness.

 

But as I am reading through the blogs this morning, I am sensing too much resignation, too much sense that the rest of the nation just does not get it when it comes to Mitt, too much going through the motions.  In the emails there is too much talk of commitment and not enough talk of winning - fighting for the cause.

 

Friends, this is not over, Mitt Romney is not a loser and neither are his supporters.  Mitt Romney is THE inheritor of the Reagan legacy, and many of you are too young to really remember Ronald Reagan, but one thing overwhelmingly marked him - confidence and optimism.  Ronald Reagan simply knew that the American people would resonate to his message, and they did.  He even knew that when Gerry Ford beat him.

 

The Romney candidacy remains the leader and it is not playing catch-up.  The Romney candidacy carries the torch for greatest political coalition this nation has ever seen..  That my friends is a winner and as the supporters of that banner we should act and think like winners.

 

I hope you are not in this because of "commitments" - I hope you are in this because it is what is best, and if anything marks the United States it is her ability to somehow muddle into the best.

 

Fight hard - play fair - act like the winners you are.

 

John Schroeder
Salmon & Schroeder, Inc.
www.salmon-schroeder.com
(818) 249-9228
FAX: (818) 249-8081

Mitt On Demand

Well Mitt's got his work cut out for him going forward.  And we are committed to help out in anyway we can.  To that end, we've just released our new book "Mitt On Demand" which is a compilation of selected speeches, quotes and sayings by Mitt Romney.  The 143 page softbound book lays out in a condensed format Mitt's policy positions, etc.  We really want to see a surge of grass roots support for Mitt before Super Tuesday and think this book could be a good way to generate some needed excitement that the race is not over yet!  We would be pleased if you would feature the book and this link (www.MittOnDemand.com) on your Mittannica site and encourage your lists to buy the book or e-book and/or share it with any undecided's in your circles (or better yet) any McCain supporter.

Boyd & Holly

MITT ROMNEY AT THE SECOND REAGAN LIBRARY DEBATE – VOL. II

Fox News' Frank Luntz: FOX NEWS' FRANK LUNTZ: "First off, who won the
debate tonight? I always begin that way." VOTER: "Romney." LUNTZ: "Who
says John McCain won the debate tonight raise your hands, 3, only 4 of
you. Who says Mitt Romney, about half of you." (Fox News' "Hannity &
Colmes," 1/30/08)

Watch The Luntz Post-Debate Focus Group: www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZOSDnNoQyg

National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "He hit back and defending his
honor and truth on Iraq. I don't think most Americans get "timetables
was a buzzword." I think they get that neither of these guys are Harry
Reid. The sum of it is oddly, unnecessarily, McCain came off badly
during an Iraq round." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, "Is Romney Reading the
Corner?" National Review's The Corner Blog,
http://corner.nationalreview.com, Posted 1/30/08)

· Lopez: "I think Romney came off effective and competent."
(Kathryn Jean Lopez, "Weird, Irritating Debate," National Review's The
Corner Blog, http://corner.nationalreview.com/=, Posted 1/30/08)

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "Mitt Romney is exactly right on
letting states take the lead on global warming and emissions standards
if they want to tighten them, but he does the work McCain wouldn't do
by pointing out that those actions have consequences in higher costs
and lost jobs. When he talks these issues, he is smart and right."
(Mary Katharine Ham, "Global Warming Mania!" Townhall Blog,
www.townhall.com, Posted 1/30/08)

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "Mitt Romney won this debate. He
looked crisp, sharp, had facts at his command, and exuded confidence."
(Ed Morrissey, "Live Blog And Wrap Up," Captain's Quarters' Blog,
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/, Posted 1/30/08)

CNN's Bill Schneider: "A couple of Romney's answers were quite good,
particularly on the Iraq timetables issue." (Bill Schneider, "The
Night's Big Winner: Huckabee," CNN's Political Ticker Blog,
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com, Posted 1/30/08)

· Schneider: "Romney's giving a pretty interesting
conservative explanation of a health care plan that otherwise makes
conservatives nervous. As he explains, it forces people to pay their
own way — which they get." (Bill Schneider, "Romney Makes A Sale On
Health Care," CNN's Political Ticker,
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com, Posted 1/30/08)

· Schneider: "Romney's giving a full-throated rebuttal to
McCain's charge that he proposed a timetable on Iraq withdrawal – and
he's right. That was a strong answer." (Bill Schneider, "Romney Calls
McCain Out," CNN's Political Ticker,
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com, Posted 1/30/08)

National Review's Mark Hemingway: "I think I can say that Romney was
the clear winner in the debate." (Mark Hemingway, "For the First
Time," National Review's The Corner Blog,
http://corner.nationalreview.com, Posted 1/30/08)

· Hemingway: "[Gov. Romney] showed an admirable fighting
spirit." (Mark Hemingway, "For the First Time," National Review's The
Corner Blog, http://corner.nationalreview.com, Posted 1/30/08)

· Hemingway: "Romney kept his head about him and remained
gracious even as a number of his charges against McCain stuck." (Mark
Hemingway, "For the First Time," National Review's The Corner Blog,
http://corner.nationalreview.com, Posted 1/30/08)

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder: "Applause from audience when Romney says
Reagan would have found the dirty tricks reprehensible." (Marc
Ambinder, "Debate Wire," Atlantic Online,
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/, Posted 1/30/08)

· Ambinder: "Romney gives a strong answer that weaves together
his experience with his resume...notes that Abe Lincoln wasn't a
military leader..." (Marc Ambinder, "Debate Wire," Atlantic Online,
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/, Posted 1/30/08)

Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds: "GOOD POINT BY ROMNEY about how McCain
shouldn't 'demean' people who start businesses. McCain has been doing
that a lot, acting as if meeting a payroll is somehow less honorable
than working for the government." (Glenn Reynolds, "Good Point By
Romney," Blog, http://instapundit.com/, Posted 1/30/08)

Senator McCain Flip-Flops On His Support For McCain-Kennedy

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN ON MCCAIN-KENNEDY

Tonight Sen. McCain Said He Would Not Vote For McCain-Kennedy Amnesty
Legislation:

McCain Said He Would Not Vote For His Own Immigration Bill If It Came
To The Senate Floor Again. QUESTION: "At his point, if your original
proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, would you vote for it?"
MCCAIN: "It won't. It won't, that's why we went thought the debate."
QUESTION: "But it did…" MCCAIN: "No I would not because we know what
the situation is today." (CNN, [Unverified Transcript], Republican
Presidential Candidate Debate, Simi Valley, CA, 1/30/08)

However, Just Recently Sen. McCain Said As President He Would Sign
McCain-Kennedy:

McCain Recently Said He Would Sign The McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill
Into Law If Passed The Senate While He Was President. NBC'S TIM
RUSSERT: "If the Senate passed your bill, S.1433, the McCain/Kennedy
immigration bill, would you as President sign it? MCCAIN: "Yeah. But
look, the lesson is, it isn't – one, it isn't going to come. It isn't
going to come." (NBC's "Meet The Press,"
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLWRW4GoGHY, 1/27/08)

MITT ROMNEY AT THE SECOND REAGAN LIBRARY DEBATE

National Review's Jim Geraghty: "When Romney takes his shots at
McCain, it's both strong and fair - he acknowledges that McCain has
some areas in which he's a conservative, but he takes several fair
shots - McCain Feingold; voting against the Bush tax cuts twice
(McCain noted earlier that he had voted to make them permanent)." (Jim
Geraghty, " How Rarely I Get To Write This: Romney Takes McCain To
School," National Review's The Campaign Spot,
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com, Posted 1/30/08)

· Geraghty: "I like that Romney says that the original version
of the McCain-Kennedy immigration legislation wasn't so bad, and that
it got worse as it moved through the process. It shows familiarity
with the legislative details." (Jim Geraghty, " How Rarely I Get To
Write This: Romney Takes McCain To School," National Review's The
Campaign Spot, http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com, Posted 1/30/08)

· Geraghty: "'Let me help you with the facts, Senator.' Wow.
Romney nails him for pointing out the study McCain is referring to in
his answer about job creation and loss includes his predecessor, Jane
Swift, who lost many jobs on her watch." (Jim Geraghty, " How Rarely I
Get To Write This: Romney Takes McCain To School," National Review's
The Campaign Spot, http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com, Posted
1/30/08)

· Geraghty: "Where the heck has this Romney been? He just
calmly and clearly took McCain to school." (Jim Geraghty, " How Rarely
I Get To Write This: Romney Takes McCain To School," National Review's
The Campaign Spot, http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com, Posted
1/30/08)

The American Spectator's John Tabin: "Romney corrects some of McCain's
facts – McCain confused Romney's lieutenant governor with his
predecessor, among other things. I think Romney won this exchange."
(John Tabin, "Romney Vs. McCain," The American Spectator Blog,
www.spectator.org, Posted 1/30/08)

CNN's Bill Schneider: "Romney's response scores big points with
conservatives – and with a lot of Americans who aren't conservative."
(Bill Schneider, "Big Points For Romney On Immigration," CNN's
Political Ticker, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com, Posted
1/30/08)

· Schneider: "Romney is winning this big-time — McCain's
wrong. We already have timetables for everything in Iraq, whether we
stick to them or adjust them later on." (Bill Schneider, "Romney Has
McCain On The Ropes," CNN's Political Ticker Blog,
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com, Posted 1/30/08)

National Review's Mark Hemmingway: "Not that I needed anyone to tell
me the McCain-Lieberman cap-and-trade program is a bad idea, but
Romney's dissection of it was clear and compelling." (Mark Hemmingway,
"Not That I Needed Anyone," National Review's The Corner,
http://corner.nationalreview.com=, Posted 1/30/08)

Captains Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "Romney dominating near the close
-this debate is owned by Mitt." (Ed Morrissey, "Romney Dominating Near
The Close," Heading Right, http://headingright.com/, Posted 1/30/08)

· Morrissey: "Romney's Playing Ball Control. He's answering in
depth, and by doing so he gets more air time. He's using the format to
his advantage." (Ed Morrissey, "Romney Dominating Near The Close,"
Heading Right, http://headingright.com/,

Posted 1/30/08)

· Morrissey: "Romney is getting the best of this exchange …
Romney does a good job of keeping the tone even and factual while
scolding McCain for getting the data incorrect." (Ed Morrissey,
"Romney Is Getting The Best Of This Exchange," Heading Right Blog,
http://headingright.com/, Posted 1/30/07)

Commentary Magazine's John Podhoretz: "Mitt Romney is doing a great
job. Very commanding. He's far more substantive than McCain." (John
Podhoretz, "Mitt Romney," Commentary Magazine,
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/, Posted 1/30/08)

Ankle Biting Pundits' Bull Dog Pundit: "We're 45 minutes in and I'm
not going to go point by point, but I have to say that Romney is
hitting the notes he needs to." (Bull Dog Pundit, "GOP Debate," Ankle
Biting Pundits, http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/, Posted 1/30/08)

· Bull Dog Pundit: "Purely on substance Romney hit it exactly
right when he started talking about the need for entitlement reform.
When he said we have to 'change the deal' on Social Security and
Medicaid for people in their 40's I almost stood up and cheered. He
also did a great job of pointing out John McCain's conservative
apostasies." (Bull Dog Pundit, "GOP Debate," Ankle Biting Pundits,
http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/, Posted 1/30/08)

Heading Right's Douglas Gibbs: "Romney's expertise …and knowledge of
economics and facts is outshining his opponents." (Douglas Gibbs,
"Romney's Expertise," Heading Right Blog, http://headingright.com/,
Posted 1/30/07)

Heading Right's Faust Wertz: "Romney's answers are great … Clear, to
the point but explaining what needs to be explained, and he looks
comfortable." (Faust Wertz, "Romney's Answers Are Great,"
http://headingright.com/, Heading Right Blog, Posted 1/30/07)

McCainonomics

 

TOP 10 REASONS WHY SEN. MCCAIN STILL NEEDS "TO BE EDUCATED" ON ECONOMICS

"When the most important pro-growth tax cuts in a generation were proposed by President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003, Sen. McCain vigorously opposed them." – Club For Growth President Pat Toomey (Pat Toomey, Op-Ed, "The McCain Record," The Wall Street Journal, 3/13/07)

#1: Admits He Knows Little About The Economy:

- Sen. McCain: "The Issue Of Economics Is Not Something I've Understood As Well As I Should." "Like Mike Huckabee, who joked recently that he 'may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night,' McCain suggested to reporters Monday that American consumer culture offered a short cut to expertise. 'The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should,' McCain said. 'I've got Greenspan's book.'" (Sasha Issenberg, "McCain: It's About The Economy," The Boston Globe, http://www.boston.com/, Posted 12/18/07)

- Sen. McCain: "I Still Need To Be Educated." "On a broader range of economic issues, though, Mr. McCain readily departs from Reaganomics. His philosophy is best described as a work in progress. He is refreshingly blunt when he tells me: '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.'" (Stephen Moore, "Reform, Reform, Reform," OpinionJournal.com, 11/26/05)

#2: Opposed The Bush Tax Cuts In 2001:

- In 2001, Sen. McCain Was One Of Only Two Republicans To Vote Against The $1.35 Trillion Tax Cut. The bill lowered marginal rates, eliminated the marriage penalty, and doubled the child tax credit. (H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #170: Adopted 58-33: R 46-2; D 12-31; I 0-0, 5/26/01, McCain Voted Nay)

#3: Opposed The Bush Tax Cuts In 2003:

- In 2003, Sen. McCain Was One Of Only Three Republicans To Twice Vote Against The $350 Billion Tax Cut. The comprehensive bill lowered taxes by $350 billion over 11 years – including increasing the child tax credit and eliminated the marriage penalty. (H.R. 2, CQ Vote #179: Passed 51-49: R 48-3; D 3-45; I 0-1, 5/15/03, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #196: Adopted 50-50: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1, 5/23/03, McCain Voted Nay)

#4: Opposed Making The Bush Tax Cuts Permanent:

- In 2004, Sen. McCain Said He Would "Clearly" Not Support Extending The Tax Cuts. RUSSERT: "Since the Civil War, every president who has been at war has increased taxes. Should the president consider postponing his tax cut?" SEN. MCCAIN: "I would have – I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportionate amount that went to the wealthiest Americans. I would clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the deficit. But the middle-income tax credits, the families, the child tax credits, the marriage tax credits, all of those I would keep." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 4/11/04)

#5: Was Against The Bush Tax Cuts Before He Was For Them:

- Within The Span Of 15 Seconds, McCain Was For, Against, And For Tax Cuts. SEN. MCCAIN: "I've been involved in all of these issues, I know how to stop the irresponsible spending. I've always been for tax cuts, I have always...uh... although, I voted against the first tax cuts, but these tax cuts have to be made permanent..." (Fox News' "Fox & Friends," 1/24/08; http://www.youtube.com/)

#6: Still Says He Was Right To Vote Against The Bush Tax Cuts:

- Sen. McCain Still Believes He Was Right To Vote Against Numerous Republican Tax Cuts. RUSSERT: "Do you believe that voting against the Bush tax cuts was a mistake?" SEN. MCCAIN: "Of course not." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 1/6/08; http://www.youtube.com/)

#7: Used Democrat Class-Warfare Rhetoric To Attack The Bush Tax Cuts:

- Club For Growth President Pat Toomey: Sen. McCain's Statements Sounded Like Kennedy's And Kerry's "Class Warfare." "In 2001, Sen. McCain argued, 'I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief.' That statement is virtually indistinguishable from the class-warfare demagoguery used by Democrats like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry." (Pat Toomey, Op-Ed, "The McCain Record," The Wall Street Journal, 3/13/07)

#8: Included A Tax Increase In His 2000 Campaign Economic Plan:

- McCain Said His 2000 Tax Plan Would Have A Tax Increase. O'REILLY: "All right. So you want to target the – the middle-class people, and you're willing to live with the rich people paying the taxes they're – they're paying." SEN. MCCAIN: "Sure. And I don't want to take any money. In fact, the program that I have gives them a slight tax increase, but the question is what do you do with the surplus. Governor Bush puts it all in tax cuts. I want to give middle-class Americans a tax break, spend it on Social Security, Medicare, and paying down the debt." (Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor," 1/20/00; http://www.youtube.com/)

#9: Opposes Permanent Repeal Of The Death Tax:

- In 2002, Sen. McCain Was One Of Only Two Republicans To Twice Vote Against Permanent Repeal Of The Death Tax. (S. 1731, CQ Vote #28: Adopted 56-42: R 45-2; D 11-39; I 0-1, 2/13/02, McCain Voted Nay, H.R. 8, CQ Vote #151: Motion Rejected 54-44: R 45-2; D 9-41; I 0-1, 6/12/02, McCain Voted Nay)

#10: Joined Sen. Joe Lieberman To Propose Higher Energy Taxes On Consumers:

- McCain-Lieberman Would Dramatically Raise Taxes On All Carbon-Based Fuels, Like Gas For Your Car And Home Heating Oil. "What is not widely understood is that [Sen. McCain] is currently sponsoring legislation that, in the name of fighting global warming, would dramatically raise the tax on all carbon-based fuels, including gasoline, home heating oil, coal, and to a lesser extent, natural gas." (Roy Cordato, "McCain's Costly Tax On Energy," National Review, http://article.nationalreview.com/, Posted 1/10/08)

Florida Votes, We're Next!

Let the Sunshine!

Will be updating all day.

McCain: a Clinton impersonator

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/28/AR2008012802335.html

Relevant part:

This was a garden-variety dishonesty, the manufacture of which does not cause a Clinton in midseason form to break a sweat. And it was no worse than -- actually, not as gross as -- St. John of Arizona's crooked-talk claim in Florida that Mitt Romney wanted to "surrender and wave a white flag, like Senator Clinton wants to do" in Iraq because Romney "wanted to set a date for withdrawal that would have meant disaster."
Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, the Clintons should bask in the glow of John McCain's Clintonian gloss on this fact: Ten months ago, Romney said that President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki should discuss, privately, "a series of timetables and milestones." That unremarkable thought was twisted by McCain, whose distortions are notably clumsy, as when Romney said, accurately, that he alone among the candidates has had extensive experience in private-sector business.
That truth was subjected to McCain's sophistry, and he charged that Romney had said "you haven't had a real job" if you had a military career. If, this autumn, voters must choose between Clinton and McCain, they will face, at least stylistically, an echo, not a choice.
But that dreary scenario need not come to pass. Romney seems to have found his voice as attention turns to the economy, a subject concerning which McCain seems neither conversant nor eager to become so. And in South Carolina, Obama, more than doubling Clinton's 27 percent, won a majority of the votes, becoming the first person in either party to do so in a contested primary this year. He won a majority of men and of women, which pretty much covers the rainbow of genders. And he used his victory speech to clearly associate the Clintons with "the idea that it's acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election" (hello again, Bill, you political ethicist who famously said "you gotta do what you gotta do") and "the kind of partisanship where you're not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea -- even if it's one you never agreed with."
Obama is running against two Clintons -- or one and a fraction of one, given how much she has been diminished by her overbearing spouse. Romney is marginally better off running against a Clinton impersonator.

Trust

I've been trying to get down a series of posts that address the most common attacks on Mitt (flip-flopper, chameleon, can't be trusted, etc.).  These charges have not only been the biggest drag on Mitt's campaign, they seem to have become the a priori assumption whenever anyone talks about Mitt.  "Yeah, he's a flip-flopper, but he's still..."  This DRIVES ME INSANE.

So, pardon my not holding a candle to the other excellent writers who blog for Romney, but I've tried to make a few posts that people can easily point at when these charges are made.  It may be good if someone with a little more expertise and better familiarity with primary sources could do something similar.  I know Romney's campaign makes it a rule to ignore these charges because you don't want to let others define you, but I sense we're past that.  They've defined him, and there needs to be a more aggressive response.  What do you think?

Here's my post from today:

Have a look at the earlier posts in this series: 1, 2, 3, 4.

This post is about lies, damn lies, and statistics. It's about rhetoric, spin, and semantics. It's about the differences between saying something untrue, conveying something untrue, and plain old lying. It's about intentions, accusations, and hypocrisy.

The game of politics centers around "campaigning." This is just how it is. It's how it's always been. Some take issue with the process of touting your pluses and minimizing your minuses, but it's within the expected rules of the game. However, occasionally someone says something untrue. This can be anything from a genuine mistake to a boldfaced lie, but I suspect that it's usually less diabolical than people tend to play it.

Let me give you a list of some of the issues where Romney has gotten a lot of bad press. Most recently there was a tiff with an AP reporter in which Romney is said to have lied about having lobbyists in his campaign. There is the time Romney said he saw his father march with Martin Luther King Jr. There is the time Romney bragged about the NRA endorsing him (and don't forget his self-characterization as a "lifelong hunter"!). All of these have something in common: Romney was right to bring up his record, a record that supports his candidacy and his positions, but lost the chance to receive his due credit on the issues as the chattering focused more and more on a literal dissection of what he said rather than the substance of why he was saying it.

I could go down a laundry list of the times Romney's been blasted for misspeaking (often being labeled a liar rather than merely having made a mistake), but bickering about the actual words he used and their literal versus figurative definitions, the proper versus common use of words like endorse, and the like, will never arrive at the truth.

The truth is much simpler.

No matter how many lobbyists rub shoulders with Romney, his campaign is simply not dependent on them for cash or expertise in the way the other campaigns are (although both are accepted). Romney's family has long supported the civil rights movement. Romney had demonstrable approval from the NRA (whether officially or not) during his Massachusetts campaign and supports the importance of protecting the second amendment.

Is he guilty of exaggeration? Is he guilty of misstatements? Is he guilty of carelessness? Perhaps yes. But is he guilty of lying? Of outright deception? Of claiming to hold one position when he effectively holds another? No, despite that the media would much rather malign a candidate for his errors than honestly acknowledge that his record and positions have consistently supported the message he was trying to deliver.

This is not spin. This is not apologetics. This is just an assessment of the actual positions Romney holds, and his fallibility as a candidate who makes honest mistakes. The mistakes are honest because they have never changed his message one hundred and eighty degrees.

There is one more layer to this communication thing that demands mention. Romney has been criticized over the last few days by McCain for supposedly supporting a timetable of withdrawal from Iraq. McCain has also attacked him for supposedly supporting amnesty before he opposed it, as well as a big Michigan "bailout". Romney's positions on these issues differ from McCain's not just in substance but in style. Romney's message is always sophisticated and nuanced, as our Commander in Chief's understanding must be. McCain's message plays to the media with dogmatic oversimplification. It fits him well, because that's how he thinks. So, when Romney has had the courage to make careful distinctions, he has sometimes been attacked for "reversals" or for spinning things. Again, Romney's message has consistently been for responsible action by the U.S. in Iraq and in regard to illegal immigration, and no out-of-context testimonial by McCain can change that. The economic stimulus in Michigan is not a "bailout", but rather shows McCain's inability to understand the concept of research investment. Romney hardly needs a testimonial to his investment understanding.

At the end of the character assassination and name calling, Romney's key rebuttal to Huckabee's charges of dishonesty in a recent debate ring true: "facts are stubborn things." The truth is that in every case Romney has been accused of lying, the message he was intending to convey was based on the bedrock of record and fact.

Illinois Comes Into Play

Romney Comes to Chicago This Sat. 2/2

It's the economy...

Today, Governor Mitt Romney addressed members of the media about Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) McCain-Lieberman bill and the economic burdens this bill would put on Florida families.  Below are Governor Romney's remarks as delivered:
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/McCain-Lieberman_1.28
"On a very different topic, we're at a gas station.  And the reason for that is that I want to underscore the fact that Senator McCain's McCain-Lieberman would be a very expensive bill for the people of Florida.  By our calculation, a family of four would have to spend about an extra $1,000 a year if McCain-Lieberman became law.  And again that's because gasoline would rise in price by approximately .50 cents a gallon and natural gas would rise about 20 percent.  The burden on Florida homeowners would obviously be excessive.
"And what's particularly troubling about the bill is that the effect on the global environment would be negligible, and that's because the bill does not require other nations to participate in order for the regulation to be promulgated.  And the effect of that would be that high emitting industries would simply move from a country like ours that had these limits to a country like China that did not.  And the net effect would be that emissions had just moved from one country to another and also jobs had moved from one country to another.  And what is left behind in our country would be the burden of paying for the entire cost of this symbolic act.
"There's no question that symbols have value.  But a symbol that costs a family of four $1,000 in Florida is a symbol far too rich and is not something which makes common sense. 
"I would note that Senator McCain is noted for three major pieces of legislation.  I think all of them were badly flawed.  And if somebody wants to know where he would lead the country you simply need to look at the three pieces of legislation with his name at the top.  McCain-Feingold has not reduced the impact of money in politics, it has made it worse.  McCain-Kennedy is viewed by virtually all as an amnesty bill. And McCain-Lieberman would cost the families of America as much as $1,000 a piece.  All three are bills which evidence a lack of understanding of our economy, the very lack of understanding which Senator McCain has admitted on numerous occasions."

From Sean

I disagree with Senator McCain's dishonest characterization of Governor Romney's previous comments regarding Iraq and future plans.  It is too easy, and transparently cynical, to twist and distort someone's words or record.

I should note that Senator McCain himself has not always been wholly committed to keeping American troops in the field under combat conditions.  Although under differing circumstances, note his clear, public record comments below on Haiti and Somalia:

1994 — "The right course of action is to make preparations as quickly as possible to bring our people home. It does not mean as soon as order is restored to Haiti, it doesn't mean as soon as Democracy is flourishing in Haiti, it doesn't mean as soon as we've established a viable nation in Haiti, as soon as possible means as soon as we can get out of Haiti without losing any American lives."

1993 — "Date certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What's the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we don't do that, and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured, because we stayed too long, longer than necessary, then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home as quickly and safely as possible."

"Mr. President, can anyone seriously argue that another 6 months of United States forces in harm's way means the difference between peace and prosperity in Somalia and war and starvation there? Is that very dim prospect worth one more American life? No, it is not." -John McCain Senate Floor, 10/14/93

"There is no reason for the United States of America to remain in Somalia. The American people want them home, I believe the majority of Congress wants them home, and to set an artificial date of March 31 or even February 1, in my view, is not acceptable. The criteria should be to bring them home as rapidly and safely as possible, an evolution which I think could be completed in a matter of weeks.
Our continued military presence in Somalia allows another situation to arise which could then lead to the wounding, killing or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that.
I listened carefully to the President's remarks at a news conference that he held earlier today. I heard nothing in his discussion of the issue that would persuade me that further U.S. military involvement in the area is necessary. In fact, his remarks have persuaded me more profoundly that we should leave and leave soon.
Dates certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What is the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we do not do that and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured because we stay too long--longer than necessary--then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home quickly and safely as possible. . . .
I know that this debate is going to go on this afternoon and I have a lot more to say, but the argument that somehow the United States would suffer a loss to our prestige and our viability, as far as the No. 1 superpower in the world, I think is baloney. The fact is, we won the cold war. The fact is, we won the Persian Gulf conflict. And the fact is that the United States is still the only major world superpower.
I can tell you what will erode our prestige. I can tell you what will hurt our viability as the world's superpower, and that is if we enmesh ourselves in a drawn-out situation which entails the loss of American lives, more debacles like the one we saw with the failed mission to capture Aideed's lieutenants, using American forces, and that then will be what hurts our prestige.
We suffered a terrible tragedy in Beirut, Mr. President; 240 young marines lost their lives, but we got out. Now is the time for us to get out of Somalia as rapidly and as promptly and as safely as possible.
I, along with many others, will have an amendment that says exactly that. It does not give any date certain. It does not say anything about any other missions that the United States may need or feels it needs to carry out. It will say that we should get out as rapidly and orderly as possible."
-John McCain Senate Floor, 10/19/93

I will only suggest that perhaps Senator McCain needs to be careful about how he portrays others, as his own words could be subject to distortion also.

May we now focus on the great issues that lie before us?

McCain's Conversation Changer: A Misleading Low Blow

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/mccains_conversation_changer_a.html

POSTED BY: MICHAEL SCHERER

TIME/CNN

Kudos to Time/CNN on a fine article that calls out "Open Borders" McCain on his shabby and transparent attempt to change the national political conversation back to national security, his only area of strength, from the economy, where Mitt Romney has been kicking his a**!

That this despicable little man would use the men and women in our military, in harm's way, as political pawns, to keep his limping campaign alive for another week or so, by trying to change the subject back to the war in Iraq, is an indication of moral bankruptcy. Anyone this desperate for political power is potentially dangerous, because it tells me that he will "push the envelope" ethically to achieve his ends.

Nice try, Mr. McCain, but it's not going to work.

I must admit I am surprised that a member-in-good-standing of the MSM would nail McCain as TIME/CNN just did, but I guess we should be grateful that they didn't carry McCain's water on this one and very admirably stepped up to the plate and hit it out of the park.

Someone said just recently that politics is a "blood sport," but McCain has crossed a bright line on this one. No wonder that Bill Clinton said that McCain and his wife "are very close." Their tactics are remarkably similar. Just one more reason to hope the good citizens of Florida do their part to hasten this man's political departure.

McCain

Given that McCain is now attacking Romney over Romney's support of private benchmarks or timetables, this article is good to read:

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/byauthor/166271

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the most stalwart supporters of the war in Iraq, said Thursday that he might propose that the Iraqi government meet certain benchmarks for the United States to continue its engagement.

Asked what penalty would be imposed if Iraq failed to meet his benchmarks, he said: "I think everybody knows the consequences. Haven't met the benchmarks? Obviously, then, we're not able to complete the mission. Then you have to examine your options."

Not only is McCain's characterizations of Romney's position dishonest, it's hypocritical.  If you haven't read it, Matthew Miller has a great post on the topic of why Romney's private benchmarks are good policy for measuring progress and success.

http://race42008.com/2008/01/26/john-mccains-rumsfeld-moment/

McCain's stunningly false statement

Today, Senator McCain made a stunningly false statement about Governor Romney's strong position of achieving success in Iraq.
 
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5if5DTLHOkjV981GiHLtXNtHOaTDgD8UDNU8O0
 
This statement is especially egregious because Senator McCain knows in his heart that he is engaging in a blatant distortion towards a fellow Republican who is also committed to helping the men and women of our military achieve a successful result in Iraq.
 
This is, unfortunately, just the McCain way.  The senator from Arizona is using a tactic of misleading people about a fellow Republican in way that is cheap and desperate.  Below is information on Governor Romney's record on achieving success in Iraq:
 
GOVERNOR ROMNEY ON ACHIEVING SUCCESS IN IRAQ
 
Governor Romney Criticized Withdrawal Timetables And Instead Talked About Setting Metrics To Measure Progress:
 
Governor Romney:  "You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police and the leadership of the Iraqi government."  (ABC's "Good Morning America," 4/3/07)
 
Governor Romney:  "Could you imagine the setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, 'Gee, if we haven't reached the Rhine by this date why we'll go home,' or if we haven't gotten this accomplished we'll pull up and leave?"  (ABC's "Good Morning America," 4/3/07)
 
Governor Romney Has Warned About Bringing American Troops Home Too Quickly:
 
Governor Romney:  "Well, there's no question we all want to see our troops home as soon as we can possibly have them home.  But we have to recognize that if we bring them home too quickly or in a way which leads to a collapse of the country or perhaps the Iranians grabbing the Shia south or Al-Qaeda playing a dominating role among the Sunnis or a Kurdish population destabilizing the border with Turkey, you could then end up with a regional conflict which would cause Americans to somehow have to get involved again – this time at a much more ugly situation with more casualties."  ("Laura Ingraham Show," 3/9/07)
 
Governor Romney: "I Don't Think We Should Run Our Foreign Policy Based Upon Elections, Election Schedules Or Anything Of That Nature." "But Mr. Romney said he did not agree with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the New York Democrat, that President Bush needed to resolve the war he started before he left office and not hand it off to his successor, as she said while campaigning in Iowa on Sunday.  'She can do what she likes – but I take exception to her conclusions,'" Mr. Romney said in an interview while campaigning across this state today.  'I don't think we should run our foreign policy based upon elections, election schedules or anything of that nature.'" (Adam Nagourney, "Romney: Clinton's Wrong About Bush," The New York Times, 1/29/07)
 
Governor Romney Has Consistently Said There Must Be "Clear Objectives And Milestones":
 
Governor Romney Said There Must Be "Clear Objectives And Milestones" In Iraq.  "This effort should be combined with clear objectives and milestones for U.S. and Iraqi leaders."  (Romney For President, "Governor Mitt Romney On Iraq," Press Release, 1/10/07)
 
President Bush Has Himself Talked About The Importance Of Setting Benchmarks In Iraq:
 
President Bush:  "Iraq's Leaders Must Continue To Work To Meet The Benchmarks That Have [Been] Set Forward."  "As we help the Iraqis secure their capital, their leaders are also beginning to meet the benchmarks they have laid out for political reconciliation. … There's been good progress. There's a lot more work to be done, and Iraq's leaders must continue to work to meet the benchmarks that have set forward."  (President George W. Bush, Remarks On The Fourth Anniversary Of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Washington, D.C. 3/19/07)
 
President Bush "Pleased" Iraqi Government "Meeting Benchmarks."  "I was pleased that he's meeting benchmarks that he had set out for his government. One of the benchmarks was to move Iraqi troops into the city of Baghdad – troops that will be complemented by our own troops. He is meeting those obligations. A second such benchmark is that he would change the rules of engagement so that criminals, regardless of their religion, would be brought to justice in equal fashion. He is meeting that benchmark. Thirdly, he passed a budget of which $10 billion is available for reconstruction. He said he would do that; the budget has been passed, he has met that benchmark."  (President George W. Bush, Remarks Meeting With Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Ambassador-Designee To Iraq, Washington D.C., 2/16/07)

more McCain

Trying to defend against his own admission of economic ignorance,
Senator McCain is now saying that he wouldn't need a Vice President
with economic experience. However, in November, he was saying the
exact opposite. Yet another straight talk detour.

McCain Said That Because Of His Experience On The Senate Commerce
Committee, He Wouldn't Need A Vice President With Economic Experience.
"Noting that he also later ran the Senate Commerce Committee, Mr.
McCain said in the interview that he would feel no need to select a
vice president with expertise in economic policy to balance his own
foreign-policy experience." (David Leonhardt, "Fiscal Mantra For
McCain: Less Is More," www.nytimes.com, The New York Times, 1/26/08)

However, In November, McCain Said He Would Choose A Vice-President Who
Understands Economics Because He Doesn't. "On at least one occasion,
McCain has raised the matter himself. On Nov. 10, while traveling
through New Hampshire on his Straight Talk Express bus, McCain was
asked what he would seek in a vice presidential candidate if
nominated. After mentioning the ability of a potential running mate to
replace the president, McCain said, 'You also look for people who
maybe have talents you don't, or experience or knowledge you don't, as
well.' 'What are those qualities that you don't - that you wouldn't
mind complementing?' asked David Brooks, a columnist for The New York
Times. McCain paused. 'Uh, maybe I shouldn't say this, but, somebody
who's really well grounded in economics,' he said." (Sasha Issenberg,
"McCain Tested On Economy," The Boston Globe, www.boston.com, 1/26/08)

Romney transplants Thompson's braintrust

CHICAGO TRIBUNE's THE SWAMP
by James Oliphant
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/romney_transplants_thompsons_b.html#more
 
A far as legal-brained firepower goes, the chief beneficiary of Fred Thompson's decision to pull out of the presidential race is Mitt Romney.
The Romney campaign Thursday announced that a host of conservative lawyers and scholars who were backing Thompson have joined the Romney camp.
Among them is Victoria Toensing, who made her mark as an anti-terrorism policy-maker at the Justice Department during the Reagan administration. Toensing is joined by her husband (and fellow regular on the cable news circuit) Joseph diGenova, the former U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C.
To date, Romney's conservative legal cabal has been notable for the presence of Catholic scholars such as Douglas Kmiec, the former dean of Catholic University and another Justice Department lawyer under Reagan, ostensibly because of the candidate's anti-abortion position.
The Thompson diaspora diversifies his advisory group a bit, bringing along Justice Department officials who recently served in the George W. Bush administration, including Viet Dinh, a leading architect of anti-terrorism department policy under John Ashcroft who is now a professor at Georgetown University, and Rachel Brand and Noel Francisco, two more former high-level policymakers.
Also notable is Eugene Scalia, a former top lawyer at the Labor Department and son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
Romney's committee can go toe-to-toe with Rudy Giuliani's legal advisory group, which also consists of a variety of former high-level Justice Department officials and conservative scholars. The two candidates seem to have staked out most of this particular field between them.
Such committees are instructive, not only to shine a light on the particular views held by the candidate, but also in terms of how he is likely to govern should he win election. The lawyers and advisers involved are likely to be involved in transition teams that would supervise hiring at key positions across the executive branch. And many of them could end up in high-level policymaking roles themselves.

"He destroyed it"

Article published Jan 24, 2008
Huckabee alienates GOP in Arkansas

January 24, 2008

By Stephen Dinan - LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Jake Files was a newly elected representative when all two dozen Arkansas House Republicans met for their first caucus in 1999. They had doubled their numbers in elections two months earlier, and were ready to join Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee in pushing for conservative government.

That was when Brenda Turner, the governor's chief of staff, entered.

"Just walked in, shut the door and said, 'There's two kinds of people in the world: those who are for Mike Huckabee and those who are against Mike Huckabee. I'll do everything I can to help the first group. I'll do everything I can to hurt the second,' " said Mr. Files, who left the legislature after two terms.

And that's the way it was.

"Not only would he not help you, he would go out of his way to do things in opposition to you," Mr. Files said.

For the 10 years he was governor of Arkansas, Mr. Huckabee was at war with much of his party.

Now that Mr. Huckabee is seeking the presidential nomination, many Arkansas Republicans warn that he could wage a bruising battle with the national party, too.

"One can hardly argue that the Republican Party has thrived," said former Rep. Jim Hendren, who was House minority leader and ran for state party chairman in a bitter 2001 race won by a Huckabee surrogate. "We thrived as we were an opposition party and standing on principles as the Republican Party. But unfortunately, when we got some power, particularly at the state level, we began to fight among ourselves."

The former Southern Baptist pastor-turned-politician took control of the governor's mansion in 1996 with expectations that he would lead the kind of Republican ascension in other states of the Deep South. But he left office last year by turning over the governorship to a Democrat and with Republicans bitterly divided over his legacy for his party.

"He destroyed it," said Randy Minton, a former state representative whom Mr. Huckabee worked to help get elected but who later clashed repeatedly with the governor. "We had one U.S. senator, we had two congressmen, at the tops we had 37 out of 135 legislators in the House and Senate. Now I think there's 32 in the legislature, we have no U.S. senators and we have one congressman."

In both on-the-record and private conversations with Republicans in Arkansas, the picture that emerges is a governor who succeeded at advancing his causes and was willing to fight anyone who didn't agree.

That matters because the next Republican presidential nominee will be tasked with trying to rebuild a congressional majority and stoke a Republican Party after eight volatile years under President Bush.

Like Mr. Bush, Mr. Huckabee achieved some early successes. By the beginning of 1999, when he was sworn in for his first full term, his party had gained nearly a quarter of the state's House, added state Senate seats and held the lieutenant governorship, one of the two U.S. Senate seats and half of the four congressional seats.

But also like Mr. Bush, who battled congressional Republicans on immigration reform and prescription drug coverage, Mr. Huckabee found himself fighting members of his own party.

'Shi'ites,' 'socialists'

Almost immediately after taking office from Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, a Democrat who resigned after federal fraud and corruption convictions, Mr. Huckabee campaigned for his first tax increase — one-eighth cent on the sales tax to dedicate to conservation projects. He followed up with both budget cuts and increases, but the net effect was nearly $500 million in new taxes and an accompanying rise in spending.

What followed were clashes over the growth of government and, as the issue heated up nationally, over immigration policy. Republicans and conservative Democrats wanted a crackdown on illegal aliens, but Mr. Huckabee resisted.

The war of words was just as harsh. In 1998, when he faced a primary challenger who said Mr. Huckabee lacked certain conservative principles, the governor replied that his opponents weren't really Republicans, but rather libertarians or independents.

By the end of his tenure, Mr. Huckabee was calling his Republican opponents the "Shi'ites" and they called him a "Christian socialist."

Arkansas Republicans said Mr. Huckabee was building an organization for himself, not a farm team for the party. He left many appointments of former Govs. Bill Clinton and Jim Guy Tucker in office, including some department heads who stayed through Mr. Huckabee's tenure.

They said no Republicans hold any of the statewide constitutional offices, and the state party chairman told the Associated Press last week that he doesn't expect to field a candidate this year to run against Sen. Mark Pryor, a Democrat.

"In the 10 years where the governor was the title head of the party, we actually took steps backwards," Mr. Files said, noting that Republicans were advancing in other Southern states. "The overall morale of the party did not take any of those same stages it did in the other states. It started plateauing and took a dive."

On the campaign trail

The campaign finance records for Conservative Leadership for Arkansas PAC, Mr. Huckabee's political action committee, also seem to bear out the charge that he was building his own organization.

Records kept with the secretary of state in Little Rock show that CLAPAC spent only a third of its money on candidates between 2001 and 2006, with the rest going to consulting, accounting and, in later years, travel and fundraising for Mr. Huckabee.

Mr. Huckabee gave contributions as well during those years to at least three Democrats. Given that $5,000 of CLAPAC's money came in a 2003 donation from the state Republican Party, that means some Republican money was used indirectly to aid the party's own opponents.

"Go out and ask those ladies at bake sales or out raising money if they thought that money would end up in the hands of Democratic candidates," Mr. Hendren said. "That's what drove us up a wall."

One Democrat who received CLAPAC money was Barbara Horn. Mr. Huckabee supported her even though a Republican planned to run for the same seat in 2000. The Associated Press reported that Mr. Huckabee's support for the Democrat chased the Republican from the race, delivering an open seat to the Democratic Party.

State Republicans repeatedly called that race demoralizing.

Mr. Huckabee's campaign denied charges from a host of Republicans that he aided Democrats over Republicans in other races.

"Governor Huckabee never gave money to a Democrat who had a Republican opponent," Mr. Harris said. "He did give to some conservative Democrats money in the primaries when there were no Republicans running in the general election."

Records for CLAPAC's activity in 2000 are missing from the secretary of state's office. The accounting firm Mr. Huckabee used said it couldn't provide records without the client's approval, and Mr. Huckabee's campaign didn't respond to requests to produce them.

In 2005, Mr. Huckabee registered another political action committee in Virginia, which has less stringent limits on campaign activity.

The stated goal of that PAC, Hope for America, was to aid state and local candidates nationwide. But records show it hasn't donated to a single candidate but instead has paid for Mr. Huckabee's consultants, travel and fundraising.

Mitt's the Conservative Choice

UDPATE: New St. Petersberg Times poll, McCain leads Romney only slightly. RCP average dead heat.

Leftie social concerns from San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders, (via RCP) who claims Mitt Romney is not the real conservative choice. Well, there should be some understanding in California of what it's like to be a conservative in a Blue State, so given Mitt ran and won in a Blue State he needed moderate support. And if Massachusetts had stayed fairly moderate on social positions, perhaps he would have stayed on the sidelines. But the Left pushed, and thank goodness he pushed back--on the Left's attack on adoptions by Catholic groups back in March, 2007:

The Republican governor recently filed a bill that would allow a Catholic social service agency to deny adoptions to gay couples.

AP's language is harsh. Rather, the proposed law would allow the church to continue to serve children in need of adoption. And they can continue to refer gay couples to other agencies. Massachusetts law conflicts with church teachings on this issue, and church leaders had sought an exemption so they could continue to serve special needs children. Romney is seeking a narrowly drawn law to allow the church a freedom of conscience exemption.

A review of the issue of the Left forcing gay marriage. Boston Globe, Feb. 3, 2005:

After the Log Cabin group, the state Democratic Party chairman, and another gay rights group criticized him, Romney insisted that he had not changed positions. Clearly angry, he said that same-sex marriage advocates were rewriting his positions on civil unions, same-sex marriage, and his support of the proposed constitutional amendment.

"I am only supporting civil unions if gay marriage is the alternative," Romney said in an interview in his office. "I've made it clear as humanly possible."

A review of Romney's remarks shows that at an October 2002 campaign debate, he said: "Call me old fashioned, but I don't support gay marriage nor do I support civil union." Then, after the SJC decision legalizing same-sex marriage, he told WCVB on Dec. 17, 2003, that if he had to choose, he would favor civil unions over full-fledged gay marriage. However, he added: "But that is not my preference overall. My preference overall would be neither civil union or marriage."

And the Left in Massachusetts pushed for government funding of embryonic stem cell research, which Gov. Romney opposed-- we now learn killing fledgling human beings for research was not necessary.

And apparently living in a Blue State keeps some from recognizing a big government advocate when they see one--other than porkbusting, McCain advocates big government solutions across the board--global warming mandates and associated taxes, goes after pharmaceutical companies--buying into the Dems' demonizing those who create jobs andspend millions on research to find miracle drugs. Then there's McCain-Feingold, which muzzles free speech and made a mockery of his pro-life stance. He claimed he was going after the "special interest groups" but he was really giving (his allies) the MSM a free pass to say whatever they want before elections and stomping on the little guy.

Romney breaks down his economic package into two parts, one of which compares to the president's. View Mitt on FoxNews Sunday. He has permanent in many more places, as Joe says in this CNBC clip:

And I would end with this (added to YouTube last June) from Cramer, I believe a Democrat: Striking Chris Matthews inarticulate. It's a beautiful thing.

Final insight from Amy D. Goldstein, the American Thinker on why the other candidates hate Romney. Think about that. (Envy--such a Democrat way of thinking.)

UPDATE: McCain misstep on video--refers to Putin as German president. (Dissing Angela.) (Apparently the Russians won the Cold War in Germany.)

UPDATE: Bonus--in case you missed this video: Prank call from "Governor Schwarzenegger"

Previous post: New Righties on the "Left Coast" poll, Mitt on the Stump in Florida, GOP Illinois: Focus on the Race, Romney: Road-Tested, Joe Unloads: MSM Bias Against Mitt, In Search of Sunshine

--crossposted at BackyardConservative

January 23, 2008

Why they Hate Mitt Romney

By Amy D. Goldstein

Have you noticed how all of the Republican candidates can barely conceal their contempt for Governor Mitt Romney? It goes way beyond the typical good-natured competition that usually is the hallmark of Republican contests. Senator McCain has snarled at Governor Romney in debates and Gov. Huckabee has tried to paint Romney as cold and uncaring, while Sen. Fred Thompson attacked Governor Romney right out of the box. This display of hatred usually is the hallmark of the Democrats.

So, why do the other candidates hate Mitt Romney? Several reasons:

• 1. He can win. Governor Romney appeals to economic conservatives and could appeal to foreign policy conservatives based upon his understanding of the issues. Most non-partisan foreign policy wonks who have briefed the major candidates tell me that Romney "gets it" better than any other candidate -- even better than those who have held high profile office for decades. Moreover, he is the candidate that the Democrats most fear.

• 2. Jealousy -- from his hair to his appearance to his family to his money - these are all reasons for deep-seated, if unseemly, jealousy. This green-eyed monster makes its appearance in almost every speech or presentation, in the form of a joke, a jab or a veiled reference.

• 3. He isn't beholden to interest groups. Governor Romney's wealth frees him from any influence that interest groups could apply to others - especially those who lack funds or who are Washington insiders. He doesn't need them, and that scares the interest groups and their allies. He is not of the game and wants to change it - and his personal wealth allows him to do so. He really can change Washington.

• 4. His brains - not only is he one of the smartest people ever to seek the presidency (having earned a Harvard MBA and JD simultaneously), but he understands the complexities of the issues that America faces and is able to devise workable solutions. Just look at his proposal for an economic stimulus and compare it to what the other candidates are proposing. Romney clearly can lead this country through economic challenges.

• 5. His wealth -- again. While he has raised more than any other candidate, Governor Romney doesn't need to raise the money in order to continue. Nevertheless, he understands that successful candidates must have people invested in their candidacy in order to succeed. He has learned the lessons of past wealthy businessmen who make vanity runs for the White House. The other candidates have to constantly raise money in order to continue their campaigns.

• 6. His experience. The rest of the Republican field has been in politics in one form or another for most of their adult lives. Governor Romney came to public service after having a successful career in which he directly created jobs, saved jobs, invested in new companies and turned around failed businesses. He even fixed both the Olympics and the failing state of Massachusetts. More than any other candidate, Governor Romney's experience is most directly applicable to the average American's situation.

• 7. He believes that America's best days are ahead of it, and not a memory. Governor Romney is a man of the future, not of the past. He sees America as a beacon of freedom for the entire world, and not a country limping toward its last days. His infectious optimism is informed by his business experience, his love of country and his family values. His can-do spirit is the antidote to defeatism masked as "straight talk" or "reality."

• 8. His beliefs. When all else fails, Governor Romney's opponents attack his religion in the hopes of sowing fear and loathing. Not only is this unseemly, but it is dangerous. We have seen this type of rhetoric before - in the 1920's and 1930's - from the likes of Henry Ford and Father Caughlin and others who sought to disenfranchise whole segments of the American population. Governor Romney believes in the common American faith of democracy and religious freedom, as he so eloquently stated in his speech "Faith in America." These are the values our Founding Fathers codified in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Why do the Republican candidates hate him? Because they don't have any answers to his challenges. They seek to undermine him by using personal attacks more worthy of a middle school playground than a presidential contest. This is politics and Washington as usual, and choosing any candidate that employs these tactics will only get us more of the same. One would hope that Americans could see beyond these base attacks and choose the candidate who is best for the country - Governor Mitt Romney.

Amy D. Goldstein is an occasional contributor to American Thinker.