Elections Blog

While Mike works on his math, I think I’ll bring up the issue of the fate of judges in the Democrat Senate.

There were two big issues decided on Election Day. In the House, the Democrat majority ensures a weak immigration policy. In the Senate, it means we will have a much more difficult job getting good conservative judges through.

Last term the Democrats’ weapon of choice against good judges (beyond calling them all racist) was the filibuster. Just when the Senate was about to get rid of that Constitutionally suspect institution, the “Gang of 14″, led by Sen. McCain swooped in and saved the Democrats’ ability to obstruct because they threatened to shut down the Senate (no word on what keeping the Senate running accomplished). No further overt filibusters were made, but, with the tacit approval of Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham, Democrats were able to mount silent filibusters against several worthy candidates.

Unfortunately, with the Democrats in charge they have a more accepted form of obstruction available to them in the Judiciary Committee. Any judge they don’t like, they can vote down, or, even worse, just not bother to hold hearings. Even getting a nominee to the floor will be difficult now even though there would still be over 50 votes for any qualified candidate.

In steps our new Minority Leader Sen. McConnell who said recently:

If the “Democrats want our cooperation, they’ll give the president’s judicial nominees an up-or-down vote.

Hardball it is then. It seems that Sen. McConnell is willing to throw Democrats’ willingness to through a hissy fit right back at them. He’s passed his first test on how to be an effective minority leader. Good for him.

I doubt he’ll do this for any of the various lower court nominations, but it is something to keep in mind for the possible upcoming retirement of Justice Stevens or Justice Souter. Also it’s iffy whether President Bush will nominate a strong conservative. The experience with Harriet Miers and his penchant for identity politics (most recently seen in the elevation of the unimpressive Sen. Martinez to lead the RNC) already made him unreliable. With the desire to get along with Democrats a higher priority, the odds of a “consensus nominee” that will only find phantom rights in three out of four cases goes up.

The fight goes beyond the current term. With only 12 Democrat incumbents up for election next year, the pickings in the Senate in 2008 will be slim for Republicans even if Gov. Romney has long coat-tails. Keep an eye on this, it’s a battle that we’ve made progress on with the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, but we still have a long bloody fight ahead of us before the judiciary resumes its proper place within the government.

~~~Thomas

[Read more →]

Remember on election night when I warned that the Republicans in Washington would still not get the message? Well, we’ve had a series of intra-party elections and, even though it hasn’t been as fun to watch as Pelosi’s gaffe, the results are telling.

In the House we have little change. Speaker Hastert is gone, but he never really led his party in the traditional sense. Boehner retains his leadership position as does Blunt. Boehner gets a bit of a pass since he has only held his position for less than a year. However, it should be noted that under his leadership and with the electorate closing in, Republicans did little more than pass some lip-service legislation. That no one could be found to replace Blunt (who is not on best terms with Boehner to begin with) does not fill me with a sense of hope.

In the Senate we managed to do even worse. After losing two of our top three members the GOP decided to do a retread and make Trent Lott the #2 man. Granted his ousting in 2002 for saying nice things about an old man was unfortunate, but he should have known better than to endorse a campaign whose central platform was segragation. His gaffe and ressurection are two sides of the same problem, the Republicans see the Senate as a place where everyone should be chummy instead of a serious body of legislation. The Democrats understand the significance of the chamber and that’s why they were so dominate last term despite a ten vote deficit.

Change for the sake of change is not always the best policy. It should also be noted that these are mostly fine men. I have hopes that Sen. McConnell will be a strong leader in the Senate. Few are as good as Rep. Boehner on the subject of earmarks. Even Sen. Lott is likely to apply principles over loyalty to the White House thanks to his experiences four years ago. However, we did just lose and there are many lessons we should be learning from our past mistakes. As expected, those already in Washington will be the last to take these lessons to heart. This is nothing new.

Because of this stagnation, running against the powers in Washington, including the GOP in Congress, will be one of the central fronts of the 2008 primaries in these early stages. As of right now Newt Gingrich is gaining the most from this. As long as the rallying cry amongst the base is the desire to recapture the spirit of ‘94, he will be in his element, making him a more formitable foe on the right wing of the party than we was just a few weeks ago.

Gov. Romney will need to hone his message as to why he’s the best person to renew the GOP. With his success in balancing the budget in Mass. he already has a solid jumping off point.

~~~Thomas

[Read more →]

“O’REILLY: Would you build a wall between Mexico and the United States and would you put the National Guard on the border?

ROMNEY: Absolutely. We’d put the National Guard there because we don’t have the wall yet. You have to have a wall or a fence or electronic surveillance. And you have to have a tamper-proof document to make sure that people who are here are aliens are identified and registered, and people can not hire them unless they’re here legally.”

Copied from BILLOReilly.com.
“Immigration has been an important part of our nation’s success. The current system, however, puts up a concrete wall to the best and brightest, yet those without skill or education are able to walk across the border. We must reform the current immigration laws so we can secure our borders, implement a mandatory biometrically enabled, tamper proof documentation and employment verification system, and increase legal immigration into America.”

Copied from Mitt Romney’s Commonwealth PAC.

He said the federal government should issue a biometric employment card to every noncitizen in the country, deport criminals who are illegal residents, and give welfare and Medicaid timetables for noncitizens to get off those programs or face deportation. And for those law-abiding, tax-paying illegal immigrants who have been here for years, he wants to see them go to the back of the line to apply for legal status.

“We have to secure our borders and have a policy we can control,” he said.

Copied from The Business Journal.

Kevin Davis Jr.

Technorati Tags: Mitt Romney, 2008, Presidential Election, Illegal Immigration.

[Read more →]

June 4, 2006 6:58 PM

The Importance of Protecting Marriage
Romney encourages the Senate on FMA.

An NRO Primary Document

Editor’s Note: Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has sent the following letter to United States senators on Friday in anticipation of this week’s vote in the Senate on a Federal Marriage Amendment.

Dear Senator,

Next week, you will vote on a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution protecting the institution of marriage. As Governor of the state most directly affected by this amendment, I hope my perspectives will encourage you to vote “yes.”

Americans are tolerant, generous, and kind people. We all oppose bigotry and disparagement, and we all wish to avoid hurtful disregard of the feelings of others. But the debate over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It is a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage.

Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights. In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation.

Our society, like all known civilizations in recorded history, has favored the union of a man and a woman with the special designation and benefits of marriage. In this respect, it has elevated the relationship of a legally bound man and woman over other relationships. This recognizes that the ideal setting for nurturing and developing children is a home where there is a mother and a father.

In order to protect the institution of marriage, we must prevent it from being redefined by judges like those here in Massachusetts who think that marriage is an “evolving paradigm,” and that the traditional definition is “rooted in persistent prejudices” and amounts to “invidious discrimination.”

Although the full impact of same-sex marriage may not be measured for decades or generations, we are beginning to see the effects of the new legal logic in Massachusetts just two years into our state’s social experiment. For instance, our birth certificate is being challenged: same-sex couples want the terms “Mother” and “Father” replaced with “Parent A” and “Parent B.”

In our schools, children are being instructed that there is no difference between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage. Recently, parents of a second grader in one public school complained when they were not notified that their son’s teacher would read a fairy tale about same-sex marriage to the class. In the story, a prince chooses to marry another prince, instead of a princess. The parents asked for the opportunity to opt their child out of hearing such stories. In response, the school superintendent insisted on “teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same sex marriage is legal.” Once a society establishes that it is legally indifferent between traditional marriage and same-sex marriage, how can one preserve any practice which favors the union of a man and a woman?

Some argue that our principles of federalism and local control require us to leave the issue of same sex marriage to the states—which means, as a practical matter, to state courts. Such an argument denies the realities of modern life and would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent laws throughout the country. Marriage is not just an activity or practice which is confined to the border of any one state. It is a status that is carried from state to state. Because of this, and because Americans conduct their financial and legal lives in a united country bound by interstate institutions, a national definition of marriage is necessary.

Your vote on this amendment should not be guided by a concern for adult rights. This matter goes to the development and well-being of children. I hope that you will make your vote heard on their behalf.

Best regards,

Mitt Romney

Copied from National Review Online.

“Remarks by Governor Mitt Romney
Liberty Sunday: Defending Our First Freedom
October 15, 2006

Welcome to this historic city. The authors of liberty recognized a Divine Creator who bequeathed to us certain inalienable rights. They affirmed freedom of religion and proscribed the establishment of any one religion. Today, there are some people would like to establish a single religion for America . . . the religion of secularism. They not only reject traditional religious values, but also the values of the founders. And they set aside the wisdom of the ages. Their allies are activist judges. Here in Massachusetts, activist judges struck a blow to the foundation of civilization, the family. They ruled that our constitution requires same sex marriage. I believe their error occurred because they focused on adult rights. If adult heterosexual couples can marry, they reasoned, then to have equal rights, adult homosexual couples must also be able to marry.

But marriage is not primarily about adults. Marriage is primarily about the nurturing and development of children. A child’s development is enhanced by the nurturing of both genders. Every child deserves a mother and a father. Of course, the principal burden of the Court’s ruling doesn’t fall on adults. It falls on children. We are asked to change the state birth certificate. To prevent “heterocentricity,” mother and father would become parent A and parent B. An elementary school teacher reads to her 2nd graders from a book titled “The King and King” about a prince who marries a prince. And a 2nd grader’s father is denied the right to have his child removed from class while that book is being read. Our state’s most difficult-to-place adoptive children may no longer be placed by Catholic charities because they favor homes where there’s a mother and a father.

The price of same sex marriage is paid by children. Our fight for marriage, then, should focus on the needs of children, not the rights of adults. In fact, as Americans, I believe that we should show an outpouring of respect and tolerance for all people, regardless of their differences or their different choices. We must vigorously reject discrimination and bigotry. We are all God’s children. He abhors none of us.

Massachusetts is the front line on marriage, but unless we adopt a federal amendment to protect marriage, what is happening here will unquestionably enter every other state. The spreading religion of secularism and its substitute values cannot be allowed to weaken the foundation of family or the faith of our fathers who more than life their freedom loved.”

Copied from Elect Mitt Romney in 2008!

Romney also said he doesn’t support same-sex marriages or civil unions and would only extend rights or benefits pertaining to hospital visitations.

Copied from The Business Journal.

Kevin Davis Jr.

Technorati Tags: Mitt Romney, 2008, Presidential Election, Gay Marriage.

[Read more →]

http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=6619 Suppose the GOP candidate in ‘08 were a conservative who communicates better than George W., has excellent executive experience, knows how to appeal to a wide range of voters, and runs on constructive conservative ideas? Of all the current candidates, only Governor Mitt Romney fits that bill.

To read the rest of the article go to The American Thinker.

Kevin Davis Jr.

Technorati Tags: Mitt Romney, 2008, Presidential Election, Election 2008.

[Read more →]

http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/front_page/flaming_out.php From Evangelicals for Mitt:

From Saturday’s Washington Journal on C-SPAN, via an EFM reader…

C-SPAN: “Who do you fear the most on the Republican side as your 2008 nominee?”

DONNA BRAZILE: “Mitt Romney.”

[MICHAEL STEELE discusses the Democratic side, mentioning Clinton and Gore.]

C-SPAN: “And why Governor Romney?”

BRAZILE: “He’s an interesting personality…”

STEELE: “Yeah.”

DONNA BRAZILE: “…he looks the part, and again, in a post-9/11 world I think people will also question his experience, but I think John McCain will flame out before the primaries even begin.”

Kevin Davis Jr.

Technorati Tags: Mitt Romney, 2008, Presidential Election, Election 2008.

[Read more →]

http://politicalvine.com/politicalrumors/rumors/2008-gop-presidential-possibilities/#comments Go here and comment in the comments section…

Ann Marie

[Read more →]

http://www.thecommonwealthpac.com/news/pr_061108.html News
STATEMENT BY GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY

November 8, 2006 - Americans spoke last night and Republicans are listening. Americans have not become less conservative, but they believe some Republicans have. As a party, we need to remember who we are and the principles that have always led our party and our country to success.

We must return to the common sense Reagan Republican ideals of fighting for hard working Americans, lowering taxes, shrinking government, curbing out-of-control spending, promoting the traditional values of faith, family and freedom, and providing a strong national security with all the necessary tools to protect the American people and win the War on Terror.

This country wants resolute leadership to tackle tough issues and a positive vision for a better future here at home and around the world. They want leadership that trusts the American people, keeps America strong and moves our country forward.

Americans across the country over the past year didn’t say they want higher taxes. They didn’t say they want more run-away wasteful spending or a Congress that continues irresponsible pork projects. Nobody ever said that this nation needs a bigger deficit.

Americans didn’t say they wanted more activist judges who legislate from the bench and they don’t want less secure borders.

No one said they want more rights for terrorists, nor did they ask that we stop terrorist surveillance … and nobody suggested that we should make life even harder for our brave men and women fighting terror around the world.

We didn’t hear a mandate for a more liberal direction because the Democrats didn’t present one. Americans don’t share those liberal ideas.

What voters told us is that America is stuck and Washington is broken. Voters told us to move forward by embracing our conservative convictions that Americans agree with and value – and we will.

Americans are looking for more fiscal responsibility, less government and sound traditional values. They want leadership and vision with conservative principles. You don’t develop a vision by looking backwards. I’m keeping my eyes on the horizon – where the future is, and where America is going.

[Read more →]

Tonight was a bad night for the GOP. The worst night that many of the younger Republicans have ever seen. What two years ago looked to be a permanent realignment has ended in the loss of the House, several governors, and with the Senate on the very edge of flipping. There will be a handful of snap judgments made over the next few days as to what happened. As a group, let us look at what went wrong, where we stand, and, most importantly, how we should approach the future.

History will record that it was a combination of an expected sixth-year-itch and dissatisfaction with the Iraq War. It would be silly to minimize the shadow Iraq casts over these elections and ungrateful not to acknowledge the devastating consequences it’s brought to thousands of families. However, no matter how permanent it may sometimes seem, our dealings with Iraq itself represents a temporary military engagement. Whether we leave a bloody failed state, or a stabilized democracy, our time there has a limit. Therefore, it would be helpful to acknowledge the political detriment of Iraq, but to set it partially aside for now and start to look at failings within the GOP that fall more cleanly within the core of the party.

Why We Vote

The first and most important of the core reasons for the defeat is that the GOP forgot its strength. The Democrats have been yelling for years that Republicans win elections by demonizing their opponents and scaring the electorate. To a certain degree this is true, we are not above using negative advertisements to define our opponents and contrast the choice of an election. In fact President Bush’s late entrance into seriously negative campaigning (September 28) came much too late to help. For full effectiveness Sen. Reid’s “We killed the Patriot Act” should have been a sound bite on the level of “I voted for it before I voted against it”.

However, negative campaigning does not account for why Republicans have enjoyed a governing majority for the past decade. The true secret to our success has been a happy and enthusiastic voter base that wants to see the values and positions of the GOP prevail.

This election we were barely asked to vote for Republicans, the only request we received from the GOP was that we vote against the Democrats. It was a mistake. For years Democrats have practiced voting against Republicans and have nursed a growing anger with each passing election cycle. When it comes to matching the Democrats on ideas we can win easily. Democrats have had few new ideas in decades and those ideas that they do put forward are usually rejected by the voters. When it comes to matching Democrats in a battle of unthinking hatred of the other side there is a sizeable gap. Let us hope that the gap is never closed as relying exclusively on anger is ultimately self-destructive for a party. Despite the Democrats gains tonight, they remain a crippled party incapable of doing more than making temporary gains as their enemies falter.

Make no mistake that there is nothing wrong with voting against Democrats, with every move they’ve proven just how unserious they are in a serious time. However, we came to power as a party that meant something. It is the positive party that attracts brilliant young minds and fosters growth.

What the Results Don’t Mean

Conventional wisdom and wishful thinking from liberal commentators will likely conspire to confuse what tonight’s results really mean. The first, and most incorrect, assertion they will make is that this means the country has repudiated conservative values and wishes the Republican Party to embrace its moderates. This, of course, is false. Tonight’s results would be more accurately described as the end result of disillusionment amongst the conservative base itself.

The most glaring example of ignoring the conservative base comes in the form of immigration. Well over two-thirds of the country believes in strong borders. This single issue could easily have minimized Democratic gains by rallying conservative, moderates, and independents to the polls. As wedge issues go, they don’t come any more golden than this. Even if Democrats managed to stall true reform in the Senate, how many of our losses tonight could have been avoided merely pointing to the opponent and stating that they favor open borders? Sadly, President Bush and a depressing number of Republican Senators (led by Sen. McCain) chose to lead the party to an immigration plan that remarkably is more concerned with filling a quota of an exploitable underclass than following the rule of law. Key to this strategy was the belief that our Hispanic citizens are so unsophisticated that they would hold border enforcement against the GOP. This act of naked pandering was politically tone-deaf. It opened the GOP to the worst of all worlds on the issue. Not only did it de-energize the base, but it also gave the megaphone to the most obnoxious of the strong borders crowd. This did more to scare the susceptible Hispanics into the Democrat camp than any serious-minded reform would have.

There is one more critical element about border control that must be mentioned: If Republicans had maintained control of the House it is doubtful that any major legislation would have passed. With Democrats in control, however, the president will likely get everything he wants on immigration. Those that believed they were voting for gridlock were mistaken.

Beyond immigration, there is litany of reasons for discontent. Two years of large majorities in both houses of Congress and the presidency have yielded almost nothing in the way of gains for the conservative movement. The reforming of entitlement programs has gone backwards. The unconstitutional use of the filibuster as a veto for any judges Democrats judge too conservative (usually by means of smearing the nominee as a racist) was allowed to stand and, thanks to tonight, will entitle Democrats to only allow sub-par nominees to become judges. We did get Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito placed on the Supreme Court, for which we should be thankful. However, it took a revolt by the Republican base to get the unfortunate nomination of Harriet Miers withdrawn. One wonders how the noble filibuster was never considered in that case. Even the most basic tenant of good conservative governance, fiscal restraint, could not be taken seriously enough to curtail the earmarking that makes pork spending so easy.

Beyond the legislative failures have been ones of simple poor governance. Iraq and Katrina have resulted in a crisis of simple competence. Despite many of the scandals we’ve seen over the past two years being figments of the Democrats’ imaginations (Plame/Wilson, Delay, everyone in the Foley scandal not named Foley) there is also the fact that we have not been diligent enough in stamping out our own fires.

Had the base remained happy, Republicans would have surely lost seats, but it would not have been as bad as it was tonight.

On the conservative side of things, there will be our own brand of wishful thinking. “Perhaps,” we might say, “this shock will be a good thing for the Republican Party in the long run”. Let us dispense with such notions immediately. This is not a good thing. The members of Congress saw this happening from several miles away and did remarkably little to avoid their fate. As much as we would like to think otherwise, losing will not suddenly cause Republicans too comfy in their seats in Congress and married to the notion that the key to being reelected is to rob the national treasury to suddenly change their ways. If change is to happen, it will be from outside of Washington.

What Now President Bush?

Deep breath. That effectively takes us through what went wrong. What do we have for the present? As far as President Bush is concerned, not much. Even before tonight’s defeat, he looked to be very much a lame duck president. For a president who started with such an ambitious second term agenda, this is unfortunate. As many mistakes as President Bush has made, and as responsible as he is for tonight’s debacle, he is, at heart, a genuinely good man who had greatness as a president within his grasp. President Bush’s one and only job is now the commander-in-chief. Aside from his unfortunate penchant for ineffective border control and the always-present possibility of a Supreme Court nomination opening up, it is exceedingly unlikely that he will accomplish anything domestically. His presidency will end in the way it has been run since September 12, 2001, focused strongly on foreign policy.

President Bush will have two years to straighten out Iraq. The choices we face in dealing with that country are, for the moment, rather grim. Pulling out will only cause a bloodbath within the country that will make the last three years seem like a cakewalk. Continuing at our current pace is starting to closely resemble the definition of insanity. If it hasn’t worked yet, it’s unlikely to start working next year. Doubling down and increasing our troop levels is probably the soundest military position, but does the American public have the stomach to add another 50,000-100,000 troops? Yes, we’re in a tough position. We never did find Iraq’s George Washington, Theodor Heuss, or even its Hamid Karzai for that matter. If there is a way to stabilize Iraq, it had better be started soon for if Iraq is still a failed state come Election Day 2008, the question of whether to leave Iraq will have already been decided no matter which party controls the White House.

We will continue to hope for President Bush’s success. Not only for the sake of our political future, but because we realize that real lives hinge on his successes and failures.

The Rest of Us? Back to Basics

We have some work to do. We do have some advantages as we begin putting the pieces back together.

First, we already understand that our loss is the result of our own party’s mistakes. This means that we are already prepared to roll up our sleeves and start fixing the problem. As noted earlier, we won’t get much help from our friends in Washington. It’s also about time we stopped expecting their help. We are not the party of insider Washington. You stand around breathing the fumes of the beltway long enough and invariably your thinking goes wonky. You can count on one hand the number of Senators who have served for more than two terms without becoming hopelessly institutionalized. If the party is to prosper, it’s our job to give it new life.

Second, the concept of big government conservatism has finally run its course. No matter what the demographic driven pollsters believe, Republican pandering never works. Democrats will always turn around and say that they’re willing to go higher and accuse us of selling out to some sector of the economy that they will label as “Big _____”. Take a look at how Democrats have turned the Prescription Drug Benefit against us and you will understand how this works. If a policy makes sense, then by all mean we should follow it. However, we should never count on getting credit for it in the morning.

Third, we remain fortunate in our adversaries. The names of Dean, Kerry, Gore, Kennedy, and Pelosi are out there ready to provide ample sound bites at a moment’s notice. The Democrats are likely to name the very weak Sen. Clinton as their presidential candidate in 2008. Aside from complaining about Iraq, Democrats remained virtually silent in this campaign season on any serious policy issues. The ability to remain mute will disappear in a presidential election year. Particularly one in which President Bush will no longer be the head of the GOP.

Forth, with the election finally over, we’ll begin to realize that we simply became too smart for ourselves. The policy positions of our candidates in this evening’s election were, dare we say it, nuanced. With a few exceptions the commercials became a micro-targeted mess of soulless messages, usually about a rather minor flaw of the Democrat candidate. Either we need to become comfortable with our positions again and shout them from the rooftops, or we need to change them. Vigorously defending our beliefs is the only way to see that they become accepted by the mainstream of the country. Hiding your beliefs only makes your values look shady.

Finally, we still make up the majority of the country. Every time we run on conservative values, we win. There is work to do, but the red states still outnumber the blue states meaning that we are easily underperforming our potential in the Senate. One good election sweeping away the opportunistic Democrat freshmen in the House and we’re knocking on the door of the majority of the House again.

And Romney

Gov. Mitt Romney remains our trump card. Now more than ever he also represents the best chance for the Republican Party to regain its footing in the near future. No other Republican candidate embodies the qualities of fiscal discipline, innovative problem solving, sunny personality, core values, the aura of competence, and the personal integrity that Gov. Romney possesses. Those of us that have contributed to this site have long since seen him as the future of the Republican Party and the best man to lead us into the future. The only thing we need do is expose him to enough of our Republican friends and it will become self-evident to the country in time.

Two years is a long time in politics. Look at where we were on election night in 2004 and look at where we are today. We don’t know what twists and turns we’ll see between now and then, but the future is always bright in America for those with the courage to optimistically look forward to the new day.

~~~Thomas

[Read more →]

http://strategicvision.biz/political/results.htm Some polls of intrest.

Michigan Poll (11/02/06)
16. For the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination whom would you support? (Republicans Only)
John McCain 37%
Rudy Giuliani 24%
Mitt Romney 16%
Newt Gingrich 5%
Bill Frist 1%
George Allen 1%
George Pataki 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 13%

Michigan Poll (11/06/06)
16. For the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination whom would you support? (Republicans Only)
John McCain 33%
Rudy Giuliani 25%
Mitt Romney 17%
Newt Gingrich 6%
Bill Frist 1%
George Allen 1%
George Pataki 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 14%

The results for the 4-day period:

John McCain -4%
Rudy Giuliani +1%
Mitt Romney +1%
Newt Gingrich +1%
Bill Frist 0%
George Allen 0%
George Pataki 0%
Rick Santorum 0%
Chuck Hagel 0%
Undecided +1%

Kevin Davis Jr.

Technorati Tags: Mitt Romney, 2008, Presidential Election.

[Read more →]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/11/02/romney_consults_evangelical_leaders/ Governor Mitt Romney is convening meetings with small groups of evangelical leaders to seek guidance for his possible presidential run, as Romney and Mormon supporters intensify efforts to allay concerns about his faith.

Romney, who is ramping up preparations for a 2008 campaign, huddled privately at his Belmont home last Thursday with about a dozen evangelicals, including conservative activist Gary Bauer, president of the group American Values, and Richard Land, a prominent leader in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Two weeks earlier, Romney met with about a dozen Baptist pastors at a private club in Columbia, S.C. Today, he is set to meet with more Christian leaders at an activist’s home in Greenville, S.C.

The meetings have touched on several themes, participants say, but two topics being discussed are Romney’s religious beliefs and how he should address his faith as the campaign progresses.

Romney’s meetings with evangelicals, which are reminiscent of a similar effort by President Bush before he ran for president in 2000, take place as groups and individuals separate from Romney’s political team are trying to improve the public perception of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Polls indicate that the religion is widely misunderstood and viewed skeptically by many in the United States.

Read the rest of the article at The Boston Globe

Kevin

Technorati Tags: Mitt Romney

[Read more →]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/31/AR2006103101315.html Awesome stuff here from George Will of The Washington Post.

By George F. Will
Wednesday, November 1, 2006; Page A21

Even before the votes are counted, over the Republican Party a “thick darkness broodeth” — words from a Victorian hymn, for a party with a Victorian tendency. But one Republican, who is not running for anything this year, will emerge from this bruising season with enlarged prospects. Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s hopes for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination have been enhanced by Virginia Sen. George Allen’s difficulties.

Romney’s most formidable rival for the Republican nomination is John McCain, who needs a crowded field of Republican aspirants to prevent the conservative majority of the party’s nominating electorate from quickly coalescing around a single candidate. Allen once seemed likely to compete with Romney for conservatives’ support.

But Allen, who makes no secret of finding life as a senator tedious, is fighting ferociously for another term, a fate from which his Democratic opponent, Jim Webb, is close to rescuing him. As a result, Allen is dabbling in literary criticism. He has read, or someone has read for him, at least some of Webb’s six fine novels, finding therein sexual passages that have caused Allen — he of the football metaphors, cowboy regalia and Copenhagen smokeless tobacco — to blush like a fictional Victorian maiden and fulminate like an actual Victorian man, Anthony Comstock, the 19th-century scourge of sin who successfully agitated for New York and federal anti-obscenity statutes and is credited with the destruction of 160 tons of naughty printed matter and pictures.

Webb, a highly decorated Marine veteran of Vietnam combat, includes sexual scenes in his fictional depictions of young men far from home and close to combat, something about which he knows a lot and Allen does not. Allen says the scenes are demeaning to women and are evidence of flaws in Webb’s character.

This ham-handed grab for women’s votes may help Allen win but will not help him escape the perception that, as a presidential aspirant, he is problematic. His ragged campaign has made him seem accident-prone, and by Tuesday he probably will have burned through all the money he could raise. But to be competitive in the nomination contests that begin with the Iowa caucuses in January 2008, a candidate probably needs to have at least $60 million by December 2007. Allen would have to raise that amount in 60 weeks. A million dollars a week is a daunting challenge.

Allen’s radically reduced prospects will make it less likely that McCain can duplicate his 2000 triumph in New Hampshire’s primary. As one seasoned New Hampshire Republican says, “It is difficult to capture lightning in a bottle twice.” It will be particularly difficult for McCain to do so because there is apt to be a spirited New Hampshire contest on the Democratic side. This would draw independent voters who were crucial to McCain in 2000, when he thrashed George W. Bush, receiving 115,606 votes (48.53 percent) to Bush’s 72,330 (30.36).

But Bush won the Republican part of the Republican primary, in this sense: New Hampshire independents can vote in either party’s primary, and 34 percent of McCain voters identified themselves as independents. A 41 percent plurality of the Republicans voting favored Bush, 38 percent favored McCain.

If one disregards President Harry Truman’s brief interest in seeking a second full term in 1952 — he renounced running on March 29 — and the ineffectual attempt by his vice president, Alben Barkley, to secure the nomination, 2008 will be the first election in 56 years with neither an incumbent president nor vice president seeking a nomination. If you count the Truman and Barkley episodes, 2008 will be the first such election since 1928.

So the presidential field is uncommonly open, and there is a palpable desire in the country to shuffle the political deck. In their new book “The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008,” Mark Halperin of ABC News and John F. Harris of The Post suggest why:

“When the current President Bush completes his full second term, it will be the first time since James Madison and James Monroe almost two hundred years ago that back-to-back presidents both served all eight years of two elected terms. Put another way, two of the most divisive figures in this country’s history will have commanded the White House for sixteen consecutive years.”

Such circumstances should entice many aspirants into the race. Yet with Allen much diminished and perhaps out of contention, and with Rudy Giuliani not yet doing serious groundwork for a national campaign, the Republican field is already down to two. That is good for only one of them: Romney.

georgewill@washpost.com

Ann Marie

[Read more →]

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/campaign/entries/2006/10/31/that_veep_thing_1.html This one comes from the Austin American-Statesman.

Perry has been mentioned as a potential Veep candidate (mostly by supporters and a few staffers), but no public interest has so far surfaced. The latest rumor: He might pair up with Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

This is the 2nd time (that i’m aware of) that they have ran an article about a Mitt Romney/Rick Perry ticket.

Let’s list a few of the people that could be Mitt Romney’s VP:
1)Mitt Romney/Jeb Bush
2)Mitt Romney/Rudolph Giuliani
3)Mitt Romney/Matt Blunt
4)Mitt Romney/Condoleeza Rice
5)Mitt Romney/John McCain
6)Mitt Romney/Bill Frist
7)Mitt Romney/George Allen
And the list goes on…

Who do you want (and why) to be Mitt Romney’s VP?

Kevin

Technorati Tags Mitt Romney

[Read more →]

http://www.examiner.com/a-371920~White_House_spokesman_raps_Kerry_for_remark_on_education_and_Iraq.html Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican who is considering a presidential run, said Kerry should apologize, particularly to the many soldiers from his own state serving in Iraq. Romney also said members of the Massachusetts National Guard are “more diverse, educated and prepared to do their job than at anytime in our countrys history.”

“No matter where you went to school, or how many degrees you have, most people understand the strength of our nation comes from every corner of America,” he said.

I have met members of the military that are more intelligent than John Kerry. His (John Kerry’s) comment was out of line.

Read the full story at the Examiner.com.

Kevin

Technorati Tags Mitt Romney

Addendum:

This comes from Hugh Hewitt

Governor Romney’s statement on Kerry’s slander:

“Senator Kerry owes an apology to the thousands of men and women serving in Iraq, particularly the many patriotic soldiers from Massachusetts who come from all backgrounds to defend our freedoms. As Governor, I represent thousands of Massachusetts National Guardsmen. They are more diverse, educated and prepared to do their job than at anytime in our country’s history. No matter where you went to school, or how many degrees you have, most people understand the strength of our nation comes from every corner of America.”

Kevin

[Read more →]

http://www.journal-news.net/news/articles.asp?articleID=4735 There are many potential candidates looking to 2008, Romney said, stating with confidence that he expects Hillary Clinton to emerge as the leading Democrat.

“I may be one of those,” he added. “Time will tell.”

I would be suprised if Mitt Romney is not a candidate in 2008.

For the rest of the story go to the Martinsburg Journal.

Kevin

Technorati Tags Mitt Romney

[Read more →]

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00403022/252271/ Covering Period 10/01/2006 Through 10/18/2006

Column A
This Period Column B
Year To Date
6. (a) Cash on hand, January 1, 2006
30110.41
(b) Cash on hand at Beginning of Reporting Period 699166.00

(c) Total Receipts (from line 19) 231391.00 2356979.44
(d) Subtotal (6(b) + 6(c) for A, 6(a) + 6(c) for 930557.00 2387089.85
7. Total Disbursements 190699.44 1647231.94
8. Cash on Hand at Close of Reporting Period 739857.56 739857.91
9. Debts and Obligations Owed TO the Committee 0.00

Itemize all on SCHEDULE C or SCHEDULE D
10. Debts and Obligations Owed BY the Committee 0.00

$231,391.00 raised in 18 days!

Kevin

[Read more →]

http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=164837&format=text The Boston Herald is running an article on a Romney/Bush ticket for 2008. Feel free to leave your comments on a Romney/Bush ticket. I think that a Romney/Bush ticket would be a good idea. What do you think?

Kevin

[Read more →]

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4570195?source=rss This one comes out of The Salt Lake Tribune. Take a look!

By Pat Bagley
Article Last Updated:10/29/2006 01:41:20 AM MST

The 1968 presidential primaries featured a breed of elephant that is now all but extinct: the progressive Republican.
There were lots of them. Sen. Mark Hatfield of Oregon, Sen. Charles Percy of New York, New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller and New York City Mayor John Lindsay.
But one of the early favorites for the GOP nomination was the Mormon governor of Michigan, George Romney, Mitt Romney’s father.
It is surprising to reflect that Romney’s Mormonism wasn’t an issue.
John Kennedy’s candidacy in 1960 had put that religious bugaboo to rest when he assured the country that he wouldn’t be taking orders from the Vatican. People assumed Romney would also be his own man.
And they were right. Romney had enlightened notions on crime, poverty and building a better society. In 1957, he had been brought in to save the fortunes of a sputtering American Motors. He succeeded brilliantly by retiring gas-guzzlers and focusing on economical compacts. AMC’s sales quadrupled in two years.
As governor, he shepherded legislation that instituted Michigan’s first income tax, which went to improving schools and the state infrastructure.
Early in the campaign, Romney was favored to win. His polling was stellar and, in The Making of the President 1968, Theodore White wrote, “Above all, he looked like a President.”
There was a time when a politician could say something stupid and it wouldn’t be repeated ad nauseam. TV changed that.
We’re all aware of the effect of Howard Dean’s “scream” on his candidacy, but Romney’s may be the first to have the life sucked out of it by The Tube.
Romney had been to Vietnam to see the situation firsthand. He was closely shepherded by his military hosts and given a sanitized and redacted version of how things were progressing in-country. He reported back to the public that progress was being made.
When the truth broke that Vietnam was a horrific, wasteful fiasco, Romney realized he had been duped. In a refreshing bit of candor, he said as much, that Lyndon Johnson’s military had “brainwashed” him.
The storm swept Romney’s candidacy down the tube.
Some thought twice about electing a man to the White House who was prone to be fooled. Others had darker thoughts, more along the lines of “The Manchurian Candidate.” In any case, when Nelson Rockefeller announced his candidacy, Romney realized his base of support was slipping and dropped out.
The current governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, was quoted in a recent Boston Globe article as saying his father was “the real Gov. Romney.” But it’s no secret that the younger Romney has White House dreams.
He will be negotiating some of the same territory his father did - an unpopular and divisive war. And some that his father didn’t - a religiosity in the Republican base that is suspicious of his Mormon beliefs.
James Dobson, friend to President Bush and founder of the politically powerful Focus on the Family, has called Mormonism a “cult.” Just this month he said, “I don’t believe that conservative Christians in large numbers will vote for a Mormon.”
Given time, evangelicals may come to see that a living, breathing Mormon in the White House wouldn’t be the end of the world. But it’s always been true of American presidents that it is their character, and not their creed, which stamps some with greatness.
—
* PAT BAGLEY is the Salt Lake Tribune’s editorial cartoonist.

Ann Marie

[Read more →]

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/articles/061029/6whisplead_2.htm USNews.com is comparing what Mitt Romney is doing now to what President Bush did before his successful run in 2000.

Scroll down the page till you reach this title “Boston’s Parade of Conservatives” to read the full story.

Kevin

[Read more →]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/29/news/letter.php This is a really great read about how Governor Romney is fast becoming the “McCain Alternative” especially to conservative Republicans.

Albert R. Hunt Bloomberg News

Published: October 29, 2006
WASHINGTON In American politics, a conundrum: Movement conservatives will be an even more influential voice in the Republican Party after next week’s congressional elections, yet they are still searching for a standard- bearer for the bigger sweepstakes, the 2008 presidential contest.

Movement conservatives, loosely defined, are disciples of small government aligned with social activists, whose priorities are opposing abortion, gay rights, gun control and what they see as a secular fixation with the separation of church and state.

They already are well-represented in Congress, particularly in the House, and if the Nov. 7 elections go as expected, many of the Republican casualties will come from the so-called moderate wing. The conservative right, which earlier provided critical support for Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, will be formidable in the next presidential primaries.

Yet no serious candidate has emerged from their ranks. After a few false starts, the latest favorite to champion their agenda is Mitt Romney, the governor of Massachusetts.

In part, that’s because of the unacceptability of the two Republican candidates who are leading in the polls: Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor with a record of supporting gay rights, abortion rights and gun control, and Senator John McCain, who for various reasons, some irrational, is anathema to many social conservatives.

A year ago, there were two possibilities: the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, and Senator George Allen of Virginia. Both have since imploded politically.

Thus, the infatuation on the right with Romney is growing.

This is noteworthy on two grounds. One is religion. A devout Mormon, he comes from a conservative sect that some evangelicals, other Protestants and Catholics have viewed as a cult. The other is ideology. The charismatic 59-year-old Romney once appeared agnostic on abortion - it should be “safe and legal,” he said - when he ran unsuccessfully for senator in 1994 and successfully for governor in 2002. On gay marriage and civil unions, he has switched from mushy support to hostility.

Conservatives, looking for an alternative to McCain, seem willing to overlook these transgressions.

“Mitt Romney is a mainstream conservative,” says Barbara Comstock, an activist on the Republican right who will work for his nomination. “He governed in a very liberal state with mainstream conservative principles.”

The most notable achievement of that record is an initiative that requires all Massachusetts residents to obtain health insurance. That measure was criticized by the right and left, yet generally won plaudits for Romney.

Grover Norquist, an anti-tax crusader who spearheads Republican issue coalitions in Washington, saw “the party’s base rallying around Romney” and dismissed any flip- flops as irrelevant. More important, Norquist said, was Romney’s speech last month to 1,500 social conservatives at the Family Research Council: “Romney wowed them.”

It will take more such performances to overcome the religious issue, which promises to surface for the first time in presidential politics since John F. Kennedy ran in 1960. A national survey by Bloomberg and The Los Angeles Times in July found that 37 percent of Americans said they would not vote for a Mormon for president, including one-third of Republicans and independents. That is more than two or three times the number of people who said they would not vote for a Catholic or Jew.

“There still is a segment of evangelicals who, even if they agree with Romney on conservative social issues, have significant trouble with the theology his denomination represents,” said Bill Leonard, dean of the Wake Forest University Divinity School in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. “They think Mormons have concocted a new revelation that is heretical Christianity at best.”

Nevertheless, Leonard added, “Romney’s candidacy is an illustration of how far Mormons have come; they now are essentially considered an American denomination by most people, which years ago they were not.”

Romney, who’s stepping down as governor, has been assiduously courting conservatives. In private meetings, he initiates discussions on how to deal with the religious issue. It may be that all he needs is the proper forum - for Kennedy it was a gathering of Protestant ministers in Houston - to allay concern.

In the Republican primaries, Romney has another weapon: McCain. The Arizona senator has done a good job of courting President George W. Bush and some of his supporters, and the two men came out of their 2000 presidential race with a minimal regard for one another. But much of the Republican right wing despises McCain, although he usually votes the social- conservative line. Privately, they say, he does not mean it.

Norquist, for example, dismissed complaints about Romney’s past and even suggested that Giuliani might overcome his drawbacks simply by pledging to name conservatives like Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court. He hesitated, however, when asked about McCain and then said “perhaps if he takes the lead on pro-growth tax cuts,” while making clear he does not think that will happen.

Thus, Romney’s greatest asset with the activist right may be that he is the leading ABM - anybody but McCain - candidate. To be sure, McCain would be the most formidable American politician in the 2008 general election. When Democrats say Senator Hillary Clinton cannot win the presidency, they invariably mean in a matchup against the Arizona senator.

And the conventional wisdom is if Republicans take a drubbing on Nov. 7, which is a probability, they will have to swallow their reservations and accept McCain as the only candidate who can save the party from another debacle.

Maybe so. History, however, suggests it is unwise to bet against movement conservatives in the Republican Party.

Ann Marie

[Read more →]