Romney's Last Stand In Michigan

Michigan will be Mitt Romney's last stand; his advisers are cautiously optimistic. They know McCain has a built-in advantage because independents won't have any reason to vote in the Democratic primary, but they also know that McCain has give the independents a reason to vote.

Romney's campaign is worried that Mike Huckabee will siphon away social conservatives; Huckabee's allies in the state are actively working church networks. Although they've got a paid organization in the state, they're seeing an influx of McCain volunteers.

The Romney spin out of New Hampshire is this: McCain benefited from the total collapse in New Hampshire of Rudy Giuliani; virtually all of his support when to McCain; Mike Huckabee's third place finish may well have siphoned off a few points of Republicans from Romney; the Union Leader endorsement was incredibly important for Romney. McCain's special relationship with New Hampshire voters and his high favorability ratings may have inoculated himself against Romney's negative attacks.

Comments

So many spelling errors for such a small sketch. I would throw this back at any of my students who submitted such carelessness in his work.

Posted by Keir | January 9, 2008 8:19 AM

Romeny leads in delegates and will continue to gain finishing 1,2,or third as the others take turns finishing first and fourth. They are wiping eachother out. Thank you for the huckster. He takes delegates from and dilutes the field making Romney more consistent 2nd 1st 2nd, so far, and 1st or second in MI. He is on his way to the nomination.

Posted by Bill Fitzgerald | January 9, 2008 8:24 AM

Thank you to the voters of Iowa and NH for exposing Mitt Romney as the phoney he is. He can continue spinning his "silver" finishes, but the reality is that voters have heard and seen him, and ultimately rejected him. And when John McCain crushes him in his home state of Michigan, we can finally say we've seen the last of him. McCain won with honesty and integrity, and Romney should take note of these traits, because they are two he sorely lacks.

Posted by Publius | January 9, 2008 8:51 AM

Mitt does need to win in Michigan, and I believe he is sitting down right now figuring out how to do that based on Iowa and New Hampshire. I don't care for McCain that much, but would vote for him if I had to, especially if it came down to stopping Huckabee. The man scares me. He reminds me of a Hitler-type in Christian clothing. He stirs up hate mongering like no one else I have seen in American politics.

Posted by Robin | January 9, 2008 10:24 AM

Romney is still in the lead in delegates. He will come in first or second in Michigan. He will win the nomination. McCain and Huck can't go the distance. Go Romney!

Posted by Canuck | January 9, 2008 10:28 AM

McCain won with honesty and integrity, and Romney should take note of these traits, because they are two he sorely lacks.
Posted by Publius

That's rich. McCain talks a lot about his "straight talk" honesty and integrity. That doesn't mean he lived it. He lied to his wives about cheating on them more than Bill Clinton, Giuliani, and Gary Hart put together. He was passed over for Admiral on matters of integrity and stable character.
After the Keating 5, McCain swore off personal corruption but he has developed quite a reputation for backstabbing and treachery as a Senator. He still gets caught in lies related to lobbyists, money, some tales he told on the campaign trail turned out to be BS. And known as a bit of a dimbulb for being a camera-whore.

Romney? A reputation for model ethics and integrity for a CEO. Exaggerated how intense his devotion to the sport of hunting was, confused about Dad & Mom meeting with MLK in the morning (true),then marching with King when King had 5 marches going the same day. George Romney and MLK were not in the same march that day.

All in all, disturbing in a Ned Flanders way, but nothing near the ethics issues in McCains past.

And politics usually has broad meaing to phraises like "I'm campaigning with Obama", "I'm marching with Ted Kennedy to give Amnesty, but of corse never directly meeing the guy or neing in physically.

Posted by chris ford | January 9, 2008 10:30 AM

How do you define national front runner? don't tell me its by the polls... because if that is true, Obama should ask for a recount in NH after Clinton's win!

Again how do you define the national front runner? They only true way would be like in any contest: who has the most points! and Romney has the most points "delegates" 30 to McCain's 10.

The democratic party is afraid of Romney or Thompson because they would clean house with them. The are hoping that a liberal Mcain or Huckabee get the nomination because it is clear they can be beat.

True, McCain won NH in 2000. In fact he won over Bush by a larger margin. However, never heard of McCain past that, but we all heard of President Bush!

Posted by Jim | January 9, 2008 10:51 AM

Hello...Romney has 24 delegate votes. McCain has 10. You do the math. We have more than 2 or 3 states in the Union too you know...

Idiot media seems to put so much stock in these primaries from the 18th century. What a joke.

Posted by mac | January 9, 2008 12:30 PM

The clearest discriminatory factor in these primary elections is not about the black candidate but rather involves Evangelicals and the Mormon candidate. Had Romney been a traditional Christian, he would be a hands down favorite for the nomination.

Posted by Jeff | January 9, 2008 12:32 PM

I can't believe these people are rallying around someone like McCain. Honestly, are we as a party content with sacrificing our beliefs because we think someone has a better chance against democrats based upon rediculous polls (that have shown how reliable they can be)? The fact is that the conservative coalition is the only thing that will save this country! Fiscal conservatism, social conservatism, and foriegn policy conservatism!! I'm sorry, but McCain, no matter how much he likes to tout his foriegn policy credentials, his policy is not something that this country needs - it's weak, quite frankly. He supported the surge, he didn't right the policy for the surge - he latched on to an idea. That's what most of the candidates did minus Huckabee (he wasn't for it at first because he didn't like the idea of sending the national guard troops). He has ideas that would harm this nation in the area of foriegn policy. He believes in global communities like McCain-Lieberman that joins us to a global obligation to fight Global Warming, and he wants to join us to the ICC - these organizations would undermind our soveriegnty and put us on a path to globalization which is not only unsound foriegn policy, but also very unsound national economic policy. That's just half of it - he wants to shut down Guantanamo Bay and end tough, humane interrogation techniques that have been instrumental in helping us thwart terrorist attacks since 9-11. The national economy will also be key this election cycle and he has proven that he would rather punish the American economy and the American people by not voting for tax cuts because he found earmarks in the bill. That's not how to lead. All of that, plus the fact that he co-authored and continues to support his disasterous immigration reform policy. America needs to wake up and understand what kind of times we are in. Our economy is just as important against terrorist threats, as shooting people in the head overseas before they come here. McCain is so far from conservative on many points and they are absolutely points that matter. Romney/Hunter 08

Posted by Joshu | January 9, 2008 12:35 PM

kudos Jeff - you nailed it!!

Posted by Joshu | January 9, 2008 12:36 PM

regardless of the previous 3 state results, romney has the money edge that may carry to Feb 5th no matter how he does in MI or FL. We have John Mccain to thank for giving the super rich this unconstitutional advantage.

Posted by peter | January 9, 2008 1:04 PM

Jeff,

You're living in a time warp, and you likely know it, but probably just have faith that the conservative coalition is somehow more numerous than the Democrats in 2008. This is not a GOP year. The big money is already betting on any Demcoratic candidate over any Republican, no Republican is going to be able to convince me that this is somehow our year.

If ever there was a time to sacrifice conservative credentials for competitiveness, 2008 is it.

The question FOR EVERY REMAINING REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE is on what issue to go over to the Democrats on. Every Republican candidate has or will likely sell his soul on at least one position in order to remain competitive in November.

Giuliani-Social Issues (widely documented)

McCain-Immigration and bunch of issues GOPers are against but don't widely care about like waterboarding or campaign finance (widely documented)

Huckabee- Fiscal issues (widely documented)

Romney- Iraq (only issue on which Romney devotes no air time and remains elusive when questioned, he's keeping the options open so he can have one of his trademark epiphanies between winning the primaries and the general election)

The question for any Republican voter is WHICH ISSUE IS LEAST IMPORTANT TO YOU? The votes, endorsements, biases clearly bear out the candidate preferences I listed above. National security conservatives back everyone except Romney, fiscal conservatives back everyone except for Huckabee, the talk show radio hosts and anti-immigration types back everyone except McCain, the social conservatives back everyone except Giuliani.

Posted by justin | January 9, 2008 1:07 PM

I just love reading the pro Romney comments on the comment boards across the net:
"Mitt is like totally a good guy, and he's definitely the man for the job. He's awesome. Go Mitt."
Most of them are based on as little as Mitt's campaign is. Unfortunately Mitt showed the rest of us, early and often, that's he's committed to only what his current audience is committed to. He's been dishonest, he's smug, and he's scary pious. He believes he can say anything, because he's "saying it for the Lord." And please, enough with the Olympic medal analogies. We're not second graders Mitt.

Posted by Clark T. | January 9, 2008 1:17 PM

Justin, that's very unfair! Have you ever been to a town hall meeting with Romney? Didn't think so. The fact is that the liberal media created that stereotype that you refer to of Romney. The others are like you say well documented, and the liberal media want nothing more than Hilary or Obama (but mostly Hilary) in the White House! I believe we have a bunch of blind goats walking around a listening to everything they hear instead of doing the research! I believe this is one of the strongest fields on the GOP side that this country has ever seen. I believe Romney is the strongest because he doesn't compromise his values, and convictions. Lets look honestly at your accusation against Romney on the Iraq war. Look at who his advisors are, to name one Cofer Black. He is one of the toughest and well versed guys on the ways of war and defense! Your accusation against Romney bites the dust! Romney/Hunter 08

Posted by Joshu | January 9, 2008 1:23 PM

Chris Ford--Rumors and your own opinions don't take away from McCain's character. He was cleared in the supposed scandal you speak of, and I have seen no evidence of anything else you speak of (save for your own accusations). Polls in NH put McCain's positive rating at near 75%, and he has consistently ranked ahead of the rest of the GOP nationally in the same category (while Mitt Romney has been near the bottom)--in other words most of America disagrees with you. Mitt Romney has been insincere and dishonest with his claims and ads against his opponents, and it shows with his tremedous losses in Iowa and NH. If he can't win two states that he was way up in (and next-door governor in another), his campaign is nearly dead, and whether people know it or not, we're all better off for it. I don't always agree with McCain and his decisions, but I can say that I honestly believe he means what he says and does what he thinks is right. That might be enough to get him elected.

Posted by Publius | January 9, 2008 1:27 PM

It is easy to see why a huge number of the Republcan base in Iowa did not support Romney - they simply did not care for his shocking views such as Jesus being the Devil's brother . Why did the voters reject Romney in New Hampshire ? It would seem they recognised Romney's other huge problem namely the well founded perception that he is a man of no convictions who will do and say almost anything to get elected . Caught between these twin overwhelming defects - how could Romney win the nomination far less the Presidency ?

The American people are entitled to ask how much does Romney know and what names is he shielding concerning the grotesque corruption which so nearly derailed the Salt Lake Winter Olympics . We can be sure if the Republicans were so foolish as to nominate Romney the Democrats will very much have this issue on the table .

Posted by Andrew Price | January 9, 2008 1:33 PM

Clark,

Way to prove how uninformed you truly are! About the only thing you got right was the Olympic medal cheese comment! Maybe you should go out and actually educate yourself and meet the candidates and then research their records to make an educated decision. Not regurgitate everything you hear. You know who comes accross as dishonest, smug, and scarily unpious? You.

Posted by Joshu | January 9, 2008 1:42 PM

No, I haven't been to one of his town halls, and neither have 99.9% of the American electorate. That's why his message in town halls is irrelevant and what he projects in his major speeches, debates, and commercials are what nail him down. His public appearance can be 100% different from the townhall if he likes...hence the negative campaigning on the air waves but friendliness in town halls.

Notice, "winning the Iraq war" is not on Mitt's laundry/to do list. It's conspicuous when everything else under the sun is on it. Check it out. It says "making America safer"-open to interpretation, stronger military- even the Democrats would agree. NOTHING about Iraq. He REFUSES to commit to the issue.

Mitt will pander to any Republican issue _except Iraq_ where he consistently voices skepticism unless he's getting others off his back by going on the offensive and pointing out when other candidates have voiced skepticism.

If you're going to tell me Mitt is just a richer, anti-immigrant and smarter sounding version of GW Bush HOW DO YOU EXPECT HIM TO WIN IN NOVEMBER? Bush would be buried in a landslide ON THE ISSUES in 2008. He's gotta sacrifice SOMEWHERE for votes if he's competitive at all. WHERE'S A ROMNEY NOVEMBER WIN SUPPOSED TO COME FROM?

Posted by Justin | January 9, 2008 1:44 PM

Romney will win or come a close second in Michigan with John McCain. That is all he has to do, he will win a number of western states on Feb5 5th. He already has the most votes and the most delegates. Thompson and Guiliani is on their way out.

Posted by John | January 9, 2008 1:50 PM

Publius,

What was Romney dishonest about in his ads? And secondly, do you think that the media at all affects the way people look at a respective candidate?

Mitt Romney is constantly targeted by the media and those who are liberal in the GOP party.

If you think that the conservative coalition of fiscal conservatism, foreign policy conservatism, and social conservatism is not what this country needs to fix the problems we have, I guess you would say that we're better off if Mitt goes down. I think the conservative coalition is the only policy that will turn this country around and unite the American people. That's why I say Romney/Hunter 08

Posted by Joshu | January 9, 2008 2:07 PM

Romney can come in second in every single one of the 50 states, and he STILL will not get the nomination.

The other delegates _hate Romney_ for his negative campaigning, for his campaign's dirty tricks, for his double talk and mischaracterization on many issues. You saw their behavior on ABC on Saturday.

If Romney blows his whole fortune and manages to stay in the race coming in third or second throughout the primary season he will still not have a majority of delegates come the convention.

At the convention, the bottom line will be this: Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, and Huckabee are going to throw their delegates together in any kind of way EXCEPT one that gives Romney the candidacy.

Romney _cannot_ just take a plurality of delegates to the nomination.

Posted by justin | January 9, 2008 2:08 PM

Justin,

For the sake of not arguing back and forth like two people saying "Yes"..."No"..."Yes"..."No", do you have any proof of your accusation against Romney? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you do, and give you a chance to produce actual facts supporting your accusations. I like to think that everyone is not as unintelligent as they sometimes come across. If I'm not presented with evidence then I, and everyone reading this must assume that you have no credibility. I'll wait on that issue...

Secondly, when did I say he was " just a richer, anti-immigrant and smarter sounding version of GW Bush"? There are many far greater qualities to Mitt Romney than are found in GW. For instance he is a private sector genius (turned around the Olympics (for free), and created a company from scratch and made it highly successful). He governed the liberal state of Mass. for free (is not a lifelong politician). He is a fiscal conservative, Bush is not. He is transparent and willing to admit mistakes and make changes accordingly. Has new conservative ideas for foreign policy, the economy, health care, balancing the budget, immigration, and there are many more policy differences. He is someone that can communicate strength, optimism, and integrity to the American people. He will unite this country behind him because of his integrity and transparency. There are other differences buy I'll spare you so you can go and try to dig up facts to support your unfair accusation against Romney. Romney/Hunter 08

Posted by Joshu | January 9, 2008 2:23 PM

Joshu - on the subject of Romney turning around the Winter Olympics for free . May we ask the following questions .

1 Who would benifit most of all from the staging of the Winter Olympics in Utah ?

2 Which group of people were behind the blatant corruption in securing the Winter Olympics ?

3 Why was Romney called in to save the Olympics what did he have which a host of other well qualified people did not have ?

4 Does Romney have names of people involved in the corruption and if so who are they and why is he shielding them .

Posted by Andrew Price | January 9, 2008 2:40 PM

Joshu,

Romney's attacks on McCain and Huckabee are half-truths at best. My major problem with them are characterizing McCain's views on illegal immigration (which I do not entirely support, mind you). He uses the word "amnesty" in a few of his ads to charcterize the failed immigration bill, which he has since said is not true (even if there are quite a few Americans who still think so). Mind you, this is a plan that Romney called "reasonable" when it was first introduced, but I didn't see that in any of his ads. He also talks about McCain advocating social security benefits for "illegals", which any way you try to spin it is untrue. Against Huckabee, he has done the same thing. He has misrepresented his own and Huckabee's record on drugs, and taxes. Yes, it's true that Mitt lowered "taxes" as governor; but all he did was replace them with "fees", which is basically the same thing. I have no problem with true contrast ads, but when you're trying to tranform half-truths into absolute truths, that's just plain dishonest. I would check out factcheck.org for more analysis on his misleading attacks.

Posted by Publius | January 9, 2008 2:46 PM

Mr. Price,

Do you really find the need to resort to conspiracy theories just to mask your bigotry and smear a candidate? Let's not speculate and let's deal with facts. The people involved in the corruption of the 2002 Olympics was very public, and those people resigned. Romney is not shielding anyone. But I seriously don't expect you to believe real facts as you have proven to be a conspiracy nut. Just in case you are interested in real facts there are many very good write ups documenting Romney's involvement and how screwed up the Olympics were. Romney/Hunter 08

Posted by Joshu | January 9, 2008 3:13 PM

Joshu-

I am packaging his superior-than-Bush qualities in a different way than you are, but we see much of the same things. You say private sector genius...I say rich. You say new conservative ideas on foreign policy- I say sell out. You say new conservative ideas for immigration- I say anti-immigrant. You say he can communicate better- I say that he sounds smarter than Bush.

On other issues we simply disagree. I would appreciate it if you didn't make any further sarcastic allusions as to my intelligence just because I disagree with you.

Romney's (ever changing and non-committal) position(s) on Iraq:

May 3:

"With regards to Iraq, there are a lot of people that say, let's just get out. I want to get our troops home as soon as I possibly can. But, at the same time, I recognize we don't want to bring them out in such a precipitous way that we cause a circumstance that would require us to come back."

He says keep them there just long enough until we can leave the whole mess alone. That gives him a lot of wiggle room. In contrast McCain says simply "We must win in Iraq" in the same debate.

May 15:
Asked if he would ever abandon the Iraqi fight, Mitt Romney:
"Well, I'm certainly not going to project failure, and those kind of circumstances that you would suggest would be projecting failure."

Again, refuses to take a stand. He's not going to PROJECT failure, but he leaves open the possibility.

June 5 debate Mitt Romney says: "And at this stage, the right thing for us to do ___is to see if we could possibly___ (emphasis mine)stabilize the central government in Iraq so that they can have stability, and so we can bring our troops home as soon as possible."

While leaving the possibility of victory an open question and by also refusing to say whether or not the invasion was a mistake earlier in this debate, Romney leaves himself room to abandon Iraq after the primary.

In contrast McCain says "We must succeed in this conflict." and is unwilling to accept any setback as proof that success will ever be impossible.

Aug 5: With success finally appearing in Iraq Romney finally admits it's essential to win in Iraq, and he cites the now famous Brooking Institution report in the NYT saying that the surge is working.

Sep 5: Back to his bag of tricks now, Romney says the surge is only "apparently" working, which he now believes is not certain and he says
"I think you’re going to begin to see, if the surge is working, and I think we’re going to get that report very soon, that we’re going to begin to slowly but surely pull back to a support role. But the timetable for that, I hope, will be as soon as possible."

Retreat from a position of strength is what this proposal is, it's just more of Reagan's Lebanon policy. Declare victory and run away.

Dec 9: Romney again admits the surge is working but does not outline where we go from there. He alludes to the fact that the battle will just be over after the surge. Again leaves room for re-evaluation.

Posted by justin | January 9, 2008 3:23 PM

"Romney's attacks on McCain and Huckabee are half-truths at best."

What are the "whole truths" if you don't mind.

"My major problem with them are characterizing McCain's views on illegal immigration (which I do not entirely support, mind you). He uses the word "amnesty" in a few of his ads to characterize the failed immigration bill, which he has since said is not true (even if there are quite a few Americans who still think so)."

This is a flat out lie. Romney has insisted that it is a form of amnesty. And always explains that no matter what fee you have to pay whether it's $1 or $5000, the fact that they get to stay here permanently is in fact what amounts to.....AMNESTY!

"Mind you, this is a plan that Romney called "reasonable" when it was first introduced, but I didn't see that in any of his ads."

The reason why, is because he didn't endorse it. He called all of the proposals reasonable. He did say though that it effectively wasn't amnesty because they had to pay a fine. The fact though is that he didn't endorse it because something didn't sit right with him. McCain (who gave you your talking points), likes to act like Romney endorsed his plan. He didn't, at all. And the plan that was brought to Bush this summer, was different than the plan Romney reviewed.

"He also talks about McCain advocating social security benefits for "illegals", which any way you try to spin it is untrue."

You're flat out wrong about this. There is transcripts and video of him advocating for back pay of illegal immigrant's (who become legal through his Z visa) Social Security benefits.

"Against Huckabee, he has done the same thing. He has misrepresented his own and Huckabee's record on drugs, and taxes."

I don't understand how facts misrepresent the truth!

"Yes, it's true that Mitt lowered "taxes" as governor; but all he did was replace them with "fees", which is basically the same thing."

Taxes and fees are no where near the same thing (no matter what McCain and Huckabee tell you). A user fee is how Conservative Government should work. It is not broad based, and says if you use government facilities you pay a user fee. Taxes are something that everybody pays (broad based). The fact is that Huckabee raised fees too but on ridiculous things like the infamous "bed fee" in nursing homes. The add wasn't about fees I'm sure Romney could have dug up some dirt on the fees the Huckabee increased if the ad would have been about fees. Besides the taxes Romney decreased were far more than the $250mil. raised by the user fees he increased.

"I have no problem with true contrast ads, but when you're trying to transform half-truths into absolute truths, that's just plain dishonest. I would check out factcheck.org for more analysis on his misleading attacks."

I do check out factcheck.org, they are a useful tool that some liberals put together (as you can tell by the articles not merely stating facts but spinning facts they find to muddy the water more than it should be). I would recommend doing a little more analysis than that though.

Romney/Hunter 08

Posted by Joshu | January 9, 2008 3:38 PM

Joshu - I can assure you I am not into conspiracy theories . The following are facts .

1 The organisation which would benefit the most from the Utah Winter Olympics is the Mormon organisation

2 It was the Mormon brotherhood which made a complete pigs ear of securing the games - the scandle of the corruption nearly sunk the games '

3 Who better to sort the mess out and who could be relied upon to be discreet than a fellow Mormon - hence Mitt Romney is invited to sort the mess out .

This brings me to dicuss on this open forum the Mormon principle concerning where ever possible of keeping money within Mormonism . Already it has been observed that Romney in his campaign always stays in the Mormon owned Marriot Hotels . Mormons are big in the security industry I have no doubt that the people who are around as security minders are either Mormon or work for a Mormon company .
What conceivable confidence could the American people have that should Romney win the Presidency that he would not use all his influence to favour Mormons and Utah with "pork".

Posted by Andrew Price | January 9, 2008 4:01 PM

Mr. Price,

You say that you're not into conspiracy theories, but all those "facts" are speculation that I've read from none other than a conspiracy theory letter that someone published to smear Romney. The fact is that Romney kept government funding for the games well under 20%, when the fact is that previous games in the United States had government funding over 50%. Were they secretly trying to fund a Mormon agenda in Atlanta, GA, or in NY when the games came to Lake Placid? Please give me a break with these rediculous smear tactics!!! Romney/Hunter 08

Posted by Joshu | January 9, 2008 4:24 PM

justin,

I was debating on whether to respond to your last post. I will to say one thing...

No matter how much you try to spin Romney's quotes and non quotes in your last post, you do nothing to detract from the fact that you don't like Romney, so you're going to take whatever you can and twist it to mean the things you want them to mean, and appear in the context that you wish them to. But the fact is that truth is found in the context of the moment and truth in this case is found when you take facts away from your anti-Romney mindset and apply them accordingly.

Posted by Joshu | January 9, 2008 4:30 PM

Joshu,

Romney has always been squeamish on the Iraq question, it tilted me against him over time. I originally thought he was a joke because no politician that wins in Massachusetts is going to be the Republican nominee.

Then I learned more about the epiphanies he's had in the past I realized that though he is now competitive as a Republican, he's not going to be trustworthy on unpopular issues. I put 2 and 2 together.

Call me unreasonable if you wish. In the end the voters will decide.

Posted by justin | January 9, 2008 4:49 PM

What you see as squeamish, I see as honest. Tell me what is better, to say, "We are going to win!" whenever you're asked anything about Iraq or to lay out possible scenarios and what posture we would take if those scenarios are met. I see it as transparent, honesty, with substance that McCain is lacking!

Posted by Joshu | January 9, 2008 4:54 PM

Joshu - I fear you are trying to throw dust in people's eyes . I am dealing with the corruption which secured the games in the first place . Namely Olympic voting officials from various countries who vote in conclave until they reach a majority as to the venue - are you denying that that many officials were corrupted . Since you are compelled to acknowledge that corruptio took place . Who did the corrupting ? Which organisation in Utah would benefit most by the games being placed in Utah ?

Are you seriously suggesting that it was just a coincidence that Mitt Romney was invited to sort the mess out - and that he was a Mormon ?

Naturally I do not wish to assume you are a Mormon
so you may not be best placed to answer this question . What can you say of the Mormon principle of keeping money within Mormonism inorder for Zion ie Utah to survive and prosper ? Does Mitt Romney believe that Utah is Zion ? Sorry thats two questions .

Posted by Andrew Price | January 9, 2008 5:01 PM

"McCain won with honesty and integrity,"

So trying to froce amensty down our throats and then saying "I never supported amnesty," is you idea of honesty and integrity?

Please.

Mccain is an angry old man and his campaign will implode in SC again like it did in 2000. I will enjoy watching every second of it.

Go Mitt!

Posted by Bill | January 9, 2008 5:11 PM

Joshu-

That was my point all along.

You don't care as much about the fight in Iraq as you do about other issues.

Those who don't care as much about Iraq, who are willing to see "other scenarios" other than victory there, are welcome to vote for Mitt Romney(provide they can stand him on other non-issue things, like flip flopping, his Mormonism and style of campaigning).

For me, I know I don't give a wit about immigrants and I think throwing them out is the most ludicrous, impractical solution that is never going to be sanctioned by congress or enforced at the local government level.

For me, John McCain is the logical choice.

Posted by justin | January 9, 2008 5:15 PM

Mr. Price,

You have to completely ignore the "corruption" which secured the games in Sydney. Bottom line is that everyone, no matter where the games are held provide special incentives to get the panel to vote for their country.

I'm not denying that Romney knew someone close to the ordeal in Utah, government officials from Utah asked Romney to take over. Romney obliged them. It's purely speculation that Mormons were conspiring to pad their bank account as you would suggest. It's really bigoted to believe that.

No, I'm not a Mormon. And, no I'm not a conspiracy theory wacko!

Posted by Joshu | January 9, 2008 5:23 PM

justin,

Don't put words in my mouth, and I don't speak for Romney, but I know he wouldn't like you to put words in his mouth either. Bottom line is that the end is clear - we are going to win. Scenarios in war do change though and we need a leader who is willing to change policy and acknowledge that things do change. That's one of the biggest problems with John McCain. He thinks he knows best about everything, he is a "my way or the highway type" and that quite frankly is bad foreign policy and bad for America. Also this war is different than any war McCain fought in. This is a global war on terror. We are fighting an enemy much different and much more discreet than any enemy in the past, and if we are to win The War, not just the battle in Iraq, but The War on Terror, then we should not join global communities that seek to undermined our sovereignty and we should not close down Guantanamo Bay and we should use tough, humane, interrogation techniques that McCain looks to outlaw! McCain's policy is a policy to win a battle in Iraq, then concede our sovereignty and lose The War! Romney/Hunter 08

Posted by Joshu | January 9, 2008 5:35 PM

Joshu - thank you so why didn't you say what you have just said in the frst place . Are you still maintaining that it was just a coincidence that Romney a Mormon was asked to sort out the mess in the Salt Lake Olympics ? Since when does corruption in another country say Sydney Australia justify corruptioN in the USA ?

Since Mitt Romney says the White House needs a man of faith and he is a man of faith - are we not reasonable to assume that his faith will influence his judgement .

Glad to hear you are not into conspiracy theories on the subject of conspiracies - can you expain why Mitt Romney conspired with others to represent the Christian Pastor as being in the hire and pay of Satan in the secret Mormon Temple rituals ? Do you agree that for a Presidential candidate that is rather strange given he has been attempting to gain the support of the same sort of pastors ?

Posted by Andrew Price | January 9, 2008 5:48 PM

Joshu, I'll reply to a few of the points I see before I have to run:

1)When you make it seem like half of the story tells the whole thing, that's lying in my book. But it's ok if you don't think so. Mitt obviously doesn't think so either.

2) Romney has claimed several times that he "never called it amnesty", which he has in his ads. He now admits that it isn't amnesty, which is a direct quote from him. I don't like the plan as is, but it's still not amnesty in my book. Obviously anyone who supports Romney would be confused by his statements (and misstatements), so I don't blame you there either.

3)Romney called the immigration plan reasonable because if he hadn't, it would have upset the voters he was looking to appease at the time--Mass. liberals. Just another one of his many panderings.

4)You are right in your explanation on the benefits to illegals question, but is that what Mitt's ads are saying? The answer is no: he's making it seem like McCain is giving benefits to ILLEGALS, not those who have become citizens. Big difference there, and a good example of Mitt's half-truth ads.

5)Taxes and fees are still money out of people's pocket, and into the governments'. The difference isn't as much as you're trying to imply.

6) I agree the liberal media is tough to trust. But solely blaming the media for voters (conservatives included) rejecting Romney, despite big money and effort on his part, is a stretch.

Again, I will stress that there are issues that I don't agree with when it comes to McCain. But when it comes down to it, I (and voters in NH and Iowa) trust him more than Romney--and to be honest, I see clearly why that is.

Posted by Publius | January 9, 2008 5:59 PM

Time to weigh in again on efforts to rescue McCain-Kennedy Amnesty with word-parsing.

Publius - The answer is no: he's making it seem like McCain is giving benefits to ILLEGALS, not those who have become citizens. Big difference there, and a good example of Mitt's half-truth ads.

It is amnesty if it applies only to those here illegally - all violations of law waived in return for a fine - and deliberately excludes those here legally on work permits or those who are "in line" for visas or would be if all it took was a 5,000 dollar fine and a promise to learn English.
I asked a few H-1B Visa holders from India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka last summer what would happen if anyone who could scrounge up a 5K loan from money-lenders or savings could stay permanently in the US with full benefits of citizenship. All replied that they and their family members would immediately do so - and thought they had more Right to do so since they were here legally. All had enormous resentment that only illegals qualified for the McCain-Kennedy Amnesty.
All went on to speculate that 1/3rd of the citizens in their countries and half China, Vietnam, and the Muslim world would come here if they could have instant, permanent Z-Visas. "This of course would never happen because if Amnesty (they all called it Amnesty for law-breakers) was made fair, the US would immediately stop it because 2 billion people would demand to come to America and pay the small fine.

A chickenshit small fine, which is less than half the cost of one year of schooling and free medical care for one kid of illegal parents.
Which all the H-1B visa holders said was far less than the fees, middleman costs they paid to come here and work legally.

Publius employs the same dishonest word parsing and circular logic as someone defending a governor for pardoning a murderer and giving permanent residency and full social benefits in consideration of the murderer offering token restitution to society in the form of a 7500-15000 fine.

"Sorry, but you can call it Amnesty to the murderer or giving a murderer a platter of benefit goodies for a cheap payment because with the pardon, the person now has a clean criminal record and legally cannot be called a murderer or ex-felon. And if someone like Mitt Romney does criticise it, they are being a dishonest liar."

"The person is no longer technically a murderer as society must treat him the instant the pardon is signed. His status is legally a non-felon. I am sick of the lies characterizing the pardonee as getting undue criminal amnesty..."

***************
Joshu - I agree that Duncan Hunter would be an able VP and give a ticket national defense creds.

Also on your observation of McCain as infected with the George Bush fighter jet jock mentality unwilling to change views or admit error: He thinks he knows best about everything, he is a "my way or the highway type" and that quite frankly is bad foreign policy and bad for America.
Indeed, it is the cardinal flaw of Bush - "my way or the highway" stated as such to foreign nations, his own Party, the Opposition for 6 years, supreme confidence that Bush knew best. Stubborn refusal to acknowledge a decision of his was a failure when confronted by the facts.

No way the electorate will ever elect an old Man promising to govern in the fighter jock management style of Bush. Or one that unlike Bush also has a considerable scandal baggage, erratic behavior and anger management issues, a reputation for treachery and undercutting Republicans with his special backroom deals, and a lower IQ than Bush, even.

The media knows this and is pushing McCains "war hero" bio - He suffered! He suffered! He was a victim, thus a hero!! on bio-worshipping Republicans to hand up a candidate as totally unsuited for the Presidency as his "good friend" John Kerry was. A gift-wrapped turkey for Obama or Hillary! to carve up like Bill Clinton carved up old warhorse Bob Dole. THAT is why McCain is the Republican dream candidate of the media. And one reason people sensibly rejected McCain in 2000 as an unwinnable Bob Dole II.
Nothing has changed in 8 years except McCain is older and has gifted the Reublicans since then with McCain-Feingold, Gang of 14, McCain-Kennedy Amnesty, and providing cover for Dems to wreck Bushs' plans to deal with captured terrorists.

I also admit to being totally creeped out by one personal trait of McCains like others are creeped out by a flaw in Romney, Hillary!, or the Huckster.

McCain uses a wierd passive-aggressive greeting to all he meets, of "My Friend", "My Dear Friend". For people he hates, for people he likes. Which started when McCain was forced to greet his Vietnamese captors as "My Friend", "My Dear Comrade Guard". Creepy.

Fortunately, he will never be President, as hated as he is by most Republicans. Obama and Hillary, while untested, are more trustworthy than McCain and even Hillary! lacks McCains baggage. It will be a shame if the Republicans scorn their two electable candidates - Romney and Thompson - on minor flaws the MSM has touted to undermine them. Besides McCain, Mr 9/11 and Christian-Socialist-Creationist Huckabee and half-Loon in chief Paul appear unelectable.

Posted by chris ford | January 9, 2008 7:39 PM

Chris--So now we're comparing illegal immigrants to murderers (or at least I think that's what you tried to do at the end of your post)? Interesting logic there. My post points out that even Romney has backed off from calling it "amnesty", and trust me, if he could continue to call it that, he'd do it in a second. My point is that you can call it stupid, unfair, a disaster, whatever; but it's still not the clear-cut amnesty that you speak of. You may want to take up your crusade against someone who acually did offer amnesty, like Ronald Reagan in the 80's. The point with my post was to show some of the misleading information on Romney's ads, and I stick by what I said.

I do not like the immigration bill, and it happens to be one of the areas I disagree with McCain on. If this was the most important issue for picking a candidate, I would back someone else. But I happen to think that integrity, sincerity, and leadership count for a little more in this election--and that forfeits Mitt Romney.

Posted by Publius | January 9, 2008 11:36 PM

Publius,

You have to call the majority of the American people dishonest or misleading, and you'd have to call most of the Republicans in the Senate and basically all of the Republicans in the House misleading and dishonest because that's what we called it. That's what Romney said, even during the same debate he said that even though it may not be the dictionary definition, he considered it amnesty. You can speculate why he said it was reasonable all you want, but the fact is that the outcry was against a different bill than Romney called reasonable. I trust Romney because I've had the opportunity to be around him personally. I believe what he says because he's lived a life of integrity, his family is incredibly close knit and finds him very trustworthy. His friends and acquaintances don't call him slick, and dishonest like people do that don't even know him. He constantly goes out of his way to correct misstatements as no other candidate has done, and has made conversion on abortion very public and has gone out of his way to openly explain the legitimate reasons for his conversion. The fact is that he doesn't distort the truth, he states facts as written in various publications. I believe him because I've done the research, and it was research deeper than listening to accusations from other, lesser candidates, and deeper than just looking at the liberal leaning factcheck.org (which quite frankly acts like Romney is being dishonest but if you actually read closely, they have no argument against him in most cases at all...the other candidates just flat out lie in most cases). Romney/Hunter 08

P.S. Chris thank you for providing some insight! I truly believe the only conservatives in the bunch are: Romney, Hunter, and Thompson (although I have some reservations on Thompson due to his lobbying for McCain's campaign finance reform bill, and his close knit ties to McCain and others in the Senate)

Posted by Joshu | January 10, 2008 10:19 AM

"Joshu - thank you so why didn't you say what you have just said in the first place . Are you still maintaining that it was just a coincidence that Romney a Mormon was asked to sort out the mess in the Salt Lake Olympics?"

I'm saying that it wasn't because of his Mormon faith. It was because someone knew of him (may have been a friend) and knew his talents, therefore asked him, and he accepted.

"Since when does corruption in another country say Sydney Australia justify corruption in the USA?"

I'm saying that your conspiracy has no standing because of the fact that other countries do the exact same thing that your accusing Mormons of doing. The only reason you give credit to this far out conspiracy is because of the location. Fact is that this "corruption" is a mute point having nothing to do with the reason Mitt Romney took over the Olympics. It was do to corruption in the leadership after the games were secured. Wouldn't the corruption continue if Mitt was hired because he was a Mormon and wanted to pad the bank accounts of Mormon leadership in Utah?

"Since Mitt Romney says the White House needs a man of faith and he is a man of faith - are we not reasonable to assume that his faith will influence his judgement."

There is a distinct difference in your faith giving you moral values, requiring you to live righteously, and making decisions to use government to benefit your faith. Romney has said that he won't do that, and we can look at his record and say that he is trustworthy because he has never done such a thing.

"Glad to hear you are not into conspiracy theories on the subject of conspiracies - can you explain why Mitt Romney conspired with others to represent the Christian Pastor as being in the hire and pay of Satan in the secret Mormon Temple rituals ? Do you agree that for a Presidential candidate that is rather strange given he has been attempting to gain the support of the same sort of pastors?"

If nothing else is clear in your posts, it's your bigotry toward Mormons.

Posted by Joshu | January 10, 2008 10:36 AM

Revelation Press Publishes Blockbuster Expose:
Mitt – Set Our People Free!

A Former TV Business Editor/Reporter and Decorated War Hero “Swift Boats” Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romney – with Well-Documented Facts

Washington DC, January 7, 2008: In 2004, John Kerry faced opposition from an unexpected quarter – his fellow Swift Boat veterans from Vietnam. In 2008, it’s Mitt Romney’s turn to be “Swift-Boated” – but this time, instead of unsubstantiated innuendo, Romney is “Swift Boated” with a comprehensively-researched, solidly fact-based book – Mitt, Set Our People Free! Like Toto in Oz, this book tears away the curtain and reveals the truth behind the Mormon Church and its beliefs about the U.S. Presidency – and what that will mean to “President” Mitt Romney.

This exciting new book – Mitt, Set Our People Free! – published by Revelation Press, reveals just how Mitt Romney’s sacred oath to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, known as the Mormons or the LDS – including a vow of obedience to the “Living Prophet,” the President of the LDS Church – will impact his ability to govern as President of the United States.

Jesus said that man cannot serve two masters – but if Romney is elected President, he will have to serve two conflicting oaths. American Presidents swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. However, this Presidential Oath is in direct conflict with Romney’s sacred oath to his Mormon Church – a blood oath which puts Romney’s life, fortune and obedience at the unrestricted service of his Church. This obedience is defined by the Church’s Living Prophet, the President of the Mormon Church and – as they believe – the literal Voice of God on earth.

According to author Mike Moody, “One of the LDS Church’s basic tenets is a prophecy from founder and First Prophet Joseph Smith that in the latter days, the U.S. Constitution will ‘hang by a thread as fine as silk fiber’ until a Mormon leader rides in on his White Horse to save the U.S. and the Constitution – then use his control of the United States to set up a world-wide theocracy, one based on the clearly unorthodox beliefs of the Church of Latter Day Saints.”
Author Mike Moody, himself a 7th Generation Mormon from a family of Church-founding patriarchs – men who served Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as they created this remarkable “church” – uses his both insider knowledge of the LDS Church and his long-time personal ties to his one-time college fraternity brother, Mitt Romney, to point out the essential conflict between Romney’s sacred Oath to the Church and the oath he seeks to take as President.

Moody also details – chapter and verse – the many compromises and less-than-candid and frequently inconsistent positions Romney has taken to bring himself from successful venture capitalist to one of the leading contenders for the Republican nomination for Presidency.

Mitt – Set Our People Free! includes a glossary of “insider” terms that define the Mormon experience, as well as ten full pages of insightful, fully-sourced end-notes. Each bold assertion in Moody’s book is validated by credible third-party sources, many of them official – though essentially secret – LDS church documents. This book, published by Revelation Press and available through Amazon.com, rips away the veil of secrecy to expose the Mormon Church and Mitt Romney for what they really are – and what they really could become if they take control of the American government.

Mitt – Set Our People Free! is a controversial book by a controversial author, written for those who support Romney – and those who fear him. Author Mike Moody, a twice-decorated US Army war hero and ten-year veteran TV business news editor and reporter, is also a maverick Republican who, four years ago, was the Nevada Coordinator of Republicans for Kerry.

Mitt – Set Our People Free! is available at Amazon.com or directly from Revelation Press at www.revelationpress.com.

Posted by Jim Bonder | January 11, 2008 12:10 PM

If you want an outstanding business man to be your president vot for Mitt Romney

If you wanting a joking bafoon, vote for Huckabee

If you was as has been vote for McCain and never did a thing except yak about it this is your man

If want a complete set of con artists vote for any of the three Democrats.

Romney is rich in character, honety, intregrity.

If you think he is then you don't know Mitt Romney.

Are you false witness agasint Romney perhpas jealous because he really does have it all.

Posted by jenie | January 13, 2008 9:44 PM