States Won:
Romney: 9
Santorum: 3
Gingrich: 1
Paul: 0
Mitt has nearly double the votes of anyone else in the race, a MAJORITY of the delegates and a MAJORITY of the contests. And, it’s looking like he’ll get a solid majority of the delegates on Super Tuesday. The polls are trending strong in his direction and Intrade (the market where people put hard money on who they think will win) markets currently stand as follows for those 10 states (top 2 candidates per state listed here):
Alaska: Romney 78%, Paul 19%
Georgia: Gingrich 94%, Romney 4%
Idaho: Romney 94%, Paul 21%
Massachusetts: Romney 100%
North Dakota: Romney 71%, Santorum 15%
Oklahoma: Santorum 82%, Gingrich 13% (Romney at 12%)
Ohio: Romney 80%, Santorum 20%
Tennessee: Santorum 58%, Romney 45%
Vermont: Romney 97%, Paul 4%
Virginia: Romney 96%, Paul 2%
I think Mitt will win 7 or 8 states on Super Tuesday. The states he’s at risk of losing (GA, TN, OK) are all proportional and he should take delegates out of all those contests as well.
The Romney train is picking up steam!
Check out the latest cartoon from MittFitts below the fold. Read more…
Our beloved MittRomneyCentral.com website is receiving lots of traffic now from several sites linking to an old Op-Ed and selectively quoting two parts of it and reading between the lines that Romney wanted a mandate to purchase health insurance at the federal level. This is patently false. I just want to link back to some posts I wrote several months back about RomneyCare in case any readers click over here to our homepage.
In Part 2 of the three part series I wrote on the issue (Part 1 and Part 3 links) I suggested how Romney could smoke Obama in a debate when ObamaCare/RomneyCare came up with the following words/ideas.
Mr. President, when we reformed Health Care in Massachusetts we spent two years working toward a consensus. We had overwhelming public opinion support, input from the entire political spectrum (From The Heritage Foundation to Ted Kennedy), and finally passed a 72 page bill with a vote of 198-2 in the state legislature . . . getting whopping majorities from Republican, Democratic, and Independent lawmakers.
Contrast that to the bill you rammed through Congress in a matter of a few weeks and foisted upon the American people . . . a 2,700 page monstrosity that we were told would have to be passed before we could know what’s in it. A bill that squeaked through Congress by the slimmest of margins (219-212; meaning that it would have failed if only four Representatives had voted differently) only after well-documented strong-arming and promised political favors (“Louisiana Purchase” and “Cornhusker Kickaback”) . . . all this with not a single Republican voting in favor of it and 34 members of your own party voting against it. A bill that is a ugly stain on the fabric of our nation both for the ends that it aims to achieve AND the means by which it became law.
Mr President, based on the current unpopularity of your bill, and, in light of the 2010 repudiation of your party at the ballot box, I think it’s clear which type of leadership the American people prefer. Leadership that is deliberate and wise, that is not in a rush to score a political victory no matter the cost, that respects their voices and works for THEIR best interests. Wouldn’t you agree?
Well, the final results aren’t final yet . . . but it’s clear that Romney won this important swing state’s caucus, and won it big. (Update . . . Romney did get just over 50%, but the entrance poll results have just been revised this morning, so much of what you see quoted below is somewhat off from what the linked poll says NOW. Sorry, I’m not going back and re-calculating things at this point).
He’s got 43% of the vote with 43% of precincts reporting, but the results of Clark County (Las Vegas) as not coming in as fast as expected. Don’t fret though Romney fans, Mitt will win a majority of the votes and I’m guessing he’ll be somewhere between 52-55% of the total vote when all is said and done. If things track as closely as they are in the entrance polls, Clark County should go for Mitt by over 60% (and they’ve nailed the non-Clark County…rest of NV…percentage at 43%, exactly how the real results have turned out)
Debunking the “Romney won Nevada because of the Mormon factor” myth:
Yes, Mitt dominated among LDS voters with 90% choosing Romney, BUT (and it’s a very big “but”), EVEN IF NOT A SINGLE MORMON WENT TO VOTE, ROMNEY WOULD HAVE WON THE STATE WITH A 42%-26% margin over Gingrich. Romney won Catholics 52%-19% over Newt and “White Evangelical/Born Again” by a solid margin of 46%-26% over the former Speaker.
Debunking the “See, the poor won’t vote for Romney” myth:
On CNN’s coverage tonight, the anchors/pundits seemed to be getting as much mileage as possible out of the fact that the only economic demographic that Romney did NOT win was those that make $30,000 or less (which were only 10% of the voters in NV last night). They were trying to tie this to Romney’s “I’m not concerned about the very poor” comment and even went on to conclude that this “underscores the fact that blue-collar workers, who you can’t win without their support, do not see that this is a guy that will fight for them.” SERIOUSLY?!?!? I realize that these pundits aren’t statisticians, but it’s pretty straightforward to figure out why he didn’t win this demographic. First off, he hardly “lost” this demographic. Paul and Newt both got 31%, and Mitt got 30%, a virtual 3 way tie for first. Secondly, the age of the voter is VERY determinative of income when looking at your youngest age group especially. Voters aged 18-29 were only 8% of the vote (quite similar to the 10% in that income of $30K or less), and Paul won that group 40% to 39% over Romney. Paul has been wining the young college-aged voters in almost every state . . . it’s his base and he’s definitely turning out this group of folks that do not typically vote in a GOP primary. Good for Paul. But these college kids are a HUGE portion of the “makes less than $30,000 year” group, and I don’t think anyone would consider college kids “the very poor,” they are just in a temporary low-income stage of their lives.
“Strong Moral Character;” Mitt good, Newt Very Very Bad:
In perhaps the most revealing entrance poll finding, those that felt a candidate having “Strong Moral Character” was their number one trait they sought in a President, Mitt got 54% of the vote … Newt got 1% of those voters. No, that is not a typo, ONE PERCENT (Paul got 32% and Santorum got 13%). Looks like Nevada voters are pretty good judges of character, eh? THIS IS WHY YOU’RE LOSING NEWT!! YOU BLAME MITT FOR YOUR LAGGING VOTE TALLIES, BUT YOU NEED TO LOOK IN THE MIRROR BUDDY!
Debunking the “Strong Conservatives and Tea Party voters don’t like Romney” myth:
Like New Hampshire and Florida, Romney, once again, won self-identified conservatives and supporters of the Tea Party in Nevada. This time though, he won A MAJORITY of these groups. Romney beat Newt 54%-21% among conservative voters and 50%-23% among Tea Party supporters. Yet I still see pundit after pundit say that Romney still has a lot of work to do to appeal to conservatives (while they “obviously” love Newt). CAN THEY NOT READ A POLL?!? Among “very conservative” voters he Mitt still won 49%-24% over Newt, and even beat him 39%-30% among those “strongly supportive of Tea Party.” Some narratives are hard to kill, but when a state in the Northeast (NH), Southeast (FL), and West (NV) all show Romney winning conservatives and Tea Party supporters I think it’s proof positive against that media meme. The real take-away/new-media-narrative should be that Newt has work to do to appeal to as many conservatives as Romney has been.
Odds and Ends:
The Economy was the number one (even by a majority) issue on voters minds, and Romney carried these voters by 62%. By an even larger margin, the candidate quality of “Can Defeat Obama” was number one, and Romney absolutely dominated here with 73% of the vote. WOW! ”Right Experience” was the top quality to only 15% of voters, but Romney cleaned up here too with 55% (Rick Santorum pulled in a whopping 1% here). Romney also continues to dominate the Suburbs winning with 69% there; historically this is a key demographic for winning a general election.
Turnout Issue:
Newt and some liberals keeps saying that Mitt’s trying to suppress turnout in order to win. When we look at the field compared to 2008, however, I don’t think it’s any surprise that turnout is lower. Last time around there was much more diversity, and much more famous personalities in the field. You had a Pro-Choice candidate with strong personal appeal/popularity in Rudy Giuliani, War Hero John McCain, popular actor Fred Thompson, and folksy former pastor Mike Huckabee in addition to Mitt and Paul all in the race this far into the process. Substituting character-challenged Gingrich and personality/experience-challenged Rick Santorum in place of Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, and Huckabee is beyond even comparing apples and oranges. They all had more money and organization that either Newt or Rick too and that is how turnout is driven. Like all of Newt’s complaints/excuses, this one rings hollow as well.
CONGRATS MITT AND NEVADA!! ANOTHER GREAT WIN FOR ROMNEY!!
In the 24 hour news cycle, the story of the day has been Mitt’s comments to CNN in the early morning after his Florida win. While I think even the most ardent Romney fan would admit that this could and should have (and will be) phrased more adeptly, the liberals have taken and run with the partial quote that he’s “not concerned with the very poor” … It looks worse in print that in the context of the interview:
Or what about when Mitt gave cash out of his pocket to the lady in South Carolina who said God guided her to follow Romney’s campaign bus to find help to keep her lights on? The EXACT SAME CNN REPORTER (Soledad) even reported about that a couple of weeks ago … does she have no memory?
Mitt doesn’t care about poor people? Demonstrably false and easy to debunk (and this is without even delving into fact that Mitt, as a Mormon Bishop for several years, dedicated much of his time to caring for the poor in a very “hands on” fashion). If Obama and team push this theme it will come back to bite them. Mitt’s done more to care for the poor than any snarky reporter or any of his political rivals.
Additionally, Brit Hume on Fox News today adroitly argued that anyone who wants to “make hay” or be offended by this out-of-context quote wouldn’t be voting for a GOP candidate anyways. I’d have to agree.
If Newt’s gonna stick around in this race, we are going to keep calling him out on his shameless, desperate, and dishonest tactics. The RoboCall yesterday in Florida was absolutely unexcusable. Here’s the text of the call:
As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney vetoed a bill paying for kosher food for our seniors in nursing homes. Holocaust survivors, who for the first time, were forced to eat non-kosher, because Romney thought $5 was too much to pay for our grandparents to eat kosher. Where is Mitt Romney’s compassion for our seniors? Tuesday you can end Mitt Romney’s hypocrisy on religious freedom, with a vote for Newt Gingrich. Paid for by Newt 2012.
Can’t you just see Evil-Mitt shoving that pork down the throats of Holocaust survivors despite their pleas for mercy?!?!
Gingrich was peddling the same smears on the stump the last two days in Florida as well . . . but then denied knowing anything about the RoboCall.
“I have no idea what you’re talking about,” he said three times, speaking to reporters as he left Fred’s Southern Kitchen. “Can’t comment on something I don’t know about.” … Then he added, “You might check and see whether the accusation is true.”
Right, Newt … playing dumb when the RoboCall repeats a more shocking version of what you’ve been saying on the stump and ending with “Paid for by Newt 2012″?
Some Jewish community groups opposed the plans to bus in food, and instead requested additional state government funding in 2003 to help the kitchens operate. At the time, Massachusetts was struggling with a budget crisis, and Romney was trying to rein in costs by blocking additional spending. The kosher food bill that he vetoed would have provided an additional $600,000 in funding to nursing homes.
…
In the end, the veto was overridden by the Massachusetts state legislature, and the facilities kept their kosher kitchens after all. But Romney’s decision was not, as Gingrich claims, a choice to “eliminate kosher food for elderly Jewish residents under Medicare.” First of all, it was a choice made by the nursing homes themselves, not the Massachusetts government. Second, it was never actually going to prevent kosher residents from accessing kosher food. And third, Romney’s decision wouldn’t have cut anything – he simply vetoed additional funds, keeping funding at the status quo during a budget crisis year. Which means Gingrich’s comments have little basis in reality.
Yep … the RoboCall was a complete lie. Thanks Newt. What’s that saying about trials revealing character more than building it? Hmm…
Frontrunner Mitt Romney is getting by far the most negative press of the GOP field, according to a new study of television news coverage by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University. The study also found that the campaign horse race is getting over six times as much coverage as the candidates’ positions on policy issues. According to CMPA director and George Mason University professor Robert Lichter, “The media love a horse race and hate a frontrunner.”
…
Bad News for Romney Mitt Romney was the only major candidate to receive a majority of negative evaluations by sources and reporters, on both the broadcast network nightly news and FOX “Special Report.”
We all know that the media, in general, will favor Obama over any GOP nominee, and it’s encouraging to see that Romney has risen to the top throughout this process DESPITE the constant negativity from the TV media. This trend is not isolated to TV media either. What Mitt has done in this process is nothing short of remarkable … he has become the presumptive GOP nominee despite being the main focus of criticism of the TV, print, conservative talk-radio, his GOP opponents (he’s stood in there for 20 debates and in EVERY one he’s received more fire from his opponents than anyone else on the state), AND the DNC/Union/Occupy-Wall-Street crowds. He was vetted HARD 4 years ago as well. He IS Titanium Mitt!
*************************************
Mitt’s early voting lead in Florida is VERY encouraging! Based on the simple average (non-weighted for sample sizes) of the 4 most recent Florida polls (here, here, here and here) Mitt has a SIZABLE lead over his opponents.
Mitt 47%
Newt 31.5%
(Santorum and Paul around 14% and 9% respectively)
Sure he’s got a lead here folks . . . but all Floridians need to get out and vote for Mitt and get your friends/family/co-workers out to vote for him too. The size of his victory could change the whole complexion of this race overnight. MAKE IT SO FLORIDIANS!
Put your predictions in the comments thread! Here’s mine:
Mitt 48%
Newt 28%
Rick 14%
Ron 10%
If you’ve been over to Drudge Report or listened to Rush Limbaugh (today’s transcript) in the last 24 hours you’ve seen/heard a few clips of Gingrich bashing or distancing himself from Reagan/Reaganism. If Newt hadn’t been wrapping himself in the robes of “The True Reagan Conservative” and taking co-credit for all of Reagan’s accomplishments in debates and on the stump then I guess this wouldn’t seem so hypocritical. Megan Kelly, Fox News anchor, said that in one speech Newt referred to Reagan/Reaganism over 50 times.
Well, this NEW video below is the most damning to Gingrich’s claim to be a true Reaganite than anything I’ve ever seen so far:
Newt’s been running around for months giving Mitt grief as the “Massachusetts Moderate” because, in a 1994 debate vs Ted Kennedy, Mitt said “I was an Independent during Reagan-Bush, I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush” (the context was spending and fiscal policy … unfortunately these were definite weaknesses for Reagan and Bush). Would you say that “turnabout is fair play” here?
Newt is undergoing a hyper-speed “death by a thousand cuts.” I felt the tide turning around 48 hours ago and stated here that this was the beginning of the end for Newt. I honestly didn’t think it would come this fast, but I’m not complaining.
Newt and his fans I’m sure will blame Romney and his team for this . . . but that’s not the truth at all. Newt tried to build a skyscraper campaign on a toothpick foundation. He’s spent his entire career spouting off on every issue (most of the time on both sides) and now he’s “SHOCKED” that he’s being held to account for his own words. He’s practiced scorched earth politics his whole career, and burned plenty of bridges in the process. Fewer than 10 of the congressmen that served under him have endorsed him (Mitt has over 70 congressional endorsements . . . and more coming), a telling sign that Newt is plenty capable of losing his clout and influence all by himself … no reason to blame Mitt. If Drudge can take out Newt in 2 days, just imagine what Obama/Reid/Pelosi could do to him with the mainstream media cheering all the way along. Getting rid of Newt as a potential nominee is a service for which ALL Americans should be grateful!
It’s all downhill from here for Newt … I’m predicting right here and now that Gingrich has hit his high point and is about to whither under the forthcoming information about his last 15 years spent in lobbying/influence-peddling activities. The following will make for a beautiful montage using the disgraced and ousted former Speaker’s own words … and the timing and subject are perfect for anyone who doesn’t want Newt as the nominee. Why? Because it’s Fannie and Freddie and Florida folks! Florida took a hit second only to Nevada in the housing crisis and these GSEs (Government Sponsored Entities) were at the root of the problem. This is the perfect storm. The script will play out perfectly.
Remember when Newt said on Fox News “I do no lobbying of any kind. I never have. A very important point to make. I have never done lobbying of any kind.”
How about his ludicrous initial claim back in the November CNBC debate that he was paid by them to be a “historian” who told them how “insane” they were?
Sure Newt. At least we now know that he was lying through his teeth. He released one year of this contract yesterday and there was no mention of him being a “historian” but rather he was hired as a “consultant” by and to the chief lobbyist of Freddie Mac. Well, as it turns out, “consultant” was just a euphemism for “lobbyist” and Newt’s whole story doesn’t pass the smell test.
Over a month ago, Mitt challenged Newt on this claim calling Newt “the highest paid historian in history”
a spokeswoman for [Gingrich's] firm said it was unable to find an earlier contract dating to 1999 and renewed until 2002. The spokeswoman, Susan Meyers, also could not say whether Gingrich or any of its employees produced any written reports for Freddie Mac as part of the nearly $1.8 million in consulting fees it was paid.
Well, today’s news from Politico is especially damning to Newt and proves that he was involved in hard core lobbying efforts for the controversial and beleaguered GSE:
New details from Newt Gingrich’s contracts worth $1.6 million with Freddie Mac show that the Republican hopeful wasn’t just a boardroom consultant, but served as a high-profile booster for the beleaguered organization. He even gave a rallying speech to dozens of the group’s political action committee donors in the spring of 2007.
Shortly after the “rah, rah” speech, as one source described it, Gingrich gave an interview for the Freddie Mac website, where he supported the group’s model at length. The interview is no longer on Freddie’s site.
Gingrich said in the interview that Freddie has “made an important contribution to home ownership and the housing finance system,” even though many Republicans revile it.
On April 3, 2007, Gingrich gave a presentation to employee donors of Freddie Mac’s political action committee, according to several sources familiar with the presentation. It was the “rah, rah” speech described by a source who worked closely with Freddie at the time. Newt spoke about what was going on in the country and he offered his view of the issues.
…
That same day, Gingrich spoke to a larger Freddie Mac employee cabal where he explained his vision for transforming bureaucratic government into a “21st century organization” — a signature talking point for Gingrich who focused on technology in government early on.
Later that month, Gingrich also gave a “feature interview” that appeared on Freddie Mac’s website providing an extensive Q&A where the former Speaker of the House defended the government-sponsored enterprise model, according to a copy obtained by POLITICO.
Gingrich went so far as to say that “I’m convinced that if NASA were a GSE, we probably would be on Mars today.”
Freddie Mac declined to comment. A Gingrich spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“The housing GSEs have made an important contribution to homeownership and the housing finance system,” Gingrich said in the interview. “We have a much more liquid an stable housing finance system than we would have without GSEs. So while we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself.”
Further Gingrich acknowledged that this is not a viewpoint conservatives normally embrace. “Well, it’s not a point of view libertarians would embrace,” he said in the interview. “But I am more in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism. I recognize that there are times when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development.”
Really Newt?!?!? Really People? This is the “conservative alternative” to Mitt?!?! Wow . . . Just wow . . .
These revelations make Newt both a liar and a lobbyist. Sounds like just what Obama would like to run against.
UPDATE #1: “Methinks [Newt] doth protest too much” . . . Politico makes a good point on something Newt revealed in last night’s debate.
Gingrich — adamant that he wasn’t a lobbyist as he explained why he only released one year of his Freddie Mac contract, which dated to 1999 (he uttered something about going through a confidentiality process) — volunteered that at his firm, they brought in a “lobbying expert” to explain to his team what qualified as lobbying and what didn’t.
That expert “is prepared to testify,” Gingrich said.
Romney didn’t pounce. But why one would hire a “lobbying expert” other than to explain to staff how to walk up to the “bright line” Gingrich described, but not legally cross it, was not clear.
So Newt’s got his lawyer ready to say that Newt never officially lobbied with Fannie/Freddie . . . or at least he was trained/coached as to where that line is. However, what’s that old saying that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . . ? Newt’s trying to be too cute by half, and it’s the beginning of the end for him!
The American people want a TRUE DC outsider, that man is NOT Newt . . . it’s Mitt!!
The contract specifically excluded lobbying services, stating “nothing herein is or shall be construed as an agreement to provide lobbying services of any kind or engage in lobbying activities.”
…
The second contract released Tuesday night provides more detail on the work Gingrich was hired to perform, including “serve as advisor to Freddie Mac in the areas of strategic planning and public policy.” It also called on Gingrich, who is mentioned by name in the second contract, to “engage in discussions” with Freddie Mac’s chief lobbyist and senior officers “to strategize on approaches to Freddie Mac business opportunities and challenges.” Gingrich, who was hired to help the company reach out to Republicans, also was expected to “contribute to Freddie Mac corporate planning and business goals” and to “meet with major stakeholders of Freddie Mac.”
The contract also states that “neither The Gingrich Group nor Newt Gingrich will provide lobbying services of any kind nor participate in lobbying activities on Freddie Mac’s behalf.”
OK, so the document essentially says that Newt is going to lobby for Freddie Mac, but that no one can call it or construe it as lobbying. That will play really well with folks, eh?
Even MORE revealing is that Newt’s campaign is trying to pull a switch-a-roo / misdirection trick here by releasing these contracts out of chronological order. So the 1999 contract says “no lobbying” but the 2006 contract contains no such phrase. Anyone notice a problem? Everyone knew and realized that Newt was lobbying and they couldn’t keep that terminology in the later contract. He would be more free in his activities advocating and lobbying in behalf of Freddie.
Update #3
I believe another poster is going to address Newt’s lobbying to Congressmen for Medicare Part D when he was on the payroll as a consultant from several Pharmaceutical companies who would benefit from it’s passage. Kathleen Parker has just put up a column arguing my exact same point. Newt was a lobbyist:
Gingrich’s claim to have been hired as a historian, meanwhile, is a hard sell when no such role exists. It is also a stretch for him to present himself as an anti-establishment, Reagan-conservative rebel when he is raking in money for his association with companies, some of whose interests are anything but conservative.
Yet another mother lode for Gingrich has been the health care industry. Various companies paid Gingrich $55 million between 2001 and 2010, according to Bloomberg News. When asked what the companies received in return, Gingrich told The Post that they got to visit with “a really important guy who really knows a lot and who really has lots of information.” That person would be Gingrich’s Holy Trinity — Me, Myself and I.
He also earned more than a million from drugmaker Novo Nordisk, reportedly to help expand the U.S. market for its diabetes treatment. Again, there’s nothing wrong with this as long as Gingrich was honest about his role with the company. The company’s annual report to shareholders listed Gingrich under “public-policy activities,” which, the company added, “are often referred to as lobbying.”
He also personally urged GOP congressmen to support the $395 billion Medicare prescription drug benefit, according to, among others, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and former congressmen Jeff Bradley (R-N.H.) and Butch Otter (R-Idaho).
I saw a segment on CNN today with Wolf Blitzer where Rep. Flake flat out stated that Gingrich lobbied him hard on voting for Medicare Part D. Also in that piece I found this nugget:
A lobbyist for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae whose tenure overlapped with Gingrich’s told me on background that both signed the same contract. This person immediately registered as a lobbyist and said that Gingrich was clearly exerting his influence, though he may have been able to maintain a legal, if not entirely ethical, distance from the definition of lobbying.
Oh, and let’s not forget that before Newt’s ties to Freddie/Fannie had been revealed, he was the one spouting off the harshest rhetoric of any GOP candidate calling for investigations and even imprisonment of congressmen who had ties to or profits from Freddie/Fannie. Wonder if he’d like to roll back that charge, or if he’s willing to apply his own harsh charges to the man in the mirror.
So, do you take Newt at his word that “I do no lobbying of any kind. I never have. A very important point to make. I have never done lobbying of any kind.” . . . ?
Any way you slice it, Newt is serving up large portions of his own “pious baloney.”
First, the expected . . . Jon Huntsman is dropping out of the race. The writing has been on the wall for weeks on this part of the news. Huntsman never had national polling over 3 or 4 % and the fact that he didn’t (couldn’t) “play” in Iowa or South Carolina and put all his proverbial eggs in the New Hampshire basket did not bode well for the former Utah Governor/Ambassador to China. But finishing a distant third in New Hampshire earlier this week was really the nail in the Huntsman campaign’s coffin. Story here:
CHARLESTON, S.C. — Jon M. Huntsman Jr. informed his advisers on Sunday that he intends to drop out of the Republican presidential race, ending his candidacy a week before he had hoped to revive his campaign in the South Carolina primary.
Mr. Huntsman, who had struggled to live up to the soaring expectations of his candidacy, made plans to make an announcement as early as Monday. He had been set to participate in an evening debate in Myrtle Beach.
Matt David, campaign manager to Mr. Huntsman, confirmed the decision in an interview Sunday evening. “The governor and his family, at this point in the race, decided it was time for Republicans to rally around a candidate who could beat Barack Obama and turn around the economy,” Mr. David said. “That candidate is Gov. Mitt Romney.”
This source says the Press Conference will be at 11AM tomorrow.
Team Romney will gladly accept and appreciate this gracious endorsement from Governor Huntsman. This will also allow Huntsman Sr to be free to endorse Mitt (which he did in 2008) and I’m sure Mitt’s Super PAC will start to see some money flowing from the Huntsman’s way. That sure can’t hurt, eh? This will be an extra boost before tomorrow’s debate where I’m sure it will be mentioned. The Romney Train is picking up steam . . . time to get on board folks!!
~Addendum from Ross
VIDEO for the announcement and endorsement
Can you feel the Mitt-Mentum building folks? It’s nearly palpable! Thus, it has been with great pleasure that many of us long-term Romney supporters have watched Mitt smash through the supposed “25% Ceiling” of support that his opponents and Democratic talking-heads have fabricated. We’ve heard many of his GOP opponents and those on the left stating that Romney is a “weak frontrunner” because he rarely polled above 25%. I’ve heard literally hundreds of comment on news programs that “over 75% of the GOP want someone different than Mitt Romney as their nominee.” A couple of problems with that argument:
1) No one else was higher than Romney (rare temporary “flavor of the month” candidates briefly popped into the 30s being the only exceptions) and so if 75% don’t want Romney, then 85% don’t want Gingrich, 90% don’t want Paul, 95% don’t want Perry, and 99% don’t want Huntsman.
*************Sick of hearing that Mitt’s involvement with RomneyCare will make him unable to criticize ObamaCare as the nominee? I’ve argued before on this site that the converse is actually true, that Romney would be the best nominee the GOP has to take it to Obama on the issue of Health Care.
Mitt just added a whole new level of credibility to this argument by earning the endorsement of Pam Bondi, Florida Attorney General, and the lead AG for the 26 state lawsuit heading to the Supreme Court to test the constitutionality of ObamaCare. Something tells me that she would not be giving this endorsement without a full confidence that Mitt will do as he’s said, and grant immediate waivers to ObamaCare and then work to repeal the law itself through congressional action.
~Addendum from Ross
The Morning Joe crew makes the observation that Gov. Romney is the most disciplined candidate in the field below the fold. Read more…
Disclaimer: MittRomneyCentral.com is a pure grassroots website. It is not paid for, endorsed by, or affiliated in any way with Governor Mitt Romney or his official campaign.
If Newt’s gonna stick around in this race, we are going to keep calling him out on his shameless, desperate, and dishonest tactics. The RoboCall yesterday in Florida was absolutely unexcusable. Here’s the text of the call:
First, the expected . . . Jon Huntsman is dropping out of the race. The writing has been on the wall for weeks on this part of the news. Huntsman never had national polling over 3 or 4 % and the fact that he didn’t (couldn’t) “play” in Iowa or South Carolina and put all his proverbial eggs in the New Hampshire basket did not bode well for the former Utah Governor/Ambassador to China. But finishing a distant third in New Hampshire earlier this week was really the nail in the Huntsman campaign’s coffin. Story 
Recent Comments