Brenda in Orlando says this:

We have “boots on the ground” and are working really hard to bring Florida for Gov Romney. I would like to mention that the Romney Campaign is a first class organization disciplined to convey the true Mitt Romney to the people with pride, dignity and self respect. We are reminded constantly to remain dignified, do not criticize opponents and emphasize Gov Romney’s strengths and dedication to his platform – and our telephone calls are ALL LIVE encounters. Lots of positive volunteers on the phone and on the ground because they believe in Gov Romney and know he is the best candidate for President. We will not stop until the last poll is closed on Tuesday – it is truly an inspiring campaign – full of energy and hope for the future. Strong support among evangelicals in the I-4 corridor – intelligent and thinking people who are making their decisions based on the man, his life and his experience.

For all you conspiracy theorists (I’m looking your way Ron Paul), there’s a pretty good take on the “whispering” controversy from last night’s debate over at the Carpetbagger Report.

I know it’s still several days away until the Florida primary, but I want to get any input from our Florida readers as to what’s going on over there. As always, if you have any insights as to what’s happening on the ground, we want to know. Also, if you have already voted absentee for Romney, tell us why you chose him. We will post your thoughts on MMM. Email us at info@mymanmitt.com.

Go Romney in Florida!

There has been a lot of discussion about the Courts and judges today in the blogoshpere (Hugh, NRO Editors, Andy McCarthy, Marc Ambinder, Ramesh Ponnuru, Andy McCarthy again, Mark Levin, and Brad Smith). This is definitely one of the subjects where there is a difference between Romney, McCain, and Giuliani. Being a law student (my last semester, thankfully), this is a subject that I am passionate about. I have written before about what kind of judges each of these candidates would nominate. I find the most telling indicators are the issues that these candidates have gone to the courts to advocate.

Rudy went to the Supreme Court to fight against the line item veto. Some may yawn at the line item veto issue, but coupled with statements that Giuliani has made about his view of “strict constructionist” judges, a very troubling trend emerges. I wrote back in October:

Second, and I think even more illuminating, is who Rudy thinks is a “strict constructionist”. Apparently Rudy’s idea of a “strict constructionist” is someone who could come out either way on abortion, finds that the constitution mandates taxpayer funding of abortions, and agrees that the line-item veto is unconstitutional. This “strict constructionist” judge of Rudy’s looks more and more to me like John Paul Stevens, who was nominated by a Republican President, Gerald Ford. Of course Justice Stevens would be nobody’s idea of a “strict constructionist”, routinely finding in favor of race-based school classifications, abortion rights, and other “rights” found nowhere in the Constitution’s text. Certainly Rudy’s idea of a “strict constructionist” is not what Republican voters are looking for.

McCain fought against Wisconsin Right to Life to preserve the limitations on speech imposed by campaign finance reform. Campaign finance reform turns the First Amendment on its head, prioritizing the regulation of money over the freedom of speech and the political advocacy it was designed to protect. I wrote back in June:

McCain should be embarrassed for supporting such a blatant infringement of the First Amendment. While his concern with political corruption is laudable, silencing political speech is directly prohibited by the First Amendment, and certainly is not the method to avoid corruption. That McCain would choose to sacrifice free speech for the sake of political candidates is indefensible.

Romney went to the court to defend traditional marriage. After the ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court declaring gay marriage a right, Romney went to the court to force the legislature to allow the citizens of Massachusetts to vote on the issue. The Washington Post describes Romney’s efforts:

Romney said he will ask a justice of the state’s Supreme Judicial Court to direct the secretary of state to place the question on the ballot if lawmakers do not vote directly on the question Jan. 2, the final day of the current session.

Romney has criticized lawmakers since they refused earlier this month to take up the question during a joint session, voting instead to recess, all but killing the measure.

“A decision not to vote is a decision to usurp the Constitution, to abandon democracy and substitute a form of what this nation’s founders called tyranny, that is, the imposition of the will of those in power, on the people,” Romney said earlier. “The issue now before us is not whether same-sex couples should marry. The issue before us today is whether 109 legislators will follow the Constitution.”

I hate playing the victim card. I think it does little to advance one’s case and demeans whatever merit you already have. However, the lack of substantive thought at many major newspapers is astounding. Matthew Sheffield over at Newsbusters does a good job exposing the latest example of poor journalism over at the New York Times:

Everyone hates Mitt Romney. You should too. Why? Because, among the Republican presidential candidates, he’s the most disliked.

This extremely sound bit of reasoning comes in today’s edition of the New York Times courtesy of reporter Michael Luo whose evidence that the other candidates think this is based on some good old-fashioned arm-chair psychology.

Read the rest. Gotta love the reasoning of the NYT. Of course you would think the NYT’s mother would retort “If everyone else was jumping off a cliff, would you?” But that would require some good old common sense, something that has been lacking at the NYT for many years.

The build up on First-Read:

BOCA RATON, Fla. — The ever-shrinking GOP presidential field (Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Paul, and Romney) meets for potentially the last time as a five-way contest tonight. Broadcast live on MSNBC and streamed on msnbc.com from 9:00 pm to 10:30 pm ET, the debate here will be moderated by NBC’s Brian Williams; he will be joined by NBC’s Tim Russert, as well as St. Petersburg Times editor Paul Tash. It’s the only debate before the state’s crucial primary on Tuesday. And there’s a do-or-die feel to it. One tries to avoid the prediction game, particularly for this campaign season, and yet all signs point to this debate being one of the most contentious of the cycle for the GOP. Why? If the candidates don’t stop McCain now, they never will.

…Mitt Romney’s direction it looks like. Check out the latest polls:

Mason-Dixon

Romney 30
McCain 26
Giuliani 18
Huckabee 15
Paul 4

Rasmussen

Romney 27 (+2 vs. last poll, Jan. 20)
McCain 23 (+3)
Giuliani 20 (+1)
Huckabee 15 (+2)
Paul 4 (-2)

I was listening to a little of Michael Medved on my way to school this afternoon. He had Joe Lieberman on and then was talking about how John McCain’s crossover appeal is something that Reagan had and is important for an electable president and for the party generally. I figure most of you have an opinion of Michael Medved these days (as do I), but I wanted to talk about crossover appeal and how it is achieved.

Medved is right that John McCain’s candidacy appeals to independents and some Democrats. I think that the election results so far bear this out. However, is John McCain’s type of crossover appeal the type that we are looking for? McCain’s appeal to independents and Democrats comes not by moving them to the right, but by McCain moving to the left. This is a key distinction between the type of appeal that Ronald Reagan hand and what John McCain has. Reagan was able to persuade Democrats to move to the right. Especially on economic matters, Reagan ushered in conservative economics by persuading them on his ideas. Additionally he was able to persuade a Democratic Congress to build up the military less than a decade after the end of the Vietnam War.

McCain, on the other hand, has crossover appeal because of his moves left on key issues. McCain has been the one persuaded and not the one persuading on issues such as immigration, interrogation techniques, campaign finance reform (and the First Amendment generally), global warming, and taxes. McCain’s type of appeal to Democrats does not move the discussion to the right, but moves it to the left. He cedes ground on these issues and moves the country in a less conservative direction, not a more conservative direction. This type of appeal is not the type of crossover appeal that I am looking for in a presidential candidate, and I suspect a similar sentiment from many of you.

I want a president that can move the country to the right. This is going to happen not through ceding ground to more liberal thoughts, but through persuasion that conservative ideas will improve this country. McCain is not that type of man. He has been the crossover leader on bills that have moved the country left (McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Feingold, etc.). This is classic Washington compromise and not leadership. Even recognizing McCain’s advocacy for the surge, the net effect of his tenure has been to move the country to the left.

Mitt Romney is the type of conservative leader that can move the country right. He was able to persuade an overwhelmingly liberal legislature that his state needed tax cuts, that his state needed fiscal restraint, that his state could provide healthcare to its citizens through market-based reforms, and that his state could improve education through charter schools and merit-based teacher pay. All these changes moved the discussion in a conservative direction. This is the type of crossover appeal that I am looking for.

The Louisiana GOP realeased this statement about the caucus last night. I can’t make much of it because they don’t tie the delegates to which candidate they represented. If someone can make more sense of this than me, let us know at info@mymanmitt.com.

On Tuesday night, approximately ten thousand Louisiana Republicans caucused in 11 different cities across the state. Those attending the caucuses cast their vote for 15 delegates and 15 alternates to represent their congressional district at the 2008 Louisiana Republican Convention. Results were tallied on site late into the night and then reported to Republican Party Headquarters in Baton Rouge. Of the thousands of ballots cast, approximately 650 were cast provisionally.

Before these provisional ballots are counted, LAGOP staff must verify that the voter was a registered Republican voter in his or her congressional district as of November 30, 2007. The counting of provisional ballots in the 3rd and 7th Congressional districts is not needed to verify the results as the margin of victory for all winning candidates is larger than the number of provisional ballots casts. For the other five Congressional districts, Republican Party staff members will begin the process of verifying the results through each parish’s registrar of voter’s office. Once that process is complete, the Secretary of the Republican of Louisiana will certify the official results.

Prior to the tabulation of the provisional ballots, the uncommitted “Pro-Life/Pro-Family” slate appears to have won a majority of delegates in all seven congressional districts.

All candidates who ran for alternate delegate in the the 2nd, 3rd and 4th congressional districts won after qualifying as there were 15 or fewer candidates for those positions. The files below contain the unofficial results broken down by district and position. The P column shows the number of provisional ballots cast.