Mitt Romney Endorsed by: Nancy Reagan & Governor Huckabee

Headlines yesterday of the Bush portraits at the White House, the NYC nanny state and soda, and the trial of the man who cheated on his dying wife seemed to eclipse the otherwise important announcements of two new endorsements of Mitt Romney for president: Those of Nancy Reagan and Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Photo Source: NYMAG.com

Nancy Reagan endorsed Governor Romney for president yesterday at her home in Los Angeles as reported by the Associated Press. It was also reported that she served Governor and Mrs. Romney lemonade and cookies.

In a statement issued after the Romneys’ visit, Mrs. Reagan said she believes that Romney has the experience and leadership skills that, in her words, “our country so desperately needs.”

The Daily Caller reported further:

“Ronnie would have liked Governor Romney’s business background and his strong principles, and I have to say I do too,” she said.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee formally endorsed Governor Romney yesterday in New Hampshire. He gave an interview to Newsmax yesterday in which he covered a number of issues important to presidential politics.

Source: RightSpeak.net

“I made it very clear: ‘I’ll do everything that I can to vigorously support Mitt Romney because I think our country is at stake, and I believe his leadership would provide the right direction as opposed to what we’ve had four years, which is the wrong direction,” the former Arkansas governor declared in an exclusive interview this morning.
[...]
“I was very careful and deliberate in not wanting to get involved in the process prior to somebody securing the nomination, largely because of the fact that I play on both radio and television,” explained Huckabee. “I didn’t feel like it was appropriate for me to pick one of several Republican candidates.”
[...]
“I don’t think anyone doubted that I was going to support the Republican. But Mitt Romney has now earned it — and I use that term very specifically,” said Huckabee. “He has earned the nomination. He worked hard to get it and therefore I think all Republicans and all conservatives need to rally around Gov. Romney.”
[...]
While Huckabee’s name has been mentioned as a potential running mate for Romney, he said that he hasn’t had any discussions with the former governor on such a role.

“Haven’t heard from him. So you know I’m not anticipating a call,” Huckabee said, pointing to Florida Sen. Marco Rubio as an excellent choice in the event that he does not get such a call. “If one comes through, of course you know you always listen to those things, but nobody has contacted me. And I would not sit around thinking that’s going to happen.”
[...]
Having drawn support from social conservatives in his 2008 presidential bid, Huckabee acknowledged that Romney must still take measures to reach out to such voters following a bitter primary fight.

“I think right now it’s still important that Mitt gives them every indication that they have nothing to fear from his presidency and I think a lot of people in the value voter arena understand that we’ve endured four painful years of a president who not only ignores, but actually attacks religious liberties,” said Huckabee.

[emphasis added]

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist

Fascinating news about Mr. Obama and Governor Romney can be found by clicking below the fold here ————-> (more…)

Illinois, Let’s Do It!

Illinois, you know the future of the country is in your hands.

The GOP All Agree: It’s Time to Replace Barack Obama

The GOP nearly unanimously agrees that our four year experiment with an inexperienced Senator at the helm has been a disaster. I read yesterday an article at Politico whose headline was “CBO: Exploding debt under Obama policies.” That article says public debt is expected (under CBO rules of prognostication) to increase from $10.1 trillion in 2011 to $18.8 trillion in 2022. For the current fiscal year:

…CBO is now projecting a shortfall of $1.3 trillion. In fiscal 2013, the deficit will still hover near the $1 trillion mark — about $977 billion. And while it will fall to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2017, it then begins to grow again to 3 percent of GDP by 2022.

With 5 more years of Barack Obama, without threat of losing a re-election bid, one can imagine how bad it could get. How long has it been since the Senate proposed a budget? How much time do we have to repeal Obamacare before the contraception controversy becomes par for the course, and the Federal government begins telling religious institutions what it must buy for its employees?

And this doesn’t even consider foreign policy.

Picking the Replacement

So our choices to replace Barack Obama are now clear. Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney.

Ron Paul.

While there’s much of Ron Paul’s philosophy on the appropriate constitutional size of government I find appealing, he won’t win an election against Barack Obama. The last two elections in which the GOP nominee was elected were decided by the slimmest of margins. I don’t believe that American citizens are ready to make the radical changes Ron Paul would advocate. And I’m not ready for his approach to foreign policy.

Newt Gingrich.

I’ve written before that while Newt Gingrich seems to be an idea machine, he doesn’t know the difference between a good one and a bad one, which is not a good trait for a president. As an attorney for executives, I have observed that some people actually get things done, and others like to pontificate and tell others what to do. I see Newt in the latter role: wanting to be the professor and tell everyone else what they should do rather than actually getting it done. That is not what I’m looking for in an commander-in-chief.

Rick Santorum.

As for Rick Santorum, there’s a lot about his conservative social stands that I like. But I disagree that Rick draws a sharper conservative contrast with Obama than Mitt Romney, that Rick is the “true conservative” in the race, or that Mitt’s having endorsed health care reform in Massachusetts is a handicap. David Axelrod, Obama’s Communications Director, doesn’t hesitate to point out the many differences between Mitt and Obama. Saying Mitt is in any way like Obama is clearly misleading. Santorum calling himself the “true conservative” is also misleading. There are serious arguments to be made that Santorum is not a fiscal conservative at all. And while he attacks Mitt on social issues (principally abortion and Romneycare), Santorum is just as much a convert to the pro-life movement as Mitt is, and Mitt has made it very, very clear that he is both pro-life and intends to repeal Obamacare. When Santorum claims he “never supported the individual mandate,” that’s not true. He supported Mitt Romney as the “true conservative” candidate in 2008, after Romneycare was adopted. Rick’s conversion on health care reform came very recently, and very opportunistically. And we should not forget that Santorum’s endorsement of liberal Arlen Specter is what allowed Obamacare to pass in the first place, since Specter cast the deciding vote. Rick’s habit of compromising his principles has already harmed our country enough.

Mitt Romney.

Meanwhile, in my mind, Mitt has a number of strengths that make him the compelling choice.

Turnaround experience.

Mitt has decades of true executive experience, something unmatched in any other candidate. Mitt has been a governor. He has been a CEO. He led the Olympic games. Mitt’s executive experience has also often been leading organizations needing a turnaround. He’s credited with saving the 2002 Olympics. He’s credited with saving Bain Consulting. He’s credited with balancing the budget in Massachusetts without raising tax rates.

(more…)

Santorum & Gingrich Want Obama as President for Five More Years — Truth Revealed by History & Logic — Powerful Video Indeed!

Santorum and Gingrich seem determined to repeat history and hand the election over to Obama for a second term. And nobody knows history better than Mr. Gingrich (Santorum does not seem to care about history and would that we all believe what he says and just vote for him).

Over the years, I have not been a big fan of Dick Morris as he always seemed to me to have similar DNA to that of Gingrich, Blagojevich, and Trump — that of possessing stratospheric levels of self-esteem, leading to frequent bouts of condescending rhetoric. But I must admit, his analysis these last several months has been quite reasonable, measured, intelligent, and spot-on (what has gotten into him?!!).

There have been four conventions with since 1960 with “floor fights” — two Democrat and two Republican (’64, ’68, ’72, and ’76). In all four cases, the resulting nominee lost the general election!

Both Santorum and Gingrich now know they cannot win the nomination by garnering enough delegates outright with the remaining schedule of states in the primary cycle. Their only hope?

To force a floor fight at the end of August, which leaves virtually no time to take the fight to Obama before the November election. History is totally on Obama’s side if Republicans opt for a floor fight at the convention — Obama knows it; Santorum knows it; and Gingrich knows it. And since this is true, both Gingrich and Santorum (and any person that votes for either of them) effectively acknowledge they want Obama to be President in a second term.

Listen carefully to the simple logic laid out here by Morris about voting in Alabama and Mississippi:

Four years ago, I was an ardent supporter of Governor Romney, fully expecting him to win against Huckabee and McCain. Even when the trend was for McCain to win, I wanted nothing more than for Governor Romney to take it all the way to the convention and force the showdown. Absolutely!

Instead, he did the right thing. He stood down and went all out in support of McCain — becoming his strongest surrogate — even raising $20 million for him! Why? Governor Romney decided to do everything within his influence to unify all Republicans early behind the obvious winner in order to build the strongest campaign possible against the Democrat nominee. Like millions of Romney supporters, I was very disappointed. I wanted to go all the way and fight it out, knowing that my candidate was the right candidate. What would Mitt do in this very situation? We know what Mitt did!

Quoting Dick Morris from this video clip:

“This fight is over!” “It’s over.”

“Anybody who votes for Gingrich or Santorum in Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri, or Illinois is basically voting for a deadlocked convention.”

“Vote for Romney now…Why? Because I want to beat Obama, and you can’t do that if you go to into the convention without a candidate. Not if your convention is the last week of August.”

“It’s over. We’ve made our choice. Romney has 54% of the delegates at this point.

What drives Santorum and Gingrich at this point, when they know that their only chance is a knock-down, dragged-out fight at the convention? For they know that the result of that process is sure victory for Obama and the probable loss of more Senate and House seats. Obviously, Gingrich and Santorum are highly motivated to stay in the race through the convention, for they have said as much. What then is their motivation?

Ego? Revenge? Bigger book sales down the road? I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt. Four years ago at this time in the cycle, Governor Romney was in full campaign mode in support of our party’s candidate. Governor Romney fully subordinated his ego and personal ambition at that time and went to work! And you know what? He worked harder than any other surrogate on the campaign trail for John McCain! Look it up.

The title of this article states that Senator Santorum and Speaker Gingrich want Obama to be President for five more years. I do not believe they do. However, their desire to do whatever they can to take the Republican race to a floor fight at the convention in late Summer will certainly seal the deal for Obama and they know it. Those who vote for them at this point, know it as well.

If it is true that they do not want Obama to have a second term as President, then they are motivated by something other than solid Republican principles — indeed, they are driven by ulterior motives not associated with the best interests of this great nation.

Clips of Mitt Romney at the Huckabee Forum

Mitt Romney Pledges to Look After America’s Vets



Mitt Romney: Soldiers Need a Commitment From the Commander in Chief That They Will Be Cared For



How Will Mitt Romney Lower Maginal Rates and Balance the Budget?


Click here to watch the full forum.

Addendum: Watch Donald Trump on Fox & Friends below the fold. (more…)

Texas Ranch Meeting: About Conservatism or Religion? The Obvious Truth

Over the last 10 days or so, much as been reported about a meeting or conference of evangelical leaders to be held at the ranch of a judge in Texas. That meeting happened yesterday. There have been literally dozens of newspaper and online articles published leading up to the meeting, and afterward, with all of the accompanying speculation and anticipation. Their goal? To decide upon the “conservative alternative” to Mitt Romney. Really? They must think all Americans are completely ignorant.

Senator Rick Santorum (Photo credit: AP)


Saturday in The Dallas Morning News, Robert Jeffress (yes, that one) was quoted:

“The fat lady hasn’t sung yet, but she’s in the green room warming up. It looks like Gov. Romney is going to win the nomination,” said Jeffress, who was not at the meeting but made headlines last year when he warned that Mormonism is a cult.

Jeffress cautioned that while some say evangelicals will have no choice but to vote for Romney, millions could stay home as they did in 2008 unless the former Massachusetts governor gives Christian conservatives a reason to turn out for him. He suggested that Romney, should he become the nominee, strongly promise that he will appoint anti-abortion judges to the U.S. Supreme Court.

From the many reports I read about the meeting of over 150 leaders, they cast votes (more than one time) to choose one of the “not-Mitt” candidates still remaining. Their selection was Rick Santorum, to the chagrin of Mr. Gingrich (I wonder why they decided against Newt? — a real head scratcher!).

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council says conservatives are looking for a candidate who will repeal the nation’s health care law, fight for pro family values and address the national debt.

Governor Romney was the first to declare he would seek to repeal ObamaCare — and forcefully. Which other candidate has better family values than Governor Romney?

This National Journal piece gives a good sense of the jockeying:

“We have been successful as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney,” Santorum told reporters in Mount Pleasant, S.C. Later, he said in a statement that every candidate had “coveted” the endorsement. “It is time to coalesce behind the full spectrum conservative in this race who will fight for their values and won’t waiver when times get tough,” Santorum said. That was a reference to himself. The next sentence was a reference to Romney: “Now is the time to stop a moderate from becoming our party’s nominee.”

Newt Gingrich and his camp disputed Santorum’s interpretation of the results. Former congressman J.C. Watts, Gingrich’s national campaign co-chairman, said Santorum and Gingrich were separated by only nine votes on the first ballot. “It is clear that 100% of those attending are not for Governor Romney, but in fact are splintered in whether to support Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum,” Watts said in a statement. He called it “misleading” for the Santorum campaign to claim an endorsement from all 150 leaders at the meeting.

[emphasis added]

A SIMPLE TEST OF LOGIC:

Facts First: Any person that does a small amount of research, and dives below the soundbite images painted by Gingrich, Perry, and Santorum regarding Governor Romney, discovers that he governed as a conservative in every way. One of the best examples is regarding his pro-life record. In every decision he made or action he took as governor, was always on the side of life. Proof ——> HERE. There are many examples of Governor Romney’s proven conservatism, not least of which are the numerous Tea Party leaders and organizations that have enthusiastically endorsed him over all other presidential candidates.

Now the Logic: Ask yourself this question — If Mitt Romney were an Evangelical, would that meeting have been convened? Take your time as you contemplate your answer to this simple question. Remember, Mr. Newt Gingrich was included as a possible choice by these evangelical leaders — a serial adulterer whose last affair lasted in secret for six years during the time Gingrich publicly scolded President Clinton for his extramarital relations. In fact, Mr. Gingrich came in second in the voting at this ranch meeting!

Again, would that meeting have been convened at all by 150+ evangelical leaders had Mitt Romney’s religion been Evangelical? The obvious answer is clearly “no” it would not have even been considered.

What if Mitt Romney were Evangelical and had won both Iowa and New Hampshire? I can tell you this: Had Governor Romney been Evangelical, he would have won Iowa by tens of thousands more votes than the 8-vote margin he received. Santorum only came close because of the clarion call “to preach Santorum” from the pulpits the Sunday prior (ala Huckabee 2008 surprise). Interesting, is it not, that the IRS let those instances alone?

Conclusion: If GMR were Evangelical, he would have won Iowa by a HUGE margin. If GMR were Evangelical, the Texas ranch meeting of 150+ evangelical leaders would never have happened. If GMR were Evangelical, the primary race would be effectively sealed after his winning two unprecedented states.

If this logic is anywhere near the truth, then what was yesterday’s meeting all about? These “leaders” traveled from all over the nation to meet out at the ranch, spending an enormous amount of time and money. They all reported that the meeting made no mention of Mitt Romney or his religion. Right.

That meeting had nothing to do with conservatism.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

,

Exclusive (MR12): One Evangelical’s Journey to Promote Mitt Romney

Five years ago, I discovered the amazing resource Article VI Blog, founded by John Schroeder and Lowell Brown. Their reporting and Op-Ed writing, in my opinion, have proved an important contribution to this nation and to the American ideal of freedom. Their tireless research will continue to enlighten Americans who treasure the blessings of diversity.

John Schroeder


John and Lowell traveled to the Bush Library in Texas for Governor Romney’s historic Faith in America speech December 6, 2007. It was there we met and discussed their work and our hope of a Romney presidency.

Following is a candid view into John’s childhood, youth, and adulthood that I found most revealing – especially as relates to his arriving to understand Mitt Romney’s tremendous leadership skills and experience. I am grateful to him for this guest contribution to Mitt Romney Central.

From Protecting The Church To Electing A President — This Evangelical’s Story

By: John Schroeder

The story is now old about how Article VI Blog got started. We have grown from the original team of me, an evangelical Presbyterian, and my Mormon partner Lowell Brown to include John Mark Reynolds, notable Greek Orthodox academic and scholar. All three of us have our individual reasons to be there; let’s talk about mine.

When I started, I really did not care much for Mitt Romney, but I also hated bigotry. Frankly, one of Romney’s key talking points for the ’08 election was what has now come to be called “RomneyCare” and I was aghast. When Article VI Blog started I was in the process of losing about 200 pounds. That gave me a unique view of the health care system – the last thing I wanted was to give the government the power to tell me about my weight, and let’s face it, you put someone in charge of your healthcare, and that is where they are going. But again, I hate bigotry.

See, I am a son of the Deep South. I was born in 1957 in Oxford, Mississippi. My father soon finished law school and we left Mississippi, but my mother’s entire extended family was there so rarely a year has gone by in my life that I have not spent some time in the state. I grew up with “Whites Only” signs, and segregated water fountains. Most importantly, I saw the racial prejudices of the Deep South routinely turn some members of my loving and wonderful family suddenly ugly. We could be having the most wonderful evening in a household full of love and good cheer and the topic would come up and well, let’s just say I saw the good cheer leave the room.

So, on that fateful day when Hugh Hewitt introduced me to the idea that Evangelicals would oppose Romney, not because of something like RomneyCare, but because of his faith, I did not want to see the good cheer leave the “evangelical room” and decided to get involved. Right up until the day before Super Tuesday in the 2008 primary campaign, I worked hard to fight the religious bigotry that was so obviously aimed at Romney, but that did not mean he had my vote. He ended up with it, but he had to earn it.

So-called RomneyCare really was the only serious obstacle to his having my vote. John McCain was, well, not a team player with Republicans, and governance is a team game. Rudy Giuliani was waaaay too far left. Fred Thompson was a joke, and Mike Huckabee really did take the good cheer from the evangelical room. But….

In ’08 Romney ended up with my vote largely because as I studied the RomneyCare issue I came to discover that what was passed in Massachusetts was a far cry from what Romney proposed. What Romney proposed was a hybrid system between private enterprise and public health care. Most importantly it offered subsidies for people to get private healthcare; the government never became the provider. Not ideal from my perspective, but enough to make him far more palatable than the alternatives, particularly when you consider that the public, showing a lack of wisdom in my estimation, was demanding something. A reasonable politician has to act when the citizenry demand, even if the result is less than ideal. Those in elected office are, after all, servants of the people, not rulers.

Since ObamaCare has come to pass, RomneyCare is no longer an issue for me. There are many similarities in the Massachusetts healthcare system and that which ObamaCare shall bring to pass, but in the end there is no comparison. Many legal scholars think ObamaCare is unconstitutional – I am inclined to agree with them. States have a lot of power that the federal government does not. But more importantly to my mind Massachusetts healthcare now has little resemblance to what Mitt Romney originally proposed. He had some vetoes overridden and has been out of office for quite some time now, giving that heavily liberal legislature, and governor, plenty of time to fiddle about. What Mitt Romney wanted, and what Barack Obama shoved down our gullets is radically different. Romney has promised to minimize the impact of ObamaCare as much as the power of the presidency will allow and to make repeal of it a priority in his agenda. That’s all I can ask.

Let’s get back to my youthful sojourns to Mississippi and to bigotry. You cannot be about in Mississippi and not know African-Americans, lots of them. One of the reasons things seemed to turn so ugly in the family gatherings when it came up was because the blacks that I knew in Mississippi were certainly poor and generally undereducated but most of them were decent good people. As an infant, I was cared for by a woman (my mother worked while my father was in law school) who remained in service to the family her entire life, as did several of her children. Now my parents were dirt poor at the time. Mom made a pittance as a production assistant at a Memphis television station and Dad had the GI bill. That they could afford a caretaker for me explains a lot of the poverty in the African-American community of the time. Regardless, I saw that woman (Fannie was her name) on every visit I made to Mississippi until she passed away, which was about the time I graduated high school. She could not read or write, but she was a good woman – having cared not only for me, but for many of my generation. She was a decent person. But the things some of my family members would say when she was out of earshot…. Their words simply did not match the reality I witnessed, and it made some loving, beautiful people look very ugly.

Schroeder & Brown at Faith In America Speech


You cannot live in southern California, one end of the so-called “Jello Belt,” and not know Mormons – lots of them. When I contemplated my evangelical brethren discarding a candidate for POTUS because he was a Mormon, it just looked ugly to me. They were good, decent people. Politically most that I know stand right where I do. They are contributing members of the community, often leading on things that my brethren seemed too pre-occupied to tackle. As the African-Americans of the Mississippi of my youth were poor and under-educated, the Mormons of my adulthood were theologically misguided, but they were good people, even preferable as neighbors. To discard Romney on the basis of theological wrongness reflected very poorly on my evangelical brethren.

I am tempted at this point to go on about the proper relationship of theology and religious affiliation to our citizenship, but that is a scholarly topic, and this is a personal reflection. Besides, it’s getting too long anyway.

I grieve for all those that would discard Romney, or Jon Huntsman for that matter, on the basis of their Mormon faith. To do so, from my perspective, shows little faith in the God who saved me and whom I claim to serve. The New Testament is full of the message that Christ came to free us from the drudgery and ugliness of legalism. Such is not license for debauchery, but rather a reflection of the fact that Christ’s ministry transforms us. We are changed from people who obey the law out of obligation, fear and tenacity to people from whom behavior in compliance with the law flows as a natural consequence of who we are.

If we still operate out of a mindset that demands strict compliance in an obligatory and tenacious manner, then we have yet to experience the deep reality of what Jesus can do for us. Christ, it must be remembered, chose the company of sinners over the religious elite of his day. In plain speak, it is not about theology or membership, but character.

Martin Luther King Jr. spoke some of the most profound words of the last century:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

The years since Article VI Blog started have been very interesting years in my life. Among the more interesting occurrences has been the opportunity to get to know Mitt Romney just a little and some of his extended family quite well. These are people, who when judged by the content of their character, deserve the same shot at the White House, or any other part of the American dream, that the rest of us enjoy.

I do not pretend to know what God thinks of Mormons or Mormon theology – I do not know what will happen to any individual Mormon in eternity, or anyone else for that matter – I am no where near that smart. I know what I believe and what my prayer and study has taught me, and yes, it is quite different than what they believe. But I also know that to deny them their place in our nation, based on that difference, reflects far more poorly on me than it does on them.

All said and done, that is why I started with Article VI Blog. I did not want the prejudices of some in the Evangelical community to reflect poorly on all of us. I wanted anybody that bothered to listen to know that we’re not all that way.

Some six years later the only thing that is different is that Mitt Romney is now unquestionably the best candidate qualified to steer our nation back in the proper direction. Economically, his skill is unrivalled. As an executive, his experience is unmatched. As a politician, his current victories speak for themselves – as does his character. This cycle Mitt Romney has more than earned my vote. I am proud to be behind him – 100%.

[Emphasis added by Lundquist]

If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this. — C. S. Lewis

…………………. Related Resources …………………….

Why Evangelicals Can Support Mitt Romney

Evangelicals for Mitt

JFK’s Amazing, Inspiring 1960 Speech to Houston Ministers, “I Believe in America”

OUTSTANDING RESEARCH ON ROMNEYCARE (including MD experts):

The Truth About Massachusetts Health Care

Problem or Not?

Why RomneyCare Makes Mitt the Best Nominee to Face Obama

Bottomline: Romney Stands Strongly Against ObamaCare

Why Romney Care is Constitutional While ObamaCare is Not
,

Romney Chosen by 24 Economists as “Best” Above All Other Republican Candidates

36 economists rated Obama’s performance in handling the economy — 13 of them rated his performance “poor” and none rated him “excellent.” Surprise, surprise! (See graph to view the federal spending since Obama took office and projected spending).

Source: www.TheAtlantic.com

This Associated Press article goes on to say,

Asked which of the Republican presidential candidates would do the best job managing the economy, two thirds of the economists named Romney, one chose former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. The rest didn’t pick anyone at all.

Allen Sinai, president of Decision Economics, says Romney, who ran a private equity firm before turning to politics, is the “hands down” choice among Republican presidential contenders squaring off in the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses.

“Romney’s a technocrat,” Sinai says. “He’s not an ideologue. He has a history in the real world of business.”

[emphasis added]

As to Obama’s huge infusion of government stimulus funds, Sinai goes on to say,

. . . public works projects failed to pull Japan out of a long economic slump that began in the 1990s and continues today. After the money is spent, “you’re left with deficits and debt. And someday if you need new government stimulus, you can’t afford it. And that’s where we are now,” Sinai says.

The AP authors Wiseman and Kravitz state why economists so overwhelmingly chose Romney over all the other Republican candidates,

Many of those who chose Romney couldn’t cite any of the former Massachusetts governor’s economic proposals. Nevertheless, his background won over the economists. Romney graduated from Harvard Business School and served as CEO of Bain & Company, a management consulting business in Boston, and Bain Capital, a spinoff investment firm, in the 1980s and 90s.”He has the experience that the other candidates lack,” says Harris of UBS Securities.

Some of his Republican rivals have taken unconventional positions. Texas Rep. Ron Paul advocates abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to the gold standard. Texas Gov. Rick Perry has said it would be “almost treasonous” for Bernanke to try a third round of bond purchases to jolt the economy before November’s election.

Among Romney’s chief economic plans: repealing the Obama administration’s health-care law; cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent; and making permanent tax cuts on dividends, interest and capital gains from President George W. Bush’s administration.

“He thinks about the economy in a more global way” than his GOP rivals, Naroff says. “He’s not a rigid ideologue.”

No other candidate even compares to Governor Romney’s credentials when it comes to economic expertise!

If you have not already read this article as to why Evangelicals should support and promote Governor Romney, please read it.

“It is rare to find a business partner who is selfless. If you are lucky it happens once in a lifetime.” — Michael Eisner

Iowa: Predictions, Speculation, Humor, and Fun

Official Iowa Seal


Let’s do a little speculating ahead of the Iowa caucuses — just for the heck of it and for a little fun. I have noticed in the MRC chat room that many of you are political junkies, as am I. Even with Christmas this week, there has been a lot of political chatter. Following are some thoughts as to where I see it going for Iowa specifically and for the eventual nomination in general. I am certain some or many of you will disagree with me and if so, please provide your perspectives in the comments — just for fun. By the way, I have no inside information at all. My thoughts below are derived from the chatter I hear and read.

Where you see a percentage prefaced with “GOP:” this is the Intrade.com market level as of 12/26/11, 10:15pm, PST to the question, “Nominee to be Republican Presidential Nominee in 2012″ — A percentage prefaced with “Iowa:” this is the Intrade.com market level to the question, “Nominee to win the 2012 Iowa Caucus.” Seven candidates in alphabetical order:

Bachmann — Will finish 6th or 7th; No executive experience; Only two Presidents were elected from the House: Lincoln & Kennedy; Will drop out after Iowa for thin $$ and Org; In race to build name ID only; GOP: 1.4%.
Gingrich — Will finish 4th, maybe 3rd; Never intended to run a serious campaign; He peaked at highest level in polls 12/13/11, never to hit those highs again in this race; Will remain in race out of sheer arrogant ambition; Will survive despite anemic fund raising; Could not qualify in home state of Virginia; GOP: 7.9%; Iowa: 11.1%.
Huntsman — Last place (7th); In race only to build name ID; Never serious candidate based on lack of $$ and Org; Will drop out after New Hampshire; No longer shows in Intrade.com.
Paul — Will finish 1st in Iowa (if so, Iowa will likely become marginalized/irrelevant in future elections); No executive experience; Only two Presidents were elected from the House: Lincoln & Kennedy; Has strongest Org next to Romney’s; Will run again for President in 2020 and maybe 2024 if still alive; Paul is no longer taken seriously, but his supporters are; GOP: 7.3%; Iowa: 49%.
Perry — Will finish 5th in Iowa; Won’t be GOP nominee for perception he would never beat Obama in debate; Could not qualify on Virginia ballot; Will not easily cave since he has never lost an election (ego); Predict he will survive to at least South Carolina due to $$ and Org; Will languish at bottom despite $$. GOP: 2.1%.
Romney — Will finish 2nd, maybe first if Iowa weather is good (Huckabee); Expectations were set low, so 2nd place is great, 1st place is grand-slam; Romney is only candidate that built political goodwill by raising money over last three years for many GOP candidates after his last presidential run, much the same way Reagan did after his first failed run for POTUS; Undecided Iowans (~50%) may coalesce behind Romney in order to be relevant (against Paul/Gingrich) and to back a sure winner; Positives too long to list here (for later post); GOP: 71.9%; Iowa: 34%.
Santorum — Predict will finish 4th, maybe 3rd; Will be surprise in Iowa for hard work and official Evangelical backing; May even eclipse Gingrich; Will drop out after Iowa or NH; Strong Iowa finish will provide momentum into NH; Will need all the stars to align to raise $$ to then build Org; No longer shows in Intrade.com.

Estimates of voter turnout in Iowa, one week from today, range between 110,000 and 140,000 — tiny by any measure. Iowa seems to always provide some surprises, all the more reason for the hype leading up to the caucuses. Due to the surprise factor, all of my predictions above could be way off, but in the end, I think Iowans want to be taken seriously and most importantly, they want to be relevant in future elections. They pride themselves on really “knowing” each and every candidate.

Ultimately, I think Iowans cannot seriously think they will be found relevant if they give it to Ron Paul, knowing that he would allow Iran to obliterate Israel. I think Gingrich is simply too self-loving, untrustworthy, and immodest for Midwesterners to embrace in a big way. In many ways over the cycles, Iowa has been marginalized as a predictor of future Presidents. Realizing my bias, I think Iowans will want to regain their past reputation by choosing the very best candidate for POTUS and back Romney in the end.

If you disagree, how, why? Please leave a comment or two to inform us.

“I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.” — Abraham Lincoln

Huckabee Says Romney Will Likely Win Iowa

The race for Iowa is a dead heat at this point, but the man who won Iowa last time, Gov. Mike Huckabee, believes that the victor will most likely be Romney. In an interview this morning on Fox News Sunday, Huckabee said this:

“I would probably say Mitt Romney will end up winning it today. I think again, Ron Paul because of his organization could, and that’s where Mitt is really at a disadvantage. He doesn’t have the devotion. If the weather is good, Mitt Romney is in better shape. If the weather is bad and it’s real tough to get out, Ron Paul will win.”

That’s welcome news for camp Romney, especially considering the source.

I think the interesting development lately has been the noticeable thawing of relations between Huckabee and Romney. During the 2008 Republican Presidential race, Huckabee and Romney developed a very strained relationship with one another as they competed for much of the same conservative voting bloc in Iowa and elsewhere. The dislike between the two seemed palpable at times.

Recently, however, several gestures have been made by both men that indicates a warming between the two. For example, Huckabee invited Romney to appear as a guest on his Fox News show. In one interview, Huckabee also defended Romney’s credentials on being pro-life, and later went on to say that the Tea Party may need to get behind Romney because “lets face it, Romney may be the most electable candidate.”

Huckabee has said that he will most likely not endorse any candidate during this election cycle, but the kind words expressed by the two candidates represents a significant warming between the two men.

What do you think? Is Huckabee going to be an ally to the Romney camp, or will the two work together in some way in the future?

~Addendum from Ross

The videos referenced above are now posted below.



Huckabee Hosting Presidential Forum on FOX News – FULL Video Added

mike-huckabee-presidential-forum

Mike Huckabee hosts a FOX News Presidential Forum on FOX News at 8 PM Eastern

This is a good video interview of former Governor Mike Huckabee where Huckabee previews the forum tonight, and discusses current dynamics of the GOP.

The gist:
-This a forum, not a debate.
-Questions will not be from journalists but elected State Attorney Generals including: Pam Bondi of Florida, Ken Cuccinelli of Virginia, and Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma
-Focus will be on federalism and state-federal relationships
-Candidates will come out one at a time and will be given equal time to speak.
-The order of appearance will be random.
-Candidates cannot talk about or mention other GOP candidates

As always the chat box is open – join us below to discuss the forum! The show begins live on FOX at 8PM Eastern.

[The chat box has been moved back to the side-bar --->]

The Entire forum:

(more…)

Page 1 of 14123456Last »