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.

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

,

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 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
,

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).

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

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

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.

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:

Read more…

Gov. Huckabee asked Gov. Romney about healthcare, abortion, and more…

Mitt Romney on Obamacare vs. Romneycare

Would Mitt Romney Be a Pro-Life President?

What Separates Romney from the Rest of the Pack?

It sure is nice to see two rivals seemingly on the same page and both committed to the same goal. It was a tough, but very fair interview that probably gave a lot of voters some insight into Gov. Romney that they didn’t have before. What did you think of the interview?

I’ve seen some recent positive comments from Huckabee on Romney, but I didn’t see this coming:

Mitt Romney is scheduled to sit down for an interview with a 2008 rival for the Republican presidential nomination, Mike Huckabee, this weekend, The Caucus has learned.

Could an important endorsement be in the works?

Mr. Huckabee will tape the interview with Mr. Romney on Friday, and it will be broadcast on his Fox News show, which airs on Saturday and Sunday evenings at 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Promos for the interview are set to broadcast Thursday afternoon on the network.

The men have had a tense relationship since 2008, when a surprise victory in the Iowa caucuses by Mr. Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas, upended a carefully designed plan by Mr. Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, to win the state that year.

Read more at The New York Times

Addendum by Nate: There’s sure to be a crowd in our chat room when this airs Saturday night. Stop by and join us.

UPDATE – Here’s the video:

It’s the hot issue politicos are buzzing about…

At the GOP presidential debate this week, Rick Perry’s comments that “social security is a ponzi scheme” and Mitt Romney’s response has caused more than a few eyebrows to knit together. The subject will surely be pursued at the next debate on Monday in Tampa, FL, and may well be a defining issue throughout the entire campaign. For these reasons, we bring you a few opinions we’ve heard in the last couple of days.

Former NH governor John Sununu offered his critique of the debate (and Obama’s jobs creation speech):

Washington Post

Former New Hampshire governor John Sununu never lacked for candor, not in his home state nor when he served as chief of staff in the George H.W. Bush administration.

In a telephone interview, he told me that he was “a little surprised” Texas Gov. Rick Perry wasn’t better prepared on the Social Security question during Wednesday’s Reagan Library debate. “I got a little worried for him. If he is the nominee, the Democrats are going to have a silver bullet. I would have thought he’d have a strategy to mend what’s in the book,” he said in reference to Perry’s “Fed Up!”

Former NH Governor John Sununu

Sununu said he has narrowed down his nominee choice to Perry or Mitt Romney and will make up his mind in mid- to late October after a series of debates. Why not former Utah governor Jon Huntsman? “He’s too in love with President Obama,” he said bluntly. “He’s got to get the courage to . . . join the rest of the Republicans to talk about the problems this president has caused.” He also found Huntsman’s remark on “nation-building at home” to be “ridiculous.”

As for President Obama’s jobs speech, Sununu thought the somewhat-angry tone stemmed from a desire to “have enough energy in the speech. It was an ‘I’m back from Martha’s Vineyard’ attitude.”
[...]
As for the New Hampshire primary, Sununu explained that voters in the state “are willing to sacrifice a little on personal ideology” in order to find the most electable candidate, because they are “petrified of this president.” Sununu warned the presidential candidates that voters there are looking for substance. “There has to be sufficient detail to contrast with the policies that haven’t worked,” he said.
[...]

Governor Chris Christie on ‘ponzi scheme’ Perry:
September 8, 2011

LAMBERTVILLE – Gov. Chris Christie sides with his northern – not southern – neighbor in the latest prez flap over Social Security.

In last night’s presidential debate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry called Social Security a Ponzi scheme and a failure, setting up a flashpoint moment with former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney, who said the federal program wasn’t a failure but needs to be fixed.

“I’m going to let them have their fight,” Christie told reporters here, “but in general it’s incorrect to say that Social Security is a failure. I would disagree with that statement.”

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann had this to say:
September 9, 2011

Without naming names but clearly targeting Rick Perry, Rep. Michele Bachmann told Radio Iowa that lawmakers have to “keep faith” with current Social Security beneficiaries.

Said Bachmann: “That’s wrong for any candidate to make senior citizens believe that they should be nervous about something they have come to count on.

During an appearance on FOX & Friends Weekend this morning, Mike Huckabee was asked for his opinion on Perry’s ‘ponzi scheme’ stance and Governor Romney’s position at the presidential debate. Several MRC supporters, including myself, looked for the video. We found it, but the Romney segment was not included. In a nutshell, Huckabee basically said Perry’s wording was wrong and that Mitt had it right.

Today On FOX News Watch, conservative radio talk show host Tammy Bruce and Democratic campaign consultant Doug Schoen both agreed that Perry’s words on social security at the debate, and the impression he left, was detrimental to him. Schoen said it was definitely an issue for Perry – possibly lethal. Bruce commented that it was the impression Perry left – that people won’t elect a bully.

In his book Fed Up, Rick Perry questions the existence of social security:

“Perry Is Saying Things In This Campaign That No Presidential Candidate Has Said In Decades, Not The Least Of Which Is An Unrelenting Attack On Social Security.” (Paul Burka, “Not Like Other Politicians,” Texas Monthly, 8/30/11)

Despite his campaign’s efforts to separate the candidate and his position, Perry’s approach to social security is clear…

Perry does not believe social security should exist. He asks: “Why Is The Federal Government Even In The Pension Program…? Let The States Do It.” PERRY: “When you look at Social Security, it’s broke. … Get it back to the states. Why is the federal government even in the pension program or the health care delivery program? Let the states do it. … That, I will suggest to you, is one of the ways this federal government can get out of our business, save a lot of money and get back to that Constitutional way of doing business in those enumerated powers that they’re supposed to have.” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 11/5/10)

• Perry: “By Any Measure, Social Security Is A Failure.” (Rick Perry, Fed Up, P. 62, 2010)

• “Rick Perry Describes Social Security As A ‘Violent’ Attack On Core American Values.” (Maggie Haberman And Alexander Burns, “Perry Book A Treasure Trove For Foes,” Politico, 9/2/11)

• Perry: “I Challenge Anybody To Stand Up And Defend The Social Security Program That We Have Today.” (Andrew Romano, “Rick Perry On The Record,” The Daily Beast, 8/12/11)

Perry: “We Must … Get This Government Back To The Limited Form That Our Founding Fathers Sought. Let The States [Decide] How To Run The Pensions.” PERRY: “There’s a number of things in that book that will strike Americans as horrifying. And we must, as a people, get put back in the box. Get this government back to the limited form that our founding fathers sought. Let the states, whether it is how to run Medicaid, how to run the pensions.” (Fox’s “On The Record With Greta Van Susteren,” 11/8/10)

Regarding social security, Perry doesn’t “think our Founding Fathers … were thinking about a Federally operated program of pensions…” PERRY: “I don’t think our founding fathers when they were putting the term “general welfare” in there were thinking about a federally operated program of pensions nor a federally operated program of health care. What they clearly said was that those were issues that the states need to address. Not the federal government.” (Andrew Romano, “Rick Perry On The Record,” The Daily Beast, 8/12/11)

Perry hasn’t “backed off anything” in his book:
In Fed Up!, Perry says social security is in place “at the expense of respect for the Constitution.” “Social Security is something that we’ve been forced to accept for more than 70 years now. […] at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government.” (Rick Perry, Fed Up!, 2010, p. 50)

Perry: “I haven’t backed off anything in my book.” “[Perry] threw cold water on his own campaign’s efforts to portray his [Social Security] position in a more tempered light. ‘I haven’t backed off anything in my book. So read the book again and get it right,’ he said.” (Michael Muskal, “Rick Perry Sticks To Claim That Social Security Is A Scam,” Los Angeles Times, 8/29/11)
(emphasis added)

Check out Governor Romney’s new flier here.

► Jayde Wyatt

Running for President of the United States is a very unique undertaking that virtually all of us will never even come close to attempting. Gov. Huckabee has spent a lot of time and energy determining if it was God’s will for him to run for President again in 2012, and that is very admirable. Anyone who puts God’s will ahead of their own ambitions or desires is a wise man indeed.

Much, and likely too much, has been made of a supposed everlasting feud between Gov. Mike Huckabee and Gov. Mitt Romney. The perhaps most publicized story involving animosity between the two men occurred back in 2007. The fact that Mike Huckabee apologized to Mitt in person and Mitt quickly accepted the apology was hardly covered at all. I guess the main stream media likes to create/feed into controversy between republicans. The lazy media must’ve been shocked to find out Mitt Romney was one of the first people to call Gov. Huckabee after the announcement:

When Wallace noted he didn’t mention Romney, Huckabee said, ‘No but let me tell you something — I got a wonderful voicemail from Mitt Romney last night, which I thought was very gracious on his part.’… Huckabee insisted if Romney is the nominee he’ll support him, because he’d be better than President Barack Obama. ‘…I will support him if he is our nominee and he very well may be,’ Huckabee said.

The truth of the matter is both men have served their country as governors and have spent a lot of time out of office working to improve our great country.

Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney were close when they both served concurrently as governors of their respective states. Mike Huckabee respected and admired Mitt Romney enough that he asked Mitt to write one of the recommendations for his book “Quit Digging Your Grave With A Knife And Fork”

Here’s what Mitt said:

“Governor Huckabee’s inspiring story is a call to action for anyone who has ever struggled with managing their weight. His good-natured humor and understanding shine through, and his advice is sound, straight-forward, and easy to follow.” — Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts

Mike Huckabee is an inspiration to so many Americans who want to lose weight but sometimes feel helpless to do so for a variety of reasons. One idea that doesn’t get nearly enough talk when it comes to health care is improving preventative care. Health care in this country would cost much much less if the overall health of our citizens improved. It’s an obvious and simple concept, but so much of the health care debate focuses on what to do with the catastrophically ill. As the saying goes, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. Mike Huckabee rightly brought these ideas to the health care debate, and we are profoundly grateful as Americans that he did. No health care plan should be considered complete without also improving preventative medicine.

Even more important is Mike’s tireless effort promoting the pro-life cause. Speaking for myself, the prospect of getting Roe vs. Wade overturned is why I became active in politics in the first place. I would never even consider supporting a candidate for President who would nominate a Supreme Court Justice who would uphold Roe vs. Wade. Thanks to the announcement of a couple pro-choice Supreme Court Justices that they won’t retire until after the 2012 election, we have a great chance to finally get Roe vs. Wade repealed. We believe Mitt Romney to be our best chance to elect a pro-life President.

In the 2008 and 2010 elections, both Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee worked tirelessly to elect conservatives and fortunately their work paid larger dividends in 2010. Hopefully 2012 will be an even greater election for conservatives. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee have taken turns leading the national polls for over a year and both match up well against President Obama. We’ve all said that Mike Huckabee would’ve been a far superior president than President Obama and we would’ve supported him with great ease should he have been the GOP nominee in 2008 or 2012. Goal #1 has always been and must remain that President Obama is a 1-term President! Any supporters of Mike Huckabee are welcomed with open arms to join us here at Mitt Romney Central or even to just stop by and chat/see what’s going on from time to time. Together we can Bring America Back and help people who’ve lost faith to Believe in America again!

6/17/2011 UPDATE

Gov. Huckabee might be Gov. Romney’s VP? Watch what Gov. Huckabee said here.