NOTE: Specific Endorsement Count by Candidate & Names: End of Post

Any one endorsement for a presidential candidate, in and of itself, is not generally considered that important in the long-term. However, how that endorser supports the candidate over time and the number of endorsements of stature can have significant influence. Every endorsement is a huge vote of confidence by the person putting their name on the line, in public (consider those who do not endorse candidates at all — there is a reason they don’t step up)

I have been giving a lot of thought to the large number of endorsements Governor Romney has compiled week in and week out. Gingrich sees this “voting” and he attempts to blunt their importance by referring to these as “the establishment” supporting Governor Romney.

Nonsense.

No matter how you cut it, almost EVERY one of these endorsers knows both Gingrich and Romney; some better than others. Very few of these choose Gingrich. By the way, I have yet to hear any close friend of Gingrich or any colleague of his (that worked closely with him for years), ever say anything positive about the man as a leader (besides his ability to speak well). Why is that? I only hear negative things said of him from those that know him well.

Yesterday’s Opinion section of The Wall Street Journal discusses this important topic:

Do endorsements matter? Politicians certainly think so, and they spend loads of time courting party elites and opinion-makers. So far, though, 2012 has shown how the politics of anointment and appointment can fail.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley flopped mightily in trying to deliver her state for Mitt Romney. Evangelical leaders held a summit to get the Palmetto State to back their new choice, Rick Santorum, but he fared much worse than Mr. Romney. Newt Gingrich knows the feeling—New Hampshire’s supposedly dominant Manchester Union Leader newspaper huffed and puffed for Newt and got him less than 10% of the vote.

But it’s easy to cherry-pick examples to prove the folly of endorsements. In some circumstances, they can make a substantial difference.

Throughout American history, presidencies have been created by the laying on of incumbent hands. Thomas Jefferson effectively passed the presidency to his friend and confidant, James Madison. Andrew Jackson handed his populist democracy off to an unlikely dandy, Martin Van Buren, in 1836. Few would have imagined the studious and portly William Howard Taft as president until Theodore Roosevelt picked him in 1908. More recently, George H.W. Bush might not have been elected president without Ronald Reagan’s blessing. Madison, Van Buren, Taft and Mr. Bush all got their predecessor’s third term—when popular, presidents have extraordinary powers.

What about little-known state legislators and local sheriffs? Even low-level backing can attract the cameras and generate a positive story. But this can backfire if candidates overplay their hands, as Jon Huntsman did when his campaign hinted at a “major” announcement in Florida. Speculation naturally centered on former Gov. Jeb Bush. Not quite. Mr. Huntsman got only his son, Jeb Jr., and the media’s letdown showed in the coverage.
[...]
Even more than Democrats, Republicans typically nominate a candidate that party elites support. In “The Party Decides,” political scientists Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel and John Zaller analyzed endorsements made prior to the Iowa caucuses in presidential primary contests from 1980 to 2004. They found that the candidate who had won the biggest share of endorsements won the eventual nomination in nine of 10 competitive contests (the exception was Democrat John Kerry in 2004). On the GOP side, the eventual nominees all won a strong plurality of endorsements.

Not surprisingly, given Mr. Romney’s position as the front-runner and the fear that many Republican officeholders have of sharing a ballot with Mr. Gingrich or Ron Paul, the former Massachusetts governor has a long lead in endorsements from elected officials. According to the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, Mr. Romney has the backing of 72 members of Congress, versus a combined 17 for the other candidates.

This is good news for Mr. Romney. Mr. Gingrich is attempting to stir the populism of the GOP base by railing against “elites,” but many voters welcome guidance in intra-party contests. In a general election, voters have the invaluable short-hand cue of the party label. But in a nominating contest, all candidates have the same party label. How to choose just one? Differences in personality, background and policy help, but so does a candidate’s association with other well-known party figures. People want to puzzle out which candidate comes closest to their kind of Republican or Democrat.

Non-endorsements can send powerful signals to voters as well. For decades, leading Southern Democrats practiced “golden silence” in presidential years, refusing to endorse their party’s presidential nominees. This was a green light to voters that it was acceptable to support a Republican for the White House. In 1960, President Eisenhower wanted Vice President Nixon to succeed him, but he damaged Nixon’s campaign when asked what major decisions in his administration Nixon had influenced. “If you give me a week, I might think of one,” said Ike. The comment ended up in one of John Kennedy’s TV ads.

Could non-endorsements end up mattering in 2012, too? Despite decades on Capitol Hill and four years as speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich has only 11 congressional endorsements, five of them from Georgians.

[emphasis added]

CHECK THESE TWO SITES FOR MANY SPECIFICS:

Endorsements for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012

RACE 4 2012 — Endorsements as of January 20, 2012
,

Nobody believes that Newt Gingrich was ever serious about a run for the presidency. So why did he enter the race you ask? Think about it. The man loves the limelight. It is all about Newt. Have we ever seen any man on the world stage, in any era, with such an insatiable love of self? Is there any person even close in comparison to Mr. Gingrich in self absorption?

One man comes to mind: Hugo Chavez. I insert that name here because the man’s ego and self-love is enormous, but even Chavez does not compare with Gingrich. As dangerous as Chavez is, hobnobbing with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he is not as dangerous as Newt Gingrich.

The world knows Chavez as a corrupt dictator (non-leader); a dictator of a third world country — Gingrich would have the world believe his “core” is now different; that character is not important. Chavez is a known entity. Gingrich has the world fooled; to this point — today. Gingrich was literally kicked out of the Speakership by those he was “leading!” And hit with a huge fine! As Speaker, 84 ethics violations were filed against him. He was kicked out of the House leadership with a vote of 395 to 28! Mr. Gingrich is seeking power of the greatest nation on Earth.

Try to imagine what would be written in the elementary school history books about all the “firsts” that a Gingrich presidency would usher in. Need I list them all? Just think about all the character lapses in marriage, numerous unethical decisions, the many times he has said, “Yeah, that was a mistake” (about 10 times in the last three months alone), etc.

Did you hear what Gingrich said Saturday night during his speech? He said something like, “You know, it is not my ability to debate that brought this win; it is my ability to articulate the values Americans want to see in their President . . . “ He said that! Gingrich actually believes that of himself! (have I ever mentioned arrogance in reference to this person?)

What does he tell us? “Forget all that stuff in my past, “I have matured. I am 68 years old. I am a grandfather now. I sought redemption . . . ” “I”, “me”, “I”, “I”, “I” — What? I remember maturing from age 15 to 25. Gingrich tells us he is still maturing as he pushes 70 years old?! You know what that is code for? They are the words of a two-timer — a person who is used to wanting his cake and eating it too. Are they not? Have you ever compared the number of self-described pronouns used by Gingrich vs. Governor Romney in any of the debates? There are too many to count.

Gingrich hates the “elite media” right? He said so with conviction by yelling at John King at the debate. He has everybody fooled on this front too. Consider this from MailOnline, speaking for the press:

Gingrich loves the press. In some respects we are, as John McCain famously noted, his “base”. He craves the media. I’ve never seen a man so happy as Gingrich was when he ambled into the spin room in Myrtle Beach last Monday night and about 200 of us swarmed around him hanging on his every word.

Romney would have rather been anywhere else in the world than that in the middle of that heaving, sweaty scrum. But Newt was in pure heaven. He loves the game.
[...]
At the end of the Charleston debate, Gingrich warmly thanked CNN and afterwards he spoke cordially with King.
[...]
In South Carolina, it was an open secret that the press were rooting for Gingrich, not out of bias or any belief that he would be a weaker candidate against Obama but simply because the press wants a good story and a knock-down, drag-out battle for the GOP nomination to cover.

Let’s face it, Gingrich loves the “destructive, vicious, negative” news media. He knows how to play the game. And the press loves him for it.

[emphasis added]

Gotta love how Governor Romney is peeling away layers of the gloves in Florida. The world has not yet seen even a glimpse of Mr. Gingrich’s sullied, hidden career. Well, we are about to find out a lot more than we ever thought existed about Mr. Gingrich. Frankly, I was surprised that more than a handful of people voted for the guy. But I think it is because of what Ann Coulter said yesterday; that voters don’t think more than “three seconds” about the man’s past.

Jayde’s great article below refers to the reporting of Reid Epstein of Politico. In my opinion, Governor Romney was generous in his reference to Gingrich by using the term “leader” in any form:

“Speaker Gingrich has also been a leader,” the former Massachusetts governor said. “He was a leader for four years as speaker of the House. And at the end of four years, it was proven that he was a failed leader and he had to resign in disgrace. I don’t know whether you knew that, he actually resigned after four years, in disgrace.”
[emphasis added]

It is only my opinion, but based on what I have learned about Gingrich’s “leadership”, his style is more like that of a dictator. He has the reputation of giving his word to one person on a specific direction and then taking a wholly different tack without blinking an eye. A true leader is above reproach and does not exhibit any ethical lapses.

Gingrich would have us believe these major character flaws were “mistakes” of his past. They are not mistakes at all. They are actions which serve as spotlights on major core character weaknesses. A true leader is honored by those whom he leads. A true leader puts the team he leads before self and deflects credit to those members of the team that follow his lead. A true leader knows how to execute (Gingrich is not an “execute”ive). Gingrich has always struggled to keep a team in place. Why is that?

Consider the hundreds of sincere testimonials that have been published from people that have been “led” by Mitt Romney throughout his career. How do those compare to what people say about Gingrich when he has had power? Is it possible to find any testimonials in support of Gingrich that even compare? Are there any? I have yet to hear of any or read any of them.

There are those around Hugo Chavez that would like to kick him out of office like the House did with Gingrich, but Chavez has the power to rule with an iron fist to keep them from the insurrection.

Read more…

Great video of Ann Coulter discussing Newt Gingrich and the South Carolina primary. Check it out:

When I listen to Gingrich in his debate performances, and I do mean “performances,” his answers always seem reminiscent of the Shakespeare line, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

I, for one, was very confused and dumbfounded about the whole “standing ovation” thing that Newt accomplished in South Carolina. I truly felt that Gingrich’s answers weren’t that amazing. In fact, the answers were really quite average if you take just a moment to think about what he said. Often Newt dodged the question rather than answered it. Or he resorted to giving snarky, glib retorts rather than having a grown-up conversation about the issues. Hopefully Republican voters in Florida will see that many of Newt’s “great debate performances” are really just dodging the question in order to distract from his genuine flaws.

Following this past Christmas, reports surfaced of a meeting by prominent national evangelical leaders to be held in Texas sometime in January. You will recall this meeting involved over 150 people at a ranch outside Houston, January 15th. The ostensible purpose of the meeting was to caucus and select one of the presidential candidates behind which all voters could unite — in effect, to choose the one “non-Romney” candidate that they thought could best defeat Romney. Fascinating!

As with any caucus, some were prepared to stand and persuade others to vote for the candidate they believed to be the best to select as the Republican nominee for President.

One of those leaders present that day, at the ranch outside Houston, was nationally known and highly respected Mark DeMoss, a prominent Evangelical. Mr. DeMoss stood for Governor Mitt Romney.

Though I have never met Mr. DeMoss and therefore do not know him, I can only imagine that his remarks to this body required a tremendous amount of courage, especially with the understanding that the vast majority of those present were intent on selecting a candidate they believed could best oppose, and therefore defeat Governor Romney! For this one act alone, I have tremendous admiration and respect for Mark DeMoss. I strongly believe that Mitt Romney will be the next President of the United States — if so, I believe that history will hold Mark DeMoss out as a true American patriot in the stature of any this nation’s finest patriots of the past and present.

I am most grateful that Mr. DeMoss granted MittRomneyCentral.com the privilege of publishing his remarks to the group of 150+ Evangelicals exactly one week ago today. When I requested “an editorial” from Mr. DeMoss through our friend, John Schroeder of Article VI Blog, I never dreamed I would receive his remarks to the other evangelical leaders at the ranch that day.

Mark DeMoss’s speech that day is published below in its entirety — unedited.

[Almost exactly one year ago, Nate Gunderson published this outstanding article by Mark DeMoss that received over 2,300 views and 33 comments]

Mark DeMoss founded The DeMoss Group in 1991, and since then he has served some of the world’s most prominent and effective Christian ministries and enterprises. Mark has been involved in shaping some of the largest Christian events and campaigns over the past decade while simultaneously overseeing the growth of his firm. He has extensive media relations experience with both religious and mainstream media and provides particular expertise to clients in crisis/issues management and communications. Mark provides primary public relations counsel and strategic planning for The DeMoss Group. His first book, The Little Red Book of Wisdom, was published in 2007.

Favorite DeMoss Group Core Value > We demonstrate uncommon integrity.

REMARKS to HOUSTON EVENT January 13-14, 2012

By Mark DeMoss

In the summer of 2006 I began a search for the perfect presidential candidate. I’m here to tell you: I still haven’t found him—or her.

But I would suggest, neither have you—because there simply is no such thing. Just as there’s no such thing as the perfect employee, teacher, or pastor. None of us can find another person—including a spouse—with whom we agree on everything.

However, I’ll tell you what I did find that summer of ‘06. I found one of the most remarkable men and families I have ever met or known in Mitt Romney, his wife Ann, and their five sons. Governor Romney was my choice for president in ’08, and he remains my choice today. I didn’t arrive at this decision lightly.

So how did I, as a conservative and an evangelical, land on Mitt Romney? After reading all I could find and talking to people who knew him, I went to see him and told him I’d like to help him. I also told him he couldn’t pay me—ever.

I have a three-part litmus test for choosing a presidential candidate:

1. He/she must share my values (not necessarily my faith or theology)

2. He/she must be competent to lead and govern should they actually get elected.

3. He/she must be capable of getting elected.

So let me talk for a few minutes about values, competence and electability.

VALUES

• First, while I am not interested in (nor worried about) giving platform to Mormon theology, I think this country would benefit from a good dose of Mormon values. Their overwhelming commitment to marriage, family, hard work, honesty, integrity, morality and character is something to be admired and modeled. Frankly, this church’s record in this area often outperforms ours in many ways. (I was reminded about this again just last weekend while watching one of our fallen evangelical leaders starring in ABC’s reality show Wife Swap.)

  I’ve been in the Romney home numerous times. I’ve been with Mitt in offices, holding rooms, hotel rooms, restaurants, cars and planes all across this country and everything about him is real. I’ve gotten to know dozens of his friends, colleagues and advisors. I’ve even attended his church.

  His marriage of 42 years is rock solid, and I’ll tell you this: I don’t worry about waking up one day to a headline about Mitt Romney like we have been saddened to hear about leaders among our own ranks like Gov. Mark Sanford, Sen. John Ensign, Sen. David Vitter, and countless pastors.

• Gov. Romney has fought hard for values we care deeply about. For example, he immediately condemned the November 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in his state, and then lobbied hard for a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage.
• Keep in mind; Mitt had an 85% Democratic legislature in Massachusetts. This is an important point, which I think is either unknown or lost on many conservative critics. An 85% opposition legislature means bills and measures the governor proposed could be changed at will. It also means measures he vetoed could be overridden at will.

  (By the way, Mitt cast 800 vetoes as governor of Massachusetts—that’s one veto every day-and-a-half for four years.)

  Finally, it means he had to know how to work constructively with people on
  the other side, which is something we could use more of today.

  So when you hear Mitt Romney did something as governor you don’t like, take a minute to find out if he did it, or an 85% Democratic majority did it over his best efforts and objections. A fair and honest assessment of his record requires this.

• Under his leadership, Massachusetts’ public schools began offering middle school classroom programs on abstinence from a faith-based organization.
• As governor, Mitt Romney vetoed bills providing access to the “morning¬after pill” and for expansive, embryo-destroying stem cell research.
• He staunchly defended the right of the Catholic Charities of Boston to refuse to allow homosexual couples to adopt children in its care, and filed a bill to protect such religious liberty.
• National Review political reporter John Miller wrote that, “a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting environment.”
• Listen to what one notable Republican had to say about Mitt Romney.

  “In a few short days, Republicans from across this country will decide more than their party’s nominee. They will decide the very future of our party and the conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan built. Conservatives can no longer afford to stand on the sidelines in this election, and Governor Romney is the candidate who will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold dear. Governor Romney has a deep understanding of the important issues confronting our country today, and he is the clear conservative candidate that can go into the general election with a united Republican party.”

  Who said this? Rick Santorum did when he endorsed and campaigned for Mitt just four years ago. Nothing in Mitt Romney’s record, speech, or life has changed since Sen. Santorum offered that endorsement, which, knowing the senator, I believe was offered seriously, genuinely, and as a matter of real conviction.

• I have concluded that Mitt Romney’s values more closely resemble my own than any president in my lifetime.

Read more…

Thanks to John Schroeder of Article VI Blog for connecting Mitt Romney Central with Timothy Dalrymple. The following open letter is another outstanding endorsement of Governor Romney as the candidate best suited to represent conservative values as our President of the United States. Tim’s three main arguments below are compelling, especially regarding Governor Romney’s moral leadership.

Timothy Dalrymple is the Director of Content for Patheos.com, the largest religion website in the country, and the managing editor of its Evangelical Portal. He earned his Ph.D. in modern western religious thought at Harvard’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, and contributes to Evangelicals for Mitt. Raised in non-denominational evangelical churches in California, Dalrymple has ministry experience in youth ministry, college ministry, prison chaplaincy, teaching apologetics, and leading overseas missions. Formerly of Boston, he is now a member of Perimeter Church in Johns Creek, Georgia. You can follow him at Philosophical Fragments or Facebook.

See the just-released ebook from Evangelicals for Mitt for a comprehensive explanation of why Romney is the best positioned to represent evangelicals’ values in the White House.

By Timothy Dalrymple

Dear Mitt Romney skeptics, and especially my fellow evangelicals,

Do you remember how it felt when the economy began to implode in those anxious, waning months of 2008? We were coming down to the wire in the election contest, and the candidates we had to choose between were Barack Obama and John McCain. Given the choices, of course, I supported McCain. I still think he would have made a far better President than Obama has proven to be.

But as the very foundations of the American economy were shaking and falling away beneath our feet, and we faced the very real possibility of a Second Great Depression, how desperately I wished that Mitt Romney had emerged from the primary as the champion of the GOP. The presiding President and his party took the heat for the financial crisis, and McCain worsened the situation when his actions and statements inspired no confidence in his stability and expertise on economic matters. The election turned in Obama’s favor when he gave the impression of solidity and strength in the economic crisis.

Romney, however, had something Obama couldn’t even begin to claim: a brilliantly successful career in the private sector, and a world of experience specifically in the financial sector, where our most intractable problems lay. Between McCain and Romney, Romney was touted by the conservative commentariat as the conservative option, and I remember feeling as though the liberal media, independents and even some Democrats who were able to vote in primaries had shoehorned John McCain onto the GOP ticket. If Romney had been at the top of the ticket instead, I still believe we would have avoided the lamentable Obama Presidency; compared to a business titan, Obama would have looked like the inexperienced pretender that he was, and he could not have stood up to Romney’s economic expertise in the debates.

Well, we’re still in the midst of an incredible mess as a country. Our financial house is in shambles. Tax reform, regulatory reform, streamlining government, changes to our energy and immigration policies, will all help. But the character of the American people, the moral substructure that provides the necessary, nurturing environment for our democratic free market, has also disintegrated. Our problem is not merely political; it is also cultural. I am convinced of this with every bone in my body: We need to rediscover the virtues of the free market, and we also need to rediscover the economic virtues. On the one hand, we need a President who understands how companies grow and flourish, who understands how the economy works and what provides the predictability and clarity and the space for innovation that the market demands; Romney’s experience in venture capital, properly understood, is one of his truest strengths, because the venture capitalist learns a great deal about what kinds of ventures succeed and what kinds of capital they need. On the other hand, we need someone whose personal integrity and whose socio-political principles will strengthen the family, enrich the workforce, and restore our collective commitment to responsibility and initiative, stewardship and thrift, diligence and creativity.

I’ve written responses to some common misconceptions about Romney and his candidacy – and a long, specifically evangelical case for Mitt can be found in this ebook. The purpose of this letter is simply to set forth, in broad outlines, why I think Romney’s the right guy at the right time for this country. The Presidency is a position of enormously important economic, global and moral leadership. In all three of those areas, I firmly believe that Mitt Romney is the leader we need. He also, not coincidentally, stands the best chance of defeating Barack Obama — and if there’s one thing conservatives agree upon right now, it’s the profound importance of installing new leadership. As the country staggers toward decline, we need someone who can pick us up, rally the American people behind a positive and hopeful vision, and deploy all of his intelligence and experience and skill to move us toward a better future. That’s Mitt.

Economic and Global Leadership

Those who know him personally attest, without exception, that Romney is an extraordinarily intelligent, boundlessly competent, and thoroughly hard-working man. He built a towering reputation in the business world, accomplished a near-miraculous turnaround of the Salt Lake City Olympics (which was mired in scandal and red ink and on the verge of collapsing), and took an extremely liberal state (Massachusetts) that was deeply in debt and restored it to fiscal health and a budget surplus in the course of four years.

In the business world, Romney specialized in turning around failing companies, and he did so with great success. Sometimes, yes, that means eliminating jobs — but in most cases you’re eliminating jobs in order to avoid eliminating a company in its entirety. You make companies more profitable, more competitive, and thus more sustainable. You eliminate jobs now so that you can keep paying the salaries of those who remain, and ideally add more jobs again later. In other words, sometimes the most pro-jobs thing you can do is cut one job and save the company that employs ninety-nine more.

Read more…

There is a lot of talk these days about how Mitt Romney is a so-called “Massachusetts moderate” and how other candidates are trying to be the “conservative alternative” to Gov. Romney. Some even compare Mitt Romney to John McCain’s candidacy of 2008.

One very conservative and influential magazine called ‘The Weekly Standard,’ whose editor (Bill Krystol) is a regular panelist on Fox News Sunday, looked into the issue. The conclusion that they found is that Romney is “no moderate,” in fact:

“Romney is at least as conservative as his GOP rivals on jettisoning Obamacare and more conservative than some on entitlements, national security, and immigration. He’s no match for Gingrich on taxes, but that’s about it. Overall, he’s to the right of Gingrich.”

The article goes on to say that in regard to the top four most pressing issues of the day (namely Immigration, Tax Reform, Health Care, and Military Defense spending), Romney is “anything but moderate.”

“On four of the biggest issues in 2012, Romney is anything but moderate—or timid. He gets no special credit for advocating repeal of Obamacare. That’s Republican dogma. But he’s been the most specific among the GOP presidential candidates in backing the Ryan budget in all its parts, including its remake of Medicare. It was House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan’s plan that Gingrich zinged as “right wing social engineering” before reversing himself under duress.

When Romney announced in November his own proposal for cutting spending and reforming Medicare and Social Security, Paul Ryan was thrilled. “Look at what he put out!” he told Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post. “This is a great development.” Ryan said Romney’s package of spending cuts “tracks perfectly with the House budget,” which Ryan had drafted.”

Further Evidence

Further evidence of Romney’s conservative credentials is the fact that Romney made history in New Hampshire’s vote last week. Not only was he the first non-incumbent Republican to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, but in New Hamphire Romney got more votes from self-identified Republican voters than any other Republican candidate in history. Here is a brief summary on how New Hampshire Republicans voted:

“Mitt picked up 49% of GOP voters. Romney’s 49 percent is the highest mark among self-identified Republicans for any presidential candidate since New Hampshire moved its primary forward in the calendar.

Contrast that with John McCain, with whom he’s often compared as a squishy moderate with problems with Republicans.

McCain is the only candidate since 1980 to win New Hampshire even as he lost among self-identified Republicans.

That means McCain was essentially the worst winner with Republicans in New Hampshire over the past 30 years, while Romney was the best.”

As the Weekly Standard and polls from New Hampshire show, Romney is no moderate. He is a solid conservative. Strikingly, Romney is getting equal support from both conservatives and moderates among the voters and also from among congressmen and Governors who have endorsed Romney. Part of Romney’s strength is that he is a conservative that also appeals strongly to independents. That sounds like the kind of candidate we need running for the White House. 

Read more…

The Palmetto State is pulsing with political electricity and Governor Mitt Romney keeps generating sparks. He had a great day on the campaign trail today at the University of South Carolina in Aiken. Also, a group of SC veterans announced their support for The Gov. *He held a fantastic event for them on Hilton Head:

“I am proud to receive the endorsement of these South Carolina veterans who have selflessly and bravely fought to keep our nation safe and defend our American way of life,” said Mitt Romney. “We must continue to support all of those who have served our nation as we work to preserve those very freedoms that our veterans and troops have fought to defend.”

“Mitt Romney has been a strong advocate for veterans and will work to ensure that those who have heroically sacrificed for our country receive the care that they deserve,” said Lt. General Bud Watts, former President of the Citadel. “We need a Commander-in-Chief who will support our veterans and troops, strengthen our military, and strengthen our national defense. Mitt Romney believes in America and in the founding principles that make our country great, and he is the kind of steadfast leader we need during these challenging times.”

(emphasis added)

South Carolina veterans supporting Mitt Romney for President:

General Alfred Hansen, U.S. Air Force, Ret.
Lieutenant General Claudius “Bud” Watts, U.S. Air Force, Ret.
Major General Darwin Simpson, U.S. Army National Guard, Ret.
Major General Stan Spears, U.S. Army National Guard, Ret., Former Adjutant General of South Carolina
Colonel Fareed Betros, U.S. Army, Ret.
Lieutenant Colonel Larry McKay, U.S. Army, Ret.
Senior Chief Petty Officer Sidney Busch, U.S. Navy, Ret.
Petty Officer Mark Nadobny, U.S. Navy, Ret.

Endorsers are retired or not on active duty. Use of military rank and job titles does not imply endorsement by the Department of Defense or any department thereof.

*Three outstanding Romney supporters, SC Gov Nikki Haley, Sen. John McCain, and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, also spoke at Gov Romney’s veteran event at Hilton Head. See video here.

What are things looking like in SC? Here’s the latest from Rasmussen polling:

Yesterday, 750 likely Republican primary voters in South Carolina were asked:

If the 2012 Republican Primary for president were held today, would you vote for Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman or Rick Perry?

Results:
Mitt Romney – 28%
Newt Gingrich – 21%
Rick Santorum -16%
Ron Paul -16%
Rick Perry – 6%
Jon Huntsman – 5%

There’s a bit of buzz that some Huntsman staff wish he had dropped out after New Hampshire.

Other polling shows Gingrich’s attack ads are having some effect on Gov Romney. I have no doubt he and his team are executing his counter message very effectively. I did like Charles Krauthammer’s advice today to Governor Romney on Bill O’Reilly’s TV program. He offered words of wisdom on how to frame the Bain brouhaha for the upcoming FOX debate on Jan 16th at Myrtle Beach, SC. (I couldn’t find a video of Krauthammer – hope Team Romney recorded it.)

► Jayde Wyatt

…………………. [see video of Oprah with Chris Christie below the fold] ………………..

Before addressing the subject I chose, I would be remiss if I did not congratulate Governor Romney on behalf of the MRC team and its loyal readers. Congratulations to Governor Romney, his family, campaign team, grassroots volunteers, and the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire for this historic beginning of the 2012 election year! Amazing results from very hard work indeed.

Leadership skill is claimed by all six Republican candidates – Governor Romney stands well above them all as a gifted leader. Governor Romney’s Iowa and New Hampshire finishes are quite simply the result of masterful leadership at all levels. Competitors and pundits will spin these last 10 days for advantage – but, trust me on this – when Rick, Jon, Rick, Newt, and Ron get to pillow talk each night with their wives, each one is saying, “Whoa, that is incredible what Mitt put together and what he is accomplishing! Unbelievable!”

Congratulations Mitt!

Ronald Reagan was famous for saying to Jimmy Carter, “Now there you go again!” when Carter strayed from the truth. I caught Piers Morgan’s interview with Mr. Gingrich Wednesday night when Gingrich came right out and said, “I am going to win South Carolina.” My reply to the television was, “Now there you go again!” He can’t help it. Politics is as much about setting the right expectations as it is about anything. Contrary to Gingrich’s lemmings who think otherwise, he is not as bright as they surmise. During this interview, he repeated a string of lies about Gov. Romney, at least two times, that included references to abortions, liberal judges, raising taxes, etc. Ridiculous. “Now there you go again.” But Gingrich uses free advertising to get his sound bites out knowing full well that many people in South Carolina will not dig deeper for truth. We (you and Team MRC) as grassroots volunteers are going to do everything we can to make Mr. Gingrich eat those words and then beg to join the team.

IMPORTANT: Please do not believe any polls that state that Governor Romney is leading or is expected to win South Carolina. PLEASE! Accepting any mindset of complacency is dangerous and could result in a loss that would wipe out any momentum gained in the last 10 days. Even worse, it sets a precedent that could reverse the trend. We cannot stress this enough. As hard as every volunteer worked these last ten days, the time to redouble efforts is right now and we can never let up until January 22nd — a day of rest will be good then. If you hear about positive polls, I hope that will only steel your determination to work harder to get to every last voter to get them out to vote. Can you help us at MRC spread the word on this throughout the United States to all volunteers willing to make phone calls to South Carolina voters? Gingrich and Perry are desperate. Their state of mind will likely lead them to cross the ethical line many times in the next 10 days.

Observations after New Hampshire: In my opinion, CNN’s coverage of both the Iowa and New Hampshire election nights was superior to FOX by a factor of 10. CNN had numerous pros on deck and their coverage and analysis were balanced and insightful. FOX seemed more like entertainment and shallow, especially in Iowa. I detected a shift with CNN away from their liberal bias reputation toward balance. By the way, Hannity cannot hide the fact he is biased against Governor Romney. On the night of the amazing New Hampshire win, you could see in his face and posture that he was disappointed that his favorite boy Santorum finished poorly. Are you as tired as I am of Hannity’s constant cliche repeats of what Democrats want? If he throws a football or repeats those cliches again, I may not check back until March.

Side Note: New Hampshire final exams result in combined scores for Gingrich, Santorum, and Perry of 21% — Compared to Ron Paul’s final score of 23%. Feeble Trio Diffused! Keep it up!

NOTEWORTHY:

DANGER ZONE: Whether the harsh criticism will make Romney — who last week eked out an eight-vote win in the Iowa caucuses — a better candidate in the long run, as some suggest, or permanently handicap him if he is the nominee, as Democrats hope, remains an open question. — NPR, 1/10/12

GOP ATTACKS: The sudden intraparty assault has helped Mr. Romney in one way, prompting even conservative skeptics like Rush Limbaugh to come to his defense. The conservative Club for Growth singled out Newt Gingrich for “economically ignorant class warfare rhetoric” that is “downright Obamaesque.” — The New York Times, 1/11/12

ECONOMIC WOES IN S.C.: How much Ms. Haley’s support for Mr. Romney factors into the race will be closely watched. Although some here applaud her nearly singular focus on sharply reducing government spending and lowering the state’s unemployment rate, which now sits at 9.9 percent, she is not broadly popular. — The New York Times, 1/11/12

NEW HAMPSHIRE CATHOLICS: One surprising finding: Santorum, a Catholic, won only about 8 percent of self-identified Catholic voters, a serious underperformance on his part since Catholics accounted for more a third of the electorate Tuesday. Gingrich, also a Catholic, won 10 percent of Catholic voters, according to exit poll interviews. Romney, a Mormon, dominated among Catholics winning 45 percent of them. — NBC Politics, 1/11/12

DNC STRUGGLING TO RAISE FUNDS: Emmerling challenged the notion that the host committee was having a difficult time raising money. [...] “It hasn’t been easy,” Harris said of the host committee’s fundraising efforts. “But there’s no question in my mind it’s going to happen.”Another member of the host committee, a Democratic activist who asked not to be identified, told the Observer that host committee leaders have said the Obama restrictions have made it tough to raise money, but they believe it will be done….”Are they working hard and losing sleep over it? Yes,” the source told the Observer. “But they didn’t seem at all desperate. … I don’t have inside information, but I think they’re over halfway there, though.” — Charlotte Observer, 1/11/12

OBAMA LACKS MORAL COMPASS (Belafonte): [no second term] If there was the kind of moral compass serving Barack Obama the way we hoped, the moral force would have helped him make choices, the absence of that force in his equations, that barometer to guide him when he has to make these decisions that are hugely complicated, he should have come to the table with the things that would have helped us in this moment of crisis.” — Big Hollywood, 1/10/12

GINGRICH/PERRY SHILLS (Gov. Romney quotes): “But, you know, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich are going to be the witnesses for the prosecution. I’m not worried about that. They can take it as they like,” he said. “You saw last night that approach didn’t work very well for (them). And so we’ll take it to the next level.” CNN, 1/11/12

DAVID GERGEN, ROMNEY’S WILD CARD: It is worth remembering, too, that the Olympics hired Romney to head the Games while he was at Bain Capital. Is it logical to think the Olympic committee had any sense that Romney was a predatory capitalist? The question answers itself. — CNN, 1/11/12

ROMNEY MADE THE FIELD WEAK: But Romney didn’t just face a weak field — he made it weak. His strength, money, and organization scared off some serious challengers. [...] He simply beat one former governor who many in the press — this writer included — thought would beat him, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, and drove him out of the race early. When another governor, Rick Perry of Texas, made a late entry as the Romney killer, he instead wound up illustrating how well prepared for this battle Romney really is. — Politico, 1/11/12

Read more…

Overview

Yes, it was fantastic. No two ways about it. I came to New Hampshire in 2012 because I’d gone to Iowa in 2008. I came away from Iowa happy but with a Mitt-shaped hole in my heart. We came in second. Silver medal. Yes it was good, but disappointing. So I knew this cycle I’d need to make another trip, and hopefully one where he had a good chance of winning. I’d have loved to have been in Iowa, but something told me New Hampshire was the place for me.

I loved New Hampshire. I’d never spent any time in New England, and even though it’s winter, the trees were beautiful. I can see why people rave about it. It was, frankly, lovely. Knowing Mitt had a good lead when I planned my trip didn’t hurt, either.
Read more…

From USA Today:

NASHUA, N.H. – Iowa: Won by a whisker. New Hampshire: Won in a walk.

Can Mitt Romney be stopped for the Republican presidential nomination? There is time, his opponents say, although perhaps not much. To be precise, another 10 days to unleash a barrage against the front-runner and persuade conservatives to coalesce around an alternative who then could carry the South Carolina primary.

On Tuesday night, though, the confetti cannons were being fired at Romney’s victory party. He achieved what no non-incumbent Republican has ever done: win both the Iowa caucuses, dominated by evangelical Christians, and the New Hampshire primary, with its live-free-or-die independents.

“Thank you, New Hampshire,” Romney told an exuberant victory party. “You know, tonight we celebrate. Tomorrow, we go back to work.”

After watching one rival after another soar and then crash, the slow and steady candidate prevailed in this year’s opening contests — and succeeded in the state where his presidential ambitions crumbled four years ago as Arizona Sen. John McCain surged from behind to defeat him.

If he also manages to win the Palmetto State on Jan. 21 — scoring what South Carolina GOP strategist Chip Felkel admiringly calls “the trifecta” — supporters and opponents say the former Massachusetts governor credibly could claim to be the presumptive Republican presidential nomination.

. . . .

The Romney camp is braced for what one top strategist called “a war” in South Carolina, a state known for its bruising primary politics. The TV ads and two debates are likely to be the harshest to date

A majority of voters in New Hampshire said Romney would be the strongest general-election candidate, and he was seen as broadly acceptable.

. . . .

Nationally, he is showing growing strength. In the daily Gallup Poll, he has ticked up to 30% for the first time; Gingrich is second at 18%. That puts history on Romney’s side: Since 1976, the candidate who led nationally after the New Hampshire primary has won the nomination.

What’s more, Romney is the only candidate whom a majority of both conservative and moderate Republicans see as an “acceptable” nominee, according to a Gallup Poll taken Thursday through Sunday.

. . . .

The next goal for Team Romney: a Trifecta.