A new get-to-the-meat ad from Team Romney focuses on the one word Rick Santorum used to describe himself at this weeks GOP CNN debate…
Don’t you agree that Team Romney really hit the nail on the head with this one?
It’s worth noting that another revealing ad about Santorum, created by Restore Our Future (a pro-Romney Super PAC), was reviewed for its veracity by reporter by Ben Swann from WXIX… Rated TRUE on all points:
Rick Santorum – Radical Big Spender in Conservative’s Clothing
Take a moment to go to Swann’s Facebook page, ‘like’ it, go to his wall to find his related post to the above report, and let him know you appreciate his work.
It appears the vetting of Rick Santorum and the contrast between his projected image and reality are catching up to him. Two polls released today now show (one still within the margin of error) that Mitt has a slight edge in Michigan. Rasmussen shows a 6 point lead with a 4% margin for error, and Mitchell / Rosetta Stone shows a 3 point lead with a 4.7% margin for error. Another Rasmussen poll shows a more sizable 13 point lead in Arizona. These polls seem to indicate people are thinking like I am: Rick Santorum has electability issues. In addition, if the rationale for your presidency is that you stick to your principles, but you admit in a debate you will vote against them when expedient, the entire basis for your candidacy is seriously undermined and calling yourself “courageous” is a bit of a stretch.
We know we can’t live by polls; there’s still lots of work to do to get out Mitt’s positive message of turning around the American economy, repealing Obamacare and putting a man in the White House with executive experience rather than an inexperienced legislator (out of the GOP or the Democratic parties).
Mitt of course has been steady since the beginning as the only candidate with executive experience or economic know-how. He has a 59 point plan to turn around the economy, like he’s turned around failing businesses, the Olympics and Massachusetts. He balanced the budget in Massachusetts by cutting programs, while lowering taxes. He’s proposed lowering marginal tax rates as President by 20%, and he’s committed to being a pro-life president and choosing strict constructionists for the Supreme Court. He knows how the economy works, and will be ready when the next major shock to our economy hits (gas prices, anyone?) As I’ve said before, one of the main security risks to our country is the $15 trillion national debt, and only Mitt has a real plan to address that or the appreciation of what a risk it is. When I compare Mitt vs. the alternatives, to me it’s a no-brainer. Mitt is experienced and principled. The others fall short. That’s why they’ve all come and gone, while Mitt stays steady at or near the top.
What is the connection between Rick Santorum, Arlen Specter, Obamacare and the difference made by ONE VOTE?
Governor Mitt Romney adroitly underscored a very revealing part of Rick Santorum’s political history during CNN’s GOP presidential debate Wednesday evening in Mesa, Arizona…
In 2004, while serving in the United States Senate, Santorum supported and campaigned for incumbent, liberal Senator Arlen Specter over conservative challenger Pat Toomey. Specter would later go on to cast the ONE VOTE DIFFERENCE – the vote that enabled the passage of Obamacare.
Yesterday, FOX News’ Megyn Kelly (host of America Live) conducted a post-CNN debate focus group. Among the debate segments she aired was the one vote difference exchange between Santorum and Romney. The entire video is worth viewing (the general consensus was thumbs-up for Romney!). Note the conversation @ :50 – 1:08:
A look back:
In 2004, conservative Congressman Patrick Joseph Toomey ran for the senate seat in the Pennsylvania primary race against fellow-Republican incumbent Senator Arlen Specter. Toomey’s campaign focused on Specter’s well known non-conservative leanings – especially on fiscal issues. Rick Santorum not only supported Specter, he appeared in a television ad for him. Santorum’s support for Specter proved crucial. In the end, although election results were close, Toomey lost the Republican primary to Specter.
How calamitous was Specter’s victory?
In April 2009, with the Tea Party movement in full swing, Senator Specter sensed he would be defeated at the polls. Working closely and covertly with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Obama was licking his chops), Specter switched political parties. He became a Democrat. In the process, he rewarded liberals with a likely filibuster-proof Senate majority – a 60th vote.
Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum way back when...
Near the end of December 2009, Specter cast the 60th vote for cloture on Obamacare – which enabled the massive, unread, secret-laden bill to proceed to a full vote. Specter later cast the 50th vote for Obamacare. And, because Vice President Joe Biden held the power of casting the tie-breaking vote on Obamacare, Specter’s vote guaranteed passage:
They’re nothing if not prompt. Voting has begun on HR 3590, the Senate’s health care bill. It only needs 50 votes to pass; the only suspense is whether or not it will receive all 60 Democratic votes. C-SPAN is using the special running tally it reserves for important votes.
That’s it. Arlen Specter, the former Republican, secures the 50th vote needed for passage.
When Specter won in 2004, given his history, it was easy to predict that he would vote with Democrats on key issues. Had Pat Toomey won in 2004, Democrats wouldn’t have garnered a 60th vote in 2009. Obamacare would not have passed.
CNN GOP presidential debate at North Charleston Coliseum in Charleston, SC, Jan 19, 2012. Tonight's CNN debate will be held in Mesa, AZ. (Photo AP/David Goldman)
It has been 27 days since the last GOP presidential debate was held. Tonight’s critical face-off will serve as an important springboard into next week’s elections in Arizona and Michigan.
Here are a few details on tonight’s debate at the wonderful Mesa Arts Center in Mesa, Arizona:
On Wednesday, Feb. 22, Republican presidential hopefuls will face-off for the final debate before a dozen states take to the polls on Super Tuesday. CNN anchor and chief national correspondent John King will moderate the two-hour debate, which will air live from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET from the Mesa Performing Arts Center in Mesa, Arizona.
All four of the leading Republican presidential contenders will participate in Wednesday’s debate: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. In addition to questions posed to the candidates by King and Arizona Republicans in the audience, the network will solicit questions and comments submitted in real-time from CNN.com, the CNN Politics fan page on Facebook and by using the #CNNDebate hashtag on Twitter.
CNN will air the debate on television; a live feed may be found here. For CNN mobile apps click here.
Don’t forget to use hashtags #CNNdebate and #UnravelTheSweater when tweeting.
AZ Governor Jan Brewer weighs in:
The timing for tonight’s debate couldn’t be any better for Arizona and the Republican governor, Jan Brewer, says that the showdown is very important to her state.
“I think that Arizona will be a pivotal state. There are a lot of undecided voters in Arizona so I think that people will be tuned in and watching, and because of this debate will be making their decision, not only in Arizona but across the country,” Brewer said.
And what do Arizona voters want to hear from the candidates?
“I think that just like everywhere in America, people are concerned about jobs and the economy. Here in Arizona people are also concerned with their border security, they are concerned about new federalism and states’ rights, and are very interested in natural resource issues,” Brewer said.
Details on stage arrangements (see photo below):
“This is the first CNN debate where we’ve used a table,” Feist said. “We decided to make this debate more intimate.”
And the table that candidates will be seated around has some history.
“An interesting piece of trivia is that the last time this particular table was used in a GOP debate was at the Reagan Library debate on January 30, 2008,” Feist said. “Mitt Romney and Ron Paul were both at that debate sitting at this very same table.”
Stage prep continues today for tonight's GOP debate at the Mesa Arts Center in beautiful Mesa, Arizona. Check out the lineup... Romney will be wearing double armour! GO MITT! (Click on image to enlarge.)
Photo - AP/East Valley Tribune/Tim Hacker
Feb 22, 2012
We’re gung-ho for another outstanding debate for Governor Romney!
Frequent visitors to MRC know my thoughts about Mr. Gingrich. His narcissism, self adulation, and condescending style disqualify him from higher office. Most Republicans have resigned themselves to the fact that very few, if any, of Gingrich’s pursuits are noble. He is driven by ambition and revenge.
Oh to know Donald's thoughts about now -- Two peas from the same pod?
Gingrich knows how to sell books and frankly, that is exactly what I think he is all about. As a wealthy man, he seeks to expand his image with power. He would accept power of course, but all he really wanted was a forum to sell more books. So little has been exposed on Gingrich and yet, each time we do a little truth-letting, Gingrich drops like a rock in the polls. What is he now, fourth or fifth in the polls? Oh wait, there are only four candidates left.
Every time I turn around, I keep running into these little gems of truth about Mr. Gingrich. I guess since I have never known any person this arrogant, it fascinates me. The fact he is duplicitous, terrifies me. Candidly, I don’t understand how he gets even one supporter, let alone thousands. Fascinating!
Yesterday, The Washington Post’s Jerry Markon published an article, exposing a few more facts behind the true nature of Mr. Gingrich. My excerpts below are only a glimpse.
The files offer a candid glimpse of the former House speaker, a man who could be charming and self-effacing one moment, ambitious and grandiose the next, an admittedly disorganized manager who viewed his role as nothing less than saving the Western world.
“When I say save the West, I mean that,” Gingrich said in a 1979 address to his congressional staff, preserved in the files. “That is my job. . . . It is not my job to win reelection. It is not my job to take care of passport problems. It is not my job to get a bill through Congress. My job description as I have defined it is to save Western civilization.”
While Gingrich differed sharply with the Reagan administration on issues such as defense spending and foreign policy, he effusively praised the president for national audiences.
“He is the most articulate, most charming, most aggressive conservative we’ve had, possibly since Theodore Roosevelt,” Gingrich was quoted as saying in a 1983 Associated Press story.
Yet behind closed doors, Gingrich raged at Reagan and other conservatives, especially after House Republicans lost seats in the 1982 elections. And back in Georgia, newspapers quoted him as saying something different. “Really, Reaganomics has failed,” Gingrich said.
The entire Washington Post article is very good. I recommend it highly: CLICK
I can admit it: last week was tough. But the CPAC speech, the straw poll and Maine’s results over the weekend confirmed that Mitt is still the front-runner, and for good reason. I seriously can’t imagine Rick Santorum as POTUS. But I can imagine this guy:
And now I think it’s time for us to remember why we’re supporting Mitt, who I can easily imagine as president, and do what we can to convince our fellow Republicans.
Mitt’s speech at CPAC was a home run.
Not much still gives me goosebumps, but Mitt’s speech did (click on the link for the video). He was right on point, and we need him in the White House. No more Clinton-esque surprises with interns. No more Obama-esque surprises trampling religious liberties (and if you think contraception is the last of the controversies with Obamacare you need to think again). It’s all the more clear we need to elect someone with the leadership and vision to keep this country rooted in what made it strong: individual liberty, not government assistance. And that person, unlike our current president and all of the other candidates, needs to have the sheer ability to run the executive branch. Rick Santorum? Hardly. He hasn’t even run a national campaign and is just the latest flavor of the month, who is just now being vetted. The person we need is Mitt Romney.
NOTE: The guest editorial that accompanies the table below is absolutely outstanding. Due to the length of this “Experience Comparative,” in order to read the whole editorial, you will need to click the “CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING…” link at the bottom.
In 2006, a close friend of mine introduced me to David Parker, a personal friend of Governor Mitt Romney. I was contemplating doing some grassroots work to promote his run for President and wanted to know more about the man. Candidly, I was skeptical. How could a governor of such a liberal state be a Republican, let alone a conservative? David met me for lunch at Strawberry Farms and laid out the high points of Governor Romney’s strong conservative action, from his record of protecting life to his hundreds of vetoes. I was sold!
David L. Parker
David organized this amazing matrix, comparing the leadership experience and skills of the four remaining Republican presidential candidates. In my opinion, this table — along with the accompanying Op-Ed piece by David — should be published in every major newspaper in the nation, including the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal! I honestly believe that if every literate voter were to carefully study this table and Op-Ed, the nomination would be over now.
As you compare each candidate below, add Obama to the list and subject his experience to these points — the results of his trial and error leadership are dismal indeed. Most impressive to me is the comparison below of leadership experience in the private, public, and philanthropic sectors — Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul simply don’t measure up to Governor Romney’s extensive background of executive leadership. Why any person would consider voting for a candidate without proven executive experience — after voting for Obama the community organizer — I will never understand. (there is good reason it is extremely rare that a congressman or senator is ever elected as POTUS)
You can make a big difference in this elections season. Please pass this Op-Ed piece by David Parker to as many people you know as possible.
“No Apology, the Case for Mitt Romney” — by David Parker
Are we so blind in our pursuit of our conservative ideology that we fail to recognize needed pragmatism? Our nation, a center-right nation, is not conservative, nor liberal, but an amalgamation of many people, each with individual agency, thought and perspective that leans center-right in the majority.
[ editorial continues below the table ]
Yes, we are clumped together at times in ideological conclaves, but to impose or dictate our conservative ideology in absolute myopia is a failed and fractured model, just as it is with those on the other side of the aisle. We cannot win and they lose, nor visa versa. We are one Nation under God, and thus we need to be sufficiently pragmatic and persuasive to win the majority, and lead those who believe in contrary principles of liberal thought to the more conservative Promised Land — America, an exceptional nation!
Accordingly, leadership and governance, and ideological advocacy demands pragmatism over some perceived capacity of force majeure.
Well, the final results aren’t final yet . . . but it’s clear that Romney won this important swing state’s caucus, and won it big. (Update . . . Romney did get just over 50%, but the entrance poll results have just been revised this morning, so much of what you see quoted below is somewhat off from what the linked poll says NOW. Sorry, I’m not going back and re-calculating things at this point).
He’s got 43% of the vote with 43% of precincts reporting, but the results of Clark County (Las Vegas) as not coming in as fast as expected. Don’t fret though Romney fans, Mitt will win a majority of the votes and I’m guessing he’ll be somewhere between 52-55% of the total vote when all is said and done. If things track as closely as they are in the entrance polls, Clark County should go for Mitt by over 60% (and they’ve nailed the non-Clark County…rest of NV…percentage at 43%, exactly how the real results have turned out)
Debunking the “Romney won Nevada because of the Mormon factor” myth:
Yes, Mitt dominated among LDS voters with 90% choosing Romney, BUT (and it’s a very big “but”), EVEN IF NOT A SINGLE MORMON WENT TO VOTE, ROMNEY WOULD HAVE WON THE STATE WITH A 42%-26% margin over Gingrich. Romney won Catholics 52%-19% over Newt and “White Evangelical/Born Again” by a solid margin of 46%-26% over the former Speaker.
Debunking the “See, the poor won’t vote for Romney” myth:
On CNN’s coverage tonight, the anchors/pundits seemed to be getting as much mileage as possible out of the fact that the only economic demographic that Romney did NOT win was those that make $30,000 or less (which were only 10% of the voters in NV last night). They were trying to tie this to Romney’s “I’m not concerned about the very poor” comment and even went on to conclude that this “underscores the fact that blue-collar workers, who you can’t win without their support, do not see that this is a guy that will fight for them.” SERIOUSLY?!?!? I realize that these pundits aren’t statisticians, but it’s pretty straightforward to figure out why he didn’t win this demographic. First off, he hardly “lost” this demographic. Paul and Newt both got 31%, and Mitt got 30%, a virtual 3 way tie for first. Secondly, the age of the voter is VERY determinative of income when looking at your youngest age group especially. Voters aged 18-29 were only 8% of the vote (quite similar to the 10% in that income of $30K or less), and Paul won that group 40% to 39% over Romney. Paul has been wining the young college-aged voters in almost every state . . . it’s his base and he’s definitely turning out this group of folks that do not typically vote in a GOP primary. Good for Paul. But these college kids are a HUGE portion of the “makes less than $30,000 year” group, and I don’t think anyone would consider college kids “the very poor,” they are just in a temporary low-income stage of their lives.
“Strong Moral Character;” Mitt good, Newt Very Very Bad:
In perhaps the most revealing entrance poll finding, those that felt a candidate having “Strong Moral Character” was their number one trait they sought in a President, Mitt got 54% of the vote … Newt got 1% of those voters. No, that is not a typo, ONE PERCENT (Paul got 32% and Santorum got 13%). Looks like Nevada voters are pretty good judges of character, eh? THIS IS WHY YOU’RE LOSING NEWT!! YOU BLAME MITT FOR YOUR LAGGING VOTE TALLIES, BUT YOU NEED TO LOOK IN THE MIRROR BUDDY!
Debunking the “Strong Conservatives and Tea Party voters don’t like Romney” myth:
Like New Hampshire and Florida, Romney, once again, won self-identified conservatives and supporters of the Tea Party in Nevada. This time though, he won A MAJORITY of these groups. Romney beat Newt 54%-21% among conservative voters and 50%-23% among Tea Party supporters. Yet I still see pundit after pundit say that Romney still has a lot of work to do to appeal to conservatives (while they “obviously” love Newt). CAN THEY NOT READ A POLL?!? Among “very conservative” voters he Mitt still won 49%-24% over Newt, and even beat him 39%-30% among those “strongly supportive of Tea Party.” Some narratives are hard to kill, but when a state in the Northeast (NH), Southeast (FL), and West (NV) all show Romney winning conservatives and Tea Party supporters I think it’s proof positive against that media meme. The real take-away/new-media-narrative should be that Newt has work to do to appeal to as many conservatives as Romney has been.
Odds and Ends:
The Economy was the number one (even by a majority) issue on voters minds, and Romney carried these voters by 62%. By an even larger margin, the candidate quality of “Can Defeat Obama” was number one, and Romney absolutely dominated here with 73% of the vote. WOW! “Right Experience” was the top quality to only 15% of voters, but Romney cleaned up here too with 55% (Rick Santorum pulled in a whopping 1% here). Romney also continues to dominate the Suburbs winning with 69% there; historically this is a key demographic for winning a general election.
Newt and some liberals keeps saying that Mitt’s trying to suppress turnout in order to win. When we look at the field compared to 2008, however, I don’t think it’s any surprise that turnout is lower. Last time around there was much more diversity, and much more famous personalities in the field. You had a Pro-Choice candidate with strong personal appeal/popularity in Rudy Giuliani, War Hero John McCain, popular actor Fred Thompson, and folksy former pastor Mike Huckabee in addition to Mitt and Paul all in the race this far into the process. Substituting character-challenged Gingrich and personality/experience-challenged Rick Santorum in place of Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, and Huckabee is beyond even comparing apples and oranges. They all had more money and organization that either Newt or Rick too and that is how turnout is driven. Like all of Newt’s complaints/excuses, this one rings hollow as well.
CONGRATS MITT AND NEVADA!! ANOTHER GREAT WIN FOR ROMNEY!!
In the 24 hour news cycle, the story of the day has been Mitt’s comments to CNN in the early morning after his Florida win. While I think even the most ardent Romney fan would admit that this could and should have (and will be) phrased more adeptly, the liberals have taken and run with the partial quote that he’s “not concerned with the very poor” … It looks worse in print that in the context of the interview:
Mitt doesn’t care about poor people? Demonstrably false and easy to debunk (and this is without even delving into fact that Mitt, as a Mormon Bishop for several years, dedicated much of his time to caring for the poor in a very “hands on” fashion). If Obama and team push this theme it will come back to bite them. Mitt’s done more to care for the poor than any snarky reporter or any of his political rivals.
Additionally, Brit Hume on Fox News today adroitly argued that anyone who wants to “make hay” or be offended by this out-of-context quote wouldn’t be voting for a GOP candidate anyways. I’d have to agree.