Michael Medved nails Mitt Romney’s challenges in 2012, as well as the GOP’s.

From The Daily Beast:

Michael Medved

On no significant issue has Romney moved to the left or to the center over the last four years; his platform of 2012 offers a program of conservative reform far bolder and more substantive than any ideas he put forward in 2008.

Mitt’s precise problem came into focus for me with an e-mail from an angry listener to my radio show who upbraided me for my open support of Romney as the most electable candidate against Obama. “We remember what you did to us last time, and we won’t let you get away with it again!” she wrote. “This time you’re trying to ram the RINO, Romney, down our throats and last time it was McCain. It was because of people like you that we got stuck with McCain, when we could have had a real conservative who would have beaten Obama!”

And who would have been that “real conservative” back in the distant days of 2008?

None other than … Mitt Romney, the “conservative’s conservative ” eagerly endorsed by Senator Jim DeMint and nearly all of my talk radio colleagues, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage and many more.

That Romney no longer counts as a “real conservative” doesn’t reflect any ideological shifts on his part, but it does suggest a significant movement of the entire GOP toward the enraged and indignant right. The far lower turnouts in Florida, Nevada, Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri all indicate that this tectonic movement hardly counts as a positive development for the Republican Party.

“The enraged and indignant right.” – Sound familiar?

We have seen many such sentiments expressed here, on other sites and in a daily diatribe on most truth twisting Talk Radio shows. This “I’d rather be RIGHT than win” mantra will prove to be a major stumbling block on the road to successfully ousting President Obama.

Just as Talk Radio and misguided fringer conservatives mucked up the 2010 mid-term elections, where the goal was to TAKE CONTROL of the Senate as well as the House (while disposing of Harry Reid in the process) they seem hell-bent on using the same tactics in the 2012 cycle. The GOP could have deposed Reid in Nevada with a popular mainstream conservative, but were overrun by the “blood in their eyes” right-wing activists who offered us an ill-prepared and unsuitable candidate.

In Delaware, rather than keep a safe, solid seat in the GOP aisle and make the incumbent tow the line AFTER control was won, we had to suffer through the debacle of a psuedo-witch leading us to defeat, while Talk Radio extolled her conservative purity.

Why?

“Because we’re as mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore.”

In our personal lives, very seldom is it wise or successful to make serious decisions while in a highly emotional and angry state of mind. Unfortunately, this logic doesn’t seem to be followed in certain political circles.

It’s sad to see the same storm clouds gathering again on the political horizon. Hopefully we can wake up, seek shelter from the storm and ride the sensible, pragmatic and MAINSTREAM CONSERVATIVE course to victory.

Cross-posted at Right Speak

We’ve all heard the line “the conservative base doesn’t like Mitt Romney” or some version of that idea. It’s a line that has been thrown around carelessly in the media for several months now, and we all know that once the media adopts a theme or “narrative” about a candidate, it becomes incredibly difficult to break that narrative even when evidense abounds to the contrary.

Well, now that there has been some actual voting, lets look at the FACTS to see if that claim holds water. What I am going to argue is that, if we analyze the exit polls from the competitive primaries and caucuses held so far, Romney has captured the conservative base by a large margin over his competitors. So according to actual voters, and not just the pundits and talking heads in the media, Romney is doing just fine with the “conservative base.” 

Of the eight states that have held competitive primaries or caucuses, Romney has won four and tied one. Romney won New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada and Maine and then essentially tied Iowa. Exit polls from the states that Romney has won show that Romney captured the “conservative base” by a large margin. Lets look at some examples:

New Hampshire – Chris Cillizza gave a summary of the exit polls which showed: 

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.

Florida – Exit polls in Florida show that Romney received the vast majority of Republican support between the candidates with 48%. Among those who self-identify as “conservative,” Romney garnered 41%, more than any other candidate. Among those who consider themselves “very conservative,” Romney split the vote with Gingrich (Romney got 30% and Gingrich got 41%).

Nevada: Exit polls in this state reveal Romney truly stomped the other competitors in regard to which candidate the self-identified “very conservative and “conservative” voters supported.

Romney garnered a vast majority of the Republican vote at 56%. Romney won every category of Republican voters including the Very Conservative by wide margins. The category of very conservative is particularly interesting, Romney got 46%, Gingrich got only 25% and Santorum only 15%.

Maine: No exit/entrance polls were taken. Results of the caucus show:

Mitt Romney has 39.2 percent of the vote with 2190 votes, Ron Paul has 35.7 percent with 1996 votes, Rick Santorum has 17.7percent with 989 votes, and Newt Gingrich has 6.25 percent with 349 votes.

So the pundits and talking heads say that the conservative base doesn’t like Mitt Romney, but exit polls of ACTUAL VOTERS in New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada and Maine show otherwise. 

A critic might say, “O.K., Romney did well among conservatives in the states he won, but what about the states that Romney didn’t win?”

While it is true that Romney didn’t do as well among conservatives in the states he lost (South Carolina, Colorado, and Minnesota), we have to also acknowledge that Santorum and Gingrich didn’t do well among “the base” in the states that Romney won. So if we are going to claim that “the base doesn’t like Romney” because he lost some states, by the same logic, we would have to conclude that the base doesn’t like Santorum because of how voters of the base rejected Santorum in Florida, South Carolina, Nevada and Maine. We would likewise have to conclude that the base doesn’t like Newt Gingrich because of how he performed in Iowa, New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Minnesota, Colorado and Maine. The same standard needs to be applied to all the candidates.

National Polls – I just want to make a quick comment about national polls. For those of us who have been watching the presidential race closely, we remember a couple of months ago how the pundits frequently used national polls to illustrate that “the base didn’t like Romney.” The pundits would say something along the lines of “Romney just can’t break out of that mid-twenties approval rating in national polls, that shows that the base just doesn’t really like Mitt Romney.” However, in the last month, Romney has shattered that myth by shooting into the mid to low thirties since Iowa and New Hampshire. In fact, after Romney’s win in Florida, he polled higher in the national polls than any other candidate has polled since the race began a year ago. That is why I was amused yesterday to hear Sarah Palin say “I like Mitt Romney . . . but he has to do more work to convince conservatives. His support can’t break out of that mid-thirties level.” 

Thousands of hard-working Mainers have spoken…

Mitt Romney wins the Maine caucuses!

Coming on top of Governor Romney’s straw poll win at CPAC, today’s Maine caucus poll win is especially sweet:


Romney – 2,190 votes – 39%
Paul – 1,996 votes – 36%
Santorum – 989 votes – 15%
Gingrich – 349 votes – 6%

It is estimated that Romney will receive six delegates, Paul will take five delegates, and Santorum will receive three delegates. Gingrich receives nothing. That would put the total delegate count at:

Romney – 121
Gingrich – 38
Santorum – 37
Paul – 25

UPDATE – Boston, MA – Romney issued the following statement on the results of the Maine caucuses:

“I thank the voters of Maine for their support. I’m committed to turning around America. And I’m heartened to have the support of so many good people in this great state.

“We stand for conservative principles, liberty and prosperity. All of these are under threat. I’m in this race because I believe that America can be turned around, that we don’t have to accept unemployment over 8 percent, a national debt that is as large as our entire economy, and a President who, even as his own policies fail, apologizes for America’s past successes. We’ve had enough. It’s time to reverse Barack Obama’s legacy of domestic disarray and foreign-policy weakness.

“I congratulate my fellow Republicans on a campaign well fought. We may have our differences, but we’re united in our determination to bring Barack Obama’s reign of failure to an end. I am the only candidate in the race who has never served a day in our broken federal government. The voters of Maine have sent a clear message that it is past time to send an outsider to the White House, a conservative with a lifetime of experience in the private sector, who can uproot Washington’s culture of taxing and spending and borrowing and endless bureaucracy.”

(emphasis added)

► Jayde Wyatt

Romney – 38%
Santorum – 31%
Gingrich – 15%
Paul – 12%

UPDATE from Jayde: Upon hearing of his CPAC straw poll win, Governor Romney tweeted:

Honored to have won the CPAC straw poll. I’m heartened that so many friends here agree with me about the need for conservative change.

CONGRATS, Gov Romney!

Here’s video of Romney’s fantastic CPAC speech:

Romney supporters are eyeing Maine today…

Coming down to the wire in the Pine Tree State, it’s a two-man caucus race today between Governor Mitt Romney and Congressman Ron Paul.

Caucusing has been taking place since February 4th. Only registered Republicans are allowed to participate (a ‘closed’ caucus) but unaffiliated independent voters may register as Republicans on the day they vote and hence, may participate. (Additional information may be found here.)

Yesterday, Romney held a well-received town hall meeting at the Portland Company Marine Complex in Portland, ME. He also deftly handled a few OWS hecklers:

Among the sites Romney visited today, Romney was greeted by a packed high school gymnasium crowd at the York County GOP caucus in Sanford. The Romney campaign ran a cable television ad yesterday and it continues today. Surrogates for The Gov have been in the state in recent days and Romney also hosted a telephone town hall this week.

Choosing not to speak at this year’s CPAC gathering in Washington D.C., Ron Paul opted instead to focus instead on the ME caucuses. Reports are that he is well organized; he is hoping to get his first campaign win.

Caucus results will begin to come in tonight around 7:30 PM local time. (Note: A few contests will be held on Sunday; a snow storm caused Washington County, in the state’s far eastern region, to postpone its caucuses until Feb. 18th.)

A livefeed for caucus results can be found here:

As results come in, Romney supporters are invited to join us on our chat forum.

ROMNEY FOR THE WIN!

► Jayde Wyatt

Santorum, Gingrich, And Obama Are Launching False Attacks:

National Review: “The Obama Administration Is Driving Conscience Violations As Mandated Policy Whereas Romney Vetoed A Bill That Would Require Catholic Hospitals To Provide Abortifacient Drugs.” “A Boston Globe sub-headline this morning declares: Mitt Romney’s ‘’05 contraception stance similar to Obama’s now.’ Except that the Obama administration is driving conscience violations as mandated policy whereas Romney vetoed a bill that would require Catholic hospitals to provide abortifacient drugs. Of course, as governor of Massachusetts, he vetoed the bill without a lot of support for his position — and his veto was overturned. That’s quite different than the overreaching attack on religious liberty the Obama administration is driving. It’s also a reminder of how crucial it is to support leaders when they’re trying to do the right thing, as Romney was at the time. (Komen this week comes to mind.)” (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review Online, 2/3/12)

• Gingrich Is “Mischaracterizing Romney’s Record.” “Newt Gingrich had his debate moment or two helping to clarify the danger our religious liberty is in in America today. But he only added to the confusion when he started mischaracterizing Romney’s record here.” (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review Online, 2/3/12)

• The Washington Post Rated Santorum And Gingrich’s Attacks As Having “Significant Omissions And/Or Exaggerations.” “[It] is a stretch for Santorum and Gingrich to claim he demanded this shift or imposed this on hospitals, in what they characterize as an attack on religion.” (Glenn Kessler, “Romney And Plan B: The Santorum And Gingrich Claims,” The Washington Post, 2/8/12)

________________________________________________________________________________________

Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon comes out to bat for Mitt:

The charge that Mitt Romney has not stood tall to defend freedom of religion is preposterous. The truth is that Mitt Romney has been fighting assaults on religious freedom for a long time, and at moments and in places where it was not popular, to say the least.

When Catholic Charities in Massachusetts was being forced out of the adoption business because they were trying to provide adoption services for needy children while staying true to their beliefs, it was Governor Mitt Romney who stood shoulder to shoulder with the Catholic Church and filed a bill to protect religious liberty.

It was precisely for his courageous efforts in defense of religious freedom that the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty awarded him its prestigious Canterbury Medal in 2008.

At this moment when religious liberty is under attack from many quarters, people of all faiths won’t find a more ardent or effective advocate than Mitt Romney. He has shown backbone on every critical issue at every juncture when it counted.

Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon is the Founder of Women Affirming Life and Chair of the Board of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty as well as the Canterbury Medal recipient in 2003.

________________________________________________________________________________________
CLICK HERE TO GET ALL THE FACTS…

Romney held a rally in western Colorado today, and what a rally it was! So many people showed up that crowds were forced to wait outside the hotel for Romney. It was a great turnout considering that Romney announced his visit to this area less than 24 hours before the event, and considering the announcement came out during Superbowl Sunday.

Romney won Colorado easily in 2008 and he hopes to repeat that again this year. Romney seemed at ease here today and exuded the confidence of a front-runner. The crowd was boisterous and loud, a fact that Romney really enjoyed.

During the event, I met Tyler Glick, a Romney staffer who, despite making a long and difficult drive over the snowy Rocky Mountains late last night, seemed upbeat and eager to make things happen in Colorado. I have to admit that I have imagined many times what it would be like to have Tyler’s job and travel every day with the Romney campaign. In some ways, I think it would be the best job in the world. Here is a photo of me with Tyler. I am on the right, Tyler on the left.

Many more pictures below the fold. Read more…

I got the chance to go to the Nevada caucuses over the weekend. It was a fun time again. Here’s a quick travel log to give you a sense of what it was like.

Headquarters

We started after making the trip from San Diego in record time, and went immediately to the headquarters.

After foraging for some food, my sons and I hit the phones. Here are my two boys, ready to dig in: Read more…

Thus far in the campaign, Rick Santorum has been tickled to ham up being the one who is above the fray. Well, he wasn’t polling high, hasn’t truly been vetted, and up until his 34-vote win in Iowa, wasn’t getting a lot of attention. Interestingly, Santorum gets plenty bristly-haired during the debates (political pundits note that he comes across as mean), and closer inspection of his record could elicit some real squealing from him.

Yesterday, Governor Tim Pawlenty held an enlightening press conference call which highlighted Santorum’s propensity for pork-barrel spending. Here’s the entire call:

Highlights of the Rick Santorum’s Long History Of Pork-Barrel Spending call:

GOV. TIM PAWLENTY: What I wanted to focus this morning on the notion that Rick Santorum is presenting to caucus attendees in Minnesota and to conservatives beyond that Rick Santorum is really as conservative as those caucus attendees and he’s not. If you look at his record overall there’s a number of things that should be concerning about that record to conservatives. And I’ll just focus this morning on the spending and fiscal aspects of that. Rick Santorum has been a champion of earmarks, when he was both in the House and subsequently in the Senate. He reflected on his time in the House at one point by saying that he is no longer a fiscal hawk. And the reason he cited for no longer being a fiscal hawk is because he wanted to spend the surpluses which is not the philosophy or perspective of somebody that conservatives would look to as a strong, unabashed fiscal hawk. In fact he just admitted and disclaimed that he was no longer a fiscal hawk. And his votes and his behavior in the Congress reflected that drift away from fiscal discipline.

He proudly and enthusiastically embraced earmarking. Some of the more well-known examples of earmarking he supported was the so-called ‘Bridge to Nowhere,’ which was one of the biggest earmark debacles in the modern history of the Congress. He supported things like a polar bear exhibit in Pittsburgh that was federally funding under one of these earmarks. He provided a Philadelphia developer an earmark for a project in the Philadelphia area, and there was a developer that he had some other contacts and associations with. He voted numerous times to raise the debt ceiling and here we as a nation facing fiscal crisis, I mean literally on the edge of the fiscal abyss.

We need a next president who’s been strong and proven in fiscal and spending matters, and we had Rick Santorum voting numerous times to raise the debt ceiling. So, he clearly has been part of the big spending establishment in Congress and in the influence peddling industry that surrounds Congress. He has been part of that. He has been a champion of earmarks, and to hold himself out now as somebody who is an unquestionable conservative in these matters, just is not supported by the facts. So we wanted to call that out this morning as part of his record, part of debate back and forth, and the contrast between these candidates, and Rick Santorum is clearly not as conservative on these matters as Minnesota caucus attendees or Republican or conservative activists and the people who are part of the conservative movement more broadly. So that’s the message we wanted to convey with you this morning, but we also wanted to give you a chance to ask questions or make comments about that topic or others that may be of interests to you, or obviously on the eve of the Minnesota caucuses, as well as other contests around the country tomorrow and the Romney campaign is in full gear as you know and there’s a lot of activity going on, so we’ll be delighted to take your questions on any topic related to those things.

Governor Pawlenty also released this statement yesterday:

“Rick Santorum is a nice guy, but he is simply not ready to be President. Plus, he wants Minnesota conservatives to believe he’s as conservative as they are, but he’s not. As a U.S. Senator, he was a leading earmarker and pork-barrel spender. He described himself as ‘very proud’ of the billions of dollars in pork-barrel projects he championed, and promised to defend the wasteful spending. Even in the face of crushing federal debt, Rick Santorum voted for the infamous ‘Bridge to Nowhere.’ That type of leadership will not help us rein in government and slash the unprecedented federal debt.”

(emphasis added)

Voters need to know about Santorum’s piggy-pork record while serving on Capitol Hill. He loved toting home taxpayer bacon for his state.

By the way, I greatly appreciate Pawlenty’s press conference call and his continuing hard work for Governor Romney.

Disappointingly, Santorum has also been hog-jowled on the campaign trail giving false information about health care in Massachusetts. Click below the fold for a must-read summary from the Romney Press Office:

Read more…

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.

Turnout Issue:

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!!