Romney in Illinois: Rally, FOX & Friends, Obama Movie, New Ad, Santorum “Economic Lightweight”


Mitt Romney holds four-month old Ryan Pratt while campaigning at the Pancakes Eggcetera restaurant in Rosemont, Illinois. Romney Campaign embed Garrett Jackson: “Wherever we go there are always a lot of people who want the Gov to hold their babies. With 16 grandkids he’s a pro.” March 16, 2022 ( Photo/Garrett Jackson)

It was pancakes and eggs and FOX & Friends in the Prairie State this morning…

Governor Romney met with voters very early this morning at Pancakes Eggcetera in Rosemont, Illinois to rally support ahead of their delegate-rich primary next Tuesday. He spoke on jobs/economy, gasoline prices, housing market, and Obama’s 18 minute Hollywood created infomercial (*poster below):

Mitt Romney pans new Obama documentary with two thumbs down

Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney gavePresident Obama’s new campaign infomercial two thumbs down at an Illinois campaign event on Friday morning.

The “so-called documentary about President Obama is now on the Internet . And you can take a look at it. It’s about 17 or 18 minutes,” Romney said at a diner outside Chicago.

He ridiculed director Davis Guggenheim for remarking recently that he had nothing negative to say about Obama. Romney used that as a takeoff point to attack the president over gas prices, the struggling housing market and continued high unemployment.

I’ll give you some help, Mr. Guggenheim,” Romney said. “You can make a call to some of the moms that are having a hard time paying for gas as they get their kids to and from school and practice and music lessons. And you can also talk to the people who are having a hard time getting to and from work, given the price of gasoline.”
[…]
…Romney said gasoline prices “have gone through the roof, in part because of this president’s failure to develop our energy resources.”

Later, FOX & Friends’ Alisyn Camerota, Steve Doocy, and Brian Kilmeade caught up with The Gov at the restaurant. Here’s the interview:


“We’re not gonna drive cars with windmills on them.” ~Mitt Romney

Using the telephone, Romney also held a half-hour townhall with Illinois Republicans. He hammered home the point that Rick Santorum is an ECONOMIC LIGHTWEIGHT :

Romney, in a half-hour telephone town hall to Illinois Republicans solicited by his campaign, warned the state’s voters to beware of Santorum.

“Sen. Santorum, for instance, is going to be campaigning in Illinois,” Romney said. “I think you’ll find he’s an economic lightweight — not because he isn’t an intelligent person but because not having ever spent any time in the private sector. He really doesn’t understand fundamentally what it takes to make this economy grow and thrive and add jobs. The economy is in my wheelhouse, it’s something I know well.”

Romney sought to paint Santorum and Gingrich as lifelong creatures of Washington while portraying himself as spending his life “in the real economy.”

I’ve actually run things,” Romney said. “Now as you know, we elected three years ago a president who’d never run anything. And it hasn’t worked out so well. And both Speaker Gingrich and Sen. Santorum, like the current president, have not really run anything. I think it helps to have run something and understand the economy by working in the real economy.”

Leaving no media stone unturned, Romney for President released a new television ad today in Illinois titled Wrong Choice:

Rick Santorum’s weakness is the economy and his economic plan has been criticized as the worst of all the GOP candidates. Mitt Romney has proposed the boldest plan since Ronald Reagan and has the leadership experience to lead our country.

Click here to continue reading

Mr. Santorum: He Could Win Pennsylvania’s Popular Vote & Receive Zero Delegates — A Goose Egg — Indeed! (“his time has passed” / “terrified”)

THE UNPREPARED, UNTESTED MR. SANTORUM

In the last week, we have all read articles or seen interviews with Santorum and Gingrich operatives passionately stating how their candidate is in this race to the end and to win it. Keep in mind the reasons they are so vociferous. Every one of them receives a salary from the campaign. It is in the self-interest of each campaign worker to keep their candidate in the race as long as possible and so they will always continue to talk him up!

Dan Hirschhorn wrote an Op-Ed in The Daily yesterday that provides outstanding insight into Pennsylvania politics as related to Mr. Santorum. It is titled, “NOT PENN. PALS — Even if he wins his home state, Santorum could walk away without delegates”

Santorum Delegates: As in NONE.

BTW, if you have not read Karl Rove’s latest, it is worth the read to see why Obama is really worried!

EXCELLENT reporting by Hirschhorn!:

As Rick Santorum desperately tries to make a dent in Mitt Romney’s formidable delegate lead, he faces an unlikely obstacle on the primary calendar: his home state of Pennsylvania.

Yes, Santorum is currently favored — though hardly a lock — to win the popular vote in the state he represented in Congress for 16 years.

But Pennsylvania’s non-binding primary rules for distributing delegates raise the prospect that Santorum, who has said he’ll win the vast majority of the state’s delegates, could actually come away from next month’s primary empty-handed at a time when he can ill-afford it.

Which means the April 24 primary could represent yet another chance for Romney — who kicked off his Pennsylvania campaign this week by trotting out supportive Republican leaders — to finally deal Santorum a knockout blow.
[…]
Interviews with about two dozen Pennsylvania Republicans and a review of the delegate candidates brings Santorum’s challenge into focus.

The ranks of delegate hopefuls are littered with Republican state committee members, elected officials and others with close party ties, who will ultimately be more beholden to a state party leadership that, while officially neutral, is visibly leaning in Romney’s direction and increasingly vocal in its fear that Santorum could hurt the party in a general election — especially after witnessing his 18-point drubbing in 2006.

Romney, Ron Paul and even Newt Gingrich got some of their supporters on the ballot as delegate candidates. But Santorum’s campaign officials, who have struggled with ballot organization issues across the country, privately concede that they just didn’t have the time, nor resources, to organize their own supporters to run as delegates when the paperwork was due earlier this year.

“At this point the delegate candidates are lined up everywhere but with Rick,” said Charlie Gerow, a longtime GOP strategist supporting Gingrich.

The state party has so far not made an endorsement in the race. But Bob Asher, a Republican National Committeeman and one of the most powerful forces in state politics, is backing Romney. So are top party fundraisers and members of Congress from the Philadelphia suburbs who, like many elected and party officials, worry that a Santorum candidacy would send independents fleeing from the GOP and damage their prospects in down-ballot races.

“I think most people recognize we have to put forward the best candidate to beat Barack Obama,” said Rep. Jim Gerlach, a suburban congressman and Romney backer who’s also a delegate. “There’s a lot of support to make sure Gov. Romney is ultimately our nominee.”

Added a top Republican fundraiser who’s neutral in the race: “People like Rick, and they often like his policies. But his brand is so tarnished and we’re all terrified at the prospect of him on top of the ticket.” Click here to continue reading

2012 Cycle: Snapshot / Analysis / Mormonism Fading / Prediction / Video

This is a great snapshot of the race and a good look to the future delegate line-up:

The Wall Street Journal had some good analysis yesterday. The above chart came from this article — here are some of the better quotes:

“The reality of this race from here on out is that any day that Santorum doesn’t cut into Romney’s delegate lead is a day that Romney wins,” said Josh Putnam, a professor who tracks delegate tallies at North Carolina’s Davidson College.
[…]
There are just four winner-take-all contests left: Washington, D.C., on April 3, Delaware on April 24, New Jersey on June 5, and Utah on June 26. Mr. Santorum failed to get on the D.C. ballot.

The Journal also carried an article about Romney’s faith in which it states that it is not as much a factor now as it was in the 2008 cycle.

John Green, a University of Akron political scientist who studies religion and politics, said the Romney religion question has attracted less attention this year in part because it is old news.

“Back in 2007, this was something people didn’t know. Now people know a lot about Mitt Romney,” he said.

Polling also suggests the issue is receding. In a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll in October, 57% of Republicans said they felt comfortable with Mr. Romney’s Mormon faith, up from 50% in December, 2007. The share who said they didn’t feel comfortable dropped to 14% from the 21% of late 2007.

The WSJ Op-Ed page carried this article about Santorum’s success Tuesday in the South. Reference is also made to Gingrich:

[… ] His goal increasingly seems to be to stay in the race to win enough delegates to deny Mr. Romney a majority and force a brokered convention.

Even in that event, however, Mr. Gingrich won’t be the man the GOP turns to. His negative ratings are too high, even among Republicans. His weekend comments that the U.S. mission in Afghanistan may no longer be “doable” may not hurt him with a war-weary public. But the remarks had the air of political opportunism as he grasps for any issue to re-ignite his campaign. The Georgian needs to look hard at whether his continued candidacy divides conservatives enough to deny Mr. Santorum a better chance at the nomination.

Finally, are your discussions of politics costing you friends? Maybe they are and you don’t know it. I found this both interesting and amusing for those who are political junkies (video clip) ——-> THE FIVE

Prediction: Ron Paul will drop out of the race soon after Newt Gingrich does.

.
.

What about Newt “big ideas” Gingrich?

Fading (photo: Getty Images)

To be completely candid, having Mr. Gingrich stick around keeps things a lot more interesting! Rarely do I watch Chris Matthews on the low rated MSNBC cable show, but I caught part of his show last night — Matthews, smiling (almost laughing), said of Gingrich, “I don’t want him to get out of the race” or something like that. He summed up exactly how I feel. I don’t think I have ever seen a public figure, in my lifetime, who is so full of himself and so purely arrogant. What is fascinating to me is that he knows it and yet he is oblivious to the realities of his hopelessness. By the way, I have heard him before use the word “humble” referring to himself. His personality strikes me as a strange sort of amalgam of Donald Trump and Rod Blagojevich. Fascinating!

Even more fascinating to me are the millions of people who obviously like his narcissism and support him with their votes. He has seriously compared himself to JFK, Thomas Jefferson, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Christopher Columbus, Abraham Lincoln, and many other greats. If he leaves the race, we will never hear the rest of his list.

Honestly? It is sad. Gingrich is becoming a laughing stock to many. It is really is sad.

Many of you may recall the low budget 2004 B-movie, purchased by MTV that went on to make tens of millions of dollars titled, Napoleon Dynamite. One of the characters in the film, whose name is “Uncle Rico,” is also in a sad state. Uncle Rico lives for the glory days of his high school football games. He even longingly wonders about time travel so that he can go back to take his team to state championships. Even if you have not seen the film, you can understand the comparison watching these short clips from it:

I believe Mr. Gingrich longs for his glory days. He thinks that if just given the chance, he will take America to the “state championships” and take all the glory. The Hardball cable show, whose host is Chris Matthews, interviews many Democrats for analysis, but I think that this exchange is quite telling. Notice the words that they use. I don’t recall the number, but the word “delusional” was used more than one time. A Gingrich spokesman was quoted as saying “Fundraising will be challenging.” That is where the exchange really takes off.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Janet Hook and Danny Yadron wrote a great piece in today’s Journal about Gingrich’s promise to remain in the race. Yadron gives a great interview on the subject in this short Skype interview ——->

This quote from the article pretty much sums it up: Click here to continue reading

Romney: What’s Ahead in March, Delegate Deal Making, Megyn Kelly Interview (FOX News VIDEO)


Last night was quite a night… Diehard Romney supporters held vigil into the wee hours of the morning (happy to note many were here on our chat forum!).

While Nate is writing a recap on yesterday’s results, delegate count, and the math moving forward, let me just say Governor Romney hauled in the most delegates!

Here’s a look at the remaining March madness schedule:
March 17th – Missouri – 52 delegates – Caucus
March 18th – Puerto Rico – 23 delegates – Primary
March 20th – Illinois – 69 delegates – Primary
March 24th – Louisiana – 46 delegates - Primary

● Because it has the most delegates at stake, Illinois will be getting a lot of attention. We’re already hearing it’s another make-or-break state for Romney. Let’s take a look:

GOP contenders turn to Illinois
By Christian Heinze - March 14, 2022

The Mississippi and Alabama contests — like so many other Tuesday primaries before them — were supposed to decide the fate of the GOP presidential nomination.

Except Rick Santorum’s double wins only tabled the decision for a future date. In this case, that might be March 20, when voters in Illinois will cast ballots.

So what do we know about Illinois? There are 69 delegates at stake — 15 of whom are unbound and 54 of whom are bound.

Polling is scant. Last week, the Chicago Tribune released a survey showing Mitt Romney winning 35 percent of the vote; Santorum was second with 31 percent; and Newt Gingrich took 12. Unfortunately, that’s the only meaningful poll of the state in the past five months.

The Tribune’s survey suggests an enormously fluid race, with 46 percent of likely voters saying they could change their minds before next Tuesday’s contest.

That’s a boon for Romney, who’s already begun advertising in the state and can flood the airwaves in the days leading up to the primary.

Heinze outlines the demographic breakdown we’ve been seeing and mentions a couple of wildcards at play. Here’s one of them:

Illinois’ primary system is open. In other words, any registered voter can show up and vote. In Michigan, prominent Democrats, including the liberal site Daily Kos, encouraged Democrats to vote for Santorum to embarrass Romney and extend the primary season. Romney eventually won, but Democrats did, in fact, make the race more competitive. Santorum won Democrats by 33 percent, and that made up 9 percent of the entire voting electorate.

In Ohio, Santorum once again routed Romney with Democrats, but Democrats only made up 5 percent of the electorate — barely one-half of Michigan’s.
. . .
[A] dilemma for Santorum: In Michigan, he took major heat from Republicans for actively courting Democrats through robocalls. To an extent, you could say it might have worked by helping boost the Democratic share of the vote to nearly 10 percent. But it also provoked considerable backlash among the GOP grass roots. Should Santorum woo working-class Democrats and mischief-minded foes of Romney, and if he does, how should he do it?

Continue reading here.

The Illinois primary is less than a week away. Should Santorum court Dems to derail Romney? No. But, he will.

Read how Illinois Treasurer and Romney state chairman Dan Rutherford gave Santorum an opening in Illinois.

Deals for delegates? A rumored development…

Gingrich plan to block Romney could result in a deal for delegates
By Cameron Joseph - March 14, 2022

Newt Gingrich’s plan to keep Mitt Romney from winning the necessary delegates for the GOP nomination means the presidential contenders might have to form a deal in order to avoid a brokered convention, a leading Gingrich surrogate told The Hill.
. . .
Gingrich has publicly stated that his goal is to keep Romney from winning the 1,144 delegates necessary to clinch the nomination.

His spokesman, R.C. Hammond, told reporters Tuesday night that “our goal first is to keep Romney well below 1,000,” according to reports. He added that if that happens: “This will be the first time in our party in modern politics that we’re going to go to the convention floor.”
. . .
“Santorum and Gingrich now trail Governor Romney by margins they cannot mathematically make up,” Romney political director Rich Beeson wrote in a memo Wednesday morning.

“In order to win, both Santorum and Gingrich need to start netting an impossible number of delegates to overtake Governor Romney,” he added.

But while none of the remaining candidates can over take Romney, they could do enough damage to keep him from winning the necessary delegates.

After listening to Gingrich’s post-election interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier last night, it was as plain as the nose on his face that Newt will not be swayed in his quest to prevent Romney from getting the nomination.

Backroom deals make many Republicans nervous; the article continues:

However, a deal among the candidates would give Gingrich more power. He’s widely disliked by the GOP establishment, many of whom would do anything to keep him from being the nominee. But in a meeting between the four contenders he could be a major power-broker and possibly ally with Santorum to help make one of them the nominee.

Read more here.

This could be Gingrich’s last attempt to be relevant. There is no love lost between Santorum and Gingrich; time will tell if the two of them decide to tie the knot.

By the way, NBC has pulled Ron Paul’s last embedded reporter.

Click below the fold to see VIDEO of Romney’s excellent interview today with Megyn Kelly and my happy dance tribute to ALL who voted for The Gov yesterday.

Click here to continue reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quoting Dick Morris from this video clip:

“This fight is over!” “It’s over.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mitt Romney: Crossroads in the South — Krauthammer Comes Out for Mitt — Inspiring Aspiration

The Wall Street Journal yesterday carried three insightful articles by authors Kimberley Strassel, Michael Medved (in Romney’s camp), and Danny Yadron. Each one contributes to the narrative that Gov. Romney is the very best of the five remaining candidates to be our next President.

MUST WATCH: Before I get to the articles, this video clip of Charles Krauthammer is great. He is one of the very best, most objective political analysts alive in my opinion — and definitely one of the brightest. He hits all the important points of the race in this clip — tells why Santorum cannot win; uses the “Buckley Rule” as to how to pick the best conservative candidate; says Gingrich should be “holding court”; and best of all: he wants Romney in the White House! First time Krauthammer has come right out to give such a strong opinion in favor of Governor Romney ——->

I actually like Romney, I think he’s a very good man, and he will make a very good President. I’d like to see him in the White House and I’d have no hesitation supporting him. It’s the Buckley Rule: He always said that in any election vote for the most conservative candidate who can win! In my analysis, Santorum has no chance of winning the White House in the general election. It’s an election about the economy and what energizes Santorum is social issues — it’s the wrong year for social issues.” ~ Charles Krauthammer

Strassel makes some good points in her article, but the main point of her article is missed completely in a key paragraph:

Though only—and this is key—if he has locked in those core voters on the other side of the Divide. Yet the Romney campaign seems to be taking for granted that they will ultimately jump to his side. In the upcoming Mississippi and Alabama primaries, the campaign will continue to target more upscale urban and suburban communities. A senior campaign aide airily dismissed Mr. Romney’s Super Tuesday weaknesses, noting: “The areas we didn’t do as well in are rural and they are more anti-Obama.” Meaning, who else are these guys going to vote for come November?

How about: no one. They could stay home.

FALSE!

She totally missed the point of Romney’s aide above! Those who are voting in large blocks for Romney are the more affluent, college grads, older voters, etc. Those in the rural areas voting for say Santorum, and who are more anti-Obama, are more ideological. She implies these would stay home in the general. This is simply not born out at all. If their ideal candidate does not make it, their greater passion against Obama will be realized by voting for Gov. Romney. I have yet to see any of these voters interviewed on TV to say they will not vote if Romney is the nominee. They will come out in droves.

Ms. Strassel has spotted a slight change in Romney’s message that others of late have also discovered. Rather than refer to the middle “class” or any class, he is now talking about the ability of any American to reach their goals and dreams related to a much better standard of living - those dreams to which we all aspire. Reagan was naturally outstanding in this type of message. Gov. Romney has been delivering this message for awhile now; it is one important reason people are leaving Santorum for Romney. Strassel concludes her piece here: Click here to continue reading

Mr. Santorum & Mr. Gingrich: What Would Mitt Do? A Matter of Principle, Integrity, and Character

Santorum and Gingrich should be asked continuously why they stay in the race until they admit they are driven by self-interest. Ron Paul has already given his answer.

What would Mitt Romney do right now if the tables were turned and he were in Gingrich’s or Santorum’s shoes? No guessing needed. We only need to look to 2008 for the answer. At about this time in the race in 2008, Governor Romney dropped out of the race and did a lot of heavy lifting for Senator McCain. He and Huckabee knew there was no practical way either of them could win the nomination and yet Huckabee stayed in three months longer out of self-interest (to inflate his value to FOX News).

Do Character, Principles, and Integrity Matter?

By David Parker

Vince Haley, an advisor to Newt Gingrich seriously suggested that Mitt Romney bow out of the race and allow the “conservatives” a debate on how to take on Obama. Although, he couldn’t have been serious, could he? What Mr. Haley fails to recognize is that the only true and principled conservative in the race, whose life reflects immeasurable integrity, is not Newt Gingrich nor Rick Santorum, but Mitt Romney. Actions always trump words, and character, principle and integrity are self-evident in what one does and not what one says. Character, principle and integrity are borne out in how a person lives their life — are they self-absorbed or committed to the service of others, and how is such manifest?

David Parker

In a brief retrospective — in February 2008, having lost Florida and fully aware of the complexion of the impending 26 state Super Tuesday campaign, Governor Romney quickly realized that math can be a stubborn thing. Notwithstanding that he would prevail in certain states on Super Tuesday, and could continue to contest with John McCain and Mike Huckabee for the Republican nomination, the question arose — but to what end? Personal accommodation for ego’s sake? Power and influence at the 2008 Convention? Notoriety and fame? Denigration of the other candidates? Vindictiveness for the rough and tumble campaign that preceded Super Tuesday? A want to be right when everyone else was wrong? Advocacy for posture and position?

Mitt Romney knew that he would not win the nomination outright; the math wouldn’t bear it out. He also knew that the general campaign against the Democratic nominee, whether Obama or Clinton, would be hard fought and difficult at best. He could have continued his pursuit of the nomination, even to the Convention, but in doing so would only impinge on the Republican Party’s coalescing to the greater good. For to shorten the time window of the Party’s competing in the general election would severely impact much needed Party unity, Party fundraising and advocation of Party principles and its conservative platform in a hotly contested general election. So Mitt Romney willingly subordinated his personal interest to the greater good of the Country, in spite of very vocal protests to the contrary by his supporters. The audible response at CPAC was very evident — he was then and is now, a solid fiscal and social conservative and those at CPAC knew it. His speech at CPAC in 2008 and the actions that followed thereafter clearly illustrate that Mitt Romney is a man of principle, character and integrity — he put Country and Party first, and subordinated personal interest.

He stood with and supported the presumptive nominee, John McCain, and then went to work — he was one of the most active surrogates for Senator McCain and was a catalyst to raise in excess of $20 million for the general campaign. As the Democratic Party subsequently chose their nominee, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney pressed forward knowing how critical it was to stand with the Republican nominee and advocate for the conservative values that made America great! It was the Republican Party’s only shot to derail the pending disaster. To quote Senator McCain, “no one worked harder for my campaign.” Mitt Romney proved his character and integrity by recognizing and accepting early-on the pragmatic realities, subordinating his self-interest, and acting on core values and principles to assure viability in the pending general election. Click here to continue reading

Mitt Romney Compared to Ronald Reagan (Best Op-Ed of March Thus Far!) — George Will Should Read This

William McGurn of The Wall Street Journal wrote this outstanding opinion piece that was published last Tuesday, titled, REAGAN WAS A SURE LOSER TOO.

NOTE: I had to truncate this article — I highly recommend you read the entire article at the link above

Not since Herbert Hoover has a party out of power had such an opportunity to run against everything that troubles the American family—prices, interest rates, unemployment, taxes, or the fear for the future of their old age or the future of their children—than is now presented to the Republican Party.

The Republicans, however, haven’t figured this out. This is their basic problem. They have no strategy for defeating an Obama administration that is highly vulnerable on both domestic and foreign policy.

That’s the conventional wisdom in a nutshell, isn’t it?

It will come as no surprise that these words appeared in a Feb. 29 column in the New York Times. They are reproduced here exactly as written, save for one small adjustment.

The president whose failings they describe is Jimmy Carter, not Barack Obama. The lines were written in 1980, not 2012. The author was the then-dean of conventional wisdom, James “Scotty” Reston. The headline was “Jimmy Carter’s Luck,” a reference to Reagan’s victory in the New Hampshire primary three days earlier.

It appears the conventional wisdom hasn’t changed much. Today’s narrative holds that however weak President Obama’s hand, Republicans find themselves in no position to capitalize on it. A glance back to where we were at this exact point in the 1980 primaries suggests otherwise.

The Republican candidates in early 1980 (from left): Philip Crane, John Connally, John Anderson, Howard Baker, Bob Dole, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush (photo: Bettmann/Corbis)

Then as now, the Republican primaries opened with a bang, when George H.W. Bush upset Ronald Reagan in the Iowa caucuses. By late February, this loss would lead to Reagan’s firing of his campaign manager, John Sears, in a disagreement over strategy.

Then, as now, Republicans feared that an unhappy contender might bolt the party to mount an independent campaign. In 1980, that was liberal John Anderson, not libertarian Ron Paul. Mr. Anderson did end up running as an independent, whereas Mr. Paul will likely be constrained by the effect a third-party run would have on the future prospects for his Republican son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

Then as now, the chattering classes wondered aloud whether a candidate who could win the Republican nomination could prevail against President Carter in November. On March 1, former President Gerald Ford amplified that view when he told a New York Times reporter, “Every place I go and everything I hear, there is the growing, growing sentiment that Governor Reagan cannot win the election.”

Then as now, some put their hopes on a late entry, in the same way that some now pine for Jeb Bush or Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie to enter the race. In the same interview where Mr. Ford predicted that Reagan’s nomination would mean a repeat of 1964, he also declared himself open to a draft if there were a genuine “urging” by the party.

In retrospect, we forget how seriously the Ford possibility was taken, or how popular it was in the polls, or how lingering its effects would be (at the convention, there would be speculation about a “co-presidency”). A Harris Poll released just about this time in 1980 bolstered the case for Mr. Ford by reporting that, in a head-to-head matchup, Ford (the noncandidate) would trounce President Carter 55% to 44%. The same poll showed Reagan (the front-runner) trailing Carter 58% to 40%.

Nor was candidate Reagan without baggage. As governor, Reagan had pushed through the largest tax hike in California’s history, had signed one of the nation’s most liberal abortion laws, and—as George H.W. Bush pointed out—presided over the doubling of the state budget over his eight-year tenure, to $10.2 billion when he left office from $4.6 billion when he entered.
[…]
Later he would face Santorum-like fears about his social message, especially after appearing at a mass gathering of Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals. A minister with whom he’d shared a stage was taped saying “we’re being attacked by satanic forces,” which Times columnist Anthony Lewis declared “the scariest piece of television” he’d seen in some time.

President Reagan

Yes, the parallels to 1980 take you only so far, and Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan. Still, at this same point in his campaign for the GOP nomination, neither was Reagan. The President Reagan we rightly admire for bringing down the Berlin Wall, reviving the U.S. economy, and attracting into the GOP millions of disaffected Democrats was still to come.
[…]

[emphasis added]

Quotes by President Ronald Reagan:

“Welfare’s purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.”

“When you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat.”

“While I take inspiration from the past, like most Americans, I live for the future.”

“Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face.”

“Without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure.”

“You can tell alot about a fellow’s character by his way of eating jellybeans.”

.

Dick Morris is Right about Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul — Gingrich’s Big Fantasies

Jayde published a piece yesterday that had a link to the Dick Morris “After Super Tuesday” Op-Ed in The Hill (it is worth a complete read). Here are a couple of the more salient snippets (written prior to ST):

Neither Santorum nor Gingrich nor Paul can win this nomination prior to the convention unless one of them gets two-thirds of the remaining delegates. That is not going to happen. It is very unlikely that even together Santorum and Gingrich can win two-thirds of the remaining delegates.

So the only way either man can win the Republican nomination is by triggering a deadlock, denying Romney a majority and fighting it out on the convention floor.

That would be OK if the convention were in early July. But it is to be held during the very last week of August. If the Republican Party does not have a nominee until Sept. 1 and we have to spend the next six months watching these candidates beating the living hell out of one another, you can kiss our chances of defeating Obama goodbye.

So the bottom line is that Santorum’s and Gingrich’s only path to the nomination is to create a situation that virtually guarantees an Obama victory. Is it worth it, at that price? Can Santorum or Gingrich credibly challenge my math? Can they really maintain that deadlock is good for our party and that it is OK not to have a nominee until Sept. 1? Are they seriously going to argue that another six months of candidate-bashing is not going to irreparably injure our fortunes in November?

Based on Morris’s simple logic and math, I would argue that by RS and NG deciding to slog it out in the race, they do not really have the best interest of the nation in mind at all. They have self-interest at their core. Dick Morris is right.

The Wall Street Journal had some outstanding analysis of ST results yesterday from the front page, its Election2012 section, and both sides of the Op-Ed pages. Following are from those articles.

From “Romney Wins…” we have: Click here to continue reading