Just ask these voters in a GOP focus group that Frank Luntz didn't lead and Fox News didn't air.

I am a "values voter." I'm, pro-life, pro-family, in favor of a strong defense and in favor of low taxes. I am voting for Mike Huckabee.

Mitt Romney, the favorite of people like Hannity, Ingraham, Limbaugh, and the other talkers from deep in the heart of Conservative America (Midtown Manhattan, New York City), is in a jam. Because he can't capture all of the votes for people like me, he can't manage to overcome the dreaded John McCain. Therefore, as the always brilliant conservative braintrust theorizes, if Huckabee drops out, they think I will support Romney. What else could I do? The problem, from their point of view, would be solved. Q.E.D.

But, it's totally wrong. This is why they need to step out of their skyscrapers a bit more often and mingle with real people.

Many of the people who support Huckabee would NEVER support Mitt Romney, no matter what. Myself included, as you can tell if you've read my entries. Not if Mike dropped out tonight. Not if he dropped out and endorsed Romney. Not even if he dropped out, endorsed Romney, prayed that I'd vote for Romney, and told funny jokes about McCain while playing a cool bass line and threatening to send Chuck Norris after me. It just won't happen. And many Huckabee supporters feel the exact same way.

The brilliant conservative ones think that since Mitt Romney version 3.0 says that he's against abortion and for the family, that, well, golly, that's good enough for me. Certainly, I'd do the only logical thing and swing my support over to Anchorman and all would be well again in the universe in which the Conservative Elite dwell.

The problem is that, if I supported ANY other GOP candidate (and I might not; I might write in a candidate's name just to spite the party for the way they've treated voters like me and candidates like Mike), it would be McCain. Why? Because, although there are a number of things I don't like about him, he is predictable. He has predictably been pro-life, for example. He actually has convictions, even if I don't agree with them, that mean enough for him to stick with them even if it costs him.  Mitt Romney morphs from one being to another so frequently and with such ease that I could never trust him. I also do not respect his character at all. Even if Huckabee eventually was no longer in the race (I still think he will win), the powers that be in the GOP need to know that not only will Romney never get my vote, but that a huge number of people who are supporting Mike feel the exact same way. It just won't ever happen. And it's not because of Mitt's religion. It's because of his character. I think Mitt is a complete phony. And, sadly, I think that these self-described brilliant talkers are about as out of touch with values voters as the Democrats.

If they really want McCain out of the race, they should get behind Mike instead. That's their best shot. But they might have to clear that with their bosses at Clear Channel.

There was a man who had spent his career working in a capacity that many people regard as less important than running a business or serving in office. He became increasingly interested in politics, and eventually his unorthodox ideas and his outstanding oratorical capabilities caused members of his political party to draft him for a run for his state's Governorship. Although he had no political experience and was running against a seasoned incumbent, the man ran and won. He was now the Governor of a liberal Democratic state, the state that was also the home or a U.S. President who later faced impeachment.

Early in his first term, the Governor and his wife accepted donations of furnishings for their new home from their supporters. He then had to deal with a financial mess left by his two-term predecessor and, in an effort to balance the budget and negotiate with a Democratic legislature, signed the largest tax increase to date in the history of his state. Then, after he had served two terms in office, the Governor was perceived by many to show great disloyalty to the Republican Party by what he did next. He first briefly contemplated forming a third party. Then he dared to not only verbally criticize his Republican President publicly, and on more than one occasion, but then actually competed with him for the GOP Presidential nomination. His serious challenge to his Republican President for the GOP nomination, among other factors, very well may have contributed to the President narrowly losing re-election later that year and a Democrat winning the White House for the first time in twelve years.

The Governor, if you haven't already guessed, was Ronald Wilson Reagan, who went on four years later to become our fortieth President. Candidates of both parties this election cycle mention him and the way that he brought much of the country together, as a model for how they hope they would govern.

But, if Reagan were running today, and the record described above were dissected by today's GOP Elite, I don't think he would have ever been elected. The questions and criticisms that he would face from these folks would seem like things we hear applied to other candidates today. "He has no foreign policy experience." "He raised taxes." "He accepted gifts from donors." "How do we know he's not like that other fellow from California?" "He is disloyal to his party and the Democrats hope he's the nominee, since he helped them win the last election." "He's an actor. How can we seriously put an actor in the White House?"

And if these folks, who have every right to both have and voice their opinions, but who are often unchallenged and blindly trusted, had their way, Reagan could not have been elected today.

We are all better off because the Governor, the man who wasn't a lifetime politician but who had acquired a lengthy amount of experience running a government and running it well, and who didn't always adhere to what was politically expedient, got a shot at taking his unique skills and personality and optimism to Washington.

$40 Million dollars working together can't lose! Or can it?

As a sports fan often frustrated with my favorite NFL team, I can relate to the feeling of seeing my team starting the season 1-3. Or 0-4. And, seeing them stumble, fumble, and bumble, somehow trying to tell myself that they're going to sweep the remaining 12 games of the season. And feeling guilty about doubting them when I think there's no way in the world that that bunch of guys has the talent or the strength to face competition that's only going to get harder through the rest of the season.

So, I understand what the Romney fans are probably going through.

Here's the deal for the Romney folks. After eight Republican contests, all held one after the other, Mitt has only managed to win in places that fall into one of a couple of categories. They are:

1. Places where he ran virtually unopposed - that is, none of his competitors got on the ground there or did any active campaigning (Wyoming, and Nevada). When it's Mitt against no one else, he knocks it out of the park. (He won Maine tonight, a state in which his sons campaigned for him and, of his competitors, only Ron Paul spent any time in the state.)
2. The state where he grew up and his dad was governor (Michigan). And even then, he needed some additional help. He needed to campaign day and night for a week after New Hampshire, focusing exclusively on Michigan. And he also probably was helped by the fact that, of the major nominees, the Democrats had only Hillary on the ballot (she narrowly beat "uncommitted"), Independents could vote, and the liberal blogger Kos asked his supporters to vote for Mitt (but I'm sure his motives for doing so were in the best interests of the Republican Party).

The places where he wasn't playing at home and faced other guys who also had something to play for? Iowa? Nope. Lost. In New Hampshire? Nope. In Florida? Nope.

So, the question is now an obvious one you have to ask at this point in the season. Sticking with our football analogy (since it's now Superbowl weekend. Clever, huh?), one has to ask a hard question. It's "gut check" time. If the team isn't doing well at all at non-home games against motivated competition, has a mediocre record, and needs to win the Superbowl in order to not go out a loser, how can someone realistically expect them to win through the playoffs when they can't even win tough road games in the regular season? As we've seen with some NFL teams, all the money in the world actually can't buy you a championship. Not even if all the sportswriters are pumping you up and talking down your competition.

I understand cheering for your team, especially when you really don't like the other teams in the division, who are your arch-rivals. But, with football, at some point in the season, I find that I often have to come to the reality that it just may not happen. As much as I think I can talk them up and try to convince people that they actually can win big games, they actually have to go out and win on the field. And, in the case of Mitt, he's not - at least not on the road when playing other teams that actually show up. The Romney folks, including the New York Conservative Coalition, might have to come to that conclusion at some point in time this week and make some hard decisions.

So, sports fans, ask yourself: is this the team you want to represent our Conference at the Big Game? Or will it just result in another blowout? Maybe at least the commercials would be good.

What the Republican Campaigns Reveal About their Candidates

By kenpo_dad

In this highly unusual presidential campaign, one thing has not changed – the passionate and hope-filled promises of a better America. The real ideas and hard facts for how they could actually work are few and far between, but the promises are there. The problem is most of us have heard them too often, and have grown skeptical.

According to the latest polls, the number one concern among republicans is the economy. We have a deficit in the trillions of dollars and an economy that is, at best, slipping into a recession. Each candidate has shared his promises and the, too often, empty words of dreamy results, but who can really change the course? Which Republican candidate is best qualified to lead this country back to financial health?

At first, Mitt Romney looks as if he is the Messaiah on this point. A self-made millionaire who has a proven record of turning failing companies around, who better understands the economy – who better to lead America to financial recovery? But critics assail that his millions were made by corporate restructuring and sell-offs, which translated, is layoffs and job reductions. If so, that is hardly what we need.

Then, there’s John McCain. He touts his record of fighting against government waste and tenaciously denounces pork barrel spending, offering a handful of examples where he did just that. On the other side, he has never really had the responsibility of running a government or balancing its budget. Romney has asserted that he’s part of the “Washington is broken” problem.

Mike Huckabee did run a government, balancing its budget ten straight years. He got the attention of fiscal conservatives with a fresh, new idea for a stimulus package in the most recent debate – investing the money in a major infrastructure project using American labor and American-made materials. On the flip-side, he has been labeled by the Club for Growth and prominent conservatives as a tax-and-spend liberal.

Ron Paul makes the case that, were we not funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we could divert that money to stimulate the economy. However, that would require abandoning our security interests in that region – something that most republicans would consider far too great a risk.

So, who is really offers America the most hope? Perhaps the answer is not in the promises or opinions, but can be found in the campaigns themselves.

It is no secret that Mitt Romney has outspent all of the other candidates. Estimates are that he has outspent some contenders by as much as 20-to-1. Yet, he has only managed to win three primaries or caucuses, two of which were not contested and one in his “home” state of Michigan. How well does that testify of his ability to control spending? How does it portray fiscal responsibility? How would it translate as an ability to cut the waste out of the federal budget?

And what about the current front-runner, John McCain? Not that long ago, his campaign was on life support – about to go under. His answer – borrow money. Would that he his solution to the economic woes of our country? What would that do to the federal deficit?

How about Mike Huckabee? Huckabee has never had an abundance of cash for his campaign. In fact, the media clearly stated that once Iowa was over, he would be done – that he couldn’t financially compete nationally. But Huckabee has inspired a grass-roots effort that has kept him in the race, in contention in the national polls, and poised for several victories on super Tuesday. When his campaign was feeling the tightness of the budget during the Florida campaign, he made some tough decisions to cut spending, but stay in the black.

America has a problem with spending and deficits. We need a leader who can inspire people, make tough decisions, and put us back on track financially. Some people have already written Mike Huckabee off in this presidential election. That’s a mistake, in more ways than one.

Being a Social, Fiscal, or Defense Conservative (or any combination thereof), in 2008, is like ... being a Democrat in 2004. It's the contest that started off with a ton of candidates and will most likely culminate with a candidate that at least some of us will really dislike. Like the Dems who picked John Kerry back then, there is pressure to pick the candidate who offends the least number of party power brokers, and at the same time, is seen to be the most "electable." These are never good strategies for picking a leader and the more conservative of the two parties now has challenges.

Most things, though, have a bright side, and this is no exception. While many people are still mourning the demise of the candidacy of Rudy Giuliani, think how much worse it would have been had the events of the last couple of months played out after the Convention this summer. I'm not talking about the infamous Florida Strategy. I'm talking about the events that preceded it and took Rudy off message permanently. The indictment of Bernie Kerik. The disclosures about the security detail for his now wife while he was still married to Donna Hanover. What if Rudy had won the nomination and then those things, which whacked his popularity, happened after the Convention. After the boat left the shore, it was too late to turn back, and there were no lifeboats to allow the passengers to get back.

Same thing with former Senator George Allen, the former presumed front-runner of the 2008 race. I really liked him prior to Macaca Day 2006, and he would have had my vote for the White House. But, as a direct result of what appears to have been an overflow of the heart through the mouth, two bad things happened to the GOP. First, the man who was probably the most viable primary candidate was removed from contention before the game began. Secondly, the GOP lost control of the Senate - by one seat. As bad as all of that was for the party, it would have been more catastrophic if George had won the nomination and had slipped and made such an unfortunate remark. It would have been a game ender, and the Democrats would have won the General Election months before any votes were cast.

The lesson that the party will hopefully learn is that, while everyone has done something bad in the past, Murphy's law applies to Presidential Candidates. If a candidate has a major flaw that involves character, it is going to come out sooner rather than later. For the GOP's sake, I hope that it's sooner than the point of no return.

The talk that some of the Manhattan-based Conservative Elites (close brethren and good neighbors of the Liberal Elites) have amongst themselves tonight is the notion that Huckabee is keeping Romney, the one-time RINO morphed overnight into solid conservative, from claiming his mantle as the heir to Reagan and holding back the forces of liberalism. In the infinite wisdom of the Blue State Conservative Elites, the Evangelical Christians, the pro-lifers, and small town folk across the land should go running into the arms of Mitt if our guy for whatever reason were suddenly not in the race anymore.

The Elites, God bless them, are probably thinking tonight "well, Mitt says he's pro-life. He says he's pro-traditional marriage. That ought to be enough to get the Evangelicals. Why can't everybody tell that he's the ONLY conservative ... around ... it's not fair (sniff)"

My problem isn't in what he says. For all my criticism of him as a candidate, I think Romney is a very intelligent and analytical man. This is probably why he was successful in his own right in business. He is objective-oriented. And, with his intellect and resources, he has invested into learning exactly what people like me want to hear and what people like you want to hear. And he has probably rehearsed and been coached into making it sound convincing to people who are predisposed to wanting to believe him.

People who aren't predisposed to believe him tend to be more skeptical, like even the conservative papers in New Hampshire, where they know him very well. He comes off to people like us as a phony. But to people like the Fox News folks and the talk radio people (Clear Channel conflicts of interest aside), they probably really, really want to believe him. They don't like the other candidates and there is one guy who is saying things that sound good enough to him, and so they eat it up without bothering to hold him to the same scrutiny that they hold others to. His record doesn't match his statements at all. But, they say, "no problem. He's changed." It's too hard for a regular person to believe that he stepped into a phone booth one day and changed from a man liberal enough to win a statewide election in Massachusetts into a bonafide Reagan Super-Conservative. But to those who really want to believe it, they see what they want to see. It's real to them.

It's a human trait to have impaired judgment when you really want to believe something. It's like the person who is in a relationship with a person who uses them. Their friends and family warn them that the person is phony and is just using them. But the person scoffs and sticks up for their man/woman. To them, the friends and family are wrong and just don't get it. The Doobie Brothers song "What a Fool Believes" comes to mind. Some people see what they really want to see.

Believing that Mitt Romney is sincere in his overnight conversion to the perfect Social, Defense, and Economic conservative, given the fact that almost every position he holds today is different from his positions of just six years ago, takes faith. In fact, I'll compare it to the change we saw in baseball's Barry Bonds when he started using steroids. One year, Barry Bonds looked like a skinny guy. Then, immediately, he took shape as a huge physical specimen and had unbelievable numbers. It was unbelievable for those of us who weren't so attached to the hope that he was being on the up and up that we couldn't notice the evidence that something was amiss. But his adherents, who really wanted to believe, bought into something that was not true, and there was no telling them otherwise.

Good luck to those of you who support Mitt. But don't think that there is one person standing in the way between your guy and Washington glory. Don't think that people who really want a candidate who has conservative social values are going to flock to him at some point. Because your guy has a major credibility problem. And we're not going to vote for someone who we can't believe, even if there's no one else to vote for. Mitt is talented. He's very smart. But I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22887546/

Asked why he liked Romney, a voter in Florida replied with the following in an MSNBC story:

He said there were a few issues on which he did not agree with Romney, “but I think Ann Coulter convinced me that just because he differs with me on a woman’s right to choose, that doesn’t mean he’s going to do it (restrict abortion), because he didn’t in Massachusetts. I wouldn’t want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.”

No need to even revisit Romney's history of embracing abortion, his health care plan that allowed $50 co-pays for abortions for Massachusets in his last year in office, or any of that for now. That's been fully documented over and over again (just not on the "conservative" media). And here, a member of the Conservative Media Elite - the people who want to tell values voters how to vote - seems to have given a voter the impression that Romney won't do anything to influence the abortion debate in favor of life. Of course he won't. Thanks, Ann.

According to our friends in the "conservative" media, who of course would never betray us, Romney, who was at one point named one of the Top 10 RINOs, somehow went into a phone booth and changed into Mitt Reagan, Super Conservative and protector of the Conservative Establishment. I'll quote the diminished former President Bill Clinton for a change. "This whole thing is a fairy tale."

Take a look at this clip of Chuck Norris on Hannity and Colmes (http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=68c05ae9-e9d8-42c9-8bd1-69318670748f). Chuck Norris does an excellent job of setting the record straight.

Mike Huckabee has been the victim of a prolonged, targeted assault by the Midtown Manhattan Conservatives ("we support the sanctity of life - unless of course our favorite Republican candidate opposes it. Then it's so not a big deal."). These guys are a little like elementary school kids playing a game of "Huckabee's a liberal ... pass it on." The main reason they believe it (other than possible improper motives) is because someone else whispered it to them.

The Midtown Manhattan Elites have broken the Eleventh Commandment more frequently than Bill Clinton broke the Seventh, in trying to nuke a good man who has been a loyal Republican (they only started having a problem with him when he overtook Giuliani and Romney in the polls). Not only is it possible that this strategy will backfire (and possibly result in exposure to them if their motives prove not to be incensere), but, after this is all over, will there be a unified Republican Party? If Huckabee doesn't manage to win the nomination, will his supporters go over to Romney, as Dick Morris predicted? For the most part, absolutely not.

The Midtown Elite have earned themselves a very angry slice of GOP voters who are disgusted with the unfair way they've treated the non-establishment candidate (and equally irate at the way they've promoted liberals and liberals in disguise). And we're also watchers of Fox News and listeners of the Clear Channel Talkers who, if buzz on the net is any indication, are about ready to tune all of them out - as in stop watching and listening. For good.

A very good article by Chad Stenzel that deals with the sell-out of conservative voters by the Clear Channel/Times Square crowd and the K street folks. I helped put Bush in office, but will not vote for their "establishment" GOP candidates - Romney or Giuliani - under any condition no matter what. And though the Times Square crowd is deluding themselves into the idea of holding the coalition together with a social liberal that they've anointed, many values voters feel exactly the same way. We're being sold out.

Thirty Pieces of Silver
By: Chad Stenzel

"Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself…(Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out…)"

Matt 27:5 and Acts 1:18. NKJV

The ancient text above paints a gruesome picture of the untimely demise of a man who betrayed the principles he espoused and, ultimately, brought a prophesied conclusion to one chapter of the life of the only perfect man to walk this planet. It’s difficult to fathom the pressure and self-loathing he must have felt when he realized he sold his soul and became the pawn of a malevolent force for such a paltry sum. One wonders if the lesson of this man can be used to offer the olive branch of hope and second chances to those who have lost their way, before it’s too late. Or, will this man’s awful example be dismissed and tossed on the ash-heap of history.

More than 2000 years later, the amounts have changed. And while, the payouts may be bigger, the stakes are not. This time it’s the soul of a political party and not the eternal condition of man-kind in the balance. Still, there are parallels that beg to be drawn and, for some, priceless insights to be gained. The Republican party is at a crossroads and party leaders have largely eschewed the straight and narrow path of conviction for the well-traveled and well-financed freeway of political expediency.

If you have listened to talk radio or perused a conservative column in the last 60 days, you know two things. Mitt Romney is a true conservative and the next best thing to Ronald Wilson Reagan and Mike Huckabee is either a dangerous liberal that would tear the GOP apart or, he’s a one-trick pony that appeals to right-wing religious weirdoes only. More on the contradictory descriptions of Huckabee later, first let’s examine the Republican media establishment’s exuberant adoration of the man they call Mitt.

Originally, there were to be three acceptable choices the right-wing media elites would champion. All three had large corporate backing and each had their group of insiders on K street. Unfortunately, once the posturing was over and the voting began, the Republican primary attendees had the unmitigated gall to vote for someone who wasn’t one of “The Chosen.” Things were further complicated when one of the triumvirate decided he would rather play the part of a District Attorney on TV then a presidential candidate in real life. Another acceptable candidate took a cue from his fellow New Yorkers and retired to South Florida rather than run a national campaign. This left Mitt Romney, the one-term governor from Massachusetts as the only viable candidate in the eyes of the chattering class. One problem. The former governor was a brie cheese and wine-class, socially liberal, flip-flopping politician from the most far-left state in the union. These folks had spent all of 2004 convincing people that John Kerry (who fit that exact description himself) would be a disaster for the country. What is a principled political wag to do?

Governor Romney had something going for him besides personal wealth and central casting looks. The governor was the founder of Bain Capital, a private equity group. The company specializes in leverage buyouts and made billions of dollars throughout the eighties and nineties. This is the company that made Mitt Romney a wealthy man, with a net worth around $250,000,000. Romney, who stepped down in 1999 when he took over the Salt Lake City Olympics, is still a silent partner in the company and, according to the governor’s financial disclosure, will continue to receive profits from Bain Capital through February 2009. These facts alone might seem innocuous enough, but consider the latest acquisition Bain has its eye on.

Clear Channel Communications is a media giant by any definition of the word. This behemoth owns more than 1,200 radio stations as well as syndication companies and billboard advertising. The company owns Premier Radio Network which has the syndication rights to the Rush Limbaugh show, Glen Beck and a host of others. Premier boasts more than 90 radio shows in its stable and offers services to more than 4,600 affiliates. Clear channel also has a lucrative contract with Sean Hannity, which agrees to air his program on 80 of their stations through 2010. In addition, nearly every talk radio host in America relies on Clear Channel stations for a large portion of their audience. Talkers like Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham and Mike Gallagher would suffer greatly if they were cut out by Clear Channel.

In a deal that has been in the works for some time, Bain Capital is leading a consortium that has offered to buy Clear Channel for the tidy sum of 19.5 BILLION dollars. The FCC recently approved the acquisition and Clear Channel execs expect the transaction to be finalized sometime in the first quarter of 2008. The fact that Romney’s company is purchasing CCC isn’t a problem. The governor’s liberal past and the way it’s being covered up and explained away is another matter.
Most talking heads and pundits will stipulate that Mitt was wrong on abortion until he studied stem-cell research and saw the light. However, in 2002 Mitt said,

“I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and fight for stem cell research. I’d be happy to talk to (President Bush) about this, though I don’t know if I could budge him an inch.”

Romney also supported a government mandated health care plan that fined people for not participating and offered abortion on demand for $50. (Somewhere Hillary Clinton just said, “Amen.”) There are other disturbing inconsistencies in Romney’s record but you’ll have to do your own research to find them. The inside the beltway boys and girls are mum when it comes to Mitt’s other transgressions against conservative orthodoxy. Here are some of Mitt’s greatest hits.

“I will preserve and protect a women’s right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard”
“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”
“I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush”

Along with those gems Romney has supported a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants that would not require them to leave the country and has opposed amendments to ban gay marriage. Despite these facts, we’re led to believe by the Clear Channel Crowd that Barry Goldwater has returned and, this time, he’s from Massachusetts.

When you hear Rush, Sean or Glen downplay Mitt’s past and exhort you to trust his conversion to the Right, consider something Hannity wrote in his book Let Freedom Ring. In a chapter about abortion Sean excoriates Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Dick Gephardt and Jessie Jackson for supporting pro-life positions when they were seeking local political office in conservative regions and then becoming pro-abortion as they sought nationwide acceptance from the Democratic party. The section ends thusly:

“I’m not naïve about politics, and I understand that at times politicians feel they have to adjust or change their positions to be successful. But it’s completely reprehensible for them to do so with respect to a fundamental moral issue. Either these men never believed in their earlier stated moral position, or their lust for high office overpowered their moral convictions. In either case, their conduct is deceitful. And their attempt to besmirch those with whom they once stood as “anti-choice extremists” is cynical beyond description.”

Amen, brother Sean.

If the propping up of Mitt Romney by these champions of the conservative cause is curious, then the vitriol they hurl at Mike Huckabee is downright disturbing. What is it about a man of faith with a stellar record as governor and rock-solid conservative credentials that has these people running scared? One doesn’t have to listen or look long to see Huck compared to either Elmer Gantry or Jimmy Carter. If this attempt to mischaracterize the governor wasn’t so transparently desperate and patently vulgar it would be laughable.

Mike Huckabee has the most consistent conservative record in the field by a mile. He has been unwavering in his support of a Right to Life amendment. This has been a plank in the Republican platform for 30 years and yet no other candidate is willing to make that kind of stand. The governor has been a stalwart defendant of the second amendment, often pointing out it has nothing to do with the right to hunt. Some of his opponents think the right to bear arms means sleeveless shirts are constitutionally protected. Mike has the most comprehensive border security plan in the field. It calls for the fence to be completed in eighteen months using American labor and materials. He is also the only candidate consistently calling for the release of border agents and heroes Campion and Ramos. His border security plan won the endorsement of Jim Gilchrist the founder of the Minutemen. On top of this, he’s the only candidate calling for the end of the IRS and its oppressive taxation on productivity. If that isn’t conservative, then Ann Coulter needs to loose weight. His record is so solid that Duncan Hunter (a hero for many in the right-wing media) endorsed him, when he abandoned his own candidacy, to the consternation of those now pushing candidates with their off-shore accounts in mind. You’ll recall Hunter is the man who championed tight border controls and rebuked Mitt Romney for Bain Capital’s partnership with a Chinese corporation that had dubious ties to terrorists.

There’s something about Huckabee that scares the Newark out of elites. They see a man of principle that can’t be bought, borrowed or stolen. They have taken notice of the people who support him and tremble at the loyalty they show. You see, they have demonstrably promoted a conservative agenda for years. But there was always a status quo safety net in case of an emergency. Now people of faith are actually trying to run the party after years of loyalty as the faithful foot soldiers. This doesn’t sit well with the cocktails and croquet set in Palm Beach. However, a movement has begun and voters are awakening.

Notwithstanding these facts, if you tune in to Mark Levin you’ll hear him reach Hillaryesque shrillness as he obfuscates the records of Huckabee and Romney, one for ill and the other for canonization. When this happens, for his benefit, and that of his friends in the media, remind yourself who the true conservative is and dismiss the man that would seek to purchase that mantle. In the end, these leaders will thank you. After all, nobody would want to end up like that Iscariot fellow.

I actually said I was for non-public timetables before I said I didn't say it.

Oh, boy. Another GOP he-said, he-said. Just what the party needs in preparing to do battle with an energized Democratic voter base.

Here's what John McCain said:

McCain, at a town hall in Fort Myers, said Friday: "Now, one of my opponents wanted to set a date for withdrawal that would have meant disaster."

He was talking about Romney, and linked the former Massachusetts governor to Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has said she would begin to withdraw troops within 60 days of becoming president, if elected in November.

"If we surrender and wave a white flag, like Senator Clinton wants to do, and withdraw, as Governor Romney wanted to do, then there will be chaos, genocide, and the cost of American blood and treasure would be dramatically higher."

Here's what Mitt Romney said:

Question: "Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?"

Romney: "Well, there's no question that the president and Prime Minister (Nouri) al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone. You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police, and the leadership of the Iraqi government."

Romney's campaign said he was talking about benchmarks toward success, not dates for withdrawal, when he said the U.S. and Iraqi presidents "have to have a series of timetables and milestones."

It's clear that Mitt Romney was NOT advocating a public timeline, because he made that very clear. But it's also clear that he did himself use the word timetable. I don't think McCain owes him an apology. Mitt said the word and is now mad at McCain for bringing it up. I guess I'll have to tune in tomorrow to hear the Manhattan-based Conservative Elites tell me what I was supposed to have heard.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59891

Wow!

"Now, some of those expert voices are trying to persuade Americans – particularly Republicans – that Mitt Romney is the only choice, the only candidate who can beat Hillary or Obama or whoever the Democratic nominee might be. Even more importantly, they say he is the only guy who can deny the dreaded John McCain the Republican nomination.

Some of these powerful voices are friends of mine. I generally respect them. I expect a lot from them – including being right most of the time.

But they are dead wrong about Mitt Romney.

First of all, I don't consider Mitt Romney even 1 percent better in any way than John McCain.

In fact, John McCain is a known quantity. He has eclectic and more often than not wrongheaded positions on many of the key issues of the day, yet all of America knows what it will get with McCain. No such claim can be made about Romney. All we have to go on is a very, very bad record in Massachusetts and a bunch of campaign promises that run counter to that very, very bad record.

It's too early to give up.

It's too early to compromise – especially on a very, very bad candidate.

I am particularly grieved by the utter misrepresentations of Romney's record by these new enthusiasts for his cause.

Don't believe what anyone says about Romney's record. Make it your business to do your homework. WND is a good place to start, but don't even take my word for it. Dig deep and you will be stunned by what this man did when he had power.

Do not accept his word for the fact that he has changed his mind on every single key public policy issue – and that he is now on the "right" side. Political track records tell a far more important story than campaign rhetoric.

I'll give you my opinion, but take it for what it's worth: Romney would be a disaster for the Republican Party, and he would be a disaster for America.

No one should vote for a work in progress – someone whose core convictions are still evolving. It's dangerous sending someone like that to Washington, where core convictions are easily lost and changed – always for the worst. "

LiveJournal Tags: Mitt Romney,World Net,Joseph Farah

From http://conservablogs.com/nuke/2008/01/26/inside-politics-perry-v-romney/ (also in http://blogs.chron.com/texaspolitics/archives/2008/01/gov_perry_takes.html)

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, has written a book about the Boy Scouts, and he includes a less-than-flattering story about Mitt Romney, suggesting that the Republican presidential hopeful bowed to the homosexual rights lobby during the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

Here is a portion of what Mr. Perry had to say about Mr. Romney in the new book, “On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scouts Are Worth Fighting For,” due out in February from Stroud & Hall Publishers:

“The ACLU’s ‘fingerprints’ aren’t on every effort to deny the Boy Scouts access to public facilities and events, though chances are they cheer when kindred groups initiate such efforts. Take the case of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. In the planning stages, when it was faltering financially, Mitt Romney stepped in as president and chief executive officer. He soon straightened things out and set plans in motion to make it a success.

“In 2000 he put out a published call for volunteers … The Great Salt Lake Council of the BSA, the largest in the nation, with some 80,000 Scouts and 35,000 adult leaders, answered Romney’s call for volunteers.”

“Some time that fall, however, the Scouts were advised that they were no longer welcome to participate. Chief Scout Executive for the Council, Marty Latimer said, ‘We don’t understand what’s wrong. They just don’t want us and won’t talk to us.’ He said that Romney had not returned calls from several Scout executives seeking an explanation. The Council’s President R. Lawry Hunsaker expressed surprise that Romney had ignored Scout leaders for he had once been a Scout and a Scout leader himself. ‘We can’t get him to return our calls.’ ”

Judge for yourself:

Check the YouTube page for more comments

Lets put all the areas in which he's potentially stacked the deck together:

1. Repeated credible charges of being prompted during the debate last week
2. Right before he declared his candidacy, the firm he founded and headed for 14 years bought Clear Channel Communications, which distributes some radio programs whose hosts happen to love Romney and absolutely loathe his closest viable competition.
3. The connections to the Club For Growth that were reported by the Huckabee campaign.

I'm just putting it out there. You make up your own minds.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/palmbeach/faudebate/entries/2008/01/25/only_huckabee_shows_at_watch_p.html

Interesting note that some students have from interacting with him after the debate.

A. Clear Channel Communications radio line-up includes a lot of Romney-friendly folks

• Rush Limbaugh
• Glenn Beck
• Sean Hannity
• Mark Levin

All talented talk show hosts and I listen to all but Beck semi-regularly. Sort of interesting that they all seem pretty warm to Mitt Romney and openly hostile to his most serious competitors.

B. Also according to Wikipedia, Bain Capital owns part of Clear Channel, which syndicates the above programs

On November 16, 2006, Clear Channel announced plans to go private, being bought out by two private-equity firms, Thomas H. Lee Partners and Bain Capital Partners for $18.7 billion, which is just under a 10 percent premium above its closing price of $35.36 a share on November 16 (the deal values Clear Channel at $37.60 per share).^[1][2] The new ownership of Clear Channel has also announced that all of its TV stations were for sale, as well as 448 radio stations that were outside of the top 100 markets.^[3] All of the TV stations and 161 of the radio stations were sold to a Providence Equity Partners, a private-equity firm, on April 23, 2007, pending FCC approval.^[4]

^{C. We all know Mr. Romney's connection with Bain, right. He's the former CEO}

http://boycottchucknorris.typepad.com/boycottchucknorris/

It's pretty ... wierd. His list of complaints:

• He’s endorsed a candidate who says that he does not believe in evolution.
• He’s endorsed a candidate who called for the isolation of AIDS patients – long after the Centers for Disease Control determined that the virus was not spread by casual contact. Even this year, the candidate declined to recant those views.

Not exactly what I'd expect to come from someone working for a "real conservative." I dunno. I'm supporting the pro-life southerner who wants to eliminate the IRS who all the conservatives in New York City who are optional on those issues are saying is a liberal. I guess they should know. I dunno.

Midtown Manhattan and Downtown DC. The Great Bastions of American Conservatism. It's practically downtown Omaha. Ah, nothing like hearing the Arbiters of Conservatism tell the rest of us our values from their perches in Gotham City and on K Street.

During one of my periods of frustration about how hard the "Conservative Elite" has been inadvertently working to elect Hillary Clinton and destroy the house that Reagan built, I started thinking about where all of these guys are based out of.

Walking up Midtown Manhattan, the place most of us non-Elites think of as the most liberal place in the United States except for San Francisco, you find WABC Radio, which is just the home station for Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Laura Ingraham. If you keep walking, you'll eventually find the home of Fox News, which is supposedly the home of conservative television news.  Who would have thought that you could find a handful of bona-fide Reagan conservatives who just happen to love living and working surrounded by eight million liberals. No wonder they all seem to love Giuliani so much.

In D.C., one of the two places in America that never voted for Reagan (along with Minnesota), we find the crew at the Weekly Standard - another News Corporation subsidiary. And not too far away are the stalwarts at the Washington Times.

Notice something here? Most of the conservative pundits that seem to set the pace for what all other conservative pundits preach are based in two of the most liberal (and especially socially liberal) places in the United States.

Something to think about.