It was less than five minutes into the GOP YouTube Debate in Florida for Rudy Giuliani to begin personal attacks on Mitt Romney.  As soon as they began discussing Giuliani’s efforts to make and keep New York a sanctuary city, the former mayor started dishing out insults and refused to acknowledge substance to Romney’s position.

The mayor accused Romney of doing nothing about sanctuary cities in his state during his term as govenor.  That said, he immediately began firing out quips about how Romney had illegal immigrants doing yard work.  At his mansion.  (Isn’t class envy supposed to be the Democrat’s game?)  Giuliani went so far as to dub Romney’s home a “sanctuary mansion.”

Romney’s response was calm, rational and completely ignored by Giuliani who was far too amused by his own wittiness to actually deal with the issue.  Romney repeatedly asked if it was acceptable to single out workers, working for a company hired by an individual, who looked or spoke differently from oneself and demand they prove their legal status to work in the United States.  He characterized this thinking as un-American.  (Giuliani was too busy trying to catch his breath from laughing so hard at his own jokes to notice that he sounded a little biggoted and racist on this issue.)

The implication was not lost on voters, however.  During the commercial breaks, CNN.com offered highlights and viewer commentary on the debate.  The first comment addressed Romney’s point and agreed that to suggest we aggressively demand proof of legal status from anyone who works for the businesses we patronize smacked of intollerance.

Meanwhile, Fred Thompson had the only ad that focused soley on the weaknesses of fellow Republican candidates.  (Each candidate submitted a 30 second spot and they were aired by CNN periodically throughout the debate.)  The first half of Thompson’s spot simply showed Romney stating his pro-abortion position during a debate with Ted Kennedy in 1994.  The second half targeted Mike Huckabee’s liberal fiscal record.  When asked about the ad, Thompson responded with a sly grin and a shrug.  He stated simply that those were his opponents own words.

In the time Romney was given to respond, he passionately repeated that he had a pro-choice position at the time he ran for govenor.  As govenor, when actually confronted with the issue, he found that he could not sign a bill that would mean death to thousands of unborn children.  He changed his position.  He pointed out that the change was not immediate and had been made some years ago.  He stated that his record as govenor was clearly pro-life.  He told Republican voters that he had been wrong and that if they wanted a candidate who had always been perfect they would have to get someone else.

(You’d think his opponents would figure out that he has a good, solid, rehearsed answer to this charge and quit using trying to trip him up on it.  It makes him look good and them look petty.  But, with all deference to Thompson, he did all of his “attacking” in a video.  It was done with much more class than Giuliani’s taunting.)

I don’t remember Huckabee’s response to the Thompson video.  With all due respect to Huckabee and his supporters, after a few minutes all of his pontificating just started to sound the same.

Poor John McCain was asked to relive his years as a POW while others answered a question about interrogation techniques.  He was overtly emotional as he persistently attacked Romney’s position on waterboarding when Romney did not actually disagree with him.  In fact, Romney stated clearly that he did not approve of and would not use torture for interrogation.  He further explained, more than once, that he would seek the advice of Senator McCain and others about the effectiveness and morality of interrogation methods.  However, Romney simply refused to discuss the specifics of methods he would or would not use.  He was of the opinion that that information could be useful to our enemies and that those enemies might have figured out how to tune into CNN.

All in all, Romney turned in a credible performance.  He kept his cool and didn’t let himself get tripped up too much.  He did have an awkward moment or two with questions about religion but that is a subject for another post. 

The highlight of the debate replays, in my opinion, should be his scuffle with Giuliani over immigration in which he defenitely came off best.  But you never know,  maybe by tomorrow the Giuliani camp will come up with a really good “Yo Mama” joke to even the score.

On the Rush Limbaugh Show today, the conservative talk show host issued a challenge, a sort of game if you will, for his listeners to engage in while listening to the rhetoric being spouted during the remainder of the presidential primary season.  The object is to catch one of the Democratic hopefuls talking about freedom.  Specifically, to notice how many times the word freedom is used to actually speak about liberty and individual choice.

I would like to try and chronicle this here at Women for Romney.  If you hear a Democrat speak about the wonderful freedoms of the United States of America, rush over here and post a comment.  Tell us who, where and what was said if possible.  In addition I’d like to see how well the Republican’s score.  Starting with tonight’s debate, I will be listening for the GOP candidates to come to the ardent defense of freedom and will chronicle it here for you.

Limbaugh noted that most of the Dems plans for our nation’s future involve mandates and regulations.  If the founding of this country, and everything that has made it great could be summed up into one word, he argues, that word would be “freedom.”  These days there seems to be an auction on how much politicians will give us in return for that freedom.  Who’ll give me free health care, a $5000 baby bond, a retirement fund and a swimming pool?

I will not sell my liberty so cheaply when it has been paid for with the blood of young men.  Help me to keep track of our politicians who do–or don’t–feel the same.

The CNN YouTube Republican Presidential Debate will air tonight at 8pm East Coast Time.  As in the Democrat YouTube debate, the questions will be asked via videos submitted to YouTube.  Anderson Cooper of CNN will moderate and CNN will broadcast the debate.

Questions can still be submitted at YouTube.com.  For more information or to watch the debate online visit CNN.com.

(Look here for analysis and highlights from the debate.)

This narrative from The Caucus The New York Times Politics Blog chronicles a reporter’s perspective on families and the Romney campaign.

The part that really stood out for me in the piece is the quote in the title of this message, the following is the exact statement:

Members of the Romney family gathered for a photograph.
(Photo: Elise Amendola/Associated Press)

As a way of building up families, Mr. Romney talked over the weekend about reviving a policy under President Reagan that mandated a “family impact statement” be drafted for every new policy or government program. I wondered what one of those might look like for a presidential campaign.

Check out the entire entry, I found it very insightful about the behind the scenes of Romney’s campaign. I’m so happy that he cares so much about his family that he’s taken each and every one of them along for the ride.

Cross Posted at Elect Romney in 2008.

Nathan Matthew Romney

Governor and Mrs. Romney’s son Matt, daughter-in-law Laurie, grandson Nick, and granddaughters Chloe and Mia welcomed 7 1/2lb, 19 1/2″ Nathan Matthew Romney into their family the day before Thanksgiving.

We at Women for Romney would like to Congratulate the entire Romney family and wish for a lifetime of heath and happiness. Welcome to the world Nathan.

This is the second debate where Hillary Clinton has mentioned that she can stand the heat and that she “like[s] being in the kitchen.” Both times she has used the phrase when speaking about her entrance into the “all boys club of presidential politics.”

The choice of words is a carefully scripted reminder that Senator Clinton is woman. It strives to paint a picture of her in a frilly dress, starched apron, pulling cookies out of the oven and pouring a glass of milk.

Hillary also repeated her oft touted phrase that she is not being attacked because she is a woman but because she is in the lead. (Pause here for the clapping of planted applauders.) She has no answer for the fact that her husband and others in her campaign have painted her as a woman. She firmly declares that she is not running her campaign on the fact that she is a woman but on the fact that she is the most qualified.

But she ends with a touching story from her adventures on the campaign trail. She tells of the women who flock to her appearances and bring their daughters. She says that she has shaken hands with 95 year old women who tell her: “When I was born women were not able to vote. I want to live to see a woman in the White House.”

So, in summary Hillary’s position on being a woman is like her position on everything else. She doesn’t expect people to think of her as a woman–but remember she likes the kitchen. She doesn’t want to be attacked because she’s a woman but don’t try to take the number one slot away from her. And most of all, she doesn’t want to be voted for because she is a woman but don’t forget all those really old women who won’t be able to die if she doesn’t get elected.

Elliot Spitzer announced this morning that he is abandoning his plan to provide driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.  The announcement comes the day before the Democratic Presidential Candidate Debate at UNLV to be broadcast on CNN.  This means there is less likelihood that Hillary Clinton will have to answer questions about her position on the issue.

The question of whether or not Hillary supports Spitzer’s plan has haunted the Clinton campaign ever since it was asked at the last Democrat Debate.  Hillary managed to do a flip flop in the course of less than two minutes.  The fall-out from the debate debacle has continued for two weeks, her poll numbers are falling and the nomination, once considered a sure thing, is slipping slowly away from her.

As the debate draws nearer, there has been speculation about whether Wolf Blitzer, or the other Democratic nominees, would have the guts to ask Mrs. Clinton for clarification on the issue.  With Spitzer’s announcement, however, it would seem that the issue is off the table.  At least, it seems that there would be little point in phrasing it the same way.

Any questions about immigration will need to be cased in a broader, more hypothetical, manner.  This saves Hillary from looking ridiculous trying to frame an answer to include all of her previous positions.  Also, it will allow her to lather the blame onto the Bush administration as she tried to do in the last debate.

Moving the debate back into abstracts will work in favor of the Clinton campaign.  One has to wonder if the was Spitzer’s intention in withdrawing his plan.  In any case, Hillary has shown her true colors and as long as we can remember who she is, it won’t matter who runs to pull difficult issues out of her way.

Read more about Spitzer’s announcement here: N. Y. Govenor abandons driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.

There seems to be some “conventional wisdom” in the media that says Mitt Romney will HAVE to give a speech addressing the issue of his faith to win over the Christian Right.  A panel of media experts was even convened to discuss the idea in depth.  (See Mormonism threatens Romney’s presidential nomination, panel says)   The consensus is that to win the presidency he must make a speech to allay the fears of evangelicals.

To back up this opinion, is the various polls conducted that suggest that a large portion of Americans would be “less likely” to vote for a candidate who was Mormon.  (See The Mormon Speech No More)  Then there are a vocal few, like Senator McCain’s mother, who publicly express their doubts about the Mormon faith and its members.

Romney has been open about his intentions concerning “the speech.”  He is happy to answer any questions about his faith as they come up.  At this time his political advisors do not think a speech focusing on his faith would be wise.  However, there may be a time when it is necessary to address the issue at length and he is prepared for that eventuality.

There is speculation, again from the learned media types, that Romney is simply angling for the time when the speech will make the biggest splash.  Waiting for excitement about the race to build to get the maximum coverage but in time to influence the outcome of the primary races.

What the elite media analysts haven’t thought about, is the fact that there has been no indication that a “JFK-type” speech about Mormonism would change any minds.  Polls may say that people would be “less likely” to vote for a Mormon candidate but they don’t say “less likely” than what.  To me, all this says is that all else being equal, the persons polled would base their decision on the issue of candidate’s religion.

In this race, however, very little is equal among the candidates.  There are huge political and idealogical differences even among the Republican candidates.  In the general election, the Democrat nominee can be expected to be virtually a polar opposite to Romney.  At this point, the issue of Religion will diminish in significance.

Religion has not stopped Romney from developing prominent leads in early Primary states where he has campaigned heavily.  There is little reason to think that if he is able to win these states that he will have to materially alter his message to attract voters in other states.  Even in South Carolina, where they are known to have heavy religious prejudice, Romney has managed to tie for the lead in recent polls. 

It seems that the only ones who are waiting for a Mormon speech are the liberal political analysts who are waiting for the Republicans to crash and burn.  The speech would bring religion to the forefront and give them material to twist and use against him.  To give the speech at this point would be to provide opponents with ammunition without answering the concerns of potential voters.

Romney has a carefully and intelligently run campaign.  There is no need to explain a religion that most voters are not really anxious about.  But like a good Boy Scout, Romney is prepared, just in case.

In this race for president there has been a lot of focus on what conservatives don’t want.  First on the list is another Clinton presidency.  Most of us agree that any of the Republican candidates would be far better for the country than the electing the first female president.

With that conviction comes a number of questions, however.  Looking at the past, we can see that it is better to get behind one Republican candidate rather than splitting the vote between several conservative candidates which leaving the liberal with a single, solid base.  That said, should we nominate a candidate simply because at the moment he seems to be doing better in the polls than the Democratic leader.

Unfortunately, this is all far from hypothetical.  Sean Hannity has dubbed his radio show the “Stop Hillary Express,” and vowed to support whichever candidate wins the Republican nomination.  Jim Dobson has commented that he would either not vote or vote for a third party candidate if the Republican nominee is not a social conservative.  Many feel inclined to support Rudy Giuliani simply because in current national polls he is ahead of Hillary Clinton.

At this point, the focus should be on choosing the best candidate for the job.  Polls can be manipulated or misleading.  Public opinion can also change.  Once we have a nominee we can focus on closing any gap in the national polls.

Mitt Romney is the more socially conservative than either Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson.  He has shown in-site and leadership on such issues as health care and security.  He has been successful in many endeavors both professional, political, and personal throughout his life.  He has a plan for the future.

Many will argue that he is not “ideal.”  Well, I have yet to find an ideal politician.  What I have found, in Mitt Romney, is the person who best fits my idea of good government who is running for President in 2008.

South Carolina has been a tough spot for the Romney campaign to get off the ground and it seemed fairly obvious why.  South Carolinians are known for being anti-Mormon and distrustful of Yankees in general.

Over the last couple of months, though, Governor Romeny has risen dramatically in the polls.  And it makes me smile to see bloggers and reporters scratching their heads over why this is so.  You see, I lived and worked in South Carolina for 9 months and I know exactly what happened.

The people I met in South Carolina were honest, church-going folks who lived the golden rule.  If their preacher preached against Mormons they mostly assumed he knew what he was talking about.  But it didn’t change the way they treated thier Mormon neighbors.  For the most part, it didn’t change the way that they thought about their Mormon neighbors.

Many of the people I met didn’t like Yankees.  They would talk harshly about “the Yankees up North” but they would always welcome any New Englanders who moved into town.  Some fought for years to keep the Confederate flag flying over the state capital even though it was offensive to black citizens.  Yet these same people had countless black friends and co-workers whom they respected and admired.

For these people, any bigoted beliefs they held were meant to apply to some distant group of people that they did not know.  Anyone they knew that did not fit these stereotypes was obviously an exception to the rule.

That’s the key.  As long as the people of South Carolina did not know Mitt Romney, he was just a Mormon Yankee.  And, as far as they were concerned, he could have the vote of all the Mormon Yankees living in South Carolina.  But then they got to know him.  They saw his family.  He became a neighbor; a friend.  Then they could judge him on his own merits rather than stick him into a pre-determined catergory.

In my 9 months as a South Carolina citizen, I never did meet anyone who was as bigoted as the average South Carolinian is reported to be.  Of course, that doesn’t mean they weren’t there.  I heard plenty of stories from people who knew them or were related to them.  And Mitt Romney will probably never win the support of those people.

But the majority of South Carolinians are simply waiting for him to convince them that he is not just a good guy but a good guy with the right qualifications to be president.