It’s a BIG day in Florida. It’s a really big day for Mitt Romney….for his family, his campaign, and his supporters. It’s a big day for talk radio, for the Republican party and the Conservative Movement.
I’ve been web surfing off and on since about 5 a.m. looking for something that is suitable, and more importantly, unique, to post up as we await election results later this evening. Everyone has the polls, the “Winner Take All” articles, the sound bites, and the play by plays of the last few days…..I was looking for something a little different.
And then, I happened across this video. Sure, it’s a bit hokey, but that’s not what hit me when I watched it. What hit me was that it was a genuine effort and labor of inspiration that can only be produced when one is moved. As I have personally experienced while listening to Governor Romney speak, he is more than capable of such inspiration. Mitt Romney’s Faith in America Address was definitely one of those times. Actually, I don’t recall being moved by a politician prior to that, since George W. Bush’s Remarks at National Day of Prayer and Remembrance at the National Cathedral after 9-11, when he actually moved the entire world that day. The words ” And the commitment of our fathers is now the calling of our time” are words that I will forever associate with the legacy of George W. Bush. It has been a long and tumultuous period between that day and this. It’s about time, that we as a people, found someone to inspire us again, and Mitt Romney has the ability to spark and then ignite those embers.
I’ll drop the post now, as it’s getting late in election day, and before you know it, we’ll all be sharing the results from Florida. In the meantime, I’ll leave you with this…..for I know from what place in his heart the composer of this song found the words and the inspiration to make it….. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. Thank you Lon Gibson, for sharing it with us.
GO MITT!
Even the MSM couldn’t ignore Governor Romney’s win in the Michigan Primary last night. Unlike Romney’s Wyoming victory, the cameras were rolling in Michigan for days before the contest. They recorded Romney’s positive messages about turning around the Michigan economy, protecting our borders and defeating our enemies abroad. These issues won Romney 39% of the Michigan vote, fully 9% more than the McCain, who finished second.
This win gives the Romney campaign the only thing it had been lacking up to this point–a first place win that even opponents couldn’t explain away. Since January 4, various media pundits and backers of other candidates have valiantly ignored the strong second place showings, the tremendous nation-wide support, the win in Wyoming, and the fact that Romney had a majority of the popular vote and of pledged delegates. Instead, they focused on the fact that in Iowa and New Hampshire Romney’s name was not in the number one slot.
However, this race is shaping up to be one that will be unique in the history of Presidential politics. Prominent wins by Huckabee and McCain have brought strong conservative voices into the race to actively campaign against them. Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh had even declared that to nominate either of these candidates would mean the end of the Republican party. Should either of these liberal men be nominated, conservatives would have to find, or form, another party to represent the values of small government and individual freedom.
I think that the same thing would be true of a Giuliani nomination. Giuliani does not represent the social conservative values that so many Americans hold dear to them. Nor is it clear that he would respect promises at fiscal and judicial conservatism. This leaves us to decide between Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. (Ron Paul would be an ideal president–in 1824. If only we could get the rest of the world to limit their weapons to the technology of that era then he would be a logical choice for conservatives.)
Fred Thompson seems to be a good person with a desire to do what is best for his country. Romney, however, has a resume that is unique among the candidates. He has spent his life learning to find new and innovative solutions to common problems. The problems of Washington are as common as it gets, but epic in scale and with no one willing to stick out their political neck to solve them. Romney is not a career politician and he has the drive to solve even the most difficult problems. Romney also has the business head to understand and analyze the waves of numbers that describe our nation’s current economic status and the options for altering government involvement.
If Romney has one failing it is that he sometimes seems to view the government as the head of a large business interest. Corporations sometimes offer benefits for the good of the employee and the good of the company at large. Government does not have this responsibility to the people of this nation. When government “offers” benefits such as welfare and health care to the people the price is a portion of our freedom. Romney, in my estimation, is the most conservative candidate in this race. But he can be much more conservative. It is my hope that as the campaign progresses he will move in that direction.
In the meantime, Congratulations to Governor Romney and his family. Congratulations to all of his supporters. And God Bless America.
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.
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.
In an interview with Sean Hannity, aired on Fox News yesterday, Mitt Romney made a serious mistake. During the course of a discussion about the qualifications of Hillary Clinton, he used the word “intern.” Not only that, but he used it to make a valid point that had nothing to do with her husband or embarrasing public scandals.
What he said was, “And I think the greatest drawback, beyond the direction she’d take us, is that she’s never run anything. She’s never had the occasion of being in the private sector running a business or, for that matter, running a state or a city. She hasn’t run anything.
And the government of the United States is not a place for a president to be an intern. You need to have experience actually leading and running things.”
So the Clinton tag team did what it does best. It got offended.
On MSNBC Live this morning, Andrea Mitchell decided to ask Howard Wolfson, a Clinton insider, about the comment and Romney’s intent.
Mitchell: “This is not the first time he’s used the word ‘intern’ in reference to Senator Clinton’s alleged lack of qualifications, so it’s an intentional point. Do you think he’s trying to provoke her by using that?”
WOLFSON: “I think it’s unfortunate. You know, Hillary Clinton is a two-term United States senator. She has represented this country abroad in dozens and dozens of countries. She’s been a — an advocate for families and children, one of the nation’s foremost advocates for families and children for 35 years. And so, you know, Mitt Romney wants to engage in a campaign of insults, that’s his choice. Americans want to hear issues and ideas and not these kind of insults.”
Pointing out Hillary Clinton, or any other presidential candidates lack of experience is not an insult. It goes directly to the heart of the issue. Certain lessons are best learned by the hard knocks of experience. Do we really want a president learning those lessons with the fate of the nation hanging in the balance? Hillary’s accomplishments are meager. Her resume for President of the United States is remarkably bare. Some would argue that it is blank. Even her most ardent supporters cannot offer up an instance where she has successfully implemented a policy or drafted a piece of legislation.
Instead, they rely on the image of her as a “battered woman;” a victim of male brutality and oppression. Whenever the slightest hint of criticism hits the airwaves, Clinton and her supporters are there to reassure us that her opponents would only do this because she is a woman, because they hated her husband, or because they just want to revel in the smut of her family’s dirty laundry.
As it turns out, there really aren’t too many succinct ways to describe a person who takes a job in order to gain work experience. These days, in the United States of America, the common term for such a person is an “intern.” It was this point that Romney was trying to illustrate when he used the word. The nasty pictures it conjured were all painted by the Clintons and their friends.
You never know who you’ll wind up sitting by on a bus. So when I was lucky enough to slide in next to Meg Whitman, President and CEO of eBay, on a shuttle to Fenway Park on Day One of Mitt Romney’s Calling America fundraising event, I seized the moment to find out why such an accomplished person herself so eagerly sits on the front row of the Romney campaign …
As one of the most successful executives in the world, Mrs.Whitman knows what it takes to run an organization. And this woman with an impressive resume of her own whole-heartedly believes that Mitt Romney “has the most relevant experience of any candidate and is qualified for the biggest CEO job in the world.”
She has known Mitt for many years, both as a business colleague and friend, and has now taken an active role in fundraising for his campaign. Of her dedication, she says, “I think the country is at a crossroads and it really matters who the next President will be. I know [Mitt Romney] would be the best choice.”
Meg first worked with Mitt 25 years ago, and has kept an eye on him ever since. Shortly after receiving degrees from Princeton University and Harvard
Meg remembers Mitt as a great leader, mentor and boss who truly cared about the individuals with whom he worked. Of the time when Mitt shut down Bain to encourage his employees to help a partner look for a missing daughter, she remarked “Not many people in his position would do that.”
Mitt and Ann Romney have been married for 38 years and are still best friends.
Bethie