Transcript: Mitt Romney on 'FOX News Sunday'

Sunday , August 12, 2007

DES MOINES, Iowa — 

The following is a partial transcript of the Aug. 12, 2001, edition of "FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace":

"FOX NEWS SUNDAY" HOST CHRIS WALLACE: And joining us now, the winner of the Iowa straw poll, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney .

Welcome back to "FOX News Sunday," Governor, and congratulations on yesterday.

2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE MITT ROMNEY: Well, thank you, Chris. And it's already warm here in Des Moines.

WALLACE: It sure is. What do you see as the significance of your victory yesterday?

M. ROMNEY: Well, it's a big start getting ready for the caucuses. You want to do well in the straw poll so that you can build the organization, get your fundraising machine under way, make sure that your message connects with the people of Iowa, because if you can do well in the straw poll, it gives you the real boost that you need to go on to the caucuses.

And of course, if you do well in the caucuses, that helps in New Hampshire and traditionally gets you going in a national campaign.

WALLACE: Now, as you well know, there's an expectations game. It's not just whether you win but how big a win you have. You got 4,500 votes.

By way of comparison, eight years ago when he was first running, George W. Bush got 7,400 votes, and David Yepsen, the political columnist of the Des Moines Register, kind of a guru here, called your victory, quote, "a bit hollow."

M. ROMNEY: Well, I'm very pleased to win, let me tell you. I got a higher percentage even than the president got eight years ago. And you know, it was a warm day, and actually it was difficult turning people out.

And we asked them, "Come on. Come on into the Ames straw poll." And they said, "Look, everyone says you're going to win. It's an easy win. You're way ahead."

And we've turned our people out. We hoped to get out about 4,000 to 5,000. We did. They came. They voted. I won. Can't do better than that. That's exactly what I was hoping for.

And frankly, the key for me is building that organizational base that propels me for the caucuses.

WALLACE: Let me ask you, though, because it is interesting that eight years ago, George Bush — when he was running, 23,000 Iowans came and voted at the Ames straw poll.

This year, yesterday, 14,000 voted. And some people are reading that as an indication that Republicans here in Iowa and, according to the polls, across the country are a bit dispirited.

M. ROMNEY: You know, I don't think that's the case, but you know, I'll let the gurus do their work. I think instead people thought that this was a pretty forgone conclusion.

I also think that you had a couple of folks not participating in the race, and so they didn't bring out the numbers they would have normally brought out.

But we've also had a Republican lead over the last several years. When George Bush ran, we'd had eight years of Bill Clinton, and I think there was a lot of anger in the Republican Party, and I don't think that level of anger is there.

WALLACE: Let's talk a little bit about the rules of the straw poll, because it isn't just you come and you vote. In fact, you need to buy a $35 ticket.

Somebody described to me a loser as somebody who actually pays for his own ticket, because most of the time campaigns like yours and your competitors pay the $35.

Some creative accounting, I'm sure, from some of your rivals when they added up how much you'd spent on tickets, and buses, and organization, and a $2 million ad campaign — they say you paid about $800 per vote.

M. ROMNEY: Well, they're missing one key thing, and that is the advertising was not for the straw poll. People don't come to a straw poll based on ads.

The advertising is helping build the base that I need as somebody that's not terribly well known in Iowa to get better known, to have a message that connects with people and to get ready for the caucuses. It's the caucus that you really aim for.

And what I'm pleased about is that the message I came to Iowa with — and that is that I could strengthen America, get the job done to strengthen our military, to strengthen our economy with better good jobs, and to strengthen America's families — that that message connected with the voters here in Iowa.

And I did it on the air. I did it at the grassroots level. I did over 300 events in Iowa over this last year. And a campaign, to be successful, has to have the resources, the ground team and the message, and we put that together.

WALLACE: You pointed out the fact that there were some people who weren't here. Do you think your victory is at all diminished by the fact that Giuliani and McCain and Fred Thompson didn't come to play yesterday?

M. ROMNEY: I think it's actually enhanced. I think if they thought they could have won, they'd have been here. The reason they weren't here wasn't an indication of their strength in Iowa.

And so I think what you're seeing is that they looked at the field and said, "Gosh, Mitt Romney's message and his resources and his ground team is so strong, we can't compete there."

And if you can't compete in the heartland, if you can't compete in Iowa in August, how are you going to compete in January when the caucuses are held? And then how are you going to compete in November of '08?

Because fundamentally, you've got to win Iowa if you want to win the presidency. This is a purple state.

WALLACE: Well, so let me ask you about where this puts you in the race for the GOP nomination. With your victory in the Ames straw poll yesterday, are you now the frontrunner for the Republican nomination?

M. ROMNEY: Oh, wouldn't that be nice? I've got a long way to go to become a frontrunner. Hopefully, I'll become a frontrunner or the frontrunner in about December or January, and I've got a long way to go. I'm not terribly well known across the nation.

But what's encouraging and pleasing to me is that the state or states where I've really spent my time, the first two — New Hampshire and Iowa — I'm doing well.

And the tests that have been had across the country, whether that was the Memphis straw poll, or the South Carolina county straw polls, or now here the Ames straw poll — I've won each of them.

So I'm pleased that the message is connecting, that all of the barbs that get thrown by my competitors are being dismissed. People are getting to know my family and me and saying, "Look, this is a guy who could lead our party." I sure hope so.

WALLACE: I'm going to get to some of those barbs in a moment, but let's talk about strategy, because you clearly — you're not as well known, I think you'd agree, as Fred Thompson or John McCain or Rudy Giuliani — not as well known nationally.

You're counting on victories in the early states, in Iowa, in New Hampshire, to kind of springboard you so that when you get to the big states later in January and early February, you're on even or even have an advantage over them.

Would the compression that we saw this week, with states moving up and Iowa and South Carolina and New Hampshire all getting crunched, is that going to make it more difficult for your strategy?

In a sense, are you going to have less of a time for your momentum to play out?

M. ROMNEY: You know, it could be read both ways. And that may well be the case. There are some who have looked at it, like the Wall Street Journal, and say it makes Iowa and New Hampshire even more important, because if you do well in those first couple of states, get the boost from those first states, there's very little time for one's opponents to try and minimize that big win and then go on and rebuild for South Carolina or Michigan or Florida.

So I don't know how it's going to work out. But I can tell you that so far, in the tests that have been given to us, we've come out on top. And I plan on having the resources, the message and the ground team — the grassroots effort that has proven to be successful to date.

WALLACE: Well, let's talk a little bit about not all of that but also ideas. You're running as the true conservative of the race, running to the right of Rudy Giuliani, but you're going to get a big factor in this race pretty soon.

It looks like Fred Thompson finally, after all the build-up, is going to get in right after Labor Day. Doesn't he have a longer and less complicated record as a conservative than you do?

M. ROMNEY: You know, I have a record as a governor. And talk is cheap, but action speaks very loud. And I was a governor for four years. And on the issues people care about, they can see what I did as governor.

And I'm happy to put my record up against anybody that's running for president. I really think that the United States of America is the largest enterprise in the world, needs to have somebody who's actually led something, managed something, knows how to make things happen. And I've got a record of doing that.

So we'll talk about issues, what we believe, but also what we've done. And my record is clear in that regard. I know people will try and twist and turn, but I'll be able to talk about what I've done when other people are just talking about what they'd like to do.

WALLACE: OK. Let's talk about twists and turns, because this question of flip-flops, real or alleged, continues to dog your campaign, and I want to ask you about it.

In the debate last week, you were asked what is the defining mistake in your life, and here's what you said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

M. ROMNEY: My greatest mistake was when I first ran for office being deeply opposed to abortion but saying I'd support the current law, which was pro-choice and effectively a pro-choice position. That was just wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Governor, back then you said a lot more than just you support the current law. We took a look at what you said when you were running for the Senate in 1994 and also running for governor in 2002. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

M. ROMNEY: I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

M. ROMNEY: I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard. I will not change any provisions of Massachusetts's pro-choice laws.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: For eight years — eight years — you said that you would protect and respect a woman's right to choose.

M. ROMNEY: Yes. Yeah, that's right. And then when I became governor — I don't know what's so unusual about this, but when I became governor and when legislation was brought to my desk that dealt with life, and I sat down and I said, "Am I going to sign this? Because I personally oppose abortion. Am I going to sign this?"

And I brought in theologians. I brought in scientists, took it apart — this related to embryonic cloning. And I said, "I simply have to come down on the side of life," and wrote an op-ed piece in the Boston Globe and said, "Look, here is why I am pro-life."

And I laid out in my view that a civilized society must respect the sanctity of life. And you know what? I'm following in some pretty good footsteps.

It's exactly what Ronald Reagan did. As governor, he was adamantly pro-choice. He became pro-life as he experienced life.

And the same thing happened with Henry Hyde and George Herbert Walker Bush. And so if there's some people who can't get over the fact that I've become pro-life, that's fine.

But I'm not going to apologize for the fact that I am pro-life and that I was wrong before, in my view, and that I've taken the right course.

WALLACE: But let me ask you, is it fair to say that you would not be running for president if you had not held elective office as governor of Massachusetts?

M. ROMNEY: Well, I would think that's the case.

WALLACE: Fair to say that you would not have been elected governor of Massachusetts if you had been staunchly pro-life back in 2002?

M. ROMNEY: You can't predict that. How in the world can I predict how I would have...

WALLACE: Do you really think you would have had a chance in the state of Massachusetts?

M. ROMNEY: ... if I had won in Massachusetts? And by the way, the major organizations in Massachusetts, like NARAL, wrote articles saying I was dangerous, don't support me.

I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't feel I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so...

WALLACE: But do you think that you — let me just ask, if I may, sir...

M. ROMNEY: Well, let me also just point out — therefore, they were adamantly opposed to my campaign, said I was not reliable. Ted Kennedy , as you may recall, said he was multiple choice.

So there was a concern there, and I took a campaign which was based on conservative principles. I said I was in favor of traditional marriage. I was opposed to same-sex marriage. I wanted to hold our taxes down.

And the truth is as a governor, I faced the issue of life and came out on the side of life on every single occasion that a bill was brought before me.

WALLACE: So do you see your victory yesterday as, in a sense, vindication that voters have heard all of this, have seen all the old clips, and basically don't care about the fact that you have had an evolving position over the years on the question of abortion as well as gay rights and a number of other issues?

M. ROMNEY: Well, I'm not going to so easily go along with your idea about evolving on other issues, but I changed my position on abortion. I was effectively pro-choice, given the statements I had made, but I am pro-life. I'm proud of that.

And I frankly think that the people whose campaigns were entirely focused on trying to bring me down and attack me — those campaigns weren't successful.

So I'm not going to overstate the results of yesterday. Obviously, they're going to continue to come at me with hammer and tong, but I believe people want to look beyond the attacks and understand what is it that a person stands for.

And I think with 300 events across Iowa and a message that was clear as a bell, people coming out in large numbers on a hot day sent a pretty strong message.

WALLACE: Governor, we've got to take a quick break here, but when we come back, we will talk about how President Romney would differ from President Bush.

And we'll return from our "FOX News Sunday" headquarters across from the state capitol in Des Moines, Iowa, right after this message.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: And we're back now at the Iowa State Historical Museum here in Des Moines, Iowa with our special guest, Governor Mitt Romney.

Governor, next month General Petraeus will be making a progress report to Congress on the state of affairs and the state of the surge in Iraq. It seems almost certain to be a mixed picture with some military progress and obviously a political stalemate in Baghdad.

You say that you support the surge, quote, "at this point." How would President Romney decide how long you would continue to keep this enhanced number of U.S. soldiers in Iraq?

M. ROMNEY: Well, obviously, a hypothetical with all the potential permutations of what might develop is kind of hard to fashion, but if we're making progress that suggests there's a reasonable probability of success in stabilizing Iraq, that's a course I'm going to follow.

I get a chance to speak almost every week to people who've been there, who are non-partisan, and the response I'm hearing is very much like what we heard from Brookings and CSIS, which is that we seem to be making some progress there, albeit slow.

That's encouraging to me, because the consequence of withdrawing with a massive civil war breaking out and a regional conflict ensuing could have consequences for our nation and the world that are really quite frightening and perhaps cause us to come back again.

So a course of stability would be very, very encouraging, and I think there's some signs — it's not definitive at this point — some signs that that's what's happening.

WALLACE: You took a shot, I think it's fair to say, at Senator Obama last week when he said that if we had actionable intelligence on high-level terrorist targets in Pakistan and President Musharraf wouldn't act, that we will. You said that he had gone from being Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in a week.

But let me ask you, if you had intelligence about terrorists in a foreign country and that country's leaders either wouldn't or couldn't act, what would you do?

M. ROMNEY: Well, you know, when you're running for president of the United States, you have to think about the question and the answer, but you also have to think about the implications of what you're saying around the world.

And Pakistan is a tinderbox. And of course, America keeps its options open to do what we think is in our best interest. But in a place like Pakistan, you make sure that you don't say things that could be misinterpreted and misused. And that was what his error was.

Of course, if we receive actionable intelligence about Usama bin Laden, we will take appropriate action, but we don't describe exactly what that might mean.

We have an ally there, Musharraf. We don't want in any way to try and weaken him in a very difficult situation, and that was...

WALLACE: But not talking about Pakistan, would you agree...

M. ROMNEY: ... and that was his mistake.

WALLACE: ... that you would take unilateral action if necessary to take out Al Qaeda?

M. ROMNEY: What I'm saying is that we will do what's in our best interest. We'll take action as necessary to get Usama bin Laden or to take out Al Qaeda as we can.

But we also have to be careful in our choice of words not to give aid to people who would use these words against us, and that's where Barack Obama went awry, is that he said things that you simply don't say on the international stage without recognizing that there's going to be repercussions among our friends.

We work with our friends. We also protect our interests.

WALLACE: I watched you give your speech in Ames yesterday in which you said that it's time for things to change in Washington.

M. ROMNEY: Yeah.

WALLACE: You have also said that you are not a carbon copy of President Bush, that you would do things differently.

In terms of management and priorities, how would you run a different administration from George W. Bush?

M. ROMNEY: Well, we're different people, of course, and I respect him enormously for what he's accomplished and what he will yet accomplish. But there are some things I'd do differently, I'm sure.

I want to bring in a real strong team of people who have very different backgrounds, a lot from the private sector, and I want to take on a whole series of efforts.

One is not just to win in Iraq and in Afghanistan, win the peace there, but I'd like to take on an effort globally to defeat jihad which is military in scope but also non-military, that combines our non-military resources with those of other nations to help move the word of Islam toward modernity and help the Muslims themselves reject the extreme.

I also want to get health care for our citizens, not a government takeover, socialized medicine plan. I want health care for our citizens.

I want to let middle-income Americans save their money tax-free so we can invest in a growth economy.

I want to protect good jobs here. We've got to become more competitive with Asia. China and India are coming.

WALLACE: Can I pick up — I want to pick up...

M. ROMNEY: Yeah, sure.

WALLACE: ... on that about the economy, because as a successful business man, you have said one of your top priorities is to strengthen the American economy.

I want to take a look at your record of performance as governor of Massachusetts. Here it is. Your state ranked third-lowest in creating new jobs during your term. It would have ranked second from the bottom except for Louisiana and Hurricane Katrina.

Manufacturing employment dropped 14 percent. That was the third- worst record in the country. And there was a net migration of 222,000 people from Massachusetts, a net migration. That was the third- highest population loss in the country during those years.

Governor, researchers at Northeastern University looked at the economic performance of Massachusetts during the Romney years and said it was one of the worst in the country.

M. ROMNEY: Well, I've got very different statistics than you do and than they do. First of all, there were no censuses taken during that time period, and so any numbers on population are just estimates by various folks.

And secondly, when I came in to Massachusetts, we were losing jobs every single month. Our budget was out of balance by some $3 billion. It took about a year, year and a half. We turned that around, started adding jobs every single month, added 53,000 jobs in the last couple of years that I was there since the downturn.

And a lot of the jobs that we fought for, like bringing in the largest single biotech manufacturing facility in the country, Bristol- Myers Squibb — we won that. It's not going to be built for another couple of years. A lot of our successes are coming down the road.

And I'll tell you, there's no question but that having a person who understood business and built a pipeline of new businesses made a difference for Massachusetts.

I got there. I think there were six companies in the pipeline that were thinking about coming to Massachusetts. When I left, as I recall, it was 238. We fought hard. We're rebuilding the state. You're going to see the product of that generate great results for years to come.

WALLACE: Finally, Governor, I want to ask you about two semi- personal controversies which might seem a little bit smaller but that people take seriously and I want to ask you to clear the record on.

One of them is the big dog controversy. Back in 1983, you took your Irish setter, Seamus, on a 12-hour road trip tied to the roof of your car...

M. ROMNEY: No, no, no, no, not quite like that.

WALLACE: Let me finish. Let me finish — in a kennel, inside a kennel.

M. ROMNEY: Yes, yes.

WALLACE: OK. I have a yellow lab named Winston. I would no sooner put him in a kennel on the roof of my car than I would one of my children.

Question: What were you thinking?

M. ROMNEY: This is a completely airtight kennel and mounted on the top of our car. He climbed up there regularly, enjoyed himself. He was in a kennel at home a great deal of time as well.

We loved the dog. It was where he was comfortable. And we had five kids inside the car. My guess is he liked it a lot better in his kennel than he would have liked it inside.

WALLACE: Well, I've got to tell you, Massachusetts law and dog lovers — and I'm one of them — take this seriously. Massachusetts law prohibits carrying an animal on top of a car, even in a kennel, as cruel and inhuman. Do you really think you did nothing wrong?

M. ROMNEY: I wasn't familiar with that in terms of Massachusetts law. Love my dog. We've had a lot of dogs over the years. Love them. Seamus, as his name is, climbed up there all by himself, enjoyed his ride, and whether you're in the back of a pickup truck or in the rooftop carrier, it was a good ride.

And all I can tell you is I didn't know that there was any problem with that in terms of the law. And he was a good friend of the family. We love our pets.

WALLACE: Finally, you caused a bit of a stir this week when someone at one of the wonderful town meetings that they have here — and people ask you all kinds of questions — asked you whether or not your sons had served in the Army and, in fact, were serving in the military in Iraq, and you answered that they had not, "One of the ways that my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."

Can you understand why that answer has upset some people?

M. ROMNEY: Oh, I misspoke there. I didn't mean in any way to compare service in the country with my boys in any way. Service in this country is an extraordinary sacrifice being made by individuals and their families.

I've been calling for a surge of support, as you know, by the American citizens. There's no comparison. I'm very pleased and proud of my boys and the help they're doing for their dad, but it's not service to the country. It's service for me. And there's just no comparison there.

WALLACE: We've got to leave it there. We want to thank you so much for coming and joining us today. Congratulations again on your victory, and safe travels on the campaign trail, sir.

M. ROMNEY: Thanks so much.

WALLACE: Thank you for joining us.

M. ROMNEY: Thanks, Chris.

NYT: "Bush = Washington DC"

August 11, 2007,  4:24 pm

Romney Praises Bush, Sort Of

By Adam Nagourney

Supporters of Mitt Romney cheered. (Photo: Eric Thayer/Getty Images)

AMES, Iowa — The Iowa Straw Poll was where President Bush took his first big step toward winning his party's nomination. He poured money and resources here in 1999, drawing 31 percent of the vote, way ahead of Steve Forbes, the billionaire, who drew 20 percent of the vote.

No surprise that Mr. Bush isn't a particularly popular figure here today as Republicans gather for another straw poll; indeed he seemed almost invisible today at one of the larger political Republican gatherings anywhere.

With one exception: Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. It wasn't the most ringing praise, but praise it was.

"I know it's gotten popular as of late for people in the media to be critical of the president," Mr. Romney told supporters. "No one is perfect."

"But let's not forget one thing," he said. "He has kept us safe these last six years. And that has not been easy."

Unfortunately for Mr. Bush and the White House, Mr. Romney — just moments later — drew cheers with a line that did not exactly sound like an affirmation of Mr. Bush's six years in Washington.

"What brought us here is change. Change begins in Iowa and change begins today. If there ever has been a time that needed change in Washington, it is now."

From The Sunday Times

Tony Allen-Mills, Cedar Rapids

WHEN the annual Iowa state fair opened in Des Moines last week the summer celebrations of America's rich rural traditions included an "ugliest cake" contest. It may prove the only Iowa competition that is not won this year by Mitt Romney, the eye-catching former Massachusetts governor who is threatening to shake up the Republican race for the White House in 2008.

"I love everything that comes out of your mouth," one adoring Iowa Republican cooed to Romney at an "Ask Mitt anything" fundraising dinner in Cedar Rapids. "I just think he's such a smart man," said Walter Willett after a breakfast meeting in Tama.

By gambling heavily on early success in the tortuous campaign for the Iowa caucuses - the key primary vote that traditionally launches the White House election season - Romney is hoping to wake up this morning with a largely symbolic but politically valuable victory under his silver-buckled belt.

...

Rudolph Giuliani, the former New York mayor, and Fred Thompson, the former senator and Hollywood actor, may be well ahead in the national polls, but in Iowa Romney has been sweeping all before him in an expensive bid to be taken seriously as the Republican successor to George W Bush.

An Iowa University poll last week gave Romney 26.9% of Republican voters likely to attend the state caucuses next January; Giuliani had only 11.3% and Thompson trailed with 6.5%. Both men decided not to invest in expensive campaigns for straw poll votes, but are headed to Iowa this week in a bid to make up lost ground.

Despite heavy sniping from rival camps about his political sincerity and his religious background Romney, 60, is proving a formidable grassroots campaigner with an enviable knack for surprising and impressing the mostly conservative farming folk of the American corn belt.

It doesn't hurt that he is 6ft 2in, was once named by People magazine as one of the 50 most beautiful people in America, and possesses a large and improbably photogenic family, in marked contrast to the chequered marital history of several of his Republican rivals.

...

Barnstorming across rural Iowa last week he was accompanied by his wife Ann, a striking blonde, who was 15 when they first met 42 years ago. "She is still my greatest campaign adviser, my sweetheart," he declared in Cedar Rapids to "aaahs" from the crowd.

At one stop, he had just finished emphasising how important it was for parents to tell their children that "before you have babies you get married", when the curtains behind him opened and two of his five adult sons emerged, one with a wife who was carrying her baby son Parker, one of Romney's 10 grandchildren. When the little boy smiled and clapped, several supporters wiped away tears.

Yet there's more to Romney than his seemingly bulletproof family image. The son of a former Michigan governor who also ran for president - unsuccessfully - in 1968, Romney is a multi-millionaire venture capitalist who earned a reputation when he rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City from a corruption scandal and went on to be elected the Republican governor of a state whose senior senator is Ted Kennedy, the veteran liberal Democrat.

In person Romney comes across as a smooth performer with a neat line in political put-downs. Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential programme amounted to "out with Adam Smith and in with Karl Marx", he said at one stop. Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic contender who has been under fire for a series of foreign policy gaffes, had said he was "going to sit down for tea with our enemies [in Cuba and Venezuela], but then he's going to bomb our allies [in Pakistan]".

When I caught up with Romney in eastern Iowa I asked him if his own international inexperience might not prove a handicap once the campaign moved away from Iowa's cows and corn. "Oh, I don't think by being elected a senator you suddenly become an expert on world affairs," he said, in an obvious dig at Obama.

Romney added that during his career in international finance and his stewardship of the Olympics he had met "many international leaders. Just as Ronald Reagan was successful in combating the Soviet Union, I think a person outside Washington has a better chance of meeting today's challenges than anyone inside".

...

Last week Romney was repeatedly asked to explain why he now opposes abortion. "I was not always pro-life," he acknowledged to one meeting, "but I'm proud I made the same discovery that Ronald Reagan did." As a Hollywood actor the former president supported abortion, but as a Republican candidate he opposed it.

...

Yet neither the Mormon nor the abortion issue bothered Dawn Pettengill, a former state legislator who attended the Tama breakfast meeting. "You can't agree with anyone 100%," she said. "But you want a president who's going to listen to all sides and make a good value judgment."

So what did she think of Romney? "I was really impressed," she said. After last night's Iowa poll Romney plans to impress further afield.

Romney critical of poll no-shows

I think this is the best photo I have seen of Romney.

August 11, 2007

Romney critical of poll no-shows

Romney said the candidates who did not show knew they could not win straw poll.

AMES, Iowa (CNN) The winner of the Ames, Iowa straw poll says the three Republican presidential hopefuls who skipped the contest knew they couldn't win. Mitt Romney came in first in this crucial early GOP presidential showdown. The former Massachusetts Governor won nearly 32% of the vote, far ahead of his competitors.

At a news conference after the results were announced, Romney discussed why former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Senator Fred Thompson, and Senator from Arizona John McCain decided to skip this straw poll. Romney said "their decision not to compete here was not a decision based on strength." Romney continued, saying "the guys who decided not to play would have played here if they thought they could have won."

Giuliani, Thompson, who's not even a formal candidate yet, and McCain are one, two, and three in most national polls. Romney follows in fourth place.

Here in Iowa it's a different story. Romney leads in the state polls. The Iowa caucuses kick off the presidential primary season.

– CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser

Make Way for the Fred Heads

August 11, 2007, 1:04 pm

Make Way for the Fred Heads

By Michael Luo

Romney Wins Straw Poll

August 11, 2007,  9:25 pm

Romney Wins Straw Poll

By Jeff Zeleny

Mitt Romney celebrated his win in the straw poll. (Photo: Keith Bedford for The New York Times)

AMES, Iowa – The outcome of the Republican Straw Poll was announced here tonight, with Mitt Romney easily claiming the first prize of the presidential campaign. He was followed by Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback.

There are, of course, many asterisks on this scorecard and the true significance is an open question. Neither Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain nor Fred Thompson actively participated in the event, but their names were still on the ballot here.

Here are the quick results:

1. Mitt Romney –32 percent
2. Mike Huckabee – 18 percent
3. Sam Brownback – 15 percent
4. Tom Tancredo – 14 percent
5. Ron Paul – 9 percent
6. Tommy Thompson — 7 percent
7. Fred Thompson – 1 percent
8. Rudolph W. Giuliani – 1 percent
9. Duncan Hunter – 1 percent
10. John McCain (less than 1 percent)
11. John Cox (less than 1 percent)

The vote totals for the top three: Mr. Romney — 4,516 votes; Mr. Huckabee — 2,587; Mr. Brownback – 2,192.

Jared: CNN boycotts Republicans

Is CNN even there? I went to their website a few minutes ago, and there isn't a link on the entire page that references the straw poll today. I guess the GOP isn't important, or the poll is meaningless in their eyes....

Kathryn Jean Lopez: In Praise of Retail Politics

In Praise of Retail Politics   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Mitt-supporting D.C. mom in Ames for the straw poll e-mails:

Overall, I have to say, I was impressed with the quality of the "retail politics" — lots of people were out in force in the 90-degree sun touting their candidates and their ideas - intelligently, passionately, and politely.  The kind of crowd where, even if your kid gets lost, you aren't thinking "Amber Alert," but rather, "I just need to get the PA system to tell whoever finds him to bring him to the Mittmobile." While in line for the Fair Tax Ferris Wheel, a Ron Paul supporter calls out, "Ron Paul has been pro-life his whole life." The response of some Mitt Romney supporters:  "God Bless him!". Paul supporter:  "Mitt Romney hasn't!" Romney supporter: "I know.  But he is now, and he is the only one who can beat Hillary Clinton, and she has never been pro-life."

08/11 05:33 PM

Kathryn Jean Lopez: NYT on Romney and Abortion

One wonders: Do Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback want pro-choice Rudy Giuliani to be president? Or are they both confident in a not-yet-declared Fred Thompson (and praying he'll pick one of them as veep)?

Victor Davis Hanson quotes General: "The British have basically been defeated in the South."

We've come a long way from the 2003 British lectures about American obtrusive ray-bans and Kevlar losing what British soft hats and smiles had won.

That quote about defeat from "a senior U.S. official" about the British withdrawal from southern Iraq is probably accurate, but it belongs to a larger, more disturbing context:

(1) the popular British anger at the U.S. (whether evidenced by the "poodle" slur or the latest Pew poll finding that a bare majority of British subjects approves of the U.S.);

(2) a growing acknowledgement of British weakness and appeasement, as exemplified not just by the escape from Iraq, but everything from the coddling of radical Islamists in London to the humiliation of the British navy by Iran.

So there is a logic there: the more the U.S. seeks to be a partner with Britain in harm's way where it is ill-equipped, uncomfortable and thus bound to be humiliated, the more it resents America for doing so.

The unspoken truth is that just as there is no real military alliance called NATO, so too there is no Anglo-American "alliance". Both of course can serve as valuable psychological props, and continue in name through tradition and ennui, but neither amounts to anything militarily or even much politically anymore. We should accept that "getting the Brits or Europeans on board" at best means a few platitudes at the U.N .

The irony?

Continued Anglo-European distance from the U.S. transpires at exactly the time that the world is getting more dangerous for an unarmed Europe from rising Chinese and Russian nationalism, Iranian theocracy, and Islamic extremism-while U.S .public support for basing troops in the U.K. and Europe is at an all-time low.

To read contemporary journalism is to learn of Russian anger at Eastern Europe and EU morality lectures, Chinese frustration with EU tariffs, al Qaeda's hatred of a soft, 'decadent' European lifestyle, and missile proximity to Tehran-and a growing American weariness with all of the above.

For Britain and Europe, it is a classic case of "be careful of what you wish for..."

Ramesh Ponnuru: Giuliani Links

Giuliani Links  

Social Conservatives for Rudy and Catholics Against Rudy have both recently launched. AP is running a story about how Giuliani rules questions about his faith about of bounds, except when he doesn't. (Don't they all do that?) Via Jonathan Chait, I see the Village Voice is questioning Giuliani's record on terrorism. (I haven't read it yet.)

(ME: No. Some questions are in bounds, and some are not)

Last month, factcheck.org cast doubt on his claims about his record on adoption.

Finally, recent poll data sheds some light on the question of how Giuliani's stance on abortion will play among Republican primary voters. Supporters and opponents alike have something to seize upon. On the one hand,"Barely four-in-ten (41%) Republican voters, including independents who lean Republican, can identify Giuliani as the GOP candidate who supports a woman's right to choose when it comes to abortion, while the rest either incorrectly named another GOP candidate (12%) or say they do not know (47%)." That suggests that pro-life opponents of Giuliani might be able to make headway by further publicizing his position. Except that: "Conservative Republicans who know Giuliani's position are about as likely to support him as those who are unaware of his position."

P.S. The Pew abortion question isn't great: It asks people to identify which GOP candidate supports legal abortion, instead of simply asking what Giuliani's position on abortion is. But it's what we've got.

Peter Gelzinis: "No roadside bombs to annoy Romney boys in Iowa"

Peter Gelzinis
Boston Herald Columnist




No roadside bombs to annoy Romney boys in Iowa
By Peter Gelzinis
Boston Herald Columnist
Friday, August 10, 2007 - Updated: 10:29 AM EST

Perhaps if Mitt Romney wasn't such a rubber stamp for every blunder George Bush has made in Iraq, then the question he was hit with in Iowa the other day could be viewed as out of bounds.
But when your presidential campaign strategy of meticulous pandering has you beating the war drums, talking about "surges of support," and God has blessed you with five strapping sons - none of whom has chosen to wear the uniform of this country - it's only reasonable to expect that someone would ask: Why not?

1. They were all married and had children before the war began.
2. Romney was not a "rubber stamp for every blunder George Bush has made in Iraq"
3. You don't have to support the war, to support the troops. Romney's "surge of support" has nothing to do with supporting the war, it has to do with supporting the families of solders.
4. Chelsea Clinton was 19, unmarried and had no children when Clinton sent troops into Yugoslavia. We still have troops there and none of these liberals never asked how Bill Clinton could send women into Iraq, when his unmarried, daughter never went. True, people never made as much of a sacrifice in that was as they did in Iraq, but it's a stupid question. We have a volunteer army. Not everyone is a warrior.
   

Here is some of the stuff Romney has said about Iraq. He does not have a rubber stamp, but he doesn't pretend, like the Ass-hole columnist for the Boston Globe, Peter Gelzinis, that he knows what would work better than the Generals in the field.

Iraq Questions for Governor Mitt Romney

George Stephanopoulos

1. 
   
1. Do you keep Bush or let him go?
2. But how do you explain why all that planning wasn't done?
3. Yet, you support the president's decision to send more troops right now?
2. Are you confident the surge is going to work?
3. Bill O Reilly
1. Would you agree that we can't stop the Iraqi from killing each other ?
4. Tom Bevan
1. What's your impression of the job Rumsfeld did?
2. Do you believe it's still fixable at this point ?
3. What happens if Iraq is not successful?
5. Chris Wallace
1. Where do you disagree with Bush on Iraq ?
6. Wolf Blitzer
1. Do you have a time frame in mind?
7. Hugh Hewitt
1. Do you support sending more troops into that country?
8. Robert B Bluey
1. Do you think right now the US is losing the war in Iraq?
9. Katherine Jean Lopez
1. What did you make of the Iraq Study Group?
10. Mary Katharine Ham
1. What do you think about Harry Reid saying the war is lost ?
11. Greta Van Susteren
1. Would you have gone into Iraq?
2. Do you think enough questions were asked in March of 2003 ?
12. [1st Debate
1. Should we be in Iraq when the American people do not victory is possible?
13. ''2nd Debate''
1. Can you foresee any circumstances under which you would pull out of Iraq without leaving behind a stable political and security situation?

Governor Mitt Romney on Iraq

ABC'S GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: "National security, you're a management consultant again. You've come into the United States looking at the commander-in-chief. Do you keep him or let him go?"

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "Well, you have to look at Iraq and Iraq was superbly executed in terms of taking down Saddam Hussein's government. But I think everybody recognizes, from the president to Tony Blair to Secretary Rumsfeld that post the period of major conflict, we had major problems in the way we've managed the war in Iraq, and that has contributed to much of the difficulty we have today. It was under-planned, under-prepared, under-staffed, too low a level of troops, under-managed."

STEPHANOPOULOS: "But how do you explain why all that planning wasn't done? President Bush is a Harvard MBA, too."

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "Well, everybody has their own management style and their own approach and I respect enormously the approach other people. Mine is just different. And if you read "Cobra II" and "Assassins' Gate" and "Looming Tower" and some of the reports of the events leading up not only to 9/11, but to the conflict itself, there's a sense that we really weren't ready for the post major conflict period. And that has resulted in a blossoming of the sectarian violence, of insurgents within the country and from without, and a setting which is a very troubled, difficult position."

STEPHANOPOULOS: "Yet, you support the president's decision to send more troops right now."

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "Yeah."

STEPHANOPOULOS: "How much time do you give it to work?"

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "Well, it's not years. I think you're going to know within months."

STEPHANOPOULOS: "Mayor Giuliani said the other night he's not confident it's going to work. Are you?"

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "Well, you know, I think it's hard to predict whether this troop surge will work, but I'm absolutely confident it's the right thing to do."

Press Releases

• Jan 10, 2007; Governor Mitt Romney on Iraq

Quotes

2007

• "She can do what she likes – but I take exception to her conclusions. I don't think we should run our foreign policy based upon elections, election schedules or anything of that nature. We should look at the interests of America and our friends and our citizens and our solders and do what it's our collective best interests. This president has taken action which he believes is calculated to make America a safer land. We should not make decisions based on an election schedule...I would not move to those choices unless we were convinced there was no prospect of success with the current strategy...A number of mistakes have been made and those mistakes have contributed to some of the challenges we now face...I'm glad we're seeing a change in strategy. I'm glad we're adding to the mission of our military the protection of the safety of citizens in and around Baghdad., I don't know how you could rebuild a country and an economy if you have your capital city is literally all covered by what we call a red zone. You know you've failed if you have a red zone. The conduct of our policy in Iraq has been fraught with a number of mistakes."
  • Governor Mitt Romney, Adam Nagourney, The New York Times, January 29th, 2007
    • In Responce to Hillary Clinton, who said that President Bush needed to resolve the war he started before he left office and not hand it off to his successor

2006

• "I wouldn't presume to present a plan different from that of the President. But I believe he was right to take on the war on terror on an aggressive front rather than a defensive front. We toppled the government ... walking away would mean a humanitarian disaster. We're there and we have a responsibility to finish the job." Response to Bill O'Reilly Sept, 27 2006

"I agree with the President: Our strategy in Iraq must change. Our military mission, for the first time, must include securing the civilian population from violence and terror. It is impossible to defeat the insurgency without first providing security for the Iraqi people. Civilian security is the precondition for any political and economic reconstruction.

"In consultation with Generals, military experts and troops who have served on the ground in Iraq, I believe securing Iraqi civilians requires additional troops. I support adding five brigades in Baghdad and two regiments in Al-Anbar province. Success will require rapid deployment.

"This effort should be combined with clear objectives and milestones for U.S. and Iraqi leaders.

"The road ahead will be difficult but success is still possible in Iraq. I believe it is in America's national security interest to achieve it."

• Governor Mitt Romney has been to Iraq.
• If you go to Google Video and type Mitt Romney, you will find this video, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4362623183954478320&q=tvshow%3ACharlie_Rose,Iraq: 20:05 Min The Governor Mitt Romney interview takes about 20 min. If you just want to watch the part about this topic, go to this portion of the video:

Here are some vidoes of Romney talking about Iraq:

Governor Romney On Iraq

In Bettendorf, Iowa, that someone was Rachel Griffiths. She is an antiwar activist whose brother, an Army major, is also an Iraq veteran. When this 41-year-old woman asked our prettiest former governor why none of his picturesque sons have opted for the front lines, Mitt flashed that 10,000-watt smile and proceeded to blow her off.

(No he didn't. Here is the exchange. Why lie about it? Why not link to the video? Why would you lie, when you can link to the video? Why would you lie when you can link to the video)

Romney Applauds the Service, Dedication of U.S. Troops

"The good news," Mitt said, "is that we have a volunteer army. My sons are all adults and they've made their decisions about their careers, and they've chosen not serve in the military."
If he had left it at that, Mitt might not have made it to the top of Jon Stewart's hypocrisy hit parade on "The Daily Show" Wednesday night. But Mitt couldn't resist the invitation to get cute.

(How about you, Peter Gelzinis, can you resist the invitation to get cute? Latter in this article you bring Mitt's family into it by calling his sons, "As for Tag, Biff, Zip, Bud and Lex" very classy, you jack-ass. Mitt eventually told Rachel Griffiths that Tag, Biff, Zip, Bud and Lex were serving America by canvassing the cornfields of Iowa in a Winnebago, "showing support for our country (by) helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."

Once again, you don't need the MSM any more. Listen to the whole exchange here:

Romney Applauds the Service, Dedication of U.S. Troops

He should have just kept his mouth shut. Getting smarmy about such a question only confirms what many of us already know, and the rest of the country is bound to find out: Mitt is one very attractive and empty vessel.

(What does that mean, exactly? He is somehow an empty vessel because he thinks we can prevent more American deaths by winning this war rather than walking away? He is somehow an empty vessel because he didn't force his kids into the military?)
Was Rachel Griffiths' question fair? "Absolutely, it was fair," said Eddie Contilli, who sent his only two sons off to war in Iraq, the youngest when he was barely 17.
"What Romney should have said is, 'Hey, that's an individual question. Go ask them.' I mean, his kids are out there on the stump, campaigning for their Dad, right? So, why can't we put the question to each one of them?"

(Why should Romney have said that? Is that something people didn't know? People didn't know that Mitt Romney does not make decisions of what their kids do? People do not know that Mitt Romney's married kids, all with Children are individual?)
Better yet, why couldn't Mitt Romney - whose money and TV time has placed him on top in Iowa - chosen to scrape up a bit of humanity? The answer is obvious: There is none.

(How should Romney have "scrape up a bit of humanity"? There is no humanity in Mitt? If you punch him he does not bleed? If he is not a human you can shoot him right? Is Romney a cow? If he does not have a "scrape of humanity" what is he? Is he a devil? Is he a monkey? Do we really have to demonize those whom we disagree? Romney is not a member of humanity according to this f-ing Peter Gelzinis of the Boston Herald.


Like Mitt Romney said, the "good news" of an all-volunteer military has spared the five Romney boys any soul-searching about wearing a uniform. But we still don't know if Mitt and his progeny ever even discussed the prospect of military service.

(I like how Peter Gelzinis has the magic ability to see into the souls of the Romney boys. Pretty awesome hu?) I have watched that fascinatingly ridiculous Christmas card/ campaign video Mitt and his family prepared from inside their mountaintop palace in Utah. To watch Mitt's sons in that 13-minute video - still making its rounds through cyberspace - is to know that military service was never part of the Romney boys' career options. Other people could do it.

As for Tag, Biff, Zip, Bud and Lex, they just thought it would be really neat to see Dad and Mom in the White House.
There's nothing wrong with Mitt's sons working to help their father realize his dream. But both father and sons should understand that if the candidate wants to keep calling for "surges of support," if he chooses to continue parroting the Bush administration at every turn, and applauding the blood spilled and sacrifice made by the sons and daughters of other fathers, there are bound to be more questions fired at Mitt Romney by people like Rachel Griffiths.

LISTEN ASS HOLE. YOU CROSS A LINE WHEN YOU SAY THAT ANYONE "APPLAUDS BLOOD SPILLED". NO ONE APPLAUDS THE LOSS OF LIFE IN IRAQ. The question is weather it was better for Bush to remove Saddam Hussein now, or his sons (who ran the torture and "rape-rooms") 30 years from now.
Pandering on Iraq is a little bit different than pandering on abortion, or gun control, especially when you have five sons. Other candidates have watched their sons volunteer to fight a war they now oppose. Unlike Mitt Romney, they have a flesh-and-blood stake in the issue. Instead of Winnebagos, their sons have canvassed Iraq in under-armored Humvees.

(Peter Gelzinis says outright that Mitt Romney has no shred of humanity. Then he infers that Mitt Romney won't care about the loss of life, unless his son's life are on the line. Abraham Lincoln understood the loss of life of those who's lives were on the line for the survival of the country. He wrote the following letter to Mrs. Bixby)

Executive Mansion,
Washington, Nov. 21, 1864.

Dear Madam,--

I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle.

I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save.

I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.

Yours, very sincerely and respectfully,

A. Lincoln

Peter Gelzinis, in trying to say that Mitt Romney is not a member of humanity, and has betrayed his own membership in this exclusive bunch of animals. Hitler tried to say, just like peter, that Jews weren't really humans. It is Peter who says of Romney, " why couldn't Mitt Romney chose to scrape up a bit of humanity? The answer is obvious: There is none."

Our humanity is the ability to have regards, even for those who are not members of our family. And Lincoln's greatness was his ability to empathize with those who suffered, but have the strategic vision to know that their suffering promised the greater good. We are going to have to appeal to this type of reason, to put into power the type of person who can do the most amount of good for our country, instead of responding to primal instincts, and just installing Cindy Sheehan as POTUS, because she has lost a child in this awful war.

Romney pigs out at Iowa State Fair

Mitt Romney is at the Pork Tent flipping pork chops on a giant grill with about a dozen camera crews recording the moment for history.

Photo by AP

Romney pigs out at Iowa State Fair

By: Roger Simon
Aug 11, 2007 08:19 AM EST

DES MOINES -- Today we are at the Iowa State Fair, where politicians meet swine but are rarely mistaken for them.

Mitt Romney is at the Pork Tent being a "guest cook," which means he is flipping pork chops on a giant grill with about a dozen camera crews recording the moment for history.

More than 175 Romney family members -- it's a big family -- have come to Iowa for a gathering Friday night and to help out at the Ames Straw Poll on Saturday and Romney is accompanied at the fair by his wife Ann, three of his five sons, and a slew of grandchildren.

Romney puts on an apron that says: "Mitt Romney. Not a blah cook. The Other White Meat. Don't be blah."

("Don't be blah" is the official marketing slogan of the National Pork Board for reasons best known to it.)

Romney stands behind the giant grill facing about 50 or so pork chops. "Look at this!" he says with enthusiasm.

Then he begins flipping the pork chops with tongs as reporters shout questions at him.

"Is this your favorite food?" a reporter asks.

"I love hot dogs and hamburgers …" Romney begins to answer and then flips a pork chop right off the grill and onto the pea gravel that covers the ground beneath.

"There goes one," Romney says, bending over to recover it with his tongs.

Then, perhaps because he has small grandchildren and knows about the Five Second Rule -- anything recovered from the ground five seconds after a kid throws it there can be stuck back in the kid's mouth without harm -- Romney picks up the pork chop and puts it back on the grill.

And the press corps very loudly goes: "Oooooooo!"

Romney recovers immediately and removes the offending pork chop from the grill and the food chain.

He then he tries to change the conversation.

"Can you get these on a stick?" he asks.

Are you kidding me? There are very few things at the Iowa State Fair you cannot get on a stick, including deep fried Twinkies, deep fried Snickers and deep fried pickles.

Then one reporter asks him: "Is it smart for you to be a flipper?"

"It is part of the process," Romney answers as if he doesn't really understand what the reporter is getting at and then he says, "And this is 'pork barrel' the way it ought to be done, not the way it is done in Washington!"

Romney leaves the grill and begins serving ice tea and water to diners seated inside the Pork Tent, where it is slightly less warm than outside the pork tent, but not by much.

An aide hands Romney a napkin, which he uses to wipe his face. A reporter remarks that he has never seen Romney sweat before.

"It has been known to happen," Romney says dryly.

He then walks over to a large building where there are farm animals for kids to see and pet -- though most kids in Iowa can see and pet farm animals at home -- and Romney picks up his 15-month-old grandson, Parker, in his arms.

"Here are the lambies," Romney says to Parker. "Boy, they must be warm with their winter coats."

Romney gives Parker a chance to pet a lamb, which Parker does with enthusiasm, and then a chance to pet a newborn chick, which Parker does with aplomb and then they wait in line to see a sow suckle a bunch of baby pigs, which, somewhat bizarrely, is also being shown live on a giant TV screen.

"This is a great big pig," Romney says to Parker. Parker appears to consider this, but keeps his own counsel.

Romney chats amiably with the people in line and then leaves in a golf cart to go to his next event.

The official name for all this is "retail politics," which is when politicians meet small groups of people in natural settings.

Iowa and New Hampshire defend their "first in the nation" status because of retail politics, saying that after the campaigns move on from their states, the candidates rely largely on television and speeches to large crowds.

Such "wholesale" campaigning is a more efficient way of reaching voters, but there is something to be said for retail politics and Pamela Seward, 54, says it.

She, along with her husband, has a hog farm in New Providence, Iowa, about 70 miles northeast of Des Moines. She has come in for the fair -- she will not go to Ames on Saturday because she is not all that political -- and has shaken Romney's hand.

She tells Romney she is a pork producer and he asks her, "Do you raise corn and beans as well?"

Which shows that Romney is agriculturally astute since most hog farmers do raise corn and beans as well.

It is but a brief moment, but Seward will remember it. Which is what retail politics is all about.

Those who think politicking will eventually be done only in the electronic media or in cyberspace misjudge how Americans value and respect the presidency -- no matter what they think of individual presidents -- and how meaningful it is for them actually to meet somebody who is or may become president.

"When I was six, I met Richard Nixon," Seward tells me. "Regardless of what he turned out to be, that was pretty neat. And now, if Romney becomes president, then I will have met another president of the United States. In person. And that is neat."

And she is right. It is.

Paul Camp May Catch Romney’s Bus

By Katharine Q. Seelye

Representative Ron Paul talks with Mary McCraken of Des Moines after speaking at the Iowa State Fair. (Photo: Charlie Neibergall/Associated Press)

Ron Paul's supporters are actively encouraging Iowa voters to take advantage of Mitt Romney's offers of free transportation to the Iowa Straw Poll in Ames on Saturday and then, once they are there, to vote for Mr. Paul.

"Some say if Mitt is willing to bus Iowans to Ames for the straw poll, they should take him up on his offer!" says a flier in Iowa and on the Internet in advance of the straw poll for the Republican presidential candidates. The flier says that after riding the Romney bus to Ames, and allowing the Romney campaign to pay one's $35 entry fee, Iowans should then carefully weigh their options and "they may decide to vote for Ron Paul."

The flier is topped with a banner that says "2008 Ron Paul News," but Jesse Benton, a campaign spokesman, said it was the handiwork of independent supporters over whom the campaign had no control. "We can't tell our supporters what to do or not do," Mr. Benton said, adding that the campaign did not want to get "entangled" with federal finance regulations involving potential in-kind contributions.

But he conceded that infiltrating the Romney bus could certainly help Mr. Paul. It is his first visible attempt at converting his popularity online into success offline, which, alas, is where it counts.

Mr. Paul, a relatively obscure Congressman from Texas who caught fire online after appearing on the televised presidential debates, has only just started campaigning in Iowa. Mr. Benton said the fact that Mr. Paul was a full-time member of Congress prevented him from campaigning in Iowa sooner, although other candidates have been swarming over the state for months.

"This is his third trip to Iowa, but his first chance to really get out there," Mr. Benton said. He just opened a campaign office in downtown Des Moines and started to advertise his anti-tax, anti-abortion rights, Libertarian message on radio, television and in the newspapers.

Mr. Benton said that regardless of how Mr. Paul did in the straw poll, he would stay in the race at least until voters started going to the polls in the primaries and caucuses, which could start in late December or early January.

While Mr. Romney is pouring thousands of dollars into winning the Ames straw poll, it is not clear what role Mr. Paul might play in cutting into Mr. Romney's lead or jumbling the outcome for the other candidates.

Red and white "Paul" signs have sprouted up in cities across Iowa, at street corners and in front lawns, signaling at least some level of interest.

"He's kind of a wild-card candidate," said Chuck Laudner, executive director of the state's Republican Party. "We don't know what to expect. We're sure he'll have a big turnout, but we don't know how many votes that will be."

Mr. Laudner said that the Paul campaign appeared to be "bringing in a lot of folks from out of state" to help organize Iowans, who are the only ones allowed to vote. He said it was hard to read what the campaign was doing because it had made no contact with the state party. "They've moved outside the whole campaign community," he said. "They don't come by. They do their own thing."

The Romney campaign is bracing for a larger-than-expected showing from Paul supporters, according to Gentry Collins, who is overseeing Mr. Romney's Iowa operations, although his saying that may be part of a broader attempt to lower expectations for Mr. Romney.

While Mr. Collins said he was confident of the Romney straw poll organization, he said it was carefully watching the excitement that seemed to be building for Mr. Paul.

The Paul campaign has bought the minimum of 800 tickets to give to Iowans to vote. Other campaigns have bought thousands. Simple math would suggest that to do passably well, the Paul campaign is relying on Iowans who buy tickets from other candidates to vote for Mr. Paul. The suggestion that Paul supporters catch Romney buses and vote for Mr. Paul is being widely debated on the Internet ; some see it as smart while others see it as dishonest.

Mr. Benton would not speculate where Mr. Paul might finish, but said he expected most of the candidates to receive between 1,500 and 3,000 votes. "If we can be somewhere in the middle of that pack, that would be a big success for us," he said. "Our goal is to prove that we can translate our online support into bodies in Ames and prove we can run with the pack. We feel we have a lot of room to grow, while other campaigns might have reached their peak."

Jeff Zeleny contributed to this post.

Josh Romney's Harley

Romney Bros on Iowa Campaign

Romney Bros Discuss Recent GOP Debate

Romney Bros on WHO Interview

Campaign Update

 

Campaign Update

Posted by Dean Barnett  | 10:51 AM

Thank goodness! The actual voting will likely begin weeks earlier than planned, putting us out of our misery far earlier than we would have dared hope. That's good news, and it will probably imbue all the campaigns with an extra sense of urgency, excluding the Thompson campaign which seems unable to show interest let alone urgency.

We have a fresh new batch of poll numbers to dive into. The latest Rasmussen national numbers show Rudy at 25%, Fred at 21%, Romney at 14% and McCain at 9%. If you've sensed (as I have) that Fred has been losing momentum while his campaign temporizes, the Rasmussen trends bear that out. Fred has gone from a peak position of a 5 point lead to a 4 point deficit in the past three weeks. If he wants to win, Fred has to get into the game and play well.

There are also some fresh numbers out of Iowa. The latest Des Moines Register poll shows Romney holding a commanding lead pulling 27%, Rudy at 11% and Fred at 6.5%. You need a ground game to do well in Iowa, and the dilatory nature of the Fred campaign means he doesn't have one. For what it's worth, John McCain has drifted into Ron Paul/Pasadena Phil territory, drawing a ridiculous 3% of the vote. With the date of the Iowa caucuses drawing nearer, so too does McCain's decision that he's needed in the Senate on a full-time basis. When it finally happens, some lucky reader here will receive a signed copy of a "Mormon in the White House?" Unlike many politicians, Hugh and I never forget our promises.

One additional note about the Iowa polls: Click over now to Real Clear Politics' summary of all the recent Iowa numbers. You'll see three polling outfits with results more or less in line with one another. And then you'll see ARG which has numbers wildly out of whack with everyone else's. Hear me now, and know what the pros know – no one who knows about these things trusts the results of an ARG poll. Please, when an ARG poll comes out that casts a favorable light on your candidate of choice, don't send me a crowing email demanding that I link to it. I won't.

SPEAKING OF CANDIDATES OF CHOICE, it's been an interesting week for mine, Mitt Romney. Last Thursday, he went into talk show host Jan Mickelson's studio and engaged in a heated discussion over "the Mormon issue." I thought Romney came across great in that exchange, and so did most other bloggers and commentators. The YouTube has been viewed over 170,000 times, something that probably makes the Romney campaign very happy.

On a less sunny note, yesterday, at an "Ask Mitt Anything" session, Romney was asked to defend his five sons against the charge that they're chickenhawks. Romney started out extremely well by saluting our volunteer army and mentioning his niece's Reservist husband who had just been activated, and then concluded rather clumsily by saying his sons are serving the country by trying to help him get elected president. Generally speaking, volunteering and sacrificing for political campaigns is a noble thing and shows a level of civic involvement that most people respect. But there was something a little off about Mitt saying his sons were serving the country by serving his campaign, especially in the context of discussing military service. Listening to the tape, it seems Romney intended it as a joke and the crowd did laugh. But it wasn't a particularly good joke, and it definitely was an ill-advised one. It was exactly the kind of comment that the press would replay as a "Gotcha!" moment. (Here's the entire clip if you're interested.)

Obviously this isn't a big deal. The chickenhawk thing is a Democrat obsession, not a Republican one. And family members, even if they're involved in the principal's campaign, are widely considered civilians by everyone except the left-wing blogging community and sometimes Mike Wallace. I've never heard a single Republican complain that the Bush twins aren't in Iraq. Or that Chelsea Clinton isn't in Afghanistan. During the 2004 election, I don't think a single Republican made a talking point out of the fact that Senator Kerry's daughters and stepson (the one who did all those hilarious impersonations on the campaign trail) opted for the civilian lifestyle.

What's more, I doubt the Romney campaign would mind if the media collectively decided that the candidates' lives at home should be a pressing issue. I think the Romneys would happily put themselves up against the Clintons in that regard. Lastly, I don't think anyone has suggested that Romney supports the troops with insufficient vigor.

But yesterday's happenings should provide a teachable moment for all our candidates. In this day of YouTubes and cell phone video recorders, now more than ever presidential candidates are one Macaca away from history's ashbin. Hillary Clinton is at a huge advantage in this regard. She's been under this kind of glare for 16 years now, and it shows. She hasn't made a single gaffe this entire campaign. No botched jokes, no clumsy TV interviews, not a single misstep that has sent her campaign into crisis management mode. She has proven herself the master of every circumstance and situation. The woman's got game. It's why she'll be the Democratic nominee.

It works out well for the Republicans that the campaign got so intense so early. Right now, by my estimation, Rudy and Mitt are the two most likely nominees. I like Fred, too, but the train is leaving the station and Fred's not yet aboard. He has reduced his margin of error down to zero, and both Romney and Rudy (like Obama) made a bunch of missteps when they first hit the hustings. It's a new game out there, a lot different from the last time Thompson ran for Senate.

Mitt and Rudy have both gotten better, a lot better, since the campaign started. They'll have to keep improving to defeat Hillary.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com

Romney: Giuliani's NYC 'Sanctuary' for Illegal Immigrants

(Reuters)

Romney: Giuliani's NYC 'Sanctuary' for Illegal Immigrants

Republican Presidential Contender Calls Giuliani's New York a 'Sanctuary' for Illegals

By JAKE TAPPER with RON CLAIBORNE

BETTENDORF, Iowa, Aug. 8, 2007 —

In one of the strongest conflicts yet between Republican presidential front-runners, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney attacked rival Rudy Giuliani Wednesday, implying that Giuliani supported illegal immigration when he was mayor of New York.

"If you look at lists compiled on Web sites of sanctuary cities, New York is at the top of the list when Mayor Giuliani was mayor," Romney said at the Abbey Hotel here. "He instructed city workers not to provide information to the federal government that would allow them to enforce the law. New York City was the poster child for sanctuary cities in the country."

The Giuliani campaign issued a statement rejecting the charge. Campaign communications director Katie Levinson said, "I am not even sure we should weigh in on this, given Mitt Romney may change his mind later today about it. Mitt Romney is as wrong about Mayor Giuliani's position on illegal immigration as he was when he last mischaracterized the mayor's record and later had to apologize. New York is the safest large city in America since Mayor Giuliani turned it around -- it is not a haven for illegality of any kind. The mayor's record speaks for itself."

New York became a sanctuary city, where illegal immigrants enjoy some measure of protection, through an executive order signed by Mayor Ed Koch in 1989, five years before Giuliani became mayor in January 1994.

But if Giuliani inherited the policy, he reissued it and seemed to embrace it.

At a June 1994 press conference, Giuliani decried anti-illegal immigration policies as unfair and hostile.

"Some of the hardest-working and most productive people in this city are undocumented aliens," Giuliani said at the time. "If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city. You're somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being like a fugitive, which is really unfair."

At a speech in Minneapolis in 1996, Giuliani defended Koch's executive order, that, in his words "protects undocumented immigrants in New York City from being reported to the INS while they are using city services that are critical for their health and safety, and for the health and safety of the entire city."

"There are times when undocumented immigrants must have a substantial degree of protection," Giuliani said.

Romney Leads Iowa, Giuliani Out Front Nationally

Giuliani leads in national polls of the Republican candidates, but Romney is the current front-runner in Iowa polls of likely Republican caucus-goers, and is favored to win this weekend's straw poll in Ames.

Cracking down on illegal immigration is a compelling issue for conservative Republicans.

"You have to follow the law, and honor and respect the law," Romney said Wednesday. "And if you don't do that and create the perception that we welcome people coming into our cities or communities that are here illegally & you attract people into this country to come illegally. That's why we went from 3 million illegal aliens to 12 million illegal aliens."

Romney described Giuliani as having an "open door policy that said, 'Come on in, we want you if you're undocumented and this will be a zone of protection. You don't have to worry about city officials providing information to the federal government.'"

Romney first leveled the "sanctuary city" charge last week, trying to contrast Giuliani's policy as mayor with his own as governor, saying he'd denied driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

Monday in Clear Lake, Giuliani protested, saying, "Frankly, that designation would not apply to New York City. What you got to look at in fairness to is the overall results -- and no city in terms of crime, safety, dealing with illegality of all different kinds has done a better job than New York City."

Earlier this year, Giuliani came out against the immigration reform compromise that failed in the Senate, saying he opposed "amnesty." He emphasizes increasing the number of border guards, building a high-tech fence and a national tamperproof ID card for immigrants.

But as he tries to appeal to conservative voters, Giuliani is often competing with his own past views.

Giuliani's History on Immigration

Giuliani has long faulted the federal government for not doing enough to secure the borders. But liberal immigrants' rights groups generally give him high marks during his tenure for sensitivity to their issues.

In 1996, Giuliani compared "the anti-immigration issue that's now sweeping the country" to "the Chinese Exclusionary Act, or the Know-Nothing movement -- these were movements that encouraged Americans to fear foreigners, to fear something that is different and to stop immigration."

That same year he sued the federal government for new provisions in federal immigration laws that would encourage government employees to turn in illegal immigrants seeking benefits from the city.

He said educating the children of illegal immigrants made sense.

"The reality is that they are here, and they're going to remain here. The choice becomes for a city what do you do? Allow them to stay on the streets or allow them to be educated? The preferred choice from the point of view of New York City is to be educated," Giuliani claimed.

For his part, Romney also seems to have had a much more lenient view of illegal immigrants than his current rhetoric would suggest. And while Giuliani may be placing a different emphasis on his immigration views, Romney seems to have changed his in some cases.

For 10 years, Romney used the services of a landscaping company for his Belmont, Mass., estate that hired illegal workers from Guatemala, workers who told the Boston Globe that Romney never inquired about their legal status.

While Romney was governor, the commonwealth of Massachusetts became one of the six states with the largest growth in unauthorized migrant population, from 2002 to 2004, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, with somewhere between 200,000-250,000 new illegal immigrants. Romney was governor from January 2003 until 2007.

Romney in the past voiced support for immigration reform bills far more liberal than the 2007 bill.

In 2005, he called immigration reform efforts by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and President Bush that provided a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants "reasonable proposals" that were "very different than amnesty. & It's saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine."

In 2006, Romney said "those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process toward application for citizenship, as they would from their home country."

McCain's 2007 efforts at an immigration reform compromise are seen as one of the main reasons for his recent woes in the polls.

Jan Simmonds and Matt Stuart contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures