Combating Nuclear Terrorism

• We must not allow a nuclear-9-11.
• We must not allow a nuclear Pearl Harbor.
• We should take Ahmadinejad at his word.
• We should tighten economic sanctions against Iran.
• We should isolate Iran diplomatically.
• We need to communicate to the Iranian people the dangers of being nuclear capable.
• Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.
• Iran's nuclear ambition has nothing to do with clean energy.
• We should not assume that Iran will act responsibly when they have the bomb.

We are faced today with the horrific proposition that those who speak of genocide are developing the capability to carry it out. It's time to face the reality of the Iranian threat, take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at his word and act accordingly. We must tighten economic sanctions against Iran, isolate Iran diplomatically, and make it clear to the Iranian people that while nuclear capabilities may be a source of pride, it can also be a source of peril.

CHALLENGE : We are faced today with the horrific proposition that those who speak of genocide are developing the capability to carry it out. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made statements that Israel will be wiped off the map. It's time to face the reality of the Iranian threat, take Ahmadinejad at his word and act accordingly. Iran's ambition to develop nuclear weaponry cannot be clearer: they have a virtually inexhaustible supply of clean natural gas for energy, they have refused offers to supply nuclear fuel for their power. Obviously, their nuclear ambition has nothing to do with clean energy.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "Some people, of course, think that it's possible to live with a nuclear Iran. That thinking is based on the theory that Iran, once it's granted the privilege of becoming a member of the nuclear club, that it will be a responsible actor. Neither their words nor their actions justify that kind of thinking." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At Yeshiva University, 4/26/2007)

CHALLENGE: The 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) was meant to prevent countries from acquiring dangerous nuclear technologies and fissile materials such as plutonium and highly enriched uranium (HEU).

However, effective enforcement of this obligation is often lacking. Consequently, countries can ignore their obligations under the NPT with little fear of sanction or penalty. Given the unstable political and economic situation in many of these counties, there is the real possibility that these nuclear technologies, fissile materials, or even fully assembled nuclear weapons, could find their way to terrorists.

Moreover, the September 11th Commission reported that al-Qaeda had been trying to acquire or build nuclear weapons for well over a decade. Former CIA Director George Tenet said that Osama bin Laden sees the acquisition of WMD as a "religious obligation."

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "The Iranian regime threatens not only Israel, but also every other nation in the region, and ultimately the world. And that threat would take on an entirely new dimension if Iran were allowed to become a nuclear power. And just think of the signal a nuclear Iran would send to other rogue regimes with nuclear ambitions - this could be the tipping point in the development and proliferation of nuclear regimes." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The Seventh Annual Herzliya Conference, 1/23/2007)

The Romney Plan:

Governor Romney Believes We Must Expand And Accelerate Efforts To Combat Nuclear Terrorism By Taking The Following Actions.

1. Tighten Economic Sanctions Against Iran. Governor Romney has called for strategic divestment from companies that support the Iranian regime's dangerous actions, using efforts similar to the actions taken against Apartheid South Africa.
2. Isolate Iran Diplomatically. Their leaders should be made to feel like those of Apartheid South Africa. Until there are indications that high level engagement would do anything other than reward bad behavior, the United States should not engage Iran in direct, bilateral negotiations over their nuclear weapons program. Finally, Iran's President Ahmadinejad should be indicted under the terms of the Genocide Convention for incitement to genocide.
3. Have Arab States Join This Effort To Prevent A Nuclear Iran. These states should support Iraq's government; turn down the temperature of the Arab-Israeli conflict; stop the financial and weapons flows to Hamas and Hezbollah; and tell the Palestinians to drop their terror campaign and recognize Israel's right to exist.
4. Make It Clear To The Iranian People That While Nuclear Capabilities May Be A Source Of Pride, It Can Also Be A Source Of Peril. If nuclear material from their nation falls into the hands of terrorists and is used, it would provoke a devastating response from the civilized world. The military option remains on the table.
5. Expanding And Accelerating Actions To Combat Nuclear Terrorism. The Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, which was launched last year, was a good start. Yet our efforts need to be greatly accelerated and expanded. Combating the threat of nuclear terrorism needs to be a top Presidential priority.
6. Empowering A Senior Ambassador To Lead Efforts To Prevent Nuclear Terrorism. We should appoint a new Ambassador-at-Large to prevent nuclear terror. He or she would have the authority and resources needed to work across government agencies and departments to ensure that our strategies both here and abroad are coordinated.

Iran’s nuclear ambition has nothing to do with clean energy.

Issues / Combating Nuclear Terrorism

Reasons to agree:

1. Iran has a virtually inexhaustible supply of clean natural gas for energy, but yet the French and Russians are building nuclear reactors for them. I wonder why?
2. Iran has refused offers from us to supply nuclear fuel for their power. I wonder why?
3. A country, like Iran, that says that Israil should be wipped off the face of the planet should not be allowed to own nuclear weapons.
4. We have no problems with Iran getting their power from Nuclear Weapons. We even said we would help them. But they want to use it for weapons, and the argument doesn't work that America has them and so everyone should be able to have them, because in the 50s everyone got together and agreed their was a balance of power between Russia and America, but if Iran gets them, then Saudia Arabia has to get them, and if they get them, Egypt has to get them, and if Egypt gets them their enemies get have to get them, and so everyone signed an agreement that no one else would get them. But Iran complains that Israil has them. Yes, but Israil does not talk about killing it neighbors. Israil did not start any war.

Reasons to disagree:

1. For the same reason that the US encouraged and supported Iran's nuclear program in the first place - because Iran needs to export oil and gas rather than use it at home (Gas is used mostly to repressurize the oil fields, btw)
2. Because Iran has every right to use its own resources for its own benefit and doesn't need to become reliant on foreign energy suppliers.

Jihadism is this century’s nightmare. What do you think?

Reasons to disagree

1. More people die from alcohol than terrorism. 85,000 people die each year because of alcohol Link
   1. 5% of all deaths from diseases of the circulatory system are attributed to alcohol.
   2. 15% of all deaths from diseases of the respiratory system are attributed to alcohol.
   3. 30% of all deaths from accidents caused by fire and flames are attributed to alcohol.
   4. 30% of all accidental drownings are attributed to alcohol.
   5. 30% of all suicides are attributed to alcohol.
   6. 40% of all deaths due to accidental falls are attributed to alcohol.
   7. 45% of all deaths in automobile accidents are attributed to alcohol.
   8. 60% of all homicides are attributed to alcohol.
   9. 100,000 deaths. That's more than a statistic. That is 100,000 individuals with faces. 100,000 individuals with lives not fully lived. 100,000 individuals grieved by mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and children. Every year.
2. An aggressive China that is willing to kill thousands of people in order to expand, would be this century's nightmare.

Reasons to agree

1. Jihadist are the only people who would use a nuclear weapon.
2. A nuclear weapon would destroy men, women, children. It would destroy homes, and make property un-usable for thousands of years.
3. Some of the people who die from Alcohol, are just killing themselves. Those who would be killed from a nuclear bomb, would be mostly innocent.
4. There can be more than one nightmare. China could go bad, but Jihadism is more likely to.

Below you will see an e-mail I recieved, along with my response:

4.      False. Obama turns 47 on August 4, and if elected would be the 5th youngest person to be president. In fact he will be over 4 years older than Teddy Roosevelt was when he was sworn in after McKinley's assassination, and older than JFK, Clinton, and Grant were when elected. Where are you getting your facts?

Obama would be tied for the 2nd youngest person to be elected president.

Reasons to agree

1. Teddy Roosevelt is the youngest person ever to become President, but he became President at age 42 after the assassination of President McKinley. He was not elected president. People never said, we are comfortable with someone this young being president.
2. JFK was 44. Clinton was 47. Obama would be 47.

Teddy Roosevelt, JFK, and Clinton were more experienced than Obama.

Reasons to agree

1. Harry Truman was right when he said that JFK was too young.
2. Barak's only jobs before becoming elected to the senate were an associate attorney for 3 years, a lecturer of constitutional law for 11 years and a state senator 8 years
3. Teddy Roosevelt was Vice President before he became President.
4. Before TR became Vice President, he served as (1) Governor or New York, (2) Assistant Secretary of the Navy, (3) an Army Lieutenant Colonel and Colonel who organized and led his "Rough Riders" during the Spanish-American War, (4) president of the Board of New York City Police Commissioners, (5) a United States Civil Service Commissioner and (6) a New York State Assemblyman who wrote more bills than any other New York state legislator.
5. Wikipedia: "Roosevelt became president of the board of New York City Police Commissioners in 1895. During the two years he held this post, Roosevelt radically reformed the police department. The police force was reputed as one of the most corrupt in America. NYPD's history division records Roosevelt was, 'an iron-willed leader of unimpeachable honesty, (who) brought a reforming zeal to the New York City Police Commission in 1895.'Roosevelt and his fellow commissioners established new disciplinary rules, created a bicycle squad to police New York's traffic problems and standardized the use of pistols by officers. Roosevelt implemented regular inspections of firearms, annual physical exams, appointed 1,600 new recruits based on their physical and mental qualifications and not on political affiliation, opened the department to ethnic minorities and women, established meritorious service medals, and shut down corrupt police hostelries."

Barack's no TR, JFK, or even BC

Michael Gaynor Michael Gaynor
January 29, 2008

When Ted Kennedy enthusiastically endorsed Barack Hussein Obama for President of the United States, Ted (1) chided Harry Truman for saying that JFK was too young in 1960 and (2) proclaimed that Barack is a bit older than Teddy Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton, when they became President.

What Ted (and the media) ignored is that Harry Truman had a point. The Cuban Missile Crisis resulted from Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev's impression, as a result of the Bay of Pigs fiasco and a personal meeting with JFK in Vienna, that JFK would not be strong enough to keep the Soviet Union from installing long-range nuclear missiles in Cuba. Yes, JFK got those missiles out, after taking the world to the brink of nuclear war, and only gave up some American missiles in Turkey in the bargain. But the truth is that JFK was NOT ready to be President on Day One, as the Bay of Pigs fiasco itself conclusively demonstrated. Instead of a successful operation, or no operation, JFK bungled the long-planned liberation of Cuba from the dictatorship of Fidel Castro as badly as possible: by allowing the attack to begin and then denying air cover to the would-be Cuban liberators.

In addition, Barack is no TR, or JFK, or even Bill Clinton.

Barack was an associate attorney with Miner, Barnhill & Galland (three years), a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School (eleven years) and an Illinois state senator (eight years) before being elected to the United States Senate in 2004.

Teddy Roosevelt is the youngest person ever to become President. He became President at age 42 after the assassination of President McKinley.

Right, TR was Vice President before he became President.

Before TR became Vice President, he served as (1) Governor or New York, (2) Assistant Secretary of the Navy, (3) an Army Lieutenant Colonel and Colonel who organized and led his "Rough Riders" during the Spanish-American War, (4) president of the Board of New York City Police Commissioners, (5) a United States Civil Service Commissioner and (6) a New York State Assemblyman who wrote more bills than any other New York state legislator.

Wikipedia: "Roosevelt became president of the board of New York City Police Commissioners in 1895. During the two years he held this post, Roosevelt radically reformed the police department. The police force was reputed as one of the most corrupt in America. NYPD's history division records Roosevelt was, 'an iron-willed leader of unimpeachable honesty, (who) brought a reforming zeal to the New York City Police Commission in 1895.'Roosevelt and his fellow commissioners established new disciplinary rules, created a bicycle squad to police New York's traffic problems and standardized the use of pistols by officers. Roosevelt implemented regular inspections of firearms, annual physical exams, appointed 1,600 new recruits based on their physical and mental qualifications and not on political affiliation, opened the department to ethnic minorities and women, established meritorious service medals, and shut down corrupt police hostelries."

Barack surely is no TR!

Like TR, JFK was the second son of Joseph P. Kennedy and, as such, very well prepared for the Presidency, especially after his older brother, Joseph, died in World War II. A war hero himself, JFK served after the war as a Congressman (six years) and a United States Senator (eight years) before being elected America's second youngest President.

Barack is no JFK.

Bill Clinton, America's third youngest President, served as a University of Arkansas law professor, Attorney General (two years) and Governor of Arkansas (twelve years) before being elected President in 1992.

Barack is no Bill Clinton either.

5.      "Obama has never accomplished anything outside of the classroom." What is this supposed to mean? He has state senator, US senator, a successful attorney, director of a successful community development program in chicago, and held several different non-academic positions prior to going to Law School. He is a father, and a husband. How can you possibly say he has never accomplished anything outside of the classroom. Please back up your statement.

I assumed you would understand that I mean Obama has never accomplished anything NOTWORTHY outside of the classroom. Of course obama has accomplished somethings. All human beings have become potty trained, and done all sorts of crap. My point was, and I think you will have to agree, that Obama has never done anything noteworthy. You mention that Obama was a state senator? Is this noteworthy? If it is, then every senator should run for president. You know how many state senators there are? Small states like Idaho have perhaps a hundred of them... I bet there are thousands of state senators...

6.      "Obama has never had a job in the marketplace." See above. He worked at Eldridge Hayne's Business International Corporation, and it was not an internship.  If Romney can use his time in France as experience that contributes to his candidacy, why can't Obama use a post-collegiate job?

Good point. The point I was thinking of is that Obama has never done anything useful. I do not consider being a civil rights attorney useful. I do not think lawyers contribute to society, but that is a personal opinion. I think most people would agree with you that working as a lawyer prepares you for president about as much as Romney's experience overseas, but come on...your angers is not worth this SMALL, SMALL, SMALL point. You have to agree with me, if you have any credabilty, that working for a law firm does not qualify you to be president. 

7.      "Obama has never run an organization." He was president of the Harvard Law Review, which is pretty much like being the head of a major magazine, only held to a higher standard. He ran Developing Communities Project in Chicago. If you know anything about how government offices work you would know that running a Senate office is pretty much like running a business. There is a staff, there is a budget, you hire, you fire. And of course a presidential campaign is an incredible organization.

Senators have staff of 2 to 6 people, as far as I know. Obama does not run his presidential campaign. He has a campaign manager. Does everyone who runs for president, automatically have the experience you need to run for president, because running for president, qualifies you to be president. You really are an idiot.

8-12 See above. Senator is the boss. Director is the boss. President is the boss.
13-14. I love that your supporting "facts" for why Obama isn't experienced is "Obama just isn't experienced".  This is brilliant logic.

I am not a Bill Maher fan either, but not all experience is equal.  So Bush had 8 years of political experience, at the state level.  Obama had 7 years at the state level in the Illinois senate (also a very populous state, representing part of the 3rd largest city in the country), plus will have had 4 years in the US Senate.  Bush had 8 years of executive branch experience, Barack 0.  

A governor is not in the executive branch.

Barack has 4 years of foreign policy experience, Bush 0 at that time (same as Romney).

?

 I think the point that Maher is making (poorly, I admit) is that there is no broad brush of "experience" than can be painted onto candidates.  There are no specific pre-req's for the presidency (other than age, citizenship and US Birth), so to say one candidate is more experienced than another is not a simple issue of addition.  If that were the case then we would all just vote for the most "experienced" candidate, McCain

Romney is more experienced than Barak Obama. Romney balanced the budget in Massachusetts, without raising taxes. Romney turned around the Olympics, when they were in debt, just a few months after September 11th. Romney has experience in the marketplace. He made companies give him money, in order for Romney to tell them what to do, in order to fix themselves. Obama worked with a criminal, who ran slum housing in Chicago. What good did Obama accomplish? How many people did he get houses for? What did he accomplish?

Obama is naïve

Obama quotes JFK that we should never negotiate out of fear, but that we should never fear to negotiate. He then says that he would have one on one meetings with the president of Iran. Like a lot of things Barak says, this is very idealist and naïve.

It is not fear that keeps us from negotiating with the president of Iran, but honor. The president of Iran kills intellectuals, tortures political opponents, crushes anyone who writes something in a newspaper or blog that is seen as criticizing him.  You don't sit down for a photo-opportunity and coffee with THE GUY who supports Hezbollah, funds insurgents in Iraq, denies the old holocaust, but promises a brand new holocaust.  

It is honor for the dead that he has killed and wants to kill that keeps us from speaking to the president of Iran. It is respect for the political prisoners that have been silenced that keeps us from having a photo-op with the president of Iran. It is respect for a free press that keeps us from having coffee with the president of Iran. It is HOPE for a future that is not dominated by religious extremest, that keeps us from meeting with the president of Iran. It is not fear.

Obama is naïve

Obama quotes JFK that we should never negotiate out of fear, but that we should never fear to negotiate. He then says that he would have one on one meetings with the president of Iran. Like a lot of things Barak says, this is very idealist and naïve.

It is not fear that keeps us from negotiating with the president of Iran, but honor. The president of Iran kills intellectuals, tortures political opponents, crushes anyone who writes something in a newspaper or blog that is seen as criticizing him.  You don't sit down for a photo-opportunity and coffee with THE GUY who supports Hezbollah, funds insurgents in Iraq, denies the old holocaust, but promises a brand new holocaust.  

It is honor for the dead that he has killed and wants to kill that keeps us from speaking to the president of Iran. It is respect for the political prisoners that have been silenced that keeps us from having a photo-op with the president of Iran. It is respect for a free press that keeps us from having coffee with the president of Iran. It is HOPE for a future that is not dominated by religious extremest, that keeps us from meeting with the president of Iran. It is not fear.

Final note

Mormon in America

You should put photos from your kids birthday on the same page

James came on week 39. They induced Alison and Phil 3 weeks early 37

James
I was at work, at McDonalds. Megan was also at work. She went to the Dr. for her check up and they told her to go to the hospital. We met at home. I think it was raining. I talking about how Condi Rice might run for president. Megan got an epidermal.

Look at that forehead! Me 1977

James, July 2004

And then there were 3. 2004. 

Alison
Alison was 6 lb, 15 oz when she was born. She had blondish-red-ish-brownish hair. 90% length, 75% weight for her age. 3 or 4:35. Snowing during the delivery.

Watched Wayne's World (Based in Aurora Illinois), Best Friend's Wedding, and a little of the Simpsons while we waited.

Our son stayed at a friend's from Church, and I came home and watched him, and brought the dog out of the garage this evening...

Of our 3 kids, Megan says that Alison was the easiest to deliver by far.

Megan high on pain medicine and so happy to have her little girl.

Not sure if I should share this sort of messy photos? 

Philip
Philip was our most difficult baby so far. Megan went into active labor 3 months early. The doctor said that if they were unable to stop the pregnancy, that he would have only a 40% chance of living, and then there would be developmental issues. 

They gave Megan a steroid to help his lungs develop. They kept her in the hospital for 2 weeks while they monitored her contractions. It was very scary for a while. After about 2 weeks they sent her home to be on bed rest. Luckily he was able to make it to full term, and he is very big and tough.

Alison changed when Megan had to stay in the Hospital for 2 weeks,
and was on bed rest for 2-1/2 months. She was going through some major
separation anxiety or something. She was so happy to see Megan. 

2010. James loves his little brother so much, and was happy to bring him home. 

And then there were 5

Laub, boy

Putting the Pressure on for Mitt in Illinois!

A Super Day for Mitt

Don't let this happen--vote Mitt!

The brilliant Michael Ramirez.

Come on Illinois!!!

California is going for Mitt---come on Illinois!!

The Trend is Real: Conservatives Rally

Very Close

Today, Romney for President launched its newest web ad, "Very Close."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usBERI87bBA

In 2008, the Republican Party needs a nominee who can debate Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) on the important issues confronting our nation today.  "Very Close" highlights how Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Clinton actually agree on more issues than not.  We need "a full-spectrum conservative" like Governor Mitt Romney who can provide a clear conservative contrast with Sen. Clinton.
Script For "Very Close" (WEB:30):

ANNOUNCER:  "Is John McCain really the heart and soul of the Republican Party?
"Imagine a debate between McCain and Hillary Clinton.
"On amnesty for illegal immigrants, they agree.
"On voting against President Bush's tax cuts, they agree.
"On imposing an additional 50 cents a gallon cost on gasoline, they agree.
"On blocking conservative judges, they agree.
"Even Bill Clinton says…"

FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON:  " 'She and John McCain are very close.'"

ANNOUNCER:  "Don't we need a leader who agrees with conservatives?"

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: "I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this message."

AD FACTS For "Very Close" (WEB:30):

ANNOUNCER:  "Is John McCain really the heart and soul of the Republican Party?  Imagine a debate between McCain and Hillary Clinton.  On amnesty for illegal immigrants, they agree."

Sen. McCain And Sen. Clinton Both Voted For The 2006 Senate Amnesty Bill. "Passage of the bill that would overhaul U.S. immigration policies and offer a path to citizenship for most illegal immigrants in the country. It would subdivide illegal immigrants into three groups based on how long they had been in the United States. Illegal immigrants in the country more than five years would be able to stay and earn citizenship; those here between two and five years would have three years to file paperwork for a temporary work visa, after which they would be eligible for permanent legal residency; and those here less than two years would have to return to their native country and go through normal channels if they want to return. It would create a guest worker program that could accommodate an additional 200,000 immigrants a year. It also would authorize increased border security and enforcement provisions, including a requirement for businesses to verify documents of all prospective employees through an electronic system managed by the Department of Homeland Security." (S. 2611, CQ Vote #157: Passed 62-36: R 23-32; D 38-4; I 1-0, 5/25/06, McCain And Clinton Voted Yea)

Sen. Clinton: Immigration Legislation Must Have A "Path To Legalization" For The 12 Million Illegal Immigrants Here.  "Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York said she was disappointed that the Senate did not move forward with its immigration bill and that the cornerstone of any future measure must be a 'path to legalization' for the 12 million undocumented immigrants already here." (Eunice Moscoso, "Democrats Promise Immigration Reform," Cox News Service, 6/30/07)

Sen. McCain Still Supports His Immigration Plan For A "Path To Citizenship." QUESTION: "But fundamentally, I'm wondering, don't you still have the same plan for a path to citizenship that you fundamentally held months ago?" MCCAIN: "Sure." (ABC/WMUR, Republican Presidential Candidate Debate, Manchester, NH, 1/5/08; www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LbTSe6uLqI)
ANNOUNCER:  "On voting against President Bush's tax cuts, they agree."

In 2001, Sen. McCain And Sen. Clinton Both Voted Against The $1.35 Trillion Tax Cut. The bill lowered marginal rates, eliminated the marriage penalty, and doubled the child tax credit. (H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #170: Adopted 58-33: R 46-2; D 12-31; I 0-0, 5/26/01, McCain And Clinton Voted Nay)

In 2003, Sen. McCain And Sen. Clinton Each Cast Two Votes Against The $350 Billion Tax Cut. The comprehensive bill lowered taxes by $350 billion over 11 years – including increasing the child tax credit and eliminated the marriage penalty. (H.R. 2, CQ Vote #179: Passed 51-49: R 48-3; D 3-45; I 0-1, 5/15/03, McCain And Clinton Voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #196: Adopted 50-50: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1, 5/23/03, McCain And Clinton Voted Nay)

ANNOUNCER:  "On imposing an additional 50 cents a gallon cost on gasoline, they agree."

McCain-Lieberman Would Dramatically Raise Taxes On All Carbon-Based Fuels, Like Gas For Your Car And Home Heating Oil. "What is not widely understood is that [Sen. McCain] is currently sponsoring legislation that, in the name of fighting global warming, would dramatically raise the tax on all carbon-based fuels, including gasoline, home heating oil, coal, and to a lesser extent, natural gas." (Roy Cordato, "McCain's Costly Tax On Energy," National Review, www.nationalreview.com, Posted 1/10/08)

American Council For Capital Formation Study: McCain-Lieberman Could Hike Gasoline Prices By 50 Cents Per Gallon.  "A study by an economic research institute, the American Council for Capital Formation, underscored these findings, estimating that under S. 139: … By 2020, gasoline prices would increase 30 to 50 cents per gallon."  (H. Sterling Burnett, "Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions," National Center For Policy Analysis, 11/18/04)

Sen. Hillary Clinton Has Co-Sponsored McCain-Lieberman. CLINTON: "And we were debating the McCain-Lieberman Bill, which I'm a proud co-sponsor, to try and do something with CO2." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Remarks At The 17th Annual Energy Efficiency Forum, Washington, DC, 6/14/06)

 

ANNOUNCER:  "On blocking conservative judges, they agree."

Sen. McCain Joined Democrats In The Gang Of 14 And Stopped Sen. Bill Frist From Banning Filibusters. "An effort that started as little more than hallway talk and phone conversations led to a last-minute deal May 23 that stopped Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's plans to engineer a ruling the next day to bar filibusters of judicial nominations. A group that became known as the 'gang of 14' – seven Republicans and seven Democrats promised to vote against any such change as long as Democrats swore off future judicial filibusters in all but extraordinary cases. That unified promise had the effect of denying Frist the votes he needed to ban the practice altogether." (David Nather, "Senate Races Against The Nuclear Clock On Judges," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 5/28/05)

Sen. Clinton Was "Certainly Supportive" Of The Gang Of 14. CNN'S JUDY WOODRUFF: "Some people have noted that you chose not to be part of the group that announced the compromise, that worked on the compromise. The Gang of 14. Should somebody make anything of that?" CLINTON: "No. I think that this was a process that a couple of my colleagues started, you know, some weeks ago after Senator Reid could not reach any understanding with Senator Frist. And I thought they were pursuing a noble effort. I didn't know whether they would be successful or not, but I was, you know, certainly supportive of their efforts to try." (CNN's "Inside Politics," 5/26/05)

ANNOUNCER:  "Even Bill Clinton says…"  FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON:  "'She and John McCain are very close.'"  ANNOUNCER:  "Don't we need a leader who agrees with conservatives?"  GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: "I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this message."

Former President Clinton: Sens. Clinton And McCain "Are Very Close." "'She and John McCain are very close,' [President Bill] Clinton said. 'They always laugh that if they wound up being the nominees of their party, it would be the most civilized election in American history, and they're afraid they'd put the voters to sleep because they like and respect each other.'" (Alexander Mooney, "Bill Clinton: John McCain And Hillary Are 'Very Close'," CNN's Political Ticker, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com, Posted 1/25/08)

Mitt on the Move!

FredHeads for Romney

Power

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/02/019710.php

One excerpt:

But voting on the basis of electability is often a fool's errand. Right now, Romney looks like a long-shot in November. He should be an attractive candidate -- smart, knowledgeable, good looking, extremely articulate -- but he's run into voter resistance even among conservatives because of his flip-flops, possibly his religion, and a general failure to connect. If he overcomes these problems and defeats McCain the rest of the way, then he'll have done enough to establish his potential electability to my satisfaction. If he doesn't, the issue will be moot.

Meanwhile, Republicans should not take too much comfort from McCain's performance in polls against Clinton and Obama this far from November. The McCain I saw in the California debate last week didn't look particularly electable. With the economy emerging as the overwhelmingly central issue in the campaign, with McCain's nasty streak increasingly on display, and with his reputation for straight-talk diminishing before our eyes, I'm not prepared to base a vote for the Senator on electability.

The decision thus comes down to policy and effectiveness. I give Romney the edge on both counts.

Mitt in Chicagoland!

Romney Rally in Illinois!

POTUS Leadership Index

From Havs

Did you guys catch the Townhall blog about this, by Novak?  http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/RobertDNovak/2008/02/02/bush_against_romney  This is something we need to push far and wide.  Bush says he isn't happy with Romney because he's too tough on the border.  One of the commentors at Michelle Malkin's blog said that Romney should say this in response:

"I found out today that President Bush may not support my candidacy, and the reason specifically is because I don't share his liberal views on immigration amnesty. He wants to make it easy on illegal immigrants to stay in the this country, as does Senator McCain who proved it with his amnesty bill in the senate, and I'm a strict reconstructionist on the issue of this country's sovereignty and right to keep its borders secure."

This would be huge if we could get this out.  For people who hate the illegal immigration plan that Bush, McCain, and Kennedy tried to shove down our throats this summer (which was a full 70% of the population of the US) this is as good as it gets.  Bush doesn't like him because he was against granting amnesty to millions?  Hallelujah, I want him!

Havs

Don't let them tell you Main was uncontested!

JOHN MCCAIN 2008 MAINE LEADERSHIP TEAM

Honorary Chair

Former Governor John R. McKernan

Co-Chairs
United Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine)
United States Senator Susan M. Collins (R-Maine)

Vice Chair
State Representative Josh Tardy (R-Newport)

Legislative Team
Representative James Annis (R-Dover-Foxcroft)
Representative Rich Cebra (R-Naples)
Representative Kathy Chase (R-Wells)
Representative Dean Cray (R-Palmyra)
Representative Phil Curtis (R-Madison)
Representative Harold Ian Emery (R-Cutler)
Representative Stacey Fitts (R-Pittsfield)
Representative Ken Fletcher (R-Winslow)
Representative Jeff Gifford (R-Lincoln)
Representative John McDonough (R-Scarborough)
Representative Everett McLeod (R-Lee)
Representative H. Sawin Millett (R-Waterford)
Representative Gary Moore (R-Standish)
Representative Kerri Prescott (R-Topsham)
Representative John Robinson (R-Raymond)
Representative David Richardson (R-Carmel)
Representative Wes Richardson (R-Warren)
Representative David Savage (R-Falmouth)
Representative Thomas Saviello (U-Wilton)
Representative Joseph Tibbetts (R-Columbia)
Representative Windol Weaver (R-York)

http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/25da61b1-7b70-4732-901a-642c966e1077.htm

Race is Tightening--New Movement!!!

GOP Dead Heat

Snap us out of the Blue State Blues!

Hello Illinois! Vote for Mitt!

Great Photo

Too Much Bunker Mentality

Forgive me - I don't step up in this group very often.  For the Article 6 blog to be maximally effective, it requires a certain aloofness.

 

But as I am reading through the blogs this morning, I am sensing too much resignation, too much sense that the rest of the nation just does not get it when it comes to Mitt, too much going through the motions.  In the emails there is too much talk of commitment and not enough talk of winning - fighting for the cause.

 

Friends, this is not over, Mitt Romney is not a loser and neither are his supporters.  Mitt Romney is THE inheritor of the Reagan legacy, and many of you are too young to really remember Ronald Reagan, but one thing overwhelmingly marked him - confidence and optimism.  Ronald Reagan simply knew that the American people would resonate to his message, and they did.  He even knew that when Gerry Ford beat him.

 

The Romney candidacy remains the leader and it is not playing catch-up.  The Romney candidacy carries the torch for greatest political coalition this nation has ever seen..  That my friends is a winner and as the supporters of that banner we should act and think like winners.

 

I hope you are not in this because of "commitments" - I hope you are in this because it is what is best, and if anything marks the United States it is her ability to somehow muddle into the best.

 

Fight hard - play fair - act like the winners you are.

 

John Schroeder
Salmon & Schroeder, Inc.
www.salmon-schroeder.com
(818) 249-9228
FAX: (818) 249-8081

Mitt On Demand

Well Mitt's got his work cut out for him going forward.  And we are committed to help out in anyway we can.  To that end, we've just released our new book "Mitt On Demand" which is a compilation of selected speeches, quotes and sayings by Mitt Romney.  The 143 page softbound book lays out in a condensed format Mitt's policy positions, etc.  We really want to see a surge of grass roots support for Mitt before Super Tuesday and think this book could be a good way to generate some needed excitement that the race is not over yet!  We would be pleased if you would feature the book and this link (www.MittOnDemand.com) on your Mittannica site and encourage your lists to buy the book or e-book and/or share it with any undecided's in your circles (or better yet) any McCain supporter.

Boyd & Holly

Florida Votes, We're Next!

Let the Sunshine!

Will be updating all day.

Trust

I've been trying to get down a series of posts that address the most common attacks on Mitt (flip-flopper, chameleon, can't be trusted, etc.).  These charges have not only been the biggest drag on Mitt's campaign, they seem to have become the a priori assumption whenever anyone talks about Mitt.  "Yeah, he's a flip-flopper, but he's still..."  This DRIVES ME INSANE.

So, pardon my not holding a candle to the other excellent writers who blog for Romney, but I've tried to make a few posts that people can easily point at when these charges are made.  It may be good if someone with a little more expertise and better familiarity with primary sources could do something similar.  I know Romney's campaign makes it a rule to ignore these charges because you don't want to let others define you, but I sense we're past that.  They've defined him, and there needs to be a more aggressive response.  What do you think?

Here's my post from today:

Have a look at the earlier posts in this series: 1, 2, 3, 4.

This post is about lies, damn lies, and statistics. It's about rhetoric, spin, and semantics. It's about the differences between saying something untrue, conveying something untrue, and plain old lying. It's about intentions, accusations, and hypocrisy.

The game of politics centers around "campaigning." This is just how it is. It's how it's always been. Some take issue with the process of touting your pluses and minimizing your minuses, but it's within the expected rules of the game. However, occasionally someone says something untrue. This can be anything from a genuine mistake to a boldfaced lie, but I suspect that it's usually less diabolical than people tend to play it.

Let me give you a list of some of the issues where Romney has gotten a lot of bad press. Most recently there was a tiff with an AP reporter in which Romney is said to have lied about having lobbyists in his campaign. There is the time Romney said he saw his father march with Martin Luther King Jr. There is the time Romney bragged about the NRA endorsing him (and don't forget his self-characterization as a "lifelong hunter"!). All of these have something in common: Romney was right to bring up his record, a record that supports his candidacy and his positions, but lost the chance to receive his due credit on the issues as the chattering focused more and more on a literal dissection of what he said rather than the substance of why he was saying it.

I could go down a laundry list of the times Romney's been blasted for misspeaking (often being labeled a liar rather than merely having made a mistake), but bickering about the actual words he used and their literal versus figurative definitions, the proper versus common use of words like endorse, and the like, will never arrive at the truth.

The truth is much simpler.

No matter how many lobbyists rub shoulders with Romney, his campaign is simply not dependent on them for cash or expertise in the way the other campaigns are (although both are accepted). Romney's family has long supported the civil rights movement. Romney had demonstrable approval from the NRA (whether officially or not) during his Massachusetts campaign and supports the importance of protecting the second amendment.

Is he guilty of exaggeration? Is he guilty of misstatements? Is he guilty of carelessness? Perhaps yes. But is he guilty of lying? Of outright deception? Of claiming to hold one position when he effectively holds another? No, despite that the media would much rather malign a candidate for his errors than honestly acknowledge that his record and positions have consistently supported the message he was trying to deliver.

This is not spin. This is not apologetics. This is just an assessment of the actual positions Romney holds, and his fallibility as a candidate who makes honest mistakes. The mistakes are honest because they have never changed his message one hundred and eighty degrees.

There is one more layer to this communication thing that demands mention. Romney has been criticized over the last few days by McCain for supposedly supporting a timetable of withdrawal from Iraq. McCain has also attacked him for supposedly supporting amnesty before he opposed it, as well as a big Michigan "bailout". Romney's positions on these issues differ from McCain's not just in substance but in style. Romney's message is always sophisticated and nuanced, as our Commander in Chief's understanding must be. McCain's message plays to the media with dogmatic oversimplification. It fits him well, because that's how he thinks. So, when Romney has had the courage to make careful distinctions, he has sometimes been attacked for "reversals" or for spinning things. Again, Romney's message has consistently been for responsible action by the U.S. in Iraq and in regard to illegal immigration, and no out-of-context testimonial by McCain can change that. The economic stimulus in Michigan is not a "bailout", but rather shows McCain's inability to understand the concept of research investment. Romney hardly needs a testimonial to his investment understanding.

At the end of the character assassination and name calling, Romney's key rebuttal to Huckabee's charges of dishonesty in a recent debate ring true: "facts are stubborn things." The truth is that in every case Romney has been accused of lying, the message he was intending to convey was based on the bedrock of record and fact.

Illinois Comes Into Play

Romney Comes to Chicago This Sat. 2/2

It's the economy...

Today, Governor Mitt Romney addressed members of the media about Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) McCain-Lieberman bill and the economic burdens this bill would put on Florida families.  Below are Governor Romney's remarks as delivered:
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/McCain-Lieberman_1.28
"On a very different topic, we're at a gas station.  And the reason for that is that I want to underscore the fact that Senator McCain's McCain-Lieberman would be a very expensive bill for the people of Florida.  By our calculation, a family of four would have to spend about an extra $1,000 a year if McCain-Lieberman became law.  And again that's because gasoline would rise in price by approximately .50 cents a gallon and natural gas would rise about 20 percent.  The burden on Florida homeowners would obviously be excessive.
"And what's particularly troubling about the bill is that the effect on the global environment would be negligible, and that's because the bill does not require other nations to participate in order for the regulation to be promulgated.  And the effect of that would be that high emitting industries would simply move from a country like ours that had these limits to a country like China that did not.  And the net effect would be that emissions had just moved from one country to another and also jobs had moved from one country to another.  And what is left behind in our country would be the burden of paying for the entire cost of this symbolic act.
"There's no question that symbols have value.  But a symbol that costs a family of four $1,000 in Florida is a symbol far too rich and is not something which makes common sense. 
"I would note that Senator McCain is noted for three major pieces of legislation.  I think all of them were badly flawed.  And if somebody wants to know where he would lead the country you simply need to look at the three pieces of legislation with his name at the top.  McCain-Feingold has not reduced the impact of money in politics, it has made it worse.  McCain-Kennedy is viewed by virtually all as an amnesty bill. And McCain-Lieberman would cost the families of America as much as $1,000 a piece.  All three are bills which evidence a lack of understanding of our economy, the very lack of understanding which Senator McCain has admitted on numerous occasions."

From Sean

I disagree with Senator McCain's dishonest characterization of Governor Romney's previous comments regarding Iraq and future plans.  It is too easy, and transparently cynical, to twist and distort someone's words or record.

I should note that Senator McCain himself has not always been wholly committed to keeping American troops in the field under combat conditions.  Although under differing circumstances, note his clear, public record comments below on Haiti and Somalia:

1994 — "The right course of action is to make preparations as quickly as possible to bring our people home. It does not mean as soon as order is restored to Haiti, it doesn't mean as soon as Democracy is flourishing in Haiti, it doesn't mean as soon as we've established a viable nation in Haiti, as soon as possible means as soon as we can get out of Haiti without losing any American lives."

1993 — "Date certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What's the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we don't do that, and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured, because we stayed too long, longer than necessary, then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home as quickly and safely as possible."

"Mr. President, can anyone seriously argue that another 6 months of United States forces in harm's way means the difference between peace and prosperity in Somalia and war and starvation there? Is that very dim prospect worth one more American life? No, it is not." -John McCain Senate Floor, 10/14/93

"There is no reason for the United States of America to remain in Somalia. The American people want them home, I believe the majority of Congress wants them home, and to set an artificial date of March 31 or even February 1, in my view, is not acceptable. The criteria should be to bring them home as rapidly and safely as possible, an evolution which I think could be completed in a matter of weeks.
Our continued military presence in Somalia allows another situation to arise which could then lead to the wounding, killing or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that.
I listened carefully to the President's remarks at a news conference that he held earlier today. I heard nothing in his discussion of the issue that would persuade me that further U.S. military involvement in the area is necessary. In fact, his remarks have persuaded me more profoundly that we should leave and leave soon.
Dates certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What is the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we do not do that and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured because we stay too long--longer than necessary--then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home quickly and safely as possible. . . .
I know that this debate is going to go on this afternoon and I have a lot more to say, but the argument that somehow the United States would suffer a loss to our prestige and our viability, as far as the No. 1 superpower in the world, I think is baloney. The fact is, we won the cold war. The fact is, we won the Persian Gulf conflict. And the fact is that the United States is still the only major world superpower.
I can tell you what will erode our prestige. I can tell you what will hurt our viability as the world's superpower, and that is if we enmesh ourselves in a drawn-out situation which entails the loss of American lives, more debacles like the one we saw with the failed mission to capture Aideed's lieutenants, using American forces, and that then will be what hurts our prestige.
We suffered a terrible tragedy in Beirut, Mr. President; 240 young marines lost their lives, but we got out. Now is the time for us to get out of Somalia as rapidly and as promptly and as safely as possible.
I, along with many others, will have an amendment that says exactly that. It does not give any date certain. It does not say anything about any other missions that the United States may need or feels it needs to carry out. It will say that we should get out as rapidly and orderly as possible."
-John McCain Senate Floor, 10/19/93

I will only suggest that perhaps Senator McCain needs to be careful about how he portrays others, as his own words could be subject to distortion also.

May we now focus on the great issues that lie before us?

"He destroyed it"

Article published Jan 24, 2008
Huckabee alienates GOP in Arkansas

January 24, 2008

By Stephen Dinan - LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Jake Files was a newly elected representative when all two dozen Arkansas House Republicans met for their first caucus in 1999. They had doubled their numbers in elections two months earlier, and were ready to join Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee in pushing for conservative government.

That was when Brenda Turner, the governor's chief of staff, entered.

"Just walked in, shut the door and said, 'There's two kinds of people in the world: those who are for Mike Huckabee and those who are against Mike Huckabee. I'll do everything I can to help the first group. I'll do everything I can to hurt the second,' " said Mr. Files, who left the legislature after two terms.

And that's the way it was.

"Not only would he not help you, he would go out of his way to do things in opposition to you," Mr. Files said.

For the 10 years he was governor of Arkansas, Mr. Huckabee was at war with much of his party.

Now that Mr. Huckabee is seeking the presidential nomination, many Arkansas Republicans warn that he could wage a bruising battle with the national party, too.

"One can hardly argue that the Republican Party has thrived," said former Rep. Jim Hendren, who was House minority leader and ran for state party chairman in a bitter 2001 race won by a Huckabee surrogate. "We thrived as we were an opposition party and standing on principles as the Republican Party. But unfortunately, when we got some power, particularly at the state level, we began to fight among ourselves."

The former Southern Baptist pastor-turned-politician took control of the governor's mansion in 1996 with expectations that he would lead the kind of Republican ascension in other states of the Deep South. But he left office last year by turning over the governorship to a Democrat and with Republicans bitterly divided over his legacy for his party.

"He destroyed it," said Randy Minton, a former state representative whom Mr. Huckabee worked to help get elected but who later clashed repeatedly with the governor. "We had one U.S. senator, we had two congressmen, at the tops we had 37 out of 135 legislators in the House and Senate. Now I think there's 32 in the legislature, we have no U.S. senators and we have one congressman."

In both on-the-record and private conversations with Republicans in Arkansas, the picture that emerges is a governor who succeeded at advancing his causes and was willing to fight anyone who didn't agree.

That matters because the next Republican presidential nominee will be tasked with trying to rebuild a congressional majority and stoke a Republican Party after eight volatile years under President Bush.

Like Mr. Bush, Mr. Huckabee achieved some early successes. By the beginning of 1999, when he was sworn in for his first full term, his party had gained nearly a quarter of the state's House, added state Senate seats and held the lieutenant governorship, one of the two U.S. Senate seats and half of the four congressional seats.

But also like Mr. Bush, who battled congressional Republicans on immigration reform and prescription drug coverage, Mr. Huckabee found himself fighting members of his own party.

'Shi'ites,' 'socialists'

Almost immediately after taking office from Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, a Democrat who resigned after federal fraud and corruption convictions, Mr. Huckabee campaigned for his first tax increase — one-eighth cent on the sales tax to dedicate to conservation projects. He followed up with both budget cuts and increases, but the net effect was nearly $500 million in new taxes and an accompanying rise in spending.

What followed were clashes over the growth of government and, as the issue heated up nationally, over immigration policy. Republicans and conservative Democrats wanted a crackdown on illegal aliens, but Mr. Huckabee resisted.

The war of words was just as harsh. In 1998, when he faced a primary challenger who said Mr. Huckabee lacked certain conservative principles, the governor replied that his opponents weren't really Republicans, but rather libertarians or independents.

By the end of his tenure, Mr. Huckabee was calling his Republican opponents the "Shi'ites" and they called him a "Christian socialist."

Arkansas Republicans said Mr. Huckabee was building an organization for himself, not a farm team for the party. He left many appointments of former Govs. Bill Clinton and Jim Guy Tucker in office, including some department heads who stayed through Mr. Huckabee's tenure.

They said no Republicans hold any of the statewide constitutional offices, and the state party chairman told the Associated Press last week that he doesn't expect to field a candidate this year to run against Sen. Mark Pryor, a Democrat.

"In the 10 years where the governor was the title head of the party, we actually took steps backwards," Mr. Files said, noting that Republicans were advancing in other Southern states. "The overall morale of the party did not take any of those same stages it did in the other states. It started plateauing and took a dive."

On the campaign trail

The campaign finance records for Conservative Leadership for Arkansas PAC, Mr. Huckabee's political action committee, also seem to bear out the charge that he was building his own organization.

Records kept with the secretary of state in Little Rock show that CLAPAC spent only a third of its money on candidates between 2001 and 2006, with the rest going to consulting, accounting and, in later years, travel and fundraising for Mr. Huckabee.

Mr. Huckabee gave contributions as well during those years to at least three Democrats. Given that $5,000 of CLAPAC's money came in a 2003 donation from the state Republican Party, that means some Republican money was used indirectly to aid the party's own opponents.

"Go out and ask those ladies at bake sales or out raising money if they thought that money would end up in the hands of Democratic candidates," Mr. Hendren said. "That's what drove us up a wall."

One Democrat who received CLAPAC money was Barbara Horn. Mr. Huckabee supported her even though a Republican planned to run for the same seat in 2000. The Associated Press reported that Mr. Huckabee's support for the Democrat chased the Republican from the race, delivering an open seat to the Democratic Party.

State Republicans repeatedly called that race demoralizing.

Mr. Huckabee's campaign denied charges from a host of Republicans that he aided Democrats over Republicans in other races.

"Governor Huckabee never gave money to a Democrat who had a Republican opponent," Mr. Harris said. "He did give to some conservative Democrats money in the primaries when there were no Republicans running in the general election."

Records for CLAPAC's activity in 2000 are missing from the secretary of state's office. The accounting firm Mr. Huckabee used said it couldn't provide records without the client's approval, and Mr. Huckabee's campaign didn't respond to requests to produce them.

In 2005, Mr. Huckabee registered another political action committee in Virginia, which has less stringent limits on campaign activity.

The stated goal of that PAC, Hope for America, was to aid state and local candidates nationwide. But records show it hasn't donated to a single candidate but instead has paid for Mr. Huckabee's consultants, travel and fundraising.

volatility

Today, Governor Romney addressed members of the media about the volatility in stock markets today, and the need for an immediate stimulus in the economy.  Below are excerpts of Governor Romney's remarks:
            http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/FL_Press_Conference_1.22
"I think people recognize now more than ever, that it makes a difference having a President who has actually had a job in the private sector.  And not just had a job there, but has worked for 25 years in the private sector, and then in the Olympics and the voluntary sector, and then in government.  I believe that experience is critical right now.
"We're all watching with great interest the developments of the stock market.  The stock market means a great deal to people living on fixed incomes that may have savings that are being affected by what's happening there.  They want to see greater stability.  But of course, more significant even than the stock market turbulence is the concern in the overall market, and the fear that we may head toward a recession.  It's important that we take very aggressive action to turn the market away from a recession, to turn our nation away from a recession.  That's why I've proposed a very bold economic stimulus plan.  I know that's why the Federal Reserve has taken very unusual action with regards to their rate cut today.
"There's a very decent concern about the implications of a recession and for that reason, my plan, as you know, calls for a three-part strategy to address a potential slowdown, or the slowdown itself, and that is it relates to help in housing to keep people in homes, help with individual incomes so people are able buy more and keep our economy going, and help with businesses so they purchase more capital equipment and therefore are putting in place the orders that will create more jobs."
…
"I do believe that Congress needs to act immediately.  My understanding is that the President is meeting with Congressional leaders today.  I hope Congress is able to move very aggressively, very quickly.  I like the proposals I made.  If there are others that have similar economic features, fine, but let's take action and do our best to tip the market and tip the economy rather, in the right direction."
…
"I think actually that what we're seeing in the stock market today is only one peek at what's been happening for some time in the overall economy, and that, is we have some intractable problems that Washington has been not been willing to solve.  And everything from reining in overspending and entitlements, as well as other government spending, to leveling the playing field in international trade, to getting us independent of our dependence on foreign oil, these challenges continue to grow and grow, and Washington has failed to take action.  And what you're seeing with the stock market reaction, here and around the world, is a recognition of these long-term features and an underscoring the need to take a different direction."
For more information on Governor Romney's economic stimulus package, please see:
http://mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Romney_Agenda_1.19

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA

Today, U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) announced that he is endorsing Governor Mitt Romney and his campaign for President of the United States.  Congressman Rohrabacher joins a strong Romney for President California team that includes Congressmen Howard "Buck" McKeon, John Campbell and Wally Herger.
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Endorsement_Rohrabacher
Making today's announcement, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher issued the following statement:  "Our country is facing great challenges.  Among the most ominous is illegal immigration, which has been permitted to spin out of control for the last decade and a half.  The safety of our country and the prosperity of our people are at great risk because of the magnitude of this problem.  Mitt Romney is the candidate I trust most to take the steps necessary to secure our borders and protect the American people.
"Governor Romney can also be expected to provide strong economic leadership because he is the only candidate with private sector experience and a successful track record of creating jobs and managing a major corporation.
"I'm confident in Governor Romney's character and commitment to the principals at the heart of the Republican party.  I cannot say that about the other candidates vying for the Republican nomination.  Mitt Romney is the best candidate available for our party's nomination, and I'm going to vote for and support him.  I encourage my fellow conservatives to do the same."
Welcoming Congressman Rohrabacher's support, Governor Romney said, "Throughout his time in Washington, Congressman Rohrabacher has stood strong for our Republican, conservative values.  He has been a steadfast voice for fiscal responsibility, border security and limited government.  These are values that our leaders in Washington cannot abdicate.  I am grateful that Congressman Rohrabacher will be joining our campaign, and I look forward to seeing him in California."
Background On Congressman Dana Rohrabacher:
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher Is Serving His Ninth Term Representing California's 46th Congressional District.  Representative Rohrabacher is the Ranking Member of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee of the House Committee on International Relations and is a senior member of the House Committee on Science.  He's noted for his principled decision-making, commitment to issues on illegal immigration, national security and responsible economic policy.  Throughout his years in Congress, Representative Rohrabacher has been a strong voice for fiscal restraint and has earned the praise of the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business.
Prior to his first election to Congress in 1988, Representative Rohrabacher served as Special Assistant to President Reagan and was one of the President's senior speechwriters.  In Congress, he has been a strong advocate for the principles of President Reagan.   Prior to joining Ronald Reagan's White House staff, he was an editorial writer for the Orange County Register.  He and his wife are the proud parents of triplets.

Citizens United Appeals Preliminary Injunction Denial to U.S. Supreme Court

Citizens United has appealed the denial of a preliminary injunction concerning its advertisements for the documentary film Hillary: The Movie (hillarythemovie.com) to the United States Supreme Court . Because the ads qualify as "electioneering communications" under McCain-Feingold, the FEC requires that Citizens United report its donors and put political disclaimers on the ads. Citizens United objects to these regulations because its advertisements are genuine issue ads protected by the First Amendment.
 
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied the requested preliminary injunction to allow Citizens United to run its ads without the McCain-Feingold reporting and disclaimer burdens on January 15. Citizens United filed its notice of appeal on January 16. This morning, the Court received Citizens United's Jurisdictional Statement (asking the Court to set the appeal for full briefing and oral argument) and a motion to expedite the appeal.
 
The appeal asks the Supreme Court to address three issues: (1) whether as-applied challenges are precluded by the Court's upholding of the disclosure requirements on their face in McConnell v. FEC (2003); (2) whether Congress may regulate as "electioneering communications" ads that the Court in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2007) said were not "electioneering"; and (3) whether the District Court erred in denying the preliminary injunction.
 
James Bopp, Jr., counsel for Citizens United states: "This case raises substantial issues. First, since the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the notion that its McConnell decision precluded as-applied challenges to McCain-Feingold, I believe the district court was wrong to assert that McConnell precludes this as-applied challenge to McCain-Feingold. Second, since the Supreme Court said that "electioneering communications" without an "appeal to vote" were not "electioneering," the government has no justification for regulating such non-campaign speech. So Citizens United should have gotten a preliminary injunction. I hope the Supreme Court will agree to full briefing on these substantial issues and decide the case by June."
 
A copy of the Jurisdictional Statement, along with other case documents, can be found on the website for the James Madison Center for Free Speech at www.jamesmadisoncenter.org .
 
James Bopp, Jr. has a national constitutional law practice.

GOP Illinois: Focus on the Race

UPDATE: Illinois already sensitive on the economy--we're close to the cellar in economic performance among the states. And to illustrate, bottom right front page story Chicago Tribune--homeless pets! (Rush is having fun with this today.)

Chicago Tribune story on the GOP race in Florida, with the print edition featuring a graphic of Mitt Romney's lead in the Rasmussen poll, as Rudy Giuliani drops. The key of course, is whether John McCain can attract conservatives, as this is an all Republican primary. RCP average here.

The same dynamic holds true for Illinois, as presumably the RINO mush-heads will vote for the Big O in the Dem primary leaving the GOP race to the rest of us. Thankfully. So while most of the Congressional pols in Blue State Illinois have endorsed Giuliani or McCain, and with Thompson presumably out of the race, Republican voters should come home to Mitt.

After Florida of course, this may all become more clear. Debate Thursday night on FoxNews.

P.S. I would also add, for what it's worth, Romney won the straw poll at the Illinois State Fair.

UPDATE: Jeff Fuller has the results of two online polls, from RedState and HotAir, showing Fredheads prefer Romney if they can't have Fred.

UPDATE: One other thought--you would think McCain, given his quirky character, would be attracted to the libertarian message articulated by Ron Paul, but in fact he leans toward big government solutions. Romney is the one who has the free-market track record and the affinity for free-market solutions, even in government.

UPDATE: Election guru Michael Barone would not bet $1,000 that Rudy wins Florida. (Could be he's just not a betting man, but he did at least feel strongly enough to make the statement.)

Related posts: NY Times Long Knives out for Rudy, Romney: Road-Tested

--crossposted at BackyardConservative

Please Help

I need a writing partner!

This is a rough draft, but I think I am on to some ideas that I want to complete, but I want someone else to take a look at it, and see if they want to add anything to it, or offer any suggestions.

There is a big fight going on over at National Review about who is most electable.

KLO says this;

Adler also makes the improbable claim that Romney has been revealed as a very weak candidate, even though the information is right there on The Corner that Romney has garnered more votes so far than anyone else in the race.

(Read more if you want to read a non-spell checked rambling rant on the National Review, and were Romney stands).

I like that. Looking at the total number of votes for a candidate. Of Course Romney leads in the elector count, and from just a practical standpoint that puts him in the lead.

But then do you look at states as wins? Romney and McCain both have two states. Romney has a win in Nevada and Michigan. But people say those were not contested as hard as the other states. Yes, but Romney was very close in New Hampshire were McCain won, and very close in Iowa, were Huckabee won. So you have the contested vs. non contested way of evaluating the "worth" of a "win" but if you look at who came in 2nd it changes things…

But people at the national review are trying to draw lessons from what these different states are telling us, but it could be very easy to draw the wrong conclusion.

I'm not just saying this because Romney is winning in this catigory, but I think it makes sense to look at the total number of votes… What do you think?

I think it is very silly to give McCain an important "win" in SC when there were 4 people with at least 15%, and McCain only got 33%.

Jonathan Adler asks, "Is Romney Viable?". He is a Rudy fan, and so I really don't think he has any room to talk. Jon says; "Romney leads in the delegate count, but .." BUT? BUT? Jon says; "Where Romney has made a major investment (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina) he has failed."

Really? Is coming in a very close second considered "failing"? Sure, most years it might be. But most years you have a vise president running for president, or a clear front runner. Do we really have to go over this again?

McCain Lost big time in Iowa, Michigan, and Nevada. Huckabee lost big time in Michigan, and New Hampshire, Nevada. But I'm probably not arguing with Jon about Huckabee. So this is were arguments really need to go somewhere. Jon says Romney is week. OK, Jon, so who is strong? You can't just make an empty argument that goes nowhere. How about telling us why someone else is stronger than Romney, if you can? But it is all kind of a waste of time. Does Romney's strong showing in Nevada mean that he is going to do well in California? Who freaking cares! Lets stop wasting our time understanding the votes of people who know very little about the candidates, or trying to predict the future, and start figuring out who IS THE BEST CANDIDATE, who will help our party move forward, win the Senate, House, and White house?

We get so lost in the trees that we can't even see the forest. We try to pretend that we can learn something from the un-educated voter, who knows very little about the candidates, their positions, what they are actually going to do, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. We can't pretend that we can get into the white house, and that is all that matters. If we send a guy in their, based on what un-educated voters think, all these things that people who are paying close attention to, will eventually come out.

You think people make fun of Bush? Just imagine looking at Rudy for 4 years doing that weird bug eyed thing that he does, were he bobs his head and opens his eye lids as far as they can go. I'm not saying this eye thing is important, but at least talk like this is focusing our attention on the candidates. The average voter is not that educated. We should not listen to them. We should re-watch all of the debates, and figure out who is the best candidate, who will help us win in the future, and be proud to be republicans. Because we are going to be stuck with these guys, and the un-educated voters, will find out all the things they wish we would have told them about, instead of us re-telling them, what we think their vote means.

We the voters have a right to be mad at the pundits when they focus on the wrong thing. Like when they focus on what they voters are telling us, when they should be giving us actual info about the candidates. But we have even more of a right to be mad, when they say things that are not accurate. Jon says; "…The blatant pandering to the auto industry in Michigan in a way that suggests some very unconservative views." Is that accurate? You know people listen to Jon, and he is an opinion setter. Perception is reality, and Jon and people like him might affect who becomes president. But we have a right to be angry if he gets us a president because he miss-lead us. But was it accurate of Jon to say that Romney "pandered" to people from Michigan when he said that he would fight for their jobs? Is it wrong for a president to say that he is going to fight for jobs? Is that pandering? Be honest Jon. I know you like Rudy, but don't be a journalistic hack. I know you want Rudy to win, and Romney to loose, but if you have to lie in order to win, you are going to end up with the guy who is not best.

So ANYWAY the case can be made, if you ignore the rest of the picture, and cherry pick information, about any of the candidates. So what is with these people, at National Review, who support a particular guy (like Rudy) being so intellectually dishonest in the pictures they paint? Is Jonathan Adler unaware of the arguments on the other side?
But the war of ideas goes on, and this is a great post:

I am an utter Mark Steyn sycophant, but… [Michael Graham]
…tell me again how McCain is winning?

As I predicted here at NRO, John McCain came out on top in South Carolina by getting the same 1/3rd of the vote in the Palmetto State that he got in New Hampshire and Michigan. But did he "win?"

In 2000, running against George W. Bush and the entire Carroll Campbell machine in South Carolina, John McCain got 42% of the vote, and 240,000 votes out of 573,000 or so cast.

Tonight, he got 33% of the vote in a field where his top challengers—Romney and Giuliani—aren't even running, and 135,000 actual votes. If just the same people who voted for McCain in 2000 had voted for him today, he would have won 50+% of the South Carolina vote. That would have been truly impressive.

Instead, John McCain LOST the support of 100,000 people—and he's the winner?

McCain had the same "success" in New Hampshire (McCain, 2000: 48%, 116,000 votes; McCain 2008: 37%, 89,000 votes) and Michigan (2000: 50%, 600,000 votes; 2008: 30%, 257,000 votes).

Yes, overall participation in the GOP primaries is down this year—a fact that should concern Republicans regardless of who they choose as their nominee. But that doesn't mitigate McCain's overall weakness. In fact, as the one person who's run for president before and who is touted as a crossover candidate with broad appeal, his slice of the electoral pie should have MORE impact as the number of challengers rises and the number of voters declines.

McCain is a weak candidate by any measure. Only once in his two presidential races has John McCain ever won a majority of the vote, and that was Michigan in 2000. He has yet to crack 40% of the vote this year, and he's done even worse among self-identified Republicans (as opposed to independents and crossover Democrats).

If you really want to see McCain's weakness, however, try this thought experiment:
It's October, 2008. America's economy is in a recession. People are demanding change and new ideas, someone to give them optimism and hope on domestic issues. On stage, facing off in their final presidential debate to discuss jobs, economic policy and hope for the future are John McCain and Barack Obama.

And be sure to imagine how it will look on television, and to people who don't really follow politics (they are, after all, the swing voters who will pick the next president).

Now, tell me again how any Republican won tonight…?

And this all got me thinking about how shallow they can sometimes be over there at the National Review. They are paid to tell us what to think, but they sit around trying to figure out what we should think based on how people vote. Should we really on how people vote to figure out what is the best thing for our party, or who is the best leader? Perhaps we should focus on the record and actions of those running for president, and stand by our principals and beliefs of who would be best for our country, and party.

Jon, and others at the national review keep going on and on about how Romney is not catching on in the South, and maybe we should not support Romney. Well do you think that it might actually be good for the republican party to have evangelicals have to choose between a religious minority and 4 more years of Clintons. There is all this weird calculation over their at NRO but very little talk about the long term future of the party, America, and I am disappointed with their short term focus on figuring out what voters think, who know very little about the candidates, instead of them spending the time to get to know the candidates, and telling us what we should be worried about if we have to look at them for 4 years, and think about what that will do to our party.