Aug 11, 2007

Romney critical of poll no-shows

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

August 11, 2007

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

Make Way for the Fred Heads

Romney Wins Straw Poll

Romney Wins Straw PollMitt 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."

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. 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?
  1. Are you confident the surge is going to work?
  2. Bill O Reilly
    1. Would you agree that we can't stop the Iraqi from killing each other ?
  3. 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?
  4. Chris Wallace
    1. Where do you disagree with Bush on Iraq ?
  5. Wolf Blitzer
    1. Do you have a time frame in mind?
  6. Hugh Hewitt
    1. Do you support sending more troops into that country?
  7. Robert B Bluey
    1. Do you think right now the US is losing the war in Iraq?
  8. Katherine Jean Lopez
    1. What did you make of the Iraq Study Group?
  9. Mary Katharine Ham
    1. What do you think about Harry Reid saying the war is lost ?
  10. Greta Van Susteren
    1. Would you have gone into Iraq?
    2. Do you think enough questions were asked in March of 2003 ?
  11. [1st Debate
    1. Should we be in Iraq when the American people do not victory is possible?
  12. ''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

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."

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 and his wife Ann
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.