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.

From the bard

In the South Carolina Debate, when asked about the recent encounter
with the Iranian navy, Huck made the statement effectually warning
others to not mess with the "most powerful military the world has ever
known" He then said that if they do engage us, take a long look at the
gunboats because their next view will be of the "gates of hell"
.
It may have curried an applause from an emotionally charged audience,
but there are a few assumptions here that really bothered me.

Firstly, It is assumed that to fight against the U.S. is to sin
against God. So either God is an American or he is on their side
because the Americans are "good"

This is very close to the prevailing sentiment of Roman goodness
( regardless of the rampant licentiousness and greed) that was extant
during those final years leading up to the fall of Rome. There was an
'us' vs 'them' sentiment also between east (asiatic) and west (greco-
roman) that during the decline was used as a force to try to unify
roman citizens because loyalty to Rome seemed to be crumbling as fast
as their morality. Each side felt that the fastest way to unify the
people was to oppose a negative outside force... so they re-created
the other as the devils to be opposed.

I see the same blind force of 'us' vs 'them' (eastern vs western)
being used today and in that statement as an ignorant banner to rally
behind. It is an unsettling comparison to me.

It is also an unsettling assumption to me that after the magnificent
expense of the current conflicts that we will continue to have the
"most powerful military the earth has ever known". I really don't
think we are in the position that we want to be issuing such
inflammatory challenges for the enemies of the U.S. (whoever they are)
to take us up on.

Well, I hope that wasn't too hard to follow...It's finally good to
have it all said!

On to Florida

http://floridaformitt.blogspot.com/

Governor Mitt Romney and Florida

Can someone help me keep this Florida page updated?

Romney in the Florida News

• Feb 06, 2007; Romney Heeds Call Of Florida
• Apr 24, 2007; Romney Stresses Conservative Values In Speech To Florida GOP Lawmakers

Press Releases

• Mar 28, 2007; Governor Mitt Romney Names Former Secretary of State Glenda
• Mar 28, 2007; Jacksonville Leaders Endorse Governor Mitt Romney
• Feb 22, 2007; Governor Mitt Romney Names Florida Statewide Finance Committee
• Feb 01, 2007; Governor Mitt Romney Announces Expanding Florida Field Team

 

 

Nevada

Throughout the state of Nevada this morning, people gathered at their local caucus site and cast their vote for change in Washington.  With this important victory in the heart of the West, Governor Romney will continue traveling across the country calling for change in a Washington that is fundamentally broken.  Governor Romney issued the following statement concerning his victory in Nevada:
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Nevada_Victory
"Today, the people of Nevada voted for change in Washington.  For far too long, our leaders have promised to take the action necessary to build a stronger America, and still the people of Nevada and all across this country are waiting.  Whether it is reforming health care, making America energy independent or securing the border, the American people have been promised much and are now ready for change.
"The need for change is even more apparent today as our economy faces challenges both here at home and abroad.  For decades, we have talked about the long-term economic challenges confronting our country but still the tax burden is too high, business is stifled by regulations and more money goes to defending against junk lawsuits than promoting research and innovation.  Now, Washington must act and take the steps necessary to strengthen our economy.  With a career spent turning around businesses, creating jobs and imposing fiscal discipline, I am ready to get my hands on Washington and turn it inside out."
And here are some fast facts and demographics information on Nevada:
 
Swing state: Nevada is a key swing state that has been decided by 4 percentage points or fewer in each of the last four general elections.
 
General election: Winning presidential candidates have carried Nevada in every election since 1976, and in 23 of the last 24 presidential elections.
 
Large Hispanic block of voters: Nevada is the first GOP primary state with a significant Hispanic population—10% of all votes cast in 2004 were by Hispanic voters, and the number of Hispanic voters will likely be even higher this year. 
 
Fastest growing state in the nation: According to the US Census Bureau, Nevada is the fastest-growing state in the nation—its population grew 2.9 percent in the past year, and has more than doubled since 1990.  By 2030, Nevada is projected to have almost as many residents as Iowa and New Hampshire combined.
 
Demographics:
The median household income in Nevada is $52,998, slightly above the US average of $48,451 (Census Bureau)
19.1% of Nevadans were born outside the US, significantly higher than the nationwide average of 12.5% (Census Bureau)
12% of Nevada voters say they are "white conservative Protestants" (2004 VNS Exit Poll)
By comparison, just 7.4% of Nevada residents belong to the LDS Church (Churches and Church Membership in the United States, 1990)
Nevada ranks 47th in the US in percent of married couples as a proportion of all households, at 47.4%, compared to the nationwide average of 49.7% (Census Bureau)