|
|||||
     Founders
Managing Directors
Blogger Pool
|
 Saturday, March 24, 2007
Next week in DC is the Republican National Lawyers Association Conference, should be a good event. According to Jonathan Martin at The Politico “The Big Three” all have events planned for their own Lawyer groups.
Lawyers for Rudy: Rudy is hosting a free event at the Willard Continetal Hotel. The group is being hosted (and I assume led) by former Solicitor General Ted Olson, a huge supporter of Rudy’s. Lawyers for McCain Surprisingly the Straight Talk Express will hold its Lawyers for McCain event at the law offices of Greenberg Traurig. Recognize the name? McCain does from his Abramoff Investigations: In one case, Abramoff and partner Michael Scanlon hired a former lifeguard, David Grosh, to head a group billed as an international think tank — the American International Center — to receive payments. (I am sorry, but this really leaves me wondering about the Straight Talk Express) Despite this, some big names will be at the event: …Peter Wallison and A.B. Culvahouse, both of whom served as Counsel to Reagan, Nixon son-in-law/almost-HRC Senate opponent Edward Cox, former FEC Chair/campaign finance guru Trevor Potter and powerhouse communications attorney/ex-Nixon FCC chairman Dick Wiley of Wiley, Rein & Fielding (current White House Counsel Fred Fielding's firm). Lawyers for Romney Romney will hold his event at Hogan and Hartson. His cohost will include Cardenas, Comstock, Ginsberg, Norcross, Sekulow and Spies and a few others. Later on Team Mitt will be hosting a Young Professionals for Mitt gathering. Martin gives us the scoop on this too: On Tuesday, Team Mitt sends Political Director and former NRCC spokesman Carl Forti down from Boston to rally a group of Young Professionals for Romney over an Italian dinner. Brad Card, Andy's brother and a lobbyist with the Dutko Group, is pulling together Hill folks and Drew Maloney, another lobbyist and former Tom DeLay aide, is working the K St crowd. No doubt it will be an interesting week in DC. Thompson Mania has hit the airways, and he seems to be pulling some strong numbers out of the gate. A few places are trumpeting it as Romney is somehow falling down to Thompson, this is nonsense.
First the Iowa Poll: Iowa McCain - 29% (23) Giuliani - 29% (31) F Thompson - 12% (n/a) Romney - 10% (8) Gingrich - 7% (16) All others - 1% or less (Numbers in parenthesis are last months poll numbers) Yes, this poll has Thompson up 2 points over Romney at 12%. Note though that Romney went up by 2 points. Gingrich on the other hand takes dive from 16% to 7%!! Quite the drop. Giuliani drops by two, and McCain goes up by 6 (a good score for McCain. Now lets look at New Hampshire. New Hampshire McCain - 23% (26) Giuliani - 19% (27) Romney - 17% (15) Gingrich - 11% (10) F Thompson - 10% (n/a) All others - 2% or less Undecided - 15% McCain drops (3%) as does Giuliani (by a tremendous amount- 8%) Meanwhile Mitt gains again, and is a full 7 points ahead of Thompson. If you took this poll, Iowa and Ohio (the three polls people are citing doom for Mitt) Romney is at 11% and Thompson is at 8.5% with Romney gaining a 2.5% between Iowa and NH. The Big looser is Giuliani who seems to be shriveling up from a diet of no substantive ideas and an unvetted background. They also included useless TX and AR polls that tell us Huckabee is well received in Arkansas... Texas (no previous poll) Giuliani - 30% McCain - 20% Romney - 13% F Thompson - 12% Gingrich - 11% All others - 2% or less Arkansas (no previous poll) Huckabee - 40% McCain - 21% Giuliani - 12% Gingrich - 8% F Thompson - 5% Romney - 4% All others - 1% or less What my guess is (and only time will tell- not placing any bets) that Thompson will spell doom for Giuliani. Giuliani support can be classified as wide yet shallow- like a wading pool- good to get your feet wet, not enough to immerse yourself in. People who like Romney like him a lot. Giuliani plays the Law and Order Candidate, Thompson is the Law and Order star. Thompson is untested, and the things to keep in mind are that Thompson has virtually no accomplishments to his name, has changed a positions on abortion himself (a good thing, but something to note), was widely held to be a lazy senator (something no one has ever accused Mitt of) and left politics because he got bored and went to Hollywood. His current run bears many resemblances to Rudy a few months ago. I see Thompson as having two routes to take: Presidential hopeful Romney to visit College Station Link Romney issued the following press release recently:
Romney's obviously right on with this statement. He's commented time and again how we don't have 535 Commanders-In-Cheif, but one. This deplorable action by the Democratic congress was also weak too. If they really did want to take a stand against the Iraq war (part of their apparent "mandate" from the last election cycle) they should do something stronger than tie the President's hands over a year from now. It's just a symbolic stand . . . and the pork barrel vote buying in this bill is simply politics at its worst. I knew it was a bad bill when all the reporters and commentators on CNN were bashing the bill and laughing at the recent bad leadership from the Democratic congress. Good for Romney taking this stand and encouraging to veto this bad bill (which he will.) Jeff Fuller Friday, March 23, 2007
Apparently Iowa County Chairs!
This from IA Politic:
What doesn't surprise me? The numbers of the top three. Iowa GOP'ers like conservatives, and able minded ones at that. What does surprise me? Hagel and Cox. Lets discuss... WAIT!!! Before anyone complains the numbers add up to more than 100%, it's because this is who people are considering, they might be considering more than one. OK, now let's discuss... Mitt Romney won the SC Colleagiate Republican Organization's straw poll yesterday
Mitt Romney 53% Rudy Giuliani 19% John McCain 15% From Hotline This is a fun endeavor! I love to watch the ebb and flow of picking team players (or rather players picking a team).
Both Romney and McCain are making nailing down some great endorsements. The ground game is really taking shape. Since our last update two weeks ago here are some highlighted endorsements: Congressional Endorsements:
Bottom line is this: These three are going to have the cash at the end of Q1 but McCain and Romney have the strategy and legwork in place to make a showing. Rudy is just plain absent or silent?! Regardless... here are your charts:     Labels: endoresements, Endorse, Florida, John McCain, Michigan, mit romney, rudy, south carolina Thursday, March 22, 2007
Labels: video Governor Romney's Initiative To Protect American Workers: This was released by the Campaign today. One of things that distinguishes Romney from other candidates is that he has already begun to lay out concrete positions. Most of the other candidates are resting on the stilt legs of name recognition and image, with no sign of where they stand on important issues. Romney knows the presidential race needs to be raised to the level where policy initiatives are put forth and discussed at length, thus pushing our country in a better direction. I would take the time to check out www.mittromney.com. It provides a wealth of information on his positions and achievements. It is tech savvy, but more importantly its high on content, not just bells and whistles.  I just participated in an excellent bloggers conference call questioning Hugh Hewitt on his book "A Mormon in the White House?" (see link over the right). Hugh has hoisted and hosted a deluge of interviews on the book and is now channeling Henry Kissinger with a decisive rasp in the voice. (quick tip for Hugh from a family of professional singers: mug full of hot water, 3 tablespoons of apple cider vinegar, one heaping tablespoon of honey, balance to taste and sip).Great questions all around from the crowd. I asked about the discussion of religion inside and outside the campaign. Thomas Lifson, the editor of AmericanThinker.com had this to say recently: We are all going to be learning about the Latter Day Saints, should Mitt Romney gain the nomination. One side benefit of a Mormon candidacy for the president would be sustained attention to a fascinating religious group, comprising a distinctive thread in the American tapestry. To be blunt, this is a group of people who stick to traditional values and thrive brilliantly. Their success speaks for itself, epitomized by Romney himself. The more people who look closely at the Mormons, the better off we will be. There are implications to be drawn, and nothing teaches like example. Work hard, be thrifty, save, give, emphasize family, and have kids are values that transcend any one religion.Hugh has indicated that Romney gets to set the terms of the debate around his religion. To date the Governor and his campaign have avoided the detailed doctrinal questions around Mormonism (which in my estimation is a good thing). I asked whether or not a larger debate and dialogue is necessary outside the campaign to relieve the concerns (legitimate or otherwise) that people have about Mormonism. Hugh believes it would be a good thing and notes that it has already started. The appendix of his books is a transcript of a dialogue he had between two prominent theologians. Get the book and read it... it's very instructive. (I'm penning an article on this as we speak). Another question was raised about the Salt Lake City issue (dubbed the Linker issue). Namely, that if elected, Mitt will be beholden to the Mormon powers that be. The Damon Linker article (from the New Republic) was decisive in it's conclusion: absolutely yes! Of course, they probably never bothered to ask any Mormons about it. As a Mormon, I can tell you unequivocally that this is a false premise and notion. Two quick points. 1) The Articles of Faith are thirteen points that every Mormon memorizes in their youth. While not comprehensive, they represent the salient points of Mormonism and represent our core doctrines. Article 12 reads: This is not just an idle creed. I served my mission for the Mormon Church to Poland from 1990-1992. I was in one of the first groups of missionaries to be called to Poland (after the wall came down). Until that time the Communist government of Poland had allowed very few missionaries to enter the country. Up until 1989 there were only 4 representatives of the church in the country. Other faiths (such as the Jehovah's witnesses) did their proselytizing illegally behind the Iron Curtain. Mormons did not. Interestingly enough, this became a benefit for us in other former Soviet block countries as governments gave us more leeway on land leases and missionary permits than other evangelizing groups because we had respected their bylaws in previous years. This creed is also why the Church submitted to the congressional decrees baning Plural Marriage in the late 19th century. In short, we obey the laws of the land. 2) The New Republic also failed to ask Harry Reid about this. Here's an interesting story you may not know. In the spring of 2006, the LDS Church took the rare (if not unprecedented) move to have Mormon Bishops across the country read a statement to their congregations supporting a marriage amendment. Then (in a very unprecedented move) the Church sent one of their Senior Apostles, Elder Russell M. Nelson, to appear next to Senator Allard in support of the vote and urged members to call their Senators and express their opinion.  Elder Nelson in D.C. last summer Credit: Meridian Magazine Meanwhile, down the hall, devout Mormon Harry Reid was mustering his troops to oppose the amendment. Was Harry Reid later reprimanded or excommunicated? No. That about settles the issue in my mind... I'll have a lot more to say in coming months. In short, just know that Mitt Romney is as independent as John F. Kennedy from the supposed binding grasp of his religious ecclesiastical authority. Labels: book, damon linker, elder nelson, hugh hewitt, mitt romney, Mormon, mormonism (I posted this yesterday at www.race42008.com, as a rebuttal to NRO editor Deroy Murdock, who posted a piece on Race42008 full of factual misrepresentations concerning Romney. It should be noted Deroy is an ardent fan of Giuliani and a less ardent fan of the truth.) Deroy, after reading your post, I decided I wanted to address some of the inaccurate facts you present. Needless to say as an unabashed Mitt supporter I see numerous problems in a Mitt-Hitt piece written by an unabashed Rudy supporter. (Not to mention that your piece is just a regurgitation -- really a "cut and paste" -- of an old piece we've seen in other places.) Here is where you go wrong (hope this post isn’t too long): 1. Regarding Bopp: You said: “I don’t know yet about Romney,” Bopp admitted to Politico.com’s Jonathan Martin on February 21. “I’m not really sure where [abortion] will ultimately fit in his agenda. He’s still on a journey.” Whoops! Maybe you missed the comments Bopp left here at our very own www.race42008.com The last four paragraphs of Johathan Martin’s blog combines answers to several questions to me creating the erroneous impression that I am uncertain about Romney’s pro-life position. I am not. To the question: “will any of these candidates really advocate an end to abortion or were they just paying lip service to an important issue,” my view is that “Romney is sincere about advocating an end to abortion — he is not paying lip service to it.” If I had been asked further about this, I would have said that he will promote and sign pro-life legislation, oppose and veto pro-choice legislation (as he had done as Governor) and appoint strict constructionist judges. My statement about Romney in the last sentence of the Martin’s blog (which is correctly viewed by commentators here as “strange,” “odd,” and “bizarre,” if made to the question “is he paying lip service” to it) was about where does the abortion issue fit in his agenda, in other words what priority would he give it, and I think that it is important now and is growing in importance to him (that is the “journey” I was referring to). I believe your original article appeared on March 6th. Don’t you think if you were going to use the quote again - the honest thing would have been to included this update, instead of presenting it as fact, cut-and-paste? 2. Campaign Finance: What do your points have to do with anything McCain-Feingold oriented? For the Myth vs. Fact on Romney’s CFR stance see here. 3. Guns: You wrote: Governor Romney signed the first statewide assault-weapons ban in 2004. He also bragged that his support for such gun-ownership restrictions as the Brady Bill and the federal assault-weapons ban was “not going to make me the hero of the NRA.” Really, at some point you should just write in your blog you only post half-truths. No mention of Romney’s “B’ rating from the NRA while a governor. No mention of your candidates gun-grabbing tendencies. No mention of this or this. It would have also been nice had you explained that the Massachuset’s Assault Weapons ban also had some great pro-gun measures in it: The new law also makes a number of improvements to the current gun licensing system, including: It also would have been nice had you noted that Romney still stands behind Assault Weapons ban. Nothing has changed. 4. Gay marriage: Romney calls himself a “vehement” foe of gay marriage. “From Day One, I have opposed the move for same-sex marriage, and its equivalent, civil unions,” Romney told South Carolina Republicans on February 21, 2005. Did you even think about what you just wrote? Romney just stated he chose civil unions only because it was that or gay marriage -- not because he supports civil unions. A comment posted on this site might be instructive for your next hit piece: An initial bill came through the legislature, attempting to ban both gay marriage and civil unions, but was unable to get serious support. So people proposed a bill which allowed civil unions, which Mitt initially opposed. Finally he agreed to support the effort saying, that he only supported civil unions if the only alternative was gay marriage. When it quickly became apparent that the legislature was nowhere near eager | ||||
Show/Hide 0 Comments | Post a Comment