Great article in the WSJ on Romney. Here's a quick excerpt:

Having established his biography, he turns without pause to the question, which he asks himself, "Why am I running for president?"

The answer to this question is as abstract as his overture was personal. The "I" in the question seems to disappear: "I think what America faces now are extraordinary challenges, which, if we deal with appropriately, will allow us to remain the world's military and economic superpower for an indefinite period of time."

Mr. Romney does then introduce a personal element, but it's not his own person. "If we instead take the course that Hillary Clinton would prescribe," he warns, "it would lead to America becoming the France of this century--having started as a superpower, ending up as a second-tier power."

Those challenges include: "global jihad" and "the emergence of Asia as an economic challenge." On the domestic front, he lists: "entitlement-driven financial distress," "overuse of foreign oil" and "the inability of our school system to prepare our kids for the jobs of today, let alone tomorrow." To that, Mr. Romney adds, "the inability of the health-care system to rein in the explosive growth in costs." Needless to say, he thinks "we have a good prospect of solving all of them and remaining the world's power."

Those, then, are the problems that, in his word, "drive" him. And it's a pretty good list. But rather than explain why he is the person to solve them, Mr. Romney shifts gears to talk about himself in another sense.

The recent reporting that James Dobson was about to throw his support behind Mike Huckabee set off a firestorm of conjecture about how it would effect the race. Now that the reporting appears to have been utterly mistaken, it seems to me that this is a good example of over eagerness to find a story.

Another good example is the recent Ron Paul fundraising drive. Consider this quote:

"Paul now holds the record among Republican White House candidates for fundraising on a single day, according to the Associated Press."

Anyone who has been following this race for a while realizes that Ron Paul did not even get within a million of Mitt Romney's one day total back in January.

Don't miss this summary of Rudy's Immigration Record

"YOU'RE ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WE WANT IN THIS CITY"
Mayor Giuliani & Sen. Clinton Support Sanctuary For Illegal Alliens

"Giuliani's newfound border-security zeal is intended to blunt criticism by GOP rival Mitt Romney of Rudy's pro-sanctuary record as New York mayor. Giuliani has issued Clintonian denials that he supported sanctuary. But the record is clear." (Michelle Malkin, Op-Ed, "Sanctuary Nation Or Sovereign Nation?" National Review, 8/15/07)

Mayor Giuliani Ran New York City With A Sanctuary State Of Mind:

As Mayor, Giuliani Actually Invited More Illegal Immigrants To Come To New York. "Mr. Giuliani said, 'If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city. You're somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being like a fugitive, which is really unfair.'" (Deborah Sontag, "New York Officials Welcome Immigrants, Legal Or Illegal," The New York Times, 6/10/94)

- ABC News: "Giuliani Inherited The [Sanctuary] Policy, He Reissued It And Seemed To Embrace It." "New York became a sanctuary city, where illegal immigrants enjoy some measure of protection, through an executive order signed by Mayor Ed Koch in 1989, five years before Giuliani became mayor in January 1994. But if Giuliani inherited the policy, he reissued it and seemed to embrace it." (Jake Tapper and Ron Claiborne, "Romney: Giuliani's NYC 'Sanctuary' For Illegal Immigrants," ABC News, 8/8/07)

Both Sen. Hillary Clinton And Mayor Giuliani Defend Sanctuary Cities:

Sen. Clinton Recently Defended New York's Sanctuary Policy, Saying, "I Don't Think There Is Any Choice." MSNBC's TIM RUSSERT: "But you would allow the sanctuary cities to disobey the federal law?" SEN. CLINTON: "Well, I don't think there is any choice." (MSNBC, Democratic Presidential Candidate Debate, Hanover, NH, 9/26/07)

Mayor Giuliani Has Defended His City's Sanctuary Policy, Saying, "'The Choice Becomes For A City What Do You Do?" "'The reality is that they are here, and they're going to remain here,' Mr. Giuliani said of the children. 'The choice becomes for a city what do you do? Allow them to stay on the streets or allow them to be educated? The preferred choice from the point of view of New York City is to be educated.'" (Eric Schmitt, "Giuliani Criticizes G.O.P. And Dole On Immigration," The New York Times, 6/7/96)

Both Sen. Hillary Clinton And Mayor Giuliani Support Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants:

Sen. Clinton Supports 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)

Mayor Giuliani, To Illegal Immigrants: "If You Want To Work, Pay Your Fair Share And We'll Sign You Up." "In response to a question by Richard Pope, 75, about the 12 million illegal immigrants already here, Giuliani said, 'I would say come forward, get your ... tamper-proof ID card, get photographed and fingerprinted, and we will check you out.' He added, 'If you want to work, pay your fair share and we'll sign you up.'" (Tom Brune, "Giuliani Vows To End Illegal Immigration," [New York] Newsday, 8/15/07)

- Mayor Giuliani: Give A Path To Citizenship To Illegal Aliens Who Have Not Committed Other Crimes. "Mr. Giuliani said the rest of the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens already here can gain a path to citizenship after a waiting period if they register and learn English. Those key elements generally track President Bush's immigration bill, which was defeated in the Senate earlier this year." (Stephen Dinan, "Giuliani Eyes Citizenship Path For Illegals," The Washington Times, 8/15/07)

- "Rudy Giuliani Would Allow Most Of The Estimated 12 Million Illegal Immigrants In This Country To Stay, Work And Even Become Citizens – Provisions That GOP Hardliners Blast As 'Amnesty.'" (Tom Brune, "Giuliani Vows To End Illegal Immigration," [New York] Newsday, 8/15/07)

Labels: Immigration, rudy giuliani

Interesting quote from Giuliani today:

In speaking about Islamic Terrorism, Giuliani said "This country has never, ever, I believe, gotten in trouble by exaggerating a threat," he said. "We've gotten ourselves more into trouble when we underestimate a threat."

While I can understand that Giuliani and Romney, as well as others, agree that we should have an appropriate appreciation for the threat we face in Islamic Terrorism, NEVER, EVER gotten into trouble by exaggeration is a pretty definitive statement that would fail reasonable scrutiny. I'm going to nominate the Gulf of Tonkin incident as a counter example.

I have been absent recently (surely not conspicuously) because I have been engaged in back-to-back jury trials. Alas, I will be starting another one after Veteran's Day as well. I just wanted to take this opportunity to issue a challenge to Ron Paul. I like to talk about him from time to time because he has so many lackeys trolling the net looking for references to him, which helps to increase our website traffic.

The Ron Paul Challenge:

I have the distinct impression, Dr. Paul, that you are hijacking the Republican primary process in order to establish yourself as a third party candidate. In fact, I see no indication that you have any plans to concede defeat when Romney or anyone besides you wins the nomination. If you were to run as a third party candidate, as you did against George Bush 41 in 1988, I believe it might very well be disastrous to our party and our country because you may pull votes from our candidate in what may be a very close election.

I called your campaign and was told by one of your staffers that you are on record saying you have no plans to run as a third party candidate at this time. Frankly sir, that's not good enough. If my wife was headed to Las Vegas with some friends and I asked her to be faithful while she was gone, I wouldn't be satisfied if she told me she has no plans to be unfaithful at this time.

Are you going to be faithful to the Republican party?

If you are, I urge you to make a public statement to that effect. Try something like this. "I, Ron Paul, have been treated generously and graciously by the Republican Party. I have been allowed to participate in their debates and to increase my name recognition thereby. I have been allowed to run for many years with an "R" by my name in Texas, which was certainly a lot better in that state than the "L" I used to run against George Bush. In recognition of the support I have received from the Republican party, I hereby promise not to run as a candidate for United States President if I am not nominated as the Republican presidential candidate."

There's a lot out there today about South Carolina, and how it is changing for Mitt.

First, this piece by John King over at CNN:

Some excerpts from the transcript:

That Romney is competitive here impresses people like Spartanburg County Republican Chairman Rick Beltram, who credits Romney with patiently and methodically answering his skeptics and addressing his vulnerabilities...

"If you look at how he has performed in the last six months versus all other candidates, he has made amazing progress going forward," Beltram said...

The results: He leads in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, is ahead or in a dead heat with Giuliani in Michigan (Romney' birth state), and is betting early wins would give him the momentum for what could be a decisive victory once the calendar shifts south to South Carolina.

Second, Jonathan Martin has a piece out today about the changing demographics and politics of South Carolina. It it he sees South Carolina placing more and more emphasis on fiscal conservatism and national security, with slightly less focus on social conservatism. He says that this reflects why Romney and Giuliani are so competitive there. He notes:

But the shift also has the potential to help Romney.

None of the Republicans who showed for his rally cared a whit that he was Mormon — as might have been the case in the “old” South Carolina.

Rather it was his promise to restrain spending and patriotic fervor for American strength that resonated.

“Where we have really lost faith with the party faithful is on fiscal issues,” said Warren Tompkins, a veteran South Carolina GOP strategist and Romney’s top consultant in the state.

“There’s a lot of disillusionment with spending.”

But it’s more than that, Tompkins argued. South Carolina Republicans, like those around the country, have been turned off by the scandals in the nation’s capital as well.

“That plays to Romney’s strength. He’s the personification of family values and, as a businessman, the personification of fiscal conservatism.”

Third, Noam Scheiber at TNR asks whether Romney is running away with the nomination:

For all the attention Rudy Giuliani got with that Pat Robertson endorsement earlier this week, the numbers increasingly suggest Romney is going to be the GOP nominee. According to Pollster.com, Romney's up 14 points in Iowa (28.6 to Huckabee's 14.8; Rudy is third at 13.7), has a steady and slightly widening lead in New Hampshire (28.8 to Rudy's 21.4), and, perhaps most interestingly, has begun to surge in South Carolina lately (he's now in a close third at 16.1, behind Thompson's 18.9 and Rudy's 19.8; Romney was languishing around 10 percent there only a few months ago.) Michigan, too, is looking better and better for him. Pollster.com shows Romney in second with 19.5 to Rudy's 21.7, but Rudy has been trending down there for the last several months, while Romney has been trending up.

He also lays out some possible ways to derail Romney's nomination, but finds all of them unlikely.

Finally, not specific to South Carolina, Micheal Luo over at the NYT has this news flash: Romney is optimistic:

Each of the leading Republican contenders has sought to channel in some way the shiny optimism that helped make Ronald Reagan, who famously campaigned on the slogan that it was “morning again in America,” so popular. But it is Mr. Romney who has most thoroughly incorporated such sunbeamy phrases and anecdotes into his repertory on the stump.

Hey, yo.

I decided to start a weekly writing, in addition to my other writings, that consists of a collection of thoughts about the election, politics, and other topics that I consider relevant to the readers of this site. In other words, I'm just gonna shoot the breeze, as well as add some humor and a bit of silliness. I'm intending this to be interactive, so I would ask that contributers and viewers of this site comment and add to the discussion.

Also, I will add the disclaimer that the opinions and statements contained in this and subsequent "Hey, Yo" writings, while being spot-on, are solely the responsibility of this author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the MyManMitt or other contributers to this site.

Hey, yo.

Several interesting things were said during the course of a conversation I had with a high-ranking member of the Huckabee campaign. At one point this person claimed, "He's ahead of Romney in Iowa," and that its "pretty sad, that you'd go for a Mormon". At this point, I'm wondering the following things:

1- Did I miss the poll that contradicted the latest Zogby, ARG, Strategic Vision, Rasmussen, Newsweek, University of Iowa, InsiderAdvantage, and Des Moines Register polls? Or is the ability to read not one of the requirements for employment with the Huckabee campaign?

2- I wonder if that bigoted anti-Mormon attitude is limited to this individual or if it is shared by other members of the campaign staff.

Hey, yo.

I don't know about you, but I've had enough of the "How can you vote for a...?" conversations. Shouldn't the conversation be based on the person's qualifications, rather than a label? Basing the argument on a label shows that you really don't have an argument. To demonstrate the futility of this, as well as to add some humor to the discussion, I've decided to make a list of "How can you vote for a...?" questions pertaining to some of the candidates. I will post that list in the next installment of "Hey, Yo". In the meantime I'd ask that you, the reader, contribute. You can either post a "How can you vote for a...?" response here, or email me at agulbransen@gmail.com. I will compile the best responses and post them in the next edition.

Hey, yo.

Random Observation: I was at the grocery store the other day and noticed the employees taking the Halloween items off of the shelves and replacing them with Christmas items. I noticed this in several other stores. Are we skipping Thanksgiving this year? Or has Thanksgiving simply become Christmas, Part 1?

Until next time...

MyManMitt.com and Race42008 team up to bring you an exclusive interview with Mitt Romney.


MyManMitt and Race42008.com are pleased to provide you the following interview with Gov. Mitt Romney.

Gov. Romney was gracious in taking time from his hectic schedule on the campaign trail in Connecticut to speak with Kavon Nikrad, Justin Hart, Jason Bonham, and MattC.

In this interview, Gov. Romney discusses his plan for defusing the Iranian nuclear crisis, reforming the federal government from the top down, providing relief to the African Continent, and how his national health care plan differs from that which was enacted in Massachusetts.
____________________________________________

Kavon W. Nikrad: It seems that in dealing with the Iranian nuclear crisis, the U.S. is forced to choose between different degrees of loss; or perhaps instead, we are in search of the choice in which we lose the least. On one hand, do nothing and the mullahs gain nuclear weapons; act militarily and we at minimum risk enraging a generation of young Iranians that may have overthrown the current regime eventually; and at worse start WWIII. Do you feel there is a scenario where the U.S. can “win”?

Gov. Mitt Romney: Well, I was in Israel early this year and spoke at the Herzliya Conference in Tel Aviv and laid out a seven-point strategy to convince Iran to abandon nuclear ambition and to instead pursue a path towards prosperity and peace. And that plan has at its heart much tougher economic and diplomatic sanctions against Iran during a time when its pursuing nuclear technology. I also believe that we should market democracy much more clearly to the people of Iran and we should make them painfully aware of the tragic course that a nuclear nation is pursuing.

Specifically, becoming a nuclear nation puts them very much at risk. Because as a nuclear nation, there is risk that fissile material that they develop would fall into the hands of terrorists, or others who would use it; and the civilized world will respond not just against the nation or the entity that uses that weapon, but also to the nation that supplies that fissile material. So I believe that it is very much in our interest to communicate these things and to show the world’s displeasure at Iran’s nuclear ambition.

And finally, of course, our military option must be one that we hold ready and that we are willing to take.

Justin Hart: Governor, you’ve spoken on numerous occasions about performing a top to bottom review of the government, an audit as you put it. What will that process look like, what will you be looking for as you conduct the audit, and what do you think you will find?

Gov. Mitt Romney: Well, first of all the people that I would bring together would not be a group of government bureaucrats but instead individuals from outside government who would take review of a particular agency or department or program area and look at all of the spending which we do in that area, all of the agencies that participate in that area, the programs that are focused upon it and we would evaluate the effectiveness of each of those programs, the effectiveness of the dollars spent, determine if there is some unintended by-product either good or bad that are coming from the agency or from the program. And on that basis we would rank/order those programs that should be eliminated, those that out to be expanded, and those that ought to be consolidated into others.

Right now, for instance, in an area like economic development there are some 342 different programs. We really don’t need that many. We ought to find a way to streamline and simplify, eliminate overhead, eliminate bureaucracy and make Washington more responsive to the needs of the people.

Matt C.: You stated a couple weeks ago that you represented the “Republican Wing of the Republican Party”, echoing Howard Dean’s statements in 2004. Could you first explain what you mean by that, and secondly, in hindsight, do you have any regrets saying that seeing the storm of attacks it brought you from Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, and others?

Gov. Mitt Romney: Well, actually the quote’s not quite accurate – which is, I said that I believe we do need to represent the Republican heartland or Republican base vote and that’s not just me, but it’s all of those that are running for office. I’m certainly not the only one that represents, if you will, the Reagan coalition but I’m one of those that does. And I do believe that to win the White House it is essential that we bring together the three branches of conservatism that Ronald Reagan assembled for his great victory – and that is social conservatives, economic conservatives, and foreign policy conservatives. I think if we are missing one of those three branches, we will not be successful in winning the White House.

So, like the others who are fighting for the nomination and establishing our bona fides, I think it’s essential to bring that group together, and I intend to speak on those topics and to try and build my support – I know the other fellows are doing the same thing – and ultimately the people will have their choice as to who they think is best able to represent those values of social, economic, and foreign policy conservatives.

Jason Bonham: A lot of America’s foreign policy focus is based on the War on Terror and European relationships. You have also specifically highlighted a need to take China more seriously. The U.S. and the UN have a past of ignoring serious problems in Africa including genocide. What are your views on the importance of African concerns to our foreign policy and what specifically would you do address these as president?

Gov. Mitt Romney: Well you make a very good point, which is that we as a public tend to focus on one hot spot at a time. And perhaps even our politicians do the same. A president and a nation must focus on all the areas of the world and understand how those areas are developing in ways that might encourage peace and stability or ways which might distract from them.

In my view it’s important for us to consider Africa on the basis of many issues. One of course is the tragic human condition of many in Africa who are subject to diseases such as AIDS, Malaria and others. A second aspect of our concern in Africa has to relate to the genocide occurring in Sudan, and then another area of concern would certainly be the spread of radical Jihadism. Whether it’s in Egypt, Algeria, Nigeria, Tanzania, Kenya, throughout Africa there are efforts on the part of radical jihadists to overthrow moderate modern governments. So we as a nation must join together with other civilized nations to help strengthen Africa so that it can reject the extreme and so that it can overcome the profound humanitarian crises which are upon it.

It is unfortunate that the United Nations has been unsuccessful in fulfilling its mission. The United Nations has not been able to stop genocide, has not stopped war, has not stopped the spread of diseases like AIDS. And so I believe it’s gonna’ take free nations coming together, working together on a global basis -and particularly with regards to a place like Africa- to help support moderate people so they can reject the extreme within them and so that we can combine to stop the spread of radical-violent-Jihadism.

Kavon W. Nikrad: Perhaps the signature accomplishment of your time as Governor of Massachusetts was enacting Massachusetts health care reform. However, while campaigning for President you have stressed that the solution that was right for Massachusetts would not necessarily be the correct one for the nation as a whole. Can you talk about the differences between the plan that was implemented in Massachusetts and the one you would champion as President?

Gov. Mitt Romney: Well I like what we did in Massachusetts and it may well be ideal for other states. But, of course, my view is that you don’t have the federal government put in place a one-size-fits-all plan for every single state. And that’s because of the differences between our state’s populations and their needs. In Massachusetts for instance, 7% of our population was uninsured. But in Texas, 25% of the population is uninsured. And therefore the plan that works in one state may not work perfectly in another. Likewise in California, a single individual can buy a good health care policy for $2000 a year. But in New Jersey, the cost is $6000 a year. So there’s going to be a needed reform of the health insurance market in New Jersey in order to provide the kind of quality insurance options that exist in places like California.

My view is this therefore-I want to get everybody in our country insured. But I do not want the government to mandate to states how they do it. Instead, I’d like the federal government to provide the flexibility to states just like they did to us in Massachusetts so that we could each craft our own plan to get our citizens insured.

Secondly, I don’t want our citizens to all get Medicare or Medicaid. In other words, I don’t think that government insurance is the right course for the uninsured. Rather, I believe that market-based, private insurance is the best course helping people who are uninsured become insured.

And finally, I do not believe that we should spend more money or require additional taxes to pay for these programs. We should, instead, redirect money that is already being used to help the poor.

So on a number of basis I take a very different course than Hillary Clinton’s. Her view is a one-size-fits-all plan. I say no, let it be done by states. Her plan is to give everybody that is uninsured government insurance. I say no, give them free market based insurance. And then her plan calls for an extra $110 billion a year in spending and in new taxes. I say no, use the money we are already spending and no new taxes.

Labels: interview

Romney is out in front BIG on both of these. First, from New Hampshire, Rasmussen shows Romney up by 15:

Romney 32 (+4 vs. last poll Oct. 23)
Giuliani 17 (-2)
McCain 16 (nc)
Huckabee 10 (nc)
Thompson 7 (+1)


Second, Zogby shows Romney's lead at 16 points in Iowa:

Romney 31 (-2 vs. 8/18 poll)
Huckabee 15 (+7)
Giuliani 11 (-3)
Thompson 10 (-2)
McCain 8 (+2)


Also, don't miss today's article in The State talking about Romney's surge in South Carolina in the last month:

As recently as late September, Romney was polling consistently in the single digits and was typically in fourth place. But recent surveys show the former Massachusetts governor surging, as voters have gotten to know Romney and he has earned the endorsement of key evangelicals such as Bob Jones III, former Chancellor of the fundamentalist Greenville university of the same name.

Romney, who is Mormon, has spent considerable time wooing Christian conservatives here and elsewhere and convincing them he’s strong on social issues.

The effort apparently has paid off.

Labels: iowa, New Hampshire, Polls

Here are excerpts from an article in the New York Sun:

"Mr. Giuliani, whose support of abortion and gay rights has been well documented, spoke at Mr. Robertson's Regent University in June, and the two have talked about sharing a bond as survivors of prostate cancer."

"Those personal ties mitigate the level of shock at an endorsement from a conservative leader so staunchly opposed to abortion...'The announcement does not come as a surprise,' the dean of Regent's Robertson School of Government, Charles Dunn, said. 'Their relationship goes back some time.' "

"Mr. Dunn described the move as a "win-win" for both Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Robertson. The former mayor, he said, 'needed a whale of the evangelical movement to endorse him' to slow down Mr. Romney's momentum with social conservatives. 'This is a big whale,' Mr. Dunn said. And as for Mr. Robertson, endorsing Mr. Giuliani 'makes him a big player in the game,' Mr. Dunn said."

"For Mr. Giuliani, the endorsement will help him in the Republican primary, but it is not without risk. Mr. Robertson has drawn the ire of an array of interest groups in recent years with outlandish statements that have angered women, homosexuals, and Jews, among others."

While most were shocked, initially, as I was yesterday about this report. Dr. Dunn's comments seem to put it in perspective.

While this is good news for the Giuliani Campaign at the moment, I believe that the impact this move has in negligible compared to what a Robertson endorsement would have been 8 years ago. While the article somewhat denigrates the notion that the Christian Right is coalescing around Governor Romney and uses this endorsement as proof, the numbers don't lie. Thus far, Governor Romney has been getting the majority of endorsements from the Christian Right and I think that will continue. Robertson's endorsement certainly will not begin a mass exodus of Christian leaders falling over themselves to endorse Giuliani.

What this does, in my mind, is to solidify the notion that this is truly a two-man race between Governor Romney and Major Giuliani. As things are trending, one can just look at the new NH poll, the tide is turning overwhelmingly in Governor Romney's favor.

"Let not your heart be troubled..."