|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
     Founders
Managing Directors
Blogger Pool
|
 Saturday, November 24, 2007
So. Liz Mair, astute blogger and excellent pundit, pointed out to me this weekend that the Iowa ladies, Rose and Marshan are actually in their 50s and politically active in their rite. This is an unforced error on my part. Apologies.
To review, Erick Erickson at RedState posited the theory that the only people complaining about the polls may have been Romney staffers and Romney supporters. He demonstrated that Rose and Marshan were actually paid by the Romney campaign and that something might be afoot. I took to opportunity to call the two ladies in question (I seem to the be the only person who knows how to work a phone besides the push poll culprits in this whole mess). I asked them a few questions to confirm my theory which they did; namely, that they did in fact receive the calls, they called their local Romney folks, and that the Romney folks in turn referred the press to the Rose and Marshan. Based on what I perceived from my conversations with the two ladies and supported by an online database I supposed that they were both in their 70s. The database I relied on (from which I got their phone numbers) is apparently wrong. I also assumed, wrongly, that they were not very political. This I gathered from our conversations where they were dumbfounded as to the political machinations about to be dropped on their laps. So. Does this change anything? No. (Except to make me more wary of public online resources and curb my assumptions). Anyone who believes that Rose and Marshan are anything but victims in this row have to demonstrate 1) what sinister roles they played in this large charade orchestrated by the Romney campaign and 2) what the heck they mean by "charade." If the supposed discrepancies that Rose and Marshan told about the dates they received the calls what does that prove in relation to the push poll controversy? They failed to disclose their role with the campaign... what does that prove in relation to the push poll controversy? Again, go down the list of "connections" that somehow link Romney to this and answer the question "how"?
What's left? There is nothing left. We still have no idea who the source is. Providing more good news that Mitt is very electable in 2008, Rasmussen Reports releases it's new poll results that show Mitt Romney leading Hillary Clinton in this key battleground:
General Election - Florida (Likely Voters) Mitt Romney 46% Hillary Clinton 39% I also take some satisfaction that Mitt's lead is higher than Rudy's 5 point margin in the same poll. This clearly shows that when voters get to know Mitt in areas where he has campaigned, they tend to like him. I haven't seen anything on this, but with the latest Rassmussen poll Romney now leads South Carolina (at least in the RCP Average). First the poll Romney 21 Thompson 21 Giuliani 13 Huckabee 12 McCain 9 Paul 8 Hunter 2 Tancredo 2 Undecided 13 That leaves the RCP Average looking like this:  Labels: Polls, real clear politics, south carolina Sorry for being MIA the last few days. My wife gave birth on Tuesday to the newest little Romney-bot.
 Don't worry, though. I'll be posting as often as I can so, trying my best to help propel my man Mitt to the nomination. No time to sit on our laurels, Iowa and all the other early states are just around the corner.
Labels: 2008, david brody mitt romney, democrats, gop, Michael Medved, spending Friday, November 23, 2007
 I like David Brooks alright, I guess. I mean I grew up rooting for him, whenever he debated Mark Shields. I always thought Brooks made intellectual arguments and I felt like my side had smart people on it after listening to him...
...That is often all politics is. You vote for someone who makes you feeling smart, who tells you that what you already believe is true. Rare is the politician who makes actual arguments in a way that engages those who disagree with him. Most politicians talk TO those that agree with them and talk ABOUT those that disagree with him. Guess what? That is why I like Romney. Honestly. That is why I spend time on the stuff I do for him. I think he changes all this. This speech is a great example of him speaking TO those whom he disagrees with. So anyways I liked David Brooks for selfish reasons: He agreed with my side, and when you listened to him you could feel good that your side was smart. His tendency to self examine might explain this encounter. A turning point in Brooks' thinking came in a televised debate with Milton Friedman, which, as Brooks describes it, "was essentially me making a point, and he making a two-sentence rebuttal which totally devastated my point." But saying "this guy on my side is smart, so my side must be right" will only get you so far. Some day you have to grow up, and look at the facts on each side. So, my image of David Brooks is a guy who is intellectually curious and willing to change his mind. I still like David, but at some point you have to ask if the thing people say make sense, even if it is a guy like David Brooks that you like. That's why I was so disappointed when I read the following:
Political commentators like David Brooks don't get paid for giving accurate explanations of the universe, they get paid for making humorous oversimplifications. I would like to replace the job title of "political commentators" with "humorous oversimplifers". I think it has a nice ring. Oversimplifications are funny when they back up a conclusion that you agree with, but when they oversimplify your side, you see that a dirty trick has been played, and that your side has been misrepresented. David Brook's oversimplification is that: enforcing laws = "Tancredo-esque". However, here in the real world, every time Romney speaks of immigration he clarifies his statements by saying, "But LEGAL immigration is GOOD." David Brooks did not give an actual quote. We are just supposed to believe him that Romney and Rudy are trying to be Tom Tancredo. I did not get a degree in History, like David Brooks. I do not get paid for what I say, like David Brooks. But I think you will have to agree that I make a better argument, and case for my side than he does. I use actual quotes. I deserve, in this post, to be paid more than David Brooks for my ideas. Some people will never give me the amount of credit that he does. Nothing I can say, will hold as much weight as him, no matter what I say, just because he holds a position of authority. Don't be like that. I make a better case than David Brooks. David Brooks is wrong. Here is Romney's position: "We need to make America more attractive for legal immigrants -- for citizens -- and less attractive for illegal immigrants. I want to see more immigration in our country, but more legal immigration and less illegal immigration." - Governor Romney, AP, June 23, 2006 David Brooks said, "…In effect, they are competing to drive away Hispanic votes and make the party unelectable in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Florida and the nation at large." Once again, Mr. Brooks gives no statistics to back up his claim. Look at the results from the following poll:
70% of people agree with Romney that we should have less illegal immigration! Mexico will not let US Citizens walk across the border. David Brooks is not intellectually honest enough (in this post) to give an actual quote from either Rudy or Romney that he disagrees with. David Brooks is not intellectually honest enough (keep inserting "in this post") to say specifically what he thinks should be done, and how Romney and Rudy are wrong. All he does is engage in brain-dead hyperbole of accusing Romney and Rudy of "trying to out Tencrado each other." He engages in brain dead predictions about what will happen to the Republican Party if we enforce the law. (Again, I don't think he is always "Brain dead". I just don't like this article.) What part of; "We need to make America more attractive for legal immigrants" does David Brooks disagree with? Does David Brooks disagree that we need to make America more attractive for LEGAL immigrants? Does David Brooks disagree that we need to make ILLEGAL immigration less attractive for illegal immigrants? David, how should we make illegal immigration MORE attractive?  David says, "…They could be competing to do that, but instead they are competing to appeal to the narrowest slice of the old guard and flatter the most rigid orthodoxies of the Beltway interest groups." These are just pretty words that beltway types speak to themselves, that have absolutely nothing to do with reality. Lets have an honest debate David. Don't deal in broad generalities. Don't oversimplify the positions of those whom you disagree with. What "old guard" is Romney flattering when he says we need to make America more appealing to LEGAL immigrants? What "rigid orthodoxies of the Beltway interest groups" is Romney listening to when he advocates that we do what every other nation on this planet does: try to regulate their borders. Yes, David, old orthodoxies believed in borders. Without borders, we don't have a country. Would you suggest we get red of our borders? Some orthodoxies should just be called common sense, but the problem is that David doesn't say which freaking orthodoxies he is talking about. When he says that Romney and Rudy are bowing to inside republican orthodoxies, he isn't making a real argument... If he was making a real argument he would explain what orthodoxies Romney and Rudy are bowing to, and why they shouldn't be bowed down to... That's another problem with David. He never suggests what we should do. You know it's easy to make accusations that politicians are compromising their principals, everyone already assumes you are right... you get to sound so smart, and thoughtful, without actually going through the bother of making a logical argument, with specific proposals, policies, or specific problems with your opponent's position. Well now I'm pretty worked up. Yep, I'm pretty ticked off. I'm tired of politics. I'm tired of people doing simple things. Making arguments without any data, without any statistics, without any specifics. I yearn for Mitt Romney to be president. You may think I have emotional problems, but In my mind, when Mr. Powerpoint gets into office, I think a lot of this stupidity will stop. If you're not catching some of the shorthand that I am referencing you need to read articles like this one: http://www.american.com/archive/2006/december/mitt-romney In short, I like Romney, because opinions are like elbows. Everyone has them. David Brooks has them. Mark Hemingway has opinions. All sorts of idiots have opinions, and agendas, and all sorts of people say stuff that just isn't true. That's why people hate politics. We all hear people with agendas who say stuff that isn't true, and we get tired of it, and so we tune the whole thing out... People with agendas tend to ignore facts that don't agree with their agendas, and so some tend to live in worlds that have very little to do with reality. Ask Star Trek fans, there is a line you cross when your view of the world has too little to do with reality, and you are a freak. There are too many freaks in politics, and David Brooks' perception of reality has made him a little bit of a freak, because he is no longer using sound reasoning techniques to understand Romney, or Rudy, for that matter. That is why I like Romney. People talk about people not being from Washington. Well, it is more important were you were from than were you are not from, and Romney is from a world of facts, figures, and statistics. Please, you must read this article and what kind of person you want to run the country... In the beginning of this post I said Romney spoke to those whom he disagreed with. I gave this speech as an example. Contrast that to the smug self-righteous way that David Brooks speaks ABOUT Romney and Rudy. Contrast Romney's use of statistics and facts with the way that David Brooks oversimplifies Romney's position, calls names, doesn't use actual quotes, doesn't give specific problems, speaks in generalities, and says that we are going to hurt the party by enforcing our borders, when statistics plainly show just the opposite. Romney was calling on a Judge he appointed to resign today because she had allowed an accused defendant to be released without posting bail even though he had previously been convicted of murder. Unfortunately, and very sadly, he then committed murder again. Why did this judge do this? She had previously headed the family crimes and sexual assault unit at the DA's office in Essex. One of the primary considerations in setting bail is public safety. Apparently, that was overlooked here. Judges do strange things sometimes. My heart goes out to the loved ones of the victims of this murderer. Apparently, one of the victim's fathers is mad at Romney. While there is absolutely no basis for that anger in fact or reason, I sympathize with him over his loss and wanting to blame someone.
 Well he isn't quite done, but he is as good as done. Fred Thompson seems to be enjoying what roller coaster aficionados across the globe can only dream of: an endless downward spiral. To the dismay of Free Republic, it looks like the actor turned actor turned actor, can't peddle with the big boys. John Martin with the details: But just what sort of factor Thompson will be is as difficult to figure out as the motivations, work habits and true ambitions of the candidate himself. No revelations here. But Thompson is frustrated for another reason: He didn’t think he’d have to endure so much of the “inside-the-Beltway political B.S.” In being convinced to run, Thompson was swayed to think that he could “YouTube” his way to the nomination. He apparently thought he could bypass many of the traditional campaign rituals such as tromping from one Iowa diner to another or appearing on the Washington wise-guy shows. Ahhh. Now I see. What a novel idea, hard work in a campaign. Who woul'da thunk it? Well, it's officially past Thanksgiving and now is when the general public REALLY starts to pay attention to this race. We're stepping up our efforts at Iowans for Romney (our traffic has been increasing greatly) and I've noticed more posts and comments to other Romney blogsites as well.
Romney's road to the nomination has always been a strong showing with frequent wins in early states. Iowa is where it all starts folks . . . and Mitt needs a strong showing. I invite you to come show support for Mitt over at Iowans for Romney frequently. Over the weekend I'm going to be updating our blogroll with links to relevant Iowa political blogs. I also will be following those blogs more frequently and linking to them as appropriate (first installment is here) We've got coverage of Romney's stop at the University of Iowa to discuss his healthcare plan here and here (with photos of the event courtesy of my co-blogger, Keith Steurer) Prominent Iowan columnist/author Charles Offenburger sees Mitt as the man who has what it takes to win the GOP nomination AND the general election. A couple of posts about Huckabee
Finally, a Tancredo supporter challenged us to produce any evidence that Romney's been tough on illegal immigration . . . and so we responded. Influential blogger (like over 17 million total hits to his site) Ace of Spades HQ is re-assessing the GOP field and is leaning towards Romney and it seems to be Huck's surge that is leading him there.
I think many so cons are realizing that Romney is the only so con candidate that can take on and beat Rudy and also go on to win the general election. This new coalescence around him on top of his current base of supporters will be a force to be reckoned with. Jeff Fuller | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Show/Hide 1 Comments | Post a Comment