Excerpt from my debate wrap-up:

McCain made his national security leadership pitch well, though he was kind of dogged about it. I suppose they are all tired. He got some sniping against Mitt flipping positions, but I have to say McCain has changed positions as well after some thought. Immigration being one, the Bush tax cut being another. And I would certainly welcome it, as would most Republicans if he admitted campaign finance "reform" was a mistake.

So who knows? I don't know if Mitt did well enough to overtake McCain, but independents going for Obama may do the trick. Apparently they are 44% of NH voters.

Full post at BackyardConservative, including the Dems' debate.

That was in 2002 of course . . . now McCain spends most of his limited advertising dollars on TV ads in NH that call Romney "a phony." Something's inconsistent there, eh?

In tonight's debate Mike Huckabee accused Romney of not supporting the troop surge when he did: "I supported the president in the war before you did. I supported the surge when you didn't."



Transcript:

One Year Ago, Gov. Huckabee Did Not Offer His Support For The Surge:

MSNBC's NORAH O'DONNELL: "We have a Rudy Giuliani, who supports the president's plan on Iraq. We have Governor Mitt Romney, who also supports a troop surge. How are you different from any of those candidates."

HUCKABEE: "Well, I'm not sure that I support the troop surge, if that surge has to come from our Guard and Reserve troops, which have really been overly stretched."

Huck's a freakin LIAR. He proves it once again.

Want to revise that critique of Romney Gov. Huckabee?

This guy has no shame (but his fawning masses of evangelicals will give him a pass on this too, I'm sure).

Jeff Fuller

As I surveyed the campaign coverage of post-Iowa, mid-Wyoming, and pre-New Hampshire I found pretty much a mixed bag. Nobody really knows what’s going to happen, but everyone’s willing to hazard a guess.

Then I happened upon Michael Medved’s latest Townhall column and I started to get just a little miffed. I don’t really have an opinion on Medved – I’ve never really listened to his show, I don’t read his stuff and my only exposure to him has been via Blogfather Hugh’s radio show. Medved has now come out as a McCain backer, but his latest diatribe will most likely find its way to Team Huck for distribution.

Medved would have you believe there is no anti-Mormon bigotry behind Huck’s success in Iowa and in other evangelical heavy states. I’m not going to take Medved’s data apart here, simply because its not necessary to prove my point. I’d simply like to pose a question which turn’s Medved’s logic on it’s head:

But for religion, where would the race stand today?

But for religion, Mike Huckabee would be lagging back in single digit polling no matter what state he ran in. He’d be rightly labeled as a populist tax and spend governor of a state that – were it not for its alphabetical ranking – most Americans would never have heard about. His attitude toward and record on crime – demonstrated by his seemingly endless string of pardons – would subject him to an endless barrage of questions and commentary which would subsequently consign his campaign to the Dukakis Memorial Dust Bin. His Carter-esque foreign policy ideas would lead most responsible Republicans to run screaming from the room – to say nothing of his economic ideals which appeal to the masses but portend fiscal danger and disaster should they ever actually be implemented.

So what, pray tell, is Huck’s appeal? He plays the religion card and manages to convince some Iowans that he’s one of them. He brands himself as the “Christian Leader” thereby calling into question the religiosity of every other candidate – a not-at-all veiled jab at Mitt Romney. He then takes an even less-veiled broadside at Mitt specifically and Mormonism in general with his throwaway line to the New York Times Magazine specifically designed to put religious and not political differences on the front page – again.

While Huck may have apologized for that insult, and Mitt may have accepted said apology, the intent was clear. No, I don’t buy Huck’s explanation and I don’t accept his apology. After so many years at the pulpit, Huck knew exactly what he was saying and the publicity and religious furor it would generate. Huck’s “apology” is a bout as valid as Typhoid Mary’s would have been weeks after she came to town.

In short, but for religion, Huck would already be an also-ran.

On the other side of the spectrum you find Mitt Romney. Here is an exceptionally accomplished man – by any yardstick you choose to measure him. He has succeeded at nearly everything he’s ever even thought of attempting – be it professional, personal, or political. When the chips were down and conventional wisdom said it couldn’t be done, somebody called Mitt and the impossible got done.

Mitt has made over a quarter-billion dollars for himself, and untold billions for others in the private sector. Unlike any other candidate, he has created and saved untold millions of jobs for Americans. He enjoys new challenges, so he took it upon himself to save the 2002 Olympics and then serve his state. Having given Uncle Ted the race of his life and not being stymied by defeat he took a shot at the Governor’s chair and turned a state around. Most people would think Mitt had done enough and deserved a well earned early retirement.

In any other universe, Mitt would be so far beyond any other candidate – Democrat or Republican – this race would all but be over. He personifies the all American family man – married to the same woman for nearly four decades with five strapping sons all successful on their own merits. Norman Rockwell couldn’t have painted a better picture of a presidential candidate.

And yes, in case you were wondering, my picture does include all Mitt’s rightward shifts on the issues he takes hammers on. It wouldn’t matter – and in reality it doesn’t matter.

But for religion, Mitt would all but be sworn in. Were he Baptist, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Catholic, or Methodist the only questions in this campaign would be aimed at policy. But Mitt is Mormon, and evidently that changes the rules set down by over 200 years of American political tradition.

Were there no Mormon Question, the media might have to focus on issues that really matter rather than the actual location of the Garden of Eden or the actions of Mitt’s long dead relatives. They might actually have to work for a decent newsworthy story.

No matter what Mr. Medved claims, there is an undercurrent of religious bigotry which has and will continue to dog the Romney campaign. Bear in mind with the exception of the occasional reference to “faith”, Mitt has been fairly neutral on the subject of religion. He’s gone to great lengths to avoid bringing religion into a race for a secular office. Never the less, Mitt’s opponents and their surrogates seem to revel in reverting to religion at every opportunity.

What proof do I have of this undercurrent? I won’t bother pointing you to the surrogate blogs filled with a never ending diatribe of combined anti-Mitt and anti-Mormonism. I’ll just point you to Mike Huckabee’s officially sanctioned blog. What you’ll find there is just one example of many I could point you in what is fast becoming little more than a cesspool of anti-Morminism. Spare me the “Huck isn’t responsible for comments” excuse. It’s got his name on it, he’s responsible for it.

I’m not going so far as to blame all the woes of Team Mitt on religious bigotry – I’m not quite that naïve. What I am saying is that Mitt has one hurdle the other candidates are free to bypass – and it makes this campaign race much like Mitt having to run100 yard dash in knee-deep water while his opponents sprint down the track.

Even with that obstacle, Mitt is still running neck and neck with them.

That says more about Mitt that I ever could.

Labels: LDS Mormon Romney, mike huckabee, mit romney, religion

So "The Economy" constantly ranks up there among the top issues/concerns among voters of BOTH parties. With the Iraq issue being far less polarizing of late, the Economy, Illegal Immigration, and Healthcare look to be the key issues for the general election. Additionally, this New Hampshire Fox News Poll last month had the Economy and Illegal Immigration as the two most important issues to GOP voters with the Economy being by far the most important issue.

Additionally, unlike many issues listed, the status of the economy is something that touches EVERY American in some real and powerful way (as opposed to Iraq, or abortion, or foreign policy, or those without healthcare insurance).

In the financial world, the news of an imminent recession has been dominating the headlines (including the sinking strength on Wall Street). Just yesterday, Bush met with the economic advisors and the Fed Chairman to discuss these issues. The press conference afterwards was not terribly positive.

So is a McCain presidency a good fit for a good economy? Back in 2003 many didn't think so. His new economic plan isn't impressing many. And let's not forget what the Club for Growth thinks about McCain's economic record (Their main points are that "John McCain is No Supply-Sider" and that he has a "Tenuous Record as an Economic Conservative")

Those are the words of others . . . but what does McCain think of himself in relation to the ecomony?

Just one month ago, a piece from the Boston Globe (who has since endorsed McCain) led off with this:

SALEM, N.H. -- John McCain, who happily volunteers he doesn't know much about economics . . .

Later in the piece:

McCain stood before a line graph showing the increase of the alternative-minimum tax, a low-budget campaign's alternative to the PowerPoint presentation Mitt Romney uses when talking about economic policy, a subject McCain has said he feels he is unknowledgeable and that filling the void would be a priority when selecting a vice-presidential nominee.

So McCain wants to bolster the ticket because he's weak on the #1 issue and at a time that recession is a real concern? Sounds scary to me.

Yet further:

Like Mike Huckabee, who joked recently that he "may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night," McCain suggested to reporters Monday that American consumer culture offered a short cut to expertise. "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," McCain said. "I've got Greenspan's book."

Sorry John, but if you haven't gotten a grasp of economic issues after 71 years of life, and after 3+ decades in politics, something tells me that you're not ever going to "get it" . . . even if Greenspan's book is really good.

If we really are headed toward recession in the next few months, do we really want John McCain as our nominee to put up against Hillary or Obama? I think we have much better options to have at the TOP of the ticket.

Jeff Fuller

From the AP:

CASPER, Wyo. — Mitt Romney’s attention to Wyoming paid off Saturday as he won most of the 12 presidential delegates at stake in the state’s Republican county conventions.

The former Massachusetts governor won six of the first eight to be selected Saturday. Fred Thompson and California Rep. Duncan Hunter, who both also visited Wyoming, won one apiece, meaning no other candidate could beat Romney.

Labels: Wyoming caucuses

From the AP:

CASPER, Wyo. - Mitt Romney grabbed the early lead in Wyoming's Republican caucuses Saturday as the state had its brief moment in the political spotlight sandwiched between attention-getting contests in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The former Massachusetts governor gained the first four delegates while California Rep. Duncan Hunter won a fifth.

Romney easily led the overall vote with more than 50 percent. Hunter was second with 21 percent and Fred Thompson, who hadn't won any delegates, was third with 17 percent. Results were expected throughout the day.

Labels: Wyoming caucuses

This is a pic from Romney in New Hampshire, taken by Ray Brun (RayinNH) who comments at Race42008.com

Ray Brun is also featured in this video here:




Soren Dayton has good coverage of Romney in NH last night...