I’ll start today with the AP’s Joan Lowy and her write up of Mitt’s criticism of his democratic rivals on the issue of sex education for second graders.  Every single one of the democratic candidates had no problem teaching same sex marriage propaganda to children of that age.  Mitt thinks that issue needs to be taught at home and I agree with him.  This type of indoctrination effort needs to be opposed. 

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder has some inside memos from the Mitt campaign.  Looks like Mitt is more focused on the early state polling data than the national polls.   This isn’t really surprising.  Voting is done by state, not on a national basis. 

I’m pretty sure I’ve mentioned this before, but just in case I haven’t, HuffPo’s Jackson Williams is a raging racist bigot.  Memo to Jackson:  Surely, sir, you can do better than this.  Then again, perhaps you are incapable of doing so.  If that is the case, please stop writing.  Your efforts to paint Mitt as a polygamy loving racist are laughable at best and downright shameful at worst.  This is my last link to you.  Get. A. Life.  End Memo. 

The Press Telegram’s Kristopher Hanson reports on Mitt’s visit to Long Beach. 

Be sure to vote for one of the finalists in Mitt’s Create Your Own Ad contest. 

Mitt has a new Hillary joke. 

Christianity Today Collin Hansen interviewed Mitt.  Nothing new there, just a lot of fluff about the Mormon question. 

Kudos to my fellow MyManMitt bloggers for raising an impressive wad of cash for Mitt. 

Blogfather Hugh delivers a well earned smackdown to the AP’s Glen Johnson.  Is Johnson dishonest or just plain lazy?  You decide.

Sorry for the light posting.  I was overcome by professional obligations - in other words, I have a full time job I have to work at on occasion.

I wanted to comment on today’s “Rally for Romney.”  I haven’t got the time to parse out all the details for you, but you’re all smart people (all Sitemeter rated 15 of you), so follow this link and get involved.

Have a fantastic day.

 

Welcome to the B4M News Roundup – West Coast Edition. 

The New York Times’ Michael Luo sums up Mitt’s broadside of Iran’s Thug President’s visit to Columbia University.  Here’s the ad everybody’s talking about. 

Looks like Rudy’s phone call interruption might have been staged.  I’m shocked.  Moving on. 

Mitt won another straw poll – this time in Michigan. 

The Wall Street Journal’s Mary Jacoby reports on Mitt’s effort to “connect” with voters.  He managed to impress an AARP activist because, in her words, “He’s the first candidate I’ve heard who actually had some plan.”  That’s what “leaders” do.  Most candidates talk about problem issues.  Mitt has answers for them.  There’s the difference. 

The Chicago Sun-Times’ Abdon Pallasch openly wonders who Mitt would toss out of Washington.  Memo to Abdon:  I think it’s pretty well documented that Mitt has a very low tolerance for corruption.  Dirty politicians won’t feel welcome in a Romney White House.  End Memo. 

For those of you who missed it, here’s Mitt’s open letter to the GOP.  It’s a simple concept really.  Either the Republicans clean their house or the voters will do it for them. 

Here’s another Mitt campaign contest.  Good luck. 

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder reports on some concern with Mitt’s “burn rate”.  I can understand the concern, but it should be noted this primary will be pretty much over by early February.  Money in the bank at that point will be pretty much worthless if you’re on the losing side. 

US News’ Gloria Borger sees Mitt as “distancing” himself from George W. Bush.  Borger fails to realize what most of us have already figured out:  Mitt is not W.  W is not Mitt.  Bush is not on the ballot next November.  If anything, we’ve learned that Mitt is his own man with his own priorities and his own style.  Nobody expects, nor do we want, a W clone.  This is why we have elections with regular frequency. 

Stockton’s local paper has discovered “the Mormon question”.  Nothing new there.

I shouldn’t.  Really.  I shouldn’t.  But I will.  And in classic buck passing tradition, I’ll blame RightWingSparkle and, though vicariously, Grouchy Old Cripple in Atlanta.  Sorry, Grouch.  Had to edit it.

  

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder reports on the never ending quest for cash that is the primary campaign.RCP’s John McIntyre tries to see clouds on the horizon for Mitt.  Methinks John’s outlook is a bit gloomy, but worth paying attention to.The Arizona Republic’s Dan Nowicki finds hope in Michigan for Mitt, but trouble for McCain.   Laurels won’t win it for McCain this time around the track.  I’m sure this Pew Research Poll has a point.  I’m just not sure what that point is.  Washington Post Trail Blogger Alec MacGillis is impressed with Mitt’s vocabulary.  Well, at least he’s not writing about hair.Bloomberg’s Heidi Przbyla talks guns and votes.

Mitt’s not happy that the Islamofacist Thug President of Iran would even think about visiting Ground Zero.  Here are my thoughts (not Mitt’s) on the matter:  

 

Mitt’s “Change” ad speaks truth to power.

The Article VI Boys have a good roundup on James Dobson’s non-endorsement of Big Fred.  I have to say I’m in Lowell’s camp on this one.  Dobson’s political worldview is distinctly un-American.  We vote for people base on their governing philosophy, not religious identity.

Somebody at EFM subscribes to Roll Call Magazine and found this quote:

If former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) wins the Iowa caucuses, as many expect, he’ll become a hot political property for the media, which should boost his national standing and prospects, even though he now runs a distant fourth in national polling. In fact, given Romney’s strong showings currently in Iowa and New Hampshire, his prospects for the Republican nomination currently are as good as or better than former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s or former Sen. Fred Thompson’s (Tenn.)

Sounds like a pretty solid prediction to me.

It’s all about the metrics.

Here’s what Mitt thinks about Hillary’s vote in support of Moveon.org.

 

Sphere: Related Content

According to VAJoe’s Candidate Calculator, Mitt and I agree on 96.67% of the issues.  That’s close enough for Presidential work in my book.
 
There isn’t much being made of these two events – unless of course you listen to the Blogfather’s show as I do.  I think everyone can agree that nuclear weapons are dangerous things.  I think we can also agree stuff like Sarin and VX gas are exceptionally nasty.  I follow presidential politics pretty closely, and Mitt’s the only one I know of who has laid out a solid position on taking action against Islamofacist Thug regimes like Iran and Syria who are bent on acquiring or manufacturing these weapons and their delivery systems.
 
The Wall Street Journal took a look at Hillary’s health care plan and declared the following:

HillaryCare II is designed to cause minimal disruptions to current private insurance coverage in the short run, while dressing up the old agenda with slightly different mechanisms and rhetoric. Rather than fight small business, this time she is trying to seduce it with tax credits for small companies that provide insurance. Only later when costs rise will the credits shrink or other taxes rise. To court large manufacturers, like the auto and steel industries, she’ll offer another, “temporary” tax credit to subsidize their health-care liabilities. Her plan, in short, is HillaryCare I in better clothes–a transitional platform to shift people to the default option, which is government insurance.
 
What’s striking about all this is how little new thinking there is. Like the other Democratic proposals, HillaryCare II would mark another major government intrusion into health care. It would keep all of the system’s current problems, most of them created by government policies, and entrench and expand them. The creativity is all in the political repackaging.

The fact of the matter is, its not even creative repackaging.

The AP’s Jim Kuhnhenn reports on Mitt’s “Change” ad.  In it he calls for Republicans to engage in “ethical” cleansing (my phrase not Mitt’s) of their own party.  This is going to be a pivotal ad because, think what you will of Mitt his ethics cannot be challenged.  That said, this report also showcased a quotation from none other than Howlin’ Mad Howie Dean’s Head Mitt Hit Man, Damien LaVera.  Welcome back to the fray, Damien.  Good to see you finally got someone other than yourself to quote you.
 
NRO’s Stephen Spruiell interviewed Mitt (audio available here) on a wide range of issues.  He referenced Mitt’s Strategy for a Stronger America.  Read the above mentioned WMD events in the Middle East and then dwell on this statement from Mitt: 

It is essential for us… ultimately to build the kind of consensus in this country and among our friends that would allow Ahmadinejad to recognize that the military option is not just on the table, it’s in our hand. 

The Boston Globe’s Lisa Wangsness has a short review of Mitt’s strategy paper.
 
The New York Times’ Kirk Johnson (along with Michael Luo – see Mike, somebody reads the byline at the bottom) has a surprisingly positive chronology of Mitt’s Olympic turnaround story.  I guess soon to be former Salt Lake City Mayor Ross Anderson couldn’t be reached prior to press time.  No, I won’t call that sniveling embarrassment of a mayor “Rocky”.
 
Also in the Times, Michael Luo reports on Mitt’s latest radio ad (audio available here).  Memo to Mike:  Mitt is targeting all Cultural Conservatives, not just those “wary” of his Mormon faith.  End Memo.
 
The Palm Beach Post’s Dara Kam writes up Mitt’s speech to a town hall meeting in Orange Park.  Mitt made mention of pursuing “liquefied coal” technology as an alternative to foreign oil.  Kam mentioned that more carbon dioxide would be produced if such a process were widely used.  Memo to Dara Kam:  The US is the Saudi Arabia of Coal.  We literally have tons of it.  If it can be used as an alternative to paying the Mullahs for oil, then I say more power – coal power that is.  End Memo.
 
Wired’s Sarah Stirland has the latest on Mitt’s “Are You Better Than A Campaign Ad Maker” program. Mmmmm. Doritos.
 
More reporting on the “values voter” debate that illustrated what happens when nobody important bothers to show up.  I beg to differ with Faith2Action’s Jan Folger.  Jan, you were snubbed because your forum was weighed in the balance and found to be wanting.  Your event will not long be remembered and has already passed into the obscurity from whence it came.

Not a lot going for this round up.  Mitt showed up on Fox & Friends this morning to slam Hillary’s health care plan – if one can stretch the truth and call it a plan.  Pretty good appearance – he stayed for three segments or so. 

Here are some upcoming Mitt events which have made their way to my Inbox: 

Craig and Mary Romney will be a Students for Romney event at Georgetown University tomorrow at 8:00 pm.  The link has the details.  I may or may not attend. 

The Family Research Council’s Joe Carter dropped me a line about Mitt’s upcoming appearance at The Washington Briefing.  This is a 3-day conference which retails for $95.  If you want to go, drop me a line and I’ll send you a registration link that will get you in for $50. 

Do you want to know where Mitt stands on a specific issue?  Here’s all the information you could possibly want. 

Today’s winner of the “Read The Whole Thing” award goes to the South Carolinians for Mitt blog.  The way the MSM reports, you’d think Mitt didn’t have support in the Carolinas.  Well done, guys. 

CBN’s David Brody reports on Mitt’s “going traditional” in Iowa. 

Cheap Shot Sam again proves he can only make headlines by attacking Mitt.  When that’s the only way your press releases get printed, you’re campaign is in deep trouble.  Someday, Cheap Shot Sam will figure this out.  Memo to Sam:  Try using quotes taken during this calendar year.  End Memo. 

The AP has an all too brief summary of Mitt’s online “Ask Mitt Anything” event. 

Political Derby’s Jason Wright has his latest Power Rankings up.  Mitt’s down to #3.  Some days you win.  Some days you lose.  Some days it rains. 

Also over at the Derby, Brendan Spiegel brands Mitt as an “anti-gay conservative” because he once distributed a flyer with the following statement: 

All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference. 

Ok, Brendan, one of the many places I can claim roots is the state of Missouri.  So, in the fine tradition of that state, I’m calling you out.  Show me how Mitt’s support for “equal rights” for all citizens equates to a requirement that he support gay marriage, adoption, or any other plank in the militant homosexual agenda.  The Constitution guarantees equal justice under law.  Thus far the people of this nation, with one notable exception, have banned “gay marriage” every time it was put to a vote.  That’s the way this nation works – by the voice of the people in the individual states.  Show me, Brendan – someplace other than empty talking point based platitudes.  Don’t worry.  I’m not holding my breath. 

First off, let’s talk Health Care. 

For those of you whose memory doesn’t extend to the early 1990s, let’s review.  1992 heralded the arrival of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s (sorry excuse for) Administration.  They were going to change the world.  They felt your pain and they were going to relieve that pain by socializing what was then 1/7^th of the US economy by taking over the health care industry and replacing it with a kinder, gentler government bureaucracy.  Hillary was widely accepted as the Smartest Woman In The World.  Under her tutelage, everyone would have free health care and would be happy about it. 

That was 1992.  The Democrats ran the Washington Trifecta (House/Senate/Presidency).  The American people took a close look at what Hillary wanted to inflict upon them and made their voice heard inside the beltway.  The election of 1994 effectively ended what had been a 40 year Democratic Party lock on Congress.  There were many reasons for the 1994 electoral rout, but “HillaryCare” was a major catalyst. 

Some people refuse to learn from mistakes – Hillary Clinton is one of them.  Today she revealed her $100 BILLION! Healthcare plan.  What I found interesting about the plan, and the major reason I’m including it in today’s Roundup, is this tidbit: 

The centerpiece of Clinton’s “American Health Choices Plan” is the so-called “individual mandate,” requiring everyone to have health insurance — just as most states require drivers to purchase auto insurance. 

Clinton’s plan builds on the existing employer-based system of coverage. People who receive insurance through the workplace could continue to do so; businesses, in turn, would be required to offer insurance to employees, or contribute to a government-run pool that would help pay for those not covered. Clinton would also offer a tax subsidy to small businesses to help them afford the cost of providing coverage to their workers. 

Think for just a minute, dear reader, and try and figure out where you’ve heard that idea before. 

Take your time.  I can wait. 

Give up?  Or maybe you just scrolled down.  Whatever the case may be, Hillary’s “plan” isn’t really that original.  Mitt’s Massachusetts health care initiative was founded on much the same idea.  I’m not a big enough policy wonk to tell you where the similarities between what Hillary proposes and what Mitt implemented are and where the differences can be found. 

Hillary’s health care express came close to ending her husband’s presidency.  I believe there are enough people looking at her theoretical plan that it could cause serious damage to her campaign.  Only time will tell.  I don’t think anything has changed with her plan for socialized medicine other than the marketing packaging she’ll use to sell it. 

On to the actual Roundup: 

The Boston Globe’s Nafeesa Syeed has Mitt’s reaction to Hillary’s “idea”. 

The New York Sun’s Eliot Brown and I are on the same page as to Hillary’s Health care inspiration. 

Blogfather Hugh has a copy of Mitt’s letter to UN Secretary General Ban ki-moon requesting the UN deny Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmandinejad a forum to which he can spew his vile hatred of the United States, Israel, and anything else which might cross his infertile rambling brain pan. 

Mitt the Anti-War Candidate?  NRO’s Jim Geraghty seems to think so.  Like Jim, I’ve read most of what Mitt has said about Iraq.  I’d stop short of calling him “anti-war”, though I don’t know anybody in their right mind who actually prefers war to peace.  Mitt likes to keep his options open and will listen to most anyone who can make a coherent case for a change of strategy.  Coherent and Strategy aren’t found in the same section of the Democratic playbook. 

This is what happens when Joseph Farah holds a forum, and nobody cares. 

The Salt Lake Tribune’s Paul Rolly needs to switch to decaf – soon. 

Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff thinks there maybe more to the Mormon question than meets the eye.  He thinks it might be more anti-religious bias than anti-Mormon bigotry.  Interesting premise. 

If you haven’t been able to get yourself to an “Ask Mitt Anything” event, there’s one for you tonight on the web. 

Media Matters takes issue with KCOL’s Scott James and his commentary about Mitt’s physical assets.  No word as to how Media Matters reacted to Chris Matthews near orgasm of delight upon seeing Bill Clinton in his first public appearance after his bypass surgery.   

The Palm Beach Post’s Dara Kam reports on Mitt’s progress in Florida. 

Reuter’s Jason Szep illustrates why there are no one-armed economists.  Here’s the bottom line – Mitt left the Bay State in far better fiscal shape than he found it.  Deval Patrick is scrambling to heap as much blame for his current economic woes on Mitt as possible.  It really is that simple. 

The Houston Chronicle’s Renée Lee has Mitt’s reaction to General Petraeus’ testimony before the House and Senate Armed Services Committee. 

In that same vein, I believe in giving credit where credit is due.  As you can probably tell, there is no love lost here between myself and Hillary Clinton.  She did a great job of showing why this is the case with her scathing and ineffective potshots taken at General Petraeus when she had the chance to “question” him.  She showed, in that five minute exchange, why she is completely unqualified to serve this nation as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. 

There was one Republican presidential candidate who made a point of calling Hillary on her bluster – that was America’s Mayor Rudy Guilanni.  Like Moveon.org, he took out a full page ad in the New York Times which took direct aim at Hillary and scored an eviscerating broadside.  Way to slap her Brooklyn style, Rudy. 

The Boston Globe’s Amy Farnsworth reports on Mitt’s announcement of his terrorism policy advisors.  Compare and contrast with who Hillary took advice from. 

The Article VI Boys have done Yeoman’s work today in rounding up who is saying what about “The Question”.  Memo to David Brody:  C’mon, Dave.  Quit beating this horse, or I swear I’ll call PeTA.  End Memo.

Mitt has a press release expressing support for General Petraeus and the professional work of the US Military in Iraq.  He also took time to take a shot at Obama’s “Cut & Run” strategy.
 
The Midland Reporter-Telegram’s Bob Campbell chronicles Mitt’s visit to West Texas.  It’s a pretty good report, but doesn’t have Mitt’s reaction to the water – or lack of anything remotely resembling water – in Midland.  Anybody who has ever tasted the water in Midland or Odessa knows exactly what I’m talking about.
 
The Daily Collegian’s Nick Milano proves his ability to summarize nearly all the MSM attack points in regard to Mitt.  There is nothing original here, except possibly Milano’s anger at Mitt’s travel during his time as governor.  Memo to Nick:  Originality.  Try it next time.  End Memo.
 
The Washington Post’s David Broder takes a candid look at Mitt’s campaign – the good, the bad, and the ugly.  Not a bad piece of work, actually.  Mitt is a big-picture guy and Broder correctly points out Mitt’s campaign will rise or fall based on Mitt and nobody else.
 
The AP quotes Mitt as he takes a dig at those Senators seeking the Presidency.  Says Mitt:

Sitting on committees in Washington does not guarantee that someone has the skills to solve the problems on the international stage.
 
In those three cases [Hillary, Obama, Edwards], you have people who have never really led or managed a substantial enterprise. They learned how to speak well and they learned how to ask good questions at hearings and how to receive briefings. But the role of being a leader and manager of a state, of a city, of an Olympics, of a business, of an enterprise is entirely different than sitting in a hearing chair.

As long as we’re on this subject, let’s remember that no Senator has been elected to the Oval since JFK.   You’ll forgive me if I state for the record that none of the Democratic contenders can be compared to JFK.  Senators talk about a lot of things, they vote on some stuff, but in the end they’re really not responsible for the outcome of anything.  Hillary’s executive resume is paper-thin, as is Obama’s.  They both outshine John Edwards – whose major experience consists of channeling the voices of children who died under unfortunate circumstances.
 
Bottom line – Mitt has experience as an executive in both the public and private sectors.  You don’t get that experience by being one of 100 voices in an echo chamber.
 
The Boston Globe’s Foon Rhree summarizes Mitt’s interview with Fox’s Neil Cavuto.  Also in the Globe, Sasha Issenberg chronicles the alleged “blow back” from conservatives about Mitt’s sacking of Larry Craig.  Yeah.  Like that’s an issue anywhere outside of Boise.
Here’s my one mention of the Fred-Mitt web dustup.  Memo to Fred:  Mehtinks thy staff doth protest far too much.  End Memo.
 
Mitt leads in New Hampshire.
 
Mitt has a new “energy ” ad running in Florida.
 
The Salt Lake Tribune’s Thomas Burr has a news flash he thinks will shock you.   Prepare yourselves, dear readers, because Mitt is targeting readers of LDS Living (a magazine with a [gasp] Mormon audience] for fundraising.  Why, pray tell, is this a story?  Is Mr. Burr really that desperate to fill column inches?  Mitt sees this demographic as having fundraising potential.   There’s nothing sinister here.  When someone asked Jesse James why he robbed banks, he replied “That’s where the money is.”  To ignore this demographic would be a stupid thing to do.
 
The Boston Herald’s Howie Carr again demonstrates two things: a) he hates Mitt and b) he can’t write good humor columns.  Yep, that about sums up his article.
 
And finally, Ann made the cover of Time Magazine.  If I were Mitt, I’d be concerned about the fact she’s across from Bill.