Primary Debate?

I think I was watching a Republican debate last night, but I am not sure. It was basically McCain VS Romney, but it sounded like a general election debate. In a general election debate, you have a Democrat against a Republican. Each candidate try to sway you either slightly right, or slightly left. Also in a general election, the candidates spit out partial quotes of the other, taken out of context, spun and used against the other candidate. This is exactly what I saw last night.

Last night was not Romney strongest showing, but Romney did what he does best; He kept his cool, and continued to carry himself in a professional manner. McCain sat there and lied to our faces about Mitt, and threw childish quips, and generally acted like a four year old with no manners. Mitt just pointed out the truth, and continued to carry himself as the adult on the stage. McCain seemed to think he could just spew out lies and they should be believed because he said it. It felt like john was telling the voters, "It's True because I said it, and damn it, I'm John McCain. How dare you question me."

McCain has further proved my point; McCain would make a great Secretary of State, but should NEVER be trusted as a President. Honestly, I can not think of anything McCain said last night that showed his position. WHAT THE HELL DID MCCAIN SAY?!?!?! Simple, he said Romney wanted a time table for withdrawal (a lie) and basically admitted nothing about his positions. All McCain said was Mitt sucks, "Mitt doesn't support the troops," and I was backing this surge of troops (Not that he is alone in backing the troops, so was Mitt and I have an old bumper sticker on my car to prove it). McCain never backed up his claim that Romney wanted a timetable for withdrawal. I have said it before, I respect John, and he is a great guy to talk to. I generally like him, and he seems to like me, but what the hell is he doing?!?! All I can say is the man has become a liberal as he aged. This is not a Republican McCain.

Though this doesn't support the fact that John lied during the debate, but I found it funny that John is so misinformed that he doesn't even know the background of the people who support him. Jane Swift was the Governor, not the Lt. Governor, of Massachusetts. But John has spent a lot of time on the ground with her? Her backing of John does not surprise me, look at the way she ran Massachusetts. She was not exactly a good Governor, nor did she really make any good marks on the soil while she was there. I never liked Jane as an executive, but it is still hard to see her back up a John Kerry wannabe. (McCain was trying to get on Kerry's ticket)

Romney held his ground and tried to confront John, but it's hard to debate someone who backs up their facts by saying, "I said it, so it's true." Mitt still made a good showing, and I hope this reflects well on Super Tuesday. Mitt needs the support of true Republicans and conservative independents like myself. My final thought when the smoke cleared was that Mitt came out looking the best, and John buried himself last night.

On another note, I am one of those who is splitting the Republican party up. The Democrats love the fact that John McCain is ahead, and those of us who are politically savvy will not stand behind him. Why am I willing to split the Republicans? Because I can not allow my values to be jeopardized by putting forward a liberal as a Republican. I will not jump behind McCain, and I don't know if I could vote for him in a General election. I think I might sit out, or vote for Hillary. Yes, I MIGHT vote for Hillary to save the Republican party.

If the Republican put John McCain up as the nominee, we can not reward the Republicans with a win. I think I would rather see Hillary destroy our country for 4 years and strengthen the Republican base than reward the Republicans with a McCain win (assuming her can win the general, I don't think he can) and allow the liberals to blame us for everything they don't like in the next four years. If a conservative play is made and fails, Democrats can blame us. If a liberal plan fails, they can still blame us. This is win win for the Democrats.

I can not believe Republicans would let McCain destroy the Republican party forever. As a conservative Independent, I need a party to vote for, and if John McCain wins, there will be no party left for me to vote for...

... ever.

Florida, a Swift Kick in the…

After I posted yesterday, I spent hours looking at the voters of Florida trying to see if my thoughts would be remotely close. As you can see, I assumed that a closed primary would bring out the true conservative voters and a close Romney win. I was wrong. Late in the afternoon, I found there was a large sector of moderate republicans as well as other anomalies I was unaware of. I was not joking when I said I was reluctant.

So here’s the run down; I am 100% wrong about Mitt taking Florida (I wish I had researched the demographics before yesterday). I was wrong about Rudy winning the nomination (I think he is going to support McCain in the next 24 hours). The icing on the cake is that I might be wrong about Hillary as well; Hillary might not be the nominee (strange to hear after she won, huh?). So this is what I think; Mitt Romney must finish strong on Super Tuesday, otherwise we may end up with McCain as the nominee. I still feel Hillary is the Democrats nominee, but there is a 45% chance that Barack Obama might surpass her (three weeks ago, I though Obama had about a 20% chance).

So if we look at what I missed on the Republican side, you can see how little I was paying attention over the past week. I did not consider Cubans or the “good ‘ol boy” mentality of all the veterans in Florida. I also did not count on there being such a large number of moderate Republicans. If I had done my homework, I would have known John McCain was going to win this one by about the same margin as he won New Hampshire. Though I wonder why, in an area where illegal immigration, taxes, and the economy were key factors, Mitt Romney did not do a bit better. Obviously Floridians did not do their homework either (Just look at the videos on the right side of the page).

I respect John McCain and enjoyed the conversations I have had with him. He seems to generally like me also. We do not agree this time around, too much (of John) has changed in the past eight years. I understand it is John’s “turn,” but he is not the type of leader I want for my country. McCain has become more liberal as he has aged. It seems the older he gets, the less he remembers what it means to be a conservative. I take offense to John stating he is a conservative in his victory speech, this was another McCain lie. To be honest, I would rather Tom Tancredo, Fred Thompson, or even Rudy Giuliani over John McCain, each one is more conservative. There are only two Republican candidates I dislike more than John McCain; Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul.

One the Democrat side, I feel Barack is starting to chip away at Hillary’s commanding lead. From what I have seen in voting trends, it looks like Hillary’s numbers may be slipping. I don’t think it will be enough to steal the nomination from her, but Obama picked up an endorsement from Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry. Now we just need Al gore and Howard Dean to back up Barack to solidify my feelings

So with my new found knowledge, where do I think these races are going? This is going to be a two man race on both sides (no I will not correct this because Hillary is one of those “men”). The new course of these elections is as follows:

Edwards won’t be an annoyance going toward Super Tuesday; he will drop out at about the same time as Rudy Giuliani. From here it will be a great fight between Obama and Clinton. In the end, I think it will be Clinton.

On the Republican side, I hope Thompson throws his support behind Mitt Romney.

Rudy is going to drop out in the next 72 hours and throw his support behind John McCain.

Ron Paul is an idiot and will continue to be an idiot (sorry, I have limited patients for this guy) so I will try not to waste anymore time on him.

Mike Huckabee is going to be the Edwards of the Republicans and soak up valuable time and vote until he figures out that he has lost (Super Tuesday).

With Romney and McCain left to duke it out, I hope and pray that a true conservative wins the nomination. If we put McCain up against a Democrat, we have no one to vote for. When there is no conservative on the stage, we are left with only liberals. I weep for the Republicans if this happens.

Lord, give us Mitt Romney as the next President of the United States.

Sunshine State?

Today is the Florida primary, and I did not want to speculate. If you know me, you know that's a lie. I have been hanging back on this one because I have not been able to research the climate in Florida. Today I will make a grave mistake; I will tell you my thoughts without fully researching the voters.

This is the first true closed republican primary. The true conservative should win with little effort, but that does not mean Mitt Romney is going to win. If Floridian Republicans are true conservatives, there is no question that they would vote for either Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. As Fred has dropped out, that leaves Mitt Romney.

Rudy Giuliani has placed 80% of his chips on Florida, ignoring the early states. I have always thought this was a poor decision, but then again I am not part of his campaign staff, who cares what I think. Rudy might get a majority of the early voting, but I cannot see him doing any better than 3rd place.

My buddy John McCain has been driving the Double Talk Express up everyone's rear. I wish he would just drive it back to Congress. John is going to be a tough competitor in Florida, and I for the life of me do not know why. Why would republicans in a closed primary vote for a man whose record is as far skewed from the party? My hope is that Floridians open there eyes, and see what McCain really stands for. Remember something; HE PARTNERED WITH TED KENNEDY!!! Need I say more?

So if we follow the "typical" logic of a closed primary, the clear-cut winner is Mitt Romney, with John as a close second. Rudy will be third, but he will be so far behind that the diesel smoke from the Double Talk Express will have dissipated.

Molasses Moves

Fred Thompson has pulled out of the race. Thank you Fred for the collateral damage. You pulling out of the race has caused my email box to be FLOODED with emails. To all of you who have badgered me in the past 24 hours, yes this is PART of what I eluded to in my January 11 post. There is more to my prediction, but the problem is I don't know which way to call it. Are you confused? So am I. The night of the debate, I turned to my wife and said "Oh my gosh, I just realized Thompson is dropping out and aligning himself with ___________" When she asked me what I meant, I told her I thought "Fred is going to attempt to get the Vice-presidency." Though she agreed half-heartedly, she reminded me that Fred was trying to win South Carolina. Something in me said that was wrong; Fred is not trying to win, he is trying to align himself with a candidate.

So who is the mystery blank? I can tell you his name, but let's look at the likely candidates who could take Fred as their VP. John McCain is the media darling right now. Not surprisingly, the media loves him, and I think he is a bit liberal for my taste. (surprise, surprise) The only problem I see with a McCain Thompson ticket is that McCain is too liberal for Thompson. I think that is an "oil-and-water" mixture.

Mike Huckabee is an unlikely candidate for slightly different reasons. Not only is Mike Huckabee liberal, he is also a non-competitive candidate. How is he going to stand toe to toe with the likes of Bill Clinton, opps, I mean Hillary. No, Mike Huckabee is not the man who is headed for the White House.

Rudy Giuliani? Hmmm, no. This is the Candidate that never was. I wish I could say more about Rudy, but he is really dropping off the map. If Rudy does not win in Florida, where does he go? Where can he win? He has one delegate and apparently about the same amount of support. This is a very sad situation for Rudy Giuliani because I thought he was going to be the man. Americas Mayor, the man who was best known going into this race, and the most likely candidate. Don't get me wrong, I like Rudy, I just disagree with some of his ideas.

This leaves only one candidate in my mind; Mitt Romney. Could Fred side with Mitt and push him into the white house? I think he might try, but in this case, I don't know if Mitt would take Fred as his VP. It's not that Fred doesn't have anything to offer, it's that Fred doesn't have anything "NEW" to offer. The two most conservative candidates on the stage are Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. Even if Mitt would not take Thompson as his VP, Thompson should still jump behind Mitt and push him to the winners circle.

Tom Tancredo made a great choice my standing behind Mitt. I do not say this because I voted for Mitt Romney, I say it because Tom made the hardest choice of all who are voting; "Who best fits MY agenda." Tom decided to contact all the candidates and see who had the best plan (in Tom's eyes) for illegal immigration. Tom chose Romney. Now Fred is going to do the same. I think Fred is going to jump behind Mitt for this primary because Mitt best encompasses the policies Fred Thompson stands for. Further, and to answer the question (what name was in the _______?) in paragraph one, I think Fred might be trying to convince Mitt to take him as his VP.

My predictions have been off by numbers only. I only got one placement incorrect so far, so I am confident this will be my first major blunder. I honestly believe my thoughts on Thompson are accurate, but there is always the chance that I have overlooked a small detail. I seriously doubt Fred Thompson has missed anything, and I am sure Fred has analyzed this thing a thousand times harder than I have. I am positive Fred knows what I know:

In Republican ONLY primaries (closed primary), the conservative candidate (Mitt) will win.

Liberal VS Liberal?

Someone help the Republican Party please. They have two liberals in the delegate race, and one conservative. This is not a good position for them to be in going into Super Tuesday. Republicans can not put a liberal up against the Democrats if they intend to win the general election. Mike Huckabee is not a contender, and would get crushed against anyone on the Democrats side (Even Dennis U.F.O. man). John McCain can compete with the top two Democrats, but he has nothing to offer except a slightly more conservative platform than the Democrats. How can Republicans compete if they are offering the same thing? You can not win the Presidency by putting a liberal against a liberal.

South Carolina will be an interesting contest. I think this is McCain country, but Huckabee isn't going to go down quietly. Mitt Romney can not be counted out as he is the other major name going into the first primary of the south. So who is who with South Carolinians? I have researched voting trends, polls, and newspapers in the state, and this is going to be difficult to decipher. South Carolina is another open primary, like Michigan.

I think South Carolina is going to split heavily by interest. What I mean is this is going to be like New Hampshire and Iowa combined. In Iowa, the evangelicals went toward Huckabee mostly and true conservatives found Romney appealing. New Hampshire has many liberal Republicans and even more independents. This gave McCain an edge here in the Granite state. Even with the minority of Republicans voting as conservatives, Romney pulled a strong second here.

So let's break this up. If people vote party lines and follow voting trends, I estimate about 21% of the voters will be the evangelicals for Mike Huckabee. McCain will pull the Independent vote and the liberal Republicans. He may also get a few Democrats on his side, but he will not get the conservative vote. Conservatives will flock to Mitt Romney, giving him a solid third with 18%. South Carolina might think they are a red state, but from what I have been reading, they are Red-ish-purple. By this, what I mean is they are a slightly liberal type of Republican. John McCain has the edge and the win at 30%.

John McCain 30%

Mike Huckabee 21%

Mitt Romney 18%

Nevada is a strange animal, and might be more decisive for the Republican going into Super Tuesday. I don't think South Carolina is going to make much of an impact this year, I believe Nevada is going to make the greatest splash. I have been looking at Nevada more than South Carolina for this reason, but to be honest, I do not understand the mindset of those residing in Nevada. My hope is that Ron Paul does not get as much traction in Nevada, but then again, Ron Paul is a libertarian, and therefore, he appeals to those who want legalized prostitution and drug use. This may be the first contest where Ron Paul actually matters. Why do I think Nevada is more important? There are 34 delegates at stake in Nevada and only 24 in South Carolina.

Nevada will give us:

Mitt Romney 29%

John McCain 22%

Mike Huckabee 10%

Rudy Giuliani 10%

Ron Paul 10%

My only hope in both contests is that the Republicans remember why they are Republicans, and appeal to their conservative values. The Democrats are scared of Mitt for a reason.

Republican Frontrunner

In every sport I know (except for golf), the idea is to gain more points than the opposition. The primary is not much different. So what is the goal when running in the primary? Obviously to gain more delegates than the other candidates. If this is true, then why has the media been so hard on Mitt Romney? Before Michigan, Mitt had more delegates than anyone else, 30 to be exact. In any sport, you are defiantly in the game if you are ahead, but the primary is a different animal. Even if you are in the front, you must have a strong showing in the next "quarter" of the game to stay in the lead. I know, the same is true in sports, but the difference is that a mistake that cost you points in politics can make you lose point in the next "inning."

I had few doubts about Mitt running in Michigan, but my concern was for South Carolina. I am not as worried about S.C. as I was yesterday because Michigan may have given Mitt a bit of a bounce. If Mike Huckabee can get a bounce (a liberal Republican who appeals mostly to fringe voters), there is no question Mitt will get a bit of a bounce with his 9 point win. I feel confident in predicting a first or second place in S.C., but I am not sure I want to make a full prediction yet.

I don't mind being wrong (once in a while), but this time I was mostly ecstatic about my incorrect projection. I though Mitt would be at 35%, but instead he pulled out 39% of the vote. This is a great time to be wrong as well as being right. McCain pulled 30%, 2% lower than I projected. The only projection adoration I am upset with is Mike huckabee, who pulled 16%. Can't win them all. So what do all these percents mean? Let me make two small lists:

_________Delegates Before Michigan . . . . Delegates After Michigan

Mitt Romney .........................30 ..................42

Mike Huckabee .....................21 ..................21

John McCain ..........................10 ..................19

Others ......................................9 ..................9

Check it out for yourself.

So right now, Mitt is winning 2-1 over his closest rival. S.C. has 24 delegates, and split between whoever wins, Mitt will continue to lead the delegate race. Florida is the first "winner takes all" competition, and Mitt will still be ahead of the curve. Giuliani is hoping to pull into first after Florida, but with 57 delegates, Rudy is praying Mitt gets less than 15 Delegates. This is highly plausible for Rudy, but at this point it is almost "do or die" for Rudy. If Rudy has less than 20 delegates going into Super Tuesday, his campaign might be over before it even starts.

From here, I will not predict until I get a better feel for the environment in S.C. as I need a few days to feel the ground in S.C.

For now, the front runner is Mitt Romney.

Debate, or slugfest?

I expected to hear much of the same during the debate last night, but I did not expect to hear anything new. I mentioned that Fred Thompson has been making more of an impression as of late, and the last debate has proved my point. Thompson really made his presence known, but there were also other aspects that I noticed during the debate. It seemed that everyone backed off of Mitt Romney, and focused on Mike Huckabee and John McCain. Was there a clear winner? Fred Thompson stole the show. Fred is the winner.

I want to alter your focus for a minute, and study Rudy Giuliani for just a moment. Rudy padded Mitt Romney during and after the debate. Why would Rudy do this for a competitor for president? Rudy can not afford to let John McCain run away with another win, so Rudy needs to pad his closest rival, Mitt Romney. He needs a scattered field going into Super Tuesday to win the necessary electoral vote for a nomination. So what did Rudy do? Rudy pointedly stated that John McCain was not the only one who supported the surge, and tried to take Johns "surge foothold" away. Rudy is correct, John is not the only one who supported the surge, but Rudy's comments AFTER the debate were absolutely key to my argument. In his statement to Sean Hannity, Rudy said "Mitt was for the surge…" when he said Republicans were ALL for the surge on day one. Rudy is running for Mitt because Rudy can not win South Carolina.

Let's go back to Fred Thompson again. Fred took on John McCain and Mike Huckabee, but like Rudy, he did not go after Mitt Romney, even when Romney left himself open to attack (and Mitt left himself WIDE open).Thompson also seems to be putting Mitt Romney out as the front man. I have a feeling, and I have had this feeling for a while, but I won't make the prediction yet, but I think Thompson has a different motive. I don't think he is running for President, or rather he is keeping himself open for the one he thinks is going to win the nomination. I will not say any more than this for now, but I do think Fred is picking his fights for a different reason. Fred is correct when he told Hanity that he has to win big. To be a true contender, he needs to place or win in South Carolina. Thompson hit all the right points last night, and made a strong showing, but I wonder if he is really trying to win.

Michigan predictions

So what happens in Michigan? Well, I think the Democrat part is obvious. But the Republican side is a bit different. I do not see many evangelist in Michigan, so that cuts Mike Huckabee out of the picture, and the Economy is a major issue over there. So this puts Mitt Romney out in from. McCain did get a bounce from New Hampshire, because we actually matter (as opposed to 10% of Iowa, IE the caucus). So is it Romney, McCain, Rudy, or Thompson?

First lets eliminate Thompson just out of sheer numbers. Thompson has not caught on (yet or at all) and I doubt people will vote for him because he does not resonate out there. Rudy is still waiting on Florida, so we can take him out of the equation. Now we are left with Romney and McCain. So who will it be?

Before I continue, I must stress that this is an open election, so there is the chance that my thoughts are going to be way off base here. The Democrats of Michigan might come out and skew the numbers by voting for the one they think they can beat in the general election. With that said, I am going to go with my conscious here and believe Michigan is going to vote intelligently. I am going to say Romney is going to take this because he has the right stuff for Michigan voters.

I know I am going out on a limb here, but Michigan is feeling the crunch of job loss and the sinking housing market. Michigan needs a strong economic leader, a true turn around candidate who can bring economic growth. Mitt Romney is the one person who can turn everything around for Michigan and create the breeding ground from new jobs, stronger employment base, and generally move Michigan from an economic sink hole to a prosperous land of employment.

Now how will Michigan vote? That depends on who turns out at the voting booth. If Michigan is as intelligent as I believe them to be, they know what I know; Mitt Romney is the only candidate that can be trusted with the future of Michigan. It is where he is from, so it is personal. He will put Michigan towards the top of his list, and bring jobs back to the state. Mitts framework for economic growth is the plan that almost guarantees Michigan a bright future.

In short, If Michigan uses their heads, they will vote for Mitt Romney.

Romney 35%
McCain 32%
Everyone else 33%

I think my "fluke" on the NH primary will not be repeated, but I hope I will be close here. I know New Hampshire better than any other place, I have lived here all my life. I have a good feeling about my percentages for Michigan.

My prediction, Mitt Romney takes Michigan.

When the ball falls in the Mitt…

Tonight the Republicans participated in a forum on Fox News with a bit more class than they had last night. I think they all noticed what I noticed; "Romney did not attack any of us, boy did we look stupid." I would guess McCain's people told him how tripe his unwarranted barb throwing sounded because I did not hear one negative comment from John. It's not that there were no occasion where I though John might attack, but rather John seemed more in control tonight than he did last night.

Before I get deeper into the other parts of the debate, let me touch on Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani. As far as Fred goes, he was not as good as he was last night. I would say he was a "4 out of 10". His points were good, and his ideas were ok, but it took so long for him to get them out, I wanted to light my hair on hire to pass the time. Fred, buddy, you're in New England. If you said it five minutes ago, we already moved on. Fed was not quite as quick as he has been, maybe he is over tired. But Fred did have one good line, when he asked Huckabee if he said he did away with death. That was a nice moment of levity.

As far as Rudy goes, he was not impressive. I barely noticed him on the stage tonight. Rudy had one great moment also; he said he admitted mistakes, and that we all make mistakes. No one is perfect, and he has made mistakes like everyone else. This was one of the most humanistic and true statements I have heard this election cycle. This was the one shining moment for Rudy in my eyes; he became a person like you and I.

All parties acted more statesmen like with the exception of Mike Huckabee. His little temper tantrum about Mitt asking him questions was less then becoming. Mike also decided it was time to be a politician when he ignore a question about raising taxes, not once but four times. Four times Mike talked around the question and never even came close to answering. Mike failed again at another point when he pulled a "Giuliani" (Clinton … Obama …) move by saying his immigration plan would not make the children of illegal's pay. In the next breath, Mike said the children must go home with their parents and get in line.

So let me get this straight, we do not want to punish the children of illegal's by making them suffer the consequences of their parents actions, but they must go back to their country and get in line? No, that's not what Mike said. According to Mike, he said the families of illegals are tight knit, and the children would leave voluntarily to be with their parents. Are you as confused as I am? I don't think Mike Huckabee knows what his position is at this point, so let's move on.

So why did Mitt win? Mitt has a strong immigration plan, believes in the rule of law, and opposes amnesty. He also has a responsible foreign policy that deals with Iraq in the most intelligent manner, a great economic plan that puts money back in you pocket, and the determination to get it all done. He will take on the challenges of Washington and get things done. Mitt loves a challenge, and loves to succeed. He is not a quitter.

Mitt was a true statesman who fully explained his standpoints. He showed how his record proves, unmitigated, that he is a good leader and he is a man make a real change (I hate using that word now) in Washington. During the forum, Mitt did not hide from the facts, and admitted to his record. In areas of change, Mitt accepted that he changed his viewpoints, and explained clearly how he came to a new understanding. He disproved every false, or slightly skewed "fact" the other candidates accused him of, and did it all with dignity. Mitt is the first "politician" I can honestly say I trust.

If I learned one thing from the forum tonight, it is this; Mitt Romney is a man you can trust.

Mitt-igating facts

So I hate to be right. Ok, that's a lie, but on occasion I am wrong. Looks like I might be wrong about my Next President of the United States posts. Rudy Giuliani is sliding out of the public eye, and sliding in the polls. According to some of the latest polling, Giuliani is slipping nationally. He was barley a radar blip in the two caucuses, but anyone in the Giuliani camp will tell you that is because he wasn't running for those states. Funny, but I thought those states were part of the United States of America … what is he running for again?

But I digress, Mitt Romney won in Wyoming by a margin that was near identical to what I formulated from the Iowa results. Is this a fluke or is this more? I think it is an uncanny fluke, but it is part of a much bigger picture. I said before Mitt was the only other candidate I could see winning the nomination, and here he is proving just that.

John McCain my still win New Hampshire, but by my best guess, it is not going to be the cake-walk John was hoping for. In the last debate, John seemed bitter and hateful, attacking Mitt as many times as he could with each breath of air. This was the same strategy that John said cost Mitt Iowa. Well John, if that's the case, am I to assume you want to lose New Hampshire?

You have seen my flash responses to the debate, and I just reread them myself. Next time I want to enter a flash response, I need to have my editors read it first. I think I got my point across; Mitt was a gentleman, the only true gentleman on the stage. He suffered the slings and arrows, and continued to move as fluidly as possible. I would not say it was his best performance, but he did a fine job of explaining his points and deflecting the attacks. Not once did he lower himself to the tactics of the others on the stage. This maneuver won the debate for Mitt.

Mitt Romney was clear and concise while advocating his positions. Mitt stuck to the issues while others stuck him in the ribs. The true test of presidency from last nights debate was how the candidates handled themselves on that stage. Mitt Romney was the only person who cared enough about the voters to spend his time conveying his thoughts and plans for when he entered Washington. By now you have followed my links to Mitts positions, and you know where Mitt stands. Mitt was unwavering in his positions and near flawless in explaining his ideas to the public.

With a solid background, solid platform, and great integrity, Mitt Romney showed the world who the next President of the United States should be. Mitt is honest and forthcoming, never hiding from the facts while taking challenges head-on. Mitt will not be persuaded by special interest. The only interest that concerns him is the interest of the citizens of the United States. These, my friends, are the markings of greatness.

And the winners are…

There are a few winners here in my mind. There are also a few losers here too. I may go against the grain here, but this is what I feel about each candidate from the worst to the best. I will go into more detail once I can sort out my notes from the debate. From worst to best, here they are:

Ron Paul

He really should have sat this one out. He did himself no favor by standing on the stage spouting ignorance about the issues surrounding the war in Iraq. If Paul tried to answer the questions asked, showed his stand points about the other issues, and tried to be a bit more versatile, he might have won a point or two. Instead he sat up there and beat the Iraq drum and showed he has no substance.

John McCain

John came off as bitter, childish, and hateful. It was almost as if he was only there to attack Romney. His camp said they would not attack Romney unless Romney came at him first. Within the first 15 minutes, John started with the personal attacks. So what else did John accomplish? Nothing, he did not come across as a strong leader or an established candidate. John spent more time attacking Romney and avoiding questions tan he spent on answering anything. I was totally turned off by John. The only one worse was Ron Paul.

Hillary Clinton

Hillary became excited, defensive, and vindictive in the first 15 minutes. She was goaded by the others, but her response was less than presidential. After she calmed down and started acting like an adult, she came across as experienced and well versed. This served her well, but she was still the worst of the Democrats.

Mike Huckabee

I think he showed he was not as experienced as he should be. He seemed unsure of himself as he answered question, and didn't seem sure of himself. Something was off in Mike tonight, even though he was real good at putting his points forward. I think mike is the worst of the middle candidates.

Rudy Giuliani

It's not that Rudy wasn't good, but he was not on top of his game. I think Rudy did well except for the switch in mid sentence. He first said that it was not amnesty if you fined an illegal and let them stay, then said it was giving them amnesty. When Thompson called him on it, Rudy said it was not amnesty. A true Hillary moment if I ever have seen one.

Barack Obama and John Edwards

Both men were very strong, and fully stated their points. Each on backed themselves up very well, and fearlessly took on Clinton. Both men were equally impressive, and therefore I can not choose between them. I think if I was forced to chose, I would say Obama was the better of the two.

Bill Richardson

The best Democrat of the night. He jumped in at the right times, said just the right things, and was flawless in his execution. I think this was Bills night. I might not agree with his politics, but the man had me thinking. He displayed his thoughts vividly, and projected his vision with a great clarity. I was very impressed with Richardson tonight, but I must admit, be was only slightly higher on my list that Obama and Edwards.

Fred Thompson

This is a guy who I might consider voting for. After watching him tonight, and seeing his conviction while answering, I know this man is serious when he speaks. He took no prisoners up on the stage, and backed down from no one. His points were valid, and his retorts were like an ax on an ice block. Thompson really pushed the envelope tonight. He was almost my number one tonight.

Mitt Romney

Mitt had a rough night. Not that the questions were hard, or it was not an easy format, but every time he turned his head, someone made a nasty comment. It was like tonight was "pick on Mitt night." But Mitt did a great job of brushing it off and moving on. Twice Mitt had to remind McCain about the agreement to be civilized. With that aside for the moment, Mitt stood strong on the issues, and held fast to his believes and stayed consistent with his views. Mitt hit every major point without fear, explained his views with perfect clarity, and made some of the best points tonight.

Mitt was unwavering, strong, and flawless. A lesser man would have folded (like Hillary) and started slinging the preverbal mud. Mitt was a gentlemen, and did not stoop to the level of the others on the stage. He pulled himself away from the pack, showing he was the only adult on the stage.

The reasons I have Mitt as the best candidate of both debates is this; He never lowered himself to mud slinging, was the best at defending his views, conveying his view, and debating his views with others. Mitt proved he has the ability, know how, and integrity to lead our nation.

Mitt Romney is going to be a great President.

Democrat flash response

Barack Obama

• The best I have seen him
  
• Confident
  
• Well stated
  
• Showed backbone
  
• Stood up for himself
  
• Seemed to try to hitch his wagon with Edwards against Clinton
  

John Edwards

• Looked calmer than I have seen
  
• Showed no fear
  
• Worked well with Obama against Clinton
  
• Was very persuasive
  
• Seemed natural and researched
  

Bill Richardson

• Impressive
  
• Very good at getting his point across
  
• Made some very good point
  
• Did the best job of differentiating himself from the others
  

Hillary Clinton

• Can across as experienced
  
• Was easily excited
  
• Became defensive
  
• Shrill
  
• Made me very uncomfortable when she got defensive with John and Barack
  
• Too sensitive

Overall

• This was the first time I saw the candidates get specific
• Less spin on the stage
• The first time I felt like the candidates were actually answering most question
• I really enjoyed how comfortable the candidates seemed with being candid
• The best debate I have seen this cycle for the democrats
• The perfect format for a debate (promoted candidates to force others to answer)

Republican flash response

Alright, my quick rundown while between debates:

Ron Paul

• Seemed clueless, and uninformed. Did not seems to know what he was talking about
• No good points, many areas where he avoided the question
  
• Tried to focus everything on the war, and made everything discussed about ending the war
  
• Paul can not lead a country on only the issue of the war. He was simply an annoyance
  

Mike Hukabee

• Childish attacks
  
• Took personal pop-shots
  
• Came across fairly strong on his issues
  
• Basically stayed on topic
  
• Seemed to give the other candidates more room to work, stayed out of the fray
  
• Decent standpoint well stated
  

Rudy Giuliani

• Quoted Romney
  
• Fairly gentlemanly (except the quips against Romney)
  
• Changed his statements during his statements
  
• Seemed to be advocating for Romney by stating Romney's points
  

Fred Thompson

• Stronger than I have seen him
  
• Poignant remarks
  
• Solid stand point
  
• Hit everyone except Romney with the issues (seemed to be on the same page as Romney except when he decided to attack Romney)
  
• Took no prisoners with his comments. Did not shy away from locking horns
  

John McCain

• Bitter and hateful
  
• Childish and spiteful
  
• Very vague in many instances
  
• Claimed he was not advocating amnesty (dishonest. He admitted he would let illegals stay)
  
• Fixated on Romney lying about him in "attack ads" (I checked the facts from Romney's ads. Romney ads are true)
  
• Struck me as the only politician on the stage. (everyone was more statesmen like)
• Turned me off. I now regret ever supporting him (2000)
  

Mitt Romney

• Gentlemanly
  
• No personal attacks
  
• Refused to retaliate when attacked personal
  
• Very strong and solid standpoints
  
• Consistent
  
• Seemed very presidential
• Solid positions

Overall

• The best debate format to date.
• The first 45 minutes were captivating
• Second half was also very informitive
  
• You can tell everyone is afraid of Mitt Romney by the personal attacks
• The childish comments toward Mitt we repugnant
  
• Mitt showed to be the most adult. He didn't stoop to the level of the other candidates. (attacks)
• The candidates all received ample time to talk
• Each candidate covered a great range of issues in great detail
  

Huckabee The Nominee

You know who I think was the real victor of the Republicans, and you know what I think is happening on the Democrats side. So this leaves us with some very simple facts to dissect on the Republican side. First is the Huckabee angle; what does this mean for Mike? Second is the Romney angle; how does this change Mitts chances in the primary? Third is how does this affect the other candidates? Well we know this means Huckabee gets 15 minutes of fame, but does it matter? Not really, but it give Huckabee the chance to hang around for an extra election or two. He has no chance of winning an election unless we become evangelical Christians. So I guess the question is who wants to convert? No takers? Alright, then lets write him off; he didn't win on the issues. He is only going to win in and around the Bible belt. I would be really surprised to see Huckabee win any other elections unless the Republican base are short sighted evangelicals who have not looked past the church doors for political information. This is not to say anything negative of you if you like Mike, but just to say you may not be looking at the big picture. First and foremost, who could he win against in a general election? Second, this is a republican primary and Huckabee is not ethical or a conservative. Republicans want conservatives.

What about Mitt? Well, he mopped the floor with the other candidates. The closest candidate to him was McCain with 13%. Romney won the election on the issues. Romney is now coming to New Hampshire where he is to face the other major candidate who made a blip on the Iowa map. McCain will not roll over in New Hampshire and may win next Tuesday. Does this mean Romney is dead? Could this be over before it even starts for Mitt Romney? Not even close. If McCain wins here in New Hampshire, Mitt has Michigan and South Carolina. Both states poll Romney with a favorable light. Romney will either gain the silver or the gold in New Hampshire before he receives a gold in Michigan and another gold or silver in South Carolina. Romney can win the Primary if he can stay in the top two or three for every election until "Super Tuesday." Iowa and New Hampshire will propel Romney to the top, even if McCain takes first here and Mike has Iowa. Romney just has to pull second.

So where are Thomson and Giuliani? Like I said before, Thompson landed with a thud. I think Thompson's campaign has been on life support for at least month now, and I think he is going to drop out after New Hampshire. I would be surprised to see him in South Carolina, but I do not intend to see him at "Super Tuesday." As far as Giuliani, it's hard to win if you do not show up. He is betting on the later states to crown him king. I hope others have enough good sense to see his true intentions. Rudy only cares about you if you are a major state. If he cares about you, he only cares that you see him how you like your candidate (in the style of Hillary). Does he have some real positions? Yes, he is a social liberal and a fiscal moderate. I pray Florida knows that Rudy wants to grant amnesty to all the illegal's soaking up space in their state. To the legal immigrants and children of legal immigrants how are voting, think about Rudy's "amnesty measures" when your time comes. The Caucus only affected Mitt and Mike; no other candidate mattered in Iowa.

If you learned one thing from Iowa, please know his:

Mitt Romney won.

This is Getting Interesting

The Iowa caucus has traditionally been an informal vote of about 10% of the voting population. This year was nothing different. About 10% showed up and "voted" for their candidate. We had Obama winning on the Democrats side, and Huckabee on the Republican. Both sides showed very clearly who the most viable candidate for both sides is. I know … how can Mike Huckabee be viable? I never said he was, only that the vote showed us who was viable. Now that I have teased you, let me swing our attention to the Democrats. If you want to read about the Republicans, read this post.

So Obama wins by a good margin, followed by Edwards, and Clinton as the caboose. This is a fitting order in my opinion. I think Clinton makes a good rear end, and I don't want her to think she can just glide in, take the vote and glide out. She is still going to be the nominee in my opinion, but I would like to see her work for it. Further, if she has to raise hell on the way to the nomination, the other Democrats are going to start digging into her past. This will make my job easier (picking her apart), and it also make an easier victory for the Republican candidate (not like they need it). If you expect me to take more pop-shots, please wait for another post. I try to reserve those so I can spread them out and not be too repetitive.

Edwards should be used to second. It seems to me he has been there before. Then again, he HAS been there before, and therefore he knows how to run for office. For Edwards to pull second place is about the same as saying he tripped on a stair. Do not count Edwards out because he is not a new kid on this block. You must watch Edwards, he learned from the best. I am not being hypocritical; I still stand by my other post. John Edwards appeals to a particular group within the Democratic voting population. Hillary is still the favorite.

Our buddy Obama is a wild stallion on the stage. No one knows quite how to handle him. Do you attack him, discredit him, or ignore him? He is the first viable "black" candidate offered in a primary election. Obama has staying power, but I don't think he can pull New Hampshire under his wing. Hillary seems to be the one speaking New Hampshire's liberal language. Obama is going to make this a close race, but I don't know if he can get over on Hillary.

Hillary VS Obama offers a new piece to the game board, one I had not thought about. If Obama take New Hampshire, Hillary might not fair too well in the primary. My assumption was Hillary would resonate with Iowa in the same fashion as she does here in the Granite State. I expected Hillary to get silver, maybe gold, and then plow though New Hampshire like a moose in the brush (New Hampshire reference). Now I am rethinking the ease of access for Hillary. South Carolina is a state that has a high ratio of minority voters. Right now, they are not voting for Obama because they do not think "white America" would vote for him. What happens if he wins New Hampshire and Iowa? Both states are 95% "white," doesn't this prove that Obama can win the white vote? Will this sway the South Carolina voters? Many questions, few answers. Here are my thoughts; Even if Obama takes the first two elections, then takes South Carolina, he can not win. Hillary is the "Hollywood candidate" who will sweep New York, Massachusetts, and the entire "Left Coast." Obama is going to get a HUGE bounce, but it will not rocket him into the general election.

Obama is going to make this one interesting, and Edwards is going to be a thorn in the side. When the dust settles, Hillary will be the only MAN standing.

NH prediction

Barack steals it in Iowa, and sets up the Democrats for “change,” and Mike Huckabee comes out of no where and tears it up. So where does that leave us in New Hampshire? Does Barack get a bounce here, and will it help him going into South Carolina? What about Mike Fluke-abee? What bounce will he get from winning the Iowa caucus? How is all of this going to affect New Hampshire? Simple, it won’t.

Every pundit has been talking about the polls and the bounce from Iowa. I have heard, “Barack is up 7 points!” or some other ridiculous fake number. Yeah the pollsters have been calling, and yeah I have taken the surveys. In one survey, I was asked if I would vote for an African-American candidate. Well, yeah I would. I don’t care about their skin color, I care about their positions. Now if they had asked me if I would vote for Barack Obama, I would have said no. I will not vote for Barack because I do not agree with his position, not because he is black. I think most people are intelligent enough to know that a person’s position is what makes the candidate viable. Skin color, lineage, sex, and religion are irrelevant when deciding who is best suited to run our country. I really think the pollsters are basing the Barack Boom on responses from intelligent people who vote on issues and positions, not cursory items such as “skin color.”

As far as Mike Huckabee, he will not get any major bounce from Iowa. I think he might scrape together 10% of the vote, but that’s only 2% more then I have been predicting. Mike will be off the map the day after Super Tuesday. I think his win lets him hang around until Super Tuesday and steal votes from the “real” candidates. Mike is not going to win the nominations, and he is barely going to surpass Ron Paul in New Hampshire.

Ok, my predictions for New Hampshire. Hillary Clinton and John McCain are your winners. Hillary is going to win by about 4% and McCain will win by about 7%. Everyone has been telling me I am nuts, but I will not change my opinion. I think I may eat my words on the Democrats side, but there is no question New Hampshire thinks it is McCain’s turn.

For the republicans final count, Mitt Romney is going to pull the conservative vote (30%), McCain is going to pull the independent vote (36%). As for the Democrats, Hillary is going to pull the liberal vote (40%), and Barack is going to get the independents vote (36%). You will see the results will reflect this on Tuesday.

Simply put, New Hampshire is all about old school politics on the republican side. On the Democrats side, Hillary will have more appeal because people think they know her. She has been around (and around, and around) the block, so she can be” trusted.” Yeah, good luck with that my liberal friends.

VICTORY!!!

Last night was the Iowa caucus and the first win for Mitt Romney. By now you have seen the headlines, and you know it was a good night for Obama and Huckabee, but the raw numbers only show half of the story. The missing part is the true story of last night’s caucus; Mitt wins, and Huckabee losses. Yes, Huckabee did lose. Oh, you didn’t know the entry survey stated 60% of those voting in the Republican caucus were evangelical Christians? Well, knowing this changes the true reflection of the results of Iowa’s straw polls.

Think about it this way; evangelical Christians are biased. FACT: They feel more comfortable with a Baptist Minister than a Mormon. Out of the evangelicals, Mike was able to pull ONLY 56.6% of the vote. This is a deadlocked crowd, and he only pulled 56.6%? This doesn’t look good for Mike, and I think this is the beginning of the end. I know he won, and I understand he was at 34%, but he only got 56.6% of the possible guaranteed votes. You can not win the nomination if you can only grab a small majority of your minority vote.

Mitt Romney was only looking at 40% of the voters as viable. Mitt pulled 25% for the total vote, or 62.2% of the viable vote. This may seem like an unusual way to evaluate the vote, but it is quite a bit more accurate when you look at the demographics of the voting populace. Can religion make a difference in a presidential race? Sadly, yes, it can, and Mitt Romney is not the first candidate to face such a problem. Romney may have fewer votes than Huckabee, but he had more votes than any of the real candidates.

Com-“Mitt”-Ment

When people ask me who to vote for, I always give them the same advice. To make an informed decision, you need to know where you stand. What is important to you? Look at the issues and decide where you would stand if you were running for President. Now take you opinions and put them in order from most important to least important. Look at your list and match you views up to the candidates. Who matches best with your views? After I compiled my list, I decided there is one candidate who will not only make a good President, but would be monumental. That man is Mitt Romney.

When you break down the issues, you have leadership, national security, the economy, and immigration. Leadership is an issue that can only be gauged by experience. With a strong track record, Mitt is the conservative candidate that the United States needs to lead us into greatness in the coming years. His leadership skills are unmatched by any candidate on either side.

As Governor of Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the nation, Mitt advocated conservative legislation that turned a $1.2 billion dollar deficit into a $700 million surplus. Most figures say the deficit was $3 billion, but either way, Mitt took Massachusetts from the red to black.. This is the same man who took the winter Olympics from rags
to riches.

So Mitt must be worth his weight in gold, right? Well, Mitt actually didn't take payment for his work as Governor of Massachusetts. Likewise, what Mitt received in compensation for his job with the Olympics he gave away to charity. In both cases, Mitt did what he does best, removed duplication and waste from spending. When the chips are down, Mitt will turn it around.

National security and immigration go hand in hand in my view. Romney encompasses my feelings in both, individually and separately. Romney was strong against illegal immigration during his time as Governor, and was against the liberal immigration legislation that was presented in 2005. He has opposed amnesty in any form, and has held strong with the rule of law. He didn't ignore the illegal immigration issue, Mitt allowed the State Police to detain illegal immigrants and enforce immigration laws.

Mitt intends to close the borders to illegal immigrants and to enforce immigration laws. This is what we, the voting public, want. We want the borders secure, and the law breakers prosecuted; we want law and order. This is why the degrading immigration bill I mentioned failed so miserably.

One thing that really bothers me is when people say we should walk away from Iraq. Mitt Romney knows and understands the implications of such hasty actions. We can not let Iraq fall into chaos; we must ensure Iraq has some type of stability. Pulling out of Iraq would be the same as saying the soldiers who gave their lives did so in vain. To back out of Iraq could lead to the collapse of the Middle East. If this happens insurgents gain power and terrorist/terrorism becomes stronger. If you take this a step further, you also invite further attacks on United States soil. Terrorist have already said that if we leave Iraq, they will come here (The United States).

Mitt is known to be trust worthy and ethical. He is the true conservative leader who is not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, but also knows when to make a necessary concession. He has proven that he can work with both sides of the aisle and is not afraid to stand his ground. We have the chance to elect a man of fiscal responsibility, morality, and integrity. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this what we all wish for in a candidate?

My friend Blither was quicker than I, and wrote a wonderful piece on Mitt. I hope you will read the next post before leaving this page. After you read Blithers post, I want you to see where Mitt stands for yourself. When you add it up, you will know why I am com-mitt-ed to Mitt Romney for 2008.

Why I'm Voting For Mitt Romney

People have asked me why I'm voting for Mitt Romney, and what I usually tell them is this:

Mitt has the most experience, and also has a platform and voting record that most closely matches what I feel we need in a good president.

That's really all I need to say on the matter. But, like most, I'll assume you're here because you need specifics. OK, let's start with a brief overview of his past....

---

School & Early Life

• Attended Brigham Young University, where he graduated as valedictorian.
  
• Graduated Cum Laude from Harvard Law School.
• Named a Baker Scholar for graduating in the top 5% at Harvard Business School.
• Participated in several pro-civil rights marches in the 60's.

Private Sector Experience

• 1978 named vice president of Bain & Company, Inc. (a management consulting firm).
• 1984 co-founded spin-off company called Bain Capital for 14 years, earning them 113% on investments.
• 1990 facing collapse, Bain asked him to come back - he did and turned the company around.
• 1998 headed the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee, profiting them $100 million.

Political Experience

• 1994 Ran for senate against 8-term senator Ted Kennedy. He lost, but it was Kennedy's smallest margin of victory ever.
• 2002 Ran for Massachusetts Governor, despite an incumbent Lieutenant Governor running. When it was revealed his popularity was 50 points higher than hers, she bowed out. As a conservative, and with over 50% of the vote, Mitt Romney was elected Governor of the state with the highest ratio of Democrats to Republicans in the state legislature (more than 2 to 1 and breaking the all-time record).

As Governor

• Turned a projected $3 Billion budget deficit into a $700 million surplus by lowering taxes and spending.
• In a very heavily democrat state, he still managed to leave office with a 43% favorability rating.

After Governor

• Won the Iowa Straw Poll in August 2007 with 31% of the vote.
• Has the bankroll to fund a decisive campaign against any democrat candidate.

Mitt has the most executive experience of all candidates on either side in both the public and private sectors, all of it marked by overwhelming success. In addition to corporate executive experience, his time with the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics shows that he can switch gears at will to head a team that is very different from his prior endeavors.

Mitt is the most experienced candidate in the field. Combining that with my firm belief that he will be strong on national security, the economy, and immigration makes him the best prospect to lead the country.