Tuesday, September 25, 2007



Another day another snub by FOX to mention Romney's win in Mackinac. . . Your Mittiot wouldn't hold his breath as the window has passed.

On the topic at hand (though the above "update" is related), pollsters and pundits worth their trade should honestly analyze the national polls - to do less leaves one to believe those doing the reporting are idiots or liars (as in the breed of Hufficrats that have an agenda). Case in point:

Poll Sheds Some Light On America's Feeling On Mitt Romney

An excerpt from the article linked above highlights the latter of the two outcomes of faulty analysis:

"Nonetheless, for some reason, he is not impressive enough to meet the requirements of the American public. The results of a recent poll indicated that only 16% of Americans say they will vote for him if he became the Republican nominee. Just below half, 46%, say they will not vote for him: 1/3 of those polled are not sure. When this issue was presented to the Republican Party's political committee, the news was still not good: 1/3 would vote for him, three in ten would not cast their vote for Mitt Romney and another third are not sure."

What the? If you actually go to the Harris Interactive Poll it spells out that the NATIONAL polls reflect a nation who has yet to get to know Mitt. The poll actually says this point blank and for some reason (Cough - HUFFICRAT - Cough) the information written - in rather benign terms seeking to leave one to believe "we're just reporting the facts here. . ." - fails to report the obvious. And, by the by - nowhere does it say the "Republican Party's Political Committee" would not vote for Mitt.

So, for those who know what your Mittiot is about to peck out with feverish twitches of angst: skip down. For those who can't get enough of the logic, or just don't get it: please, read on.

NATIONAL POLLS REFLECT THE NATURAL IGNORANCE OF AN ELECTORATE WHO CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW ALL THE CANDIDATES, THEIR STANCES, THEIR CHARISMA, THEIR QUALIFICATIONS. (which is why we actually have an Electoral College) BUT, Those republican individuals who get to know Mitt Romney - Those true fence-sitters who actually meet the guy - BECOME MITTIOTS! Time and time again, they like what they see. As such (and this isn't faulty analysis), Mitt Romney will win the national nomination, and he'll do it state by state (as the process was intended.)


Here's another example of the "Mittiot Effect" (this is what we're going to start calling the above theme. . . the Mittiot Effect. . . sounds good): Read the San Jose Mercury account of Mitt's recent campaign stop here.

Kinda, "milk toast" eh? Now checkout what someone - non-Media - had to say:

"I was there. This article makes it seem like all of the questions were "soft balls" but that is not the case. While some questions were easy fruit to pick for Romney, other questions were more pointed (specifically related to education and immigration). The fact that Romney answered these questions thoughtfully, without missing a beat, integrating his prior experience as governor made the questions seem easy. However, if Thompson were tossed these questions, he would likely give a generic answer or a simple "I'm not aware of that" as he did when asked about the Jena 6. I walked away convinced that Romney would actually leave Washington better than he found it if he were elected. We are in dire need of change, but I want someone to change Washington for the better. Romney actually has a plan that makes me believe things will be better when he is done. Other candidates may have me convinced that change will happen, but not that the change will necessarily be good for the USA. On a side note, I found Romney to be a warmer speaker than I expected. He seemed very comfortable, not afraid to try out new material and laugh at himself a bit. I enjoyed the sincerity." - Posted by Shane
Shane has himself, become a Mittiot. Your "original" Mittiot (now I have to distinguish myself) would like to backup Shane's observation with one of my own from the recent GOP event in Northern Michigan.

One thing that struck me as BS from some of the reporting (OK. . . the New York Times) of the Mackinac Conference was that the applause for Mitt wasn't strong when he keynoted the Saturday lunch, that Mitt's speech wasn't received the way Rudy's or McCain's (though the consensus does seem to be that Thompson was a bit flat and needs to get his feet under him - bet that "testing the waters for 6 months" doesn't seem like all that great an idea after all. . .), or the packed LUNCH (not dinner) crowd at the Grand somehow didn't appreciate the address. Again, this analysis is either idiotic or agenda laden. Your Mittiot was there. Mitt Romney commanded the room. Every eye that could see him was watching, individuals were locked in on his words intently - intensely - listening (he is, after all Michigan's son). I didn't have a great seat for the event (Zimms, we'll talk about this later) and as such, I was able to look around the room trying to catch a glimpse of Mitt and turning back to the closed circuit televisions distributed around the sprawling facility. I saw the faces, and what I say is true, Mitt Romney had captured the crowd.

One of the articles mentions that when Romney correctly noted we (the GOP) "must put our own house in order" awkward clapping followed. That's not true. I know, because I literally led the applause - which was strong. Directly following the end of that strong round of applause, Romney made another remark that elicited a few to applaud again - but it was out of cadence - and didn't catch. IT WASN'T that Romney was off the mark - Mitt received much applause throughout the address. And, lastly, the standing ovation following Romney's address was very long and very, very, genuine. It just kept going and going and . . .

No, Media. No, no, Hufficrats. Don't come into OUR house - into the state that bore Mitt - and tell us that we are anything less than ready to send Mitt to the White House.

~ so sayeth the Mittiot


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home