Saturday, July 14, 2007


ON ROMNEY AND RELIGION: Your Mittiot loathes these kinds of polls, especially if they come from Time, but the fact that Time has been relentless in fueling the question of Mitt's faith, there is some value to noting the following:

UNGODLY PAIR: POLL By CHARLES HURT Bureau Chief July 12, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - Voters put Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Rodham Clinton in the back pew when it comes to religious faith, according to a Time magazine poll out today. Just 15 percent said they think Clinton is "of strong religious faith," and 13 percent said the same about Giuliani - the lowest numbers of any White House candidates in either party.

By contrast, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama were seen as the 2008 hopefuls of the deepest faith. Twenty-six percent said Romney is strong on religion, while 24 percent said that about Obama.

"It's a reflection of the fact that the governor is tackling issues of faith and family values and he does so from a position of conviction," Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said. The Obama camp credits the Illinois senator's high church grades to his early years as an activist in Chicago.

"Obama began his career as a community organizer working with churches on the South side of Chicago," Jen Psaki said. "His Christian faith has been an important guiding post for who he is and how he views challenges like racial inequality, poverty and injustice in this country for the last 20 years."

Romney runs even with Clinton on religiosity among Democratic voters and trounces her among Republicans. Just five percent of GOP voters say Clinton's got religion.

It should be noted, that your Mittiot is not bashing Rudy (Hillary a little, maybe. . .) and maybe this story/poll is being floated to hurt the G-Man. I'm not interested in doing the devil's work, just interested in drawing attention to the fact that Romney's faith is a benefit to his campaign - NOT A LIABILITY (as the Hufficrats and Hufficans would have you believe). ~ so sayeth the Mittiot.

Thursday, July 12, 2007


ON FRED THOMPSON'S LATEST ANNOUNCEMENT: July 11, 2007 Thompson eyes August kick-off ~ Thompson is likely to launch his presidential bid in August.
"WASHINGTON (CNN) – Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson is now likely to announce his presidential campaign in August, not mid-July as previously envisioned and will skip the Republican straw poll in Ames, Iowa, people familiar with Thompson’s thinking tell CNN. The campaign-in-waiting is still being put together, and Thompson supporters say they want to have “100 percent” of the staff in place by the time of the announcement. “Expectations are through the roof,” said one source. “We have to match those at every level. . . . We have to be more ready than any of these other guys.”
Republican presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani and John McCain both announced in June they would skip the Iowa Republican party’s presidential straw poll, scheduled for August 11. Thompson created a state-level presidential exploratory committee in Tennessee in June.
– CNN Senior Political Correspondent Candy Crowley
~ so sayeth the Mittiot, again. . .
Oh, and by the by, McCain, Giuliani and Thompson significantly trail Romney in Iowa, which is why they're skipping it (way to give a slanted report, Candy). Romney continues to be the one to beat. . . and the Hufficrats know it.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007



Your Mittiot was just picking through a "" forum on Mitt's VP selection. "Cart-ish before the Horse-ish," I know, but still a lotta fun to think of what kind of dream team might be put together once Mitt wins the nomination.

Some great arguments were made for Newt Gingrich - though your Mittiot has already called on Newt to do what God seemingly put him on this great earth to do: Be the driving force behind "calling a National Constitutional Convention." Newt Gingrich is a modern day Ben Franklin, as smart as the day is long, but best suited for leadership behind the scenes.

Concern for the Hispanic vote led to some convincing talk of Mel Martinez of Florida. Interesting. Only an idiot would discount the importance of Florida, a "Mittiot" would reference the blog below and note that if Hillary gets the nod, Florida is in play. I don't believe Mel needs to be on the ticket to move the Cuban community to Mitt's side, we just need Hillary. . . oh and the photo below:

FLORIDA: Cuban Community Outraged as Elion Gonzales Sent Back to a Dictatorial Regime by Clinton Administration.

No. Mel isn't necessary, plus he has his hands full winning back majorities in the House and Senate for the GOP.

Of those running, Huckabee got a lot of play. Your Mittiot likes Huckabee. I like him personally, and governors have had a nice run in becoming President. In fact, unless my trivia mechanism is off, since the turn of the last century there have been more presidents who haven't served in Congress than have. And, since Ford (God rest his soul) it's been Gov., Gov., VP, Gov., Gov. - so Mike has history on his side. Unfortunately (for Mike), so does Mitt, and Mitt's the better candidate. I don't think 2 Gov.s on the ticket makes sense (which takes Tommy out, too) even though a good argument was made about the need to carry the South and the Christian Right vote - However, I think the South remains "Solid" as long as the Dems put Hillary (or the Northerner - Obama) on the ticket. Under this guise for a "Dream Team" I think Brownback would make a better ticket, but Ol' Sam has been so voracious in his attacks against Romney, I'm afraid he might pull a LBJ on our man Mitt should he actually become VP.

So what of Fred Thompson? Plausible, but what the hell would Fred Thompson want to be VP for (ending in a preposition for the "Aw shucks, Fred" effect)? And, as someone in the forum noted, he seems like he'd be "a pretty lazy Vice President." I don't know about that, but I don't see much incentive for Fred to be second seat on the dreamiest of dream teams (and, all together now, Lefty Media, "He's not even running, yet!").

Which pretty much sums up why John McCain won't be on the ticket with Mitt, either. As a side bar, I think McCain's calling is to be the "Straight Talk Senator" for the War on Terror with its obvious central front in Iraq - this is where our media-hoodwinked country needs him most.

Though I didn't see his name come up often (if at all within the forum), I do have a former student, Lance Hagerman, who swears Duncan Hunter is the man to beat for the presidency. Well, grasshopper, you missed the pebble. BUT, all the attributes noted on Duncan's behalf do make Hunter an interesting choice for VP. California in play would be HUGE. . . I just don't see it happening. Hunter's gift to America (and that of Tancredo) is to keep pushing enforcement of the current immigration laws while first securing the border. Both he and Tancredo's run for president has given a great soap box for this incredibly defining moment in our history.

Who's left (besides the Hufficrats, Socialists, Media, Trial Lawyers. . .)? Oh, Giuliani. Hmmm, NO. Not that your Mittiot has anything against Rudy personally, I could support the G-Man in the unlikelihood that he gets the nod - but he is almost my least favorite of the GOPers (I rank him along side of Tickle-me-Tommy, yet not higher than Tancredo, nor Jim Gillmore). There's no doubt that Rudy is the "Centrist" running. . . and that's the problem. Without going into some long dusty lecture about the ideological makeup of the country - just know this: There are no voting centrists in this country. The closest you get are "Center-Right" and/or "Center-Left" voters casting ballots with the partisans. The country is looking for decisive direction - either liberty through reduced levels of government arm-twisting OR forced equity through centralizing an ever expanding government. Alter egos never make good running mates, even if they're from the same side of the spectrum. And, as such I doubt we will see a Mitt/Rudy ticket.

So, who does the Mittiot see as the other half of the "Dream Team?" Boy, I tell you I would love to see Condi Rice join up with Mitt in a run for the White House. There's really nothing else to say. . . really. . . but. . . If your Mittiot were to play Devil's Advocate, the only possible, minuscule, chink in the armor, might be the nagging question: "Did Mitt choose Condi because she's black?" 40 years after Dr. Kings greatest plea to be judged by the content of one's mind, your Mittiot has no doubt the question would be raised - thank you, "affirmative action." In my humble lil' opinion lets have that debate. . . The bottom line: No, I do not believe the Rice addition would be too much of a distraction. Especially if we find ourselves running against a Clinton/Obama tag-team of futility. The real question, however, is why isn't Rice running for President? She's had the opportunity, but I don't think she has the desire. Would she have the desire to be VP? EEEEEH, Maybe. . .

One thing is certain, I do like the prospect of a strong female on the ticket with Mitt. So your Mittiot's choice of VP candidate would be a female because she's just that, "a she." Though one of my fellow Michiganian strategists said you "can't out-woman a woman candidate." I'm not so sure this is the case with Hillary. I believe there may be a lot of Right Centrist women (and those on the Left who just can't stand Hillary) who stay put (or cross over) with a strong female VP choice. Condi Rice is one, Elizabeth Dole may be another (though, I'm not sure how strong she comes off, after all the VP must be seen as having the potential of becoming President - she tried, didn't work), a member of the forum mentioned the Gov. of Alaska, Sarah Palin, but she's the first term governor of Alaska, which leaves your Mittiot a little, well, cold. No, fellow Mittiots, the best bet for our GOP "Dream Team." (Drum-roll, please) would be adding Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas to the ticket!

Senator Hutchison is strong, seasoned, comes off as being Presidential material, and is from the great state of Texas (33 electoral votes and besides Hollywierd, who doesn't like Texas?). She hasn't, to your Mittiot's knowledge, wavered on the War on Terror, nor Immigration (with credibility in coming from the state with the longest border with Mexico). She would compliment Mitt in her congressional experience (serving on the all important Senate Appropriations Committee, Transportation and Veterans Affairs), and she has been consistent on "issues of the state" from personal protection rights to opposing liberal federal abortion laws. "W. Mitt Romney & Kay Bailey Hutchison" this is your Mittiot's learned pick for our 2008 GOP Dream Team.

~ so sayeth the Mittiot. . . what say you, Senator?

Monday, July 9, 2007



If you got a chance to read your Mittiot's last blog, then you may have gotten the sense that I had been rubbed the wrong way by something out there in the mighty blogosphere - well, you'd be correct in that assumption. I ran across a blog that had done a pretty convincing job in taking on a persona of a fellow GOPer and methodically explaining that the "religious right" had no intention of supporting Mitt (something to the tune of "Dated Mitt, Married Fred). It concerned your Mittiot more than the regular political angling and I really couldn't figure out why. . . until now, when it dawned on me: I'M THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT AND I'M SUPPORTING ROMNEY. . . and for someone - SOME HUFFICAN - to go into a detailed pronouncement that I was alone in my support of this great candidate. . . Well, I am the "religious right" (pro-traditional family, pro-life, pro-Christian ethic) and Mitt Romney is the best candidate running AND "not yet running" out there.

One of the little nuggets thrown out by the poser's wishful thinking is that Hugh Hewitt has ditched Romney all together as a "no go." Well, that's a "B. S." As witnessed by the article posted today by Hewitt: "Romney on the Rise."

So a correction, HUFFICAN, the Religious Right is not leaving the Romney Campaign.


It goes something like this, "The Dems are happy with their presidential hopefuls, the Republicans, clearly are not. . . " Your Mittiot isn't so sure about that. I would suggest that of the top tier, the national polls reflect a "Nation or Republicans with questions that still need to be answered" rather than an unhappiness of our candidates. Being the wiser of the two parties, one might expect we might want a bit of information on positions prior to selecting a champion. . . but I digress. The fact that Giuliani is on top, Thompson comes in strong, and McCain (al beit losing steam. . . exactly because of his positions) rounds out third, adds credence to the notion that right now name recognition is driving the tacit choices of the GOP - NOT POSITIONS, NOR HISTORY.

So where is Romney in all this? He is, with little argument, the least known of the top-tier candidates - but when Republicans get to know Romney (as they have in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan) he comes out on top - as he should, since he is the best candidate (as stated ad nauseum).

Well, Mr. Mittiot, can you just make a statement like that without backing it up? Sure, I can blog anything (just ask the Hufficrats and Hufficans) but I'll add a little empirical some'tin some'tin so you might be able to pass on the information with conviction.

Let's take the recent Quinnipiac Poll for Florida and it's breakdown.

The Poll has/had Giuliani at 27, Thompson at 21, McCain at 13, Romney at 6, and Gingrich at 7. Knee-jerk dictates that our man Mitt ain't doin' so well - especially since Florida is going early in the primaries. BUT, to the point above, even in sunny, smart, "thank you GOD for Florida," Florida, the poll reflects name recognition over qualifications and issues on position (one pundant went as far as to say "there are a lot of New Yorkers and Jews in Florida so Giuliani should do well. . ." Huh? That's just stupid) - take note of the following from the Poll:

When Floridians were asked whether they had a Favorable/Unfavorable opinion of Giuliani only 16% "Hadn't heard enough" to answer - for Mitt, 60% "Hadn't heard enough" to answer. Fred Thompson - "who (all together now, Lefty Media) isn't even in the race. . ." - had 54% who needed more info to answer, but is still out polling Mitt nearly 4 to 1. Giuliani on top, Thompson in second? If this isn't, clearly, an example of name recognition polling - then your Mittiot better give up his day job. The bottom line: IT IS TOO EARLY TO LOOK TO NATIONAL POLLS - OR MOST STATE POLLS FOR THAT MATTER - TO MAKE THE "FACTUAL" STATEMENT THAT "REPUBLICANS ARE CLEARLY UNHAPPY WITH THEIR FIELD OF CANDIDATES." It just isn't empirically true.

~ so sayeth the Mittiot

By the by, it was interesting to note, in FL only 4% hadn't heard enough to make an opinion of Hillary and the state is split 47/47 on whether they like her. . . 2008 is setting up to look like 200o all over again.