Wednesday, November 28, 2007



Your Mittiot will take a stab at deconstructing the debate tomorrow. But, as I know the spin will be zipping through cyberspace come morning, let me toss out the first bias twist:



The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder: "Romney had a strong night, seemed raring to go, seemed to be willing to take on everybody, anybody, all comers, seemed to want to pick every fight possible." (Marc Ambinder, "The Debate In Review," The Atlantic Online Blog,, 11/28/07)

National Review's Seth Leibsohn: "This Is Mitt's Night." (Seth Leibsohn, "This Is Mitt's Night," National Review's The Corner,, Posted 11/28/07)

Bill Bennett: "I think that Romney stood out tonight. I think he was loud and clear. Conservative. He was 'all-in' as you'd say in Texas Hold 'Em." (CNN's Post-Debate Coverage, 11/28/07)

Bill Bennett: "I thought he came across very strong. I think you guys are absolutely right. That opening debate between Romney and Giuliani was, I think, the pivotal point of the evening. And I think points to Romney. Giuliani came across badly." (CNN's Post-Debate Coverage, 11/28/07)

ABC News Live Blog: "Romney is engaging very, very directly -- and dare I say he's getting the better of Giuliani in this exchange, funny accents and all." ("Live-Blogging During GOP Debate," ABC News' Political Radar,, Posted 11/28/07)

· ABC News Live Blog: "And Romney gets the first applause by noting that illegal immigrants already broke the law." ("Live-Blogging During GOP Debate," ABC News' Political Radar,, Posted 11/28/07)

National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "[T]his is Romney's best debate performance yet. He reminds us he has experience and outside of Washington, he's tackled difficult issues, and does not let his temper get the best of him with a New York bully (something that will come in handy)." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, "So Far," National Review's The Corner,, Posted 11/28/07)

CNN's Bill Schneider: "A clever answer from former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney on farming. He says we need food independence like we need energy independence — keep the farmers on the farm. His reasoning: We need to be able to compete with other countries that support their farmers." (Bill Schneider, "Schneider: Romney Scores Points On Farming Answer," CNN's Political Ticker,, Posted 11/28/07)

MSNBC's Domenico Montanaro: "While the sanctuary mansion line got good laughs, Romney's explanation and questions left Giuliani without an answer." (Domenico Montanaro, "Giuliani Flustered?" MSNBC's First Read,, Posted 11/28/07)

National Review's Rich Lowry: "Rudy let his temper get the best of him—clear winner of the exchange: Romney." (Rich Lowry, "Mitt V. Rudy," National Review's The Corner,, Posted 11/28/07)

National Review's Seth Leibsohn: "I'd be surprised after this debate if Mitt doesn't see national numbers looking more like his Iowa or NH numbers after tonight's performance. Brilliant response to the black on black crime questions." (Seth Leibsohn, "Changing Times," National Review's The Corner,, Posted 11/28/07)

The New York Times' Katharine Q. Seelye: "But finally, a father-son team, from Atlanta, want the candidates to talk about black-on-black crime, and while Mr. Romney gets in a nice line about mothers and fathers and family values, none of the candidates really address the issue that the young son raised." (Katharine Q. Seelye, "Live-Blogging the YouTube Debate," The New York Times' The Caucus Blog,, Posted 11/28/07)

National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru: "So Romney did pretty well in the debate, and won the immigration exchange." (Ramesh Ponnuru, "A Good Day for Giuliani," The Corner Blog,, Posted 11/28/07)

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "Mitt makes a good point that homeowners should not be required to check papers of workers hired for their and connects it to regular Americans by suggesting that that's what Rudy wants them to do." (Townhall,, Accessed, 11/28/07)

The Plank's Isaac Chotiner: "Romney definitely got the best of Giuliani on their early immigration skirmish (which actually got rather heated). Rudy's line about Romney's mansion was cheap and silly. And Romney is more appealing when going negative than any of the other candidates." (The New Republic's "The Plank,", Accessed, 11/28/07)

National Review's Kate O'Beirne: "Romney's reference point about how MA liberals reason is effective. Reminds us that he gets them and fought them." (National Review's "The Corner,", Accessed 11/28/07)

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: Romney and Huckabee had a good spar over giving better benefits to illegals for school than to citizens. Romney is absolutely 100% right on this issue. I hope Iowans realize that Huckabee may very well be worse than Bush on illegal immigration." (Heading Right,", Accessed 11/28/07)

~ so sayeth. . . well, a lot smarter people than your Mittiot.

Labels: ,



Turns out the dems have voted to support the ballot "as is". . . without Biden, Richardson, Obama, or Edwards on the ballot. See below from our GOP Chair, Saul Anuzis:

MORNING UPDATE: January 15th primary settled…AV applications have been mailed, ballots are being printed…let the games begin!

Republicans are negotiating for a second debate…discussions are on their way with two major networks to hold a debate following the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. Keep your fingers crossed!

The Democrats foiled a last minute attempt to insure all their candidates would be on the ballot. Senator Clinton is the only major candidate on the Michigan ballot, now the question is will the Obama and Edwards people play in the Democrat primary to embarrass Hillary?

Michigan Democrats Executive Committee then voted last night to go with the January 15th primary as is. So we’ll all make the best of what we have…boy are the Dems screwed up!

So the dems will allow their delegate support to be chosen by primary - without any of the other top-tier candidates on the ballot, AND - because of the DNC rules will only get half the allotted delegates as "punishment" for going early. I just cannot see this going forward. . . but, hey, I'm a Republican. . . we do things a bit differently.

~ so sayeth the Mittiot.




CORRECTION: I found out today (well late last night) that the Senate has not - NOT - voted for immediate effect to ad the names of the four dems who filed the paperwork necessary to take their names off the dem ballot (Biden, Richardson, Obama, and Edwards). Without those individuals on the ballot, the dems will have a choice between Hillary. . . and. . . well, that's about it. Your Mittiot cannot see how the state dems will sign off on this - look for a caucus declaration by the end of this week.

If the dems go caucus, the GOP will, MUST, go to a nominating convention.

Michigan weather and Michigan politics. . . never predictable.

~ so sayeth the Mittiot.


Tuesday, November 27, 2007



Alright. Alright. Your Mittiot knows when he's spittin' into the wind and must admit, begrudgingly, that it looks like the joint Michigan Primary will go - as planned - January 15th. In my humble lil' opinion, there is still a slight chance that another court battle may be brought up in terms of "who's" paying for the re-printing of ballots (explained below) now that the legislature has passed the "primary fix" putting the four dem candidates back on the ballot. However, though anything can happen - as most noted that the chances of the MI Supreme Court reversing both the initial court ruling and the appellate court ruling on the "constitutionality" of original primary legislation were very slim - it appears now all but certain the January 15th primary will go forward. Your Mittiot lost a few bets on this one, as I was certain the dems would prefer to caucus behind closed doors to choose their candidate, while enjoying the privilege of voting in the GOP primary to "help us" choose our candidate. BUT, I believe we will get a true, competitive, primary election. . . which is a good thing.

Here's the run down if your head is spinning. Both the state dems and GOP wanted to move Michigan up to have a little more prominence in the process of bumping candidates forward in the election process. This brings not only political advantages to the state, but also some economic plums. Iowa and NH, of course, wish to retain their prominence - which I can't blame them for - and applied pressure to the RNC and the DNC to reconcile the leap frogging, encroachment. On top of that - in an effort to appease the "first in the nation" states - Democrats (unwisely) promised to not campaign in Michigan (or Florida) as punishment. On top of this, four candidates (Biden, Richards, Obama, and Edwards) went as far as to file paperwork to have their names removed from the Michigan primary ballot all together - which left Clinton as the only top-tier candidate on the ballot.

earlier this month, as noted in previous blogs, a dem operative and data broker named Mark Grebner filed a lawsuit questioning the legality of the original January 15th primary legislation which gave the ballot preference data only to the dem party and the GOP. In other words, when a voter requests either a GOP ballot or a dem ballot - that recorded info would only be handed over to the respective parties.

Grebner was successful in persuading the lower court that the law was unconstitutional and the primary was off. On behalf of the SOS, the AG asked for an emergency appeal and the appellate court took a gander at the case. The MI Court of Appeals concurred with the lower court finding that the January 15th primary was, indeed, unconstitutional. An appeal was made to the state Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, legislation was already working its way through Lansing to put the four candidates back on the ballot - so a full, competitive slate of candidates appeared on the dem ballot. The legislation passed the Senate, but failed to get the necessary votes for "immediate effect" - which meant the names would be put back on the ballot (given the House concurred) but AFTER the election took place. Regardless, the vehicle was in place to legislatively address the issues noted by the court regarding the ballot preference data. However, the dems refused to take up the legislation. And this is where we sat just prior to Thanksgiving.

The Wednesday before Thanksgiving, I got email after email noting the the MI Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the decisions of the two lower courts. The primary was back on. . . BUT, we still have the dem names off the ballot, the need for the state party to sign off on the plan, AND, now we were getting some grumblings from the MI Clerks Association that there was not enough time to get the ballots printed and out to - among others - the military absentee voters.

On Monday, the legislation adding the four dems back to the ballot was taken up and passed - but, again, DEMOCRATS would not give the bill immediate affect. So on Monday, I was holding my bet that the primary would not go on. Among the things listed above as road bumps, I was also certain, the REPUBLICANS would not allow a defacto repeat of 2000 (dems caucus, GOP holds "open" primary - only this time, dems only have Hillary on the ballot and the GOP holds an "open" primary).

Today, I got word that the legislature has put the four candidates back on the ballot - with immediate effect - and ballots will be printed this weekend (if not sooner). The primary appears to be on. AND, thanks to a late showing by Obama in Iowa, the election could actually be competitive - meaning the dems will stay on the dem side. . .

What might derail the process? The dems may still conclude that they're going to caucus to decide whom their candidate will be (though at this point, I doubt it). Someone may file a lawsuit that stops the process again, on the grounds that the primary will disenfranchise the absentee voters. OR, the cost of reprinting ballots with the four names will become a point of contention. Possibly, one of the candidates whose name was added back on the ballot might sue, though I'm not sure why you'd want to do that - other than to get a boost in Iowa or NH (look for Obama to sniff that one). But all in all, weighing the possible outcomes, I am ready to pay my dollar to my good friend whom I bet regarding the viability of the MI January primary. . . I hate you, Steve.

And, that's where we're at. . . though - like the Michigan weather - if you don't like it, wait a minute. . . it'll change.


Yeah, right. . . .

~so sayeth the Mitiot.

PS. Kudos to Megyn Kelly for refusing to allow Billy O the ability to drop the very, very, poor decision of a Mass. judge at the feet of former governor Mitt Romney. That's BS Bill, and you know it.

Labels: , , ,