Friday, January 11, 2008


Clinton, Obama Follow Granholm Toward Higher Taxes "And I recognize that when Michigan is hurting, it is a precursor of what could happen to the entire country. Because our manufacturing base, if it's threatened there, it's threatened everywhere. … Michigan is a state going through a one-state recession. … I'll mcommitment: if I'm President, that one-state recession is over." – Gov. Mitt Romney (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks, 1/9/08)
Gov. Romney Understands That Higher Taxes Don't Help Michigan: Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm's Answer To Fleeing Businesses And Rising Unemployment? Raise Taxes. "With the recent announcement of Comerica's relocation to Texas, the hemorrhaging of Michigan businesses continues. Astonishingly, instead of taking bold steps to make Michigan more competitive and attract investment, Gov. Jennifer Granholm's plan to end the mass exodus of employers is to raise taxes on them. … Michigan is indeed in a debilitating economic crisis, but no state has ever taxed its way into prosperity. Unfortunately, with a new, 'stand alone' tax on business services and a new gross receipts tax, the governor hopes to be the exception to the rule. I wouldn't advise anyone hold their breath." (John Williams, Op-Ed, "Michigan Can't Tax Its Way To Prosperity," The Detroit News, 3/16/07)
Gov. Romney: "[Granholm's] Taxes Are Going Up, Unemployment Rates Are High, Housing Prices Are Collapsing, The Auto Industry Is Not Thriving." GOV. MITT ROMNEY: "They've elected Jennifer Granholm, a liberal Democrat, as their governor and the laboratory experiment is out. Her taxes are going up, unemployment rates are high, housing prices are collapsing, the auto industry is not thriving." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks, 1/9/08)
Gov. Romney: "Michigan Is A State Going Through A One-State Recession." "And I recognize that when Michigan is hurting, it is a precursor of what could happen to the entire country. Because our manufacturing base, if it's threatened there, it's threatened everywhere. And so for me, Michigan is not just, oh, one state that I hope they're doing well. No, for me, Michigan is a state that has to do well. Michigan is a state going through a one-state recession." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks, 1/9/08)
Gov. Romney: "I'll Make A Commitment: If I'm President, That One-State Recession Is Over." "It ain't working and you're going to find that experiment is going to be rejected by the people of Michigan who want instead, somebody who knows, cares and loves that state and will fight very hard to help it come out of its one-state recession. I'll make a commitment: if I'm president, that one-state recession is over." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks, 1/9/08)
Gov. Romney Rejects Democrats' Attempts To Raise Taxes On American Families.
Gov. Romney Believes That "We Can't Afford" The Democrats' Plans To Increase Taxes: GOV. ROMNEY: "Charlie Rangel just came out this week saying he wants to put a surcharge on taxes, largest increase in the history of America. Look, more taxes are what the Democrats have in mind to fund many of Hillary Clinton's million good ideas. We can't afford that. It would slow down the economy. It would kill job creation in this country." (CNBC's "Mad Money," 10/28/07)
Gov. Romney: "The Right Answer Is Always To Keep Taxes Down." GOV. ROMNEY: "The right answer is always to keep taxes down. Don't add new taxes, but instead allow the American people and the entrepreneurial spirit to grow our economy. That's the best way to get revenues for government and the best ways to get good jobs for our people." (CNBC's "Mad Money," 10/28/07)
Gov. Romney Opposes The Democrats' Plans To Roll Back The Bush Tax Cuts: GOV. ROMNEY: "Let me tell you what I'd do, as opposed to what Hillary Clinton would do with regard to our tax and spending policies. First of all, I would make the Bush tax cuts permanent immediately – all of them, not some of them, but all of them." (Gov. Mitt Romney, Remarks To The Club For Growth, 10/17/07)
As President, Gov. Romney Will Fight To Grow The Economy And Keep Our Jobs: Gov. Romney Will Strengthen The American Economy By Lowering Taxes, Including Making Middle Class Savings Tax-Free. "As President, Governor Romney will cut marginal tax rates across the board, allowing all Americans to save more money. … Governor Romney's plan will allow middle class Americans to save tax free by changing the tax rate on interest, capital gains and dividends to absolutely 0%." (Romney For President, "Helping Michigan By Fixing A Broken Washington," Press Release, 1/9/08)
Gov. Romney Will Expand Free Trade And Promote U.S. Goods: "Governor Romney will seek to bring together nations committed to open markets and playing by the rules in the largest ever Free Trade Area, and go beyond traditional trade to promote high standards in areas critical to U.S. competitiveness." (Romney For President, "Helping Michigan By Fixing A Broken Washington," Press Release, 1/9/08)
Gov. Romney Will Expand Enforcement And Competitiveness: "Governor Romney's vision for expanding trade includes stronger enforcement efforts, multilateral efforts to stop currency manipulation, action against intellectual property rights theft, negotiations to open markets for services, and building food, safety and other standards to protect Americans." (Romney For President, "Helping Michigan By Fixing A Broken Washington," Press Release, 1/9/08)
Gov. Romney Will Streamline And Enhance Access To Worker Training And Educational Programs: "Governor Romney will initiate an audit of all existing worker training and educational programs to ensure that workers are being helped most efficiently." (Romney For President, "Helping Michigan By Fixing A Broken Washington," Press Release, 1/9/08)
"And I want to do a better job for the American worker. And by the way, this is key for Michigan. And for me, Michigan is personal. I'm going to go to work to help Michigan." – Gov. Mitt Romney (CNBC, Republican Presidential Candidate Debate, Dearborn, MI, 10/9/07)
~ so sayeth the Mitt

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, January 10, 2008



"I have received more votes for President than any other candidate on the Republican side." - Mitt Romney


Governor Romney was on task tonight. He was sharp with a great command of the economic, social, and security issues this country faces. . . In short, Mitt Romney continues to prove himself as the multifaceted candidate we need to address ALL the challenges this country faces. And, it is a FACT, that so far the Republicans who have voted in this nomination process have given Mitt the lead in votes AND DELEGATES. Allow me to continue to post the "After 3 Events Results:"

The vote numbers, by the way, have gone up as more precincts have reported. . . Romney is still up by some 1500 votes - and this doesn't include the Wyoming victory (not because your Mittiot is discounting the Big Sky voters, but because I couldn't find a vote number on the web . . . feel free to email it to me).

But for all the good points Mitt made tonight - especially about Michigan manufacturing jobs NOT being lost forever (ie. Free-Trade v. STUPID-Trade) - your Mittiot knows this debate in South Carolina is going to end up being a study of how well Fred out "aw shucks-ed" Huckabee. Which, by all accounts, he did.

Your Mittiot has said in past blogs that I do not have anything personal against Mike Huckabee - he IS a likable guy. However, I do believe he is too liberal a candidate to right the wrongs of Washington. . . For instance, how would the former Gov. of Arkansas have voted on the S-CHIP fiasco. Would that step towards socialized medicine (that goes way beyond insuring poor-children) have been signed into law - "to raise hope" - by a Huckabee administration? What if, God help us, the dems keep control of the legislature? Would this be Huckabee (or McCain, for that matter) style "bi-partisanship"?

And, again, your Mittiot isn't here to try and dust Mike Huckabee - true, I have a clear dog in this fight, I'm a Romney guy - but this issue of possibly nominating a liberal candidate for office, makes me wonder why the heck I fight for the Republican party so vehemently. This is a conflict of ideology and party versus this particular presidential race, and if the party has to keep changing to get elected, then what are we "conserving?"

"But, Mittiot, that's just one example of Mike being 'sort of liberal' and that was from a while ago. You can't. . ." I can already hear it, but here's my second case in point:

While watching the Fox debate - I flipped through the channels during the commercial (or maybe when Campaign Carl was smirking another loaded question) and I just happened to catch Anderson Cooper on CNN interviewing former dem candidate, Bill Richardson. Seems Kerry has endorsed Obama, and Cooper was looking to see if Richardson was endorsing anyone. Richardson replied: "Sure, I gotta a call from President Clinton. . . I also got a call from Sen. Obama, and John Edwards. . . I EVEN GOT A CALL FROM MIKE HUCKABEE. Really? "I got a call from Mike Huckabee. . ."

[UPDATE: 1/11 - Transcript from AC360: GOV. BILL RICHARDSON (D-NM), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I am ending my campaign for president of the United States. CROWLEY: New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, a Latino, dropped out of the race today. It's just over a week before the Nevada caucuses, where the Latino vote may play a major role. Raise your hand if you think it's a coincidence Bill Clinton has been in touch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE SITUATION ROOM") RICHARDSON: Well, yes, he called me quite a bit in the last couple of days. We talked. I talked to Senator Clinton. So did Senator Obama and Edwards called. You know, I even had a nice call from Mike Huckabee, who is an old pal of mine. (END VIDEO CLIP) ....... To be fair, this may have been just a "sorry to see you get out, ol' pal" call from Huckabee. . . but the context was in "courting endorsements" - The Mittiot] Governor Huckabee is looking for the endorsement of LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, Bill Richardson? As your Mittiot is fond of saying, "What the?" This is no way to win a GOP nomination.

Ponder this, we had a dem congressional candidate who ran against our now congressman, Cong. Tim Walberg (MI7), come to one of our local county GOP meetings. She came in to tout the need to support Ron Paul. Well, let me tell you something, that went over like a lead balloon. Dems have "No Cred" within the GOP - and they shouldn't. That's why we are "we" and they are "they." The fact that Mike Huckabee is courting democrats for endorsements (the fact that ANY candidate would seek such an endorsement) during a GOP nomination - leaves one to wonder who's voting for this guy. . .

Which brings me to McCain. Your Mittiot's been a little critical of Senator McCain, but again, I'm a Romney guy. And, "Friends" let me tell you - here in Michigan - the Senator has been attackin' as much as he's been attacked - more so. I'm doing my best to hold to Reagan's 11th, but some days. . .

In case you missed it (now, this comes from the debate tonight, so I'm not pulling out-of-date statements together to convolve some some anti-McCain message. BUT, in case you missed it. . .), I was left scratchin' my head - and this time it wasn't because of the Ron Paul non-protectionism, protectionist plan. Senator McCain said something to the effect of "I've never takin' special project money for my state. . ." [UPDATE: 1/10 - Youtube clip 7 of the debate, @3:45] and then he goes on to repeatedly tell America that his state is a major part of the illegal immigration problem [UPDATE: 1/10 - Youtube clip 8 of the debate, @7:39]. In his words, he's worried noting the pork and ignoring the problem. More illegals come through his state then any other. . . Has the senator at least asked for an appropriation to fix the fence? And, if so, where's the "leadership" been in getting it?

Call me "silly" but why the heck do I send a stack of tax dollars to DC if the people we - America - sends there aren't going to take care of the NATIONAL problems. I'm pretty sure, most Americans would not consider it as "pork" to seek an appropriation to fix the Arizona/Mexico border - YOUR BORDER, Senator. In fact, if the federal government did it's job and there was some leadership on this issue, I don't think the approval ratings of the US legislature would be in the low 20's. AND, I, for one, wouldn't have to wince every time I eyeballed my paycheck.

The bottom line: I believe this is what Governor Romney is speaking about when he says, "WASHINGTON IS BROKEN."


~ so "ranteth" the Mittiot.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, January 9, 2008





Your Mittiot shouldn't have to remind individuals that these contests send delegates to the National Convention - this isn't the Electoral College. The delegates sent will chose the nominee.

Now, I'd be a liar if I didn't spill that I was disappointed in the N.H. results - not because we lost, per se, but because we had a chance to conclude the inevitable Romney nomination in the Granite State. . . now we have to wait another week.

There's no doubt the Michigan election will be tight - and with the Media's lips puckered tight to McCain's 71 year old tushy - anything other than a 10 point win will be considered a "loss" for the Romney campaign. So, we're in a tough spot. . . but ROMNEY WILL WIN MICHIGAN.

Why and how? Yes, McCain won Michigan in 2000 - but it was NOT a primary where independents (or democrats for that matter) had to choose one or the other ballots. In fact, the dems chose their candidates by closed caucus, while the GOP held an open primary. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID! Dems voted for their candidates and ours! And, wouldn't you know it - McCain the "Maverick" won. That shouldn't happen this time around.

Why not? A couple of things - the dems (though feebly) are choosing their candidates via the same primary as the GOP - and you can only vote on one ballot. So, again I ask, "For whom will the Indys vote?" Well, here's the 10 cent analysis:

In NH Indys were supposed to break for Obama - they didn't. Why? The Media had Obama up by 10 and "unbeatable" - and the Media had the McCain Romney race "tight." Well, if I could vote in either race as an Indy - I'd vote in the race that would have an impact, too. And that's what we got. Not that your Mittiot was certain we were going to win (you see, while we were actually campaigning in Iowa, McCain was cherry-picking his "most likely". . . don't forget, Romney beat McCain in Iowa 2 to 1) but I did believe we'd be within 2% - turns out it was 5. And wouldn't that 3% have made all the difference to the Obama team? Frickin' Media. . . but I digress.

Secondly, had Hillary lost by 10, she' d be done. BUT, she won, and now Michigan DOES matter for the momentum. It is very likely that Clinton - though the only candidate on the Michigan Ballot - could LOSE the Spartan State. Why? Because dems can vote "Uncommitted" and if they want to stop Clinton's MO, they better... and I believe they will. So, dems vote for dems. . . and so do the Indys.

Third, if it were an Obama/Clinton race, Michigan would be a lock (voting "Uncommitted" is a little tough to get excited about, AND in a tight race Hillary's being the only name on the ballot - doesn't leave much chance for Obama). BUT, Edwards is not going to get out - even though he took third in Iowa. Why? He has enough money to last until Michigan, he understands that he and Obama will both draw voters to vote "uncommitted", he can "share" a victory in Michigan (giving him a second, third and "first" place finish), but mostly, his national chairman is David Bonier - the former Michigan Congressman. There's no way Edwards will drop out before Michigan. So no dems for McCain, either.

Lastly, the MIGOP have been tweaked about the 2000 shenanigans for the past 8 years. Many believe, including your Mittiot, that because of McCain's underhanded win in Michigan, we've been ignored by Bush for the better part of his administration (Hey, I love the guy - and appreciate the tough love of DC - it'd be a lot easier to handle, though, if we weren't in a "one state recession.") and the MIGOP won't - MUST NOT - be fooled again.

And lastly, lastly, Mitt is a Michiganian. . . and a car guy. . . and has been plowing the primary field here for a longggggg time now.

We will take Michigan - Huckabee will get NO BOUNCE from NH - and McCain will run into "real republicans" in Michigan. . . which by the way, Iowa and NH, you have proven to be "unrepresentative" in the primary process - you taint the wishes of the party - and you should not be "first in the nation." In short, you blew it.

~ so sayeth the Mittiot.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, January 7, 2008



As I peck these keys, "New Hampshirites" are 5 minutes away from beginning the NH Primary. This "little - rock solid - state" of 1.5 million citizens will have a BIG impact upon the political landscape. And, that's an understatement.

If you remember nothing else the Mittiot has said, NH, remember this: "America faces multiple challenges and we need a President who can identify, assess, and lead us through these challenges."

Not the least of which is the issue of "free-trade." Hey, "free-trade" is okee dokee, fine with me, but "STUPID TRADE" is killing this country, and we need a candidate who knows the frickin' difference between the two.

You know you wouldn't be reading this blog if I wasn't trying to get you to vote for Mitt Romney as that person - I'm the "MITTIOT", it's what I do. But I'm the Mittiot because I truly believe this issue is important, and I believe Mitt Romney is the best candidate to navigate this country through this challenge. If I didn't, I'd be sleeping right now. If you have yet to make up your mind, view the following video - you'll not see a piece like this from any other candidate in this race. . .


~ so sayeth the Mittiot.

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, January 6, 2008



Your Mittiot knows, "One great night does not a campaign make. . ." or something like that, but again and again, Romney shows he has command of the issues and is a multifaceted candidate. . . not a "one hit wonder." He's not just a "Pro-Family" candidate, not just a "Secure Borders" candidate, not just a "Fiscal Conservative" candidate, but the COMPLETE package.

Now, I'm going to rant here a bit, probably repeat myself as I feverishly peck the keys, BUT, NEW HAMPSHIRE YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THE GOP WHY - WHY - YOU SHOULD BE THE "FIRST IN THE NATION" PRIMARY. You have an opportunity to show the U.S. that when you pick a candidate you do it based on "ability across the board" and not just the "issue de'jour." NH, you and I and the rest of country know that the person we send to the White House must be prepared for whatever may come. . . not just the problems here and now, but the unpredictable nature of the WORLD. You know Romney is that candidate.

If you read the blog, you know your Mittiot is from the great state of Michigan. I do love this state dearly but I can tell you Michigan is suffering: Home foreclosures, high energy prices, issues with public education, high unemployment, and a governor who thinks she can tax her way out of this mess. Above all, Michigan is suffering because of the economy - THE WORLD ECONOMY. We've got a great workforce, maybe the best in the world, but we cannot compete in the spectrum of wholesale manufacturing when 1 billion Chinese are willing to attempt (that's right, "attempt") to work a production-line for 12 cents an hour. We're hurtin' in the Great Lake State because we DO care about the environment but are forced to compete with countries that absolutely DO NOT. We're hurting in Michigan because, though the state government has a big taxing problem, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT still spends money faster than they can take it out of our pockets. For the families in Michigan, the "World Economy" is killin' us. . .

What's this got to do with New Hampshire? Alright, do your Mittiot a favor and try this if you would:

Take the above paragraph and substitute "New Hampshire" for "Michigan," (and "Granite State" for "Great Lakes State,") and tell me if the passage stills rings true.

If it does, if the World Economy is hurting the families of New Hampshire, then Romney has got to be your pick. No other candidate in this race - Republican or Democrat - can possibly understand WASHINGTON's economic impact upon the American Family and American Business better than Mitt Romney.

Why Romney? (First, you could read economist, Larry Kudlow, and why he thinks Romney has the "Right Stuff" if you're sick of the Mittiot's harpin' - he sums it up better than I, But. . .) I say Romney is the right candidate because he knows (as I, you, and everybody outside of the Washington can attest) that if we continue to spend more money then we actually have our quality of life goes down - not up. I know I'm preachin' to the choir but it can't be said enough, "when the government gives you something, it's never 'free' - somebody's got to pay for it." The bottom line is that if we want to expand the quality of life for ALL Americans we need to expand the economy INTELLIGENTLY. AND, Washington (in general) just doesn't get it! This is why we need an "outsider" with busines experience in the White House. If we really want to get the right kinda "CHANGE," we need Mitt Romney.

I'll leave you with this headline linked to a piece that should cause you to ponder the stakes:

"The Rise of the 'Brics'"

Voters of New Hampshire, the stakes COULD NOT be higher. . .

~ so sayeth the Mittiot.