Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Three of Mitt Romney’s competitors for the 2008 GOP Presidential nomination have in some way apologized for their campaign personnel or themselves for attacking the Mormon faith. Romney seems to have played the unfortunate comments or actions down until now. Today he indicated one’s faith should not be part of the campaign discussion while it appears that at least some people in the other campaign camps seized the opportunity to use it as a negative campaign tool.

Giuliani’s campaign troubles will come from his liberal social positions like marriage and abortion. McCain’s campaign troubles will come from his positions on Iraq and immigration. McCain has the additional problem of fund raising as does one of his Democratic rivals, John Edwards. With Fred Thompson laying in the weeds attracting some support in the polls without campaigning, the remainder of the GOP field including Romney may view this as the largest challenge if and when Thompson announces.

The attraction to using the cheap shot about Romney’s faith may be signs of panic from the Giuliani, McCain and Brownback camps. Mitt Romney has mostly stayed on message and only recently made any real notice of the religion issue. One can hardly blame him for finally expressing his own comments as if to say enough already.

Another poll was out today from Gallup claiming a huge rise in the popularity and numbers of Democrat versus GOP candidates. After reviewing the polls of the last few months it is difficult to believe the Dems would have been able to reverse the trends since the campaign season began. Even the polls regardless of source year to date were more of a conversation piece than anything to take seriously this early on. The fantasy scenarios to which polling subjects were expected to respond suggest the pollsters were looking to boost the numbers for various candidates in order to increase demand for the polling data. In other words, the validity of polls may be more suspect than typical.

From this blog again comes the prediction that based on limited support and fund raising capacity, the McCain and Edwards campaigns will continue to fade and become the first top tier candidates to withdraw. The earliest indications to lead to that conclusion was the refusal of Giuliani and McCain to compete in the Iowa straw poll. Signs of Romney strength in the early states may show their reluctance to spend limited funds against a stronger opponent with a much larger war chest.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Romney Objects to Campaign Attacks

By BROCK VERGAKIS
Associated Press Writer
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Mitt Romney said Saturday that criticism of his Mormon religion by rival GOP presidential campaigns is happening too frequently.

“Clearly, any derogatory comments about anyone’s faith - those comments are troubling. The fact they keep on coming up is even more troubling,” Romney said during a fundraising trip in the home state of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This story has been out for a few days at least and shows no signs of being abandoned by the press. It may be there insatiable appetite for cheap news that last forever and costs nothing. Then again, they may be thinking this is the first story that could stand to be a self-inflicted wound for the Romney campaign. It comes nowhere near the meltdown proportions of Howard Dean’s primal screaming session in ‘04′ but it could be the first campaign flaw. Unless you count the one where the big fund raiser in Utah is the subject of multiple law suits.

Why would anyone with a brain in their head do something like that alleged in the story? If the press is on your tail it should be no surprise if you are part of a national political campaign. News people and others in the media have a tendency to follow the stories even if the outcomes are not that impressive. The folks at the Romney campaign should be having a few meetings they may have missed at the beginning. The ones that define what is expected and vet the members of the campaign to avoid these situations. If someone dropped the ball about these matters it will do more damage to a campaign than the actual news reports like the one here.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Romney Aide Takes Leave Amid Probes

Saturday June 23, 2007 3:01 AM
By GLEN JOHNSON
Associated Press Writer

BOSTON (AP) - An ever-present aide to Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney took a leave of absence Friday after he became the subject of investigations in two states for allegedly impersonating a law enforcement officer. His attorney denied the charges.

Quite the long wait for an apology but then doesn’t this sort of thing happen during political campaigns? Does Mitt Romney really care what someone thinks about his faith? Maybe the McCain volunteer should apologize to all Mormons or is an apology really needed at all? Some will find it distasteful and others may think it much ado about nothing.

One reason if may be thought of as much ado about nothing relates to information beginning to accumulate about fund raising of both McCain and Edwards. Not only are they weaker candidates in their respective grouping, they seem to be the only ones having difficulty raising funds. McCain may have damaged relationships with big wallets in defense contracting while Edwards funding problems are not so clear. Who will be the first casualty of this exceptionally long campaign season and will it happen before the first primary?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

McCain Campaign Apologizes to Romney

Saturday June 23, 2007 5:16 AM
By AMY LORENTZEN
Associated Press Writer

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - John McCain’s presidential campaign has apologized to Republican rival Mitt Romney for comments about the Mormon church allegedly made by a volunteer earlier this year.
A participant at the meeting said Workman questioned whether Mormons were Christians, and he referenced an article alleging that the Mormon church supports the Islamic militant group Hamas. The participant talked to The Associated Press on Friday on condition of anonymity because he is involved in Iowa politics and wanted to protect his identity.

Is this Rudy Giuliani’s idea of providing ‘details’ of his plan for fiscal discipline? The title of his press release indicates it is. If this is to be typical of his 12 commitments and how he intends to ‘detail’ them it is no plan at all. It is just another example of crafting campaign messages that sound alright but tell the public nothing.

At the bottom of the press release was a teaser link suggesting more information about his 12 commitments. Instead it was a link to a cheap stunt to encourage signing a petition about his dubious dozen.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

06-20-2007

Rudy Giuliani Details Commitment to Fiscal Discipline for the American People

In a speech in Des Moines today, Mayor Rudy Giuliani will continue to discuss his 12 Commitments to the American People by detailing his commitment to restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.

The plan approaches budgeting like a business, demanding greater efficiency, transparency and accountability in government to ensure fiscal discipline. Giuliani will call for ending anonymous earmarking, requiring federal agencies to identify annual spending reductions and savings, and reducing the federal civilian workforce through attrition and retirement.

“If we are going to keep our economy moving in the right direction we need to change the way Washington works,” Giuliani has said. “We must address the culture of spending and return to our core principles of fiscal discipline and fiscal responsibility. I commit to making the Federal government more efficient and accountable to the American people and cut irresponsible spending.”

Restoring fiscal discipline and cutting wasteful Washington spending is one of Rudy’s Twelve Commitments to the American People, his bold vision aimed at moving America forward. He will continue to travel the country this summer to detail each of his Twelve Commitments. For more about the Twelve Commitments, please click here.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, DeMediacratic Nation, Jeanette’s Celebrity Corner, Right Truth, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Right Celebrity, stikNstein… has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Family values has been an abused but recurring theme in political campaigns for some time. It may have been driven by the significance attributed to the religious right and their serious effort to become part of the discussion in politics for more than a decade. Like so much of what politicians do it is difficult to determine how sincere their attachment to real family values are. It ts less of a puzzle with Mitt Romney. If limited to the frequency of repetition it is hard to argue against the annoyance that is the Mormon bashing of Mitt Romney. But one thing is clear whether his opponents take the cheap flip-flop shots or low blows about his faith. Mitt Romney has an exceptionally strong sense of family.

What should be at the core of a return to America’s former greatness and current potential is strong family traditions and the honest structure it brings to society. So much of what made this country great throughout its relatively brief history had a foundation based on family. The family, home, sense of pride and positive effects on community and country are sorely missing to a large extent in the US of the 21st century. Much of the good in this country grew out of the collective histories of family and community. All these strengths are in need of repair and rebuilding. Mitt Romney and the other candidates can do a service to this country by attaching family value to the campaigns. A sincere attachment not just a sound bite or two.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Romney keeps focus on family values

PERRY BEEMAN
REGISTER STAFF WRITER
June 17, 2007

Burlington, Ia. — Long-haired rocker Ted Nugent prepared to take center stage at the Burlington Steamboat Days on Sunday night, but first it was short-haired fellow conservative Mitt Romney’s turn to play to this riverfront town.

Romney has become a Republican rock star, leading some polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, key states in a race that still is more than a year away from decision day.

The first thought on reading Mitt Romney’s take on managing civilian military matters may raise concern over spending. But if a nation’s military is at a less than optimal capacity for handling security and defense requirements, other spending can take a back seat. If your defense capabilities in manpower are not adequate, other concerns may be moot.

Returning the US to its former strength has many benefits other than the obvious. Requiring military personnel to prolong their deployments beyond typical limits has no real upside. While some may view this as mismanagement, poor planning or not typical, the fact remains it happened and can be avoided in the future. This may have been a lesson worth learning now rather than during a crisis.

Civilian oversight of military matters as well as many other former areas with exceptional histories of performance will need improvement in the coming years to return this nation to its former self. This is just one issue on which Mitt Romney is pointing that out.

It is not just politicians needing to reevaluate the condition in this country. The general public is equally responsible for accepting a share of the blame. If the troubling times we’re experiencing are raising everyone’s awareness of a need to improve, the difficulties may be a mixed blessing. Returning to time tested traditional methods, values, behavior and personal judgment for decision making may be just the thing this country needs. That includes increasing the capacity of our armed forces.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Romney vows to carry ‘the big stick’

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
DUBUQUE, Iowa – Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said yesterday that if he’s elected, he wants “to carry the big stick” by increasing the size of the nation’s military.

The former Massachusetts governor said his plans include reversing Clinton administration troop cuts and increasing the military budget. He repeated a call he’s made previously to boost the size of the military by at least 100,000 troops.

June 16, 2007(The Nation)
This column was written by Lakshmi Chaudhry.

“I love [Hillary Clinton] so completely that, honestly, she would have to burn down the White House before I would say anything bad about her!” exclaimed Nora Ephron in a 1993 Newsday interview. Three years later, she told the Wellesley class of 1996, “Understand: Every attack on Hillary Clinton for not knowing her place is an attack on you.” Come late 2006, however, Ephron was the one on the attack as one of the self-described “Hillary resisters” — those who believe that “she will do anything to win, who believe she doesn’t really take a position unless it’s completely safe,” as she wrote on her Huffington Post blog, “who believe she has taken the concept of triangulation and pushed it to a geometric level never achieved by anyone including her own husband, who can’t stand her position on the war, who don’t trust her as far as you can spit.”

The benefit of a long campaign season is ample time to vet the candidates and convince the uninformed about people like Hillary Rodham Clinton. Given enough time, everyone will come around and understand the Clinton legacy and the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton is not good for the United States.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

It sounds good but like most commitments or campaign promises reality is a President is not a King. A President cannot simply say this is what will be done and it happens. To be fair, all candidates will at some point make similar announcements. It is just part of the game. Now it is the public’s responsibility to test the candidates on such statements rather than nod in agreement or sneer in opposition.

This latest press release by Rudy Giuliani’s camp may indicate he is feeling pressure via the polls and his campaign’s exposure in the media or lack of same. What would have made this an historic proclamation by a candidate is if Rudy had addressed how he would actually get this done or what obstacles he sees in pursuing this grand plan.

Like ‘5. I will impose accountability on Washington.’ How many times have we heard that one? Currently the Democratic majority has claimed victory on draining the swamp (Pelosi) yet the ethics legislation requiring an outside entity to oversee compliance with ethics is suffocating in committee. The bill itself is a joke. The independent status of the ethics body will be entirely under the control of Congress. So, Rudy, how would your effort achieve any more success? Be specific. And offering tax breaks to solve health care issues is totally lame. That is not the problem. The mechanisms that drive the economics of health care is the problem. You get the idea, right?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

06-12-2007

Rudy Giuliani Unveils Twelve Commitments to the American People

During a speech at the Old Bedford Town Hall in New Hampshire today, Mayor Rudy Giuliani announced Twelve Commitments to the American people, a bold vision aimed at moving America forward through change and reform, overcoming new challenges and increasing accountability in Washington.

Rudy’s Twelve Commitments are based on the principles of giving people more freedom, more power, and more responsibility over their own lives, while protecting our nation, strengthening our economy, and improving the quality of life.

“I believe America solves its problems best from strength, not weakness, and from optimism, not pessimism,” Giuliani said. “My Twelve Commitments are a promise to this generation and generations to come that we will keep the American dream alive. I believe it’s the kind of leadership and common sense accountability the American people need in Washington.”

Mayor Giuliani will travel the country this summer to detail each of his Twelve Commitments.

The Twelve Commitments:

1. I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us.
2. I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.
3. I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.
4. I will cut taxes and reform the tax code.
5. I will impose accountability on Washington.
6. I will lead America towards energy independence.
7. I will give Americans more control over, and access to, healthcare with affordable and portable free-market solutions.
8. I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.
9. I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.
10. I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
11. I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.
12. I will expand America’s involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.

Bill Richardson’s phrase ‘creates a tough but fair path to legalization for those already here’ is a 12 word politically correct version of the much simpler and less deceiving term, amnesty. So far only two Democrats stand out for their stand on illegal immigration, including the nonsense of amnesty. Kit Bond and Claire McCaskill of Missouri.

The way the votes have worked out there are obviously more Democrats voting against S.1348. Also to this point it appears most or all Democrats and too many Republicans are for surrender, amnesty, pandering for votes and doing not much of anything in Congress. The President can share this dismal attribute with Congress.

In regard to the Presidential candidates, it also appears all Democratic contenders are for amnesty although they may call it a path to citizenship or some similar PC term or phrase. On the GOP side, John McCain appears to be the only candidate to favor amnesty.

This only leaves Giuliani, Romney, Tancredo and whenever he decides, Fred Thompson, as the only candidates not displaying an open support for amnesty. And they do not favor surrender. So the large field of candidates, announced or not, only requires a simple choice. Do you favor surrender and amnesty or doing the right thing? If you oppose surrender and amnesty your field of choice is Giuliani, Romney, Tancredo or Fred Thompson. Of those four Giuliani is left leaning on many issues. So if you are conservative your choice is still Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo or Fred Thompson.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For Immediate Release: 06/07/2007

Governor Bill Richardson’s Statement on Senate Failure to Pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Governor calls collapse of compromise bill “tragic breakdown”

SANTA FE, NM — New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson tonight issued the following statement regarding the US Senate’s failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

“The collapse of this important legislation demonstrates a tragic breakdown of lawmakers’ ability to build compromise and the President’s ability to work with Congress to get things done. It is also clear evidence of the ongoing disconnect between Washington and the American public.

Never in our history has the need for such legislation been greater- the issue is tearing the country apart, and the people want action. Yet some of the members of Congress refuse to join the majority of Democrats who put the best interests of the nation first, and instead continue to put politics ahead of progress.

We need an immigration plan that secures our borders, creates a tough but fair path to legalization for those already here, penalizes employers who knowingly hire illegal workers, makes families the priority, and engages Mexico to help work with us to solve this problem.”

What has Barack Obama done? He knows that, based on race, color or creed, not to mention a host of other demographic details, the race card is always available for counter-attack on anyone who expresses objections on an issue or proposes solutions that annoy the left. That’s right. If you have no substantive argument and therefore can only offer race card rebuttals, you are free to say whatever you want. Even if what you say is as racist as those you accuse of being that way.

On a radio program this morning, a talk show host and his guest were discussing this story. The question came up on why Obama is using this particular stand and why now? The guest answered that the left’s 43 year exploitation of civil rights issues as a manufactured wedge against the right is their standard approach. Use this emotional theme to gain support from those who feel ‘disenfranchised’. The left fringe including Hollywood celebrities and other guilt-laden rich employ public relations strategies of appearing concerned about the less fortunate to improve their status. Other less wealthy left-leaning ideologues find these false causes appealing to enhance their standing among certain groups.

The theory here would be that Obama realizes that his fears of losing a Presidential run were based on his lack of experience, any relevant history and only a weak campaign strategy of relying on his public speaking skills. He continues to worry about setting himself apart from other candidates without a convincing strategy or anything more than he has already presented. Obama knows he needs something more and he just doesn’t have it. This is real simple politics. So what do you do? Raise a fabricated issue and try to make it hot button. It must also be something only you can use. What better choice than the race card. Speak of Katrina, Rodney King and race riots.

The masks are coming off the Democratic candidates. Edwards is all about betting on trashing the troops as a winning strategy. Hillary Rodham Clinton is all about socialism and the impossible task of reinventing your deplorable personal history. And now Obama stoops low enough to use the race card as his central theme. The GOP may have their own demons to exorcise. But at least that possibility still exists. As a matter of fact, most voters can get a real sense of practical solutions and good old-fashioned American leadership in candidates like Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. The lack of realistic criticism for these candidates causes opponents to reach for imaginary problems as their weapons. Those attacks are easily dispatched.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama fears frustrations will lead blacks to violence

Associated Press
Posted Wednesday, June 06, 2007
HAMPTON, Va. — Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Tuesday the Bush administration has done nothing to defuse a “quiet riot” among blacks that threatens to erupt just as riots in Los Angeles did 15 years ago.
The first-term Illinois senator said that with black people from New Orleans and the Gulf Coast still displaced 20 months after Hurricane Katrina, frustration and resentments are building explosively as they did before the 1992 riots.

As much is said about Obama being on the heels of Dems leader Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Harris poll results below indicate he would have a tough time winning with only 1/3 of voters selecting him. How much better off can Clinton be if this is where Obama is? Polls never quite seem to be definitive, but they make a long campaign season more interesting and hopefully give the candidates a few sleepless nights. Hey, it’s not like they won’t do the same for us if they get elected.

You can view the whole thing at this link (CLICK HERE) because the poll report is a little bulky for this blog space. Not that it’s a huge report. Just one page but lots of tables.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Harris Poll ®#49, June 1, 2007

Just One-Third of U.S. Adults Would Vote for Barack Obama if He Was the Democratic Nominee for President

Three-quarters of African Americans Say They Would Vote for Him

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog
FaultlineUSA
Like you would expect anything of substance from a political debate. Maybe the Dems are so lame they can’t even get a debate choreographed well enough to hide their flaws. Maybe if they had gone on a Fox News debate things would have worked out better. So what are the high/low points?

The top priority each candidate gave for the first 100 days in office should be mentioned first. After all, look how well the new Democratic majority has done with their 100 hour agenda. The only item that may make it into law any time soon is the pork barrel addition of the minimum wage raise in the Iraq war funding legislation.

Go figure, Comrade Clinton chose as her first 100 days top priority to bring home the troops from Iraq. In other words, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s first priority if elected President is to surrender.

Obamarama may be mathematically challenged. Rather than a top priority he named two. Probably in answer to Edwards criticism of his health care offering and not to be outdone by Comrade Clinton, Obama picked surrendering in Iraq like Clinton and added health care to stick his tongue out at Edwards.

Edwards is almost as ‘out there’ as Kucinich. Edwards wants to ‘travel the world’ and ‘re-establish America’s moral authority.’ Who told Edwards we ever had moral authority. So is this one priority or two? Does he feel the need to travel and do the morality thing at the same time? Or is he liking the thought of Air Force One and some vacation time? It was bound to happen what with Air Pelosi and the rest all getting their own planes.

Surprisingly enough, Chris Dodd is the only one whose sound bite doesn’t seem to pander. Restore constitutional rights in this country. It is not completely clear what that is about or why he chose it. Did he mean to say constitutional? Or did he mean civil rights? At least he didn’t jump on the surrender bandwagon but the benefit to him for saying this is probably not a big help.

Kucinich and Gravel were about the war. Kucinich added getting rid of nukes. Thanks Dennis, we never would have thought of that one. Why isn’t your Peace and Non-violence Dept up and running yet? That would be a good job for them. (Kucinich and Gravel not pictured)

Richardson wants to spend money and Biden is on the Iraq thing plus foreign affairs.

So they can’t count. They can’t select intelligent priorities. Children debate better. How anyone could vote for one of these incompetents is truly a puzzle. It is hard to believe there could be enough people voting for any one of these people for President that they would actually get elected. That is one scary thought. Ok, it’s two scary thoughts.

(source: This time, candidates don’t shy away from one another

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Either Senator John McCain is an idiot or he thinks the American people are. And if we don’t succeed in defeating S.1348, he may be right. Some statements McCain made in an interview with Bill O’Reilly certainly can argue the case that McCain has lost it. He would have a better chance of being elected President in Mexico. He also pulled out the race card when asked by O’Reilly. There you go Senator, if any white American speaks the truth about anyone with a different racial or ethnic background, it must be racism. Ok, we’re back to you being an idiot. Playing into the fringe left spin to push your corporate and Latino lobby position.

On deportation Senator, you are again, wrong. There’s a long list of people who know that severely penalizing employers who hire illegals and drying up the illegal job market will go a long way toward deportation. If they have no job, they have no reason to stay. For those who don’t leave, we have ICE, the Minute Men, federal, state and local law enforcement to aid in deportation as well as the military. Keep your fence, your amnesty and all your other useless facades for border and immigration control.

President Bush had you on a leash before and he still does. Anyone who votes for you might as well vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Regardless of the fate of S. 1348, this anger at Washington is not going away. Americans are just about maxxed on their ability to tolerate the arrogance of politicians, corporations and lobbyists. This will be your undoing. Count on it.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

GOP Presidential Hopeful John McCain Sits Down With Bill O’Reilly

Thursday, May 31, 2007
BILL O’REILLY, HOST: “Unresolved problem” segment tonight, the proposed immigration bill has divided Americans and caused great anger, as you know. And one of those getting pounded is Senator John McCain, a sponsor of the bill and a presidential candidate.

MCCAIN:You’ve got two choices here, Bill. You either round up and deport 12 million people, and I know of no one who thinks that’s a good idea nor practicable.

MCCAIN: Well, they have every reason to be legitimately skeptical and in fact angry, because we did promise them that we would secure the borders and we didn’t.

MCCAIN: We passed an amendment that it’s automatic jail if they cross our borders illegally.

links in the sidebar

Senator John McCain and anyone else in Congress who favors amnesty are simply not listening to the American public. His ludicrous call for a better alternative has one big flaw. He refuses to listen to any suggestion of removing illegals from the United States. Those opposed to removing illegals use the invalid argument that it cannot be done. That is simply a refusal to accept it. They refuse to accept it because they do not want to do it.

Allowing millions of illegals to remain in this country is wrong. Abandoning the rule of law when millions of people violate it only encourages more violations and more laws being ignored. To eliminate these immigration problems the illegals must be held accountable by leaving the country. If they then wish to immigrate they must do it the legal way. No one should benefit from violating the law.

Perhaps Senator McCain is proving he will do just about anything to pursue the Office of President of the United States. Including allowing millions of people to break the law and then help them get away with it. Does that make him equally guilty as the illegals?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

McCain challenges other candidates on immigration

Republican presidential candidate John McCain is challenging critics of a proposed immigration overhaul plan to provide a better alternative.