I have heard and read some folks lately indicate that although they detest or dislike John McCain, they intend to vote for him in the primary because the national polls show him as the only republican who can defeat Hillary Clinton. Indeed, most national polls of head to head competition indicate this outcome. Rush had such a caller today.

It’s only natural, when spending the time and energy to nominate a candidate, to want to put forward the guy who truly has the best chance to win. Any rationale person should consider this factor. With that in mind, I briefly present why, for truly conservative rebublicans (or anyone who wants to see liberalism defeated, for that matter), Willard Mitt Romney should have your vote. Five simple reasons…

1--Democrats, at least mainstream libs on either coast, won’t play the “religion” card against Romney. The dems are, after all, the party of inclusiveness, openness and tolerance. If the Clinton machine tries to play the “Lucifer’s brother” meme, they’ll be excoriated by many of their own as being intolerant (just like the Evangelicals they detest!). It’s against the left’s “core values” if you will. In fact, I’ve seen many a liberal poster in the blogosphere state that they wouldn’t not vote for Romney because of his religion, but rather because of X or Y. So, rest assured, that his funny Mormon beliefs, that so many conservatives find unnerving, won’t be ammo for the left in November.

2--Bi-Partisanship. Although Mitt’s record as Mass. Governor is clearly one with plenty of hallmarks of conservative action, he was very successful at forming just enough coalitional power with his lib counterparts to get real work done. Many democrats value this capacity.  And when no coalition was present, he did not hesitate to veto the hell out of them, even when he knew he would be overridden. This “political poker”, the capacity to “know when to hold’ em, and know when to fold’ em, when working as a minority head of state, will be a key competency for Romney going into the fall, when, more likely than not, we conservatives will again be facing a heavily liberal legislature.
The opposition won't be able to say that "he can't work with us".
 

3--As the best example of the above, I submit reason three, and perhaps the best of these five reasons is that Mitt takes away one of the liberal’s biggest political weapons—healthcare! Yes, the Mass plan is not perfect. Mitt has said so. It’s not entirely his plan, after all, as it had major legislative overhaul, and some judicial tweaking independent of his crafting of it. But the bottom line is, HE GOT IT DONE! Neither Obama or Hillary will be able to throw out this issue in a general election. It’s one of the major pieces of democrat artillery, and the libs won’t have it in their arsenal, cause Mitt takes it off the table!

4--”Change Agent Man”…I know, Obama has the whole lib world, and even some moderate rebublicans talking about how he’s going to change the world. Lots and lots of talk…but have you listened to his rhetoric? There’s no “there” in “there”. Gov. Romney, on the other hand, when this topic of change comes up, has a long, long, long resume of significant change processes. I won’t rehearse them here, as you can get them from any pro Romney site, but unlike the young Obama man, who can only "forecast" change, Mitt can give history lessons on what’s improved and different since he got a hold of it. (OK, some of Mitt’s list for your neophytes…turned $3B deficit into $300M surplus in Mass., turned around Salt Lake Olympics fiscally and operationally, turned around more than 100 companies whose jobs and bottom line fiscal outlooks were doomed until Mitt came along with his team to “change” them.)
 
Can you hear him asking Obama in a one on one debate…”I would like to ask the esteemed Senator from Illinois when he talks about change, what experience leading change management does he possess which qualifies him as a change agent?” To which Barrack will reply that he built a small non profit inner city Chicago 5013C, which helped disadvantaged teens get jobs and stay out of trouble. A worthy success, but you get the point? Compare Mitt’s resume of “change” to either of the lib’s frontrunners, and you come away overwhelmed on evidence.
 

5-- Can’t lay the "He's a "Bushie” tag on him, like you can other insiders (McCain). I have read many who assert that Romney is just a Bush clone, but these comments come from the kook fringe, and most objective brains will recognize that he had nothing to do with the failed, or supposedly failed policies which the left throws around everyday about the soon to retire president. He’s from a liberal state far away from D.C., and although he sometimes speaks highly of GWB for having protected us, and for nominating two excellent judges, Romney is insulated from the perceived downside of any Bush affiliation. Alright, one more just for fun…

6-- Mr. Clean. This is the most obvious point of all, and especially powerful versus Hillary and Bill. Most people, even liberals, are naturally attracted to someone who is truly wholesome, clean, virtuous, and kind. Some people say Mitt’s too good. Well, my sense is that those who find him too good, are the ones who don’t trust anyone in politics. They don’t believe that any candidate is baggage free, but as people get to know Mitt the man, they see that he is who he claims to be. This is why his poll numbers go up , and almost never down. Have you noticed that in both state and national polls…there is no measurable downward trending for Romney?  He’s not won every state, but once he wins voters over, they don’t leave. This cannot be said of other republican candidates whose poll numbers have fluctuated sometimes to extreme. There will be no ‘off camera moments” and no skeletons. If Mitt had skeletons, McCain or Huckabee’s hit men would have brought them forward by now.

So, there you have it. No reason to fear a Romney nomination. Don’t let McCain tell you he’s the only one polling ahead of Hilllary. Romney’s national polls have risen slow and steady (See latest Rasmussen national numbers), and there is every reason to believe, that come October 30, 2008, Mitt will own a significant poll lead on whomever he faces.

Today the supposedly straight talking Mr. McCain accused Mitt Romney of supporting timetables for withdrawal in Iraq, because he used the "timetable" word in answering reporters questions about the status of the battle in Iraq. Anyone who reads these two reports with objectivity will recognize that the good Senator from Arizona supported timetables and ultimatums. His words are as clear as Romney's...read and judge for yourself.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/byauthor/166271

and then this one....

1. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,247198,00.html

A quick look at the fiscal data as reported by the four remaining GOP frontrunners, shows an interesting fact. You can access this information at the CNN politics site.

Three candidates running on empty, McCain has applied for federal funds to run in the general, and you know he'll pull the trigger on that if nominated. Huckabee has just asked staffers to work for free. Guiliani did so last month. My point is very simple....

Does the way these men run their campaign finances and the strategic planning thereof, tell us anything about how they will manage our money as POTUS? If they can't manage the checkbook for a 100M campaign, how in the world will any of them manage a budget 100 times larger than that?

You may ask, where does this leave Mr. Romney? He appears to be the only one with the acumen, flexibility, data analysis, and strategic capacity to put his campaign dollars to optimal use. The only argument against this is the outcomes in Iowa and New Hampshire, but this retrospective analysis no longer holds water in light of the bigger picture becoming evident in this campaign cycle....more delegates, more votes, and more money raised than any other competitor. Mitt knows dollars!

I'll be among the first to assert, our culture of "here and now" being what it is, that the attention currently laid at the feet of the newly ordained political messiah, Barrack Obama, will at some point in early summer or late spring, peak. 

It's just the nature of our short attention span, our social attention deficit disorder, if you will, and we'll be running on to the next exciting thing. We are, lets face it, very easily distracted. I am certain that we'll be focused entirely on something else. Not sure what that might be....the death of some great national icon, some great story attached to March Madness and the NCAA tournament, or perhaps some terrorist action hitting too close to home. Maybe it will be Huckabee's disclosure that he secretly converted to Mormonism. Seriously, it is impossible to say, of course, but it's almost a sure bet that we'll be knee deep in something other than Obama mania.

The implication of this to the larger presidential race, I can't say, but if I'm right, there'll be some balancing of the current love fest with some semblance of reality based media and public attention.

All this talk about "change". It reminds me of the student body elections held in my junior and senior high schools. Seemed like when no one knew what to campaign on, (Yea, like their are real issues in school campaigns), then candidates would say..."vote for me, I'll change this or that".

Senator Obama, in spite of having no documentable history of changing anything, other than his adorable children's diapers perhaps, has cornered the market on this current catch phrase. The MSM is now labeling others, specifically Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton, as trying to position themselves as candidates of change. Who can blame them, after seeing the response to Obama's oratory. But to date, that is all it is...oratory. Its an annoyance to me that campaigns and decisions are based so much on what the candidates say, and so little on what they have done. Any one and everyone knows that the best predictor of future behavior, is, of course, past behavior. So, I went looking at the one candidate I thought might have the best history of past "change" behavior. Lookie here...see what I found. Read slowly, it moves fast, and can be overwhelming to those accustomed to only talking about what they will do....have fun. This comes to us from our friends at www.evangelicalsformitt.com. and I have verified much of this data via primary sources, but its far too much work to place it all here....Here is the synopsis.

"Elected in 2002, Governor Romney has presided over a dramatic reversal of state fortunes and a period of sustained economic expansion. Without raising taxes or increasing debt, Governor Romney has balanced the budget every year of his administration, closing a $3 billion budget deficit his first year in office. By eliminating waste, streamlining the government, and enacting comprehensive economic reforms to help spur growth in Massachusetts, Romney helped the state achieve a surplus that currently totals nearly $1 billion.

At the beginning of Governor Romney's term, Massachusetts was losing thousands of jobs every month and businesses were closing their doors. Today, the unemployment rate is averaging more than a full percentage point lower, hundreds of companies have expanded or moved to Massachusetts, and the state has added more than 37,000 jobs in just the last two years.

One of Governor Romney's top priorities is reforming the education system so that today's children are prepared to compete for good paying jobs in the global economy of the future. In 2004, Governor Romney established the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship Program to reward the top 25 percent of Massachusetts high school students with a four-year, tuition-free scholarship to Massachusetts' state university or colleges. He has also drafted a wide-ranging package of education reforms, including the recruitment of 1,000 skilled math and science instructors, bonuses of as much as $15,000 a year for top-performing teachers, and important new intervention programs for failing schools.

Governor Romney first attained national recognition for his role in turning around the 2002 Winter Olympics. With the 2002 Games mired in controversy and facing a financial crisis, Romney was asked to take over as President and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, leaving behind a successful career as an entrepreneur.

Governor Romney has said he felt compelled to assume the seemingly impossible task of rescuing the Games by both the urgings of his wife, Ann, and by the memory of his father, George Romney, who had been a successful businessman, three-term Governor of Michigan, and a tireless advocate of volunteerism in America.

In his three years at the helm in Salt Lake, Romney erased a $379 million operating deficit, organized 23,000 volunteers, galvanized community spirit, and oversaw an unprecedented security mobilization just months after the September 11th attacks, leading to one of the most successful Olympics in our country's history.

Prior to his Olympic service, Romney enjoyed a noted career helping businesses grow and improve their operations. From 1978 to 1984, Mr. Romney was a Vice President at Bain & Company, Inc., a leading management consulting firm. Following a period of decline after Romney's departure, he returned as CEO several years later and engineered a complete recovery. Today, Bain & Company employs more than 2,000 people in 25 offices worldwide.

In 1984, Romney founded Bain Capital, one of the nation's most successful venture capital and investment companies. Bain Capital helped launch hundreds of companies on a successful course, including Staples, Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Domino's Pizza, Sealy, Brookstone, and The Sports Authority.

Governor Romney has been deeply involved in community and civic affairs, serving extensively in his church and numerous charities including, City Year, the Boy Scouts, and the Points of Light Foundation. He also earned Massachusetts' 1994 Republican nomination for U.S. Senate.

Governor Romney received his B.A., with Highest Honors, from Brigham Young University in 1971. In 1975, he was awarded an MBA from Harvard Business School, where he was named a Baker Scholar, and a J.D., cuma laude, from Harvard Law School.

Governor Romney, 60, and his wife, Ann, have been married for 37 years. They have five sons (Tagg, Matt, Josh, Ben and Craig) and ten grandchildren".

As I ponder further on why it is that Iowa voters would embrace someone with so few executive competencies, I stumbled upon Mark Steyn's piece this am in the Orange County register. Check it out, its a must read. He identified for me exactly the one competency which Huck has, which Romney lacks...."a disc jockey" persona, a kind of stand up comedic, "I'm one of you" connectivity. He's a funny guy that Huckabee.  

It's a superb skillset, one that will serve him well as long as his campaign lasts. The problem for thinking conservatives is that this competency, however useful as a campaigner, is not the asset of value I want in a President. In fact, it may be the opposite.

I don't want a comedian, I want an economist. I don't want a disc jockey, I want a visionary. I don't want someone looking for the next funny line to cover his shortfalls on issues,  I want someone who actually knows and can deal with those issues.

So, give me Fred Thompson, or give me Mitt Romney, but please, let's find a job for Huckabee he could be excel at....is Jay Leno still looking for joke writers?

Every four years, the citizens of the greatest democracy in the history of the world entrust the office of President to a newly elected head of state. In front of the entire world, this extraordinary person places his hand on the sacred Bible, and recites an oath. Commonly, we call it “the Oath of Office". An oath, for those unfamiliar, is much like a promise.

 

This oath reads, in part, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

That constitution places above all else the voice and will of the people.  George Washington was the first to take this oath on April 30, 1789. Ronald Reagan took it first January 20, 1981. It is one of those moments when the people’s voice is reflected loudly in the simple words of the newly elected….”I do”. When taking this oath, the newly elected president is entrusted with the honor and the privilege to represent the people of the United States.

 

This year, a couple of candidates to this esteemed office have already taken an oath, and in so doing, provide at least some opportunity to evaluate how they have adjudicated under the terms of that promise. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, each swore an oath to uphold the laws and protect the office of Governor in their respective states.  As Americans begin the process of selecting someone to fill this most powerful position and entrust him with the power to shape and change the lives of millions of our own citizens, and potentially millions of sons and daughters around the globe, it may be telling and instructive to know just how one of these candidates treated his oath as Governor.

 

Michael Huckabee took the oath of office as Governor of Arkansas more than once.  A brief look at how the governor did in honoring this privilege is revealing.  According to the Associated Press, the state Ethics Commission investigated 14 total complaints against Huckabee and validated five of them. Two of them pertained to unreported gifts - a $500 canoe and a $200 stadium blanket. Big deal, we might say. Should we really be concerned about two gifts of such insignificance? Perhaps not. A closer look reveals more interesting behaviors however.  Apparently, the governor or his wife received, but did not initially report these three gifts:

 

$43,150 from his 1994 lieutenant governor's campaign for use of his personal airplane,

$14,000 Janet Huckabee received from his 1992 U.S. Senate campaign, and

$23,500 from a tax-exempt organization he incorporated in 1994, but whose funding source isn't known. This agency, known Action America, according to Huckabee, was set up to coordinate parts of his private-sector speaking schedule during his three years as lieutenant governor. (This is, of course very similar to the actions of one Congressman John Doolittle, currently under investigation by federal investigators)

 

Mr. Huckabee successfully appealed the stadium blanket sanction and a judge threw out the $250 fine. Mr. Huckabee told the AP, "In all of these complaints and attacks, not one has resulted in it being found that I've done something illegal." Well, with all do respect, that’s not the point, Governor. Illegal action would or should result in impeachment. A violation of ethical behavior is not necessarily, by definition, illegal. But it is, nonetheless, a disloyal act against the people who put you in office.

 

In addition to these 5 citations, Mr. Huckabee is widely reported to have used his office as Gov to first request, and then to pressure and coerce members of the state Parole board into issuing a pardon to one Wayne Dumond. Mr. Dumond, of course, went on to commit the most heinous acts of violence. Mr. Huckabee denies this accusation of abuse of power, yet two members of that parole board maintain that they were contacted and pressured to approve the request to pardon.  Mr. Huckabee issued similar pardons and commutations to more than one thousand individuals while Arkansas’s governor. Now, one might make all sorts of defenses for this extraordinary behavior, but to overturn or modify the decisions of so many people, over 1000 court actions, requires tremendous disregard of the will of the citizens of Arkansas. To apply the Governor's standard of legality again, this was certainly legal. Yet, by any reasonable standard, to toss or modify so many judicial outcomes should be a clear sign to voters that this man does not regard the rule of law. What deep arrogance is needed to proclaim so many times in essence, “I know better than those juries and those justices”. Ethical? Moral? Surreal, for sure.

 

It does not end there. At the conclusion of their eleven year reign, as Arkansas’s' Governor, he ordered the computer hard drives erased on every unit, so that no one would ever have access to his papers.  Additionally, the AP reported, that the churches where he served as pastor refuse to release any of the sermons he delivered. What are you hiding, Mr. Huckabee? Ironic, that so many Iowans labeled him as the trustworthy candidate yesterday.
  
But it does not end there either. Upon departing the state house, the Huckabees set up wedding registries, so that "grateful" citizens could furnish their new house. If that sounds familiar, it is of course, exactly what the Clintons did when leaving the White House. 

 

So the skeptical reader may wonder, why Richard, do you attempt to make the good old boy from Arkansas look so much like Mr. Clinton? Alas, Mr. Huckabee appears to have done that all by himself.  The great irony of Mr. Huckabee’s victory in the Iowa caucus, and the resounding media bites that have followed, is that he claims that America wants change. It appears to me, that Mr. Huckabee is simply more of the same….maybe worse. 

So picture if you can, a cold day in January of 2009, and Mike Huckabee, hand on a Bible, taking the oath of office from Chief Justice Roberts…can you see it? If it comes to pass, we’ll all be wondering, "does he mean it this time around?"