Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Romney's Delegate Strategy -- and the GOP's Embarrassment of Riches

Mitt Romney smiles after he was given a cap by security team for the Sun City Hilton Head Retirement City, Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2008, in Bluffton, S.C. (AP Photo).

By Juliet Eilperin
BLUFFTON, S.C. -- Mitt Romney, appearing upbeat after his Michigan primary win last night, told reporters today he was confident he could secure the GOP nomination by focusing on states where he holds a strategic advantage over his rivals.

While several Republican presidential hopefuls -- including Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee -- are focused on winning here in South Carolina on Saturday in order to emerge as their party's front-runner, Romney is spending just one day in the Palmetto State before leaving to campaign in Nevada, which holds its primary on the same day. All the other Republican candidates are skipping Nevada because the Republican National Committee is penalizing the state for moving up its primary to compete with other early-voting states.

In a press conference at the Sun City Hilton Head Retirement Center, Romney told reporters that he was focusing on Nevada because it had a total of 34 delegates, as compared to South Carolina's 24. (South Carolina's are binding; Nevada will be choosing 31 of its delegates Saturday, who will not technically be bound to a specific candidate until April 26.)

"I'm planning to get the nomination. I'm not looking for gold stars on my forehead like I'm in first grade," he said. "I'm looking to rack up the delegates I need to win the nomination."

He added that since McCain had focused so intently on South Carolina in recent months, "This is a state, I suspect, Senator McCain has pretty well wrapped up."

Romney also chastised reporters for ignoring his victory in Wyoming earlier this month, where he won more than half the state's delegates. The RNC slashed the state's delegate count to 14 to punish it for accelerating its primary so just a handful of GOP candidates, including Romney, former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson, and Reps. Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul, campaigned there.

"We won Wyoming the old-fashioned way. We out-worked the other guys," Romney said, adding that either he or one of his relatives "called every Wyoming voter."

When asked to reflect on the fluidity of the Republican presidential race, the former Massachusetts governor said it underscored how "our best-laid plans may run awry." Instead, he said, "probably the best strategy you can have is to know what you believe, tell it to as many people as you can, and see what they do."

But Romney added that he did not view the mixed GOP primary results as a sign of weakness among the Republican field: "It's an embarrassment of riches, to a certain degree....Voters are looking at a strong set of candidates and it's like they're looking at rocky road and pistachio and pralines and cream." (Romney, for the record, did not identify which ice cream best embodied his candidacy.)

The different voting results, he said, also highlight the extent to which Republicans are still learning about their presidential choices. "The American voters are getting to know each of the candidates better," he said. "As that happens, they're going to become comfortable and enthusiastic about their nominee."

And that nominee, Romney predicted, will be none other than himself: "I anticipate as more time and attention is focused on the candidates, and as we go through this inexorable process, that I will be able to pick up the support that I need."

By Web Politics Editor  |  January 16, 2008; 3:19 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: In South Carolina, Talk About History
Next: The Super Tuesday Starting Line: Indonesia


I am impressed with Mitt's ability to get things done. In this discussion some have suggested Romney changes his position depending on the state he is wooing (or governing). I call that understanding the needs of each place. Romney knows how to succeed.

Most candidates are in SC because of tradition. Romney is expected to place third in SC and no amount of effort there would yield a different result. So, Romney is in NV where he can receive more delegates and still overshadow the success of any other candidate in SC. That is good thinking--could I get some of that in the white house?

Posted by: md__sl | January 18, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Wow... that succubus she-devil Ann Coulter backs Mitt Romney? And hates John McCain? Now I'm DEFINITELY not voting for Romney.

Posted by: PBL4 | January 17, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: drnewknee | January 17, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

P.S. to ticbooks (from the Fact-Checker):

According to Bureau of Labor data reported on an Arkansas government website, 113,900 new jobs were created in Arkansas between 1996 and 2006.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

I already responded on the other thread you posted this, PBL4. You will note, above, that I said McCain would still be better than Hillary ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who thinks that Mitt or Huck have even A CHANCE in the general election is terribly deluded. The Dems will TEAR HIM APART. New national poll numbers on potential general election matchups:

Obama (D) 43%, McCain (R) 42%
McCain (R) 48%, Clinton (D) 45%
Obama (D) 54%, Huckabee (R) 31%
Clinton (D) 49%, Huckabee (R) 40%
Obama (D) 57%, Romney (R) 27%
Clinton (D) 50%, Romney (R) 39%
McCain (R) 48%, Edwards (D) 40%
Edwards (D) 48%, Huckabee (R) 33%
Edwards (D) 50%, Romney (R) 34%

In a general election matchup, John McCain destroys Edwards, beats Hillary and is extremely competitive and within the margin of error with Obama. No other GOP candidate comes within even 9 points of beating a democrat. Huckabee loses all 3 elections by an average of 16 points, and Romney loses by a whopping 19 points on average.

A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for HilEdBama. That's why the liberal establishment in Michigan was pushing Democrats to vote for Romney. But, hey. I'm sure these facts are just "liberal media propaganda". Feel free to reject reality and substitute your own. While you're at it, pass me some of what you're smoking.

When you finally wake up and stop deluding yourself, vote for John McCain.


Posted by: PBL4 | January 17, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse


McCain would still be better than Hillary ; )


I'll stand with you, sir.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse


The Democrat controlled liberal Media machine is doing all it can to choose THEIR "favorite" GOP candidate, which means ANYONE but Mitt Romney. This is how Mike Huckabee was elevated to frontrunner status in IA, emerging from obscurity in a matter of a few weeks. There were nothing but puff pieces/articles/stories and absolutely NO scrutiny of his mediocre, often liberal, voting record as AR Governor. As a result, and much to the joy of the liberals, IA voters were convinced that Mr. Huckabee should be their choice...NOT as President but as Pastor of the United States. Mike Huckabee is, by far, the weakest and least qualified GOP candidate and the easiest to beat and the Liberals are salivating at the prospect of his winning the nomination.

John McCain is nothing more than a RINO (Republican In Name Only). He's been in the Senate forever and is an entrenced "good ol' boy". He is a big supporter of numerous liberal bills, including the requirement of much tighter auto emissions standards, costing auto manufacturers (and us consumers) BILLIONS in unnecessary costs.

The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. For starters, consider:

McCain-Feingold -- the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Kennedy -- the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.

McCain-Lieberman -- the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry -- through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases -- in American history.

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards -- the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients' bill of rights.

McCain-Reimportantion of Drugs -- a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).

And McCain's stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric -- tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class. The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts.

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.

McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.

And then there's the McCain defense record.
His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain's early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus's strategy. Where's the evidence to support such a claim?
Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11. How does
McCain fare in that regard?

McCain-ACLU -- the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists). McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons -- despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population.

While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war -- when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain's friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.

Mitt Romney is by far the most qualified man in EITHER party and is a class act all the way. And yet since he became a GOP candidate for president, I have seen nothing but negative, trivial articles/stories about his Mormon religion, his money, his slick appearance, etc. fully intended to sway a naive electorate that pays far too little attention to the most important 4 year event in our country.

Mitt Romney is a TRUE family man and very successful at turning failed or failing enterprises around and Lord knows the United States of America needs turning around. It should be run as a business first, with a strong military to protect it from harm. All other social, giveaway programs should be scrutinized (and certainly would be under a Romney presidency) as to efficiency and even necessity. The fact that he was even elected Governor in a state (MA) controlled by 85% Democrat legislature was a feat in itself. In spite of it, he did a very admirable job as Governor, turning a large state deficit into a surplus. Of course, his many justified vetoes were constantly overturned by those liberal Democrats which made for a lot of frustration.

If Mitt Romney does get the GOP nomination it will be MUCH to the chagrin of the Democrat National Committee liberal propaganda machine because he will be their worst nightmare and most difficult to defeat...Obama, Clinton, or otherwise.

Posted by: mrunpc | January 17, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

This has been an interesting comment section to read. I am thankful for each person's opinion and comments. This is part of what makes our Country great! Let me say that I am a Romney supporter - I am backing him 100%. Having said that, I realize he has some shortcomings. Each of the candidates on both sides are identical in that respect. The key to me is to focus and support the one candidate who most closely aligns with your particular political, moral and religious values. We need a President who will led this Country into dangerous times. We have a potential economic downturn on the horizon, two wars to win, a global terrorist threat looming ever larger and major social issues (Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security) to contend with. Instead of criticizing other Republican candidates, let's focus on what each of our candidates can offer to this country. Let's highlight the positive and leave the negative to the M.S.M. If we can do that we will have turned the tide of negativity and focused on the ways that our candidates can make America the best nation in the world - now and forever! Who will stand with me?

Posted by: JimHewitt4 | January 17, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Romney's a monkey!

McCain will win (

That's all there is to it.

Posted by: tyshow | January 17, 2008 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Actually, McCain is NOT as liberal as Kennedy and Huckabee was Governor for over 10 years (don't forget he took over for Guy Tucker on July 15, 1996). Look, Romney's my first choice too, but let's not misstate the facts -- Romney was Governor for only one term -- what other "falsehood" are you attributing to Huckabee?

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

i heard huckabee say he had more "executive" experience than any of the other candidates. Would someone tell me how many jobs huckabee created while he was governor? Did he ever meet a payroll or pay all the taxes associated with payroll?
he only has 8 years as a governor - romney has over 35 years.
so i would say that was another falsehood by huckabee.
huckabee also changed his mind over the no smoking bill. what a flip flopper.

as for mccain he's as liberal as killer kennedy. hillary or obama will turn mccain into mcpain.

Posted by: tlcbooks | January 17, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

I believe each candidate this year has something to offer. Not one is the complete package. (Huckabee is my exception)
The one that I believe has the most overall is Romney. If there is something that he may be a little weaker on, he will find someone who has that strength to work with him. He has the ability to come up with the best team as proven in his business experience and with the Olympics. When his team isn't the best (Mass Governorship) he works with what he has and makes the most of it. Mitt Romney is the man this country needs.

Posted by: cld9 | January 17, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse


Although Romney has promised that if he were elected he will donate his salary to charity, as he did during the Olympics and as governor, let's just deal with the hypothetical. Romney's salary is Romney's salary. It is not mine, yours, or anyone elses. If he wants to buy nothing but big-screen TV's with it, that would be his right.

All government employees' salaries are tax-funded, and their salaries are theirs and no one else's. Many pay tithes to many different churches, some of which you may not like. But it is their 10%, to do with as they will.

Posted by: carolm62 | January 17, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

Attention Mike Huckabee: Codifying the Bible would be disaster for both the government and the church!

Posted by: Netizen | January 17, 2008 12:56 AM | Report abuse

BraveheartDC: $100 billion? Really? I think you're wrong by a magnitude of 10.

I'm a conservative, but I thought Republican Party conservatives jumped the shark about the time all those "conservative" congressment were spending their way into an early retirement.

The Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) 2005 Congressional Pig Book identified 13,997 projects costing $27.3 billion in the fiscal 2005 federal budget.

It seems to me an investment (not a buyout but a workout, as Romney put it) in a critically important sector of our economy makes more sense than billions for pork projects (i.e., the bridge to nowhere).

Posted by: Netizen | January 17, 2008 12:52 AM | Report abuse

Romney acted like a conservative for the last year, but alas, his true colors came out this past week when he promised a $100 billion federal bailout to Michigan's auto industry.

What a liberal scam artist this guy is.

Posted by: braveheartdc | January 17, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse


Don't forget Wyoming!!!

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

"Romney, the man who will lay you off, is wise to focus on the states where he can win. They are few and far between. The nation does not want Bush with a new name."

Actually, the nation doesn't want Brigham Young or anyone of the Mormon religion with a different name. I believe he 'won' Michigan because it's his home state, the weather was bad, voters were disconsolate and John McCain said some unpopular things.

Let's be honest that there's no accident that Romney is so wildly popular in Utah. In fact, Utah is the only state I can remember where he's more popular than the other candidates. Do us a favor, Mr. Romney. DROP OUT OF THE RACE!

Posted by: miyago123 | January 16, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Romney is not my candidate. He has serious problems with his religion and I believe he will be defeated in the primary. He's already more or less conceding the South Carolina primary. I saw Fred Thompson the other day but was unimpressed. I'm rooting for John McCain!

Posted by: miyago123 | January 16, 2008 11:55 PM | Report abuse

Gov. Romney will ultimately win the Republican nomination!
Of the field of Republican candidates, he is the only true conservative who can win in a general election.
Unlike Sen. McCain:
Romney would support tax cuts for all Americans - not just the middle class (McCain was one of only two Republicans to vote against President Bush's tax cuts);
He would secure our borders, and not SPONSER a bill that is, for all intents and purposes, amnesty for illegal aliens;
Gov. Romney does not support McCain's "campaign finance reform" bill which was arguably Congress's largest abrigement of free speech in American history;
Of course, we could go on all day about the liberal policies that McCain has either sponsered or endorsed in his time in the Senate. But in the end, the Republican Party should not/cannot want a nominee who once flirted with the idea of becoming an independent or even a democrat and entertained the notion of being Sen. John Kerry's V.P. in 2004.
As far as Gov. Mike Huckabee is concerned; he is a one-state wonder. He is not even going to win in SC - his own backyard! As Ann Coulter noted he is a Republican Jimmy Carter. Certainly this is true. While Huckabee can talk about being pro-life and anti-gay marriage, he is further left than lennon on every other issue! This CANNOT be the Republican nominee! But, it does not appear that the "Huck" has gained any traction anywhere.
Mitt Romney is the only real Republican that can win the general nomination! We need to realize this fact as soon as possible so that Romney can save his money for Obama or Clinton!

Posted by: mesmert | January 16, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse

Is Nevada going to buy smooth talking Romney? Probably. To those paying attention it is obvious that he'll say whatever it takes and stands for nothing in reality. After being a liberal for 12 years, he first tries to sell himself as a gun-toting, prolife, free market conservative. Then on to New Hampshire where he is the suddenly the candidate of change. On to Michigan where he takes a page from the Huckster and goes populist saying that the government will save the auto industry. What will he say next in Nevada? That he loves gambling and prostitution?!@ Stay tuned.

Posted by: donttreadonme | January 16, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Romney, the man who will lay you off, is wise to focus on the states where he can win. They are few and far between. The nation does not want Bush with a new name.

Posted by: TrueHawk | January 16, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

The other candidates are just jealous of Romney. After all, what doesn't he have that they want? He has received more contributions than any other Republican. He has more of his own bank roll. He has the most endorsements from Congress. He has the most delegates. He has the most votes. He's won the most states. He won the biggest state to-date. He is ahead in the medal count (2 golds and 2 silvers!) He has the most exceptional hair. The ladies tell me they think he's gorgeous. Oh yes, I've also read that he's perfect. I know, it's not fair, especially to Democrats... but they think nothing is fair.


Posted by: NY10022 | January 16, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Mitt is the gift that keeps on giving. A quarter-billionaire prepared to spend his fortune on TV ads attacking other Republicans.

Go Mitt! America's best chance of a decent leader in the White House (ie a Democrat).

With Mitt and his money, the GOP's hardest-line conservatives are drowning their evil party in its own bile!

Pray that they get their ideologically-pure candidate. Then he and all the other truest conservatives can together spend the next decade gnashing their teeth in the outer political darkness!

Go Mitt in '08! ... and take your horrible party with you!

And WaPo, quit humping McCain's leg.

Posted by: Bud0 | January 16, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Go Mitt Romney!

A Mitt win is just what America needed.

It will keep Republicans in a circular firing squad, spending their money on badmouthing each other over how they don't hate Mexicans enough, didn't execute enough people when they had the chance, were once spotted giving children free healthcare etc.

Imagine all those GOP "opposition researchers", Rove's wicked little elves, being paid GOP money to dig up dirt on GOP candidates and publicise it. Mannah from Heaven!

Best of all would be if Mitt could actually win the nomination. First, the only way he's going to get there is if there's a protracted, expensive, bloody contest. They'd be eating their own from now till late summer!

Then this party composed of the most bilious, vindictive people on the face of the earth would have just weeks to forget its rancours and bury the hatchet, to present a united face to the electorate.

Pray that it might be the face of Mitt! He consistently polls the least likeable GOP candidate and does worst in match-ups against all Democrats. His flip-flopping is legendary and nobody trusts him.

Even Mike Huckabee, who can't grasp the concept of evolution, sees through him: "When Americans look at Mitt Romney, they see the guy who laid them off," he said.

If you're in a state where you can't vote in the Dem primary, but can in the GOP one for any reason, or if you can vote in both, I urge you to give your support to Mitt, America's best hope for a better leader in the White House - because he hasn't got a chance.

GO MITT! you piece of sh..

Posted by: Bud0 | January 16, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

You're welcome, PBL1 -- if your guy McCain wins the nomination, I will vote for him too -- please consider keeping your mind semi-open for voting my guy (we don't want Clinton or Obama in the White House, do we?).

Posted by: JakeD | January 16, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse


Quit reading the liberal propaganda...

The liberal media is trying very hard to fragment the republican party. They know that it is the only way their liberla democratic candidate can win the White House in November.

The liberal media would love to see McCain win the republican nomination. He has sided with social democrats on numerous issues, sponsoring socialistic bills with the likes of Ted Kennedy, and opposed conservative legislation, like the Bush tax cuts. Why do you think a leading democrat, Lieberman, would endorse McCain? Why did the liberal media in New Hampshire endorse McCain?

Wake up and smell the coffee... the liberals know that Romney is the ONLY republican candidate that can reunite the republican party and support a strong conservative agenda in Washington.

Posted by: rdew | January 16, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

I didn't see this posted anywhere. Has anyone else seen anything about this? Mike Huckabee changing the Constitution?? How far right can one go.

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family."

Posted by: buzzm1 | January 16, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse


Huckabee a conservative... you have got to be kidding!

This guy is nothing more than a democrat in republican clothes. He is a big government tax and spend guy... go here:,2933,316496,00.html

In short... during his stint as governor of Arkansas, 20% increase in the size of government, 47% increase in the tax burden to Arkansas citizens, 65% in government spending, and he left the state with a $ 500,000,000 deficit when he left.

What is conservative about that?

As for his honesty... he was listed as one of the 10 most corrupt politicians of 2007 by Judicial Watch, go here:

Your guy Huckabee is a charlatan... and a shyster...

Posted by: rdew | January 16, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

I work with, respect, and love Mormons, but Willard Mitt Romney is NOT a true Mormon. Most members of the Church of LDS are fine, upstanding citizens with integrity to spare.

I'm not bigoted against Mormons. I'm bigoted against Mormons who will lie and say anything, change any of their beliefs, to get themselves elected.

I'm an independent and a McCain supporter to the core. If Mitt Romney is the Republican candidate, I'm voting Democrat.

(By the way, JakeD, thanks for keeping it civil. I think you're the first Romney supporter I've posted with who wasn't downright intolerant.)

Posted by: PBL4 | January 16, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

PBL4 - What a bigot. Why didn't you ask where tithing dollars were sent for Carter, Clinton or Bush?
You may want to read a little more as well; Romney has already said that he will donate his personally salary as President to charity. He didn't take a salary as Gov or as CEO of the Olympics.

Posted by: onesmallvoice | January 16, 2008 06:40 PM

How DARE you call me a bigot. I asked a freaking question. I didn't say there's anything wrong with it, I was just curious. And DON'T get me started talking about Bush, Clinton or Carter using my money to tithe. (Actually, I don't think Clinton's much of a Christian, so I doubt he tithed)

Posted by: PBL4 | January 16, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

trust huckabee-you dont know anything. your list of beltway insiders are people who are business men. not dc people. get real. this country needs to get back to fiscal responsibility and a place where business thrives-that is how this country leads. stop your whining.

Posted by: eldercannon | January 16, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse


I'm for Romney too, but there's no need to get personal. For all we know, PBL4 did indeed ask where tithing dollars were sent for Carter, Clinton or Bush too ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 16, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

If you want to know where Romney stands on the issues quit reading the BLOG's and get it here:

The piece nicely outlines his stand on the issues. It is compiled from a number of speeches and articles he has given or written. It nicely dispells all of the false, unsubstantiated, notions of "flip flopping" created by liberal propagandists.

Posted by: rdew | January 16, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

CHDRANE - Why don't you run the same check on the groups that are doing the push polling for Huckabee and using it to discredit Romney and the groups that are sending out fraudulent mail from Mormons?

PBL4 - What a bigot. Why didn't you ask where tithing dollars were sent for Carter, Clinton or Bush?
You may want to read a little more as well; Romney has already said that he will donate his personally salary as President to charity. He didn't take a salary as Gov or as CEO of the Olympics.

Posted by: onesmallvoice | January 16, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Romney will say and do ANYTHING to get elected. The man's a dishonest chameleon. I'm 53 years old and have never voted for a Democrat but I'll vote for any Democrat over Romney.

Romney has flipped his positions on abortion everytime he has run for political office. Even back in 1994, Kennedy called him "multiple-choice" on the issue. He personally supported Planned Parenthood, and provided $50 abortions in Mass while Gov.

If he's socially conservative then what happened with homosexual marriage in Mass when he was Gov? Either he's a BAD MANAGER or he was fulfilling the promises he made to homosexual lobbyists when running for Gov.

Fiscal conservative? In 4 years he raised taxes almost as much as Huckabee did in 10.5 years and Romney started in what was one of the nation's highest tax states. 80% of Huckabee's tax increase was mandated by court order and he was productive with it going from 49th in education nationally to 8th in education.

You probably remember Romney's phony "varmit hunting" to endear himself to supporters of the 2nd Amendment. It was as phony as John Kerry's "hunting" trip. Huckabee accurately said, "if you think the 2nd Amendment's about hunting, you don't understand it."

Huckabee is an authentic conservative. Romney isn't authentic about anything, conservative or liberal. The Presidency shouldn't be for sale to the highest bidder and his plutocratic friends in the media.

Posted by: DKnight1 | January 16, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney is a human feedback loop. Why more GOP voters don't realize that is incredible.

Iunderstand that the other candidates have warts, but please.

Why do you think that the people who have followed him the most, who have seen him in the 1990s and the 2000s and the last 2 years, the people who follow politics in New Hampshire, so reviled him?

Conservative newspapers, liberal newspapers, moderate newspapers. Just read their editorials. The only bias was against his blatant vote-seeking chameleonlike message.

By all means, you can believe that Romney is the one true, well-rounded conservative, but to believe that any of his positions on key issues are solid you must be reading only his campaign press releases.

Posted by: steveboyington | January 16, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

"All the other Republican candidates are skipping Nevada because the Republican National Committee is penalizing the state for moving up its primary to compete with other early-voting states."

I'm certainly no Romney fan, but I don't think your statement above makes any sense. Nevada has its full complement of 34 delegates; it is South Carolina that's being penalized (from 47 down to 24). Some think the rest are skipping NV because it has a relatively high Mormon population and expect very low (25,000) GOP turnout.

Romney's decision today to downplay winning SC in the media makes some sense. He can still pick up some delegates because SC is winner-take-all but by congressional district (with extra for the statewide winner). Even if Giuliani wins Florida's 57 (true winner-take-all), Romney's winning in Nevada almost certainly gives him the most delegates going into Feb. 5th.

Posted by: dileep | January 16, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

According to an on-line ice cream test, it looks like Mitt Romney is, perhaps fittingly coming off his Michigan win, Fossil Fuel Ice Cream.

Posted by: broxocrat | January 16, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

If Mitt Romney wins, will he use our taxdollars to pay a tithe to the Mormon Church?

Posted by: PBL4 | January 16, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

The latest poll out today from Nevada has Romney ahead by a significant margin, though he is much weaker than expected in South Carolina. Both polls here:

Posted by: campaigndiaries | January 16, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

We have reached a new low in American politics with so much religion injected into the contest. Religion has no place in these arguments. "Christians" who attack Romney's religion are merely showing how "unchristian" they really are themselves. Let's get rid of the bigotry and get back to issues.

Posted by: Paulclayton | January 16, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Pahleese! Between Huck thumping his Bible, and McClown wanting to run for General-even though he should be trying for Admiral, Mitt Romney is doing an excellent Job of addressing a real platform!

It would be great if a REPORTER, actually REPORTED what Mitt's Thirteen?, Proposed Challenges are. We keep seeing the posters, but are never able to actually read what is on them!

Meanwhile, in South Carolina-I'm washed out Minister Huck! and I'm POW Amnesty McCain, cling to emotional support, rather than anything substantial!

Posted by: rat-the | January 16, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Las Vegas - No place for white folks unless you want to gamble.

Posted by: Tupac_Goldstein | January 16, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

"the best strategy you can have is to know what you believe"

Well, Mr. Romney may know what he believes, but I'll be damned if anybody else on the planet knows what Mr. Romney believes.

Kind of reminds me of Bill Clinton - apparently, neither one has any shame about telling an audience exactly what it wants to hear.

Posted by: breth | January 16, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse


Nice try on the post but honestly just because an individual supports both Mitt Romney and the Club for Growth does not mean the Romney campaign is behind CfG's ads.

I am sure there are a lot of folks out there who wrote a check to Huck's campaign and then a check to their local Baptist church. To use your logic, that would automatically make Huck's campaign responsible for anything the church might do which is utter non-sense.

The truth is that there are many people out there who vote on ideology. They vote because they have core beliefs and their core is conservatism so they support an organization and a candidate that espouses what they believe in. That fact does not make any one organization they support responsible for the actions of the other.

Posted by: Ci2Eye | January 16, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Mitt won because he lied and told the people of Michigan he would bring back the car industry which will never happen. Now he's moved on with a new lie to the people of Nevada and on to each State who is suffering with a new lie. If he gets to be President he will tell those who voted him in office, they believed Bush's lies so why not his. Rev. Huck is using the Karl Rove scam of God getting back in the White House. Notice how the people who use God are really working for Satan but Americans are like sheep they just follow these idiots right off the cliff.

Now the current GOP Law Makers are saying Americans wont to work 3 jobs to help the economy as the GOP has stolen the money from the US Treasury. Paulson is getting rich with his company as he is the US Secretary of Treasury and getting inside deals on the job. Smart move no wonder he left Goldman Sachs. At lease who know who's robbing the taxpayers, while the Middle East gets richer with taxpayers money.

Posted by: qqbDEyZW | January 16, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Romney is right... the GOP candidates are an embarrassment! Hillary, Obama, or Edwards won't even have to campaign to destroy whatever clown emerges from the Party of God.

Posted by: vfazio | January 16, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

"Posted by: deseret"

No religious bias there or anything!

Posted by: amoffett1 | January 16, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Deseret, your point is what? Contributions to any candidate are legal up to $4600 for the cycle and anyone can contribute any amount to any group like Beltway Group which can in turn legally do any 527 (independant) ads or campaigning they like as long as it isn't co-ordinated with the campaign.

Personally I'm weary of Huckabee and McCain whining that they don't have money like Romney. Romney isn't just bankrolling this campaign himself. He has attracted amazing support. He has contributors from $5 to the max and it is easy for him to raise funds because so many people want him to be president.

Posted by: yourstruly | January 16, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Hey deseret James Carter a nice guy? Please that makes Rudy Giuliani Mr. Perfect!

Posted by: irizarryrafael | January 16, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Question: What does $585,000 buy you?

Answer: It bought Mitt Romney backers a smear job against Mike Huckabee orchestrated by Beltway Insiders.

The Club for Growth has an affiliated 527 group, Club for, running anti-Mike Huckabee ads in early primary states.

- At least $585,000 in contributions from Mitt Romney financial backers.

- Club for Growth has spent $750,000 against Governor Huckabee in Iowa, South Carolina and Michigan.
Here are donors that have donated both to Club for* and Mitt Romney:

Name: John Childs**

Contribution to Beltway Group
$100,000 on 11/16/07

$100,000 on 12/31/07

Contribution to Mitt Romney
$2,100 on 1/8/07

Name: Bob Perry

Contribution to Beltway Group

$200,000 on 12/12/07

Contribution to Mitt Romney
$2,300 on 3/13/07

Name: Kristen Hertel

Contribution to Beltway Group

$25,000 on 12/21/07

$25,000 on 1/02/08

Contribution to Mitt Romney
$1,000 on 2/6/07

Name: Muneer Satter

Contribution to Beltway Group

$25,000 on 12/21/07
$25,000 on 1/02/08

Contribution to Mitt Romney

$2,300 on 2/6/07

Name: Michael Valentine

Contribution to Beltway Group

$40,000 on 1/3/08

Contribution to Mitt Romney

$2,300 on 4/4/07

Name: Travis Anderson

Contribution to Beltway Group

$25,000 on 12/19/07

Contribution to Mitt Romney

$2,100 on 2/8/07

Name: Richard Gaby

Contribution to Beltway Group

$20,000 on 12/19/07

Contribution to Mitt Romney

$1,000 on 2/12/07

* Only represents donors that contributed more than $20,000 to Club for in 2007/2008.

** "Boston investor John Childs, who donated $2,100 to Romney in 2007, recently gave 100,000 to the Club for Growth." [Morain, Dan. "Huckabee foes open their wallets for attack ads," The Los Angeles Times. 1 January 2008.]

*** All contributor information obtained from Federal Election Commission's electronic database at

Posted by: chdrane | January 16, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Romney won and has been at the top of every primary, because he is the only well-rounded conservative with a chance on winning the presidency. Here's why:
He has more executive experience than any candidate.
He is a strong social conservative.
He has vision for change
He can turn around other mistakes made prior to his taking the Job. (Bain Capital, Olympics, MA. Huge deficit, Big Dig Fiasco, and he'll do the same in Iraq)
Huckabee is a nice guy... so is Jimmy Carter
Mccain is a great american but he continually pals around with Kennedy, Lieberman, Feingold etc..
Be Smart. Look at the Facts.

Posted by: deseret | January 16, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company