Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Mitt Wows

For much of the last three months, the fundraising focus has been on the Democratic side of the aisle. But, today former Gov. Mitt Romney (R) wowed the political establishment with a massive first quarter -- $23 million in receipts.

Romney's huge total, which includes a $2.35 million personal loan and a $20,000 transfer from his 1994 Senate race, puts him in second place in total receipts for the quarter behind only Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) who raised $26 million between Jan. 1 and March 31.

But, Romney's total dwarfs that of his main competitors for the Republican nomination -- former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.). Giuliani collected $15 million in the quarter with $14 million of that able to be spent in the primary. Giuliani raised $10 million in March alone, a haul -- his campaign argues -- that shows his fundraising potential with a national organization in place.

By comparison, McCain raised a relatively meager $12.5 million, far less than most neutral observers expected he would collect in the first quarter. McCain campaign manager Terry Nelson acknowledged as much in a release announcing the numbers. "We had hoped to do better in first quarter fundraising," Nelson said. "We are already in the process of taking the necessary steps to ensure fundraising success moving forward."

What do the numbers mean? Here's our quick take.

Romney was expected to do well in the first quarter but not this well. A former governor, business executive and Olympics committee head, Romney had (and has) an extraordinary number of fundraising avenues. And, he raised $6.5 million in a single event. But, few people thought Romney would lead the Republican field by $8 million and would raise nearly double what McCain collected in the quarter. And, remember that Romney raised all this money while in the low to mid single digits in polling. Money begets money and Romney should benefit from the apparent willingness of thousands of people to make a financial investment in him.

For Giuliani, the quarter was solid if not spectacular. He raised two-thirds of his money in March, a trend that could bode well for his second quarter totals. And, unlike Romney and McCain, there was still considerable doubt about whether Giuliani would even enter the race up until February. For Giuliani the second quarter is crucial as he must show that he can beat out Romney, McCain and everyone else once his fundraising apparatus is going full force.

It's hard not to see this as a setback for McCain. The goal of these fundraising reports is to either make gains in public perception or -- at worst -- stay at the same place in terms of conventional wisdom that you were before the reports. McCain did neither. His rivals will paint his unexpectedly low fundraising totals as a sign of weakness in the fight for the nomination in hopes of making donors more skeptical about writing checks to the Arizona Senator. McCain must find a way to bounce back and bounce back quickly to show that while he is down he is certainly not out.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 2, 2007; 6:05 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Dems Unveil Fundraising Totals
Next: Grading the Candidates

Comments

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | April 9, 2007 11:04 PM | Report abuse

So Romney has changed his perspective on abortion and gay rights.

And you have never changed your mind?

Call it playing politics, call it whatever you want. The truth is none of us know the real reason why he changed.

The real question is does it matter? Right now he is the only viable social conservative in the bunch.

Posted by: BJ | April 9, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that some people (maybe it is just the media shoving it down our throats) don't care that one of our previous Presidents of the United States had sexual relations with someone other than his wife and claimed that a person's private life didn't actually affect their public performance. Yet many want to take Mitt Romney's faith (a very personal and private matter) and open it up, tear it apart, and discredit it)

I belong to the same faith as Mitt. I am a mother of five children. My husband works hard to provide for our family. We try to teach our kids to believe in Jesus Christ, to help their fellow man, and be a cause for good in the world. We worry about the moral decline in our society, about the loss of compassion for others, and the complacency of many. Yet, we strive daily to make the world a better place by serving others and praying for our leaders to make good decisions in behalf of the people.

Mitt may not be the most qualified person for the Presidency, faith alone is not the determining factor. There are good and bad people of all faiths. We all have our opinions and values; the American voting system is wonderful!
AS for me, I will vote for for someone who believes in the strong moral values this country was founded and made great upon. Someone who cherishes the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, someone who believes in family. Someone who will act with integrity.

Posted by: Ester | April 4, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that some people (maybe it is just the media shoving it down our throats) don't care that one of our previous Presidents of the United States had sexual relations with someone other than his wife and claimed that a person's private life didn't actually affect their public performance. Yet many want to take Mitt Romney's faith (a very personal and private matter) and open it up, tear it apart, and discredit it)

I belong to the same faith as Mitt. I am a mother of five children. My husband works hard to provide for our family. We try to teach our kids to believe in Jesus Christ, to help their fellow man, and be a cause for good in the world. We worry about the moral decline in our society, about the loss of compassion for others, and the complacency of many. Yet, we strive daily to make the world a better place by serving others and praying for our leaders to make good decisions in behalf of the people.

Mitt may not be the most qualified person for the Presidency, faith alone is not the determining factor. There are good and bad people of all faiths. We all have our opinions and values; the American voting system is wonderful!
AS for me, I will vote for for someone who believes in the strong moral values this country was founded and made great upon. Someone who cherishes the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, someone who believes in family. Someone who will act with integrity.

Posted by: Ester | April 4, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Daniel 2:44
"And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed. ..."

This Church is commonly known today as the Mormon Church.

There is no stopping its forward march.

D&C 121:33
"As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream ..."

Discourses of Brigham Young, p.351
"Every time you kick "Mormonism" you kick it upstairs; you never kick it downstairs. The Lord Almighty so orders it." 7:145.

certaincurtain@yahoo.com

Posted by: The Mormon Church | April 4, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Re Edwards:
If $45 million wasn't enough to win the nomination last time (Dean), how could $30-$35 million be enough this time? Edwards is probably burning more money this time than he was in '03-'04; he's constantly putting out press releases about hiring people.

Posted by: Lee | April 4, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

This is really the problem with message boards--a bunch of idiots in between the people trying to discuss real issues.

Just in case anyone missed the memo: No, you don't get to sleep with a bunch of women because you're Mormon. No, the husband doesn't decide if the wife goes to heaven. No, whoever Certaincurtain is, PLEASE don't listen to him/her.

And then, my actual comment:
It was mentioned about a million comments ago that Romney doesn't support stem cell research. That's a legitimate decision, and one that is common among Republican politicians. But Romney has more "right" to that decision than most--his wife has MS. It's not theoretical babies against nameless people with chronic illness for this guy. He has to see his wife's day-to-day struggle, and if, in the face of that, he holds to the moral belief that stem cell research is wrong, then I won't fault him for it. It also adds a lot of credibility to his statement that his position on abortion has changed because of a true reassessment of his beliefs, rather than for politically expedient reasons.

Posted by: krasni | April 4, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Hey Butthead! Mormon is like, "moron" with an "m" in the middle. Heh heh, "moron"... yeah, cool.

Posted by: Beavis | April 4, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

How much of Romney's support came from Utah? I don't mean any disrespect to Mormons, but they're geographically concentrated in a state Republicans take for granted. Being a Mormon will help Romney in Utah and hurt him among usually reliable Republican voters throughout the South, and unless the primary schedule is massively reconjiggered I think SC counts for more than Utah.

Posted by: aleks | April 4, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

The first quarter earnings for presidential hopefuls are in! Drum roll please...
In the Democratic field Hillary Clinton comes out on top with 26 million in cold hard cash! No surprise there. Senator of Illinios Barrack Obama comes in second with 20 million, and Edwards trails behind with 14 million.
On the Gop side, despite the fact that Rudy Giuliani is winning in poll numbers nationwide among voters, Mitt Romney rakes in a whopping 23 million! The New York City former Mayor gets 15 million in backing, and Senator McCain comes in at 12.5 million.
While everyone was expecting Mrs. Clinton to win the money race, on the GOP side there is more of a shock! Atleast in my view, unless I'm missing something. Mitt Romney, the only top presidential candidate still on his first marriage, is failing to take off according to poll numbers anywhere nationwide. Yet, he is the top choice when the wallets are opened, and CPAC members vote.
If Romney is going to make a name for himself, he will have to do so early in states like Iowa and New Hampshire. Romney will also have to spend twice as much to do so, because he doesn't have the name recognition that John McCain or Rudy Giuliani have. Of course neither did Nixon, but he ended up with the nomination and the white house. So the question is, is Romney the best pick for Republicans to win the White House in 2008?
Let's look at him more closely. He was the governor from the same state as John Kerry. He won that governorship partly on key issues like abortion, gun control, and gay marriage. Well how does a Republican win in a typically democratic state like MA? Simple, he was pro abortion, pro gun control, pro gay marriage, and now is pro winning the GOP nomination! He did say he has had "a change of heart" on all three issues. His change of heart, according to him, started just two and a half years ago, when he was no longer running for re-election for governor, and was kicking around the idea of running as a republican president. He talks the talk like a charming "good ol boy" all squeeky clean and fresh. Yet he never cut taxes in any significant way, and crime went up in his state while governor. He is flip flopping his way into the hearts of conservatives, and they instantly go green over his image. Since his is from the same state as John Kerry, the question for me is, what's in the water over there that causes the flip flopping? And why do they win nominations from there party.
If Mitt Romney gets support from the GOP, why don't we just let John Kerry hop over to our party and let him run for us? His plastic, smiley image is just too much for me to handle, and if he runs all the way to the white house, I just might vote for a democrat

Posted by: Anonymous | April 4, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Huh, Mormons let you do it with multiple women. Huh... cool.

Posted by: Butthead | April 4, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

My hair! My pecs! I seem to be
The president I'd like to be
Though some of you may seem to see
A bit of inconsistency
In my domestic policy
As governor of Red Sox Land
I did not dismiss out of hand
the rights of pregnant women, and
of same sex couples - at the time
I worried more 'bout friends of mine
who in the private sector worked
and so I privatized! I jerked
government funding to and fro
'til most became a private flow
(services suffered, even so...)
but now I want to be the P
R E S I D E N T
so very badly, so you see
I have had Jay-sus put me right
relearned the joys of being white
and gone and joined the NRA
and promised to continue a
cynical foreign policy,
devised by H A L L I B
U R T O N, and their friends
Mistakes made, but they'll make amends
My party has no other goal
than to federally fund this whole
miunderstood and misconceived
exploiting of those who believed
In the evil power of "SAD-um";
back in '03 we thought we had 'em
on the ropes, about to give in
crowed 'bout our "Accomplished Mission"
Now the public's in a stew
Don't know what we all should do
And so I see my job as one
to keep the liberals on the run
and maintain the stranglehold
on finance, culture, of the old
guard in the GOP
I am the Savior! It's all me!

Posted by: Mitt | April 4, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

To proudtobegop,

words of nonsense used by you in describing Mitt Romney, I don't know if you happened a presidential candidate in this election, probably, even a ten of your folks will not support you,... why? because obviously you are showing that you are not qualified. And thanks, you are idiot, nobody will believe in you if you are a presidential candidate. As contrast to Mitt, the candidate whom you ranted your hate and bigotry, even you will use all your powers and bring all your energy to stop him, no way, you can't change reality. majority will love romney, majority will support romney and majority will vote for romney. ill look for the day that your senses will languish in shame and one day, say to youreself, " i made a terrible mistake in being biased to romney" why, because in that day, romney will be the president in this great land.

ashamedtobe a proudtobegop, that's for you.

Posted by: mikeydnc | April 4, 2007 1:55 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, Blarg.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | April 3, 2007 11:36 PM | Report abuse

The tragic emptiness

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney outperformed all other GOP presidential candidates in the raising-money race in the first quarter of 2007, and the news earned him a victory lap on the network morning shows today.

He got a nice "congratulations" from NBC's Matt Lauer, but ABC's Robin Roberts really poured on the love. The following are some of the actual questions she posed to Romney this morning:

"Now we're going to talk to the man of the morning, former Gov. Mitt Romney. We spoke from Watertown, Mass., to discuss those staggering fund-raising totals that are the talk of the town. Gov. Romney, we certainly do appreciate your time this morning. Third in the Republican polls, but you have everybody's attention this morning. So where's the money coming from, Governor?"

"You said the money is coming from all the states. The New York Times this morning is reporting that 15 percent of the money raised in your campaign is coming from the state of Utah. Many speculate that it has something to do, of course, with your being a Mormon. Does your religion factor in at all in your campaign and in your fund-raising?"

"Many are wondering if you will do -- take a page from former President Kennedy, who had addressed the nation about his Catholic upbringing. Do you anticipate doing the same?"

"You bring up your wife and your children and being married to the same woman for over 30 years. When you say something like that, are you -- it's in such contrast, of course, with what is being said about people that you're running against who have been married multiple times, such as Mayor Giuliani and John McCain. Are you -- is your hope that people will see the contrast?"

"Your message is very strong. The Washington Times also says -- forgive me -- it's your appearance and you're right out of casting central because of your appearance in that. And they even went so far as to say that your hair is presidential. How do you respond when people talk like that?"

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 11:34 PM | Report abuse

We thought there was just a little irony in George W. Bush's complaining this morning that Congress left for its spring break before getting him a final version of the "emergency" supplemental spending bill for Iraq.

It turns out we weren't the only ones.

Think Progress caught the following post-press-conference commentary from CNN's Elaine Quijano: "We should mention President Bush is heading to his ranch in Crawford, Texas, tomorrow to begin his own Easter weekend break."

Maybe it's different for the president. After all, we can probably safely assume that not many of those America-hating, cut-and-running Democrat members of Congress will be out clearing brush.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 11:32 PM | Report abuse

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | April 3, 2007 9:20 PM | Report abuse

It is about his religion, just as it was for Dubya. Evangelicals turned out to support him, and many still do, simply because he's one of them (in their eyes), he prays, and shares stories of his personal relationship with Jesus. Romney cannot do the same thing, he will be running away from his religion, not towards it.

As a result, he will be competing with the likes of McCain and Rudy for those non-evangelical votes, and you can try to talk "leadership" as his best characteristic there, but up against those two with traditional Republican voters he will finish in third, no matter if he truly does have the better experience because they are publicly defined by their leadership experiences post-911 and as a POW, while he is seen as a flip-flopper on key Republican issues. It'll take every dime he has just to redefine his image there, and in the meantime he will lose because he can't win playing defense the whole campaign, which is exactly what he will be doing.

Posted by: Michael | April 3, 2007 9:14 PM | Report abuse

I have feeling Romney will far exceed expectations every time. He has been a winner, he has the best experience and is the most qualified for President.

Do you like his platform? I do, he makes sense and just wait till May 3rd debates.

When you ask Romney about his religion... you know what he says? He tells you to go to church, and ask them.

This isn't about religion, this is about his policies. He will make a great president, and I expect him to win the nomination of his party and eventually become President, and at the very least Vice President.

Posted by: Deg | April 3, 2007 8:47 PM | Report abuse

JD - Right you are. You were comprehensive.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

JD--It WAS cleared. She even had a WH briefing.

Posted by: roo | April 3, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Ahem...read my response again, no-name, before you yourself get in too deep. I said no Congressmen, REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT, should have been making that trip.

And I doubt this was 'coordinated' with State (ie, DOS gave approval), since Bush criticized those visiting w/Assad, both Dems and Republicans, during his presser this morning.

Posted by: JD | April 3, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

JD - How is Frank Wolf's meeting with Assad any different?

Is his job description more important than Speaker Pelosi's?

Before you get yourself in too deep, let me let you in on something, these trips are usually coordinated with the State Department. If it was illegal, somebopdy would have rasied a red flag before she went. Same with Frank Wolf and his buddies.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

JimD said:

"The Speaker of the House does not require authorization from the Executive Branch to visit a foreign country. Furthermore, a group of Republican congressmen visited Damascus on Sunday and conferred with President Assad. I do not see many people screaming about that. Congresspeople of both parties do this sort of thing all the time."

Maybe they do it all the time, but I heard on the local radio station this morning that, technically, it's illegal. Visiting a country (fact-finding) is one thing, but visiting the sovereign ruler in an official capacity, representing the interests of the United States, is another. It was called the Lawson Act or some such thing.

Besides, I don't think it's appropriate, Repub or Dem, for the Speaker and Congressmen to be doing those kinds of visits, which can be counterproductive and harmful to the efforts of the Sec of State.

Pelosi clearly has an inflated sense of importance and authority. She needs to go back and read her job description.

Posted by: JD | April 3, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

It would stop the gravy train for Halliburton and all the other other war profiteers, roo -- can't let that happen.

Won't happen -- they own the president.

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Boy, all that peace-making in Syria and Israel sure is a bad idea. I mean, what ever will we do if the people over there stop fighting?

Posted by: roo | April 3, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

THE BIG LIE OF THE LIBERAL MEDIA -- WHAT A JOKE

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

n the April 1 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor and Fox News contributor Bill Kristol repeated an attack by the White House on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for planning to go to Syria while her bipartisan delegation is traveling in the Middle East this week. But, as the weblog Think Progress reported on March 30, a Republican-led congressional delegation is also visiting Syria, a trip that the White House has apparently not criticized similarly. Kristol did not mention the reported Republican-led trip to Syria, much less the inconsistency in the White House's criticism of Pelosi's trip and its silence on the Republican-led trip.

On April 1, the Associated Press reported that a delegation of House members including Reps. Frank Wolf (R-VA), Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA), and Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) had met with Syrian President Bashar Assad, two days before Pelosi's planned meeting.

From Fox News Sunday's April 1 panel discussion:

KRISTOL: Nancy Pelosi, having undercut our troops in the field, is now going off to see -- to Syria to pay her respects to Bashar Assad, who's allowing terrorists to come across the [Iraqi] border to kill American troops.

Neither of the other Fox News Sunday panelists -- National Public Radio's Mara Liasson and Fox News Washington bureau managing editor Brit Hume -- nor host Chris Wallace noted the inconsistency between the White House's and Kristol's criticism of Pelosi and their silence on the GOP congressional trip.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

CNN's Malveaux parroted White House criticism of Pelosi's Syria visit, but ignored GOP-led trip
During an interview with former Ambassador John Bolton on the April 2 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, guest host and CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux noted the White House's denunciations of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for her scheduled trip to Syria, but did not note that a Republican-led delegation met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus on April 1. Malveaux also did not point out the White House's inconsistency in criticizing Pelosi for her trip while remaining silent on the GOP-led visit. Nor did Malveaux report in her exchange with Bolton that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reportedly voiced support for Pelosi's trip to Syria, "urg[ing] Pelosi," according to an ABC report on April 2, "to convey the message to Assad that Israel would be willing to hold talks with Syria -- if Syria would take steps to stop supporting terrorism."

Malveaux's final question to Bolton in the interview was, "Do you think that this also perhaps portends to something that might happen in the future? I'm being somewhat flip, but you know, Syria today, Iran tomorrow. I mean, where does it end?" Later in the broadcast, CNN teased a replay of the Bolton interview with an on-screen graphic that read: "Taking on Pelosi."

As Media Matters for America has noted (here and here), several media figures have reported White House criticism of Pelosi without also noting the inconsistency in the administration's silence on the GOP-led delegation.

The selective criticism by some in the media of Pelosi's planned visit to Syria mirrors conservatives' attacks on Democrats who traveled to Damascus in December 2006. As Media Matters noted, numerous conservative media figures assailed Democratic Sens. Bill Nelson (FL), John Kerry (MA), and Christopher Dodd (CT) for meeting with Assad but ignored Sen. Arlen Specter's (R-PA) meeting with the Syrian president later that month.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

'do nothing - except treason

So far, Democrats are batting zero.'


LOL The Fool is back.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

"It's interesting because three of our colleagues, who are all Republicans, were in Syria yesterday and I didn't hear the White House speaking out about that," Pelosi said Monday, referring to the Sunday meeting of Reps. Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts and Robert Aderholt with Assad in Damascus.

"I think that it was an excellent idea for them to go," said Pelosi. "And I think it's an excellent idea for us to go, as well."

N. Pelosi, Speaker of The United States House of Representatives

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

JD - How can she get that Foreign Policy experience that you'll demand that President Pelosi have otherwise?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

JD

The Speaker of the House does not require authorization from the Executive Branch to visit a foreign country. Furthermore, a group of Republican congressmen visited Damascus on Sunday and conferred with President Assad. I do not see many people screaming about that. Congresspeople of both parties do this sort of thing all the time.

Posted by: JimD in FL | April 3, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

The Constitution states the president must be "a natural born citizen of the United States". Practice has been that children born to American parents outside the US are considered natural born as long as the parents register the birth with a US embassy or consulate. People born in US territories are considered natural born citizens - and I believe that extends to people born on US military bases overseas. The Canal Zone was sovereign US territory when McCain was born there - and his father was a Naval officer stationed at one of the many bases we had there.

Posted by: JimD in FL | April 3, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

KOZ, you forgot to mention your girl Pelosi's unauthorized (and possibly illegal) trip to Syria.

I guess she figures that she's Secretary of State as well as speaker.

Posted by: JD | April 3, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

"Blarg, just wait until he plays Rudy and puts on a Yankees' hat." That would really burn his bridges in Massachusetts - GO Red Sox!!!!

(Although I live in Florida, I am a native New Englander and life-long Red Sox fan).

Posted by: JimD in FL | April 3, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

"But to curry favor with groups that like to laugh at the Northeast, he mocks us."

Blarg, just wait until he plays Rudy and puts on a Yankees' hat.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

"So far, Democrats are batting zero."

One wonders how General Pelosi has the gall to utter such things as "There's a new Congress in town, Mr. President...take a breath" -what with stunning accomplishments like that.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 3, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Exactly, JimD. Romney's religion is a problem because he's trying to appeal to the group most likely to reject him for his religion. And his liberal social stances are a problem because he's trying to appeal to social conservatives.

Romney could have decided to run as a liberal Republican. That would have been consistent with his accomplishments and positions in Massachusetts, and then his religion wouldn't have been as much of a problem. As a moderate with no ties to the current administration, Romney would have had a decent chance of getting independents to vote Republican again.

But instead he decided to run as the religious conservative candidate, the worst possible choice for him. No matter how much money he's raised, I don't think that will work for him in the end.

Posted by: Blarg | April 3, 2007 1:30 PM | Report abuse

do nothing - except treason

So far, Democrats are batting zero. House leaders trumpeted their six big legislative wins in the first 100 hours of the new Congress, passing bills raising the minimum wage, promoting stem cell research and providing student loan breaks, among others, at the behest of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But the Senate has passed only one of those bills -- the minimum wage hike -- and it's hung up over disagreements on the size of small business tax breaks to include.

http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/do_nothing_congress_democrats_070403.html

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 3, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

JimD - The apple doesn't fall far from the tree in re: Romney's flip-flop-flip on social issues.

No mention was made of his father's religious affiliation as it doesn't matter -that whole issue pales in comparison to the flip-flopping charge.

All of Romney's liberal views were based on shocking personal experiences - then he decided to run for president and came up with new shocking personal experiences that could justify him wooing the far-right of the Republican party.

This guy is a snake.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 3, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Following on to JimD's comments on George Romney - The biggest topic of discussion with George Romney prior to the "brain-washing" comment was whether or not he was technically qualified to be President, because he was born in Mexico.

Barry Goldwater was born in the Arizona Territory. John McCain was born in the Canal Zone.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | April 3, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

One more point about the polls concerning a Mormon presidential candidate - in today's politically correct society, isn't it likely that there are many people who would not vote for a Mormon for president based on religion who would not be willing to tell a pollster that?

Posted by: JimD in FL | April 3, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP - I am old enough to remember George Romney's campaign for president. What I do not remember is any discussion of his religion as an impediment.

Incidentally, George Romney would be considered a liberal by today's GOP.

Frederick - most of the posts in here discussing Romney's religion as a hindrance to his election are doing so based on strong indications that many conservative evangelicals will not vote for a Mormon. I am not an evangelical and I would not vote for or against anyone based on religion. I have nothing against the Mormon faith. However, polls show that there are a significant number of people who tell pollsters that they would not vote for a Mormon for president. They are a minority but self-described Republicans were more likely to say they would not vote for a Mormon than self-described independents or Democrats.

It is likely that conservative, evangelical Christians - a key component of the Republican base - account for the higher number of Republicans confessing to anti-Mormon bias. They are also the bulk of the social conservative movement within the Republican party. Romney is trying to cast himself as the candidate of the social conservatives. So, he is trying to appeal to that group within the Republican party most likely to be anti-Mormon. That is a problem for him. Furthermore, one can certainly question Romney's sincerity as a social conservative given the positions he took in his campaigns in Massachusetts.

Posted by: JimD in FL | April 3, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Frederick, how obvious that you are a paid Romney hack. Do yourself a favor and stop pretending that his chosen faith is in any way equivalent to being a Methodist, Catholic or Jewish. It's not.

I know it, you know it, and the American people know it.

Aside from that, Romney's flip-flop-flipping on many issues -gays, stem cells, abortion and the environment -is a much bigger hurdle to public trust.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 3, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

' He stood up, pointed at Mr. Hicks, and in a sentencing argument worthy of a fire and brimstone preacher called him an "enemy who wanted to kill Americans," "a threat", and an "extremist" who sought to destroy liberty and freedom. But then the plea deal was revealed: a mere nine months incarceration and a promise to transfer him home to Australia within two months time, in exchange for a series of conditions that mostly revealed the government's interest as protecting against the disclosure of his abuse while in detention'

hicks is any 'enemy' and a 'threat' -- so they're cutting him loose.

Here's your 'war on terror' -- a big joke -- on you

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse


"The president is vetoing the bill to provide money for soldiers -- readiness, health care, armaments, etc "

period. he's the one holding it up. he's the one who wants our troops to stay in iraq forever to protect the oil fields for exxon. socialization of risk, privatization of profits.

oil companies used to pay for their own guards. now, US taxpayers pay for everything -- in blood. and the oil companies rack up the profits and screw us again at the pump.

it must be tragic to have a friend or family member blown up so that some CEO can buy a fourth McMansion.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Fifteen percent of Romney's contributions come from Utah AND, it is estimated that close to half of his contributions comre from fellow Mormon's. It's rather like Hillary and about half of her money coming from the rabid feminists. Fortunately, there are a finite number of these and they can only "legally* give so much. In the end, I expect both dweddle-dee and dweeedle-dum to fad when people who care about this country to decide who they want as President. Of course, it might be too late by then. The early primaries may have these two locking up their respective nominates early. Then, look out for a third party candidate. I'm a liberal and I cannot see myself every supporting Hillary. My friends run the politial gamit and none, not one, could support either of these two. This may actually be health. If the major parties are so dead set on committing suicide, I say "Help Them". Then, write in John Edwrds or Obama or even the Easter Bunny.

Posted by: MikeB | April 3, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

All this talk about the "fact" that a Mormon could never be elected President, is a sure indicator that bigotry still exists in full force in our country. It's not OK to bash Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Blacks, Gays, etc, etc. However, bigotry towards Mormons is totally acceptable. Sad. Very sad.

The fact is Romney is the most qualified to be the next President. He's is the only one who can and will turn this country around. Just look at his record!!! He's not just a talker like most of these nominees, he the job done.

What if Romney were a Methodist? Would it be easier to see just how qualified he is? Our country is on the verge of disaster, and the only person to get us back on track is Mitt. The man is a genius! Get over your Mormon bigotry and learn more about the religion from the source. You will learn that the fear people have of the religion comes from lies and misconceptions created by various so-called Christians ministers scared that they will lose patronage to the Mormon Church.

Wake up America! Your bigotry will cause our country to pay a huge price down the road. We need Mitt to turn this country around. He did that for many companies, the 2002 Olympics, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Posted by: Fredrick | April 3, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

If Rudy had been asked by the Yankees to throw out the First Pitch yesterday he would have suggested Judith Nathan and Bernie Kerik instead.

Nathan because she'll do everything Rudy does (and he knows she's good with a "cutter"); and Kerik because he may not have much more time to do anything as a public citizen.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

"Several candidates for president are on a fast pace for fundraising. Democrat Hillary Clinton has set a record and Republican Rudy Giuliani isn't far behind.

But it's what Giuliani said Monday that will likely steal the headlines.

The former New York City mayor is fending off increased media scrutiny of his third wife -- the former Judith Nathan. Rudy is now asking the media to back off.

"Attack me all you want," Giuliani said. "There's plenty to attack me about. Please do it. But maybe, you know, show a little decency."

Oh this is rich. Talk about the party of hypocrisy. rudy wants the press to leave his puppy killing 3rd wife alone. Gee, I never saw anyone heed Bill Clinton's request to leave his family alone.

Judith Nathan is an unscrupuous, greedy, selfish monster who stole another woman's husband and alienated his children. She deserves no mercy.

Maybe rudy could have given a thought to 'decency' when he was trying to throw his wife and kids ought of Gracie Mansion so he could move his wh*re in.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse


The government once proposed military commissions as the best way to prosecute the masterminds of 9/11, and the prosecutor in Australian David Hicks's case made a valiant attempt at maintaining that fiction. He stood up, pointed at Mr. Hicks, and in a sentencing argument worthy of a fire and brimstone preacher called him an "enemy who wanted to kill Americans," "a threat", and an "extremist" who sought to destroy liberty and freedom. But then the plea deal was revealed: a mere nine months incarceration and a promise to transfer him home to Australia within two months time, in exchange for a series of conditions that mostly revealed the government's interest as protecting against the disclosure of his abuse while in detention.

The agreement includes a statement from Hicks that he has not been subjected to "illegal" treatment at any time while he was in US custody - a statement that the Department of Defense has broadcast in its press release on the case. But this is a concession that means little for a government that interpreted water boarding (mock drowning) as compliant with US and international law at the time of Mr. Hicks' arrest. And in a statement filed in a UK court, Mr. Hicks has previously spoken of being beaten repeatedly and sodomized while in US custody.

Included in the deal is also a one-year gag rule that prohibits Hick from discussing any element of his treatment or capture - a provision that serves the purpose of hiding the very abusive conduct the United States denies. And Hicks is barred from suing anyone in the US government regarding his detention or treatment, and cannot profit from the eventual sale of his story, but must instead turn over any proceeds to the Australian government.

This cover-up attempt has been a constant theme of late, with Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM), Abd al-Rahim al Nashiri, and Majid Khan, three of the detainees moved to Guantanamo from secret CIA prison last September, as exhibits A, B, and C. The newly released transcripts of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals for both KSM and Nahiri were heavily redacted to cover up any details relating to their allegation of abuse. And the government is not even allowing Khan's civilian attorney to visit him - based on the surreal argument that Khan's treatment in CIA custody is "top-secret" information which cannot be revealed.

The prosecutor of Mr. Hicks described the "global war on terror" as a "figurative battle of ideologies," with liberty and freedom on one side and those attempting to destroy liberty and freedom on the other.

But it is hard to see how the government's concerted attempt at censorship and cover-up advances this cause - particularly when what the government is attempting to cover-up involves secret detentions, ""disappearances," and abuse.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

A closer look at the numbers will reveal that Romney's success is mainly do the deep-pocleted friends he has made.
http://political-buzz.com/?p=126

And deep pockets mean nothing in a presidential race. If $$ alone was unbeatable, Dodd would be a leading contender for the Dems. The Romney campaign is still in trouble. This just gets them some good press for a bit.

Posted by: paul | April 3, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Our troops lives sacrificed for Exxon and Halliburton ...


Why is Halliburton moving to Dubai? Why is Israel agreeing to peace agreement brokered by Saudi Arabia, home of the 9/11 murderers?

You don't really know what's going on the middle east, but you're so naive and gullible you believe whatever they shovel out. Clue: it's all about money. Always has been.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

"Romney brings so many strengths to the race that the shallow critiques come across as foolish."

Ummm,greg, your conclusion is not based in fact at all. There is nothing foolish in reporting the facts regarding Romney's record.

Romney is a political opportunist willing to take one side of a life and death issue when seeking liberal votes and quite willing to take the other side of the same issue when seeking conservative votes.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 3, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

"The president is vetoing the bill to provide money for soldiers -- readiness, health care, armaments, etc "

period. he's the one holding it up. he's the one who wants our troops to stay in iraq forever to protect the oil fields for exxon. socialization of risk, privatization of profits.

oil companies used to pay for their own guards. now, US taxpayers pay for everything -- in blood. and the oil companies rack up the profits and screw us again at the pump.

it must be tragic to have a friend or family member blown up so that some CEO can buy a fourth McMansion.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse


"How they love those creeps, adulterers, pedophiles and toe suckers."

Bill Clinton would qualify for at least 50% of that statement.

You libs don't even like Hillary, so give it a rest!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 3, 2007 11:56 AM | Report abuse

"The Democrats need a more frontal response to the lies the president is now telling about Iraq funding. The president, of course, wants to force this into a discussion about funding for soldiers -- readiness, health care, armaments, etc. That's funny given the president's atrocious record on these issues. But whatever. He's a liar. What's new?

But here's the key. The public overwhelmingly supports a timeline for leaving Iraq. Overwhelmingly. Every poll shows this. For the first time the Congress has passed a law to do just that -- to put a time limit on our presence in Iraq. So the Democrats are on the side of a timeline for withdrawal (very popular) and the president is for staying in Iraq forever (not popular). And the president says he's going to veto that bill. The president is vetoing the Iraq timeline bill. Why? Because he supports staying there forever. Public wants a timeline. Democrats pass the law. President vetoes the law. Any Democrat is a fool who doesn't start every comment on this story with, "The president is vetoing the bill to set a timeline to get out of Iraq." They have to say it over and over and over. It's accurate. It cuts politically. And to overcome the president's ability to spread lies about this it has to be said over and over and over. So who's going to say this more clearly?

Late Update: TPM Reader JC responds ...

Josh,
You said "Any Democrat is a fool who doesn't start every comment on this story with, 'The president is vetoing the bill to set a timeline to get out of Iraq.'" I disagree. I would say that any democrate is a fool who doesn't start every comment on the story with, "The president is vetoing the bill to provide money for soldiers -- readiness, health care, armaments, etc and a timeline to get out of Iraq."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse

'Court: EPA Violated Clean Air Act
Supreme Court rebukes Bush administration for refusing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.'

romney: the new breck girl

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

"Make no mistake, Romney is a serious candidate"

Yeah, like seriously flawed! The guy is a flip-flopper. Like father, like son:

In 1968 George Romney, a former governor of Michigan, competed for the Republican presidential nomination. Romney was an early favorite, but his campaign crashed and burned when he changed his position on the Vietnam War. The campaign might have survived the fact that the once hawkish Romney turned against the war, but his lame explanation for the reversal was even more troubling than the reversal itself. Romney's statement that his original support for the war was the result of "brainwashing" by pro-war generals doomed his campaign. Not many voters were comfortable with the possibility that their president might be susceptible to brainwashing.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 3, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

'Memo To Bush: 57 Days < 119 Days
The US News Political Bulletin reported this morning that "White House strategists are now pulling out all the stops to blame the Democratic majority in Congress for a potential delay in funding the Iraq war. ... White House aides have adopted a new gambit -- referring to the number of days since Bush requested funding for the troops in an effort to keep up the pressure."

This morning at his Rose Garden press conference, President Bush highlighted this new gambit, saying it has been 57 days since he sent Congress his funding request. If Congress fails to act soon, Bush said, "the price of that failure will be paid by our troops and their loved ones."

During the reign of the Do-Nothing 109th Congress, Bush submitted two major supplemental spending requests. Each request experienced a delay far more than 57 days with hardly a peep of anger from the Commander-In-Chief. Details below:

February 14, 2005: Bush submits $82 billion supplemental bill
May 11, 2005: Bush signs the supplemental
Total time elapsed: 86 days

February 16, 2006: Bush submits $72 billion supplemental bill
June 15, 2006: Bush signs the supplemental
Total time elapsed: 119 days

After the 119 day delay, Bush did not say an "irresponsible" Congress had "undercut the troops" or that military families had "paid the price of failure." Instead, Bush told the conservative-led Congress, "I applaud those Members of Congress who came together in a fiscally responsible way to provide much-needed funds for the War on Terror'

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

McCain says Baghdad safe; six U.S. soldiers killed -

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 11:38 AM | Report abuse

'Yeah, Morris is a total wh*re but anyone with that much dislike for Billary can't be all bad.'

The pathetic state of the hate-filled right. How they love those creeps, adulterers, pedophiles and toe suckers.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 11:37 AM | Report abuse


In the olden days of BaghdadCity, in the days of my mother's grandmother, the sweltering heat of the summer would make people abandon their bedrooms and hasten to the traditionally flat roofs of their houses to catch the night breeze, enabling them to sleep. Now, we wish the tradition could be resumed. The world is taking giant steps forward but the war has taken us decades backwards.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

nOR'EASTER - Yeah, Morris is a total wh*re but anyone with that much dislike for Billary can't be all bad.

Seriously, though - he does have a point about the war funding. It could go badly for the dems imo.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 3, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

The fact is, Romney brings so many strengths to the race that the shallow critiques come across as foolish.

Posted by: Greg Smith | April 3, 2007 11:27 AM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP: Dick Morris? You're kidding right?

Every time I see him on with O'Reilly or Hannity, he makes my skin crawl. Makes my toes hurt also.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | April 3, 2007 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Make no mistake, Romney is a serious candidate, and a persuasive campaigner. He also has deep ties to big-money people in finance.

That said, his political beliefs--as opposed to religious beliefs-- appear to be paper-thin, since he so often "adjusts" his positions for his audience. The various archives will be treasure chests of footage of his changes for negative commercials.

He may be the Phil Gramm of the new century!

Posted by: pacman | April 3, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

The daily Iraq violence report is compiled by McClatchy Newspapers Special Correspondent Hussein Kadhim in Baghdad from police, military and medical reports. This is not a comprehensive list of all violence in Iraq, much of which goes unreported. It's posted without editing as transmitted to McClatchy's Washington Bureau.

Baghdad

-Around 10.30 am a car bomb was parked near the notary public and a court in Bayaa district ( south Baghdad) when exploded killed 2 and injured 9.

- Around 11 , a road side bomb exploded near Nidaa Mosque in Qahira district having three injuries

- Before noon , A suicider who was driving a car filled with explosions targeted a check point for police and army in Doura having 2 killed and three injured .

- Before noon , machineguns were targeting a convoy of the interior minister deputy for police affairs ( major general) having 2 injured guards.

- Around 2 pm , a road side bomb targeted a patrol of the Iraqi army passing through the general company of grains in Bab Al-Muathim killing 2 and 3 were injured.

- Around 4 pm , a mortar shelling targeted a school building ( Imuma school) having some damage without casualties.

- Around 4 pm , an Iraqi soldier killed by a sniper in Al-Ghadeer neighborhood .

- Before sunset , A motorists was killed by American check point which was near Um Al-Tibool mosque inYarmouk neighborhood . The dead was an Iraqi soldier out of duty.

_ 14 corpses were found in Baghdad: Kharkh bank ( 11 ) : Saidiyah (3), Amil(2), Doura (2) , Hurriya (1) , Yarmouk (1) , Mahmudiya (1) Rusafa bank ( 3) Sheikh Umar (1) , Zayuna (1) , Sadr city (1)


Diyala

Around 5 pm of Sunday evening April 1 , two mini buses ( Kia) carrying 19 Shiite passengers from Jizan village ,between Baghdad Baquba road, stopped ,checked and then taken by one of the terrorists groups which belong to the Islamic State of Iraq  to their haunts in Hibhib town ( West Baquba ) .

_ Around 5 pm terrorists attacked one of the Iraqi army headquarter in Ghalbia to prevent them giving rescue to the people in Jizan and the clashes lasted more than four hours and on the same time 4 cars opened fire on civilian cars which were on the way injuring 5 who were evacuated at once to Al_Kindi hospital in Baghdad as it is impossible to take them to Baquba via Hadid town which declared loyalty to the Islamic State.

- By noon , a bomb was put under a trailer was carrying rice ( 30 tons) which was supposed to be delivered to people in Mandli ( to south of Kurdstan 90 km east Baquba causing loss of this amount of rice. .Those people havent got ration for seven months.

- Early this morning , 2 suspected arrested in Sadiya town in Khanqeen ( North east Baquba) military source said from the fifth division of Iraqi army.

- Around 2.30 pm , 23 corps were found near a house in Bani Saad town ( 30 km south Baquba. 19 of them were blindfolded with hands tied from the back. Those were workers from Jizan village who were kidnapped yesterday in the afternoon.

- Around 1.00 pm , a bomb was put inside a broken freezer which was set to be a table for sellers inside Al-Khalis city ( north Baquba ) having three female sellers killed and another is missing while 23 were injured ( 6 of them were women).

Kirkuk

Around 10.30 am a truck ( Hino) filled with explosions hit an elementary school for girls as it failed to reach its destiny the directorate of criminal investigations in Rahimawa in Kirkuk ( north of Baghdad)and near a police station as there were blocks in the main entry to the target causing great damage to the whole area having 12 killed and( 169) injured most of them girls and women . The damage was huge in the area ( shops and houses were destroyed and cars burned).

Saladdin

A-Dour

-200 suspected arrested by the Iraqi security forces from Al-Dour ( south of Tikrit and north of Baghdad which is on siege for the last five days on demanding of 400 wanted men.

Basra

- Last night ( Sunday night), a British soldier listed dead in a hospital after a serious injury in attack with gunmen in Ashar city ( downtown of Basra) a spokesman of the Multi reprted.

- At dawn a British patrol had an ambush by gunmen who used machineguns and RBJ7s .A clash took place between both sides , no casualties of the British reported while four gunmen injured as the British statement told.

- Late last night, the British Chancellery was hit by mortar shelling and ( Katusha) missiles without damages

Around 5.00 pm a British convoy was targeted by gunmen using machineguns having one British soldier killed and another injured in Ashar (downtown of Basra city) near the directorate of Basra police traffic.



Posted by: 2 DAYS | April 3, 2007 11:21 AM | Report abuse

On the April 1 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor and Fox News contributor Bill Kristol repeated an attack by the White House on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for planning to go to Syria while her bipartisan delegation is traveling in the Middle East this week. But, as the weblog Think Progress reported on March 30, a Republican-led congressional delegation is also visiting Syria, a trip that the White House has apparently not criticized similarly. Kristol did not mention the reported Republican-led trip to Syria, much less the inconsistency in the White House's criticism of Pelosi's trip and its silence on the Republican-led trip.

On April 1, the Associated Press reported that a delegation of House members including Reps. Frank Wolf (R-VA), Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA), and Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) had met with Syrian President Bashar Assad, two days before Pelosi's planned meeting.

From Fox News Sunday's April 1 panel discussion:

KRISTOL: Nancy Pelosi, having undercut our troops in the field, is now going off to see -- to Syria to pay her respects to Bashar Assad, who's allowing terrorists to come across the [Iraqi] border to kill American troops.

Neither of the other Fox News Sunday panelists -- National Public Radio's Mara Liasson and Fox News Washington bureau managing editor Brit Hume -- nor host Chris Wallace noted the inconsistency between the White House's and Kristol's criticism of Pelosi and their silence on the GOP congressional trip.

Posted by: THE LIE/MYTH OF LIBERAL MEDIA | April 3, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse

DEMS' NEXT DEBACLE: MORE WAR-FUNDING FOLLIES

Democrats in Congress are heading into a game of chicken with the Bush White House akin to the Gingrich-Clinton government shutdown battle of 1995-96. The roles are reversed this time - so the Republicans are likely to prevail.

The consequences will be lasting. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will find their party shattered. Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be forced to choose sides in their party's schism.

The game will unfold predictably. The House and the Senate will compromise on the differences in their legislation funding the Iraq War; the end product, carrying poison-pill language that sets a deadline for troop withdrawal, will go to the White House to face an inevitable presidential veto. The Democrats' override attempt will fail - and a deadlock will ensue.

Then the Democrats will threaten to withhold funding for the war in Iraq unless the White House agrees to some form of deadline. The Bush administration will reply that it will never agree to a schedule for troop withdrawal - and both sides will glare at the other across an abyss.

But Bush will, inevitably, win the game of chicken. Pelosi and Reid have too much sense to be caught denying funding to troops in combat. Bush will make the price of obstinacy too great for the Democrats to bear.

Nobody will want to be in the position of cutting off funding and appearing to undermine the troops during a war.

But the consequences for Pelosi of a retreat will be serious: She'll leave behind her the party's left - who will never vote for funding without also mandating withdrawal. Pelosi will have to scramble and craft a majority with a combination of Republican votes and support from the center of her own party.

The speaker will probably wind up having to vote against the majority of her Democratic members. That spectacle won't be healthy for her future authority or control.

If the Republicans are smart, they will let Pelosi hang by her own rope and will force her to break her party apart by twisting arms for every last vote to pass a funding bill.

Inadvertently forced into triangulation, Pelosi and Reid will be the unwilling instruments of a schism in their party from which it may not recover until after the 2008 election. The fault lines between those willing to fund the war without a withdrawal amendment and those who insist on a date certain for a pullout will define a growing split within the party akin to the one that drove students into the streets of Chicago outside the party convention in 1968.

In the presidential race, Clinton and Obama will face moments of truth in deciding which side of the schism to occupy. They won't be able to fudge their positions any longer. Hillary, in particular, will have to come down for the war or against it - with lasting consequences for her candidacy.

The left will not forgive a vote to fund the war without requiring a withdrawal date - but the general electorate will not look kindly on pulling back funds during a war.

For his part, President Bush needs to stand firm as this process unfolds. The split the funding resolution will catalyze in the Democratic Party may be his party's only hope of hanging onto the White House in 2008. He should resist calls for compromise, since any halfway solution or diplomatic wording that could appeal to both sides will rescue the Democrats from the horns of their dilemma - and run most or all of the risks for the troops and the mission in Iraq as the current bills present.

Bush should demand a clean appropriations bill or guarantee a veto. If he doesn't flinch and congressional Republicans don't defect, it will be bad news for the Democrats.

DickMorrisReport@vote.com


New York Post on April 2, 2007.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 3, 2007 11:16 AM | Report abuse

CNN's Malveaux parroted White House criticism of Pelosi's Syria visit, but ignored GOP-led trip
During an interview with former Ambassador John Bolton on the April 2 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, guest host and CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux noted the White House's denunciations of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for her scheduled trip to Syria, but did not note that a Republican-led delegation met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus on April 1. Malveaux also did not point out the White House's inconsistency in criticizing Pelosi for her trip while remaining silent on the GOP-led visit. Nor did Malveaux report in her exchange with Bolton that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reportedly voiced support for Pelosi's trip to Syria, "urg[ing] Pelosi," according to an ABC report on April 2, "to convey the message to Assad that Israel would be willing to hold talks with Syria -- if Syria would take steps to stop supporting terrorism."

Malveaux's final question to Bolton in the interview was, "Do you think that this also perhaps portends to something that might happen in the future? I'm being somewhat flip, but you know, Syria today, Iran tomorrow. I mean, where does it end?" Later in the broadcast, CNN teased a replay of the Bolton interview with an on-screen graphic that read: "Taking on Pelosi."

As Media Matters for America has noted (here and here), several media figures have reported White House criticism of Pelosi without also noting the inconsistency in the administration's silence on the GOP-led delegation.

The selective criticism by some in the media of Pelosi's planned visit to Syria mirrors conservatives' attacks on Democrats who traveled to Damascus in December 2006. As Media Matters noted, numerous conservative media figures assailed Democratic Sens. Bill Nelson (FL), John Kerry (MA), and Christopher Dodd (CT) for meeting with Assad but ignored Sen. Arlen Specter's (R-PA) meeting with the Syrian president later that month.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer stands to loose billions because of health plans pushing the generic version of Pfizer's blockbuster anti-cholesterol drug, Lipitor. Now Pfizer is trying to convince doctors to help justify the more expensive drug to insurers, reports USAT.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 11:12 AM | Report abuse

'The NYT focuses on Romney's support from Wall Street and from fellow Mormons. The WP chalks up McCain's performance to sluggish organization and lingering damage from the 2000 race. All the papers are careful, to varying degrees, to insist that money really isn't everything in politics.'


LOL

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

resident Bush is losing his top day-to-day adviser on Iraq, the White House confirmed Monday.

Meghan L. O'Sullivan, who has played a key behind-the-scenes role in implementing Bush's controversial Iraq policies over the last four years, will leave later this spring.

Her departure, which follows that of her deputy, could leave the White House with a vacuum of long-term experience on Iraq policy, and it comes as Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress prepare for a showdown over withdrawing U.S. troops.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Dozens of interviews with current and former intelligence officials and policymakers in the United States, Britain, France and Italy show that the Bush administration disregarded key information available at the time showing that the Iraq-Niger claim was highly questionable.

In February 2002, the CIA received the verbatim text of one of the documents, filled with errors easily identifiable through a simple Internet search, the interviews show. Many low- and mid-level intelligence officials were already skeptical that Iraq was in pursuit of nuclear weapons.

The interviews also showed that France, berated by the Bush administration for opposing the Iraq war, honored a U.S. intelligence request to investigate the uranium claim. It determined that its former colony had not sold uranium to Iraq.

Posted by: it's all lies, folks | April 3, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

'who believe in core Christian values.'

Like that women can only get into heaven with their husband's permission?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Thanks Judge. Yes, as we see on a daily basis even on this blog, there are a lot of sick f*cks out there, a lot of hateful, irrational loons. There's always been hatred of course, but I think the last 30 years of the constant barrage of garbage from the hawkers of the con 'revolution' have poisoned the dialogue to the point of no return. It's sad to see the country sink to this level. We may not like the wingers, but the fact is, most of them would like to see anyone who leans left, dead. And they come right out and say it. At a certain point, I just got tired of it. Which is why I don't engage much with those types here. It bores me and is an utter waste of time. You can't reason with them -- they don't beleive in reason.

Posted by: drindl | April 3, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Mark, I live in Massachusetts, but I can't really help you. I'm not involved much in local/state politics, and I don't read the Boston Globe often.

But I'll tell you what I hate most about Mitt Romney: He has no respect for the people who put him in office. For the last few years, as he's been planning his run for president, he's toured the country talking to conservative groups. And he'd frequently make jokes about Massachusetts, about how he's the only Republican in the state and about how crazy the liberals are here.

I don't like that. Massachusetts elected Romney as governor. Without this state, he wouldn't be running for president. But to curry favor with groups that like to laugh at the Northeast, he mocks us. That just seems wrong to me.

Posted by: Blarg | April 3, 2007 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Dear Massachusetts readers:

I am reading such widely diverse opinions about his time as governor here. I want to read lists of accomplishments and failures as seen from several viewpoints, but references or background would help me too. Must I rely on the archives of the Boston Globe, alone?

Thanks, in advance, for your consideration.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | April 3, 2007 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Pointing out that there is anti-Mormon prejudice does not mean that one is anti-Mormon. Several posters have cited the recent poll in which a significant number of people stated that they would not vote for a Mormon presidential candidate. Republicans were more likely to state this prejudice than independents or Democrats. Many conservative evangelicals have a strong anti-Mormon attitude - I live in the Bible Belt and I know many evangelicals who feel this way. I have heard many describe Mormonism as a cult. Bob Jones University used to have some anti-Mormon statements on its web site characteriZing Mormonism as a cult. Conservative evangelicals make up a very significant part of the Republican base.

Romney is specifically trying to become the candidate of the social conservatives among Republicans. Evangelicals are the predominant group among social conservatives. A significant number of evangelicals have anti-Mormon prejudice. That is a problem for Romney. Adding to that problem is that Romeny portrayed himself as moderate to liberal on social issues in his Massachusetts campaigns. Imagine the impact, especially in Southern states, of attack ads showing Romney in his 1994 Senate debate against Ted Kennedy asserting that he would be a more effective advocate for gay rights than Kennedy. Romney also portrayed himself as pro-choice in his Massachusetts campaigns. Flip-flopping charges definitely have substance to them.

Posted by: JimD in FL | April 3, 2007 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | April 3, 2007 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Drindl: saw this and it reminded me of your experiences w/blogging.

http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | April 3, 2007 9:09 AM | Report abuse

For those who want a greater future for America, the best days are ahead of us!

Don't worry, Mitt Romney to the rescue.

He's the preordained and the perfect president for the next 8 years.

Sorry, for those anti-Mitts, how I feel how desperate you are. He's the winner in the 1st Quarter! And take note: See his campaign blossoms. (Even how you tarnished him with your bigotries and old baseless flip-flopping issues, you're just positioning yourselves in waste ground. Thus,... no one or if there's any, only few, is interested what you're talking. Even if you have to write lengthy biased comments, the majority won't buy what you're selling, tsk...tsk...tsk..., poor Anti-Mitts!) Mitt is the obvious nominee for the GOP, watch,... as his campaign blossoms. Take this note!

Posted by: mikeydnc | April 3, 2007 7:30 AM | Report abuse

I have analyzed the entire transcript of Kyle Sampson's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in regard to the "aggregating" of information by the Executive Office of the Department of Justice. There were some startling revelations: (This story plus updates can be found at http://misterapologist.blogspot.com )
John Nowacki, Principal Deputy Director as well as the Acting Counsel to the Director in the Executive Office of the Justice Department, is the go-between for most of the Justice Department and all 93 US Attorney's. He is the guy that gets letters, emails, phone calls, and other bits of information that he then passes up the chain of command. The documents contained on my website demonstrate his central role in important meetings, his role in gathering information on prospective US Attorney's, and organizing complaints of current US Attorney's. The final document (a portion of Nowacki's schedule) demonstrates that his informants ( Investigator Warren Hamilton) help to fulfill his obligation to the other members of the Justice Department by supplying information that fits with a specific agenda. It is extremely important that the House and Senate Judiciary Committee's interview John Nowacki in order to establish the links between the Justice Department officials, the US Attorney's in the field, and the political operatives who helped remove the targeted US Attorney's.
(This story plus updates can be found at http://misterapologist.blogspot.com )

Posted by: Zach Edwards | April 3, 2007 4:31 AM | Report abuse

Romney is an incredible candidate. His religion shouldn't be part of the discussion really, rather his stances and qualifications which are excellent. That is all.

Posted by: Ben | April 3, 2007 4:07 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Justin Perez. The next President should definately have international relations experience. The war in Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, not to mention restoring our standing among all the allies we've alienated in the past 7 years are all issues that MUST be addressed in the next term. America does not have a monopoly on what is right, though most of us like to think we do, and we can not in this time of globalization continue to behave as if we are the only country that matters. When President Bush (41) led us into war in Iraq we had an international coalition the likes of which the world has never known, too bad he didn't pass that lesson on to his son President Bush (43). I like Obama's message of hope for the future, he raises a lot of good points, but he is relatively inexperienced. Senator Clinton's biggest advantage is of course her husband, President Clinton who, like or not, had a fairly successful run in the White House (in regards to foreign policy, budgets, etc..) and can certainly help bring in the dollars and the votes. Gov. Richardson, however, has all kinds of experience, and while I won't contend that running a state with the population that of New Mexico is anywhere near that of running the nation, he does have the executive experience dealing with the legislature, the foreign experience of being the US Ambassador to the UN, plus time as the Sec. of Energy and 14 years in the US House of Rep. If experience is what your looking for, look no further. With Richardson still doing the business of running a state (vice just taking off to run his campaign) his fundraising isn't anywhere near the so-called top tier candidates. Hopefully money alone won't win the next Presidency, but thats up to the people. Follow blindly that of the media (and the ad buys that fundraising pays for) OR do some reading of your own on the candidates.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 3, 2007 1:45 AM | Report abuse

Lets put things in perspective.

If Mitt Romney was of the world the world would love him. Because he is not of the world the world hates him. Thats how it is with the Mormon faith. The word Mormon literally means "More Good News" in Hebrew.

John 15:18
"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."

However, Uncle Sam might have to accept him because Uncle Sam is in a mess.

certaincurtain@yahoo.com

Posted by: A Mormon in the White House? | April 3, 2007 1:13 AM | Report abuse

Look, I know a few people that are evangelicals, who would not support a mormon and they are not bigoted. They say that their faith is important to them and support candidates that share their faith. i dont really care, I vote Democrat, but its not totally unreasonable to believe that a mormon would have trouble getting elected.

Posted by: Moderates Unite | April 3, 2007 1:01 AM | Report abuse

The media, print or television, tends to be liberal by nature...so they generally don't give a lot of love for any Republican unfortunately...and I'm not a Republican or a Democrat...I just try to vote for the most person that I can...btw, I do like Romney a lot.

Posted by: Mikey | April 3, 2007 12:44 AM | Report abuse

What I find disquieting about fund raising and the reporting of it is the "horse race" mentality associated with it. Already the presidential race is being directed away from principles and platforms. It has now become a contest of money with a bias being placed in the minds of the public that the one who raises the most money is automatically going to be in the race if not the winner.

Where are the pertinent discussions regarding the economy, Iraq, and corruption in Washington? What about jobs, education, and healthcare? But nooo, let's make it easy; let's make it a done deal in the public's mind; let's call the winner the one with the most money.

It's sad to see the greatest democracy the world has known having the election process for its leader being reduced to an auction-like circus.

Sad indeed, but still the best show money can buy.

Regards
NC

Posted by: Nick C | April 3, 2007 12:41 AM | Report abuse

Ignorance is only solved by knowledge. Knowledge to the masses takes money. Good thing Mitt made a lot of money, because it looks like there is a lot of ignorance out there that he'll need to overcome.

Posted by: Vicasey | April 3, 2007 12:37 AM | Report abuse

Like him or not, Romney is a smart guy. Bet you $100 that his name will be linked up with a strong Evangelical running mate. The VP choice will be announced earlier than normal (before the primaries) in order to shore up support from the Bible Belt.

Posted by: BJ | April 3, 2007 12:14 AM | Report abuse

It makes me sad to live in this wonderful country and witness such bigotry and hatred. It shocks me that their are so many ignorant individuals.

The irony is that the conservative Evangelicals will push the only candidate that shares their same view on 99.9% of their social issues out the door.

Instead, conservative Evangelicals will stay home and end up putting up a candidate that shares about 50% of their social views on the ticket. The expression of shooting oneself in the foot comes to mind.

Posted by: BJ | April 3, 2007 12:12 AM | Report abuse

"Romney will kick Clinton's trash in the General Election. Never mind the poll #'s right now, they mean nothing, but money shows who American's really want to win the white house!!!"
There's a contradiction....by your own statement apparently America wants Clinton in the White House.

Posted by: Michael | April 3, 2007 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Harry Reid doesn't need the endorsement of the Christian Right to hold his Senate seat or the position of Majority Leader, nor is he running for president. Apple sand oranges. I have no problem with the mormon issue, his own party base does, and that's the central issue here, why do you not get that?

Posted by: Michael | April 3, 2007 12:03 AM | Report abuse

Do any of you realize that Senate Majority leader Harry Reid is a Mormon? Do you see anyone saying that his Mormon faith prevents him from effectively representing the people?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 11:32 PM | Report abuse

I'm not able to follow the meandering arguments "for" or "against" the doctrines of Mormonism. I don't really have time for such debate. I suspect the same is true for Mitt Romney. That guy just gets stuff done. He's been that way his whole life.

Say what you will about his "flip-flops" or his religion, guys like that don't often run for President. If I were him, I'd be glad to retire and hang out with my grandkids and serve in my church. Instead, Romney is offering his formidable skills, experience, and intelligence to serve the country.

After eight years of varying degrees of incompetence, it would be nice to have someone as smart as Clinton, as principled as Reagan, and as effective as Mitt Romney running this country.

Posted by: Chris | April 2, 2007 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Dear Justin Perez-

How can you say that Romney lacks executive experience to be president, especially in comparison to the other candidates? Romney was CEO of a successful multi billion company (Bain), CEO of the 2002 Olympics, and Governor of Mass, whereas Obama has zero executive experience (being editor of the law review does not count), Clinton has zero executive experience (unless you are giving her credit for running the country when she was the first lady), and McCain has zero executive experience. The only other candidate with any significant executive experience is Giuliani (Mayor of NY).

Posted by: Pigpen | April 2, 2007 11:13 PM | Report abuse

I don't see anyone going after Sen. Maj. Leader Reid's Mormon faith, obviously everyone making the comments above are just liberals who want to tear down the obvious best conservative candidate in the field in order to ensure another 8 yrs of the Clinton's, haha, Romney will kick Clinton's trash in the General Election. Never mind the poll #'s right now, they mean nothing, but money shows who American's really want to win the white house!!!

Posted by: Shasta from Georgia | April 2, 2007 10:37 PM | Report abuse

Kerry Picks His 'Final Four'

He's not making basketball predictions, but Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts has selected his so-called "final four."
http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/kerry-picks-his-final-four.html

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 10:26 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton didn't have foreign policy experience. He did a good job with his issues abroad. He only had the experience of a Governor but he was smart when he placed the right people around him. Romney or anyone else can do the same."

People once said that about Dubya, then look what happened....

Posted by: Michael | April 2, 2007 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Romney has his own money. Special interests won't be buying him. He will represent the people and not his own interests. That is what he did in MA.

Posted by: Kevin | April 2, 2007 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Clinton didn't have foreign policy experience. He did a good job with his issues abroad. He only had the experience of a Governor but he was smart when he placed the right people around him. Romney or anyone else can do the same.

Posted by: Kevin | April 2, 2007 9:55 PM | Report abuse

This is all ridiculous. If Romney werent pandering to the right, his faith wouldn't even be an issue. I think nobody cares anymore, and nobody should care. Whats more important than faith is that whether or not somebody has real beliefs that they can communicate in a logical way and that they can defend, as well as having political experience in both excecutive and legislative branches, national and state. Think, don't feel! Emotional appeals so easily persuade the masses, its ho Bush swayed the nation behind him. Don't let them capatalize on hysteria. If you are smart, you should vote for someone because they have the balls to say what they think but will work with ideological opposition, but that also will know what he's doing. And guess what? THAT TAKES POLITICAL EXPERIENCE, IN THE GOV'T! It shouldnt be "insider" vs. "outsider" it should be "smart" vs. "dumb", and "logical" and "illogical", and "competent" vs "incompetent". Also it should be "corrupt" vs "clean", and just cuz u havent heard of them dont mean theyre clean. Who cares if he's a mormon? Who cares if he's an atheist, what does it matter? Does he have experience? No. Does he have consistent well-thought out positions? No, his views adjust to his constituency quite perfectly. I'm okay electing a mormon, but not one who has no beliefs or record. How will governing a state give him foreign policy experience? How will managing the Olympics make him a good President? It wont, and we'll be stuck with him for 4 years when problems need to be solved. On Hardball, Romney's indecision was shown when his rep wouldnt answer Matthew's question and rambled about the "jihad" and "recognizing them". Right now we voters have to be careful to do a good job on the next President---we have an open chance, but we'll be stuck with the next one while we handle Iraq and Iran. Don't blame them for the public's stupidity! It's our fault as voters that we elect incompetent people, that we let them buy our votes.

Posted by: Perez | April 2, 2007 9:47 PM | Report abuse

'There will be those "Bigots" who will not vote for Romney just because Romney is Mormon, but there are those who endorse him.'

But my point is it is those bigots who won't vote for him that he needs. Bush won very narrowly twice based largely on a huge GOTV effort spearheaded by the Christian right and men like Dobson. Without him, and with maybe 5-10% of evangelicals not turning out to vote for him because of their bigotry (again, that leaves 90-95% of evangelicals voting for him), Romney loses the general, costing him Ohio, New Mexico, maybe Florida, etc. Let's leave the nonsense about whether or not Mormonism is true (Frank, de leon, certaincurtain, et al) and stick to the basic political calculus here, that's what this blog is about.

Posted by: Michael | April 2, 2007 9:45 PM | Report abuse

I wonder what it's like to have that much money. I know what it's like to be a disabled Veteran; to spend time serving my countrymen in a soup line; to give a case of food each month to help feed my brothers and sisters in need; I know what it's like to give a little more on my power and heating bill to help a fellow American; I don't know, however, what it is like to give millions to TV, radio, newspapers, pollsters, PAC's, or shysters. I have never even had the chance to lie to America or put my buds in cool, high paying jobs. I guess I've really missed out.
Damn, how IS that possible?

Posted by: Raymond R Roughton III | April 2, 2007 9:45 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry, is the LDS church going to be running for office?

So far, that is not one of Romney's platform issues. Do you even know what his platform is all about?

I gather from your comments of Bigotry and intolerance you hate Mormon's. I'm sure you have nice names for others who you don't see eye to eye with as well. Do you look upon Catholics & Jews with the same hate? You have some real issues.

Look upon the person and what they believe is best for the United States. Then vote for the person who best represent you.

Posted by: Kevin | April 2, 2007 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Remember the event that Joseph Smith and his followers perpetrated that precipitated his murder? They smashed a printing press and declared martial law. Changing the name of the angel from Nephi to Moroni occured later and caused no similar outcry. I suppose they have a secret ceremony that explains that.

Posted by: Frank Booth | April 2, 2007 9:32 PM | Report abuse

There will be those "Bigots" who will not vote for Romney just because Romney is Mormon, but there are those who endorse him.

Take a look at this website.

http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/

Not all Christians believe the same thing. Thus, different religions. But, the common threads are the same in all Christian Religions.

Out of Romney, Giuliani & McCain, he is the only one who is still married to his wife. He treats her as an equal. Did you see Larry King's interview with the two of them? She was superb. Very articulate. I think she would be a great First Lady.

Both of them are "Quality". I would compare them to anyone.

Posted by: Kevin | April 2, 2007 9:31 PM | Report abuse

"Romney's biggest problem is with evangelicals, who constitute nearly half of all Republican primary voters in the South and more than one-third in the Midwest. A Rasmussen poll shows that 53 percent of evangelicals wouldn't vote for a Mormon as president. If that is anything close to right, Romney has a huge amount of suspicion-allaying ahead of him."

- Hartford Courant, 4 Mar 2007

Posted by: Michael | April 2, 2007 9:18 PM | Report abuse

I don't think religion should have anything to do with who we vote for (unless someone is prejustice or bigoted) I just saying a person should be judged by their personal character, deeds & by their platform. If a platform represents what a person wants, then vote for them. If it doesn't don't.

He may or may not be exactly what each of us wants but I will say I have never voted for any candidate who represents me 100%. I always vote for the person (black, white, male, female, Jew, Catholic, Mormon, Budhist, etc.)who has my best interests in mind.

As far as prejustice goes, we are all entitled to our own opinion. I am glad we all have the opportunity to vote our consience.

Posted by: Kevin | April 2, 2007 9:16 PM | Report abuse

What about Quetzalcoatl and Viracocha, gentlemen? Our Jews believe the Messiah has yet to come, our Christians (save those who claim to be bending His ear every day) believe He came once and shall come again; however, it`ll be a problem once both hear He's been here thrice already. And that all our New World Indians (the Lost Tribe of Israel, to Mormons) were punished for rejecting Him as Quetzalcoatl and Viracocha by being made to look like ... Indians. Rough road ahead.

Posted by: C. Cavallo de Leon | April 2, 2007 9:15 PM | Report abuse

certaincurtain - we are not discussing inconsistencies within the Bible - of which there are many. Romney was a forceful advocate of gay rights during his Massachusetts campaigns and was also pro-choice. Now he is pro-life, anti-gay and within the last year he became a life member of the NRA. Such a drastic change in political orientation in such a short time is unusual. Those of us who tend towards cynicism would interpret this as opportunistic. Certainly his opponents in the Republican primaries will make sure the voters are well aware of Romney's sudden conversion to social conservatism.

Posted by: JimD in FL | April 2, 2007 9:12 PM | Report abuse

I don't ever remember Dobson voting for me. I live in the South, work hard to raise a good family, pay taxes, volunteer in the community, hec, I am probably your favorite neighbor and I am a Mormon. I will vote the the candidate that I believe will lead this country in these difficult times. It may be Mitt, it may not be. But Dobson does not think for me or for you. This is not about Mormonism. Most LDS members I know would rather not have the attention that a Mormon candidate will bring. Let's get on with life, let the best man or woman win and may God bless us all.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 9:08 PM | Report abuse

I certainly hope you're not referring to me, I could care less about his religious beliefs. I'm merely stating the fact that he will be questioned on this, and at least some people whose votes he will need (I know a number of them personally) will see his religious views a s a disqualifier (have any of my comments been inaccurate or taking the views of the church (or incases individual but prominent members) out of context? Is it not true that a large portion of conservative Christians view the church as an evil cult? I can give you links to websites if you like). He needs to get out in front of it as Kennedy did, or it will kill his candidacy.

If you're saying I'm bigoted towards Dobson, not really, I've judged him based on years of observation, so there's no unfair prejudice going on there.

Posted by: Michael | April 2, 2007 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Bigotry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For people named Bigot and other meanings, see Bigot (disambiguation).
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his own.

The origin of the word bigot in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of "religious hypocrite", especially a woman. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false.

Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.

Prejudice is, as the name implies, the process of "pre-judging" a particular person, place or thing for the way it acts, looks, or even who or what it is involved with. It implies coming to a judgment on a subject before learning where the preponderance of evidence actually lies, or forming a judgment without direct experience. When applied to social groups, prejudice generally refers to existing biases toward the members of such groups, often based on social stereotypes; and at its most extreme, results in groups being denied benefits and rights unjustly (see persecution) or, conversely, unfairly showing unwarranted favor towards others.

Many of your comments are full of Prejudice & Bigotry.

His value systems are in line with most Christians.

Does he respect others and their beliefs?

Ask yourself, How does he live his life?

Is he devoted to living a Christlike life?

I want someone in office who most closely aligns with the type of value system I represent. I want someone to vote how I would vote.

I want representation of the people.

Posted by: Kevin | April 2, 2007 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Hypothetical interview questions:

Dobson: Gov Romney, do you believe that the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenant, and the Pearl of Great Price are scripture equal to the Old and New Testament?

Dobson: Do you believe Gordon B. Hinckley is a prophet of God?

Dobson: Do you believe, as Talmage wrote, that "as man is, God one was, and as God is, man can one day be," or as McConkie clarified, God the Father is a perfected, resurrected, exalted man?

Dobson: Do you believe that only Members of the Mormon church, who have completed all the Mormon sacraments (Temple marriage, etc), will enter the "Celestial Kingdom" and be with God?

Dobson: Do you believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in fact the one true church?

How do you think his answers to those questions will sit with Christian voters in Mississipi, Alabama, South Carolina, Texas, Ohio, etc? Even if it only turns off 5-10% of self proclaimed Christian values voters, that's enough to lose Ohio and the election with it. Falwell and Robertson might give Romney a pass because they're political opportunists, but DObson won't even give Fred Thompson a pass, no way he's letting Romney by.

Posted by: Michael | April 2, 2007 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Amen to Chris!

However, I do not believe this is about Mitt's adherence to Mormonism. There are those who believe that attacking Mitts religion is the key to defeating him. Their lack of ethics and morals allows them to apply a double standard against any group they disagree with, while claiming safety for themsleves behind the epithet of "discrimination". What's this really about? Winning! By any means possible.

I am disappointed that our political system has evolved to such that the Presidency of this country can be bought only by those who can raise "the most money". As the article states - "Money begets money!". On the good side though, I am happy to see that there are some who share my moral standards that still stand a chance at playing in this arena.

Oh yeah. For full disclosure, I am a member of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" also. For those who don't know, that is the official name of the church commonly referred to as the Mormons.

I don't yet know if I would vote for Mitt, but I am glad he is running. He brings a needed dimension of discussion to the table, once we all wade past his religious affiliation. Much remains to be seen in this race.

One last note: a previous poster said that "Mormons have money". I wish that were so in all cases. I suppose that some have that perception, however this is about as accurate as saying "Catholics have money" or "Presbyterians have money". It is a logical fallacy at best. Knowing what I know about Mormons as a group, I can only conclude that Mitts success in money raising has more to do with the many connections stated in this article than it has to do with any connection to his Church affilition.

Posted by: Michael | April 2, 2007 8:45 PM | Report abuse

"I think his biggest problem will be his flip-flopping ..."

After reading these 6 verses the question is this: Did the Lord flip flop?

2 Kings 20:1
IN those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.

2 Kings 20:2
Then he turned his face to the wall, and prayed unto the LORD, saying,

2 Kings 20:3
I beseech thee, O LORD, remember now how I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done [that which is] good in thy sight. And Hezekiah wept sore.

2 Kings 20:4
And it came to pass, afore Isaiah was gone out into the middle court, that the word of the LORD came to him, saying,

2 Kings 20:5
Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the LORD.

2 Kings 20:6
And I will add unto thy days fifteen years; and I will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for mine own sake, and for my servant David's sake.

Did the Lord flip flop when one minute he says that the Mormon leader named Hezekiah will die and next minute he says he will add 15 years to his life?

You will forgive the Lord but not Mitt?

certaincurtain@yahoo.com

Posted by: certaincurtain | April 2, 2007 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't this post skew numbers to make Romney look much closer to Clinton? Romney's $23M includes a transfer from a previous election and a personal loan. If you count Clinton's transfer, her total is $36M, not $26M as this post reports.

Posted by: Brian | April 2, 2007 8:41 PM | Report abuse

This is in response to someone saying there is no one they actually want to vote for. I am not sure, but I think I actually want to vote for Ron Paul. I don't completely trust Libertarians (I know he is now registered as a Republican) and am afraid they may throw the baby out with the bath water. Even so, he seems to believe in keeping government within its constitutionally mandated powers. He was one of a handful or congressional Republicans to vote against war powers for Bush in 2003 and his speech on the House floor at the time was correct in every detail. He may have little chance of winning, but one thing I learned from Bush is that voting for a charlatan is throwing your vote away even if he wins.

Posted by: Thegri | April 2, 2007 8:34 PM | Report abuse

certaincurtain--So, er, if I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about am I a devil-worshipper or not?

Posted by: roo | April 2, 2007 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Republicans voted for Mitt in Mass. They will vote for him for President as well.

Don't kid yourselves, MORMONS DO NOT HAVE MONEY. They are ALL encouraged/pressured into paying tithing and other donations. Average income in Utah is the same or lower than anywhere else in the country.

The Mormon Church is wealthy, Mormons are not, but the church ain't giving Mitt a dime.

Senator Hatch didn't raise anything close to this much money back in 2000, and Mormons loved him. Harry Reid could NEVER raise this much money. Everything Mitt does you people say "Well, since he's Mormon..." Its a bunch of crap. You liberals love to point out how hypocritical the "Christian Conservatives" are. If we are SO hypocritical then we would have no problem voting for a Mormon.

Posted by: Christian Conservative | April 2, 2007 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Justin Perez: I agree with a lot of what you said but where did Huckabee and Tommy Thompson acquire foreign policy experience?

RE: Romney - I do not give a rats' a** about a candidate's religious views. However, I do know that a lot of people, especially evangelical Christians, are deeply prejudiced against Mormons. Living in the Bible Belt, I know a lot of these folks. A recent poll showed that far more Republicans admit that they would not vote for a Mormon for president than Democrats or Independents. Romney does have a bit of a problem there especially since he is specifically targetting the demographic most likely to have a strong prejudice against Mormons. However, I think his biggest problem will be his flip-flopping on abortion and gay rights. This is a man who tried to argue that he would be a more effective advocate for gay rights than Ted Kennedy.

Posted by: JimD in FL | April 2, 2007 8:19 PM | Report abuse

the second recorded instance in the Bible of the Mormon Church being restored to the earth is still in Genesis but a few chapters along and probably quite a few years too.

Genesis 10:25
"And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan."

What happened was the Mormon Church was taken from the earth just as it was taken from the earth shortly after the death of the Mormon leaders in the New Testament.

Heres the breakdown of that verse.

Everyone was having a good time. And then when the Church was restored to the earth the people were divided again. Some for it and the vast masses against it as stated in this part of the verse.

"... for in his days was the earth divided."

certaincurtain@yahoo.com

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 8:12 PM | Report abuse

They should be, but the fact remains they're not. And Chris, for every Mormon like yourself, the hard right will throw out the words of mormons like certaincurtain up there and the Mormons being the one true church or the writings of Bruce McConkie and people like Dobson WILL ask Romney on the stump if that's what he really believes. His faith shouldn't be an issue under the religious test in my eyes, but to too many voters in America it most certainly will be, and it is ther very voters he needs to be elected. I'll vote against him for his positions on abortion, stem cells, and the war, his faith doesn't matter to me. It matters to the people he needs to get elected, and if it isn't addressed it will kill his candidacy.

Posted by: Michael | April 2, 2007 8:11 PM | Report abuse

I agree that Mitt's got no chance - the Right won't like him because he's not an Evangelical, and the Left won't like him because he's just another kooky bible thumper.

That said, I would be just about as likely to vote for a Mormon as a Scientologist - that is, not at all.

Posted by: Jason | April 2, 2007 8:10 PM | Report abuse

I run a small business, employing 30 people. I pay my taxes. I have a wife and three kids. I'm in the middle class. I try to be a decent guy in my dealings with people. I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats. Oh, also I'm a Mormon.

It bugs me when people try to tell me what I can and can't do in this country. Those who say Mormons can't, won't, or shouldn't be President (or anything else for that matter) should replace "Mormons" with "Jews," "Catholics," "Baptists," "blacks," "Muslims," "Hispanics," "women," or "homosexuals" and see what they sound like. In America, these are ridiculous and offensive statements.

If you don't like Mitt Romney, please go after him for his policies and positions, not his faith.

Posted by: Chris | April 2, 2007 8:02 PM | Report abuse

this should not turn into a debate over mormonism. the topic should be romney's absence from the state of massachusetts (of which he was governor at the time) for 230+ days in the last year of his term.

or maybe we can talk about his lack of support for stem cell research, which promises to be one of the most significant developments in human medical history, and a huge source of jobs.

or if you want, we can talk about his claiming to be ok with same sex marriage and state abortion law (when he ran as a centrist for the senate in 94 and then gov. in 2000) then, as it became politically incompatible with his presidential aspirations, discovering his outrage, and claiming to have been opposed all along.

he's a complete and utter opportunistic phony, and he would be a very bad choice as president.

Posted by: meuphys | April 2, 2007 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Mitt. If your reading this you now have the answer to the question "Are Mormons Christians?" by reading that verse in 1 Samuel 5:3.

And if you didnt know it, you know it now. Mormons have been on the earth since day 1.

If they have any tough questions on Mormon doctrines Mitt, tell them to email them to me. This is so you can focus on the White House. Cheers.

certaincurtain@yahoo.com

Posted by: certaincurtain | April 2, 2007 7:55 PM | Report abuse

1 Samuel 5:3
"And when they of Ashdod arose early on the morrow, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the earth before the ark of the LORD. And they took Dagon, and set him in his place again."

Notice the last sentence in that verse "And they took Dagon, and set him in his place again"

The "they" in that verse are are Mormons. The Mormon Church did not start on the earth with Joseph Smith. It was restored through him. It did not start on the earth in Jesus' day either. It was restored through him. It did not start in Jeremiah or Isaiah's day or Moses' day either. The history of the Mormon Church goes back to the first recorded instance of it being put on the earth and I have a verse to show that.

Genesis 1:31
"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

"every thing" in that verse included the restoration of the Mormon Church with Adam being the first Prophet, Seer and Revelator. Adam, a Mormon? Verily Yes.

Are you serious certain? Verily Yes.

certaincurtain@yahoo.com

Posted by: certaincurtain | April 2, 2007 7:47 PM | Report abuse

It is amazing that there is not a single person in the race that anyone feels they actually want to be our President. Many of us appear to be faced with the reality that we are voting against the person we don't want. The reality is that there is no one that is currently in the race that I would like to be my President. It is more who I do not want to be my President that is affecting my decision right now. That said, we definitely need to move beyond the Clinton's and the Bush families to look for our next leader. Face it, if that is the gene pool in which we are fishing for our next President we are looking at the shallowest pool around.

Posted by: Twinfather | April 2, 2007 7:43 PM | Report abuse

I'm a former Mormon myself, and have no problem with i in a candidate, even as a liberal myself. But, the fact is, a large number of conservative Christians in this country still view it as a Cult that worships a false Jesus and has bizarre and heretical secret ceremonies that can make them Gods one day while following blindly a leade who is God's voice on Earth. Romney will need to address the issue early and often, much as Kennedy had to do, otherwise many conservative voters will simply stay home and he will lose by a wide margin. Just as many believed Kennedy might fall too heavily under the influence of the Vatican, conservatives don't want a president subject to Pres Hinckley in SLC. It may be unfair, but it's true.

Posted by: Michael | April 2, 2007 7:43 PM | Report abuse

It will take $23M to explain all his flip-flops: http://www.solidpolitics.com

Posted by: William | April 2, 2007 7:41 PM | Report abuse

"Successful governor"? Are you serious? I'm from Massachusetts, and I'm experiencing first-hand what his policies have done for the state. Mass was the only state that lost population, in a huge part due to his "make the rich richer, forget the rest" policies. He cut state aid to the towns, causing local taxes to skyrocket. You'd think he'd at least balance the budget... nope, didn't do that either - even though he claimed to do so. Not the first time he's been dishonest with the public.

Well, it could've been worse - luckily for us, Romney campaigned for most of his term, so he was barely around.

Posted by: Stan | April 2, 2007 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Although the Bible does not specifically define what a Christian is I will give a guide on what a Christian is.

1 Samuel 5:3
And when they of Ashdod arose early on the morrow, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the earth before the ark of the LORD. And they took Dagon, and set him in his place again.

I canvassed the views of lots of Traditional Christians and asked them what would they do in that! situation. They all said they would tell them they are worshipping the devil and tell them to accept the Lord as their Saviour.

I told them that the Mormons in that verse went and helped them to set Dagon in his place again. I asked them "Now, who is the Christian, the one that said to leave their devil worship behind or the one that went to help them restore Dagon to his position?".

That stumped them.

feel free to contact me:

certaincurtain@yahoo.com

Posted by: certaincurtain | April 2, 2007 7:33 PM | Report abuse

I cannot believe the ignorance of most Americans with regard to what qualifies someone for leadership. We have elected catholics, protestants and many other types, why not a Mormon? Besides having some of the highest ethical and moral standards still adhered to in this world, Mitt Romney, regardless of his value system, has demonstrated what leadership is about in every aspect of this life. From tacking tough financial issues to social and private industry issues, his record is one anyone would consider for any leadership role. Why not President? Our nation is faced with some very difficult leadership issues and we need someone who carries their own compass within, about what is right and wrong, to fend off the propaganda machine in our country that is dumbing down Americans by spreading innuendo, unquantified or qualified opinions from popular figures tha are rooted in rediculous claims. Look at the track record. He is a leader. This is what America needs now more than ever!!!

Posted by: Rick M | April 2, 2007 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Who cares if he is a Mormon? What does that have to do with anything? I had a Mormon roommate at NYU a few years back and he was a great person. I think that what this shows is that the MEDIA has a problem with Romney's Faith and have been giving him a bad rap, obviously to raise 20 million it shows that Americans like Romney, hopefully the media will start reporting that and not that he is just a "Mormon." I think once the debates start Romney's #'s will start going up, obviously poll numbers now are simply the candidates that are well-known. Romney seems like a great guy, but frankly I want Obama to win because I am black and I think it will be great for our community. Obama V Romney in 2008 wouldn't surprise me at all.

Posted by: Tyson | April 2, 2007 7:24 PM | Report abuse

MORMONS ROCK!!!

CTR!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 7:18 PM | Report abuse

I just want to point out that some of the things people are saying about Mitt and his beliefs are completely outrageous! Mormons are not devil-worshippers, they do not believe in plural marriage and they definately are Christians! My suggestion is that people learn a little more about Mormons before they feel they can qualify what on earth they're saying! (And I most definatey agree with Alan!)

Posted by: Matt | April 2, 2007 7:14 PM | Report abuse

I am little bit irritated with these head lines flashing 'Record amounts of money by Hillary' yada.. yada.. I beleive the only person really shattered the campaign money records is Bush. He raised $29 million in his first full quarter of raising money. Remember this, at that time the maximum personal contribution was $1000. Now it's $2300. Can you imagine how much he could have raised with that cap. probably about $50 million for the quarter. See that's earth shattering. I hope these people do some research and write these blogs.

Posted by: jbrown | April 2, 2007 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney is a good candidate and deserves more respect than the media is giving him! I don't think people are being fair with his Mormon beliefs- this should be an especially compelling aspect of Romney because it gives him firm ground and excellenet leadership qualities.

Posted by: alan | April 2, 2007 6:59 PM | Report abuse

The truth of Mitt's success is that there is still a large contingent of mainstream americans who believe in core Christian values. Mitt seems to be the only alternative that is willing to stand for something.

Posted by: JC Smith | April 2, 2007 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Fellow Americans,
When voting for a president you should vote for someone that will challence the FALCON PLAN, ULTIME GOAL TURN U.S. IN POLICESTATE ** Federal and Local Cops Organized Nationally ** is not a member of or has ties with: Scull and Bones. -- Tri-lateral commission. -- Bilderberg group. -- Any Secret Service. -- A military rank of officer.
Not be pushed by this presidency !!! -- Have bloody hands from the 9-11 2001 cover up !! Interests in oil,weapons or real-estate/houses. The candidate should not have ties or dependencies with the financial world. This candidate should not accept large sums of
money from belligerent corporations and should not embrace the thoughts behind the program NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND.
(This program brainwashes children not to learn facts but to become a good global citizen, i.e. government will tell you what is good for you (it actually replaces god or the natural laws), a very dangerous development). This so called SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT has been set up
to make zombies of the larger parts of the American population. Things like arithmetic of math are no longer necessary as long as you are a good global citizen and know to push which
button, that means phony education for you and your children. Examples of what is gonna happen with you and your families are right under your nose. Your
current president tramples your very American Constitution and the Amendments. He appoints a CIA director named Gates whom made up false intelligence to start a war and put your children
in harms way. This president is using you and your children as toys... and when he has done playing,your children might and up death. This behavior is also part of SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT. But be careful because today your government calls it SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT but tomorrow it might just have another name.. You should download this movie via Emule 9-11 Guilt {The Proof Is In Your Hands By Jim Hoffman Don Paul}[2005]Eng-Divx5.avi. AND FINALLY DONT LOOK AT THE APPEARANCE OF THE PRESIDENT CANDIDATE BUT FIGURE OUT WHO GAVE HIM THE MONEY TO GET THAT
FAR !!!

Posted by: jwh | April 2, 2007 6:56 PM | Report abuse

All the money in the world won't change the fact that a Mormon will not be elected by either the right or the left. I don't think that's fair at all, but that's the reality of the situation.

Posted by: ErrinF | April 2, 2007 6:53 PM | Report abuse

R.: Romney has virtually no experience, and though I'm not a conservative, I'm shocked that conservatives are buying his crap. The GOP has seemed to want to root out moderates and people they cant trust as conservatives, but so many right-wingers are believing Romney's flip-flopping. It seems that GOP Primary voters are just delusional. True, I was once a loyal Republican and have turned into a center-left Democrat, but I was a Republican before I had seriously taken an interest in politics, and then could not defend my positions. I only changed parties because I learned that my stances are closer to Dems. GOP primary voters don't like McCain-who is a conservative but was portrayed as a liberal by Bushees. Hagel is looked at as a fire-breathing liberal but is actually the most staunch conservative Republican in the Senate. If you guys looked at any facts, you'd see that Hagel was rated the most conservative Senator by right-wing interest groups for most of the years he's been in the Senate. Romney, however, was a liberal Republican when he ran for the Senate in '94 and Governor in '02, when he was trying to appeal to the nations most liberal electorate. Now, in '08, running for the WH and facing one of the most conservative electorates in the US of A, is all of the sudden a conservative. Y'ALL BELIEVE THAT? You can't be serious if you don't believe he's a chameleon, like the Clintons. Also, Romney's resume is pathetic. A single term as MA Gov., and some time in business is not enough! Bush served 6 years as Governor of Texas, a much larger border state, and he is too inexperienced to handle the White House, which he's proven over and over again. For one, Mitt needs some foreign policy experience before he can be trusted with the Presidency in a time this critical. He also needs another term as Governor or in some kind of executive position. Inexperience gets you nowhere, and the notion that business and 4 years in politics is enough is just plain bulls**t. Thats why I don't like Obama. The only GOP candidates with enough political experience are GINGRICH, Huckabee, Tommy Thompson, Hagel; The only Dems with enough political experience are RICHARDSON, Biden, Dodd, and, Hillary. The ones in caps have the most experience. Experience SHOULD matter, especially in a time of War, where Iraq is a debacle, and Iran stands to gain. Our next Presidnt will likely have to deal with Iran, intelligently get out of Iraq, and probably partition Iraq without making it easier for Iran to take over the shiite region.

Posted by: Justin Perez | April 2, 2007 6:50 PM | Report abuse

I think the problem for Mitt Romney seems to me that the conservative republicans are not going to vote for a Mormon. I can't think of any thing else other than that. This guy is a very successful Governor in a liberal state, successful as a business man (compare that to Bush) and went to Harvard Law school. I think people say that he changed his positions. What about Giuliani? By the way, I am not a Mormon or Romney's fan.

Posted by: jbrown | April 2, 2007 6:50 PM | Report abuse

It's funny how the first White House primary race with no sitting Prez or VP running since 1928 seems to be so dominated by 3 frontrunners, in each party.

Posted by: Justin Perez | April 2, 2007 6:28 PM | Report abuse

I think that Mitt Romney has gotten a bum rap in the media because his views have shifted to extreme positions a lot of people don't agree with regarding homosexual marriage and abortion. The fact is, however, the man is a leader. He saved the Salt Lake games, he was an executive, he was a capable governor. He has a lot of good qualifications not the least of which is that he's competant and a good manager and I don't get the sense that's he's wedded to Iraq like McCain is personally. And he does all this without the hard edge and bitter feelings Giuliani managed to accumulate in New York.

I think this excellent fundraising numbers will have the media take a second look at why people are investing in him. And I think it's because the man can get the job done.

Posted by: R. | April 2, 2007 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Clinton easily outdistances Romney, but Romney gets the WOW? Romney has a built-in fund-raising advantage--Mormons. Mormons have money, and they are very willing to use it to support candidates they favor. It will be interesting to see if Romney's fund-raising does translate into greater support, since so far his campaign has gone nowhere. And the latest reports make me more convinced than ever that McCain is NOT running.

I look at the Republican field so far--Guiliani, McCain, Romney, the Thompson boys, Tancredo, Hunter, Paul--and wonder if there is anyone first-tier there at all. Or maybe I've missed someone.

Posted by: larry | April 2, 2007 6:23 PM | Report abuse

I'm not too surprised that Romney did so well, and only somewhat surprised he's on top. Dodd did badly, despite hearing of his good fundraising ability. If Obama did almost as well as Hillary, I'd be pleasantly surprised. In my view, each parties' weakest potential prospective nominees did the best in fundraising. Lets hope money doesnt make it a Hillary vs. Mitt race, because to me that would seem like the worst clothespin vote ever, but would be good news for Hillary because she'd probably win, and with my vote. Romney would have to be the GOP candidate for me to vote for her.

Posted by: Justin Perez | April 2, 2007 6:22 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company