Now who said that Mitt couldn’t get the support of the South? In the past days he has proven he is a leader in all parts of the country!!

Romney gains S.C. backers for campaign
By Bruce Smith   |  Posted on Tue, Jan. 30, 2007
The Associated Press

MOUNT PLEASANT - On a cold winter day that made it seem more like New Hampshire than South Carolina, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney picked up three key endorsements Monday in the state with the first Southern presidential primary.

Romney, traveling with Republican U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, spoke at a civic club meeting in Aiken before arriving in this Charleston suburb.

He was endorsed by former Gov. Jim Edwards, the first Republican elected governor in South Carolina since Reconstruction, former U.S. Rep. Tommy Hartnett and Republican National Committeewoman Cindy Costa.

“This is a remarkable group of people, and their support means the world to me,” said Romney, standing near a dock where a shrimp boat was tied.

Later, Romney was asked again about his views on abortion, an issue important in a staunchly conservative state.

“Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice,” he said. “I never called myself that as a label but I was effectively pro-choice and that followed a personal experience in my extended family that led to that conclusion.”

That family member was killed in an illegal abortion in the 1960s, Romney said.

Romney said he has given the matter much thought.

Once, during a discussion with leaders from Harvard University about stem cell research, Romney said someone commented it’s not really a moral issue because the embryos used are destroyed at 14 days.

“It struck me very powerfully at that point that the Roe v. Wade approach has so cheapened the value of human life that somebody could think it’s not a moral issue to destroy embryos,” Romney said.

He added every decision he made as governor “in a very liberal state has been on the side of favoring life,” he said. “I am firmly pro-life.”

For me, this speech ranks right up there with Mitt’s speech on protecting Marriage! Please click on these links to watch:
Part 1: http://mittromney.permissiontv.com/?showid=38211
Part 2: http://mittromney.permissiontv.com/?showid=38225
Romney talks tough on Iran
By Thanassis Cambanis and Scott Helman, Globe Staff  |  January 24, 2007

HERZLIYA, Israel — Mitt Romney, making a passionate appeal to pro-Israel voters, declared at a major conference on Israeli security yesterday that the United States must keep Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb, and he’s helping a former Israeli prime minister lobby Massachusetts to divest pension funds from companies that do business with the country.

“Iran must be stopped and can be stopped,” Romney said to a standing ovation at the Herzliya Conference, an annual gathering of leading Israeli and American political figures and security specialists.

Romney’s short, forceful address came on a four-day trip to Israel this week, a visit that serves two important political objectives: It further deepens his foreign policy resume and helps him strengthen ties to American Jews, a group of voters and donors the GOP believes is increasingly integral to the party.

“When you take time in the middle of a busy campaign to go abroad, the place you pick to go is a powerful statement of who you are and what you believe,” said Ari Fleischer, President Bush’s former press secretary and a board member of the Republican Jewish Coalition, which sponsored Romney’s visit.

Click here to read more

Throughout my experiences blogging for Mitt I have been asked, “Are you Mormon like Mitt?” At times I have shrugged off this question, eager to move on to the issues and discuss Mitt’s impecable qualifications. But as I have had the opportunity to tout Mitt on radio and newspaper interviews, I now embrace the opportunity to speak about Mitt and religion. The greatest lesson I have learned so far, is that the American voter is smarter than the media gives them credit for. I live in the South and have heard over and over from my political colleagues, friends and associates that Governor Romney’s religion would not impact whether they would vote for him for President. I am thankful to have this opportunity and find that it is helpful to share the truth about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. There are many misconceptions and misunderstandings out there and this is a great time to clear some things up. Oh - did I mention, I am a Latter Day Saint? I am and proud of it.

Heather

The religious test - USA Today
By David E. Campbell and J. Quin Monson | Posted 1/21/2007

Should Americans fear Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon? In spite of what some political pundits have recently argued, the answer is a resounding no.

Should Romney fear how some Americans will react to his religion? Unfortunately, recent polls say yes. But just like another Massachusetts politician who faced questions about his religion, namely John F. Kennedy. Romney can, and should, tackle uneasiness about his religion head-on — sooner rather than later.

Romney has not yet officially announced his plans to run for the Republican nomination, yet the darts have already begun to fly. In fact, some critics have argued that Romney should not be elected solely because of his membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS):

•Writing in Slate, columnist Jacob Weisberg says that if Romney truly believes in his religion, “I don’t want him running the country.”

•Damon Linker, in The New Republic, says voters should reject Romney on religious grounds. Echoing precisely the same concerns raised about Kennedy’s Catholicism, Linker argues that a Mormon president would be controlled by his church’s hierarchy. In his words, “would it not be accurate to say that under a President Romney, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would truly be in charge of the country?” Actually, no, it would not be accurate, any more than it was accurate to say that Kennedy would take orders from the Vatican. And neither would it be accurate to accuse the LDS church of pulling the strings of other prominent Mormon politicians, such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., the late Rep. Mo Udall, D-Ariz., and numerous others.

It is true that, like many religious groups, the LDS church occasionally makes policy pronouncements, as it did last June in support of a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. However, this kind of political activity has not served to constrain Mormon elected officials. Reid, at the time the Senate minority leader, led the opposition to the amendment. In response to a reporter’s question about his open opposition to the LDS church’s public position, his press secretary Sharyn Stein said that the church had asked members to express their opinions on the issue, so her boss was doing so “loudly and repeatedly on the Senate floor.”

A President Romney would have the same autonomy to speak and act independently of his church.

Kennedy’s approach

Romney’s challenge, however, is to make this clear to the American public. It is here that the parallel to Catholicism is instructive.

John F. Kennedy was not the first Catholic to run for president. That distinction belongs to Gov. Al Smith, D-N.Y., who, after winning the Democratic nomination in 1928, faced outright hostility to his Catholicism and suffered an ignominious defeat at the polls. The anti-Catholic bigotry that Smith confronted was in the living memory of many Democrats as Kennedy began his bid for the presidency. In an era when primaries were non-binding and often ignored by the leading candidates, Kennedy entered the West Virginia primary to show that a Catholic could win in a heavily Baptist state and thus settle the “Catholic question.” He won the primary and the nomination. But still doubts lingered in the minds of the electorate about his religion.

To put those doubts to rest, Kennedy marched into the proverbial lion’s den and delivered a speech to Protestant ministers in Houston. That speech is a classic appeal for religious tolerance. In it, Kennedy declared, “I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.”

Similarly, enough Americans have doubts about Romney’s religion that he should not wait for the primaries to tackle the “Mormon question.” Recent polls find that about four out of 10 Americans say that they are unwilling to vote for a Mormon. We suspect that many voters are simply reflecting the fact that Mormonism is unfamiliar to them; it is natural to be uneasy with the unknown. However, Romney’s own election in Massachusetts as well as the elections of Gordon Smith, Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., and former U.S. Representative Richard Swett, D-N.H., demonstrate that voters outside the Mountain West, where Mormons are most heavily concentrated, can become comfortable with Mormon candidates from across the political spectrum.

Making his case — now

The heavy scrutiny focused on presidential candidates, even this early in the campaign, and the unease of some voters with a Mormon president, means that Romney should do now what Kennedy waited until the fall of 1960 to do. Romney needs to take a page from the Kennedy playbook and address his religion forthrightly, in a high-profile venue.

At a time when religion and politics are increasingly intertwined, it would be an opportunity to remind all Americans why the wall between church and state has served the country well.

Whatever issues voters might have with Mormonism, it is wrong to reject Romney because of his faith, just as it was wrong to reject Kennedy for his, or to disqualify today’s Catholic politicians, such as Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for theirs. It is no different from dismissing Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., because of her gender or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., because of his race.

This is not an endorsement of Romney — we leave it to the voters to decide whether he deserves to be president. Rather, we endorse the spirit of Article VI in the Constitution, which states that there should be no religious test for public office.

Kennedy captured that spirit well in 1960 when he said: “While this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been — and may someday be again — a Jew, or a Quaker, or a Unitarian, or a Baptist.”

Or even a Mormon.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. A Florida congressman is jumping in to help former Governor Mitt Romney’s likely presidential campaign.
Representative Tom Feeney will serve as a liaison to fiscal conservatives and organizations promoting fiscal responsibility in Washington.

Feeney served as the Florida House speaker before he was elected to Congress in 2002. He was also former Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s running mate during Bush’s first, unsuccessful run for the office in 1994.

Feeney is strongly anti-tax and co-founded a group called Washington Waste Watchers, which seeks to fight waste and fraud in government spending. He serves on the House Financial Services and Judiciary committees.

Romney has enlisted several influential Floridians to help his White House bid, including that state’s lieutenant governor and former House Speaker.

Here’s a great concept - true VISION for Iraq!

In December, Mitt Romney said that, “Bush should talk with generals and others on the front lines in Iraq to decide how to proceed. We should not turn around and walk out of Iraq,” he said. “That would be a mistake.” Mitt Romney did not make outrageous, uninformed demands regarding the war in Iraq. Like our President, he understands that military strategy should be left to the men fighting the war. The war should not be politicized.

President Bush has now had the opportunity to consult with our military leaders and he has made the necessary policy changes regarding our troops in Iraq. Thoughtfully, Mitt Romney issued the following statement:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Kevin Madden (857) 288-6400

Boston, MA – Governor Mitt Romney, in direct consideration of the proposed increase in troop deployments in Iraq, issued the following statement today putting an emphasis on the need for clear and measurable strategic objectives.

“I agree with the President: Our strategy in Iraq must change. Our military mission, for the first time, must include securing the civilian population from violence and terror. It is impossible to defeat the insurgency without first providing security for the Iraqi people. Civilian security is the precondition for any political and economic reconstruction.

“In consultation with Generals, military experts and troops who have served on the ground in Iraq, I believe securing Iraqi civilians requires additional troops. I support adding five brigades in Baghdad and two regiments in Al-Anbar province. Success will require rapid deployment.

“This effort should be combined with clear objectives and milestones for U.S. and Iraqi leaders.

“The road ahead will be difficult but success is still possible in Iraq. I believe it is in America’s national security interest to achieve it.”

Jason at Idahoans for Mitt has a great entry today about the fiscal capabilities of leader Mitt Romney. Mitt has PROVED that he is a turnaround wizard and I like how Jason pointed out his achievements. Here is the link:

Idahoans for Mitt

In a response to negative and false attacks against Governor Romney, Evangelicals For Mitt has issued two documents of extreme importance. Please go to “link in pink” below to learn the TRUTH about Mitt, his life and his record!  Let’s be armed with knowledge so that we may be able to correct detractors:

Mitt Romney is a tough act to follow! Which is making it VERY difficult for me to select a suitable candidate for Vice President. While many pundits expect to see a current front runner for the Presidential nomination take second to Gov Romney as his running mate, I don’t see it.

I have selected Michael Steele as a definate possibilty! Reading about Steele’s ultra-conservative record, I am drawn to the Maryland Lieutenant Governor as my top choice for Vice President. After all, that seems to be the challenge here, correct? We need a conservative “match” for Governor Romney.

Well folks, I believe we have a conservative ticket  -

Romney and Steele in 2008!!!!

GREAT article by the Christian Science Monitor! Just as I believe, it is the name recognition factor that has influenced Mitt’s early numbers. He hasn’t even announced yet and is a leader of the GOP pack.  Just wait until he announces and see those numbers RISE!

Heather

Four stars lead early GOP race
Mitt Romney is the most recent entrant for the 2008 presidential nomination. Polls this early are mostly driven by name recognition.

By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON | Jan 5, 2007

Could Mitt Romney, ex-governor of Massachusetts and not well known nationally, end up winning the Republican nomination for president in 2008?

In a word, yes - despite prospects that don’t look particularly strong on paper, analysts say. The latest polling out of states with the earliest nominating contests, which begin in a year, shows Mr. Romney in single digits. Even in neighboring New Hampshire, he comes in fourth, behind Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who won the New Hampshire primary in 2000, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

But in a week that saw Romney launch his presidential exploratory committee, allowing him to enter the all-important money race, the Republican field is fluid. Religious conservatives, a key GOP constituency, remain skeptical of Senator McCain. And his advocacy for a stepped-up US presence in Iraq has thrown his political future squarely in line with a war that few believe is going well.

Mr. Giuliani, well known for his 9/11 leadership, remains untested on the national political stage and holds liberal positions on social issues that put him at odds with many GOP primary voters (as well as a colorful personal life).

Read the rest of the article here

Tuesday, January 02, 2007
LINKER DROPS THE BALL

In the cover story of the current issue of The New Republic, Damon Linker, the author of the rather silly new book Theocons, expresses concern over the idea of Governor Romney’s becoming president. His stated reason is that Governor Romney says he embraces the doctrines of Mormonism, which–Linker says–are simply beyond the pale in terms of what Americans should be willing to accept as the faith of their leader. But if you parse the argument carefully, it’s actually much like the one David criticized earlier–that no person of orthodox faith (one of those pesky “theocons”) should be able to serve. (For instance, Linker ridicules Mormon’s apparent belief that we are in the “last days” before the second coming of Christ. I’d submit that everyone who writes on this website believes that–as did the Apostle Paul.)

Linker further posits that the Governor faces a challenge substantively different from the last major candidate who hailed from a faith as-yet absent from the Oval Office, the Catholic John F. Kennedy, because he’s essentially trying to have it both ways with his faith:

Yet Romney’s task will be much more complicated [than Kennedy's]. Whereas Kennedy set voters’ minds at ease by declaring in unambiguous terms that he considered the separation of church and state to be “absolute,” Romney intends to run for president as the candidate of the religious right, which believes in blurring the distinction between politics and religion. Romney thus needs to convince voters that they have nothing to fear from his Mormonism while simultaneously placing that faith at the core of his identity and his quest for the White House.

I think that argument is balderdash. Governor Romney does indeed share the values of evangelicals, as we have argued over and over, but he’s never claimed that that is the case because of his faith per se. He has never said that he is pro-life because he is a Mormon–he has talked about how his views changed while researching stem cell research. He hasn’t led a multi-year campaign to defend traditional marriage because he’s a Mormon–he’s said repeatedly, publicly, and clearly that he thinks traditional marriage is what is best for children. And the list goes on.

Read the entire post from Evangelicals For Mitt