Mitt Romney AWOL on Obamacare

When Mitt Romney ran for president in 2012, he proudly stood by RomneyCare.  The most his genius consultants came up with to defend him, was that RomneyCare wasn’t the same as ObamaCare, because states have the right to address these kinds of issues, not the federal government.

But a video found by shows Mitt Romney praising Jonathan Gruber, and reminds everyone of the sameness between the two government health care plans.  Back in 2011, held an interview with Gruber, where he rebuked Romney’s on-the-campaign-trail rejection of the sameness of the plans.

“He credited Mitt Romney for not totally disavowing the Massachusetts bill during his presidential campaign, but said Romney’s attempt to distinguish between Obama’s bill and his own is disingenuous.

‘The problem is there is no way to say that,’ Gruber said. ‘Because they’re the same fucking bill. He just can’t have his cake and eat it too. Basically, you know, it’s the same bill. He can try to draw distinctions and stuff, but he’s just lying. The only big difference is he didn’t have to pay for his. Because the federal government paid for it. Where at the federal level, we have to pay for it, so we have to raise taxes.'”

Romney_health_signing_608With all the focus now on the words of Jonathan Gruber, calling him the $6 million dollar man, how he called the American people, “stupid,” and his affirmation of the underhanded way in which the law was written, Republicans are at a position of strength, even as NBC, CBS, and ABC nightly news are avoiding reporting on it, all because of the diligent work of a man named .

So the Republicans have momentum from this gift dropped in their lap to repeal Obamacare like they promised in their campaigns, and where is Mitt Romney?

I googled, “Mitt Romney Repeal Obamacare,” and found pages and pages of his promise to repeal Obamacare if he was elected in 2012.  But, he wasn’t elected, and now, he rarely speaks about Obamacare, instead to the issue of.  It reminds me of the day after the 2012 election when Boehner said that Obamacare was the law of the land and that Republicans would do best to move on.  With that in mind, do we really believe that in 2015, the House and Senate will vote to repeal Obamacare, since McConnell can’t decide if he has the right to do it with 51 votes rather than 60?

The mush Republicans who continue this charade of theirs, enjoying the fact that the people are on their side and then doing the bare minimum and making excuses for why they can’t go all the way, is boring.  I mean it, it’s boring, and wrong, but mostly boring.

If we had a Party leadership that felt something and could make people stand up and say, “Hell yeah!,” life as a Republican wouldn’t suck so much.  But we don’t, and we won’t, so it does.

Mitt Romney is hinting at a run in 2016, and prominent people in the party are saying they want him to have another chance.  But what kind of nominee was Romney in 2012, who refused to acknowledge that government taking control of healthcare is not a conservative, or even a republican thing to do?  He lost, not because Obama was so great, but because on the key issue that plagued America, he was, just as he is now, AWOL.




Please follow and like:

RINOs Can’t Figure Out Why Romney Lost

My buddy Mark Levin tweeted a Washington Post article written by establishment writer, Robert Costa, adding the warning, “Romney, the couldn’t lose candidate in 2012.”  Conservatives remain dubious about another Romney run, for good reason.

The points to how great the reception has been in GOP circles, to Romney’s surrogate support of candidates for office, concluding that his projected popularity against Obama has surged, however says that he couldn’t beat Hillary either.

Regardless of what he has personally said, there are many establishment Republicans who would like to see Romney enter the race for 2016, based solely on his popularity as a surrogate.  But they are hanging their hope on a false premise.

The establishment believes that Romney lost because he went too far right in a country that is lurching left.  Both suppositions are wrong.  Romney lost because he represented everything conservatives (both Republican and Democratic) dislike in a candidate for President.

Romneycare was the biggest problem with Romney.  The consultants tried to appeal to conservatives by invoking the Tenth Amendment, but it failed because of numerous reasons, one, that it isn’t a conservative approach for any governing authority to take control of the health care system, and two, that defending it made it impossible to use Obamacare against Obama.  Add to that the fact that Romney was a well-known flip-flopper on issues near and dear to conservatives including pro-life history, and the rise of big government.  Any review of Romney’s record in Massachusetts was met with, “What was he supposed to do? He had to deal with a government of Democrats!”  Which did not sufficiently answer any question and exposed him as a man over-willing to give away principle in order to get along with the other side.

The geniuses (sarcasm) who controlled his campaign were supposed to be the best of the best, and as Levin mentioned, repeatedly said that Romney couldn’t lose, as opposed to the long list of conservative alternatives who were deemed, “unelectable.”  In the end, despite winning over most conservatives in November, the old adage that a liberal Republican cannot win against a radical Democrat proved true.  And that’s what you get for working with the modern Democrat Party.

The Romney handlers bragged that he was just like Reagan in various ways, again to try to ameliorate conservative scorn, but in a very stark way, he was not.  He did what the establishment believes is Reaganesque, which is to appeal to Democrats, however, Reagan appealed to the innate conservatism that is still in the hearts and minds of many people, some even who would more consider themselves a conservative Democrat than a conservative Republican.  Ignoring philosophical differences is maddening enough, but flipping them between those who historically vote for one party or another is also currently how the establishment of the Republican Party is trying to explain away what happened in Mississippi.

The current Republican Party is adrift on a raft and taking on water, and hopefulness of outcomes that cannot be like the WaPo article tries to promote, matches the hopefulness the establishment used to get Romney into office.  They hoped to change the outcome of an election using brute strength against the conservative American, which led to would-be Reagan Democrats not voting, along with some of their Reagan-coalition conservative voting family.

The charges from some establishment members like Ann Coulter, that some conservatives wouldn’t vote for a Mormon or that they didn’t like that he was a wealthy man rang hollow.  Those same conservatives that were smeared admired him for his wonderful family and personal success. What really happened, was that the Republican Party wanted a nominee that would appeal to everyone except conservatives in their never-ending quest to erase and forget what Reagan stood for, and fought for, and won as a result. Twice.  In landslides.

People have disliked using “RINO” to characterize liberal Republicans.  They think a Republican is a liberal, going along to get along with any and all Democrats.  RINO to me, is as it suggests, a Republican in Name Only.  That is because a true Republican is part of the Reagan coalition and a Reaganite understands what the party should stand for. The Party has loused up its standing with conservatives so badly that people are calling themselves, “Platform Republicans” because too many Republicans do the exact opposite of what the platform stands for.

Reagan set the standard for coalition work by being steadfastly conservative, and defining the three-legged stool of what an American, regardless of prior party affiliation, will vote for.  He was a complete conservative, as are millions in this great nation.  Strong defense, free-market principle, and strong social values encapsulates what millions of Americans believe they stand for.  Those qualities in a politician win, especially when the politician has a good record behind him, and a way of communicating them to thousands starving for leadership.

So what if Romney runs again?  With Chris Christie and Jeb Bush as the leading RINO savoir-faire candidates, he’ll split the RINO vote, and in the end, with polling against Hillary, another Marxist offering from the radical-lunatic leadership of the Democrat Party, none of them can win.

What we need is an unabashed Reaganite, calling for an end to big government, believing in the greatness of the individual, and invoking God, family, and country, to bring this nation to its feet once again, and turn it away from the darkness of a nation in decline.

Please follow and like:

Who Is Romney Talking About?

via Byron York on twitter:

Dear God in Heaven give me strength!

Who in the world is Mitt Romney talking to here?

(Re: Clinton) “He did stand out in contrast with the other speakers; I think he really did elevate the Democrat convention in a lot of ways,” Romney said. “And, frankly, the contrast may not have been as attractive as Barack Obama might have preferred if he were choosing who’d go before him and who’d go after.”

Clinton was great!

You have got to be kidding me. Is this actually what Mitt said, and we are all going to watch tomorrow? Clinton elevated the convention? In a lot of ways? How? Bill Clinton is a serial womanizer, the only President to be impeached and disbarred for lying under oath, he tore you apart, Romney and Bush as well, and you think he elevated the place? Elevated from what? Middle earth to the gutter? Don’t you respect your position? Don’t you understand that praising Clinton won’t get you votes? Talk about the war on women! That man is one-man battalion in the war on women!

But hey, why don’t we praise him so we sound reasonable, not like those crazy right wingers who are trying to keep us from driving off the cliff.

Clinton was no centrist, he was a leftist and after HillaryCare was offered, the Republicans took control of the House and forced his hand.

The only difference between Obama and Clinton is that Clinton was too busy playing with interns and lost valuable time, but hey, Obama made up for it with two full years of full control, polarizing this nation to near perfect polarization and radicalizing the entire government, lock, stock and barrel.

But hey, let’s say nicey nice words about him.

Asked whether Clinton could be elected president today, Romney responded: “If the constitution weren’t in his way, yeah. Perhaps. But I don’t know the answer to that.”

Say what?

Hey Jen, could Clinton be elected today?

If Clinton were on the ballot today, I would fight tooth and nail to defeat him, because he started the housing crisis with the Community Reinvestment Act, the IRS under his previous administration went after people because of their ideology, he was a serial womanizer, he added the Social Security fund to the general fund to give the illusion of a surplus which he never had, and the only President to be impeached and eventually held in contempt and disbarred for lying under oath to a grand jury. Other than that, the Constitution says he cannot serve more than two terms under the 22nd Amendment, but of course you knew that, right David?

How hard was that?

Please follow and like:

Where’s Romney’s Severe Conservatism?

gave a run-down on where the Presidential race is at this point, concluding that we are at a dead heat with a liberal and a non-ideologue. Hayes points out the far-left liberalism on display at the Democratic Convention, and the “he’s a nice guy” attitude of the Republican Convention.

In Tampa, the Republicans emphasized competence over ideology. Their critiques of President Obama, particularly in the 10 p.m. hour when most people were watching, focused on his mismanagement of the economy and not his misguided views. And the tone was one of disappointment, not anger. “I wish President Obama had succeeded,” Romney said, “because I want America to succeed.” Although Obama has expanded the government more than any president since Lyndon Johnson, and arguably since Franklin Roosevelt, none of the prime-time speakers at the Republican convention labeled him “liberal.”
That’s odd.

Sure it’s odd, if you assumed Mitt Romney was going to go full-throated conservative which is what Reagan did. But there were absolutely no indications prior to the convention that Romney was a conservative, save the cheerleading from the moderate wing, trying to convince us that Romney is Reagan, just without the conservative label, which was impossible to begin with.

The fact is, with all the comparisons between Romney and Reagan by DC bubble-dwellers, Romney is not Reagan. You don’t become Reagan by surrounding yourself with people who are Reaganesque, you understand what Reagan stood for, and why he stood for it. Reagan read about and wrote about conservatism for decades, he knew it, he was conservatism. Romney said he was severely conservative and won CPAC awards, but that doesn’t make him conservative, and that’s the problem.

Not to rehash the primaries, but that was the major reason Romney didn’t win 70% of most Republican votes in any given state early on, because the nation is conservative, and we were arguing about which conservative was going to be the best to go against Obama. It was the Republican Party cheerleaders who picked Romney.

That said, I think Romney can win, but if he plans to break out of this tie by remaining non-ideological, he’d better think again.

More voters identify themselves as conservatives than liberals—one reason conservatives are usually happy to apply that label to themselves and liberals often prefer euphemisms like “progressive.” The latest Gallup survey on ideology finds 41 percent of Americans consider themselves “conservative” and just 23 percent “liberal” (with 33 percent preferring “moderate”).
The same poll finds that conservatives do even better when the question concerns the economy. Some 46 percent of Americans consider themselves “conservative” on economic issues, while just 20 percent describe themselves as “liberal” on economics (and 32 percent say “moderate”). Shouldn’t Romney be using these labels at every opportunity?

In fact Mark Levin described it in Liberty and Tyranny, as conservatism versus non-conservatism, that conservatism is liberty and non-conservatism is tyranny, and,

“Conservatism is the antidote to tyranny precisely because its principles are the founding principles.”

It’s clear Obama is no moderate. With liberalism on parade at the DNC, booing God, the example Hayes gives about Barney Frank and the like, you would think a person only minimally paying attention could at least discern that much. Yet with all the hype surrounding the Ryan pick as a way to “solidify the base,” because the base is conservative, Romney can’t sit around as a moderate non-ideologue and hope he’ll eek out a win.

It seems to me Romney is relying on Ryan’s articulation of conservative ideology, and figures that should suffice. But the position creates an oxymoron.

“I wish President Obama had succeeded,” Romney said, “because I want America to succeed.”

This is a buzz phrase created to accept the liberal argument following Rush Limbaugh’s “I hope he fails,” comment. The liberals went batty over Rush’s comment, saying that Rush must want America to fail. This effort by the campaign consultants to accept liberal arguments is a waste of time, effort, and my guess is, a hell of a lot of money. So if Obama is liberal, his Keynesian model, his raiding of medicare, his printing of money, his takeover of major industry and the nation’s health care system, why in the hell would you want him to succeed? And if he succeeds, doesn’t that mean we become Greece? Doesn’t that mean America fails?

Rush Limbaugh said it right, “I hope he fails.” The nation is not stupid, they can understand this concept.

If Romney has hidden his “severe” conservatism, he’d better find it, or Obama will succeed in destroying America completely in a second term.

Please follow and like:

Republican Rules Change Is Outrageous Attempt To Silence The Grassroots

At every step of the way, Washington DC operatives and a host of weasels within the Republican party, try to silence and push back against the Republican grassroots. They want our bodies, not our minds. This is enough to boil your blood.

Mark Levin called attention last night to rules changes to be voted upon today in Tampa, that would give the nominee the power to accept or reject grassroots delegates after the primaries took place.

Below is a letter by, and beneath that, a letter from a , arguing strenuously against this power grab.

A Letter from Morton Blackwell to RNC Delegates
By Dave Nalle – August 26, 2012 at 11:44 PM
Filed under gallery , Party elections

Dear Fellow Delegate,
On Tuesday of this week, as Republican National Convention delegates, you and I will be voting on rules changes that could fundamentally change our Republican Party — and not for the better.
Over the years, I’ve served on the Louisiana and Virginia GOP Rules Committees. I currently serve on both the Republican National Committee’s Standing Committee on Rules and on the National Convention’s Committee on Rules and Order of Business.
I was Barry Goldwater’s youngest elected delegate in 1964, I was honored to serve on President Ronald Reagan’s White House Staff from 1981-1984, and I have attended every Republican National Convention Rules Committee meeting since 1972. My wife and I have contributed major donations to the Romney-Ryan campaign.
These rule changes are the most awful I’ve ever seen come before any National Convention.
I’m writing you today to urge you to join the growing effort to stop the worst-ever changes in this Rules Committee’s Report and to vote in favor of amendments to Rules 12 and 15. The Minority Reports will restore important rights and protections which state parties and grassroots Republicans would lose under the Rules Committee Report as written.
These amendments to Rules 12 and 15 are contained in Minority Reports supported by at least 25% of the members of this convention’s Committee on Rules and Order of Business.
It’s rare for Minority Reports to come before our national convention, but the issues involved here are vital to the future of our party.
I must tell you there is tremendous arm-twisting now to peel signers off of the Minority Reports.
Finally, whether on Minority Reports or on voting down the Rules, it will require at least six states’ delegations to insist upon a roll call vote.
I will not pretend that the deck is not stacked against us.
But many state leaders, liberty-minded activists, and grass-roots conservatives are up-in-arms as word of this power grab spreads.
Our convention will make this important decision Tuesday as some of our first work. Many folks skip these procedural sessions thinking nothing of importance occurs.
This year, that is far from the truth.
If the Rules Committee Report were to pass without adoption of the Minority Reports, it would amount to a power grab by Washington, D.C. party insiders and consultants designed to silence the voice of state party activists and Republican grassroots by:
*** Handing national party officials the power to change national party rules adopted by state and grassroots leaders at the Republican National Convention. For generations, the prohibition of manipulated changes in the national Rules of the Republican Party between national conventions has served as one of the crown jewels of our party. It’s a power grab which opens the door to many future power grabs.
*** Stripping state parties in all states with binding primaries of the power of choosing who will represent their states as national delegates and alternate delegates.
This outrageous change would empower presidential campaigns to disapprove and remove delegates and alternate delegates selected by rules adopted by state Republican parties. Rather than grassroots activists who won delegate and alternate delegate slots by following state party rules, a large majority of positions would be handed to top donors of the winning campaign.
*** Gutting the great and successful reform adopted in the current election cycle to stop the dangerous trend to front-load the selection of national convention delegates. Our party would move again toward a national primary which would deny grassroots Republicans the opportunity to vet presidential candidates in a nomination contest of reasonable length. This reform must not be abandoned.
Like most of us delegates to this convention, I’ve spent years gladly battling in the trenches for our Republican Party.
And as the President of the Leadership Institute — which specializes in training thousands of conservative activists, students, and leaders to fight for our country’s future –I can’t tell you how disheartened I am to see these rules changes even considered.
These rule changes would give good folks like you less of a say over our Republican Party in favor of insiders and consultants in Washington, D.C.
At a time when Tea Party activists have re-invigorated our Republican Party — leading to massive gains in the U.S. House, the Senate, and many state legislatures in the 2010 elections — why would we want to discourage activism?
Thanks to their efforts, you and I have a new generation of exciting conservative leaders in Washington, D.C., who — in many instances –were elected despite the opposition of establishment-backed opponents.
Certainly this is not to say GOP leaders are always wrong.
But history shows that our Republican Party grows when we welcome newly active participants and treat them fairly.
Our Republican Party is strongest when we listen to the wishes of grassroots conservatives.
Instead of strengthening our party, these insider power grabs will weaken it.
For these reasons, I urge you to join the growing effort to adopt the Minority Reports when the Rules Committee Report comes up for consideration by the convention.
Morton Blackwell
P.S. Some of the most important work of the convention will take place on Tuesday where you and I will be voting on rules that could fundamentally change our Republican Party for the worse.
New rules will be voted on that have been designed to silence state Republican parties and Republican grassroots in favor of party insiders and Washington, D.C.-based consultants.
The vote will take place at Tuesday’s convention session, and I’m counting on you join the growing effort to defeat these new rules.
Please vote to adopt the Minority Reports on Rules and urge your delegation to call for a roll call vote on all Rules-related votes.
This fight is too important for us not to make a stand.


By: Julianne Thompson – National Delegate, Georgia

Chairman Reince Preibus, members of the Rules Committee, and the entire voting delegation of the 2012 Republican National Convention:

As a National Delegate to the 2012 RNC, I am extremely disappointed that a rule would be passed through committee that essentially strips the grassroots of all of it’s representative power by ridding State Parties of their ability to choose whom they will send as delegates and alternates to represent their State to the Republican National Convention. The rules change would allow the Presidential nominee sweeping new power to override that process and choose their own National Delegates. The rule also allows the RNC (with only a 3/4 vote) the power to amend the party’s rules without a vote by the full Republican National Convention.

The GOP is the political Party of the grassroots. Our national delegates are the boots-on-the-ground that get Republicans elected. We are there for County meetings, State Conventions, National Conventions, and most importantly we spend our time and money canvassing our neighborhoods, going door to door, making phone calls, writing personal endorsement letters, and getting-out-the-vote for Republicans. We are the worker bees, and we are the heart and soul of the Republican Party.

We have always believed that our Party is the one who best represents what it means to be an American…freedom! With your current attempt at this rules change, you are essentially striking the first blow that chips away at that freedom, and you disenfranchise the very people that turned the tide for the GOP in 2010 by returning power in the U.S. House of Representatives to Republicans.

I would like to hope that our nominee is unaware of the skullduggery that occurred with regard to this attempt at shutting out the people that have unified to help him win in November. The audacity of creating a firestorm when there is an opportunity for unity and peace that is needed to win back the Senate and take back the White House is irresponsible and I seriously question the motives of those behind this attempt.

Why the change in rules? That is the million-dollar question, and it is fairly easy to answer. There are still those in place in the GOP and on campaigns that would like to use the delegate and alternate seats as rewards for donating large checks to campaigns and the RNC.

If your desire is to win elections, then I strongly suggest that you engage the grassroots and show respect to those who help put you in power.

During a time that should ring of unity, you have put the GOP at a crossroads. Do you want to win this election and future elections? Now is your opportunity to prove it. Either take it to the floor and let us vote it down, and better yet, pull this insulting attempt to disenfranchise the heart and soul of our Republican Party!


Julianne Thompson, National Delegate for Mitt Romney – Georgia

*** ATTENTION NATIONAL DELEGATES: A minority report was put together, so this change could be brought to the floor and voted-on by the entire delegation. Despite attempts to pressure rules committee members into not signing-on to the report, signatures are still being actively sought, so this report can be brought forward.


Please follow and like:

Breathlessly Awaiting Mitt’s Reaction to the Egypt Election

As you can imagine, me being a Republican and all, I’m just on the edge of my seat to hear what Mitt Romney has to say about the election turnout in Egypt.

The Obama Administration for the big win, and his spokesboy Carney said,

“We believe it is essential for the Egyptian government to continue to fulfill Egypt’s role as a pillar of regional peace, security and stability,” Carney said.
The administration had expressed no public preference in advance of Sunday’s announcement that the Islamist presidential candidate had defeated Ahmed Shafiq, who was the last prime minister under Mubarak.

Yeah, well, one of the things that should get under your skin is the point that Obama showed, “no public preference.” Thanks to Gateway Pundit, the following should illuminate:

and finally:

So of course I’m eager to hear Mitt Romney speak on this subject, he had a nice weekend I’m sure, heard something about his camp at a retreat, but the big reason I want to know is because I remember back in February when he said that he thought Mubarak had to move on.

Given yesterday’s results, I would like to impress the fact that what happened in Egypt, the so-called, “revolution” was not a change for democracy, and it is childish and naive to believe that it was and is. The Obama Administration continually calls it a democracy movement, Romney had better not, since we can all see the truth.

Please follow and like:

We Are Still Here

Rick Santorum suspended his campaign today. As the anti-Romney, grassroots social Conservative, man of the people, hard-working, Reagan-Democrat vote getter, Santorum did a hell of a good job.

As conservatives, we all know that moderate Republicans don’t do all that well against Democrats.

Fortunately, Barack Obama is such a leftist, with a particular viper-like hatred for how this nation was founded, he is dissolving the Democrat Party from what it once had been.

The Democrat Party used to stand for the miner, the truck driver, the bartender and the cook. It used to stand for the brick-layer and the farmer and the auto-worker, the poor and the over-taxed.

But Barack Obama has stood the Democrat Party on its head for his selfish, ideologically cruel political gain.

As we sit and watch, Obama is turning race against race, religion against religion, man against woman, poor against rich, neighbor against neighbor, American against American.

While we conservatives have been sounding the alarms against his radical, extremist quest for absolute power, the party of Lincoln will nominate a man who has generally tried to silence us.

Through this whole race for the GOP nomination, we conservatives have battled each other and the Ron Paul fanatics while the GOP establishment treated us, (I’ll be generous,) less than kind, and not helpful to the cause.

Mitt Romney needs to pick a conservative Vice Presidential candidate that will unite the GOP. That is the only way we can win. Rather than talking heads on TV telling us that we need to support Romney now, what really needs to happen is that Romney has to finally decide that he needs our help, and he needs to come our way.

We fully expect Obama to be supremely negative, to ignite anger with the OWS crowd, to continue to divide us and do everything he can to make us fearful. I fully expect Ron Paul to direct his minions to vote for Gary Johnson on the Libertarian ticket, and they will get some to vote with them even though I, and many other conservatives will try to argue against it. With that scenario looming ahead, the conservatives, the work-horses of the Republican Party, deserve respect.

There is simply no way to bring constitutionalists, Reagan Democrats and non-partisans into the fold without conservative values and a true conservative on the ticket.

Whether the establishment likes it or not, we are still here, and we are still fighting to save this country.

Please follow and like:

Michigan Win Turning Point For Romney? Problem is, Romney didn’t win Michigan.

A little blurb in the Detroit Free Press yesterday touted, The piece pointed to Nate Silver’s analysis of Romney’s campaign in the NY Times. Silver declared that according to his calculations, the Michigan primary win was the climactic event so far in the GOP race to the nomination because headlines since then have focused on other things.

Silver sort of kind of mentioned that the delegate count in Michigan wasn’t overwhelming, but his 3 percentage point win helped turn the tide. Mr. Silver also pointed out that perhaps his method of media tracking may have been faulty, considering there were other news items that gained traction since late February.

I will hand Mr. Silver this point. The GOP organizations in Arizona and Michigan, one state being the home of one of Romney’s biggest rivals from 2008-turned endorser in 2012, John McCain, and the other the home state of Romney himself, pushed up their primaries and took the penalty of losing half their delegates. The reason they did that is because they assumed that Romney would have had all of the momentum by then, and the delegate count wouldn’t have mattered.

But delegates do matter, and in order for Nate’s points to be accurate, one would have to completely ignore what was happening in the media other than the GOP race, and the fact that Romney did not win Michigan, something the media completely ignored.

Romney and Santorum both won 7 districts each of Michigan’s 14 districts. The rules allotted 2 delegates per district and two additional delegates at large. The delegates at large were to be proportionally allocated depending upon popular vote with a threshold of 50% of the total vote. The delegates awarded to Romney and Santorum should have been 15-15 a tie. However, the MIGOP chair Schostak and RNC committeeman Anuzis held a vote after the primary and changed the rules so that Mitt won 16-14.

Now, had Mr. Silver known that, what would his declaration then be?

Also, the timeline for headlines is not a very worthy way of determining Romney’s momentum. Besides the fact that Michigan was fixed, he was running against two Catholics while the Catholic Church and religious freedom were being attacked by the Obama Administration. How neat it was that Mitt didn’t have to say a word about religion while Santorum had to constantly answer questions as a “cultist” as Chris Matthews called Catholics on his television show.

Sorry Mr. Silver, your whole premises and methodology are worth bupkis.

Had the media reported any of what I have told you about the delegate allocation in Michigan, Silver may have written, “Romney’s Michigan Scandal Stands as Climactic Moment in Campaign,” and he would be wondering what could be done about the “insurgents” Santorum and Gingrich.

Nate’s last paragraph reads:

Since then, the Republican race has followed a more predictable-seeming course. The Michigan victory allowed Mr. Romney to turn the race into a war of attrition — one he was prepared to win because of his increasing lead in delegates, his support from the Republican party establishment, his substantial advantage in fund-raising and his more experienced campaign staff. It was the climactic moment of the campaign, and it has been all downhill for his opponents ever since.

Ain’t it a neat little fix.

Please follow and like:

New PPP Poll Has Santorum on Top in Michigan; Romney Whines Reagan Democrats Will Vote Santorum

Michigan’s Republican Party did not close its primary. There are a lot of Reagan Democrats, you know, “values voters” in Michigan, as well as Ohio and Pennsylvania who know for sure they don’t want to keep the apologizer-in-chief. They have every right to be a part of the process.

MIRS News: With less than 10 hours before polls open, Rick SANTORUM has edged into the lead in Michigan in Public Policy Polling’s (PPP) two-day tracking poll.

Santorum has 38 percent and Mitt ROMNEY has 37 percent in a two-day average of Sunday and Monday responses for the Democratic firm’s survey. In PPP’s survey taken Sunday, Romney had 39 percent and Santorum had 37 percent, which was within the margin of error (See “PPP: Romney Takes Slight Lead,” 2/25-26/12).

Ron PAUL had 14 percent and Newt GINGRICH had 9 percent.

Santorum leads with those who haven’t voted yet by 10 points, 41 percent to Romney’s 31 percent. Romney has cleaned up with absentee ballots. Paul has 16 percent and Gingrich 9 percent.

Breaking down the Monday results, Santorum has the momentum. He is at 39 percent and Romney is at 34 percent. Paul is at 15 percent and Gingrich is at 10 percent.

In polls released over the last two days, Santorum has led in four and Romney has led in three. The New York Times’ 538 blog, Romney was given a 64 percent chance of winning to Santorum’s 36 percent chance, based on an aggregate of polls. It did not include PPP’s latest survey.

In PPP’s poll taken between Feb. 17 and 19, Santorum led by 4 points, within the margin of error, 37 percent to Romney’s 33 percent.

“Romney leads among Republicans in Michigan. It’s Democrats putting Santorum over the top. We’ll see if they really show up . . .” PPP tweeted.

The PPP Monday survey was of 501 likely GOP voters.

MIRS will have full results when they become available.

The two candidates crisscrossed the state today trying to pick up votes, with Romney bringing Kid Rock in for a brief concert in Royal Oak tonight.

In another last-minute development, there are reports of pro-Romney robo-calls making the rounds in Michigan that hit Santorum for his robo-call urging Democrats to vote (see related story). The Romney robo-call reportedly questions Santorum’s conservative credentials for the move.

Some points: Every pollster says that Romney leads amongst Republicans in Michigan. I have a hard time believing that. Every major center-right blog has admitted Santorum is the guy. Every serious activist that worked in the 2010 elections has admitted that Romney can’t beat Obama. And since Michiganders do not register as Republicans or Democrats, the whole suggestion is bogus.

And here’s a news flash, the entire Republican establishment in Michigan is behind Romney and has been for 5 years.

The Romney robocalls are pissing people off, and how can Romney expect to ever win Michigan without Democrats? With this stupid move to call on people to question Santorum’s conservative credentials for asking for all Americans to join him to take back the country, Romney is proving he cannot win the general.

Please follow and like:

Mitchell Poll Has Santorum Back On Top

My, my, my. Santorum is back up against Romney in a poll that the pollster told Frank Beckmann last week would stick with Romney on top.

MIRS News:
Rick SANTORUM is back in the lead with 37 percent to Mitt ROMNEY’s 35 percent, which is within the margin of error, in a new MIRS/Mitchell Research poll taken Sunday night.

In the last MIRS/Mitchell poll taken Thursday, Romney had 36 percent to Santorum’s 33 percent, which again was a statistical tie (See “Debate Boosts Romney In New MIRS/Mitchell Poll,” 2/24/12).

“There is an overlay between social and fiscal conservatives,” said Steve MITCHELL, president of Mitchell Research & Communications, Inc. “Romney’s strategy had been to win over all conservatives by hammering Santorum on the fact that he is not the fiscal conservative he claimed to be. Up until the weekend, that strategy seemed to be successful. However, Santorum’s push for social conservatives in the past three days seems to have worked and they moved back to him, allowing him to re-take the lead. The volatility we thought had changed has not. The race remains very fluid.”

The poll conducted Sunday by Mitchell and Rosetta Stone Communications had Newt GINGRICH at 9 percent and Ron PAUL at 8 percent and 11 percent undecided.

John GARST of Rosetta Stone Communications said the firms “carefully examined and re-examined our data to make sure it was correct” in light of two other polls showing Romney ahead.

PPP had Romney had 39 percent and Santorum at 37 percent in a Sunday poll (See “PPP: Romney Takes Slight Lead,” 2/25-26/12) and We Ask America had the race at Romney 37 percent and Santorum 34 percent in its Sunday survey, which was outside the margin of error.

Tea Partiers, evangelicals and “very conservatives” have all posted gains for Santorum in the latest survey.

On Thursday, Romney had erased a 16-percent lead Santorum had with Tea Party supporters. In this poll, Santorum is back ahead with those voters by 6 percent. Romney cut a 16 percent Santorum lead among evangelicals to 7 percent on Thursday. Now Santorum has moved his lead out to 19 percent. On Thursday, Romney had cut a 31-percent lead Santorum had with “very conservatives” down to 13 percent. Now that lead is back up to 17 percent.

“Santorum’s strong appeal to social conservatives has been very effective. This race is still very close, but momentum seems to have changed,” Mitchell said. “Get out the vote efforts will really count.”

Romney has fallen in almost every demographic group since Thursday.

Santorum dominates in Grand Rapids media market, 51 percent to Romney’s 19 percent. That’s up from Santorum’s 41 percent to Romney’s 30 percent on Thursday.

Romney clings to a lead in the Detroit media market, 43 percent to Santorum’s 35 percent. On Thursday, Romney had 37 percent to Santorum’s 24 percent.

In other areas of Michigan, the two candidates are about even, with Romney at 35 percent and Santorum at 35 percent. On Thursday, Romney was at 37 percent and Santorum was at 34 percent.

Romney had moved a 10-percent deficit among Republicans to a 9-percent lead on Thursday. Romney’s lead with GOP voters is now down to 1 percent in the Sunday poll. The polling shows that eight in 10 voters are self-identified Republicans (81 percent), up slightly from Thursday night.

The former Massachusetts governor has gained with Democrats, up from 3 percent Thursday to 17 percent Sunday. Santorum still dominates with 30 percent, down from 36 percent.

Romney has made inroads with independents, going from 22 percent Thursday to 32 percent Sunday. But Santorum also gained 10 points, going from 26 percent to 36 percent in the latest poll.

Romney had erased a 23 percent deficit with men, but now Santorum is ahead by 4 percent. Romney’s 7 percent lead with women has now been cut to 1 percent.

The automated telephone survey of 858 likely Republican presidential primary voters has a 3.3 percent margin of error.

We Ask America Poll: Romney 37%, Santorum 34%

Mitt ROMNEY is ahead in the new We Ask America poll with 37 percent to Rick SANTORUM’s 33 percent — just beyond the margin of error.

The poll had Ron PAUL at 18 percent and Newt GINGRICH at 13 percent. There was no option given to be undecided.

“While Romney has pulled out all the stops in his home state and seems poised for a come-from-behind victory, Rick Santorum has hung in against an onslaught of negative ads and a few gaffes of his own doing,” We Ask America writes in its analysis. “If Santorum loses by a close margin, many will question Romney’s ability to close the ultimate deal after a less-than-stellar showing in the Wolverine State.”

The automated survey of 984 likely GOP voters had a 3.1-percent margin of error.

Please follow and like: