USpolitical.com

Mitt Romney’s biggest fan, Hugh Hewitt, was at least impressed by Romney’s performance. It certainly wasn’t bad and got a B- from Time for the 3rd spot in their evaluation of the debate performances. Huckabee was considered the winner by many, particularly among the media analysts. His surge is by no means hampered by the star treatment he has been getting. I can only imagine what these analysts think…”Huckabee is good because he goes after the support of evangelical voters while all the other candidates are bad because they go after the support of evangelical voters…”

I’ve been surprised though how the way things have been spun or presented the day after. I was just watching Lou Dobbs and he has Gloria Borger discussing the part of the debate when Romney and Giuliani clash about the “sanctuary mansion.” All they show is Giuliani restating his original assertion that Romney employed illegals “under his nose.” “Under your nose,” which oddly enough is a term used for things people don’t realize until after the fact, yet he infers Romney’s foreknowledge and consent. Hehe. Freudian slip? This is right after Romney had refuted it having to resort to a gradeschool question due to Giuliani’s gross misrepresentation of his “hiring” of illegals. The part where he basically takes the gloves off and says, “Ok, let me explain it to you.” He then asks if Giuliani expects homeowners to individually question the employees of contractors they hire to determine the legality of their residency in the United States.

Gloria Borger’s analysis consisted of something about Romney mentioning funny accents. If you watch the whole exchange, that is not exactly the point Romney made. Is “he mentioned funny accents” the best CNN has to offer?

Then I read this gem which is featured at RealClearPolitics.com. Here is what E.J. Dionne had to say:

Romney, who kept coming back to the dangers of runaway government outlays, insisted that farm subsidies were different because “it’s important for us to make sure that our farmers are able to stay on the farm.” Romney helpfully explained all this opportunism by ticking off the list of states besides Iowa, home of the first presidential nominating caucus, where farmers loom large. He sounded as if he were merrily counting delegate votes in his head.

Was I the only one that heard Romney clearly state the reason for his position being that we never want our food supply to be under the control of other nations, the way our oil is? I mean, I guess I’m a little befuddled as to how a 5th grader could pick out specific explanations or arguments made in candidate’s statements but professional columnists are at a loss. Or, should I clarify? They are fully capable of simply picking and choosing parts to assemble their own spin.

Ah well. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.

Peggy Noonan presents another one of those extraordinarily revealing realities in the MSM. Her article here starts as follows:

I will never forget that breathtaking moment when, in the CNN/YouTube debate earlier this fall, the woman from Ohio held up a picture and said, “Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, Mr. Edwards, this is a human fetus. Given a few more months, it will be a baby you could hold in your arms. You all say you’re ‘for the children.’ I would ask you to look America in the eye and tell us how you can support laws to end this life. Thank you.”

They were momentarily nonplussed, then awkwardly struggled to answer, to regain lost high ground. One of them, John Edwards I think, finally criticizing the woman for being “manipulative,” using “hot images” and indulging in “the politics of personal destruction.” The woman then stood in the audience for her follow up. “I beg your pardon, but the literal politics of personal destruction–of destroying a person–is what you stand for.”

Oh, I wish I weren’t about to say, “Wait, that didn’t happen.” For of course it did not. Who of our media masters would allow a question so piercing on such a painful and politically incorrect subject?

I had a funny thought to try to characterize each candidate in one phrase. The following is what I came up with.

Democrats:

Obama
“…we need a new kind of politics”

Clinton
“Day one.”

Edwards
“Two Americas!”

Richardson
“My resume is longer than everyones!”

Biden
“Hahaha! Nobody cares what we’re saying at the debates!”

Dodd
“…in a Dodd administration…”

Kucinich
“Yes. I saw a UFO.”

Gravel
“All these people on the stage with me are fools! FOOLS!”

Republicans:

Giuliani
“9/11!”

Romney
“Military. Economy. Family.”

Thompson
“Uh…………………….well…I think states ought to choose…”

Huckabee
“My faith, my candidacy…..same thing.”

Tancredo
“Kill anyone crossing the border!”

Hunter
“Everything American.”

McCain
“My friends…”

Paul
“..Well! If you read the constitution….”

In the previous post I tried to exonerate Romney from McCain’s and other’s criticism of stating his intention of discriminating against Muslims. In looking at the CNN Ticker article that originally caught my eye it is important to look at the original question by Mansoor Ijaz.

Mansoor Ijaz says:

I asked Mr. Romney whether he would consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters, given his position that “jihadism” is the principal foreign policy threat facing America today.

He says that Romney responded by saying:

…based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration.

(Muslims represent a small portion of the total US population (PDF link). Only 1-2 million which accounts for less than 1% of total population.)

This is really the troubling comment. If all went as Mansoor Ijaz suggests, then I actually am disappointed in Romney. However, rarely is the truth embodied in sound bytes.

There are at least 2 options I can think of:

1) Romney is asked the question as Ijaz says it was and he answers by saying they’re statistically insignificant to justify a post. Strangely, this answer doesn’t even answer the original question. The question was whether he would consider them based on their merits and experience with Islam. An assertion of statistical representation means that Romney has a bias toward selecting cabinet officers based on racial representation in the population. So in this scenario, Romney loses.

2) Romney is asked the question and it is either worded in such a way or Romney hears it in such a way as to include “a need for Muslims on the cabinet.” This is Romney’s assertion about the original question.

But then what about Ijaz’s claim that Romney cited statistical representation as a reason to not justify a person with a particular religious affiliation holding a cabinet position? Romney has already stated that the question was worded differently than Ijaz has asserted, but is Ijaz totally making up the statistical answer? Or was the question modified or another asked bringing up racial representation? I simply haven’t dug deep enough to know. However, Romney is clearly on the record as being open to having a Muslim in his cabinet.

McCain was asked recently what he thought of some comments that Romney had made at a fund raiser. The following is my own transcript with emphasis added taken directly from this video.

Reporter: Senator can I ask you about some comments that Governor Romney made? I don’t want to mischaracterize him because I’m not sure exactly what he said. But it seems that he said that he would not appoint a Muslim to his cabinet OR that he said it was not necessary to have a Muslim in the cabinet to better conduct the war on Islamic extremism.

The reporter then asks a couple of questions:

Reporter: Would you want to appoint someone in your cabinet for that reason and what do you make of his comments?

McCain proceeds to only answer the latter question under the context that Romney only said he would never appoint a Muslim.

McCain: I think his comment is indicative of how he might govern and I think its absolutely wrong. You appoint the most qualified people for the job.

Someone there with McCain then mentions that there are Muslims currently serving in the US Military.

McCain takes it to another level and throws in a “Romney never served” jabs.

McCain: I wonder if Governor Romney who has never served in the military would allow Muslims to serve in our military.

McCain basically showed his willingness to take something completely out of context and misrepresent another candidate.

In responding to questions about his comments Romney said the following in this video.

Reporter: There was a report today that a businessman says that at a closed fundraiser in Vegas a couple of weeks ago he asked you a question about having an Islamic person in your cabinet and you said that based on the population of Muslims in the United States you don’t think it would be justified. First of all, we weren’t there, is that what you said?

Romney: No, no. Thats not. His question was did I NEED to have to have a Muslim in my cabinet to be able to confront radical jihad and would it be important to have a Muslim in my cabinet? And I said no, I don’t think that you have to have a Muslim in the cabinet to take on radical jihad anymore than during the Second World War we needed to have a Japanese American to help us understand the threat that was coming from Japan or something of that nature. I just rejected that argument number 1.

Then number 2 I point out that the people who would be part of my cabinet is something that I really haven’t given a lot of thought to at this point. But I don’t have boxes that I check off as to their ethnicity and its not that I have to have a certain number of each different ethnic group. Instead I would choose people based upon their merits and capabilities.

Reporter: So you would be open to having a Muslim person in your cabinet?

Romney: I’m open to having people of any faith and ethnic group but they would be selected based on their capacity and capabilities and the values and skills that they could bring to the administration. But I don’t choose people based on checking off a box.

Whew! After all that…I come away with a couple of things. Romney is just as reasonable as ever and McCain seems foolish. I wonder if the media would now press McCain for his accusation and presumption of knowing exactly what Romney meant.

I glanced at msNBC.com and noticed an AP article about some recent riots in France. In a repeat from the 2005 riots, it is minorities, Muslim and African immigrants, that are the perpetrators.

Despite the fact that this entire episode, like the one in 2005 is perpetrated in the name of race, the AP journalist thought that fact, the one about it being Muslim and African minorities, was only worthy of the 5th paragraph.

This is a great example of what should happen with those occupying positions of trust and power upon discovery of an extra-marital affair with an employee. (or intern!)

Red Cross President Resigns

Thank goodness this happens in the real world if not with the Democratic Party.

I found a link to this article by Liz Mair that is fascinating. Apparently there are a number of theories that could be floated about this strange and mysterious phone poll riddle. She did some snooping and found some interesting if not fishy info.

It also strikes me as strange that when I just ran an FEC search for the name “Welch, Jeffrey” (the name of a Senior VP at Western Wats, I came up with this:

WELCH, JEFFREY MR.
CEDARA HILLS, UT 84062
WESTERN WATS INC./BUSINESS MANAGE

ROMNEY, MITT
VIA ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT INC.

09/30/2007 500.00 27931366119

The strange thing are the connections between Romney and people at the company making the calls.

So, here’s the picture, as it stands. Firm with links to Romney performs series of mean, nasty, Mormon-bashing, religiously-bigoted calls in key primary states. Uses script that makes it look like McCain could be involved. Firm also has links to Giuliani team. Calls do nothing to drum up support for McCain, and in fact make him look really, really bad. Also raise suspicion about Giuliani. Meanwhile, calls generate sympathy for Romney.

I am genuninely interested in finding out who is behind all of it, like most people. I don’t really fear the worst, that Romney’s camp is behind it, but wonder if some scheming Romney supporter just didn’t think this one through.

Mike Huckabee is surging in Iowa.  A recent poll from Nov. 10-14 shows him only 2 points behind Mitt Romney, 24% vs. Romney’s 26%.  This is a huge change in the dynamics of the race in Iowa.  However, as many point out, even if Huckabee wins in Iowa, it isn’t realistic that he’ll get enough momentum fast enough.  Thats why some say a vote for Huckabee in Iowa is a vote for Giuliani, in fact, some Giuliani supporters may vote for Huckabee simply to derail Romney, deflating any victory or actually beating him.

After looking at this poll earlier today, another apparently was released and added to the Iowa Real Clear Politics average which shows Romney back up to a 9 point lead, averaging him out to an 8.8 average lead over the past few polls.

If nothing else, Huckabee’s rise past McCain, Thompson and Giuliani is fun to see.  The Republican race is truly a lot more interesting than the Democratic race.

Featured on msNBC.com with an article here.

I don’t really know what to say. Draw your own conclusions.