Glen Johnson of AP is covering the Mitt Romney campaign. His analysis of mitt Romney’s campaign includes this take:

This past week, Romney did it again over questions about whether he was planning to air negative ads — in particular on the subject of illegal immigration — against John McCain. The Arizona senator has been surging in New Hampshire, where Romney is angling for back-to-back victories after a hoped-for win in this week’s Iowa caucuses.

“I haven’t made any decisions on what issue ads might come forward, down the road, but those aren’t what we shot today,” Romney told reporters on Wednesday. “What we shot today was just me to camera.”

On Friday, his campaign went on TV with a new commercial, a so-called contrast ad that did not feature Romney speaking, but a narrator comparing his record to McCain’s on immigration and tax matters. On Saturday, the campaign announced a second spot, focused entirely on McCain’s immigration record. In between Romney also released a third commercial, criticizing Huckabee for increasing spending and pardoning criminals while he was governor of Arkansas.

The ads Romney mentioned to reporters — the “closing arguments” in which he speaks directly to Iowa and New Hampshire voters — have yet to air. LINK

McCain and Huckabee aren’t taking the attacks laying down. Whether or not McCain decides to use the devastating ad that is waiting in the can, just the fact that it is out, and likely to go viral on the net is enough to cause team Romney some worry. In addition, team Huckabee is reportedly in the studio this afternoon preparing another salvo to answer the attacks from Willard and the Club for Growth. I doubt any TV ad will be as effective as Huck’s own words…

“If a person is dishonest in his approach to get the job, do you believe he will be honest in telling you the truth when he does get the job?”

Heading into the home stretch, it’s still anybody’s contest.

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, has boasted of providing for universal healthcare in the Commonwealth. In fact, Hillary Clinton’s reincarnation of universal healthcare was unveiled a few months ago, and it looked remarkably similar. Employers are required to provide access to insurance, or face fines from the state.

Enter the law of unintended consequences. Many employers have decided that paying the fines is better for their company than providing insurance.

I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell ya.

Businesses with 11 or more full-time equivalent workers are now required to offer insurance or pay a fine. The law also bars employers from offering higher-wage workers better health benefits than low-wage employees. In addition, workers with access to employer-subsidized insurance are now barred from getting state-supported coverage, and will be excluded from the state’s free care program starting in April.

The provisions were designed to ensure that as many workers as possible get coverage through their employers in a state where about 70 percent of the 200,000 businesses offer insurance benefits.

For years, Doug Barlow and his business partner had paid 100 percent of the insurance cost for 11 full-time salaried workers at their three Burger King restaurants in Boston. The new law’s antidiscrimination provisions led them to offer insurance to 27 hourly employees. But the potential cost - nearly $1,100 per month for family coverage - pushed them to cut the firm’s contribution to 50 percent.

“I was prepared for a lot more people coming into our plan, but it didn’t happen,” said Barlow. Other employers said they are seeing the same pattern - expanded eligibility that does not lead to many more insured individuals.

“For most working-class people, regardless of whether the company pays part of the premium, it’s very expensive,” Barlow said. “Some full-time people said they’d done the math and it is cheaper for them to pay the state penalty than pay their half of health insurance.”

The law requires individuals to obtain insurance by Dec. 31, if the state deems it affordable, or pay a penalty of $219. Next year, the penalty will rise.

As they say, read it all.

What do you think, Club for Growth? Socialized medicine has no place in a capitalist society. Get your heads out of your azzes and quit supporting this moron.

From Slate.com……

Romney’s millions are good for buying up negative ads. Whether or not it will work will be revealed in the next 2 weeks. Mike Huckabee has answered Romney’s negativity in Iowa, and now the McCain campaign is firing back in New Hampshire. If character were dollars, Romney would have already had the nomination sewn up. As it stands, his future depends on his money being able to buy enough support to keep his front-loaded strategy afloat. Since January 1, 2007, the former Massachusetts governor has spent well in excess of $80 million, including at least $17.4 million of his own money, paying media fees in excess of $30 million, salaries of roughly $16 million, and consulting payments of more than $15 million.

The McCain team’s response is that Romney has to talk about the future because he’s spent much of the campaign running from his past. This may become more than a quip if the campaign decides to air the following television ad, which they’ve had on the shelf since the spring.

More Planned Parenthood controversy

Former governor Mitt Romney’s economic development agency granted initial approval to a tax-exempt bond last year for a Planned Parenthood clinic in Worcester that will provide abortions, just two months before he left office and began highlighting his antiabortion position as a presidential candidate.

Asked about the $5 million financial deal yesterday, the Romney campaign said the former governor was not aware it was under consideration when Planned Parenthood won preliminary approval in November 2006.

None of that is important to the Dixiephobic Ann Coulter
No, No. You stupid rubes who think the social issues and the 2nd amendment are important should just stay home this primary season and not mess up Ms. Coulter’s and Romney’s party.

This isn’t the time to be toying with any Republican who had a Clinton in his sights and ended up shooting himself in the foot. If you’re [Huckabee and Thompson supporters] bored with our top candidates, go see a slasher movie. Don’t take it out on a presidential election.

And, RCP has an excellent analysis of team Romney’s strategy headed into the final stretch…

Despite the candidate’s confident tone, staffers in the campaign know that Romney’s political future will be determined in the next 11 days, and they are worried. “The question is, do we stand up under the pressure,” said one top aide struggling to hang on to his own optimism.

Romney’s penchant for heavy perspiration during stressful times pretty much means that he’ll be going through half a dozen shirts a day heading into New Hampshire.

This afternoon’s Rush Limbaugh Show, hosted by Mark Belling, featured a semi-restrained rant by the host against Mike Huckabee. I listened to one segment of the show, as time allowed. According to Belling, other than the two issues of gay marriage and abortion, reading the words of Mike Huckabee is virtually indistinguishable from reading the words of John Edwards.

Belling needed only to include Mike’s pro-Second Amendment stance, and he would have scored the Howard Dean Trifecta:

I am tired of coming to the South and fighting elections on guns, God and gays.

I don’t mean to sound like I’m picking on Belling. Rudy Guiliani said much the same thing with his statement on social issues a few months back:

“Our party has to get beyond issues like that.”

Jeffery Lord in the American Spectator tried a similar tack in a blistering piece today, assailing Huckabee for “attacking Reaganomics.”

So while it does not surprise that there are class warrior Democrats attacking the idea of economic opportunity as “greed” and promising all manner of ways to pit one group against another, it is startling indeed to hear the following from a Republican presidential front runner — former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.

Lord makes no specific references to Huckabee’s policy positions, but instead relies on statements by The Club for Growth as the arbiter of true conservatism. Any serious observer of the Republican Primary season understands that the The Club for Growth has been anything but an honest broker with regards to Huckabee specifically, and generally, any Republican who fails to meet the small-tent definition of conservatism they espouse.

The idea troubles that the nominee of the conservative party could be someone who fails to understand that his apparent scorn for “Wall Street” could resonate negatively with the almost 50 percent of the American population who are now shareholders — because of Ronald Reagan. Does Huckabee really believe that all these millions of people are therefore “greedy”? That economic growth as exemplified by Reaganomics is nothing more than a show-stopping parade of excess by out of control Middle Americans? If in fact in his heart- of-hearts he has some sort of contempt for the Reagan agenda — and the Reagan economic accomplishments that restored America to its place as the shining city on a hill — Governor Huckabee will soon find himself doing his best to balance on a stool that is missing a leg.

Do Mr. Lord, Mr. Belling, and others actually believe that the Club for Growth represents the 50 percent of Americans who own a small piece of Wall Street in their 401(k)’s?

Please.

The Club for Growth represents The Club for Growth. Their crusade for ideological purity is largely responsible for the loss of the Senate in 2006. If the Club for Growth is such a serious and respected group policy wonks, as Lord suggests, then why haven’t they successfully answered the leftist mantra of “Tax Cuts for the Rich?” Answer that and you take the whole “Greed” issue off the table.

There is only one reason that the left trots out that line: It works.

If the smartest guys in the room at The Club for Growth can’t answer that, then maybe they’re not so smart after all. And, maybe their personal crusade against Mike Huckabee has cost them in credibility in ways that they cannot yet fathom. And maybe, just maybe the middle class, gun-toting, Bible believing, wife-loving, foot soldiers of the Reagan coalition just don’t believe the Club for Growth anymore, and couldn’t care less about what the American Spectator says, and are just as likely to tell NRO and WSJ to go jump in the lake as not.

Try this experiment: Go back just a couple of years and find any Mitt Romney speech concerning the social issues, right to life, defense of marriage, and the right to keep and bear arms. Any of them, it doesn’t matter. Now, close you eyes as you listen and you just might think you’re listening to ….. John Kerry.

Get it?

cross posted at Nuke’s

Listening to their current stump speeches, Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton seem like polar opposites. The Democratic lightening rod and the former New England governor appear to offer voters a contrasting vision of leadership: government activism versus free market solutions to the challenges of 21st century America.Their rhetoric, however, is a different story. In fact, many of their statements are downright interchangeable.

Criticisms of each candidate range from opportunism to pandering, hypocrisy to flip-flopping. Certainly, the two candidates offer starkly different leadership styles, policy differences, and philosophies of governance. But, just listening to their words, it’s sometimes difficult to tell who said what to whom.

We’ve pulled the following quotes from the excellent resource website, “On The Issues.” See if you can identify the speaker as Mitt Romney, or Hillary Clinton.

1) “I am adamantly against illegal immigrants. People have got to stop employing illegal immigrants. you see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work & construction work & domestic work.”

2) “We have to have our citizens insured, and we’re not going to do that by tax exemptions, because the people that don’t have insurance aren’t paying taxes.”

3) “I hate the idea of in any way making it more difficult for kids, even those who are illegal aliens, to afford college.”

4) “We need to stand firm on behalf of sensible gun control legislation.”

5) “I also support an assault weapon ban.”

6) “The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.”

7) “I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion.”

8] “We ought to be providing domestic partnership benefits for people who are in homosexual and lesbian relationships.”

_________________________________________

The answers:

(1) Hillary, (2) Mitt, (3) Mitt, (4) Hillary, (5) Mitt, (6) Hillary, (7) Hillary, (8) Hillary

So, how did you do? If you got all 8 correctly, you win this pdf of Hillary Clinton’s 1969 Wellesley thesis, “There Is Only The Fight,” (suitable for downloading).

Enjoy!

P.S. — I started to say something about the commonality of Hillary seeing Dr. MLK in Chicago, 1962, and Mitt “seeing” his father march with Dr. MLK, but I decided that might be piling on a bit. Heh™.

Source: bloggers4huckabee.wordpress.com

original post by Nuke

NowPublic

Tags: America | Chicago | Clinton | england | ROMNEY | Activism | being | CANDIDATE | challenges | contrasting | criticisms | DEMOCRATIC | Domestic | downright | flip-flopping | Government | governor | HILLARY | HYPOCRISY | illegal | immigrants | insured | interchangeable | leadership | lightening | LISTENING | mitt | opportunism | Opposites | pandering | Philosophies | polar | policy | Politics | quiz | rhetoric | solutions | something | speeches | starkly | statements | stump | styles | v | vision | voters | words