A Ray of Hope For Romney

It isn't much of one, but he'll take what he can get tonight. It comes from Tom Bevan at the RCP blog:

Giuliani dropping out helps McCain, right? Well, not so fast. According to the exit polls, 49% of those who voted for Rudy today picked Mitt Romney as their 2nd choice while 44% picked McCain. And, interestingly, those who voted for Huckabee overwhelmingly picked McCain as their top 2nd choice over Mitt Romney, 54% to 32%.

If that pattern holds outside Florida, having Rudy out and Huck still in could actually give Romney an unexpected boost going into February 5th. Just not nearly enough of one, I think, to stave off what looks like an inevitable defeat.

In hindsight, these numbers suggest that the real turning point came last week in South Carolina. If Huckabee had won there, weakening McCain and strengthening himself going into Florida, he might have taken enough votes from McCain today to allow Romney to sneak into first - and a Romney victory tonight would have the stage for a long, drawn-out, three-way race to the convention, in which Mitt's money and organization and the backing of the movement establishment might well have put him over the top. Which means that Fred Thompson, by tearing down Huckabee in South Carolina, probably delivered his old friend John McCain the nomination. I doubt he's sorry to have done it.

Comments

If Thompson were a true conservative, he would put his endorsement behind the only true conservative left - Huckabee. Limbaugh and Hannity haven't taken the time to look at the facts on Huckabee's record. Instead of doing some leg work, they listen to Romney talking points, and the media headlines and label him a "liberal." Tell that to the Democrats who fought Huckabee for 10 1/2 years in Arkansas. They were so upset a Republican had been elected that they nailed the governor's office door shut from the inside. If Democrats dislike him that much, I doubt he's liberal. Do a little research folks. You might be surprised at what you find.

Posted by Tina | January 29, 2008 11:54 PM

I am hoping Romney still pulls this out. McCain has shown his utter disregard for honor in the way he managed his campaign in Florida, and he had to rely on Governor Crist turning against his own state's economy (perhaps for a position in the administration?) to get the win. Romney was up by 6% just before the endorsement.

Another lesson repeated from history: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men like Jeb Bush to do nothing.

Posted by Jed Merrill, ConservativeRepublicans.com | January 30, 2008 12:33 AM

There isn't much more enjoyable than watching Repiglicans castrate and cannibalize each other.

I'm enjoying this year in politics.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 30, 2008 12:57 AM

Fred Thompson: lazy like a fox!

Posted by Darth Beckman | January 30, 2008 1:05 AM

Before the Florida Primary I thought Romney might, in the event of a close loss, might have a chance afterwards. But looking at the polls, it's all but over. McCain's leading now virtually everywhere and will get a bump because of Florida and another one when Rudy endorses him. Romney will lose big on Feb. 5, and then he'll drop out. I'm a big supporter of Romney's and wonder what he'll do after the campaign.

I'm worried about how McCain will fair against the Dems. Seems that in a debate his sneer will only go so far, and then he'll get his clock cleaned by Hillary or Barack. Plus, his age could become an issue in a narrative battle with Barack.

Posted by Andrew | January 30, 2008 1:55 AM

Your analysis is perfect, reflecting much of what I had recognized, and it adds more insights than I had even noticed.

Just as the conventional wisdom is fortunately wrong that Rudy's supporters would turn to McCain instead of Romney, I am disappointed to see that 40% of the people who are concerned about the economy voted for McCain, while only 32% voted for Romney, and I'm reassuringly surprised that 29% of those who are concerned about terrorism voted for Romney, while a lower 26% voted for McCain. It is even more perplexing to see that 39% of the people who think that the current national economic condition is good voted for Romney, while 26% voted for McCain, and that 41% of the people who think that the economy is doing poorly voted for McCain, while only 23% voted for Romney. All of these numbers show the opposite trend to what everyone had expected and contradict the platform specialties of the candidates.

As a Latter-day Saint, though, I am pleased and relieved to again see that evangelicals evenly split their vote between Huckabee and Romney (with McCain only 3% behind) as happened in other recent states, showing that religious prejudice is not as much of an issue as it had been in Iowa and South Carolina. Romney even interestingly attracted the largest proportion of Protestant votes, which is gratifying. Exit polls regarding Catholic votes are contradictory and confusing.

Although Romney is in 4th place in Tennessee and Minnesota and in 5th place in Oklahoma, I believe that he would almost certainly inherit Thompson's strong following in Tennessee, pushing him to the top there, and inherit most of Thompson's following and much of Giuliani's following in Oklahoma and Minnesota, pushing him above Huckabee and McCain, respectively, in those states. He naturally already has Utah, Massachusetts, and Colorado. Any hope in other states will depend on developments in the coming days.

Romney was largely ignored by the press in his very close second-place finishes (with his first-place finishes being mostly discounted) in previous states, but he is ironically attracting some attention in Florida despite a more distant second-place finish there.

I actually prefer other candidates as far as personality goes, even though his personality is much like that of Gore and Kerry, with whom I can more easily identify as an intellectual, regardless of my more conservative views. However, I have been hoping for a Romney win in order to drive Americans to lds.org, speeches.byu.edu, gospelink.com, maxwellinstitute.byu.edu, etc., out of curiosity triggered by attention focused on Romney, in addition to a reinforcement in the minds of North Americans that Latter-day Saints tend to personify the ideal family as was a common view while the Osmonds were so popular, long before people started mistakenly confusing us more recently with the polygamous break-away groups that isolate themselves from society in the Southwest.

The prejudice and misunderstanding toward the Church that have been so publicly expressed in the past year have utterly shocked most members in Canada and the U.S., as we had falsely assumed that everyone was already familiar with and quite favorably viewed the Church and its members, which has surprisingly not been the case outside the Rocky Mountain corridor.

Posted by Maamiyn | January 30, 2008 2:28 AM

Maamiyn writes: "I actually prefer other candidates as far as personality goes, even though his personality is much like that of Gore and Kerry, with whom I can more easily identify as an intellectual, regardless of my more conservative views. However, I have been hoping for a Romney win in order to drive Americans to lds.org, speeches.byu.edu, gospelink.com, maxwellinstitute.byu.edu, etc., out of curiosity triggered by attention focused on Romney, in addition to a reinforcement in the minds of North Americans that Latter-day Saints tend to personify the ideal family as was a common view while the Osmonds were so popular, long before people started mistakenly confusing us more recently with the polygamous break-away groups that isolate themselves from society in the Southwest."

Are Mormon "intellectuals" addicted to commas?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 30, 2008 2:38 AM

I feel somewhat demoralized and less hopeful than this post would otherwise persuade me to be. I initially didn't think Romney had a chance in Florida because of Giuliani's effort there, but as Giuliani faded and Romney rose in the local polls, my anticipation rose, only to be disappointed this evening. I hadn't looked at the polls for subsequent states until now, and no matter how you view the numbers, there doesn't appear to be much hope for Romney. Of course everything has been in flux for weeks or months, and many things change with each debate and primary, so I suppose there is always hope, and I guess there are too many unknown factors ahead. Uncharacteristic exit poll numbers confuse things further.

I, too, have assumed that McCain would fare better in the general election because of his more moderate (or even liberal) views, but from what I've seen south of the border in the post-Nixon era, Americans are very superficial in their voting (though you would undoubtedly deny it), valuing image above all else. While the primaries and caucuses attract people who are concerned about issues and are polarized in their views, non-registered voters would far more likely vote for someone who looks and sounds like Romney than any other candidate in a general election. Americans tend to vote for those with a powerful image and some sense of seniority. Unlike elections in the rest of the English-speaking world, I just don't see Americans voting for a woman. It doesn't fit your traditional image of the war general president, which appears to be your ideal. Although prejudice interestingly may not arise against a second-generation Afro-American, I don't see you voting for someone as young as Obama.

Considering that Americans are much more moderate than is reflected in your polarized two-party system, which favors the nomination of people on the edge of the political spectrum, I can't help but think that you really need a more representative three-party system. If I were American, I would be frustrated to not see the more moderate candidates win a nomination due to the polarization that is natural when only two parties are dominant. In such a situation, Americans would almost inevitably have to choose between the lesser of two "evils" in every election.

In reality, though, I do recognize that fairly moderate candidates do succeed, but it appears as though they have to portray themselves as being more conservative or more liberal than they actually are just to get the nominations, which nurtures some degree of insincerity or even deception.

In all of my conversations in Canada, none of my fellow Mormons view Romney very favorably. Mormons are naturally very conservative, but I see Romney as fairly unnaturally embracing a more conservative platform than actually reflects his personal views, making him appear less personable, not unlike how he had to espouse a more liberal platform in Massachusetts than what he personally embraced, which was similarly suspect. I suppose one can combine those two observations into the assumption that Romney must be a political opportunist, but we tight-knit Mormons are loathe to judge our own so harshly, and I think that it really does have a lot to do with the polarization fostered by your two-party system as forcing such a necessity.

The Huckabee phenomenon was purely a product of religious prejudice, with him being the recipient of a protest vote rather than an actual conscious supportive vote, and he benefitted from the pure luck that Iowa was the site of the first caucus. Since then, even evangelical Christians have largely come to their senses, but some are still persuaded to actively vote for him due to the press's sense of political correctness in perpetuating the charade by avoiding a depiction of the Iowa vote as the religiously prejudiced protest vote that it was. Huckabee, who anyone would admit is entirely unelectable, is clearly hurting Romney's chances by diverting much of the conservative vote that Romney could use to win and successfully represent the Republicans in a general election. I wish conservative talk-show hosts like Limbaugh and O'Reilly would convince Huckabee to quickly bow out for the sake of conservative representation (by Romney) of those who comprise the audience of such talk-shows.

Okay, I realize that last statement contradicts my main point that a two-party system cripples moderate candidates, but in this case, the conservative candidate is the one who represents my religious hopes (greater visibility for the LDS Church) despite my personal preference for someone like McCain who should have beat Bush. I guess we all do vote for much more than a political platform—whether it be superficial appearance and demeanor, a variety of prejudices, or support of a candidate from one's own gender, race, age, local origin, ethnic, educational, occupational, or religious group—so I can't really complain or ridicule Americans.

Posted by Andrew J | January 30, 2008 3:44 AM

"He smiled and said it would be a great experience if you won and a great experience if you lost," Romney recalled the words of President Gordon Hinckley of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Mitt Romney has everything but he sees a need to help with the problems in Washington. I am still shock by the ignorance and bias of many especially the evangelical Christians. Mitt is also facing resentment, envy, and jealousy because he's got everything to be the next president of the USA. And even if he doesn't win, he helps to bring record awareness from the world about his religion. Win or lost, Mitt Romney is still a winner.

Posted by Savea7 | January 30, 2008 4:54 AM

WHY IS NO ONE DISCUSSING THE VOTER FRAUD IN FLORIDA?

Exit Polling indicates that almost 40% of the REPUBLICAN ELECTORATE yesterday was either MODERATE or LIBERAL! 11% alone were LIBERALS!

20% of those that voted claimed they were INDEPEDENTS or DEMOCRATS!

Can I remidn everyone that this was supposed to be a CLOSED PRIMARY?

In the SC OPEN PRIMARY, we only got 31% MODERATES and LIBERALS. In the NH OPEN PRIMARY, we only got 45% MODERATE and LIBERAL and in the MI OPEN PRIMARY, we got 45% MODERATE and LIBERAL.

So on average, we got as many MODERATES and LIBERALS voting in a CLOSED PRIMARY as we had in OPEN PRIMARIES and they voted 2:1 for McCain?

This is STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!

Add to this that Rush Limbaugh reported yesterday that INDEPEDENTS were being allowed to vote REPUBLICAN yesterday and we have the makings of MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD.

Posted by Bill Mitchell | January 30, 2008 6:29 AM

It is sad to see Romney go - particularly since his strengths (the economy, managerial experience, being outside of Washington) would have played well in the fall.

And I am sorry that prejudice may have helped defeat him. But I am not sorry for him personally on that score. When the time came to stand up to those who were religion-baiting (remember his remarks about all Muslims - not just Islamic fundamentalists), Romney, instead of standing up to them, joined them. When you play with fire, you get burned. I am sad that an LDS candidate faces so much prejudice even today. Perhaps this will be a good lesson that when you are being discriminated against, the best strategy is to take the discrimination head-on and not try to divert attention by expressing a prejudice about others who are even less popular.

Posted by Nate | January 30, 2008 10:04 AM

I don't think prejudice had much to do with Romney's loss. His personality type doesn't fit the GOP mold. He isn't charismatic like Reagan or Bush. He could never mix it up among the common folk.

The flip-flopping also hurt a lot. The most recent presidential election pitted Bush versus Kerry. The two greatest charges against Kerry were he was from Massachusetts and that he flip-flopped. Romney evoked this memory too much.

Romney had no compelling narrative. Reagan had the narrative of being the voice of the conservative movement for 16 years, leading his flock in the lonely wilderness from the time of "The Speech" in 1964 until he won in 1980. George W. Bush has the compelling story of overcoming alcoholism and making himself right with his family and God. Even that apostate John McCain had the heartbreaking story of not abandoning his fellow prisoners; he elected to stay in hell for 5 1/2 years. (I couldn't have lasted 5 1/2 hours.) What was Romney's story? He had a family that got along with each other? Heck, I have that.

Posted by Thomas | January 30, 2008 10:57 AM

Religious bias against a Mormon?

What does that claim even mean? Mormons voted 94% for Romney in Nevada. Quite naturally, they voted for one of their own. Who would blame them? It is a natural thing to do. It is equally permissible for Christians to vote against Mormons because they want to vote for one of their own.

There is no need to accuse one another of bias. It's human nature, and entirely defensible.

Romney's Mormonism, while not publicly discussed much, was indeed a demerit in the eyes of many Christians. That's life.

Best of luck to Romney, who seems a very decent human being.

Posted by Brian | January 30, 2008 12:45 PM

Thomas writes: "George W. Bush has the compelling story of overcoming alcoholism and making himself right with his family and God."

And now he has the pathetic record as the worst president in American history. Apparently those who bought in to his "compelling story" have poor taste in narratives.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 30, 2008 2:19 PM

Huckabee is selling out the conservative Christians he campaigns to (i myself am a conservative Christian) in order to buy himself a spot on McCain's ticket. He is splitting the conservative and evangelical base intentionally to help McCain...just listen to his FLorida concession (sounds a little like an endorsement). Romney is far more conservative than McCain and a better choice. In fact, although i like Huckabee's prolife stance (which is my main issue) Romney is Pro-life and conservative on everything that Huckabee is not...You can say Romney is not trustworthy, but McCain panders to the left, and Huckabee sounds and thinks like a democrat, I am more confident in Romney's conservatism!

Posted by Brad | January 30, 2008 2:23 PM

Isn't is funny, not really, that the "Christians" would rather back McCain who had numerous affairs, his wife a result of one of them. His children wouldn't even go to his wedding. His current wife had a drug addiction and stole money from her charity to aid in her addiction!!!. But heaven forbid we put an honest mormon in office.

Posted by Stephanie | January 30, 2008 3:02 PM

Isn't is funny, not really, that the "Christians" would rather back McCain who had numerous affairs, his wife a result of one of them. His children wouldn't even go to his wedding. His current wife had a drug addiction and stole money from her charity to aid in her addiction!!!. But heaven forbid we put an honest mormon in office.

Posted by Stephanie | January 30, 2008 3:03 PM

Poll Reading 101

Perhaps no one recognizes that in Florida it is perfectly natural for the Snow Birds 2nd choice to be another nor' easter' and the 'good ole boys" second choice is always going to be McCain. I know, 'cause I'm one of 'em. So give it up...if Huckabee dropped out, there is no way that Romney would ever get Huckabee's votes...no way!

Posted by Don | January 30, 2008 3:12 PM

Of course there ia a bias against certain religions ,by those who espouse tolerance of all, by those who proclaim to be Christian, by those who feel education is an excuse for lack of wisdom. Yet( unlike Christ) many of you deny Mormons their right to be Christian expansively, not just hemispherically (not sure if that is the word) meaning Mormons believe in Christ as a God for all peoples-one that communicated to all peoples, not just one group or people. Traditional Christians deny many other Christian religions the right to believe they are truely Christian ,if they believe God spoke to anyone other than the ancient peoples of the Old and New Testament. They limit a God that is limitless. A true leader needs to allow all people their beliefs...as long as your needs end where it harms another's life, beliefs and needs.We are even antiwar-but pro democracy and will protect ourselves and yes..even others from dictatorship.

Posted by des | January 30, 2008 3:18 PM

Of course there ia a bias against certain religions ,by those who espouse tolerance of all, by those who proclaim to be Christian, by those who feel education is an excuse for lack of wisdom. Yet( unlike Christ) many of you deny Mormons their right to be Christian expansively, not just hemispherically (not sure if that is the word) meaning Mormons believe in Christ as a God for all peoples-one that communicated to all peoples, not just one group or people. Traditional Christians deny many other Christian religions the right to believe they are truely Christian ,if they believe God spoke to anyone other than the ancient peoples of the Old and New Testament. They limit a God that is limitless. A true leader needs to allow all people their beliefs...as long as your needs end where it harms another's life, beliefs and needs.We are even antiwar-but pro democracy and will protect ourselves and yes..even others from dictatorship.

Posted by des | January 30, 2008 3:19 PM

Of course there ia a bias against certain religions ,by those who espouse tolerance of all, by those who proclaim to be Christian, by those who feel education is an excuse for lack of wisdom. Yet( unlike Christ) many of you deny Mormons their right to be Christian expansively, not just hemispherically (not sure if that is the word) meaning Mormons believe in Christ as a God for all peoples-one that communicated to all peoples, not just one group or people. Traditional Christians deny many other Christian religions the right to believe they are truely Christian ,if they believe God spoke to anyone other than the ancient peoples of the Old and New Testament. They limit a God that is limitless. A true leader needs to allow all people their beliefs...as long as your needs end where it harms another's life, beliefs and needs.We are even antiwar-but pro democracy and will protect ourselves and yes..even others from dictatorship.

Posted by des | January 30, 2008 3:20 PM

Actually, Romney is the brightest and most articulate of all the presidential candidates with a proved record of being a first-class businessman and governor. He would make a fine president.

His problem is that that he compromised his social conservative principles when running for governor and many evangelicals will simply not consider a Mormon. Also, though he tries hard to be personable, he comes across to the hoi polloi as a rather stiff moralist who enjoyed cutting labor costs.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | January 30, 2008 3:49 PM

I am really happy that Mitt Romney is going to continue. He is doing loads of service for the LDS Church that most people do not even realize. By "staying away from it" (in contrast to Huckabee) he is actually drawing many to it. And I am glad he is decent. He is not a potty-mouth like McCain. I cannot even imagine McCain as a president. He has been a hellion since youth and even though he has grown older, he has not grown up. Check out his mother! Both are so immature in so many ways. I think I would vote for Obama before McCain, if Romney doesn't get it.

Posted by Emmaline | January 30, 2008 3:57 PM

A Romney-bot posted: "And I am glad he is decent. He is not a potty-mouth like McCain. I cannot even imagine McCain as a president. He has been a hellion since youth and even though he has grown older, he has not grown up. Check out his mother! Both are so immature in so many ways."

I couldn't make up half the comedic nonsense coming out of the keyboards of these Romney-bots. Just hilarious stuff.

Repiglicans love voting for immature, potty-mouthed hellions. Just look at the 200 pound tumor that's been in the White House these past 7 years.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 30, 2008 4:06 PM

For any that may not know this, Mitt Romney had a close relative die from a botched illegal abortion prior to Rowe v. Wade.

He loved this family member. And it profoundly impacted his view on that issue. He was authentically against abortion. But, because of that terrible loss, came to feel that the most effective way to deal with the ugly monster of abortion was in the light of day--a context of choice. So, those needing help would not turn to back-allies. But instead come into the light where they could be openly encouraged to consider adoption. I'm sure this rubs many as way off. But, it came from personal, terribly painful experience with a dear loved one. It wasn't pandering to a Massachussets voting base. Not AT ALL.

He later studied and meditated further on that issue and decided the other way of fighting abortion--in the context of it being illegal--was better. It was an authentic emotional and spiritual evolution.

The ability to grow and mature is not a weakness. It's a strength.

Posted by Mary | January 30, 2008 4:10 PM

I cannot understand why Mike Huckabee is backing McCain:
- McCain is an Adulterer – he left his faithful wife, who stuck with him during the Vietnam captivity.
-McCain is a liberal - Huckabee is a rightwing Fundamentalist Evangelical conservative.
-McCain wanted amnesty – Mike claims to be against amnesty.
-McCain is for election reform – Huckabee is not.
-McCain wanted the Iraqi’s to set a timetable – Huckabee claims to be against it.
- McCain - a newly proclaimed Baptist for political purposes only, who never attends church. Huckabee, you know, the former ordained Baptist preacher.

There is hardly a difference between Huckabee and Romney politics. Both are morally upright. Both are strongly religious.

The only logical conclusion I can come up with that explains Mike Huckabees support for John McCain and is opposed to Romney: Mike Huckabee’s hatred for anything Mormon. Bigotry raises its ugly head again. Such a shame.

Huckabee is being used as McCain’s lapdog at the expense of the Conservative Republican Party. Hopefully, he and his Christian followers figure this out before it is too late.

Posted by J Scott | January 30, 2008 4:13 PM

I hear you J Scott. In fact, it was surprising for me to learn that Huckabee was the President of the Southern Baptist Convention when it held its convention in Salt Lake City. It would appear to me that Huckabee is still trying to politically up the religious thing against the Mormons.

I thought the religious things was not supposed to play a major part in politics. Apparently, Huckabee thinks that politics is a great way to take Mormons down. Where is the religious freedom we have all come to expect from our Constitution?

Posted by David | January 30, 2008 4:43 PM

As a Latter-Day Saint and Romney supporter, I fear Romney is on the way out of this Presidential race. I can't see voting McCain...who definitely doesn't represent me or my values as a Republican. If I'm going to have to vote liberal, or not vote at all, I'm leaning toward Obama. Could be interesting to see if other Latter-Day Saints are feeling the same way about how this race is shaping up.

Posted by steve | January 30, 2008 5:54 PM

Tina, ARE YOU KIDDING ME???????? Huckabee a conservative? Then why the h*** do you think all the conservative talk show hosts in America are getting behind Romney right now?

Posted by Teej MacArthur | January 30, 2008 6:21 PM

David writes: "In fact, it was surprising for me to learn that Huckabee was the President of the Southern Baptist Convention when it held its convention in Salt Lake City. It would appear to me that Huckabee is still trying to politically up the religious thing against the Mormons.

I thought the religious things was not supposed to play a major part in politics. Apparently, Huckabee thinks that politics is a great way to take Mormons down. Where is the religious freedom we have all come to expect from our Constitution?"

That comment is a completely incoherent non sequitur.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 30, 2008 7:20 PM

In reading your comments, I kept thinking, maybe we should nickname Huckabee, Judas. He is willing to sell what little conservative values he has to fight against the religion he profoundly hates. Let's cross our fingers that the true conservatives will come out and vote in support of Romney, if not, well, as I get older, four years will hopefully go by quickly. And the one good thing out of this, people are having to really check their prejudice against the LDS church and those that have heard all these silly things for years are now starting to find out what is fact and what is fiction. I admire Romney for what he has done in the past, the present and I am sure we will see him in the future. I also want to say that his wife really deserves a lot of credit, this can't be easy on her MS.

Posted by Julene | January 30, 2008 8:07 PM

I hope America wakes up. Mitt Romney is the only candidate that can lead this country forward with new and innovative ideas. John McCain is a good Senator and that is where he can do the most good. Stop and look at who these candidates will have as a running mate and who will they select for their cabinet.
McCain was a hero years ago, but he doesn't have the progressive ideas to lead this country. God forbid if hillary c. is elected. We are all in for a money laundering big government program.

Posted by CLAIR MENDENHALL | January 30, 2008 8:15 PM

So what is the charge exactly against non-Romney supporters? That they are bigoted? intolerant? uninformed? misled?

This is the type of clannish behavior which makes people think Mormons are weird. Sorry.

There were lots of good reasons to support candidates other than Romney. Just as there are lots of good reasons to find Mormonism unappealing. Welcome to the rough and tumble of democratic politics.

Mormons will have to learn that people have a right to judge them in ways that does take account of their religion--without leveling the knee-jerk charge of bigotry. This is part of entering into mainstream American culture. You will have to grow thicker skin. Your religion will not be petted.

Posted by Brian | January 30, 2008 8:21 PM

I am a conservative on practically every issue, but if McCain wins (due to his cheap and dirty political tricks this weekend), I'll vote for Obama. I can respect Obama. I will never vote for McCain!!!

Posted by Dan | January 31, 2008 12:17 AM

What a great President Romney would be. He has accomplished so much in this year of campaigning. I believe that a man who can withstand being "fired at" with all the "negatives" and still keep focused on the nation's challenges and the issues is my kind of President. Romney always talks issues. Romney has had the entire media and candidate field fighting him at every turn from day one. People don't attack that unless they recognize the strength of character and ability that is threatening their personal agendas.

Washington will not change Romney like it has McCain. Romney isn't going to Washington for himself, he is going to serve the nation and the people. Romney is a rare and remarkable man

Posted by Kay | January 31, 2008 8:51 AM

"So what is the charge exactly against non-Romney supporters?"

Well, if you have been listening outside your obvious bias against Mormons you would understand. It isn't that Mormons are upset because others are not voting for Romney. It is that they are voting for the likes of Huck and McCain that the normally conservative Republicans would not have given a second thought. Even the Republican establishment (the ones who usually represent the leadership of the party) are in most cases backing Romney over the others.

There can only be two conclusions about this. Republicans are generally becoming more liberal and moderate, or there is some kind of bias against Romney who has come off as the most Conservative of the candidates. Add to the anti-Mormon comments of the Huck and McCain operatives and the dogpile that followed and Mormons have become VERY suspicious. If someone like Duncan Hunter or even Fred Thompson were leading the feelings would be less disconcerting.

Here is the thing that has been demostrated even here. I don't know how strong the sentiment, but Obama is getting more support from Conservative Mormons than Huck or McCain is getting. As a recent saying goes, the only thing Mormons hate more than liberals are anti-Mormons, and both other Republican contenders have shown a willingness to use it when it suites them.

Posted by Jettboy | January 31, 2008 10:32 AM

Mitt Romney is a very great and very smart and very perfect and very qualified man for president and he loves America very much. Only Mitt Romney can do a very good job for the American people. Mitt Romney does not have personal ambition, he only wants what is best for you and for me. Mitt Romney has the chiseled good looks and high moral character we want in our president. Mitt Romney has never done anything wrong. Children and pets love Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney has never cursed. Mitt Romney is faithful and true and good. Mitt Romney can take America to the Promised Land because he's been there more times than I can count himself. Mitt Romney has all the ideas in the world in his head. Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, and did I mention Mitt Romney?

I think I'm going to vote for Mitt Romney.

Posted by Vaselinia | January 31, 2008 11:51 AM

Bill Mitchell (Jan 30 6:29 am).....you got it exactly right!! And NOBODY is saying ANYTHING!!! The FL Primary was FRAUD!! But, weather you support Mitt or not, McCain's win in FL is dirty. It smells like the BS that spills out of McCain's mouth whenever he makes an attempt at "straight talk". The Republican party has been infiltrated and is on the verge of being completely hijacked. McCain does not posess the capacity neither experientially nor mentally to make the changes in Washington, our economy, and ulimately in our country, that we so desperately need. And what of the recent major political endorsements (i.e. The Governator and Rudy)?? Hmmmmm......perhaps McCain has made some big promises. Speaking of which, I suppose he has reserved a very special spot for his man, Huckabee after The Huck is done working as a vote-splitter in an attempt to take votes from Romney. The thought of an supposed choice between FakeCain and Clinton nauseates me. It's not over. Take a long, hard look at who best represents your ideals, people. Perhaps we will end up with a nominee other than Hillary's male counter-part. If you don't want to have to choose between two Libs in the general election, then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!

Posted by Erik | January 31, 2008 7:04 PM