I couldn’t agree more with this analysis from Dick Morris:

For students of American politics, following the way the Romney campaign played Newt Gingrich in Florida is a lesson to learn and to keep. Romney’s people must have realized that Newt does best when he is positive. His bold ideas, clear vision, revolutionary insights and extraordinary perspectives resonate with voters and win him millions of supporters.

Romney, less compelling but more consistent, doesn’t need stellar debate performances or bold vision to win. The case for the former Massachusetts governor is more circumstantial: He can reach out to independents by virtue of his past apostasies on healthcare and abortion. He looks, talks and acts like a president. His record of job creation is exemplary.

But Newt needs the bold sally, the breathtaking moment of rhetorical clarity, to prevail.

So Romney’s people set out to mire Newt in negatives so he couldn’t and wouldn’t get out the positive message he needed to project to prevail. They tormented him with negative ads in Iowa. While the ads were generally accurate — the allegation about backing China’s forced-abortion policy aside — they presented only one side of the story and were stinging in their impact. Without funds, Gingrich couldn’t answer the negative ads. He fumed but watched, in impotence, as his vote share fell away.

In Spanish bullfights, the picadors torment the bull by sticking darts into his shoulders. Enraged, bleeding, frustrated and in pain, he lowers his head, snorts, paws the ground and charges straight at the matador, oblivious to the sword awaiting him behind the red cape. That’s about what Romney did to Gingrich in the January primaries.

The Hill

Mr. Morris is right.  Newt Gingrich is a higly educated, articulate man.  But he is also a man with an enormous ego and accompanying temper that he has great difficulty controlling.  As I have said in other posts, he simply does not have the temperment to go up against Barak Obama.  If he was whining about unfair treatment from Mitt Romney, he would literally self-combust against the President and his Chicago buddies.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has proven that he can not only dish it out with the best of them, but can take it as well and he can do so without losing his head.  He has shown, as Mr. Morris points out, “consistency” through out the campaign and “he looks, talks and acts like a president.”  He has also demonstrated a strong committment to traditional family values which the hard right values.  Mitt Romney’s “apostasies” are in the past.  In FL, Newt Gingrich proved that he hasn’t really changed all that much from his inconsistent, fiery, ego induced gaffe filled career and that turned voters off.

Below is a cross post from Jayde Wyatt at MittRomneyCentral.com

‘Colossally costly’ are the words being used to characterize the upcoming 2012 presidential contest.

Democrats have been outwardly boasting that Obama will have ONE BILLION dollars in his reelection war chest. Chances are slim that Obama will have to spend money in a primary challenge, so the bulk of the money he raises will be dedicated toward defeating his GOP challenger. As former Federal Election Commissioner Michael Toner told The Financial Times, “Any Republican who wishes to run in 2012 must seriously weigh whether he or she is capable of raising the $700 million or more that will be needed to compete with Obama.”

It’s no wonder that Mitt Romney is proceeding to build a fund-raising advantage:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has quietly launched a 15-city push to secure financial commitments from big-money “bundlers,” hoping to reveal a fund-raising network that would establish him as the prohibitive frontrunner for the Republican nomination for president.

Mr. Romney and top aides will meet Thursday in New York with nearly 100 donors—many from Wall Street— at the Harvard Club. Attendees are being asked to raise between $25,000 and $50,000 for Mr. Romney within 90 days, in an effort to post large fund-raising totals quickly, one person familiar with events said.

On Tuesday, Mr. Romney met with fund-raisers in downtown Washington, where he also gave his view of the early nominating caucuses and primaries.
[...]
Finance meetings are also scheduled for March 30 in Los Angeles, as well as in Detroit, Dallas, Houston and Atlanta, people familiar with plans said. Romney fund-raisers are set to converge on Las Vegas on May 16 for a final push ahead of the first financial filing deadline. The Las Vegas meeting will include a marathon phone-a-thon to reach donors, according to one fund-raiser involved in the plan.

“When the day is done and we’re in the thick of a presidential race, money will not be an obstacle for Gov. Romney,” said Lewis Eisenberg, a prominent hedge fund manager who will attend Thursday’s event.

“By early summer, the world will know what we’ve done,” another prominent fundraiser said.
[...]
More than 90 people are expected to attend the New York meeting Thursday, Among those expected: Mr. Eisenberg; New York Jets owner Woody Johnson, Manhattan real estate developer and Miami Dolphins owner Stephen M. Ross, and Emil Henry, a former top Treasury official in the George W. Bush administration.

The list shows Mr. Romney making inroads in courting fund-raisers who worked for Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), the 2008 Republican nominee. McCain’s two national finance chairmen—Mr. Eisenberg and Washington lobbyist Wayne Berman—are now with Mr. Romney. Mr. Johnson, led the fund-raising effort for the Republican National Convention in 2008, was also with Mr. McCain that year.
[...]

At the meeting in Washington, Governor Romney also spoke about the Massachusetts insurance plan. Don’t miss reading the entire article.

The money marathon is on…

Earlier this month, officials of Mr. Obama’s fledgling re-election campaign told about 450 donors to raise $350,000 each before the end of the year, a total of more than $157 million that, if reached, would start the president off on what many expect to be a billion-dollar re-election effort.

While outwardly proclaiming being able to raise a billion dollars in funds to reelect Obama, behind closed doors it’s another story. The President’s handlers are sounding the alarm bell to boost donations. Jim Messina, who will become Obama’s campaign manager next month, has begun presenting a reelection strategy across the country. It consists of a 10-page slide show entitled ‘Change that Matters’ designed to inspire liberal donors. It also details potential weaknesses of likely opponents.

The president’s political aides, people at the meetings said, are trying to establish stronger ties to some of these donors as they navigate what may be a difficult fund-raising environment.

[...]Part of Mr. Messina’s presentation is to caution donors that while Mr. Obama has recovered after the trouncing his party took in the 2010 elections and is well-positioned for 2012, he will face a tough re-election fight that will require substantial donor support[...].

It’s important to remember that Obama raised $779 million from almost 4 million donors during the 2008 campaign. That’s more than the combined totals raised by both Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and President George Bush during the 2004 presidential race. From CQ MoneyLine:

…Should he crack the $1 billion mark, Obama in one cycle will have raised roughly as much as the top Democratic and Republican candidates from the 2000 and 2004 cycles combined.

Romney’s impressive conservative credentials and values, life experience, and sharp intellect uniquely qualify him to lead our nation. It’s going to be a high-stakes 2012 presidential race and the GOP is facing a determined, union-backed, incumbent President.

Romney’s got the right message. Now, he’s getting the money.

If you care about who gets elected in 2012, you’d better be prepared to open your wallet. Donate to Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC here.

See here for “Romney Laying Groundwork for Rollout of “Overwhelming Force”

Mitt Romney told a group of major donors on a conference call Friday that he plans to get into the presidential race “down the road.”

He didn’t specify a time frame, but the remark was in keeping with his previous statements that if he gets in, his 2012 effort would start later than his 2008 campaign did.

Continue Reading

Romney’s 2008 finance director, Spencer Zwick, told those on the call that the finance team is putting together a list of potential donors in order to be prepared for a potential campaign, a source who was on the call told POLITICO.

A Romney aide confirmed these details and said 300 top Romney backers were on the call.

The source said Mike Eruzione, the former U.S. Olympic hockey player, asked Romney when — not if — he would get in the race, and Romney said an announcement would happen “down the road.”

Romney also spoke about his recent trip to the Middle East and the paperback release of his book, “No Apology,” according to the source.

Also speaking on the call were former Missouri Sen. Jim Talent, former eBay CEO and failed California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman and former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld. All are longtime Romney allies.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48895.html#ixzz1D3jYF9gm

Mitt Romney addressed the American-Israel Public Affiars Comittee (AIPAC) this morning in San Diego.  Mitt had some harsh words for Iran, and for President Obama for his lack of spine in dealing with Iran.

Here is a short take from Chris Cilliza on The Fix.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) condemned the Obama Administration’s approach toward Iran, a republic he described as “unalloyed evil” and controlled by “ruthless and fanatical” leaders in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee today in San Diego.

“Stop thinking that a charm offensive will talk the Iranians out of their pursuit of nuclear weapons,” said Romney. “It will not.” Later in the address, he punctuated that sentiment by noting: “Once an outstretched hand is met with a clenched fist, it becomes a symbol of weakness and impotence.”

Here is the full text of Governor Romney’s address to AIPAC:

It is a pleasure to participate in this national summit. The work you do has always been important— working to make Israel more secure, ensuring that American support remains strong, and confirming that Israel and America stand shoulder-to-shoulder in an increasingly dangerous world. I believe that your work is about to become far more important. It is for that reason that I flew here today to speak with you.

I have been to Israel twice – mostly recently in 2007. I came away encouraged by what I saw. On that last trip, I traveled (with some of the people in this room) by helicopter to Al-Fay Menasha. It was to tour a strategic span in the security fence, standing between the center of Israel and the West Bank. It is at that point that one can see just how narrow the waist of Israel actually is.

I was struck during that tour by the IDF officer that was briefing us. He bent over backwards to explain how low and how unobtrusive the fence was—how much effort had been expended to keep it from being too imposing. At one point, I respectfully interrupted him to explain that he didn’t need to apologize…at least not to this American. Because if America lived in a neighborhood like Israel’s, with suicide bombers crossing into our country to kill children in school buses, we’d be building a fence that was higher, thicker and hard as concrete. Israel should be proud that it values the blood of its countrymen—of its children—above the approbation of foreign bureaucrats.

During my last trip, I was impressed with the business community. As you know, my career was in business, as a management consultant, a venture capitalist and as a private equity investor. While in Israel, we met with entrepreneurs and business people. Their ingenuity demonstrated why it is that Israel has the highest density of start-ups in the world, and more companies on NASDAQ than all of India, China, Korea, Japan, and Europe combined. I understand that there is talk among some European organizations about boycotting Israeli products and barring Israeli academics. If they do, they will be punishing themselves more than they hurt Israel. Brilliant innovation and technology have always been able to penetrate the walls built by the uninformed, protectionist and prejudiced, and they always will.

Most of all, I was impressed with the people of Israel. That people actually immigrate to Israel, rather than fleeing from the threatening and violent neighborhood of the Middle East, is a testament to their courage, faith and character. It is an inspiration to an often self-indulgent world.

America and Israel are bound together by common commitments and shared values. We believe in representative democracy and human rights. We believe in the rule of law–in learning, scholarship, and free inquiry. We believe in the dignity of the human soul and in its God-given right to ascend above government domination… with freedom to speak, worship, associate and think as one desires.

And because we share the same values, we also share many of the same adversaries. We reject oppression, terrorism, authoritarianism. Violent Jihadists have referred to America as the “great Satan” and to Israel as the “little Satan.” Of course, they don’t recognize the irony, committed as they are to the imposition of power over others, to violence, to brutality, to the subjugation of women and girls and to bigotry and racism.

Israel has been fighting all of these things from the moment it was born. As the United States carries on that fight in countries scattered across the globe, we know that Israel is America’s most ardent ally in the Middle East.

The world is fast becoming a more dangerous place. Liberty and peace are threatened in new and frightful ways. Russia is returning to its authoritarian ways, fueled by its energy stranglehold on Europe. China has married the power of free enterprise with the oppression of Communist rule. Violent Jihadists are fighting to crush people and nations across the globe. And rogue nations with maniacal autocrats are recklessly pursuing nuclear capabilities that puts the world in jeopardy. Left unchecked, a nuclear race will be joined by many, many others.

For all these reasons, America needs strong allies. This is one reason why I am so very concerned by the current drift in our government’s relationship with Israel. In pursuit of a peace process, the United States today has exerted substantial pressure on Israel while putting almost no pressure on the Palestinians and the Arab world.

Consider how little we ask of the Arab world. Why is it that only Egypt and Jordan have peace agreements with Israel? What about Saudi Arabia? The Saudi government will not even sit in the same room as the Israelis, let alone normalize relations or work towards a realistic peace agreement. In 2007, at the height of the Olmert-Abbas peace track, the Saudis were demanding that more U.S. companies comply with their boycott of Israel.

Israel, on the other hand, has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to a lasting and realistic peace. As you know well, in 2005, for example, Israel handed over the Gaza strip to the Palestinians. This generous, unilateral act was met in return with rockets fired into Israel, with a coup by Hamas in Gaza, and with two wars – one on the Lebanese border and another in Gaza.

Inexplicably, the United States now places the burden on Israel to make still more unilateral concessions. At the United Nations, we decried the building of new Israeli settlements but ignored the launching of Palestinian rockets. How is this possible? Have we not yet learned from the concessions in Gaza, as well as from all recorded history, that giving in to the demands of oppressors always and only leads to more demands, not to peace?

We can encourage both parties in the conflict, but we must never forget which one is our ally. Nor must we forget that Hamas, like other violent Jihadists, does not have a two-state solution as its objective—it has the conquest and annihilation of Israel as its objective. The notion that Hamas and violent Jihadists are motivated by “shared interests” and “common goals” is naïve in the extreme and dangerous to the entire free world.

This is one reason why America must never cede to the United Nations our commitment to Israel, our leadership of the free world and our defense of liberty. I will happily agree that the UN has done some good in its history. But I will also insist that it has also done terrible damage to the causes it claims to uphold. And on no issue has it been more irresponsible and morally reckless than when considering the fate of Israel.

Time and time again, the UN has become a forum for invective against the Jewish state. We saw it in 1975, when the UN passed an anti-Semitic resolution that condemned Israel as racist. And we have seen it in just the last few weeks, when the UN gave a platform to a Holocaust-denier who has pledged over and over again that he will wipe out Israel. It was a grotesque moment and another stain on the reputation of the United Nations. And congratulations to Prime Minister Netanyahu for having the moral courage to say what needed to be said to those members of the United Nations who stayed to listen to Mahmoud Achmadinejad—”Have you no shame!”

But the outrage did not stop there. A report, titled “United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict,” was the latest in a long line of infamous acts. The so-called Goldstone Report took Israel to task for defending itself after being pummeled by more than 7,000 missiles fired on Israel by Hamas. Hamas not only was targeting innocent civilians — it was also using innocent Palestinians as human shields. Israel took extraordinary measures to prevent civilian casualties. Yet who did the UN Human Rights Council see fit to condemn? Israel. Again, the words of Prime Minister Netanyahu, “A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.”

A world in which America is more attuned to the approbation of the United Nations than to its ally Israel is a world in peril. May this never be so.

My concern extends to our entire foreign policy. If the U.S. Government engages tyrannies and autocracies – countries like Iran and North Korea, Syria and Russia, Sudan and Zimbabwe – based on the conviction that we are dealing with common interests more than competing interests, it will not end well.

Dean Acheson, President Truman’s Secretary of State, offered wise and timely counsel. Following the 2nd World War, America had recognized that not every power on this planet shared our goals and values. And this realization is what shaped the foreign policy that has guided us for 60 or so years. Truman, he said, had been “released from the acceptance of a dogma that builders and wreckers of a new world order could and should work happily and successfully together, [Truman] was free to combine our power and coordinate our action with those who did have a common purpose.”

Our approach to international relations must continue to adhere to the vision of Truman and Acheson. First, we should treat our allies like the allies they are. That means, for starters, not being harder on them, or demanding more from them, than we do from our adversaries. It means treating them with respect rather than offense. It means striving to make their lives easier rather than harder.

In short, we should honor the basic rules that govern state-to-state affairs. “Foreign policy commitments are not to be made and unmade at will,” Margaret Thatcher once said. “We cannot expect others to keep their word to us, unless we keep our word to them.”

Keeping our word to our allies is a matter of honor, but it is also a matter of self-interest. The United States needs allies for economic, political, and national security reasons. Good allies and strong alliances allow us to share the burdens we carry, complement and supplement our efforts, and present a united front against those who wish us harm.

When we treat any ally in a desultory manner – and especially if we act in a way that causes them to question our reliability, our resolve, our commitment and staying power – then they as well as our other allies, all of whom are watching very closely, will turn to others for their security.
When Poland and the Czech Republic are humiliated by us, they lose confidence in America’s support for them, and they may decide that they must incline more toward Russia.

If our friends in Latin America like Colombia become convinced that we are turning our back on them, they may feel compelled to become more accommodating to Hugo Chavez.

If Japan believes the United States is weakening its commitment in the Pacific, it may distance itself from America and draw closer to China.
When defenders of democracy and the rule of constitution and law in Honduras find that we have sided with their pro-Chavez illegal opposition, freedom fighters across the world, re-calculate their chances for success.

And if Arab nations believe that we will accommodate Iran’s ambition to dominate the Middle East with nuclear weapons, they will move closer to that very nation.
Whenever or wherever America steps away from one of its friends and allies, or shrinks in the face of belligerent tyrants, those who are allied with us may understandably or inevitably step closer to our foes. The advance of human rights and the defense of liberty demand that America stands firm with its allies—all of them.

I now want to say more about Iran. The Iranian leadership is the greatest immediate threat to the world since the fall of the Soviet Union, and before that, Nazi Germany. Mr. Ahmadinejad, has gone well beyond the boundary of outrage — beginning with his calculated desecration of history. When he denies the Holocaust, he could care less about history. His point is about the present and the future. His purpose is not merely to deny the Holocaust, but also to deny Israel. He is testing the waters. He wants to know who will object. And how they will register their objection.

The Iranian regime threatens not only Israel, but also every other nation in the region, and ultimately the world. It is a repressive regime… an intractable enemy of liberty and human rights… the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and subversive war. The threat it poses to the world would take on an entirely new dimension if Iran were allowed to become a nuclear power.

Earlier this month, senior staff members of the U.N. nuclear agency concluded in a confidential analysis that Iran has acquired “sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable” atom bomb. We also learned of a previously secret, illegal uranium enrichment facility that the Iranians had been hiding near Qom. A nuclear Iran would be a tipping point in the proliferation of nuclear regimes. It is beyond the scope of this address to provide a detailed tactical and strategic approach to Iran, as I endeavored to do at the Herzylia conference two years ago. In that address, I detailed the six critical steps that would have to immediately be taken to dissuade Iran from nuclear folly. Not a single one of them has been taken by America.

At this late stage I would simply say that it is long past time for America to recognize the nature of the regime we are dealing with. The Iranian regime is unalloyed evil, run by people who are at once ruthless and fanatical. Stop thinking that a charm offensive will talk the Iranians out of their pursuit of nuclear weapons. It will not. And agreements, unenforceable and unverifiable, will have no greater impact here than they did in North Korea. Once an outstretched hand is met with a clenched fist, it becomes a symbol of weakness and impotence. President Eisenhower said it well: “the care of freedom is not long entrusted to the weak and timid.”
The President of the United States can employ his admiration and good will to actually accomplish something meaningful and real in Iran– comprehensive, withering sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and international support for the forces of freedom within Iran. The people of Iran represent a major source of strength. By and large, they have not been radicalized by their government and clerics; in fact, the regime’s effort to crush the uprising against it has only alienated the people of Iran. They fear economic stagnation and they hate political repression. Most are not seeking a military confrontation with the West. Indeed, most want greater engagement with the West.

And the military option must remain on the table – and that threat needs to be credible. Unfortunately– for reasons that are unfathomable to me – our Government has signaled that the military option is effectively off the table. How can that be countenanced when an ally of the United States faces an existential threat?
I don’t pretend for a moment that the course of action to take with Iran is easy or obvious; there are costs to anything we do – but there are even greater costs if we do nothing at all. If we allow Iran under the rule of the mullahs to get a nuclear weapon, it will make the problems America faces today look like a walk in the park.
The clock is ticking, with no real progress to show for the precious time that has already lapsed.

Earlier I mentioned President Truman. I’d like to end my remarks by recounting a remarkable day in the history of our two nations, as told by Michael Oren – Israel’s ambassador to the United States. He tells how word of Israel’s birth reached Washington on May 14, 1948. At that moment, the armies of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq were mobilizing for war against the nascent state. The question on everyone’s mind was whether the United States would recognize this new nation of Israel and its self-proclaimed government.

Alone in the White House, with much of the world and many in his own Administration against recognizing Israel, Truman pondered the ramifications of his decision. At eleven minutes past six in the evening, an administration spokesman appeared before reporters at the White House. “This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine and that recognition has been requested by the provisional government thereof.” Then, reading from a printed text, understating the momentousness of his message, the spokesman said, “The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the State of Israel.”

Truman never regretted his decision or the key role he played in mid-wifing the birth of the Jewish state. He understood how on every level – moral and geopolitical, cultural and historical – it was right for America to stand with Israel. Harry S. Truman was a wise and courageous president, a person of unshakeable principles, and a man who helped bend history in the direction of justice. Truman was a great president – in part because he was deeply committed to our friends, to our national character, and to the State of Israel. As it was, let us hope it shall be again.

Thank you very much.

MILWAUKEE — Former Massachusetts Gov. and potential presidential candidate Mitt Romney visited Milwaukee Thursday.

He promoted his new book and held a fundraiser for his political action committee.

He also sat down for a one-on-one interview with WISN 12 News’ Mike Gousha for this weekend’s edition of Upfront.

Gousha: I’m sure there are people who say he’s obviously running for president again; he’s just getting an early start on it.

Romney: I’m doing what’s necessary if you will; keep options open. But the decision to actually go ahead with a presidential run, that’s not something that I would really contemplate until after the November ’10. At that point you begin thinking about what’s the right thing to do.

Romney: Clearly if President Obama happened to be doing a great job as I hoped he would do when he got elected, that would influence my thoughts. But he’s taken this country in a very dangerous direction, and that makes it far more likely that folks are going to think about getting in and removing him from office.

Romney: Look, the fact that this recession is going to end and we’re going to come out of it is something every economist in America and in the world has said is going to happen. The question is did the stimulus work as well as it could have worked, and the answer is no.

Romney doesn’t believe that the president deserves credit for the economic recovery.

He also called Obama an apologist for the U.S.

Romney said that his political action committee will use the money it raised in Milwaukee to support Republican candidates across the country, in particular a couple of key governor’s races, Wisconsin’s not included.

To listen to the inerview, click here.

What better way to develop great clout with the Republican party than to be all over helping other candidates get elected?

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) is fundraising his way across the country, raising suspicions that the 2008 presidential contender is gearing up for another run.

Romney held fundraisers for his Free and Strong America political action committee in three states and the District of Columbia in September, and he will hold two more in Texas and Missouri this week, a spokesman confirmed to The Hill.

“Mitt Romney is doing what he can to strengthen the Republican Party nationally and help its candidates be successful, and that is going to take up more and more of his time as we get deeper into the 2010 cycle,” spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said.

Romney has made his presence felt in Virginia and New Jersey, two states where Republicans believe they have the chance to pick up governor seats.Romney hosted fundraisers for Virginia governor candidate Bob McDonnell, Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling and state delegate candidate Barbara Comstock in September, and he will host an event for the Republican Governors Association and former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie (R) in New Jersey on Oct. 12.

Last month, Romney also held a fundraiser for Republicans running for the Georgia state House. In a western swing, he raised money for his PAC by surrounding himself with prominent Republicans; Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the man who beat Romney in the 2008 primary, hosted a fundraiser with Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) in the Copper State, while Gov. Gary Herbert (R) hosted Romney in Utah.

On Friday, Romney will join Gov. Dave Heineman (R) for the Nebraska Republican Party’s Founder’s Day celebration. Later this month, he has a fundraiser planned for House Republicans in Massachusetts, and he will raise money for ex-Rep. Rick Lazio (R), who is running for governor of New York.

Romney will also assist one of his early backers in the presidential contest, Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah). Bennett’s reelection is in jeopardy thanks to the Beehive State’s convention system, and several more conservative candidates are considering running against the three-term Republican. Romney will hold a fundraiser for Bennett on Oct. 26 in Boston.

Should the former Massachusetts governor decide to run for president a second time, his team from the 2008 race would be largely intact. Veterans of the first race have stayed close, and they frequently get together when their former boss is in town.

But elsewhere, that team spirit is generating some concern. State-level strategists question whether Romney has understood what went wrong during the first race, and they insist some problems need to be addressed.

“I like Romney,” said one strategist from the 2008 campaign who has yet to sign up with a 2012 contender. “But a lot depends on what changes he makes to his team, and changes are absolutely necessary.”

Read more at The Hill.

The Gloves Are Off

Mitt Romney spoke at the biennial Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference on Mackinac Island, Michigan last Saturday. He didn’t mince words.  Mitt said:

After listening to Obama and Netanyahu, many bloggers have pointed out that many people are wondering who is the real leader of the free world?

CNN reported this:

MACKINAC ISLAND, Michigan (CNN) – Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney had sharp words for President Barack Obama’s handling of foreign relations Saturday, saying that the president is “above” the world stage and acting too much as a “neutral arbiter” who uses only words to tell other nations what’s right and what’s wrong.

Referring to the first months of Obama’s presidency, the former Republican presidential candidate said there’s been a “dramatic shift,” with that shift going in the wrong direction.

“America has always been a ardent supporter of democratic efforts and protecting and defending American values and western values,” Romney said, “but this president seems intent to step back to — if you will — lift himself above the world stage and say we’re not a player down there with everybody else between the democracies and the autocracies.”

“Instead we’re going to become the neutral arbiter,” Romney continued. “We’re going to be above everybody. Almost like the United Nations, sort of telling people what’s right and what’s wrong, instead of coming down firmly, solidly, and vehemently in favor of democracy.”

Romney pointed to Obama’s handling of ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya’s return to Brazil last week to illustrate one example of the president’s poor judgment when it comes to world affairs.

“Honduras…tosses out their president who’s trying to violate the constitution,” Romney began. “This was a person who was a pro-[Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, anti-American president. And then they installed instead an acting president [Roberto Micheletti] who will follow a democratic process, [a] pro-U.S. individual. Barrack Obama comes out for the pro-Chavez president and says put him back in charge.”

Romney was speaking at the biennial Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference on Mackinac Island, Michigan. Romney has been widely suspected to be laying groundwork for another run at the White House.

A few of his comments were aimed at the specific economic woes of Michigan — a state Romney’s father governed.

Romney, and his wife Ann, heaped love on the state, saying he was “heartbroken” to see so many people out of a job but that it “doesn’t have to be that way.” He said one of the first things needed is a “Giuliani-style” cleanup of Detroit

One of the bigger applause lines of the night came when Romney said the state should do a few things to help attract more business folks, including lowering business taxes.

“Another thing to do would be to say we’re going to make this a state which is a right to work state,” he said to thunderous applause. “Of course the most convincing thing you could do would be to throw the democrats out of [the capital city of] Lansing.”

Populous Research New Hampshire 2012 Republican Primary

• Mitt Romney -50%
• Mike Huckabee -17%
• Sarah Palin -17%
• Newt Gingrich -13%
• Tim Pawlenty -3%

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney leads four other Republican presidential candidates in New Hampshire in an exclusive Now Hampshire/Populus Research poll to be released on Wednesday.

Romney, who came in second in the 2008 New Hampshire presidential primary, leads all potential candidates with just over 50-percent of Republicans saying they would vote for him if the primary were held today.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee are neck-and-neck with almost 17-percent each. Newt Gingrich earned roughly 13-percent. While Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty is supported by 2.7-percent of the Granite State Republicans.

The poll was conducted exclusively for NowHampshire.com by Populus Research of Alexandria, Va. Between August 10th and 11th among 403 likely Republican primary voters. The poll carries a margin of error of 5%.

Mike Dennehy, a veteran of Sen. John McCain’s two campaigns in the Granite State, is not surprised by the result. “Gov. Romney worked very hard here in 2008. He maintains a lot of support.”

Related:  The Hill Also Reported on this.

Romney Dominant in New Hampshire Poll

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney leads the Republican presidential field in the home of the nation’s first primary, according to a new poll.

Romney is the preferred choice of just over 50 percent of New Hampshire voters, according to the poll. Romney easily led former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who clocked in at 17 percent.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich pulled 13 percent of the vote, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who has set himself up as Romney’s main opponent so far, won just 3 percent.

Romney’s early lead comes a year and a half after the one-time governor of the neighboring Bay State finished second in the New Hampshire GOP presidential primary, taking 32 percent of the vote to Sen. John McCain’s (Ariz.) 37 percent.

The survey, conducted Aug. 10-11 among 403 Republicans who said they were likely to vote in the 2012 primary, was taken for Now Hampshire, a conservative Granite State news site, by Virginia-based Populus Research.
Romney has positioned himself for a 2012 White House run, though he and his advisers insist he has no plans for another presidential campaign.

Romney will publish No Apology: The Case for American Greatness in March, which is intended to contrast his views with President Barack Obama, whom Romney criticized for apologizing to foreign countries for America’s actions.

Romney’s political action committee also pulled in $1.6 million in the first six months of the year, enough to begin handing out money to local officials who would play a role in Romney’s race if he decides to run.

He’s also made a point of hammering the president’s national security stances, along with the economic stimulus package that he told The Hill in an April interview should have been targeted more at tax breaks than new spending.

Instead of the outsider role he played in the 2008 GOP primary, Romney is set in 2012 to serve as a possible establishment candidate. He led the pack in a Gallup Poll released in mid-July that showed him winning 26 percent of the vote compared with 21 percent for Palin, 19 percent for Huckabee and 14 percent for Gingrich. Just 3 percent wanted to see Pawlenty get the nomination, and 2 percent chose Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour.

Tim Pawlenty is wasting no time at building his credentials at the expense of Governor Romney.  It is not surprising that Governor Pawlenty would come out on the attack this early on, given the the high rankings Mitt Romney’s received in all recent polling.  Pawlenty has been falsely reporting on the details of the health care plan in MA and will most likely discredit himself in the eyes of the people when the true details are actually reported on.  Many in the media have been reporting, inaccurately, on the health care costs in MA.  For an accurate and detailed analysis of the costs of the MA health plan, click here.

It is clearly a sign that Mitt is the guy to go after and will be the one to beat when the Republican primaries take place.

Politics Daily

By Emily Miller

Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty are both publicly criticizing the healthcare reforms from President Obama and the Democrats currently being debated in Congress. At the same time, the two Republicans are jabbing at each other on an alternate approach to healthcare issues, seemingly establishing their differences in advance of 2012 campaigns for the White House.

Both Minnesota Gov. Pawlenty and former Massachusetts Gov. Romney were considered as running mates by Sen. John McCain in 2008, and Romney ran a strong race in the primaries against McCain. While Romney is outdistancing Pawlenty in early polls on 2012 GOP contenders, both he and Pawlenty are expected to be among the leading candidates challenging President Obama.

Healthcare reform — both how the Democrats will execute the legislation and how to pay for it when the country is running up huge deficits — is a hot-button issue with all Americans, but especially with Republicans. According to a Pew research poll, 44 percent of all Americans oppose the healthcare proposals now before Congress, and a whopping 76 percent of Republicans oppose them.

Romney, attempting to take the GOP leadership role on this issue, pointed to his reforms in Massachusetts as a model for the Democrats.

In an op-ed in USA Today last week, he wrote that health care “is simply too important to the economy, to employment and to America’s families to be larded up and rushed through on an artificial deadline. There’s a better way. And the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find it. No other state has made as much progress in covering their uninsured as Massachusetts.”

Pawlenty, seemingly contesting Romney as a prominent GOP voice on healthcare reform, wrote an op-edWashington Post on Monday about his own reform efforts in Minnesota. He took a direct shot at Romney: “Massachusetts’s experience should caution Congress against focusing primarily on access. While the Massachusetts plan has reduced the number of uninsured people, costs have been dramatically higher than expected. The result? Increased taxes and fees. The Boston Globe has reported on a current short-term funding gap and the need to obtain a new federal bailout.”

Pawlenty used a thinly veiled scare tactic to show how if Romney were president, his type of healthcare agenda would damage the nation: “Imagine the scope of tax increases, or additional deficit spending, if that approach is utilized for the entire country.” in the

Clearly, Romney and Pawlenty are seeking national exposure by criticizing the reform bills moving through Congress this year.

Pawlenty: “This past week, Democrats in Congress have been busy tinkering with a Washington takeover of the health-care system, but perhaps they should look instead to the states for models of market-driven, patient-centered and quality-focused reform.”

Romney: “Because of President Obama’s frantic approach, health care has run off the rails. For the sake of 47 million uninsured Americans, we need to get it back on track.”

Regardless of how reform legislation is finally written — or if it becomes law — it will likely be a central issue in the 2012 race for the White House. Republican leaders pointedly use the term “socialized medicine” when discussing the Democrats’ proposals.

As one GOP strategist said to me, “Don’t call it ‘healthcare reform.’ Be precise: It’s ‘government-run healthcare.’ ” Those are fightin’ words.

See the latest polling below:

Call Me GOP:  Sweet 16 Republican Challenge:  The Winner is Mitt Romney

YAF Straw Poll:  Young Americans Want Mitt Romney in 2012

Fox News: Republicans Favor Mitt Romney as Their Nominee in 2012

Rasmussen: Mitt Romney is Tied With Barack Obama

Gallup: Romney Edges Palin, Huckabee in Early GOP Test

Rasmussen: 2012 Republican Primary Survey…Mitt Romney on Top

Pew Research: Romney’s Public Image Has Improved

On Fundraising?

href=”http://thecompetentconservative.com/2009/08/01/the-fec-filingsare-in-romneys-free-strong-america-pac-leads-again/”>FEC Filings: Mitt’s ‘Free Strong America PAC’ Leads The Way In All Areas of Fundraising.

Chris Cillizza at The Fix is reporting that Mitt Romney’s ‘Free and Strong America‘ PAC has nearly doubled what Sarah Palin’s ‘Sarah PAC’ has generated in the first 6 months of the year.

Here’s the scoop from Chris Cillizza:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney leads the way in terms of fundraising by potential 2012 Republican candidates. Romney showed nearly $1.4 million raised through his Free and Strong America PAC at the end of May.

Palin’s showing is, however, a sign that she can raise cash at the national level and that she will be a player in the 2010 midterm elections if she, as expected, chooses to involve herself in downballot races.

It is all the more impressive given the chaos that surrounded her operation — and herself — over the first half of 2009. If Palin can spend her time out of office organizing a serious national effort, these numbers suggest the financial support is out there to help her.