As the party’s nomination process becomes clear in recent days, I have heard some in the Republican Party suggest that they’re going to sit out the general election, as some form of protest vote. They assert that because they’re “sick and tired of the media or the establishment thrusting moderates on us”, they’re staying home.

These same folks suggest that in 2016, the party will be able to “start over”, win hearts and minds and somehow, this will allow the party to put up a “true conservative” candidate. There is at least one major flaw in this rationale. How much further down the road to Greece or Portugal are we today as a result of Barrack Obama’s decision making? Do these folks honestly think that four more years of Obama’s handouts are going to magically win over moderates and independents? In four years, Obama will be able to buy millions more votes for his ideology, and the country runs the risk that by 2016–there will be no real contest. For the skeptics, I suggest one should go live, for at least twelve months, in Spain or Italy or virtually any central European nation and see what unabaided “social democracy” looks like. But this is a topic for another day.

My real point today is that many of these protest voters suggest that Romney is just like McCain. While both are republicans, and both have some success working with political enemies, the similarities end there. Let me state that John McCain is a truly great member of our society and has contributed mightily to our nation, but what follows here, are four major differences between McCain and Romney.

John McCain is an insider, a career politician. Following a distinguished military career, McCain spent virtually his entire life in Washington, DC. He was, and remains today in many ways, the consummate insider. He was, in fact, the establishment pick for the party in 2008. Mitt Romney on the other hand, has never set foot inside the beltway. He’s never earned a penny from government service.  He took no salary as Mass governor and has only served in public office for 4 years.  As such, he has not yet been blinded and beguiled by the toxic milk of the federal teat. It is likewise a testament to his successful campaign that he has earned the support of so many in congress without spending sixteen years as an insider, trading earmarks with his constituents. Romney “earned” it over the last 6 years by being the most competent conservative in the party.

Secondly, McCain, while a good lawmaker in some respects, was a Senator. He was and is–a lawmaker. There is a fundamental difference between a congress member and a governor, my friends.  While making laws and schmoozing lobbyists may be a necessary evil in our system, it is a far cry–and distant skill set– from being the holder of responsibility for a large electorate.  As a lifelong senator, McCain never signed the front side of paycheck. He never had to truly balance a budget or do any of the myriad of things that a governor has to do. Romney is a private sector professional who has brought his knowledge skills and talents to government.   Romney has, for 20 years in private industry, made decisions, plotted strategy, and actually implemented thoughtful change management strategy. These are the skills of a nation’s chief executive.  They are far different than the skills acquired in congressional service.  There is a reason that the party usually nominates Governors.

The third difference is sensitive, but noteworthy to many.  While he’s no Newt Gingrich with the ladies, John McCain has acknowledged a history of marital infidelity. Not a serial philanderer mind you, but someone who once sold out his personal oath of fidelity just the same. Romney’s family and spousal faith is a well-established fact. If there was a skeleton there, Ted Kennedy would have found it in 1992. One need not trust me on this matter, better yet, trust all who know Mitt Romney. There is no cleaner history around. When it comes to familial and personal trust, Romney is no John McCain.

Finally, John McCain was, especially early in his career, a hothead. He was fiery and emotional under some circumstances. This is a capacity that served him well at times. But it is not the temperament that serves the world’s voice of democracy under fire.  Romney, contrarily, draws the ire of his party for being so emotionally balanced that you could offend him in the worst way, and he’s likely to forgive and move on. His years as a CEO and turnaround guy has taught him that when the storms of change come, and the oarsmen are panicking, the captain will be calm.

So, next time someone tries to tell you that they’re going to stay home on November 6^th, to spite the party—invite them to consider for these reasons, among others, that Mitt Romney is no John McCain.

Today Senator McCain was on the Michael Medved show talking about different political issues as well as his defense of Romney “NOT being the establishment candidate”.

Today, Mitt Romney hosted a town hall in South Carolina and really pulled out the big guns, bringing along South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, former US Ambassador John Bolton, and former Presidential Candidate and Arizona Senator John McCain. Apparently, the speeches were incredible (I’m just starting to watch the video right now). I highly recommend watching the whole thing. Here’s the link to C-Span where you can watch the video:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/RomneyTownHa

Mitt Romney, the pin cushion who was routinely ganged up on by John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani in the 2008 GOP debates, is suddenly getting help from his former tormentors.

McCain has endorsed him. Huckabee has given him cover on anti-abortion and other issues and, equally important, declined to endorse a conservative alternative. Even Giuliani, the staunchest holdout, is denouncing Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry for criticizing Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital.

It’s a far cry from the bitter battle of the 2008 cycle, in which Romney was the candidate the other three loved to hate. All three, in an awkward, and now famous, scene captured in the campaign retrospective “Game Change,” mocked Romney as a phony during a men’s room break at one of the GOP debates that year — only to have the candidate walk into the room.

Both McCain and Huckabee have been among the chief inoculators for Romney from attacks by Gingrich and Perry over his tenure at the private equity firm he co-founded, Bain Capital, a topic that the Arizona senator and former Arkansas governor both saw fit to attack him on when they ran against him.

“To go after [him ] on really what is the essence of what we Republicans believe in about [the] economy, I think is a serious mistake and frankly I think it’s the last resort of a very desperate campaign,” McCain said Thursday. He had a word for the opposite of what Romney’s company was engaged in: “Communism.”

Huckabee emailed his list of supporters on Thursday, suggesting the time has come for Republicans to stop attacking one of their own on the issue.

“[I]t’s surprising to see so many Republicans embrace that left wing argument against capitalism,” he wrote in the email. “It’s terrible for the workers who lose their jobs, and nobody likes to see viable companies looted and destroyed. But if downsizing can turn around a failing company, then at least it prevents all the jobs from being lost, and it sets up a stronger company that can grow and start rehiring. The term for this among people who aren’t hostile to capitalism is ‘creative destruction.’ “

Giuliani completed the hat trick Thursday morning, telling “Fox and Friends” that he was “shocked” by Gingrich and Perry.

“I’m outraged. … it’s ignorant, dumb. It’s building something we should be fighting in America — ignorance of the economic system,” Giuliani said. “What the hell are you doing, Newt?”

It was just a few weeks ago that Giuliani laced into Romney as a flip-flopper and had kind words for Gingrich. In Thursday’s interview, he described Romney as the candidate he was least likely to endorse, but condemned the Bain slams.

The unexpected support was a far cry from 2008, when Huckabee coined a memorable line Democrats are almost certain to revive in a general election: “[Romney] looks like the guy who fires you, not the guy who hires you.”

The tapestry of protection that the three offered would have been unimaginable even a year ago, when both Huckabee and Giuliani were still considering campaigns of their own. Huckabee and Romney had an especially high level of tension in the 2008 race, with the current front-runner airing a string of negative ads against the former Arkansas governor and eventual Iowa caucuses winner.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71416.html#ixzz1jNyGv8yG

There has been much debate regarding who has the greatest shot at winning the Republican nomination in 2012.  There have also been many polls indicating who the considered front runners are -Romney, Palin and Huckabee.  Tim Pawlenty has also been considered, but is not showing well in any of the polling.

But there is one candidate, who was regarded by many as the “spoiler” of the last Republican primary, and that was Mike Huckabee.  Huckabee basically handed the nomination over to McCain when he played the religion card enabling him to take Iowa out from under Romney’s feet (just 1 month prior to the Iowa Caucus Romney held 31 percent in the polling) when he started targeting his fellow Evangelicals as well as his bigoted Mormon comment that ” don’t Mormons believe satan and Jesus are brothers?”

When I saw this excerpt from Sarah Palin’s interview with Greta Van Sustern, I got very eager to see her run for the Presidency, but not because I want her to be President, nor because I think she is qualified.  I want her to run because she will cut very deeply into Mike Huckabee’s base, and vise versa, which would allow Romney to skate through unscathed as Palin and Huckabee battle each other for the same votes.

Here’s the interview with Greta:

VAN SUSTEREN: How — I mean, you haven’t said you’re going to run. And I’m not going to (INAUDIBLE) but I mean, in the back of your mind, you must think, How can I reach the people who don’t agree with me?

PALIN: Yes.

VAN SUSTEREN: OK? I mean, it’s easy to reach the people that agree with you. How do you reach the people who are a little farther to the left and way far to the left from you?

PALIN: I think that those people are going to start seeing that the direction of our country right now has got to change. And whether they agree with me personally on my values or the — some of the issues that I really grabbed hold of and tried to progress with — whether they agree with that or not, I think what they’re going to agree with is that we have to build a stronger nation economically and in terms of national security.

And the things that I’m standing for, they’re such common sense measures that have to be undertaken in order to get there for America with national security, with the economy. I think they’re going to be agreeing with that. But I’m never going to please everyone. There’s no — there’s no need to even try to please everyone. Some people will — if it comes from me, they’ll automatically not like what the idea is or what the position is.

VAN SUSTEREN: So how do you win over the people that don’t — I mean, who may have that sort of kneejerk reaction, if you want to — if you want to talk to them, if you want to reach them, at least have them consider what you have to say?

PALIN: Well, for instance, the book is a good tool to get — hey, read the book, and if you still don’t like the positions that I take or if you don’t like who I am after reading the book, unfiltered through the media, then so be it. You know, I’m never going to win you over. But at least give me a shot there in trying to figure out who I am, what my record is, what my accomplishments are and what I represent.

And then, Greta, if I can’t please them, I can’t please them. I’m not going to try. I’m not going to change who I am or compromise my positions, my values, in order to placate or to try to get some demographic or some group of people on board with me if they just don’t get it.

Is there any doubt after reading this that Palin IS indeed running for President in 2012?  This dividing of the Evangelical base could be just enough for Romney to compete very well in Iowa as well as to pull out a win there.  Nonetheless, Romney will win New Hampshire, then Michigan, which would give him to big wins in a row, then he would move on to take Nevada, as he did last go around.  By then, Iowa will have been forgotten about.  Romney may just have enough momentum with 3 wins in a row to take South Carolina, as that will be a state that Huckabee and Palin will be siphoning away each others voters.

Romney will then win Florida, as he would have last time had McCain not lied about Romney calling for a timetable for withdrawl in Irag, then move on to take CA then the rest is history folks….we have our highly qualified nominee.

I was on Race42008 the other day when there was a conversation going on about Romney and Huckabee.  The comments section was flooded with Anti-Mormon comments to the degree that many people, almost all of them non-Mormon, we requesting that these folks be banned for bigotry.

These are the followers that Mike Huckabee attracts folks!  Mike Huckabee, as bigot himself,  has no place leading anything in American politics.  He should give heed to these words from Ronald Reagan:

Also check out Palin’s interview with Billy Graham and you tell me Mike Huckabee is not crapping in his pants right now: http://www.billygraham.org/News_Article.asp?ArticleID=730

Call Me GOP conducted a 3 week “Sweet 16″ tournament of potential Republican leaders to find out which one should speak for the party.  The tournament winner is Mitt Romney.

After three weeks and more than 4,000 votes, our tournament is finally over.  No surprise here: you’ve decided that Mitt Romney should speak for the G.O.P.  He held a commanding lead over all his opponents, knocking out Eric Cantor in the final round by slightly more than 900.So why Romney?

Many of you have singled him out as the candidate with the best chance of unifying the party in a way the McCain/Palin ticket failed to in 2008. Mike noted that, unlike Palin or Rush, Romney doesn’t “stir up” passion among Republicans, yet he’s often sought after as a voice of reason and intelligence.

In fact, many of you pointed to his patient positions regarding issues such as health care that paint him as a rational, reliable choice. The ideal candidate, you said, is competent, not extremist. For now, while most states identify with the Democratic Party, the G.O.P. must attract independent and crossover voters to grow stronger. The party’s looking for a more moderate leader to take them forward, and it seems Mitt is the man.

Jeb Bush makes some great points here:

(CNN) – Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush told an interviewer that he could not say whether or not President Barack Obama is a socialist, and that the president would not have been elected if he had been honest with Americans about his agenda.

“I believe he’s a collectivist. He believes that through collective action, through government, you can solve more problems.” He added that he believed the word “socialism” was a pejorative, and “didn’t help” the GOP make its case.

The brother of former President George W. Bush and son of former President George H.W. Bush dismissed the idea that his party’s policies were unpopular with most Americans. “I don’t think there’s any seismic shift. The Democrats have won on tactics,” he said. “Barack Obama would not have gotten elected if he’d let us in on his secret plan prior to the election,” he said, pointing to the president’s economic agenda and energy proposals.

“….He made it appear like McCain was going to raise taxes, which was unfair, but there was no response back. When there was an ideological component, it was generally centrist or even center-right. Had he said what he was going to do as a candidate, (Obama) would have lost.”

He downplayed the president’s approval ratings, which remain above average. “First of all, who cares?” he said.

“His popularity is no greater – in fact it’s less – than what my brother’s was during the beginning of his tenure, in a time of unbelievable friction, if you think about it, because of the 2000 election. His approval ratings were higher than Barack Obama’s during his first one hundred days.”

Via The Corner on Fox news’ ‘Special Report’ last night Krauthammer said “Romney really is the frontrunner.”

Krauthammer’s Take [NRO Staff]

From last night’s “All-Stars.”

On prospective GOP candidates for 2012:

Romney really is the frontrunner. He has done himself well. He is a grown-up. He knows economics. He’s trusted on that.

There is also a tradition among Republicans of nominating the next in line, as we did with George Bush, Sr. in 1988, Dole in ’96, and McCain in ’08, sort of the last grown-up who was left over from the last campaign.

And I think that Romney has done well. Look, he is the guy who is as clean as clean can get. You are not going to wake up in the morning and discover he is crying in Argentina. This is a solid guy and he’s got a record.

Now, as to Palin, I agree entirely with what Mara said. She is—she has star power without any doubt. She has an extremely devoted following. But she is not a serious candidate for the presidency.

She had to go home and study and spend a lot of time on issues in which she was not adept last year, and she hasn’t. She has to stop speaking in clichés and platitudes. It won’t work.

It could work for eight weeks if you’re the number two candidate, as she was last year. But even so, she got singed a lot in that campaign. You cannot sustain a campaign of platitudes and clichés over a year and a half if you’re running for the presidency.