Read Ambinder here, and CBS News here.

To bring you the following news. Congress now has a 9% approval rating.

Okay, back to it.

(Note, I’m not sure whether there’s a debate going on about Romney, but its usually a safe bet).

Straight from this side of Hugh Hewitt, Race42008’s comment section seems to be quite on the verge of re-establishing its credibility as a safe outpost of Rombottery in the Republican blog community. This disturbing trend, once thought dead after our dearly-beloved Abe (”THE HUCK-A-BUST IS COMING…!!!” and “MUAHAHAHA THE RETURN OF THE ROMNEY IS COMING!!!!”) left Race42008, has again manifested itself, disturbing those of us that are swept up in matters other than preemptively resigning themselves to all but the most egregious vice-presidential candidate possibilities.

What prompted this outburst, of course, is the blurb that Kavon posted earlier touting Romney as “making the most sense” for the vice-presidency. This triggered a litany of approving comments — some from ordinarily clear-headed people that clearly weren’t thinking straight — that indicated that yes, something has changed in the past two months, and that Mr. Romney is now acceptable. Fallacious reasoning abounded.

Let me be the bearer of good news: no, Mitt Romney is still not acceptable. Allow me to deconstruct the ridiculous fallacies that would lead one to support a Romney vice-presidential nomination:

1. Mitt Romney would turn Michigan red!

A dubious claim, at best. Yes, Romney managed to grab a plurality victory in Michigan (based at least in part on his family legacy). His strength, as we learned from the exit polls — against John McCain (not Barack Obama) — largely rested in urban areas. Urban Republican voters aren’t antipathetic toward McCain in the first place in any way whatsoever, nor is there any evidence that Romney could pull Democratic urban voters toward the Republican ticket, were he to be placed at the bottom of it. (Nor, of course, is there any reason to believe that there was anything special about Romney that made urban voters go for him [in, again, plurality numbers], rather than just being a winner among losers, but that’s another matter.) Suggesting that Romney will help among urban voters in Michigan because he won them against McCain makes no more sense than saying that he’d be a drag on McCain’s Hispanic vote because he lost that constituency against McCain in Florida.

The mistake of trying to translate intra-party primary strengths into inter-party advantages is one of the great fallacies of the election season. Remember when people were roundly mocking Hillary Clinton’s campaign (and rightly so) for implying that Barack Obama would have a hard time in California and New York during the general election because he lost those states during the primary season? Well, guess what, gentlemen: you’re committing the exact same fallacy.

That being said, Romney appears (as of late May) to provide a slight, statistically insignificant boost in Michigan against Democratic tickets with known commodities at the bottom. There is no reason to infer, however, that other options would damage McCain’s chances or that this is some sort of mandate for Romney coming from Michigan.

2. Mitt Romney would be a fantastic cash cow!

Romney’s fundraising strength came mostly from, well, his wallet. During Q4 of 2007, Romney actually came in an anemic 4th, if you exclude his own funds. But then, why should we do that? Let’s not mince words, Alex: Romney came in 1st in fundraising!

Ah yes, all things considered, this is an utterly compelling narrative for the media and the Obama campaign: let’s contrast Barack Obama, the million-donor man, against John McCain, the man who has all-but-admitted his campaign’s impotency by selecting his vice-presidential nominee in order to get his hands on his money.

That is, assuming that money even means much of anything at this point. For all of Obama’s money advantages against Hillary Clinton, his wins could have been pulled off with or without the extra millions and were due mostly to Clinton’s inept campaign team coupled with his own campaign’s brilliant organization. And the implications could not be starker, from the Republican primary aftermath: Ron Paul was raking in money — through his excited grassroots supporters, no less! — and look what that got him. The Paul saga proved that ideas that connect with the voters matter more than any amount of money. Likewise, Romney was unable to buy himself the nomination because he wasn’t trusted, and McCain successfully weathered the entire nomination process with positively abysmal fundraising numbers.

If there’s any lesson that we should have taken away from Primary Campaign 2008, it’s that we should be more than a little careful about overestimating the importance of money.

3. Mitt Romney would secure the West by boosting Mormon turnout!

First of all: would you Rombots make up your minds? Are Mormons reliable, patriotic citizens that routinely bloc-vote for Republicans en masse, or do we have to bribe them with a Mormon in order to secure their votes?

In the ‘turnout tsunami‘ election, I don’t think that we’re going to have to worry about getting out the vote, anyway. The vote will mostly be getting itself out. We should focus on appealing to it! If we have to hinge this election on whether the Mormons are going to bloc-vote for us in larger numbers than usual, then we should really just throw in the towel right now.

Not that Mormons really comprise a large percentage of voters in the West, anyway. Besides Nevada, where this could conceivably make a difference, I’m not really sure that this argument even makes any sense, considering that Mormons bloc-vote for Republicans in the first place.

4. Mitt Romney being anathema to moderates is irrelevant!

Oh, please. McCain and Obama have their bases locked up and both are making strong appeals to the center; the key now is to pick someone that’s going to make the ticket even more attractive.

During the week that Romney dropped out of the race, his favorability rating, according to Gallup, was -12!

Let that sink in for a second, people: -12.

This was not just due to bad feelings from the primary season. McCain’s numbers in the same poll were a strong +18. (His current numbers are +24, according to the same polling organization.)

Are you going to tell me that numbers like that are irrelevancies, given our circumstances?

*

Alright, now: can we stop this foolishness and get back to talking about winning?

…I’m not the only one who’s think that Romney makes the most sense for Veep:

The prerequisites for John McCain’s running mate are clear: a Washington outsider with solid economic credentials who isn’t associated with President George W. Bush, can fill the vice-presidential attack-dog role, help win Western and Midwestern states and cut into Democrat Barack Obama’s fundraising advantage.

One candidate fits the bill: former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

The challenge would be in overcoming the animus that set in between Romney and the presumptive Republican nominee during the party’s primaries.

Romney, 61, has “no shortage of strengths,” said Dan Schnur, who was McCain’s communications director in 2000.

During the primary, Romney proved he was capable of going on the attack, a skill that is required of vice presidential candidates. McCain felt the sting of that aggressive streak before the Jan. 15 Michigan primary, when Romney characterized his comments about the state’s job losses as a demonstration of “pessimism about Michigan’s future.”

On substance, Romney is strong in areas where Arizona Senator McCain is weak, in particular the economy.

For all of these reasons (and more) selecting Mitt would be a smart move.

I have been one of the most strident proponents of the “Veeps have very little impact” school of thought-and I do believe that this line of thinking is correct for the most part. However, that does not mean that the Veep selection has no impact and that we should refrain from looking back to learn from the choices that worked out for the best. Simply because there are no “gamechangers” in the field does not mean that Sen. McCain cannot gain a great deal if he chooses wisely. For my part, I believe there are two selections that have the potential of helping McCain across the electoral finish line come November: Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.

Selecting Gov. Romney as the Veep would accomplish several important things. First of all, Sen, McCain would gain a multitude of enthusiastic volunteers that would be of great help in closing the enthusiasm gap with the Democrats. Secondly, as Mike Allen’s article mentions, Gov. Romney has the potential to raise the kind of money that can level the playing field with Obama. Mitt has also been vetted, is more than ready for primetime, and has the resume, charisma, and gravitas that will enable voters to imagine him being able to step in as President from the get go. Mitt’s Michigan roots are a benefit as well.

McCain has stated that it is important to him to look back at the Vice Presidential picks that have worked out for the best to guide him in his selection. I would suggest that President Reagan’s selection of George H.W. Bush in 1980 is perhaps the best model in which to base his selection. President Reagan’s selection of Bush served to unify the Republican Party’s Conservative and Moderate Wings and was a signal to Bush’s primary supporters that they would have a place in a Ronald Reagan led Republican Party. It would be quite hypocritical for the Rush Limbaugh’s, Laura Ingraham’s, National Reviews, etc…, of the Conservative punditocracy, who enthusiastically supported Romney during the later stages of the primary fight, to withhold their support from the ticket when McCain has made this concession.

Mike Huckabee brings important benefits to the table as well. Huck’s Army is made up of many of the foot soldiers that brought us victory in 2000 & 2004. Want these folks back in the game, answering phones, knocking on doors, etc…? Then select Mike Huckabee.

Huckabee would also completely defuse Obama’s Evangelical/Religious voter outreach, and as we have have seen from the SurveyUSA polls, Huck appears to appeal to a certain segment of Democrats who are reluctant to pull the lever for Obama.

So the bottom line is this… There are really only two candidates that can bring significant benefits to McCain come November: Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee; and (demogogues aside) there are few voters who would be open to voting for McCain that would be turned off by either of their selections (especially if Obama ends up choosing a conventional liberal such as Joe Biden).

So the tiebreaker for me is this: why go with the candidate who campaigned on blowing up the Reagan Coalition and touted the end of the three-legged stool of Conservatism when you can choose one the most eloquent advocates of the American Conservative Movement and all of its underlying principles?

If it is truly down to Romney, Portman, or Thune, choose Mitt Romney. It’s a smart choice.

Say it ain’t so, Mac, say it ain’t so.

Surprising many Republican insiders, Mitt Romney is at the top of the vice-presidential prospect list for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). But lack of personal chemistry could derail the pick.

“Romney as favorite” is the hot buzz in Republican circles, and top party advisers said the case is compelling.

Campaign insiders say McCain plans to name his running mate very shortly after Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) does, as part of what one campaign planner called a “bounce-mitigation strategy.”

The Democratic convention is in late August, a week ahead of the Republicans convention. That means McCain can size up the opposing ticket before locking in his own.

One of the chief reasons the Massachusetts governor is looking so attractive is his ability to raise huge amounts of money quickly through his former business partners and from fellow members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons.

McCain sources tell Politico that they believe Romney could raise $50 million in 60 days. One close Romney adviser said it could even be $60 million. …

But there’s one big problem: Despite the buddy-picture choreography of a McCain-Romney campaign swing, McCain remains far short of enamored of Romney.

And McCain sources say he’ll pick his vice presidential candidate based more on ability to govern than ability to help in the election.

So two other names are in the top tier:

—Rob Portman, a former congressman from Ohio, member of House leadership, U.S. Trade Ambassador and White House budget director.

—Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who would delight conservatives and is at the top of the list of the party’s prospects for the presidential race in 2012 or 2016. He was described to Politico by a McCain confidant as a possible “compromise” if the senator can’t stomach picking Romney.

McCain gave his most ringing endorsement yet of Romney’s chances of being tapped as his vice presidential candidate during a fund-raiser Monday, saying, “There’s nobody who represents me better today than Mitt Romney.” Link

If Romney won the Veep I suppose I would be happy and all, but that’s just weird. Was the primary just an elaborate setup?

H/T - RedState:

Mike Allen of Politico.com just told me that indeed retired USMC General Anthony Zinni is near the top of the Obama list, and that there are four on the McCain list: Romney at the top, with Rob Portman, Eric Cantor and Tom Ridge also in the hunt.

Flap makes a pretty convincing case.

I’ve been having fun just posting random thoughts lately, but I figured I should actually be serious for a few minutes.

When it comes to John McCain’s selection of his VP nominee, I have been doing some thinking, and have come to some conclusions. Personally, I would like to see Bobby Jindal as his VP, for no other reasons than the fact that he’s brilliant, conservative, and he brings some youthful excitement to the ticket. He’s also succeeded at taking over one of the most politically radioactive jobs in the country and has maintained his support. However, there are some concerns about him that I understand that make many uneasy, and would not be upset if McCain went in another direction.

Putting aside my own personal preferences, I think John McCain should seriously consider Rudy Giuliani for his running mate. Mark Twain once said, “There are lies, and there are statistics,” and that’s basically how I feel about the VP polls that we are seeing, which are really nothing more than name recognition points, at this juncture. The plus to having Rudy on the ticket is that he would not only add needed traction in states such as Pennsylvania, but also because he balances McCain’s weaknesses possibly better than any other. One of Giuliani’s strengths during the primary was on economic policy, exactly where McCain has had some problems with groups like the CFG. The problem with picking Rudy would be the fact that while McCain should do well among social conservatives, they don’t exactly trust him yet. I don’t know how well they would respond to a McCain/Giuliani ticket.

Mitt Romney would also balance the ticket quite well. While he still seems to invoke the passions of many of those who didn’t support him during the primary, I think he would bring the ability to raise money that McCain has been lacking. Romney is not without his weaknesses, and there are a lot of folks who don’t trust him, but he’s not an unknown quantity and McCain is strong in areas where Romney has had trouble in the past, such as gun control and his past position on abortion. Plus, Romney would balance McCain’s weaknesses with his strength in economic areas and his support among social conservatives.

There are other candidates who I think would fit well with McCain. Tim Pawlenty seems to be a candidate who many on the right would feel comfortable with, Rob Portman has an impressive resume, and there are probably others who I’ve forgotten to mention.

Personally, I am open, but not yet sold on the idea of Sarah Palin, which seems to be the latest trend in political circles. I think she could be a solid pick, but I don’t support ideas that seem like a gimmick to win votes, and please note that I’m not trying to belittle her or her resume in that regard. I just have yet to make up my mind about her. I have serious reservations about picking a woman, if it is nothing more than a blatant attempt to try and pick off disgruntled Clinton supporters. If that is the case for all the excitement surrounding the idea of her as a possible VP pick, then it is not much better than the other infamous gimmick that has been floated around the internet, the idea of Joe Lieberman as McCain’s running mate.

People can usually see through gimmicks, and the idea of picking Lieberman is nothing more than a gimmick to win votes, much like the democrats floating around the idea of picking Chuck Hagel. Neither brings anything to their ticket except the votes of those who can’t see it for the joke that it is. Palin, on the other hand, may turn out to be a great choice, but I don’t support the idea of picking a woman (or a man, for that matter) that would be nothing more than a blatant attempt to win votes when there are better candidates available. I’m not saying that Palin is not the best candidate, but I would like to see how the idea sells and what she brings to the table besides her gender before I decide. I could vote for a McCain/Palin ticket. On the other hand, I see no benefit of adding Lieberman to the ticket and would not support it. If it’s a certain former governor from AR, then I’d probably end up with a Bob Barr bumper sticker on my car.

As I was glassing over the news that I have missed over the last week, I came across this item from May 21 edition of the Wall Street Journal:

The New Big Dig
May 21, 2008; Page A18

Mitt Romney’s presidential run is history, but it looks as if the taxpayers of Massachusetts will be paying for it for years to come. The former Governor had hoped to ride his grand state “universal” health-care reform of 2006 to the White House, but his state’s residents are now having to live with what he and the state’s Democratic Legislature passed. As the Boston press likes to say, it’s “the new Big Dig.”

The showpiece of RomneyCare was its individual mandate, a requirement that all Massachusetts residents obtain health insurance by July of last year or else pay penalties. The idea was that getting everyone into the insurance system would eliminate the “free-rider” problem of those who refuse to buy insurance but then go to emergency rooms when they’re sick; thus costs would fall. “Will it work? I’m optimistic, but time will tell,” Mr. Romney wrote in these pages in 2006.

Well, the returns are rolling in, and the critics look prescient. First, the plan isn’t “universal” at all: About 350,000 more people are now insured in Massachusetts since the reform passed. Federal estimates put the prior number of uninsured at more than 657,000, so there was a reduction. But it was not secured through the market reforms that Governor Romney promised. Instead, Massachusetts also created a new state entitlement that is already trembling on the verge of bankruptcy inside of a year.

Some two-thirds of the growth in coverage owes to a low- or no-cost public insurance option. Called Commonwealth Care, it uses a sliding income scale to subsidize coverage for everyone under 300% of the federal poverty level, or about $63,000 for a family of four. Commonwealth Care also accounts for 60% of statewide growth in individual insurance over the last year, and the trend is expected to accelerate, perhaps double.

…

One lesson here is that while pledging “universal” coverage is easy, the harder problem is paying for it. This year’s appropriation for Commonwealth Care was $472 million, but officials have asked for an add-on that will bring it to $625 million. For 2009, Governor Deval Patrick requested $869 million but has already conceded that even that huge figure is too low. Over the coming decade, the expected overruns float in as much as $4 billion over budget. It’s too early to tell how much is new coverage or if state programs are displacing private insurance.

The “new Big Dig” moniker refers to the legendary cost overruns when Boston rebuilt its traffic system. Now state legislators are pushing new schemes to offset RomneyCare’s runaway expenses, including reductions in state payments to doctors and hospitals, enlarged business penalties, an increase in the state tobacco tax, and more restrictions on drug companies and insurers.

Mr. Romney’s fundamental mistake was focusing on making health insurance “universal” without first reforming the private insurance market. The “connector” that was supposed to link individuals to private insurance options has barely been used, as lower-income workers flood to the public option. Meanwhile, low-cost private insurers continue to avoid the state because it imposes multiple and costly mandates on all policies.

Hailed at first as a new national model, the Massachusetts nonmiracle ought to be a warning to Washington. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both proposing versions of RomneyCare on a national scale, with similar promises that covering everyone under a government plan will reduce costs. Mr. Obama at least argues that more people would be covered were insurance more affordable. But his solution is Massachusetts on steroids – make insurance less expensive for policyholders by transferring the extra costs onto the government. Mrs. Clinton likes that but also wants the individual mandate, despite the mediocre results so far.

The real problem in health care is the way the tax code and third-party payment system distort incentives. That’s where John McCain has been focusing his reform efforts – because that really does have the potential to reduce costs while covering more of the uninsured – and Republicans ought to follow his lead.

In this respect paradoxically, we can be thankful that Massachusetts ignored the cost problems that doomed other recent liberal health insurance overhauls in California, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Illinois. The Bay State is showing everyone how not to reform health care.

I’m not trying to stir up contreversy, and a lot of my beef with Romney was buried a long time ago, but the fact remains that his defining achievement as the governor of MA is turning out to be a disaster. Granted, as one commenter (Illinoisguy) noted when I raised this point earlier, if Romney had stayed in MA, he could’ve adjusted it, but the facts are not pretty, as pointed out by the libertarian leaning Pacific Research Institute:

The program is in intensive care, surviving only on massive infusions of other people’s money. The plan’s boosters celebrate that it’s covered 342,000 people. Quite an accomplishment until we understand that of these, 176,000 are enrolled in nearly free or entirely free plans — free to enrollees but not state and federal taxpayers. Another 55,000 were simply enrolled in Medicaid.

This isn’t a new trend where the blame can be solely placed on the shoulders of current MA Governor Deval Patrick. Commonwealth Care has been a disaster waiting to happen.

The CATO Institute predicted this from the getgo. This article from last December:

Massachusetts has done better at signing people up for subsidized coverage. No surprise: People are all too happy to sign up if others pay the bill - and Romney extended subsidies well into the middle class - a family of four earning $63,000 per year qualifies.

That “success” here translates to failure on another front: The cost of the program has exploded; it’s running $150 million above the original projection for this year alone.

Nor has the reform succeeded in holding down other costs. Insurance premiums in the state are expected to rise 10 to 12 percent next year - double the national average. While many factors surely contribute to that jump, one reason is that the new bureaucracy that the legislation created - called “the Connector” - has been adding new regulations and mandates.

This program has turned out to be a disaster, and although he had left office by the time the program could be properly evaluated, Romney was responsible. Liz Mair predicted this back in 2006, when Romney was still in office.

She noted that:

RomneyCare has not even been fully implemented yet, and a cost overrun of $151 million in 2007 alone is already in the cards, perhaps because the RomneyCare financial model assumed the wrong number of uninsured in Massachusetts (the Census Bureau puts it at 748,000, but RomneyCare assumes only 500,000). But any needed hike in taxes won’t be pushed through by Romney—he’ll be out of office when the bill comes due, and when extra federal dollars will likely have to be allocated to Massachusetts to help cover the shortfall between RomneyCare’s cost and its budget.

Ms. Mair was correct on the eventual cost overrun, and on the outcome of the program. Since leaving office, Romney has done well to define himself, and has turned himself into a credible possibility for the vice presidential nod, despite the fact that his largest accomplishment at the time of the launch of his candidacy has turned out to be a failure.

I’m not starting another crusade against Mitt Romney. In fact at this point, I think he’d be a better pick than some of the names that are being seriously considered. However, since those who are in the running for the vice presidential nod are being debated, such as Lieberman (who I have strongly and publicly opposed), and Bobby Jindale (who I think would be one of the stronger picks), one must reevaluate the pros and cons of putting Mitt Romney on the ticket.

As I and many others have postulated before, Romney’s gracious bowing out of the GOP primaries this year was a huge move in uniting the party as well as the first step in preparing for a run in 2012 should McCain lose this November. Since that time, Romney is doing exactly what he needs to build support among conservatives and the GOP party faithful — making speeches at GOP conventions and Lincoln Day dinners, headlining fundraising events for groups such as the Susan B Anthony List, filling in for Paul Harvey on his radio news show, and yes, fundraising and campaigning for John McCain.

This morning, the Romney team launched their new PAC: Free and Strong America.

The name is lifted from a line in his “Faith in America” speech:

“You left us, your children, a free and strong America. It is why we call yours the greatest generation. It is now my generation’s turn. How we respond to today’s challenges will define our generation, and it will determine what kind of America we leave our children, and theirs.”

The PAC is more or less a reassembling of the Romney campaign team, including big names such as James Bopp, Peter Flaherty, Vin Weber, Carl Forti (CEO of Freedom’s Watch), and of course, Beth Myers and Kevin Madden.

The main purpose of the PAC is to harness and funnel Romney’s fundraising capabilities for conservative candidates in the upcoming election. They’ve selected 7 House candidates to back so far - and Marc Ambinder notes, “Make no mistake: the candidates Romney’s PAC is supporting are all solid conservatives.” And, Free and Strong America is supporting John McCain for President.

Of course, the PAC also acts as a vehicle to allow Mitt to stay in the political spotlight as well: he is featured on the homepage as the chairman of the PAC and there’s a “Learn About Mitt” tab for his biography of accomplishments.

Now that SUSA has polled three different states by adding four different possible Veep selections to the bottom of an Obama or McCain ticket, let’s step back and take stock of what we’ve learned thus far.

There have been 12 matchups possible for each of the four Veep prospects (against four different tickets in three different states), and here’s statistically how each has played out:

Huckabee
Perhaps surprisingly, Huckabee fared the best out of the four prospects. Overall, he helped the McCain ticket by an average of 2.58 points. Additionally, he wasn’t a drag on the ticket in any matchup (that is, the McCain/Huckabee numbers were never lower than the original McCain numbers). He didn’t affect McCain’s numbers at all in 4 matchups and boosted the numbers in 8 of them:

Average: 2.58
Drag: 0
Even: 4
Help: 8

Romney
Romney was the only other selection that helped the ticket on average, though not nearly as much as Huckabee. He also helped in 8 out of the 12 matchups:

Average: 0.58
Drag: 3
Even: 1
Help: 8

Pawlenty
Pawlenty, one of the current frontrunners for the veep slot, dragged the ticket in every single matchup resulting in hurting McCain by an average of nearly 3 points:

Average: -2.92
Drag: 12
Even: 0
Help: 0

Lieberman
Lieberman didn’t fare much better than Pawlenty:

Average: -1.17
Drag: 8
Even: 2
Help: 2

Of course, there’s a lot that affected SUSA’s numbers. Nobody helped McCain when paired up against Obama/Edwards, by far the strongest Dem team polled. Pawlenty doesn’t have the name recognition that the other three options have. These results are only for three states, one of which isn’t going to turn red this year anyway. And there’s a hundred more variables that affect these outcomes. But this could at least give us a reasonable starting off point for discussing the worth of these four possibilities.

For myself, I was honestly surprised how well Huckabee polled and how much he helped improve McCain’s numbers. If the polls keep showing this sort of trend, I will have to be forced to re-examine my assumptions about Huckabee and the GOP.

This graphic and “coming soon” is all that appears on the front page of Mitt for Veep at the moment.

From Hotline:

In non debate action, Mitt Romney just made an impromptu appearance at the Radio-Tv Correspondents Dinner in DC to offer up the Top 10 Reasons Why I Dropped Out.

Per Hotline editor Amy Walter, here are a few of the 10:

Not as many Osmonds as I thought

Got tired of corkscrew landings

Wasn’t room in the campaign for two Christian leaders

I’d rather get fat, grow a beard and try for a Nobel Prize

Once Ann realized I couldn’t win, fundraising dried up

Flawed theory that as UT goes so goes the nation

Rusty over at comMITTedtoromney.com has started a petition to counter the efforts of GINGPAC and their anti-Mitt (or should I say Pro-Huckabee?) crusade:

The petition reads:

Sen. McCain, the Republican Nominee for President, has begun the process of selecting his running-mate. The person he chooses must be competent and ready to lead, as they will stand next in line to serve the country from the Oval Office.

We believe that the person best fit to serve as Vice President is Governor Mitt Romney. John McCain has been chosen as the leader of the Republican Party. Mitt Romney is willing and able to lead the Republican party in the future.

Please join us in asking Sen. McCain to choose Gov. Mitt Romney for VP. Signing this petition indicates your support of Gov. Romney.

You can sign the petition here.

Hat-tip: Jonathan Martin.

Matt Lewis points to a Huckabee motive. David Brody has a headache over this thing. But I see another motif at play here.

Am I blowing smoke about the hidden anti-Mormon agenda of many of the signatories who signed onto the God Not Government post?

Well, let’s review. Granted, these excerpts don’t come anywhere close to equating Mormonism to Homosexuality, but even I was a bit shocked by some of these quotes.

My main point is this: if you want your egregious arguments to hold any water at all… don’t include anti-Mormons on your list of adherents.

• Matt Barber, Policy Director, Concerned Women for America quoted here as helping a reformed homosexual who converted to Mormonism find “scripturally-sound” evangelical churches to attend.
• Ted Baehr, Author of Culture Wise Family, on the September 11th film: “What [the character of] Brigham Young does in the movie is talk about…that you have to have blood atonement… This is going to be an issue [for Romney]. “
• Janet Folger, President Faith2Action, See here: “Romney, as a Mormon, doesn’t believe Jesus was God’s only Son (Lucifer, they claim, was his ‘brother’). Nor does he believe in the virgin birth. Instead, Mormons believe God the Father had physical sex with Mary. The word blasphemy comes to mind. A bit more than a mere ‘denominational difference,’ don’t you think?”
• Gary Glenn, President AFA, Michigan, played the “religion card” in his GOTV efforts for Huckabee
• James Hartline, Founder and Publisher, California Christian News: “San Diego Republican Party Hits New Low - Invites Cult Member As Christmas Party Guest Of Honor” - “Mormon politics is more about promoting the economic interests of the Mormon Church and its wealthy members rather than any pseudo Biblical beliefs.”
• Linda Harvey, President Mission America: “He used his Republican and Mormon identity to push through radical policies on gay marriage, abortion and pro-homosexual school programs that Ted Kennedy always dreamed about.” - link
• Gregg Jackson: Writes here in an article entitled: “Is this the end of Evangelicalism in America?”: “A cornerstone of the Mormon Church, Grudem writes, is the classic heresy of Saint Paul’s day – angel worship. In his book, Grudem insists that an orthodox Christian must practice the theology he reads. So why would he step forward to become part of the Mitt Romney propaganda blitz trying to mislead evangelicals into doing what would shock most evangelicals in American history: elect a Mormon for president? “
• Peter LaBarbera: “The sponsor of a homosexual-inclusive “hate crimes” bill in Utah is hailing the support of two Mormon-owned media organs, signaling the neutrality of the powerful and socially conservative church on an issue that is seen by many family advocates as the first step in the wider ‘gay’ agenda.”

And I’m only half way through the list. In my mind, many of these people are hiding behind silly political pot-shots because they have theological angst against the Mormon church.

Am I wrong here?

I have no idea whether or not Mitt Romney would accept the position of running mate if McCain picked him, but assuming he does want it, people like those running the website, www.nomittvp.com, are probably helping his chances. One thing I’ve always liked about John McCain is that he is not someone who is going to let other people push him around. The more pressure conservative groups or any other type of groups put on McCain to not pick Romney, the better the chance that McCain will pick Romney. McCain will not let outside groups tell him what he can and cannot do. Conservatives have been squawking for the last two months about how they may not vote for McCain in the general election, and he has only gone up in the polls.

While there are many good people in the religious right movement, especially among rank and file, John McCain sees a lot of the leadership for what they are. Many of them are a lot more “right” than they are “religious”. Ralph Reed is a Republican party hack who discovered religion as a way to help Republicans. If Pat Robertson really cared about the right to life and strong families, why did he support pro-choice candidate Rudy Giuliani? When McCain heard this last fall, I recall him saying he was speechless. He probably recalled Robertson mercilessly attacking him in 2000 for not being conservative enough despite his 100% pro-life Senate voting record. Paul Weyrich wrote a scathing letter in 1999 saying moralists had lost the culture war and he was forever abandoning politics. McCain sees many of these guys as the flakes they are.

McCain has bucked fiscal conservatives too. He told Grover Norquist to pound sand about his tax pledge. I actually disagreed with McCain on that and thought he should have signed the pledge, but it is another indication of McCain not wanting to bow down to anyone.Furthermore, McCain has stated he supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent anyway. He supports a capital gains tax cut and opposes the death tax. He just didn’t want to sign a pledge because of his contrarian nature.

You will seldom hear John McCain or Mitt Romney bragging to people about how religious they are. This is because people with a strong faith don’t feel they need to. They show their values by how they live their lives. McCain served his country well and made a huge sacrifice as a POW. Romney has been a wonderful husband and father. Perhaps if McCain talked more openly about his faith, he may be able to increase conservative turnout in rural Ohio or in some competitive Southern states, but McCain is from a generation that was brought up not to wear their religion on their sleeves. However, many people make the mistake of thinking that if someone doesn’t talk much about their faith that it means they don’t have a strong faith, when generally the reverse is true.

The more pressure McCain gets from conservative groups or even moderate groups who don’t want Mitt, the more likely he is to pick him.

If Mitt really wants it, his best strategy would be to play hard to get. I can read McCain pretty well on this one. It takes one stubborn person to understand another.

…in Romney’s back… ?!

(cross-posted on MyManMitt by Kyle)

Maybe this is reverse psychology?

That’s the only excuse I can think of in defense of the GINGPAC decision to blast the idea of a McCain-Romney ticket. Unfortunately I don’t think these guys had reverse psychology in mind when they drafted this ad that, according to the website, will appear wherever McCain campaigns, starting in Prescott, AZ this weekend.

I could go on in an almost endless rant about why these guys have it wrong about Romney. However, the illogic and misinformation are patent from reading the ad. Citing questionable sources and making bare (and false) allegations does not lend credibility to their claims. Indeed, one could find numerous reliable and prominent sources that completely negate the claims they make.

Probably the saddest part of this was seeing Paul Weyrich’s name attached to the ad. Et tu Paul?

Many here are eager to see Romney become McCain’s running mate. Almost as many are eager to see Mitt fade into oblivion. A new ad by a so-con group illustrates the latter. Here’s some of the text (h/t Hotair):

If Governor Romney is on your ticket, many social conservative voters will consider their values repudiated by the Republican Party and will either stay away from the polls this November or only vote down ticket. For the sake of your election, the health of your party, and the future of America you must not allow the obvious electoral consequences of that to occur.

And here’s the kicker; one of the signatories is Paul Weyrich, a prominent for Romney supporter, who apparently now regrets not backing Huckabee (Jason wrote about this a few days ago). I have extraordinarily mixed views about this ad. On the one hand, I want to tell them to go pound sand. I was a proud Romney supporter for months, and I saw this sort of unreasoning hatred spewed towards Romney almost daily. And in this case, there are only two motives; first, this group is shilling for Huck. Second, they’re almost certainly motivated by bigotry; a group of prominent evangelicals doesn’t run ads in the beginning April against a man who probably hasn’t even made the VP shortlist and who ostensibly shares their goals, without some level of irrationality at work. And I have absolutely no patience for Huckabee boosters or for bigots.

On the other hand, I sort of agree with them. My support for Romney in the primaries notwithstanding, I do believe he’d be a remarkably weak VP choice for a good number of reasons; not the least of which is because there are conservative groups out there willing to run ads like this, when he may not even be getting serious consideration for the job. Joe Lieberman plausibly has as a good of chance as Romney, and surely would be a far worse for evangelicals under any sane rubric. But, we’re not seeing any “don’t select Lieberman, or we walk” ads. Because all the groups that REALLY hate Lieberman are on the left. Romney has such groups coming from every which way.

So I have a curious dilemma. I agree that Romney shouldn’t be VP; that, even among conservatives, he’d probably be net drag, and would wreak havoc with McCain’s independent base. But, I don’t like the idea of bigoted thugs who are shilling for Huckabee torpedoing the prospects of an extremely qualified and competent man and I feel rather like composing a letter signed by like-minded conservative friends promising to “walk” if Huck’s the VP (highly improbable). I feel like getting behind Romney again, because these characters are bad news for our political system. But, I think I’ll have to settle for condemning the ad and it’s motives. Because, a bad messenger can still deliver a serious message. Even a blind squirrel…

Yes, the Mittcast is still up and running.

With almost 800 listeners we’re not giving up. Don’t misunderstand me, at MyManMitt we totally support John McCain (and perhaps we’ll “port” the name over when the convention comes around). But we’re still at it nonetheless.

Today, John McCain on Letterman, the Weyrich waffling, Gentry Collins on the move, and zodiac signs predict the President? LISTEN ONLINE OR…

Download the MP3 File

SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCAST CLICK BELOW:

OR use our feed:

XML Podcast Feed

Here’s the setup.

Lowell Brown, the savvy legal eagle over at the Article VI blog, links to this article by Warren Smith. (Lowell and crew are masters at surveying the current intersection of politics and religion. Its an important post which we will discuss at some later date but Smith’s claim is the issue at hand.)

In his WorldMag article, Smith alleges that Paul Weyrich (noted conservative Christian leader who endorsed Romney last November) now openly regrets his endorsement. Quoting Weyrich: “Friends, before all of you and before almighty God, I want to say I was wrong.” Smith continues:

In a quiet, brief, but passionate speech, Weyrich essentially confessed that he and the other leaders should have backed Huckabee, a candidate who shared their values more fully than any other candidate in a generation. He agreed with Farris that many conservative leaders had blown it. By chasing other candidates with greater visibility, they failed to see what many of their supporters in the trenches saw clearly: Huckabee was their guy.

Lowell thinks Smith is spinning. I’m not convinced. Its difficult for me to claim spin with that direct quote from Weyrich. Still, context is everything.

My sources tell my that Weyrich (like many conservatives) was not a little miffed about Mitt’s endorsement of McCain. I understand his sentiment but disagree with his reasoning.

The gist of the meeting, which Smith says took place in early March, lambastes leaders for not getting behind Huck. Its hard to justify this thinking. I could use the same logic in my corner to berate Iowan Evangelicals for not getting behind Mitt (which is the demographic move that started the whole McCain ball rolling after all).

From my perspective Mitt’s McCain move was calculated but completely logical. McCain has always been the snubbed candidate from most sides of the conservative playground. But today, he’s the only guy left to be picked for the kickball game. The good news is this: with the anti-Bush electorate so vocal, McCain may just be the best guy to put up against the Dems. This is what Mitt sees and what I hope our readers will see as well.

To wit: conservatives who oppose McCain for political reasons are essentially “kicking against the pricks” - a rough venture when the alternatives are President Clinton or Obama.

Still, Weyrich is expressing a certain bewilderment and understandable angst which many conservative Christians are feeling about McCain. Another source who is deeply connected in Evangelical circles expressed his dismay that McCain isn’t reaching out to them.

A third source confirmed this feeling but indicated that its mostly par for the course. “McCain is coming to these conservative events but he does so just to check the box that says he was there. He holds no private meetings, no meet and greets and never lingers to mix with the crowd.”

I hope he’s wrong. Its going to take more than the facade of placation to placate these masses.

Still, context is everything. While Weyrich was miffed at Mitt I’m told he’s also a bit perturbed about Huck’s defense of Reverend Wright. What goes around comes around.

It’s interesting how a primary makes enemies and a general election brings people back together. For instance, while campaigning in Florida the day before the state’s primary, McCain said this about Mitt Romney:

“The truth is, Mitt Romney was a liberal governor of Massachusetts.”

Yesterday, while the two were campaigning together, McCain had this to say of his former rival:

“He came to a very liberal state and campaigned as a conservative and governed as a conservative.”

Just making up for the sake of the party? Or preparing the stage for a future Veep pick? Only time will tell.

Or, is this the ultimate head fake and thus the “the ticket” comes off like this:

“Yeaahhh… ‘dats da ticket!”

 I dunno. Thoughts?

(note: I have officially broken my fast, removed the sackcloth and ashes, and moved back into high gear blogging. Good to be back.) 

You heard that right.  Mitt Romney is putting his money where his mouth is and showing up to give his support to McCain in (of all places) Utah.

The local Utah news report below recounts the bad blood and bad taste that many in Utah feel about McCain & Co.  In the end though, Romney seems the bigger man than many of us, recognizing that a President Obama or Clinton would be a benign nod towards oblivion in many conservative minds.

To that end, he’s appearing today at a fundraiser in Salt Lake City right along side Senator McCain.

(yes, we’re still plugging away at MyManMitt which still garners thousands of visitors each week!  Listen to the latest Mittcast.)

Longtime reader and friend of R4′08 marK has written on this over at Redstate.

More to come on this in just a bit…

Given that one man with courage makes a majority as God spews the lukewarm out of his mouth, how was this rooster so blind to his maverick kinsman standing there all along?

How could I lean to an upstart Mitt, take the late Fred train only to lean to Mitt once more (lukewarms all), when a perfectly hot war hawk/cold on spending John McCain was at all times available?

I suspect this former Democrat for 18 years, won over to the GOP in 2000 based on the conservative principles best embodied by Ronald Reagan, felt entitled to have him (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) delivered up to facilitate my repentance for lacking the courage and wisdom to embrace the real thing when he walked the Earth.

Reality intervened with a conservative epiphany after a nose-holding vote for Gore, but after the post-Super Tuesday reality check the moment Mitt Romney suspended his campaign, I will breathe freely and happily when proudly casting my vote for the senior senator from Arizona for President of the United States on Election Day 2008.

The moment Mitt resigned I was relieved as the scales fell from my eyes and I saw my man McCain in full for the first time, after only having glimpses before.

The glimpses were when the maverick would stand up to the MSM on THE issue.

The War.

After all, while I revere President George W. Bush for his character, tax cuts and judges, it is his steel spine on the war that elevates him in my mind to heroic status.

John McCain, already a hero since his POW years in Vietnam, also has a steel war spine.

You say you want CHANGE? How about a war hawk with attitude instead of the “new tone” usually of silence we have endured the past seven years.

John McCain will be anything but silent. Rather, his old tone many of us resented at times when directed at us, will very soon and for his entire presidency, be directed at the MSM sycophants that are turning on their cable and network co-star as we speak.

It is going to be sweet to watch as McCain becomes the vessel for liberal attacks on conservatism. We will bond to him as he is unjustly attacked due to his age. The man we have so often seen as a jerk will now be our jerk.

And we will love him for it.

This country desperately needs to re-learn what patriotism is.

John McCain embodies patriotism. His mere presence demands respect. Enemies of the United States that pray for a weak democrat will not be tempted to test our champion.

Yes, we have our policy differences with McCain, but McCain has been making some promises with regard to many of those issues.

And John McCain keeps his promises.

After a bitter fight with then Governor Bush in South Carolina in 2000, he campaigned tirelessly for his election and re-election. McCain promises to secure the border first. He will fight to make tax cuts he originally opposed permanent.

We should not require an “uncle” from our nominee. We already have Uncle Sam, and whenever our common uncle wanted John McCain, he answered the call.

From now till Election Day, our love for America must equal that of John’s, which will require that we not only vote with a hands free nose but also give our full-throated support before we pull that polling booth curtain.

On issues with which we disagree, we can fight him and Congress through the courts (McCain-Feingold) or via Rush Limbaugh and our conservative brigades (global warming/amnesty). But let us now and forever disabuse ourselves of the notion that there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between McCain and either Hillary or Obama. Let us eschew the notion that we could win (for the conservative of republican cause) by losing.

Poppy