Buddy Roemer Is Running In 2012

The 2012 Republican primaries will give America a chance to see a wide variety of conservative candidates. There will candidates that many Americans already know such as Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin. However, there will be other candidates that America have yet to become acquainted with. 

One of those candidates is Buddy Roemer. 

Most people, like myself, have never heard of him. And they might barely remember him after the election is over. Which is kinda how the people of Louisiana remember him: 

"A former Democratic member of Congress who switched to the GOP in 1991, midway through his single term as governor, Roemer has been largely absent from politics since consecutive failed gubernatorial runs. In Louisiana circles, he is a onetime political wunderkind who is remembered more for what he might have been than what he accomplished." 

An old aide to Roemer explain that people remember him more for his eccentricities than his political career: 

Former Rep. Jim McCrery, an aide to Roemer when the former governor was in Congress who eventually took his seat, said most in the state have lost track of his former boss.

“Ninety-nine out of 100 people couldn’t tell you where Buddy Roemer is today,” McCrery said. “But he has a pretty good story to tell about what he’s done since being out of the public eye.”

Even when he was Governor of Louisiana, people described him as an odd politician: 

A New-Age Mystic: As part of a very public mid-life crisis, Gov. Roemer began wearing blue jeans and adopted the slogan, "Goodbye to me, hello to we." Here we'll quote from Charlie Trueheart's 1991 Washington Post story:

"[H]e and his erstwhile Roemeristas (so called because of the much-touted but since-wilted "Roemer revolution") have been reduced to mouthing the ridiculous platitudes of Robert Fulghum and other New Age shamans. Cook reports, "He packed himself and his staff off to motivational treats dubbed 'Adventures in Attitudes,' where they learned to banish negative thoughts by snapping a rubber band against their wrists while uttering 'Cancel, cancel.'"

Some people remember him as a key player in the 2008 West Virginia primaries in which he may have assisted John McCain in delivering that state to Mike Huckabee in order to prevent Mitt Romney from winning that state. According to Fox News,  John McCain instructed Buddy Roemer to give the McCain delegates to Mike Huckabee:

"But before Huckabee’s surprising turnaround at the convention, McCain delegates told FOX News they had been instructed by the campaign to throw their support to Huckabee.

McCain delegate John Vuolo said former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer approached him and other McCain supporters at the convention and told them he had spoken to McCain, and that the best thing to do was to support Huckabee in the hope that Huckabee could beat Romney in this winner-take-all state."

Now that he is running in 2012, what kind of candidate will he be? Well, he's a social liberal but a fiscal conservative:   

Not a culture warrior: Roemer's no lefty: He supported chain gangs and presided over the execution of a mentally handicapped man who had murdered a state trooper at the age of 17. But in one of the signature showdowns of his political career, Roemer opposed his base: As governor in 1991, he vetoed a GOP proposal that would have banned all abortions, except in the case of rape or incest—and even then, abortions could only be performed in the first 13 weeks of a pregnancy, and the rape or incest victims had just five days to report the crime. The bill passed into law over his veto, but was later blocked by a federal judge. The National Right to Life Committee called Roemer's veto "a betrayal." Roemer also signed a law legalizing medicinal marijuana in Louisiana, and vetoed a bill that would have restricted the sale of profane music like 2 Live Crew. 

But he is a fiscal warrior: A "Boll Weevil" Southern Democrat in Congress, Roemer supported President Reagan's 1982 tax cuts. Faced with a $700 million deficit as governor, he proposed a dramatic overhaul of the state tax code—including increasing the sales tax (the proposal was blocked) and cutting more than $200 million in spending. After leaving politics, Roemer took a job as a CEO of a small bank, which, he takes pains to note, did not receive bailout funds.

Buddy Roemer has already laid out a vision of how he will run in 2012: 

His campaign theme will be “Free to Lead,” Roemer said, boasting: “I’m going to be independent from the Big Money, Wall Street money, special interest money; that’s going to be my mark in this campaign.”

And when he says he wants to be free from big money and special interest money, he means it. He has indicated that he will not accept any money from PACs, and plans to limit individual donations to $100. Buddy Roemer thinks he can raise serious cash with this approach:

And how exactly will he fund a national campaign by capping each of his donors at $100 cumulatively in an era when the sitting president may crack the $1 billion mark?

“You think I can get 4 million Americans to give me $100 each?” he asked. “That’s $400 million.”

Asked whether he thinks he can raise anywhere near that in a primary, Roemer recalled that he faced the same doubts when he imposed limits on himself in his successful 1987 gubernatorial race among an array of well-connected candidates, including incumbent Gov. Edwin Edwards and former Reps. Bob Livingston and Billy Tauzin.

However, not everyone thinks his fundraising plan will work:

"Four million donors would be a level of support similar to Barack Obama's record-breaking 2008 outreach. So he is not taking this with the seriousness with which, say, Mitt Romney is taking this. He can be a Duncan Hunter/Mike Gravel sort of candidate, an elder who thinks he should be an elder statesman, and uses chunks of televised debate time to get there."

Perhaps the biggest problem for Buddy Roemer is that he will have a hard time convincing Republicans that he's really a Republican:

"Roemer has never been elected as a Republican. He served four terms in Congress as a Democrat, then was elected governor of Louisiana as a Democrat in 1987 with only 33 percent of the vote after Edwin Edwards conceded rather than participating in a runoff. Roemer switched to the Republican Party in March of 1991, then placed third in his re-election bid that fall behind Edwards and David Duke. He then attempted a political comeback, running in 1995 for governor as a Republican – and was blown away, finishing in fourth place behind Foster, Cleo Fields and Mary Landrieu. Roemer hasn’t run for anything since. He mulled a run for the Senate in 2004 but opted not to make the race, and David Vitter went on to win that seat easily.

That fact is a fairly big strike against Roemer. In weighing the idea of nominating someone for the highest elected office in the land, the grassroots activists and precinct captains who ultimately decide caucuses and primaries are going to see fundamental importance in the concept that somebody they support is capable of winning. If you’re 0-for-2 as a Republican candidate in your own state, and ran behind Republicans in both of those two races (Duke in 1991 and Foster in 1995), they’re going to dismiss you.

It doesn’t help that Roemer came from a Democrat family (his father was Edwin Edwards’ campaign manager in 1971 and ultimately went to jail as part of the BriLab investigation), ran afoul of the state’s GOP muckety-mucks even when he switched over to the Republican Party and just last year endorsed a Democrat – his brother-in-law David Melville as it turns out – for Congress in a race against incumbent John Fleming. Roemer’s endorsement of Melville was seen as a joke, and Fleming, who is a very popular, very conservative and quite effective congressman with a bright future, won the race easily.

Buddy Roemer has very little chances of winning in 2012 because he has an unrealistic fundraising game plan and that he does not have name recognition that other 2012 candidates will have. 

In a crowded field of Republican candidates for 2012, he will probably not make it past the first few primaries before becoming a distant and faint memory in the 2012 election.

Newt Gingrich Will Announce His Decision About 2012 Soon

Newt Gingrich made a short statement to the press yesterday in which he told them that he will announce his decision on whether or not he's running in 2012 sometime next week:

"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called on the nation to "renew the spirit of Philadelphia" Thursday during a luncheon appearance at the Union League in Center City, later telling reporters to scrutinize social media next week for word of his presidential intentions.

"I would just say to folks who are really curious: watch Facebook and Twitter in the next week," Gingrich said after the event. "I think you'll have all the information you need."

In his speech, Gingrich said that the nation has strayed from the core principle embodied in the Declaration of Independence that individuals are "endowed by their creator" with rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, drifting toward a more statist view of government."

I think all signs are pointing to him running in 2012. I will be extremely surprised if he decides not to run.  

Did Ann Coulter Just Endorse Mitt Romney For 2012?

Here's the text in case you want to see Ann Coulter's endorsement of Mitt Romney in print:

ASMAN: Does he get reelected or will Christie come into the picture? COULTER: Well, if Christie comes in Obama does not get reelected.

ASMAN: If Christie does not, and it’s Mitt Romney?

COULTER: A month ago or two months ago at CPAC all predictions this far out are useless, which is why it is kind of fun to make them. I was saying, “No, only Chris Christie can beat Obama,” but the way the economy is going, oil prices going up, food prices going up massive unemployment rate, I think I could well be wrong about Romney. I think he might beat this guy too.

Ann Coulter caused quite a stir at the 2011 CPAC conference when she said that if we don’t run Chris Christie for President, then Romney will win the nomination and we’ll lose in 2012. A lot of people thought her statement meant to be a slam against Mitt. However, I thought it was just her way of endorsing Mitt Romney.

Ann Coulter endorsed Mitt in the 2008 elections and I think she will be consistent in her support of Mitt Romney in 2012. I think she will be more vocal in her endorsement of Mitt Romney as time goes on and the Presidential election heats up. Just wait and see.

Six Reasons Why Paul Ryan Should Run In 2012!?

The rumors about Paul Ryan running in 2012 are still going on strong. At this point, I wouldn't call them rumors but more like people are trying to draft him to run. James Pethokoukis, writing for Reuters, has given six reasons why Paul Ryan should run in 2012:

1) Since Democrats are determined to hang Ryan’s bold “Path to Prosperity” budget plan around the neck of every Republican running for office in 2012,  why not have its author and best salesman advocate for it directly vs. President Obama?

2) Ryan — to borrow a favorite Simon Cowell phrase — is “current.” He’s smack in the middle of budgetary and ideological clash between Democrats and Republicans and would immediately energize conservative and Tea Party activists.

3) Ryan is a strong national defense conservative, as well as pro-life.

4) Ryan is from a battleground state, Wisconsin, and a battleground region, the upper Great Lakes.

5) Ryan’s youth, vigor, likability and Jimmy Stewart persona — well, a wonky version of George Bailey — would be an immediate shorthand signal to voters that he’s a different kind of Republican. He also has a compelling life story to tell.

6) Obama suddenly and unexpectedly to Washington insiders looks beatable — by the right candidate.

Although these are good reasons why he should run, I'm still not convinced he's running in 2012. Right now, the best place for Paul Ryan to be is in Congress where he can fight to have his plan passed in Congress. 

Mitt Romney Vindicated: Don't Focus On Obama's Birth Certificate But Focus On His Poor Economic Record

Today, President Obama released his long form birth certificate after two years of debate over whether or not Barak Obama was born in Hawaii and was a United States citizen. 

2012 candidate Donald Trump may be the person who is most hurt by Obama's release of his long form birth certificate since he was the one who was the most vocal in pushing the issue. 

However, Newt Gingrich was another candidate who bought into the birther issue:

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, last fall in an interview with the National Review, posited that Obama, whose father was from Kenya, has a Kenyan mindset, echoing the theme of a controversial book by conservative author Dinesh D’Douza.

“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?  That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior,” Gingrich said.

However, not all candidates supported the birther issue. Many of them were either timid or gave mixed signals on where they stood on the issue:

"Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour accepts the president’s word about his birthplace, his staff said.

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty told an Iowa audience, “I‘m not one to question the authenticity of Barack Obama’s birth certificate.” He added a little jab: “When you look at his policies, I do question what planet he’s from.”

When ABC‘s George Stephanopoulos showed a copy of Obama’s birth certificate to Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, who was ambivalent at first, she said: “Well, then, that should settle it. … I take the president at his word.”

Former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin gave mixed signals in a recent Fox News appearance. She praised Trump for “paying for researchers” to dig into claims of Obama’s foreign birth. But she added, “I think that he was born in Hawaii because there was a birth announcement put in the newspaper.”

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has dismissed claims that Obama is foreign-born, calling them a distraction. But on a February radio show, Huckabee referred to Obama “having grown up in Kenya,” the birthplace of the president’s father."

There were only two 2012 candidates who gave the most direct and firm rejection of the birther issue. Those candidates where Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.

Out of all the 2012 candidates, I think Mitt Romney comes out ahead on this issue. 

Many people on the left, middle and right will respect Mitt Romney for being one of two mature candidates who refused to get caught up in the birther nonsense. Even Chris Matthews, who is no fan of conservatives, praised Mitt Romney for being the only serious and straightforward candidate among the many Republicans running in 2012: 

"But he will be a presidential candidate, a proud and serious one and if it's not too old-fashioned to say so, he'll be a man."

Watch Mitt Romney on the Kudlow Report as flatly rejected the birther issue and focused on Obama's poor record as President of the United States. See the clip below:

 

Mitt Romney is right. We should be focusing on the major issues that concerns all Americans which are jobs and the economy. He is absolutely correct that American's should be outraged at Barak Obama's failure to fix unemployment and the economy.

Ron Paul Announces That He Will Be Running For President For A Third Time

Ron Paul's announcement that he will be running for President for a third time by forming an exploratory committee is no surprise. However, even though Ron Paul has ran for President a few times, many people are not aware of who Ron Paul really is and what his positions are.  

Not only will Ron Paul be competing in a very crowded field of Republican candidates, but he will be also competing against Gary Johnson. Both men are libertarians and share many of the same domestic and foreign policy views. 

They also think highly of each other and have had a short history together: 

"Johnson and Paul first met in 2004 and Paul invited the former governor, who made waves during his second term calling for the decriminalization of drugs, to Washington to speak to his Liberty Caucus about drug policy."

As a result of meeting up in 2004, they have great respect for each other. Gary Johnson endorsed Ron Paul in the 2008 Presidential primaries and Ron Paul has said that he would endorse Gary Johnson if he decided he would run in 2012. Gary Johnson was certainly flattered by Ron Paul's potential endorsement. 

But now that both men are running, it might put their friendship to the test as they compete against each other. One major area that they will disagree with each other will be on foreign policy.  Like Ron Paul, Gary Johnson is an isolationist/non-interventionist. He opposes the war in Iraq and Afghanistan:

"Gary Johnson opposed the war in Iraq as Governor of New Mexico and believes that the United States should withdraw our troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as effectively possible, believing that neither country poses a current threat to the US.

The United States should not be borrowing money to build roads, bridges, schools and other infrastructure in foreign countries, especially when such help is currently needed at home. Non-military foreign aid around the world is something we can not currently afford."

However, unlike Ron Paul, he does support Israel and would protect that country militarily if needed:

"Governor Johnson supports the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign country and believes that the United States should protect that right militarily if needed."

While Ron Paul is against military interventions for any reason, Gary Johnson seems to be open to the idea that military intervention is acceptable if it is done for humanitarian purposes: 

A dove in the mold of 2008 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, Johnson says, “I don't think that we should be in Iraq or Afghanistan.” But the extent of his non-interventionism isn’t quite clear. On one hand, he isn’t even sure if U.S. troops should have been stationed in Europe to confront the Soviets following World War II. “I don't think I have the expertise to be able to say that it was good or bad, it just seems to me that today, it doesn’t really seem warranted,” he says. Johnson also says Iran’s nuclear program isn’t a threat to the United States because the principle of “mutually assured destruction” would keep the Iranians from attacking.

On the other hand, Johnson is open, in principle, to waging humanitarian wars. “If there’s a clear genocide somewhere, don’t we really want to positively impact that kind of a situation?” he says. “Isn’t that what we’re all about? Isn’t that what we’ve always been about? But just this notion of nation building—I think the current policy is making us more enemies than more friends.”

Many libertarians are excited that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson will be competing against each other in 2012. They see this as an opportunity to promote the libertarian philosophy to the general public. The downside to having two libertarians running in 2012 is that there will be a lot of infighting between libertarians as they debate each other who is the more "true "libertarian. 

Moreover, instead of having libertarians rally around Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, it will split the libertarian vote between these two men even though either of these men don't have chance of winning the Republican nomination or defeating Obama in 2012. 

However, the fact that there are two libertarians running in 2012 should make the election interesting and exciting for everyone as these men compete and debate one another in this election.

Is Paul Ryan Really Running For President?

Despite the fact that Representative Paul Ryan has stated that he will not be running in 2012, the rumors that he might be running just won't go away.  Ace reports that what Paul Ryan's public refusal to run in 2012 is very much different that what he tells people privately: 

"I've been wondering about this because I'd written off Ryan ("My kids are too small and my ego's not big enough") and yet there continue to be these mentions of him as a prospect by the conservative media.

I asked Bill Kristol about this at Breitbart's book signing -- I keep hearing Weekly Standard people, particularly, hint that Ryan is entertaining the idea of a run.

Joking around, he said, "Oh, we all just say that to each other [at the Weekly Standard]" -- meaning, "We're all psyching ourselves up with that and/or attempting to put out that rumor out there."

Funny.

But I asked another journalist type (I won't say who since I didn't tell him I'd be quoting, it was a personal type question) and he said, "Well, he rules it out in his public statements but in his private statements...?" Not so much.

I asked, to be sure, if he was saying "Who knows what he says in private?" or if he was saying "I've heard what he says in private, and he's not as firm on it as he is in public declarations." He confirmed it was the latter.

I think the situation he'd be willing to consider it is if there's no unifying, consensus figure in the primaries.

Just noting."

Although Representative Paul Ryan is popular enough to have a facebook page dedicated to the hope that he might to run and that he won  the 2012 Tea Party Presidential Poll, I really don't think he will run. 

Here is why I don't think Paul Ryan will run. 

I don't think he's willing to pull himself away from his work of pushing his "roadmap" plan and throw his hat into the ring and compete in a Republican field of 2012 contenders which is already very crowded at the moment and more politicians are likely to join in on the fray.

Paul Ryan will have to prepare a battle on many fronts such as fund raising and setting up a national organization needed to win the 2012 primaries. When it comes to fund raising, the battle for campaign funds from large and small donors will be fierce. Moreover, campaign contributions from large donors have already been secured or are in the process of being secured. Additionally, very few of the candidates have the financial capacity to endure the 2012 primaries, or beyond to the 2012 general election. As a result, if Paul Ryan were to run, he has an uphill battle in lining up donors, getting the necessary capital to sustain the long primary battles and having enough cash to run afterwards.

When it comes to getting organized for 2012, very few 2012 candidates have established the kind of network in each state to compete in 2012. Many political advisers and campaign managers have already committed to working with whatever political campaign they've promised to work for. Again, Paul Ryan would have to scramble to get teams going in each state and have them be competitive in each of those states. Not only that, he would have to compete in hiring people against those who haven't decided to run yet but might such as Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin.

Paul Ryan is doing an excellent job in Washington D.C. by pushing his "roadmap plan" and has done a remarkable job of changing the national discussion on how to reduce the national debt. Right now, he is laser focused on reducing the national debt. People in D.C. and those who follow him closely know he is a policy wonk and really likes to dig into the details of a particular matter. However,  If he were to run, he would lose his focus and energy on pushing his "roadmap" to reducing the deficit and have to broaden his focus on other national issues because he wouldn't want to become a single issue candidate by just focusing on the national debt (even though that's should be the only concern of every 2012 candidate running). 

In the end, I just can't see Paul Ryan running in 2012.

Be Grateful For The Freedom We Have To Remember Him On Easter

Be grateful you are free to celebrate Easter and remember Him. Not everyone has the freedom to do that:

"Up to 30 members of a Chinese evangelical church were arrested on Sunday for trying to hold an Easter service in defiance of the officially atheist government, a member of the clergy said.

A large number of police began to gather early Sunday in the Zhongguancun area of Beijing where the Shouwang Church had said it would hold an outdoor service to mark the holiest day of the Christian calendar.

"Between 20 and 30 followers were taken away by police," senior pastor Jin Tianming told AFP by telephone from his home, where he is under house arrest. He said there were several police officers posted outside the building.

He added that the members of the congregation who were arrested had been taken to different police stations and that none had so far been released."

I am in awe at the love these Chinese Christians have to honor the Savior when the Chinese government won’t let them. They choose to remember Him even when it means that they might be arrested, beaten and imprisoned for a long time. They choose to remember Him in public because they want religious freedom in China.

Christ was willing to die for us despite knowing that He would be arrested, beaten, whipped, mocked and crucified so that we might be truly free.  

Mike Huckabee DID collaborate with John McCain in 2008

An all out feud between Mike Huckabee and Glenn Beck has broken out in which they have been lobbying verbal bullets at each other. One of the claims that Glenn Beck makes is that Mike Huckabee collaborated with John McCain to push Mitt Romney out during the 2008 campaign. Here's what Mike Huckabee said in response to that allegation: 

"His ridiculous claim that John McCain and I collaborated and conspired in the 2008 campaign is especially laughable. Is he not aware that McCain and I were competitors—not cohorts? Beck needs to stick to conspiracies that can’t be so easily de-bunked by facts. Why Beck has decided to aim his overloaded guns on me is beyond me."

Mike Huckabee is disengenious with his defense here. McCain and Huck were out to keep Romney from winning it together, not against each other as Huckbee claims.

Unfortunately for Mike Huckabee, this is a conspiracy that can be debunked by facts. Lets look at them shall we?

We know for a fact that Mitt Romney had the most support prior to when the votes were taken during the first round of the the 2008 West Virginia primaries: 

"When Romney arrived this morning in Charleston to address the Republican convention, it was largely assumed that he had Mountain State in the bag. That confidence was partly the product of pure investment; his campaign went to work in the state in 2006, long before his rivals arrived, and Romney had visited repeatedly over the past several weeks. And part was establishment support; Mitt began the day with 280 committed state delegates (more than Huck or McCain) and all three West Virginia superdelegates in his column."

It clear that Mitt Romney was in the lead and that the people of West Virginia were ready to nominate Mitt Romney in the 2008 primaries. 

Now that we know what Mitt Romney's position looked like before the voting took place during the West Virginia primaries, lets look at the results of the first round of voting: 

"Romney won 41 percent during the first round to 33 percent for Huckabee. McCain won 16 percent, and Paul brought up the rear with 10 percent. Since no one had a majority, delegates voted a second time, with Paul eliminated."

Now that Ron Paul was eliminated from the first round of voting in the 2008 West Virginia, Mike Huckabee made a cut a deal with Ron Paul to get his delegates to vote for Mike Huckabee in the second round of voting:

"In an agreement first reported by West Virginia television station WSAZ, the three Ron Paul delegates were secured through an agreement with the Mike Huckabee campaign.

Ron Paul delegates to the state convention swung their support to Huckabee – putting Huckabee over the top – after Congressman Paul was eliminated in the first round of voting. With three national delegates, Ron Paul secured 17 percent of the 18 delegates that were decided at the State Convention."

Now here's where the conspiracy between Mike Huckabee and John McCain begins. 

While there is no proof that Mike Huckabee and John McCain or their staffers met in some smoked filled room to hash out a deal, there are snippets of facts that indicate that some kind of agreement did go down between these two men.

There  are independent reports that John McCain instructed his delegates to vote for Huckabee in order to prevent Mitt Romney from winning the second round of voting. We have a report from James Joyner who reported that John McCain instructed his delegates to vote for Huckabee:

“McCain told them to vote for Huckabee to keep Romney from winning. If the second round came down to McCain and Romney, the Huckabee delegates could very likely have broken for Romney.”

There's also this report from Marc Ambinder that independently verifies that fact:

"But sources say that representatives for John McCain called many of his reps in WV and asked them to vote for Huckabee...in order to thwart Romney on the second ballot."

We then get this report from Fox News:

"But before Huckabee’s surprising turnaround at the convention, McCain delegates told FOX News they had been instructed by the campaign to throw their support to Huckabee.

McCain delegate John Vuolo said former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer approached him and other McCain supporters at the convention and told them he had spoken to McCain, and that the best thing to do was to support Huckabee in the hope that Huckabee could beat Romney in this winner-take-all state."

John Vuolo's claim that former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer was instructing delegates to vote for Mike Huckabee can be verified from the Charleston Gazette:

"On the first ballot Tuesday morning, Romney was the leading vote getter, with 40.9 percent of the vote. Huckabee was second, with 33.1 percent. McCain had 15.5 percent, and longtime Texas Rep. Ron Paul had 10.4 percent.

Under the convention rules, the candidate with the fewest votes was knocked off the ballot, so that eliminated Paul.

Former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer, McCain’s representative at the event, then conceded defeat and asked McCain boosters to support Huckabee on the second ballot in order to block Romney…"

We then get a reports of John McCain supporters holding up signs encouraging other McCain delegates to vote for Mike Huckabee: 

"McCain staffers, meanwhile, began parading around the hall carrying signs telling their delegates to vote for Huckabee."

Lets sum up what we know now: 

Mitt Romney wins the first round of the West Virginia primaries which knocked Ron Paul out of the primaries. Mike Huckabee approaches Ron Paul convinces him to tell his delegates to vote for Mike Huckabee in exchange that Mike Huckabee will give Ron Paul three delegates at the GOP convention. The fact that Mike Huckabee gives gives three national delegates to Ron Paul doesn't make since since Mike Huckabee, at that time, didn't have that many delegates to give away. 

At the same time Mike Huckabee secured Ron Paul's delegates, we have John McCain calling many of his representatives and instructed them to vote for Mike Huckabee.

Former Louisiana Govenor Buddy Roemer begins approaching delegates like John Vuolo and instructing them to vote for Mike Huckabee. John McCain delegates start holding signs in an effort to get other John McCain delegates on board to vote for Mike Huckabee in the second round of voting.

Its clear from the facts that McCain crowd switched to supporting Mike Huckabee prior to the second round because they were under instructions to do so in order to stop Mitt Romney from winning the 2008 West Virginia primaries. 

Now with all the facts in mind, here's the result of the second round of voting:

"On the second ballot, Huckabee had 567 votes (51 percent), Romney had 521 votes (47 percent) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had 12 votes."

The story of how Mike Huckabee won West Virginia strongly suggests that the Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, and John McCain campaigns all collaborated together to deny Mitt Romney a win in West Virginia.

Here's an interesting little fact. Mike Huckabee could not have won West Virginia had it not been for getting Ron Paul's delegates to vote for him in the second round because the combined McCain-Huck vote was only 49 percent: Paul supporters sealed the deal.

As a result, Ron Paul's people were clearly in the kingmaker position.

Ron Paul's delegates were just as important to John McCain's chances of winning West Virginia as it was to Mike Huckabee.

Which raises some interesting questions: Its odd to me that we get no reports of John McCain competing with Mike Huckabee to woo Ron Paul's delegates. Did John McCain make any efforts to win over any of Ron Paul's delegates? Did Ron Paul approach John McCain to see what kind of deal was on the table for him?

John McCain could have easily decided to fight for Ron Paul's delegates and chose to remain in the second round of voting. Armed with Ron Paul's delegates, John McCain had a strong possibility of winning the second round by pushing Mike Huckabee out and go up against Mitt Romney in a third round. Maybe John McCain would have beaten Mitt Romney in the third round of voting if he could convince enough Huckabee supporters to vote him in that third round.

Yet, from all the facts that we have, it appears that he didn't make any effort snatch some Ron Paul delegates away from Mike Huckabee. He doesn't even put up a fight prior to the second round which is highly unusual for someone like John McCain who is known for fighting it out to the bitter end. Instead, he tells his representatives to go out and instruct McCain voters to throw their vote towards Mike Huckabee.

As a result, the big question remains: why didn't John McCain fight to get support from Ron Paul's voters?

Something doesn't pass the smell test here.

That's why a lot of people suspect that some kind of back room deal occurred between Mike Huckabee and John McCain because Ron Paul was in the king maker position yet there was no drawn out battle between Huckabee, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Instead, we find that delegates for  Ron Paul and Jon McCain were instructed to vote for Mike Huckabee.

Rush Limbaugh explains why he thinks that there was collusion between Huckabee and John McCain at the 2008 West Virginia Primaries: 

"We know a little bit more here about what happened in West Virginia -- and, folks, it underscores what many of us have been saying about collusion between the Huck forces and McCain forces.  After the first round of balloting in the West Virginia caucus, nobody got 50%, but Romney led with 41%.  Paul was out of it.  So it was Romney, it was Huckabee, and then McCain, in that order.  What has happened is that McCain forces have joined Huck forces, and that's how Huckabee has won West Virginia.  Now, McCain and Huck forces are denying that there was collusion.  But who cares? It doesn't matter what they say.  The fact -- what this proves -- is that a vote for Huck is a vote for McCain.  Because the Huck forces, whether by request from McCain forces or whether on their own, McCain forces decided to throw in with Huck forces en masse. So the combination of McCain forces and Huck forces overwhelm Romney, who had 41%.  So a vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain." 

Even though these kinds of deals are a part of politics, these these ‘votes’ were came about from instructions from above and as a result, the voters of West Virginia got disenfranchised by shady delegates. The people of West Virginia, prior to the that primary vote, supported Mitt Romney by a wide margin and yet the majority  of West Virginians didn't get the candidate they wanted. 

What occured in West Virginia demonstrates why multiple rounds of voting destroys the "one person, one vote" rule because it promotes the mentality of "Shoot, I didn’t win the first time, so let’s all gang up on the guy who did.”

Ed Morrisey agrees that West Virginia's primary system doesn't promote the kind of fair voting that we expect in elections:

"In fact, it shows why indirect mechanisms like caucuses and conventions are much less desirable than direct primaries. It turns these elections into games, and it increases the cynicism of the voters at a time when we need to attract them and make them believe they can make a difference. The last-minute hardball by the McCain campaign couldn't have been pulled in a primary state."

People think that the purpose of primaries are to determine individual strength and preference of the candidates by the people of that state, not coalition building exercises or efforts at conspiracy. Yet, that's exactly what happened at the 2008 West Virginia Primaries. 

Lets hope that these kind of shenanigans don't happen in 2012.

Charles Krauthammer: Mitt Romney And Tim Pawlenty Have a 5-1 Chance of Winning In 2012

Charles Krauthammer, a well known conservative columnist and a frequent guest on Fox News as well as PBS News, has written a guide for those who like to think about presidential elections from the perspective of a Las Vegas gambler. 

I'll focus on the candidates that Krauthammer thinks has the best chances of wining in 2012:

THE MAJOR CANDIDATES

Mitt Romney: Serious guy. Pre-vetted in 2008. Tons of private- and public-sector executive experience. If not for one thing, he'd be the prohibitive front-runner. Unfortunately, the one thing is a big thing: Massachusetts' RomneyCare. For an election in which the main issue is excessive government (see Axiom One), that's a huge liability. Every sentient Republican has been trying to figure out how to explain it away. I've heard no reports of any success. Romney is Secretariat at Belmont, but ridden by Minnesota Fats. He goes out at 5-1.

Newt Gingrich: Smart guy. A fountain of ideas. No, a Vesuvius of ideas. Some brilliance, lots of lava. Architect of a historic Republican victory in 1994. Rocky speakership. Unfortunate personal baggage. 12-1.

Haley Barbour: Successful governor. Experienced Washington hand. Abundant charm. Baggage: Years of lobbying, unforced errors on civil rights, early neo-isolationist deviations. Rarely without a comeback, however. 7-1.

Tim Pawlenty: Formerly, unassuming, unprepossessing, solid two-term Minnesota governor. Currently, mouse that roars. Up-tempo style, middle-of-the-road conservative content. Apparently baggageless. Could be the last man standing. 5-1.

Mitch Daniels: Highly successful governor. Budget guru. Delightful dullness satisfies all axioms (see above). Foreign policy unknown, assuming he has one. Alienated some conservatives with his call for a truce on - i.e., deferring - social issues. If he runs, 6-1. 

To read more of Krauthammer's article, go here. 

Speaking of betting, Intrade has Mitt Romney with a 24% chance of winning while Tim Pawlenty has a 15.9% chance of wining. All other potential 2012 candidates have less than a 10% chance of winning.

The Onion: Mitt Romney Apologizes For Helping Sick People Under RomneyCare

The Onion has a fabulously humorous article in which it demonstrates the absurdity of Mitt Romney apologizing for his health care plan:

"I don't know what got into me back then," Romney said. "Wanting to make sure people were able to have health insurance if they left their job. Providing a federally funded website so individuals could compare the costs of insurance providers. Making certain that somebody who earns less than 150 percent of the poverty level can receive the same health care coverage as me or any government official. All I can say is that I was young and immature, and I am not that person anymore."

"The only solace I can take is in the hope that some of the folks I helped were terminally ill patients who eventually withered away and died," Romney added.

It also pokes fun at conservatives who want Mitt Romney to disown his health care plan:

"Though Romney has apologized profusely, Beltway insiders said he would need to distance himself from his I-tried-to-help-sick people image. Sources noted that Romney's current promise to take away health care from anyone who can't afford it is a step in the right direction, but might not be enough.

"The major strike against Mitt Romney is that he not only tried to help people get medical care, he actually did help people get medical care," conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg said. "No other Republican in the field has that type of baggage. And in the end, in order to defeat President Obama, the GOP needs someone who has a track record of never wanting to help sick people."

Thus far, Romney is polling strongly in early primary states like New Hampshire and Iowa, but Republican strategists and voters agree that even in a general election, his sordid past would continue to dog him.

"I don't think I can vote for someone like that," Pennsylvania Republican Eric Tolbert said. "He says he's sorry, but how do I know that's the real Mitt Romney? What happens if he gets elected and tries to help sick people again?"

"I like Michele Bachmann now," Tolbert added. "Because what this country needs is a president who doesn't give a fuck about helping people."

Read the entire hilarious article here.

Can Mitt Romney "Waive" ObamaCare Via An Executive Order?

Grace-Marie Turner wrote an article called, "Mitt's Mistake: ObamaCare Is Not 'Waivable'" in which she erroneously claims that Mitt Romney made a grave error in making a promise he knows he cannot keep: 

"As a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Business School and as the Republican governor who convinced the Democratic Massachusetts legislature to pass RomneyCare, he surely knows a president can't use an executive order to wipe out two massive new entitlement programs, $550 billion in new and higher taxes, vast Medicaid expansion, and mandates on individuals, businesses and the states to comply with President Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

She asserts that Mitt Romney cannot keep his promise of using executive orders to allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue ObamaCare waivers since it cannot be used to defeat laws that Congress have passed:

"Simply put, executive orders cannot contradict statutory law. Waivers are not a solution and might well detract from the ultimate goal of repealing ObamaCare and replacing it with a truly free market alternative that puts patients — not bureaucrats — in charge of their health care."

Ms. Turner is wrong in her assertion that a President cannot legally use executive order an executive order to over turn statutory law.

The answer is that it is legally realistic for a President to use an executive order to overturn a statutory law.  Presidents have long been using executive orders to defy or overturn laws that Congress has passed. Lets look at the most recent example of a President using an executive order to overturn a federal law. President Obama recently used a "signing statement" to overturn a law requiring the President to defund his czars.

Not only is Ms. Turner incorrect that a President cannot use an executive order to overturn statutory law, but she intentionally misconstrues what Mitt Romney  wants to do with an executive order. She claims that Romney would use an executive order to completely overturn ObamaCare. Yet, that's not what Mitt claimed in his op-ed  in the National Review:

"If I were president, on Day One I would issue an executive order paving the way for Obamacare waivers to all 50 states. The executive order would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health-care solutions that work best for them.

As I have stated time and again, a one-size-fits-all national plan that raises taxes is simply not the answer. Under our federalist system, the states are “laboratories of democracy.” They should be free to experiment. By the way, what works in one state may not be the answer for another. Of course, the ultimate goal is to repeal Obamacare and replace it with free-market reforms that promote competition and lower health-care costs. But since an outright repeal would take time, an executive order is the first step in returning power to the states."

What Mitt Romney said is that he would use an executive order directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to grant a waiver to all 50 states as a temporary measure while Obamacare was in the process of being repealed in Congress.

What Mitt Romney is proposing is not to overturn ObamaCare with the a stroke of a pen via an executive order. Nor is he saying that he will repeal a portion of it  law either. He simply wants to tell the Secretary of Health and Human Services to grant a waiver to all 50 states. If Mitt Romney becomes the next President of the United States, it would be Constitutionally permissible for him to use an executive order in this manner. 

Under the three branches of government, the executive branch has the power to enforce or not enforce the laws that Congress passes. If you look at the statutory language in ObamaCare, you'll find that under Section 2711 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, it grants the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to determine who gets the waivers and who doesn't: 

"The entire act is filled with the phrase, “The secretary shall determine” or equivalents, meaning that HHS can essentially make up and change rules as they go along.  No one knows what to expect from this vast expansion of regulatory power precisely because it’s based on executive whimsy rather than sound and objective law."

The President is the head of the executive branch of the government and the President oversees many departments and agencies that make up the executive department. One of those department under the executive branch is the Department of Health and Human Services. 

Executive Orders "are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies."

As a result, not only is Grace-Marie Turner not only intentionally misconstruing what Mitt Romney plans to do if he was President, she is flat out wrong in claiming that what he plans to do is illegal and unconstitutional.  

What Mitt Romney proposes to do is entirely legal and constitutional since a President can use an executive order to direct an executive department that is under his executive authority to use a power that was granted to them by statue by Congress. 

In essence, Mitt Romney would be using ObamaCare against itself and seriously undermine its impletmentation by directing the Secretary of the HHS to grant the waivers to all 50 states until it is fully repealed by Congress. 

So far, under the Obama Administration, the number of waivers that the Obama Administration has granted is over 1,000 and climbing. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has been granting waivers to big businesses, big unions and big  health insurance companies.  

Under ObamaCare, it allows states to seek waivers from ObamaCare. There are six types of waivers: (1) MLR waiver for mini-med health insurance plans, (2) Annual limit waive (3) MLR waiver for States, (4) State innovation waiver, (5) ACO anti-trust waivers and (6) Individual mandate waivers. 

States can either seek a MLR waiver or a state innovation waiver. 

Govenor Nikik Haley contemplated on getting an state innovation waiver but realized that there were strings attached to the waiver. However, the entire state of Maine successfully obtained a MLR waiver:

. . . [T]he Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s mandatory medical loss ratio (MLR) provision, which requires health insurers to spend either 80 or 85 percent of their premium revenue on “clinical services” as determined by federal regulators, is a roundabout form of price control. So it wasn’t terribly shocking when the Congressional Budget Officewarned that particularly high MLR requirements would be “likely to substantially reduce flexibility in terms of the types, prices, and number of private sellers of health insurance.” It’s a pretty straightforward concept: When the government controls prices, private firms exit the market or offer fewer products.

Now it seems the federal government has finally caught on to the idea. The Department of Health and Human Services issued a waiver to the state of Maine exempting its individual health insurance market from from the 80-percent spending requirement. Why the special exemption? According to Steve Larsen, the Obama administration’s deputy administrator of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, the rule “has a reasonable likelihood of destabilizing the Maine individual health insurance market.”

Not only did Maine get a waiver from Obama Care but Florida, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee also got them as well. More states such as New Hampshire, Nebraska, and Kentucky have applied for waivers from ObamaCare.

It appears that if Mitt Romney follows through with his promise to issue an executive order on the first day of his Presidency, the best way for his Secretary of Health and Human Services to undermine ObamaCare would be to grant all 50 states an MLR waiver.

The reason why a MLR waiver, rather than state innovation waiver, is the best way to undermine ObamaCare is because every state can demonstrate that it would suffer destabilized insurance markets if ObamaCare was fully implemented. In a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners stated expressed their concerns about the effect of ObamaCare on the insurance market in individual states: 

"...we continue to have concerns about the potential for unintended consequences arising from the medical loss ratio. As we noted in our letter of October 13th, consumers will not benefit from higher medical loss ratios if the outcome is destabilized insurance markets where consumer choice is limited and the solvency of insurers is undermined."

In conclusion, Grace-Marie Turner's article is completely inaccurate. Presidents can use executive orders to override statutory laws as many Presidents have done in the past. She's also incorrect in asserting that Mitt Romney, as President, would be granting waivers to states via an executive order.

Mitt Romney would simply use an executive order as a temporary measure to undermine the implementation of ObamaCare while Congress works to overhaul the law. More importantly, Mitt Romney has the legal and constitutional power to as head of the executive department to tell an executive department, via an executive order, to go ahead and use his or her statutorily authorized powers to grant those waivers as given to them under ObamaCare.

Former Alabama Judge Roy Moore Forming Exploratory Committee

Former Alabama Judge Roy Moore has announced his that he will be running in 2012 and that he will form an exploratory committee: 

"Moore is holding a press conference at 10:10 a.m. today, said Danny Carroll, a former state legislator who is now with the Family Leader, a socially conservative advocacy group.

He is about to embark on a tour of Iowa, home of the nation’s earliest caucuses, according to MoorePAC, a Gallant, Alabama-based political action committee."

Roy Moore was a former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. He is well known for his refusal to follow a court order requiring him to to remove a large granite monument of the Ten Commandments from the state Supreme Court building. As a result of his refusal to obey the court order, he was removed from office as a judge and faced ethics charges for disobeying the federal court order. He's also made two attempts to become elected as Governor of Alabama but failed each time.

Quiet honestly, this is a very surprising and unexpected announcement. But it does make the 2012 elections more interesting for conservatives. Roy Moore faces a very tough battle if he wants to win the Republican nomination.  

Not only will he find himself in a large crowd of Republican candidates but he will be competing against other more well known social conservative candidates like Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum and other candidates. 

Moreover, given that the only thing that will distinguish himself from other candidates is the fact that he refused to obey a court order to remove the Ten Commandment monument since all the candidates will all claim that they support lower taxes, limited government and supports the war on terror. He has a real danger of becoming a single issue candidate. As a result, his chances of winning the Republican nomination will be very slim. 

Did Sarah Palin Just Announce Her Candidacy For 2012?

Sarah Palin gave a rousing speech to Tea Party members in Madison, Wisconsin this afternoon at a tax day rally. You can watch the entire speech in the clip below. 

Not only did she draw conservatives but also drew Union protesters as well who were reported to have surrounded the Tea party members during her speech. 

In her speech, she took on President Obama, Unions and Republicans who didn't push for more spending cuts. A lot of people are talking about her speech and the clash of Union and Tea Party protesters at the event. However, her speech has jump started another round of speculation of whether or not she will be running in 2012 when she concluded her speech with these lines:

"The 2012 election begins here. We will fight for America and it starts here in Madison, Wisconsin. Mr. President, game on!” 

Do you think this speech is her announcement that she's running in 2012?

Chris Matthews Praises Mitt Romney For Not Being A Birther

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It is not too often that you will see members of the liberal media praise a conservative, especially when it comes from someone like Chris Matthews. Although you won't hear him say he's got a thrill up his leg for Mitt Romney, you'll hear Chris Matthews praise Mitt Romney for being the only serious and straightforward candidate among the many Republicans running in 2012.  

My favorite line from Chris Matthews comes at the end:

"But he will be a presidential candidate, a proud and serious one and if it's not too old-fashioned to say so, he'll be a man."

The reason for Chris Matthews must have been impressed with Mitt Romney's appearance on the Kudlow Report in which the former governor gave his position on the birther issue. Watch the clip below: 

As Mitt Romney explained in the Kudlow Report, there are so many reasons why President Obama ought to be taken out of office. Its just that the birther issue isn't one of them.

Chris Matthews is correct. Mitt Romney is a man for focusing on the most important issues that concerns all Americans which are jobs and the economy. And that's why America needs Mitt Romney in the White House in 2012.

President Obama Has Never Been Serious About Reducing The Deficit

Yesterday, President Obama gave a speech in that responded to Representative Paul Ryan's plan to reduce the deficit. The speech revealed what conservatives have always known about President Barak Obama in that he has never serious about creating jobs and reducing the national deficit.

Obama has made several promises that he would the economy the main priority of his Presidency. He made a promise to tackle the economy during the early days of his presidency and yet went on to push ObamaCare through the legislature. He repeated that promise almost a year ago after Scott Brown was elected to represent Massachusetts but still kept fighting for ObamaCare. And he has recently made that promise in September of 2010 that he would focus exclusively on the economy.  Obama has always been good at making promises but has never been good at following through with them. He makes promises and then moves onto other "important" projects like Obamacare.

Another example of Obama's lack of leadership on reducing the deficit is that he created an 18 member strong bipartisan commission to address the deficit and they came up with some bold recommendations on how to reduce the nation's debt.  However, Obama completely rejected their proposals. Now Obama wants a brand new commission to take a look at ways to reduce the debt which is what the earlier commission did. What gives the American people confidence that President Obama will listen to this new deficit commission if he rejected the proposals of the earlier commission that he created?

Even when President Obama was a Senator, he didn't take the deficit seriously since he admits that his vote against raising the debt ceiling was for political reasons. 

Which brings us back to Obama's speech given yesterday. Even in this speech was not serious about addressing the nation's deficit. Conservatives don't like it since Obama offers solutions that actually make the economy even worse. 

Liberals aren't thrilled with it either since Obama is essentially punting the job of fixing the economy down the road and that the proposals he does make do nothing to fix the economy because America will still be in debt. What this means is that even liberals are starting to realize that Obama has never made fixing the economy his number one priority.

Americans are tired of having to put up with four years of an inexperienced President who has no interest in fixing the economy. If Obama isn't going to take the economy seriously, he's going to see that Americans are going get serious about putting President Obama in the unemployment line in 2012. 

Rick Santorum Throws His Hat Into The Ring For 2012

The crowd of Republican 2012 presidential contenders keep getting bigger and bigger. The latest Republican to officially announce his intention to run in 2012 is Rick Santorum:

Former Sen. Rick Santorum on Wednesday announced a fundraising committee that allows him to take the first steps toward a presidential campaign.

Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican who served two terms in the U.S. Senate, has been busy laying the groundwork for an expected presidential bid for months. He lacks the name recognition and fundraising organization of his better-known rivals, but he is a favorite among the social conservatives who hold huge sway in some of the early nominating contests.

"Now, the only test for me is whether we can raise the money that's necessary," Santorum told Fox News Channel, where he worked as a contributor until the network put him on leave while he mulled a White House bid. "We're going to determine over the next few weeks as to whether the resources are going to be there."

Santorum, a blunt-talking conservative who once was the No. 3 Senate Republican, has made frequent visits to the early nominating states of New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina. On Thursday, he was scheduled to lead a town hall-style meeting on the economy at New England College in Henniker, N.H.

His campaign slogan - "Fighting to make America America again" - was likely to resonate with voters who doubt President Barack Obama's patriotism. A familiar conservative criticism of Obama is that he isn't proud of the United States; a smaller segment falsely claims that Obama was not born in the United States, but rather his father's native Kenya.

"It's time for America to be America again - an America that rewards innovation and hard work, that stands by our allies instead of our enemies, that protects even the most vulnerable of our society, and an America that says every life is to be cherished," Santorum told supporters in an email that was sent as he announced his plans on Fox News Channel. "That's what I believe in and that's why I'm taking this next step in a possible run for president."

Good luck Mr. Santorum! 

Mitt Romney Wins California Straw Poll!!

Mitt Romney won the California Republican Party straw poll after several rounds of voting: 

"At the California Republican Convention late last month, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney won a poll of preferred GOP candidates for president in 2012.

After eight rounds of voting, Romney came out on top, besting former House speaker Newt Gingrich (who garnered the second-highest amount of votes) and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. Big names like former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin were knocked out in early rounds of voting."

California is a crucial state for anyone hoping to become the next President of the United States since it carries a whopping 55 electoral votes. Although Mitt Romney lost to John McCain in the 2008 California primary, the advantage goes to Mitt Romney when it comes to competing in California for the 2012 Presidential Elections.

Mitt Romney decided to make California his home and bought a $12 million dollar beach front house in San Diego. Despite buying a nice home in La Jolla, Mitt Romney is really a down to earth guy. When his book, "No Apology: The Case for American Greatness", was first published, he made three stops in California to promote his book during his book tour.

Romney has also been active in California politics. He's endorsed a number of candidates during the 2010 Primaries. He endorsed Meg Whitman, Tony Strickland, Van Thai Tran, and Carly Fiorina and other political candidates running in the California 2012 midterm elections. 

Many political observers thought that Mitt Romney came out as the biggest loser in California since most of the candidates he endorsed lost. However, various polls in the past year or so proves that Mitt Romney is actually the biggest winner in California. In March 2010, Mitt Romney won the Magellan early 2012 Presidential Preference poll. He was also found to be the top Republican contender in California in a Public Policy Poll taken in  November 2010. He also came out on top in the Public Policy Poll taken in February 2011

"In the presidential race, Mitt Romney continues to show strength in the West and in blue states. He leads California’s primary contest nominally, but the top four are all statistically tied. Romney has 22% over rare second-place finisher Newt Gingrich’s 18%, Sarah Palin’s 16%, and Mike Huckabee’s 15%. 12% prefer an unnamed candidate or are undecided. Ron Paul has a somewhat unusually high 10%, with Tim Pawlenty (3%), Mitch Daniels (2%), and John Thune (1%) about where they usually are."

If you are in California and would like to help Mitt Romney in California, join the Californians for Romney 2012 on Facebook and be prepared to help Mitt Romney become the next President of the United States!!