"MUST SEE" TV ABOUT ROMNEY
MITTSURFING

MITT’S MASSACHUSETTS: ALMOST LAST IN JOB CREATION

The EcoCons and the conservative Eastern GOP elites praise the business acumen of the vain BAIN CAPITALIST of the GOP presidential race, Willard Mitt "the Flip" Romney.

According to the establishment elites, Mitt’s the ONE who understands all of that complicated economic jibber-jabber that just has to be a mystery to all of the other candidates.

And even the Gucci Chameleon himself dares voters to look at his record.

But just as when Gary Hart threw down such a gauntlet (albeit on his sleazy personal life), glancing behind the tidal wave of TV ads isn’t pretty.

If Mitt’s the job-creating, economy growing "mouse trap," then where are the mice?

According to a Reuters story, quoting Northeastern University economist Andrew Sum, Massachusetts "lagged the U.S. average during that period in job creation, economic growth and wage increases" during the Romney years.

"As a strict labour market economist looking at the record, Massachusetts did very poorly during the Romney years, he said. "On every measure you've got, the state was a substantial under-performer."

"There's never been under his watch an economic turnaround to speak of," Michael Widmer, president of the independent Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, told Reuters.

"We added a few jobs over the last three years of his tenure but very few. He also raised corporate taxes and fees and the (deficit) gap turned out to be less than $3 billion."

But that doesn’t stop Mitt from erroneously claiming that he " ‘closed a nearly $3 billion (1.5 billion pounds) budget deficit without raising taxes’ during his term in Massachusetts."

The Boston Globe story also reported the rate of job creation under Romney " was the third-lowest in the nation after Hurricane Katrina-hit Louisiana and Michigan. At the same time, wages in the New England state stagnated during Romney's term."

"The average weekly wage of Massachusetts workers, Sum said, rose by just a $1 between 2001 and 2006 after adjusting for inflation, while the state had the third-highest rate of population loss in the nation between July 2002 and July 2006."

Not a very good record for an alleged business wunderkind .

Perhaps if there was a "Club for [almost no] Growth," Mitt could president of it!

MEDIA MITT-GASM IGNORES FLIP-FLOPS DURING FLORIDA DEBATE

Anyone whose knowledge of the MS/NBC GOP Presidential Debate at Florida Atlantic University comes only from media reports thinks that the Gucci Chamaeleon -- Willard Mitt "the Flip" Romney -- won.

Of course those who actually watched the debate know better.

It’s not as if MS/NBC didn’t try their best to throw the debate to Mitt. At one point, the moderators asked Romney at least three questions in a row. Repeatedly, the moderators asked Romney soft-ball follow-ups that dovetailed into "Romney 3.0's" canned stump speech.

Supporters of Governor Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul undoubtedly wondered if their candidates would EVER get a question at some junctures.

Cynics will conclude that MS/NBC had the fix in for Romney, understanding that Romney polls as the weakest candidate against the Democrats. They know that Romney plays into virtually every elite, country-club, big business, establishment stereotype the media pushes about Republicans.

Many Heartlanders will assume that given the collapse of Rudy’s Florida strategy, the clubby New York-Boston-Washington Ivy League golf & cocktail circuit (to which all network types apparently aspire) has settled on Romney because he’s from that discrete and insular social strata. The Ivy League snobs simply can’t risk someone in power who didn’t matriculate at a selective Eastern college or who hasn’t genuflected to the REAL powers on Wall Street and Madison Avenue.

Of course, the only reason anyone is talking about a focus-grouped stiff like Mitt Romney (who before this year had only one successful election under his belt and less than five years of elected experience) is his "Citizen Kane" act – attempting to buy the election with tens of millions of his own dollars.

Yet serious watchers of the debate noted that Romney’s almost legendary ability to flip-flop was on stark display in the Florida debate.

For example, Governor Huckabee (a rock-solid gun rights candidate) asked Mitt-the-Flip a simple question: Do you support the "so-called assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill?" (Huckabee’s question was technically correct because t the ban wasn’t really about true military assault weapons, but about scary-looking assault-styled semi-automatics)

Mitt’s struggling answer was a salient window into the vacuity of Romney when he’s off his stump speech script. First, Mitt extolled his support for renewing the ban (ignoring that the proposals he supported could have affected virtually all ordinary semi-automatic shotguns and other common weapons), and lamented the failure of renewal. Then Mitt proclaimed the glories of the Massachusetts "assault weapon" ban.

But in a breathtaking flip-flop, Mitt then said we don’t need any more gun laws.

Huh? Did Romney forget the first couple of paragraphs of his answer that touted his support for more gun laws?

At least Romney stopped short of again claiming a National Rifle Association endorsement THAT HE DID NOT RECEIVE!

Another bizarre moment for Romney came when he endorsed a "national" catastrophic property insurance fund to address the Florida insurance "crisis," but then said that people in Iowa shouldn’t have to pay for it.

What exactly does "National" mean to Mr. Romney? Is Iowa not part of the Nation? Obviously, if the fund is only paid for by people in hurricane states or regions, it’s not a "national" program.

Romney also repeated his misinterpretation of the "no religious test" provision of the U.S. Constitution, which I previously have debunked here.

Finally, "Citizen Mitt" refused to say how much of his own fortune he’s pouring in to buy the Florida election. He claimed that it was for strategic reasons that he wasn’t sharing the information with the other campaigns.

What!?!

Is Mitt somehow afraid that the cash-strapped campaigns of Rudy, McCain and Huckabee will take that "strategic" information about Mitt’s personal donations to his campaign and suddenly hit up all the South Florida payday lenders and pawn shops for more campaign cash?

Everyone on the ground in the Sunshine State realizes that Mitt is going "all in" to win with a massive blitzkrieg of paid media.

At least in Citizen Mitt’s paid media, he can stay on the script and avoid his apparently natural tendency to flip-flop.

IS RELIGION "FAIR GAME" IN AMERICAN POLITICS?

Reactions from the Romney-ites to posts noting Mitt Romney’s unconventional religion have been swift and brutal.

Lily wrote: "You sound more like a Nazi than an American. No, religion should not be part and parcel of politics, candidates' qualifications, or a subject to be attacked. Best advice: Cool your jets."

A Real Huckabee Supporter wrote : "If you're appealing to anti-LDS sentiment, I don't think Huckabee wants those votes. If you're representing Huckabee supporters as bigots in order to help Romney -- it won't work."

But are these charges factually accurate? Is Speedzzter a "bigot" or a "Nazi"?

WHAT IS BIGOTRY AND HOW DOES IT RELATE TO FAITH?

"Bigot, n. [F., Bigot, hypocrite (in OF. A name once given to the Normans in France.).] One obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own church, party, belief or opinion."

Certainly, an advocate can be so irrationally wedded to an opinion to the point of being unable to consider any evidence or reasoning to the contrary. When such opinions are held without any reasonable, objective justification, then a proper charge of bigotry will often lie.

But to immediately reach for the sword of "bigotry" at the first hint of disagreement over matters of thought purposefully chills the exchange of ideas and the pursuit of truth. It inhibits the search for common ground by poisoning future discourse.

Of course, matters of faith have objective and subjective components. And as the skeptics accurately point out, no matter how historical, scholarly and reasoned one's faith in supernatural systems becomes, faith inherently involves at some level . . . well . . . FAITH -- a BELIEF in something. Obviously, to suggest that all "belief" is bigotry grossly devalues both concepts without justification.

Thus, the true tests of bigotry are:

(1) whether the basis, reasonability and intellectual viability of the belief is outweighed by generally-accepted facts or universally-held values;

(2) whether the conduct flowing from the belief lacks objective value for others or for one's own self-regulation;

(3) whether the conduct flowing from the belief degrades social composition;

(4) whether the the conduct flowing from the belief places others in a false light or at a disadvantage unreasonably related to the task, privileges or immunities at hand.

Certainly none of my comments in this blog stray across these boundary lines.

IS RELIGION "FAIR GAME" IN POLITICS?

Throughout this primary season, the Romney-ites have been quick to hammer Governor Huckabee and his followers based on fragments of hearsay and perceptions of faith-based bias.

Yet in virtually the next breath they usually claim that anyone who scrutinizes the LDS faith objectively (based on the written statements of their own alleged prophets) is a "hatemongering bigot."

Of course, Willard Mitt Romney was a proselytizing missionary in his younger days. Thus, it’s almost certain that his defenders would NOT argue that having private doctrinal discussions makes one a "religious bigot" (otherwise, the legions of bike-riding LDS missionaries would fit within that definition).

Moreover, Romney "opened the door" to faith questions when he laid claim to "faith" in Jesus Christ. If he didn't want to discuss religion whatsoever, he should have never mentioned it.

More importantly, Romney and the Romney-ites have grossly distorted the "no religious test" provision of the Constitution.

The "no religious test" provision of Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution clearly does not prohibit individual voters evaluating a candidate's intellect, personal moral values and even religious beliefs in the private calculus on whom to vote for. Nor does it prevent any candidate from responding in candor and honesty as to questions on matters of faith. It simply prohibits the government from establishing a formal "religious test.

Given, however, the poor state of civics education in this country and the constant anti-debate paeans to a lazy, empty-headed, politically-correct "tolerance," Romney's message undoubtedly resonates with many in the electorate.

To the extent that a candidate's religion and personal piety (e.g. "applied religion") provide windows into the intellect, public and personal values, motivations, philosophy, opinions and beliefs of a candidate, they are clearly relevant in private decisions on whom to vote for.

Moreover, although the law does have a didactic ("teaching") function --which is a timeless, fundamental principle wholly lost on generations of social libertarians-- the secularists and "toleration fascists" derive the wrong lessons from the Constitution.

Freedom of conscience is firmly enshrined in the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE of the First Amendment. Read properly in its historic context, this fundamental liberty contemplates a robust, public discussion and consideration of "faith-based" questions, even in political campaigns. That such discussions apparently offend some self-appointed elites and "tolerance cops" is of no matter.

The view of some is that religion can have a token presence in the public square so long as it is marginalized to the background. While slightly better than the politicially-correct "fascism" of those who demand total privatization of religious expression and strict separation under some squishy, intellectually lazy concept of "tolerance," it forces persons of genuine, sincerely-held faith to enter the public discourse as second-class citizens--disarmed of much that they hold materially critical in life. The great moral policy movements of American history would have been hamstrung in such a hostile environment.

Candidates must always remain free to be themselves in their quest to persuade the electorate.

And voters must always retain the liberty to exercise the civic responsibility of selecting candidates on criteria consistent with their personal values. Consistent adherence to these fundamental principles of liberty inherently implicate the consideration of religious values, opinions and beliefs. Far from the rigid, formal, sectarian, government-directed "religious test" banned in the Constitution, this free market of ideas is at the heart of what the Constitution protects.

Thus, it is a manifest disservice to our civil discourse and our individual liberty to suggest that all legitimate, factual discussions of theology, even in the context of a political campaign, are "bigotry."

The secularists and the "toleration fascists" are right insofar as they point out that building an electoral coalition requires attracting voters from many different (and conflicting) faiths (including a few voters who reject all faiths). Thus, the successful candidate will focus on common ground RELEVANT TO WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES (i.e. specific policies based on moral values). Both Romney and Huckabee are better served by comparing and contrasting what each of them would do as president, rather than battling over their respective theological motivations. And to that end, Governor Huckabee has gone out of his way to avoid the odd specifics of the Mormon cult.

The whining protests of Romney and the Romney-ites on this issue demonstrate both panic and intellectual softness. Neither are attractive in a president.

Romney is no Reagan.

Romney's over-blown "religion" speech last month was calculated to evade and mislead. Romney's non-answers and buzz-word double-speak communicate more loudly than his carefully-crafted, focus-grouped, photo-op "religion" speech ever could.

Romney is seeking to have it both ways.

He wants to talk just enough "Jesus talk" to lure some of the voters who sincerely believe that what's in a candidate's "heart" profoundly affects governance, but he doesn't want to answer any of the questions that logically flow from this same topic. He also wants to pander to his fellow LDS cohorts by claiming to be "proud" of his particular religion, yet he shrinks from any meaningful discussion of its essential tenets.

This lack of candor reveals much about why Romney is ill-suited for the presidency.

"TAX HIKE" MITT?

More grassroots researchers are drilling down into the flaccid record of the GOP’s Gucci Chameleon – Willard Mitt Romney.

Screaming up the charts at Real Clear politics is an "apples-to-apples" analysis of the speed in which "Mitt the Flip" hiked taxes in his single term as Massachusetts governor.

And "Granny T" has provided the following "Tax Freedom Day" comparison of Mitt’s and Huck's records:

"Mike is the proven consistent pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-gun rights candidate. He has the most political executive experience. Huckabee has been termed [unfairly by the Romney-ians and the GOP country-clubbers], 'Tax hike Mike.'

Let’s compare taxes to taxes.

Huckabee terms in Arkansas:

Huckabee was sworn in July 15, 1996.

. . .

[Arkansas] Tax freedom day 1996: April 21

1997: April 22

2007: April 22

Romney term in Massachusetts:
[MA] Tax freedom day 2003: April 21

2007: May 6

This information is from "Tax Freedom Day by State, 1970-2007" at the Tax Foundation website.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22328.html

Mike left Arkansas with a huge surplus.

Mitt left Massachusetts with a huge deficit.

Mike left Arkansas with a majority approval rate.

Mitt left with a majority disapproval rate.

Yet, we're supposed to believe Mitt is more electable? . . . Huck gives us more for our buck."

FIVE HUCKABEE TALKING POINTS FOR THE FLORIDA DEBATE
With Florida being a winner-take-all primary and having a somewhat more "Northeastern" demographic than all other Southern states, the Huckabee campaign has wisely chosen to focus on softer "Super Duper Tuesday" targets.

On "Super Duper Tuesday" Governor Huckabee is on "home ground" with a slew of closed primaries (unlike South Carolina) which cannot be poached by "McCain independents" crossing over to the GOP.

Thus, the challenge for the Huckabee camp is to score in the Florida debate to shore up his base and to snatch his share of Thompson voters.

Although the Duncan Hunter endorsement should help Governor Huckabee among "Secure the Borders" voters, the expected split of moderates between John McCain and Rudy means that Romney’s gold-plated "Flip-Flop" Express will feed on Florida and assert a claim to momentum going into February 5. Ever the weak candidate, Romney has now transmogrified into "Romney 3.0" – a wonkish "Mr. Fix-it" sort who is a moderate turnaround expert.

Romney’s ridiculous chameleon act and Thompson’s retreat provide a strategic opening for Huckabee.

Therefore, the Florida Debate is a critical juncture for Huckabee.

HERE ARE FIVE "TALKING POINTS" HUCKABEE MUST MAKE TO BEAT ROMNEY

1. A PRESIDENT MUST HAVE AN UNWAVERING COMMITMENT TO BEDROCK AMERICAN VALUES.

Being the smartest overachiever in the class isn’t enough. To withstand the pressures of a dangerous world, a president must have an unshakeable commitment to the heartland values at the core of our National purpose. Responsible freedom . . . Personal liberty . . . Individual opportunity . . . Civic duty. . . Protecting the weak . . . Limiting abuses by the strong . . . Consistency.

Ronald Reagan’s greatness wasn’t because he was the sharpest with a balance sheet or the best businessman. His greatness flowed from his fundamental understanding of the simple values which define and limit all acts of government. [Insert Huckabee plug]

Washington D.C. has probably 10,000 wonks who live for the minutiae of policy.

We don’t need to send another one.

Jimmy Carter lost the forest for the trees. We all know how that turned out. A president who loses sight of the values and purposes behind government . . . one who cynically flips and flops with the wind . . . one who becomes so enamored with arcana and serving special interests . . . cannot keep focus on the essential values against which all presidential decisions must be tested. [insert plug about how Huckabee is not beholden to any special interest – just look at his limited campaign budget!]

2. A GOVERNMENT’S GOT TO KNOW ITS LIMITATIONS. A GOVERNMENT’S ALSO GOT TO SHOULDER ITS RESPONSIBILITIES.

As Republicans, we believe that the purpose of our government is to take on only those limited, Constitutional tasks of general importance that are too big for individuals and private groups to accomplish. . . .A national defense second to none . . . Secure borders . . . A national economic environment that protects our markets and breeds opportunities for success on Main Street, on the farm, in the factory, and even on Wall Street. . . . Safe and efficient highways . . . proper, conservative management of national lands and resources.

A Government that’s too big, too intrusive and too expensive is not the solution – it’s the problem. [Huckabee can then insert how in his 10.5 years as Governor in Arkansas he rebuilt the roads, kept the schools out of the hands of the judges, improved conservation of Arkansas’ hunting and fishing resources, etc., while balancing the budget, cutting taxes . . . .]

It shouldn’t take a whole room full of lawyers and accountants to understand a government regulation. And it shouldn’t take a massive, intrusive bureaucracy like the IRS or a thousand-page tax code to fund the essential duties of our government.

When government has undertaken a responsibility – such as to our seniors and to our brave veterans – we have a solemn duty to live up to that trust in the most responsible and efficient way possible. But we also have a responsibility to future generations to cut the size of government and limit its fiscal demands to what is absolutely necessary. [Insert policy sound bites here; whack on "earmarks" and the "bridge to nowhere"]

We have an inalienable responsibility to fight against totalitarianism and manifold evil in the War on Terror – and to win it decisively for the noble cause of liberty. We will never shrink from the defense of our freedom and our values. Those rogue elements who shed the blood of our soldiers and our innocents must never doubt the powerful, swift and overwhelming response of the United States of America.

However, we cannot afford to police the entire world alone. We must have a foreign policy that never compromises on essential American values, but which leads the responsible nations of the world to join us in actively opposing terror, tyranny and oppression.

3. WE NEED JUDGES THAT DON’T MAKE UP THE LAW AS THEY GO.

The Constitution says what it means and means what it says.

We need judges that follow the law, not judges that invent the law.

Under our system, federal judges are not held accountable in elections. A president must appoint jurists that respect the separation of powers and who will leave questions of policy to the political branches. [He could insert a criticism of Romney’s abysmal record of judicial appointments]

4. THE GREATEST POWER OF THE PRESIDENCY IS IN THE "BULLY PULPIT."

Presidents don’t achieve anything on their own.

Our system is built upon the foundation of popular support. As we saw last year in the immigration debate, the people ultimately determine what course our Nation takes. A successful president must have a consistent and responsive vision for the direction the country should be moving.

But a vision and values aren’t enough. To accomplish anything a president has to build coalitions and earn support for policies. Using the "bully pulpit" properly doesn’t mean focus grouped "themes of the week." It’s not a bunch of boring "PowerPoint" slide shows. It's not smarmy and deceptive "attack ads." And its not sound bites of "inside the beltway" jargon directed toward special interest.

The last eight years have taught us the critical importance of electing a president who able to debate effectively and to persuade.

A president must be able to persuade a majority of Americans from all walks of life to support important national goals . . . to demand responsible change . . . to hold government officials accountable.

A president must establish a tone of civility in the rancorous contests of policy and personality.

A president must exude humility and "main street" sensibilities. The Oval Office is not a place for laconic cowboys or icy, detached corporate commanders.

A president must combine strength, conviction and empathy in a way that resonates with ordinary people. And that’s why millions of Americans want a president who has endured their struggle. A president who has walked their walk. A president who’s worked for a paycheck and then hurried home at night to work some more at home. A president who reminds them more of the guy they work beside and not the guy who laid them off. [insert more Huck stump speech lines here].

5. MY ARKANSAS RECORD DEMONSTRATES SUCCESS BASED ON TRADITIONALLY CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES.

[This talking point is about defending the Arkansas record without sounding defensive] I didn’t have to reinvent myself to be Governor of Arkansas. I didn’t have to promise to out "Kennedy" Ted Kennedy on any issue.

Over ten and a half years, I stayed true to my conservative principles and my faith.

We balanced the budgets every year. We worked with a Democrat-controlled legislature to do those things that state governments must do. We didn’t waste time on partisanship. We fixed our roads. We dramatically improved our schools. We protected hunting, fishing and the environment. We cut taxes and expanded opportunities for growth. We invested in future productivity through education and helping young learners to be more healthy.

We did the same sorts of things that Ronald Reagan did when he was governor of California. And unlike some of my opponents, the people of my state kept reelecting me until I was term limited. By the way, we ought to have some more term limits in Washington.

I made some tough choices. Unlike all of my opponents, I’m the only candidate who has had to carry out a death sentence. Unlike some of my opponents, I took my responsibility to review pardons and commutations seriously – I studied 8,000 applications. I wasn't always right, but I’ve learned from my mistakes. But unlike one of my opponents, I never denied a pardon to a decorated war hero who as a child shot another kid in the arm with a B-B gun. I never withheld a pardon for political gain.

We made some tough choices on taxes. Like Ronald Reagan in California, I was faced with fiscal crisis and crumbling infrastructure. But we rallied the people of Arkansas to vote for the taxes necessary to fix the problems. And we kept the size of down as much as we could.

WITH FRED GONE, IS MITT ROMNEY THE LAST "TRUE" CONSERVATIVE STANDING?

Why not turn to presidential politics?

With Ford Motor Company's stock in the cellar, the sale of Jaguar immnent, Barrett-Jackson Scottsdale over (without a landmark, record-setting top price this year), NASCAR "COT" in a spiral of death-by-irrelevance and boredom, David Freiburger gone from Hot Rod, and GM stealing all of the "thunder" at the end of the second supercar era (before the 35 M.P.G. CAFE douses the party), it's a depressing time write about cars.

But now that "Super Duper Tuesday" is less than two weeks away, it's past time to assess the GOP race for president.

The vast majority of the conservative media elites have been waging a "jihad" against former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. Yet despite being horribly underfunded, Huckabee has hung in and is currently second in the delegate count.

The New York media elites have been trying to keep the race alive long enough for former NYC mayor Rudy Guilliani to make a late "big state" run for the GOP nomination.

Mitt Romney has spent millions, but has only captured relatively uncontested states.

Fred Thompson floundered and grumped until he fizzled out in South Carolina.

In the vacuum, John McCain has come back from the political dead to become a surprising front-runner.

But which candidate best represents the social conservative wing of the GOP? One thing is for sure: It's not MITT ROMNEY!

Romney may be photogenically packaged in impeccable custom suits and LDS temple undergarments, but he is "100% spew" to REAL REAGAN CONSERVATIVES because of his open and notorious flip-flopping, unjustified violation of the "11th Commandment," ham-fisted campaign skills, and apparently inherent arrogance.

Romney is a one-term governor with absolutely no meaningful foreign policy experience (excluding, of course, running the Salt Lake City LDS proselytizing-fest known as the Olympics).

Notwithstanding the fawning over him by conservative talk radio and his own unlimited checkbook campaign strategy, Romney is a case study in "brand failure." A paucity of rabid LDS voters (not that many Wyomings, Nevadas or Utahs on the schedule) has caused Mitt to fade in virtually all of the contested primaries on the slate (save his birth-state of Michigan).

Romney also has a troubling lack of judgment and common sense, as exemplified by his refusal to pardon a decorated Iraq war hero who as a juvenile shot a kid in the arm with a b-b gun -- so as to selfishly preserve his politically-motivated "no pardons" record.

[The Boston Globe has reported:

"Decorated Iraq war veteran Anthony Circosta seemed like an ideal candidate for a pardon from then-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for his boyhood conviction for a BB gun shooting. Romney said no -- twice -- despite the recommendation of the state's Board of Pardons."

"At age 13, Circosta was convicted of assault for shooting another boy in the arm with a BB gun, a shot that didn't break the skin. Circosta worked his way through college, joined the Army National Guard and led a platoon of 20 soldiers in Iraq's deadly Sunni triangle."

"In 2005, as he was serving in Iraq, he sought a pardon to fulfill his dream of becoming a police officer."

"'I've done everything I can to give back to my state and my community and my country and to get brushed aside is very frustrating,' said Circosta, 29, of Agawam, Mass. 'I'm not some shlub off the street.'"]

What's more, Mitt is no friend of the 2nd Amendment.

Romney is quickly becoming the Edsel of the GOP (piles of money and market research wasted on the wrong target. Perhaps as a wonkish take-over artist, he'll soon realize that he needs to fire the candidate and hire a better one).

Thus, the apparent fact that Romney is a proud, active member of an arguably aggressive, secretive cult which, inter alia, proclaims all biblical faiths as apostate and which requires its adherents to adopt a host of heretical beliefs on virtually every essential doctrine of Christianity IS NOT ROMNEY'S CRITICAL DEFECT! Instead, Romney's obvious fakery, flip-flopping, lack of candor, and abysmal political skills are what ought to cause THINKING conservative voters to reject him NOW.

Mitt once said:

"Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."

Uh, Mitt . . . you mean those who would conveniently flip-flop on abortion, same-sex marriage and homosexual rights to "gain" election to political office?

One astute pundit has observed that: "Actually, [Romney] is neither a conservative nor a liberal, but a chameleon, a well-scrubbed little reptile who changes color as circumstances dictate, whether its on taxes, or jobs, or guns or [G]od knows what else."

Polls show that 20% of Republicans will NEVER VOTE FOR ROMNEY. NEVER! EVER!

Polls also show that Romney is almost twice as far behind Hillary Rodham Clinton as Rudy or Gov. Huckabee. Not even a bottomless checkbook and Rush in 24/7 campaign mode can make up that kind of gap.

Romney's also a failure as an economic conservative.

Romney's various Tammany Hall-style vote buying plans are hardly conservative. For example, Romney pandered to Michigan voters by proposing a huge bailout of the U.S. auto industry.While one could certainly argue that big government Naderism and U.S. government's role in several decades of Japanese protectionism have been prime factors in bleeding Detroit to death (and thus the U.S. automakers arguably deserve some federal compensation for the hundreds of billions that bad government policies have cost), Romney's big government bail-out plan is hardly conservative.

Moreover, Romney's life as a venture capitalist/corporate raider doesn't mean he has enough of a grasp on macroeconomics to transcend "politics as usual." Thus far, Romney's been a conventional, big government supporter.

Rush Limbaugh and the out-of-touch Country-Clubbers in the GOP like Romney because he will continue redistributing our hard-earned tax money to big corporate interests and will do NOTHING for the social conservatives and blue-collar/Main Street parts of the GOP.

That's simply not conservative.

Moreover, Romney is simply out of his depth when it comes to foreign policy. Remember, his modus operandi in a crisis is to "consult the lawyers."

His immigration plan is apparently involves hiring as many illegals for the Romney mansion as he can get by with.

And if it suits him, he will out "Kennedy" old Ted Kennedy in disregarding the concerns of social conservatives. (For more see this video)

That's simply not conservative.

Another Ivy League MBA who cannot connect with the majority of GOP (much less the population a a whole) is exactly what the GOP does not need in these dangerous times.

With Thompson out, Mike Huckabee is the only bona-fide & consistent social conservative choice.

Huck is no more of a "Christian Socialist" than Bush 43. However, totally unlike George W. Foot-in-mouth, Huck is the most articulate spokesperson for true Reagan-style conservative values THAT IS WILLING TO STAND FOR ELECTION since . . . well . . . Reagan himself!

Huck is flawed in the eyes of some "movement conservatives" because he obeyed court decisions and spent money with taxpayer consent on the sorts of things that state governments MUST fund in a federalist system (Education, roads, wildlife managment, etc.) and repeatedly balanced budgets in the face of national and regional recession.

[Too bad the snooty Ivy League/Country Club/Wall Street/"Club for Greed" wing of the GOP is so horrified by the possibility of an articulate middle-class traditional conservative winning that they will engage in the ridiculous distortions of Gov. Huckabee's Arkansas record.

Or would they rather Gov. Huckabee have stood by while the courts to took over Arkansas' then-unconstitutional public schools that were languishing in 48th place nationally?

Or would they have rather had the Arkansas state highway system to have crumbled even further than under Democrats Bill Clinton and Jim Guy Tucker?

Or would they have wanted to continued grossly underfunding hunting and fishing management in the "Natural State?"

Each of those areas are on the centerline of what state govenments ought to be doing and each of the purported tax increases for them were strongly supported by the Arkansas voters.

Perhaps they should try to listen to Gov. Huckabee using a dollup of common-sense (not hard for those of us outside the elite East coast echo chambers, but apparently impossible for Rep. Dick Armey, Rush Limbaugh, George Will and a few other media elites]

Others claim Huck is too given to untested, radical ideas on taxes (signed the "no new taxes" pledge, advocates the controversial "Fair Tax") and immigration.

And some charge Huck believes a little too strongly in second chances. And there's that "wedding registry" blind spot that's a hold-over from his ministerial days.

HOWEVER, Huck is the only GOP candidate that with the ability to connect with the struggling middle class (where the majority of the votes are).

In comparing Huck to Romney and McCain, savvy GOP voters should remember:

1. The vast majority of the electorate is in the middle class.

2. Acknowledging that these are challenging times for middle class families -- given our Nation's reckless, headlong rush to "globalization", the huge inflationary pressures in medicine, insurance and higher education, and the apparent end to affordable energy-- doesn't transform one into a "RINO" or a closet socialist.

3. Most in the middle class work for small businesses, and while they generally want corporations to succeed (give a good return on investment to shareholders and uphold their commitments to local communities), our national policies should not be so subservient to multinational corporate interests so as to disadvantage small businesses and middle class families.

4. Creating the conditions for American corporations to successfully compete does not require the complete absence of any regulation or oversight (reasonable limits on the extremes of harmful corporate conduct that maximize freedom within the "guardrails" can help limit abuses and "market failures").

5. "Free trade" is an empty slogan (Don't believe it? Just try to sell an American car in Japan), because trade is seldom "free" on both ends (e.g. importers can "outsource" the environmental and "human factor" impacts, often from protectionist home markets featuring artificially-devalued currencies, while American producers generally labor under six or seven decades of expensive, draconian regulations, ever-present trial-lawyer raids, huge tax burdens and few meaningful attempts to "level the playing field." ).

6. Any winning GOP coalition requires attracting social conservatives and religious conservatives, mostly from the middle class. The Reagan model requires getting votes from all three "legs" of the conservative movement (Social/Religious Conservatives, Foreign Policy/National Security Conservatives and Economic Conservatives).

7. The policies of some corporations (e.g. media and entertainment corporations, some retailers, corporations with aggressively secular world views and unfettered off-shoring practices) are also a contributing factor to the coarsening of the culture, the decline in neighborhoods and communities, and the breakdown of the traditional family.

Encouraging personal responsibility and maximizing responsible freedom do not require the absence of laws teaching against unwanted extremes, irresponsiblity and abuses of liberty, and increasing the "opportunity costs" of such conduct.

While Gov. Huckabee is not the perfect candidate, his program does not conflict with a balanced, traditional view of conservatism.

And Huck is the only GOP candidate who has the rhetorical chops to stay in the game with Obama (should "Obambi" snatch the Mule nomination from the tight grasp of the Clintonistas). Romney is a boring, soulless, pre-programmed, plastic robot in comparison.

Sure, given Huck's shoestring finances, it will take a measure of Divine providence, but he's the only choice left (other than John McCain) for social conservatives.