Should I stay or should I...
Governor Mitt Romney is being rather coy about his intentions regarding the Chairman's Dinner in Cedar Rapids on Saturday. We've reported here multiple times that Romney is slated to speak at that event. But according to a Boston paper, he's not so sure.
We hear at the Cooler have talked to a couple of Republican sources this morning who expect him to be in attendance and we have a very hard time believing that the Governor will bail on Chairman Hoffman and the Republican Party of Iowa. But if he does attend, he'll certainly get some gruff back home.
Where oh where will the Governor be on Saturday night?
We're putting our money on Cedar Rapids.
posted by Caucus Cooler at 7/26/2006
37 Comments:
Mitt has got to come, he's just doing a little dance in the press.
Maybe Mitt has to go to tabernacle that day?
Somebody was already lined up to be the speaker at the chairman's dinner but backed out at the last minute. The party was lucky to get Mitt as a replacement and so are we.
1103- Don't think the Mormon jokes are necessary
102- I'm not sure how someone could have "backed out at the last minute" considering we've known Mitt was going to be the featured guest for almost 2 months now.
It takes more than 2 months to effectively plan a major event like this. Look no further than the fact that nobody outside of Linn county is planning on attending nor even knows about it.
Why did they put Kathy Potts in charge of the event? She couldn't run a kool-aid stand let alone raise any money.
You have Pate, Corbett, Lundby, Larson, Elgin, Paulsen, Henderson
all elected leaders who have proven can raise money not involved.
Amazing.
The parties fundraising has been embarassing that is true. But I'm not sure it takes more than 2 months to plan a major event. The VP came to Iowa and only gave Whalen/Lamberti 1 month and they raised over 200K combined. Could those events have been better, sure, but I'm not sure an extra month would've made a difference. Particularly when you consider who the "players" (and I use that term very loosely) are on the Whalen campaign.
edit. party's
Kathy Potts is not in charge of the event. Eric Branstad and Darrel Kearney are the ones in charge. Kathy is on the table committee with Arlette Quinn and Joni Scotter. Why are you picking on Kathy? Seems she and Joni did a great job with the Pataki event last year.
Why are the others not involved? Maybe they did not VOLUNTEER like the three ladies did to help out.
Get a life loser.
Maybe if the fundraising wing of RPI was not completely worthless, this kind of talk wouldn't matter.
I disagree that it is worthless. They are doing a great job in raising money for the party. Why so many mal-contents? Because they are not kissing your ring? Could you do better?
Running a state party is like herding cats. The fact that anything gets done at all is amazing. The people who work for a living to do this should have all of our appreciation. Thank you RPI employees!
With all the advantages of being in Iowa, the Party should be doing better, that's all.
How so?
Most states don't have Presidential campaigns drooling all over them. We don't take enough advantage over those sources of money.
Hang in there kathy - Winston Churchill said he heard way too many times "why, he's last of all".
The campaigns are not drooling over the state party. They drool over the candidates. They do throw a bone to the party every now and then. I am pretty darn sure that Cullen does his best to get as much money out of the PACS as possible. Lord knows he constantly is after my money!
Gang, I just don't see Romney getting past all of the things he's had to say and do to be Gov of Mass. I'm talking about abortion, gay marriage, etc. I think his opponents are going to be able to "swift boat" him completely into oblivion.
jim - what do you mean that he has had to say and do? has he not been acting true to himself?
Mitt has the advantage of having a bunch of other people without strong conservative credentials in the race as well Jim. He will have an abortion problem and a health care problem, but we have a bunch of candidates who have slipped into the middle a time or two.
When thinking about all of these candidates don't forget the W. ran on "Compassionate Conservatism" in 00. He didn't exactly run from the King Wing of the GOP.
Jim aka James Pettit is as mized up as the website he made for the linn GOP: http://www.linncountygop.org/
wanna bet that he is the one trashing Kathy?
no shit. Yoda doesn't need to post anon to says what he thinks.
about ANYTHING.
who mentioned Yoda? Why does he always come up? Is he that important?
Isn't the lack of fundraising for this event as much a reflection of Mitt as it is of the RPI folks?
Maybe Mitt can give everyone who comes $10 just like he gave every county at least $500.
The event will go off fine. I'm bringing 13 (and maybe 16) people to this event . . . $50 from people that are NOT your standard political/GOP activists . . . just Iowans for Romney (actually, at least two coming from Illinois . . . out of state money) because they want to see/meet/support Romney. Also, the fact that he was in the Cedar Rapids area just 2 months ago will make hearing his "stump speech" again not terribly exciting for many Cedar Rapidians.
So, go ahead and "bag" on Romney all you want. "Methinks thou do protest too much" comes to mind. I'm seeing the mounting offensive against Romney. I welcome it as it legitimizes his meteoric rise among "political insiders" makes him the new threat in the GOP field.
Jeff when you say Iowans for Romney that aren't normal GOP activist types, don't you mean LDSans for Romney? That's who your bringing right?
Jeff when you say Iowans for Romney that aren't normal GOP activist types, don't you mean LDSans for Romney? That's who your bringing right?
Some of them/us that are coming are LDS (actually, most, I think . . . didn't stop to ask the religion of some people who contacted me out of the blue). Of the nearly 100 people in my "Iowans for Romney" network, about 60% are LDS at this point. This is a large percentage for two reasons:
1) I am LDS . . . and I have a lot of LDS friends. The social network builds upon itself.
2) LDS will be an early group excited about Romney for POTUS. Why? Are we just "homers" wanting one of "our own" in the White House? Maybe a few are, but most of us are excited about Romney because we've already been exposed to him and know he's great . . . the kind of person we would want as POTUS. Once more people are similarly exposed to him the interest and excitement will build. We just know him already and hope others get the same opportunity.
Romney Rocks!
Jeff, I totally respect your opinion, and that's why I'm asking you this question. This is not an attack, I just need to get the answer:
Why on Earth would Romney change his stance to a more moderate stance just to get elected? That just doesn't seem like something someone should do. I'm SO confused by it. I've heard the "better a mod Republican who won't advance issues like abortion than a Dem who advances it" argument, but I don't agree with it. If Romney becomes President, he probably won't have a Republican House and Senate. If that happens, will he lose his spine and simply go through the "conservative motions?"
I don't know if I'm wording these questions right, but I'd like to know your thoughts.
441 your question doesn't make sense.
Jeff if you "haven't asked everybody their religion" how can you speculate a percentage that is lds. Maybe because you are making things up?
Anon 10:10
If you accuse (even as a question), have the courage to put your name behind your words.
I said, "about 60%". I could be wrong, but based on who I know personally or through extended email contact, I do know the religion of the vast majority of the Iowans for Romney.
What's your beef about Mormon support for Romney? He'll have a lot. However, of his PACs "Iowa Advisory Board" I only know of 4 of the 50 that are LDS. THere could be more, but that's all I know of.
How is Romney going to overcome the south and the fact that they consider LDS a cult?
Anon 441,
Sorry for the delay in responding.
The "better a mod Republican who won't advance issues like abortion than a Dem who advances it" doesn't apply to Romney.
First off, who is the Democrat who will advance abortion rights? (long silent pause . . . )
Plus, who says Romney wouldn't advance abortion rights? He's said he doesn't believe the "one size fits all" of Roe v. Wade and supports states being able to ban abortion. Romney's record while in office as governor is solidly in the "pro-life" camp (vetoed morning-after pill expansion, vetoed cloning and stem-cell bill, vetoed lowering age of abortion withou parental consent . . .). He's had some "pro-choice" statements in the past (12 yr ago debate with Kennedy) that will be drudged up and painted as more.
Lose his spine if having to work with an opposing legislature? He's governed amid the most democratic/liberal legislature/populous in the nation and has shown more spine than just about anyone could imagine. If anything, if the next GOP POTUS will have to deal with an opposing legislature then Romney would hands down be the candidate of choice.
Read here http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/7/14/12544/1705 for an Evangelical Crhistian pro-life activist's opinion of Romney's abortion past, present and future.
It's not just abortion either. Romney's showed strong conservative leadership on Gay Marriage, budget balancing, minimum wage, abstinence education etc . . . He's a solid republican . . . more conservative than moderate.
Great posts, Jeff! And it's too bad that you have to have a discussion with "Anonymous" people on the web, who make sweeping statements like "How is Romney going to overcome the south and the fact that they consider LDS a cult?" I think the straw poll in Tennessee showed that the LDS factor isn't as big of an issue as is being made, and to paint the entire "South" as having a distorted view of the LDS faith is a bit off.
In a time when both sides pretend to call for "bipartisanship", it's interesting to see that in Massachusetts, things are actually getting done with opposing parties in power in the legislative and executive branches. Part of it is compromise, and part of it is standing up for principles that Mitt believes in.
Very pretty site! Keep working. thnx!
»
Interesting site. Useful information. Bookmarked.
»
Post a Comment
<< Home