Barack on War

"I want to listen to our commanders on the ground," says Barack Obama on withdrawing from Iraq.  According to Obama's speech, which he is currently giving in my hometown of Fayetteville, North Carolina (home of Ft. Bragg and Pope Air Force Base), he has a plan for withdrawing our troops safely and effectively.

If Mr. Obama was truly committed to listening to the military leaders in our country, he would not be advocating for a hasty exit from Iraq.  Just this month the Chairman of the Join Chiefs of Staff made a statement in which he all but blasted Senators Obama and his partner in demagoguery, Hillary Clinton, for wanting to leave Iraq.  According to Admiral Mike Mullen, withdrawing our military forces from Iraq now would undo all of the good and destroy all of the security gains that we have made to this point.

So if Mr. Obama were truly committed to "listening to our commanders on the ground," if he were truly committed to stability in Iraq and stability in the Middle East, the he will heed Adm. Mullen's advice... and change his position.

Thank you, Democrats

Oh, I love a good fight.  Well, not really.  What I do love, though, is the intense battle that has re-heated tonight between Democratic rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

While John McCain will officially kick off his general election campaign tomorrow with a stop at the White House--where he will receive Pres. Bush's official endorsement-- Clinton and Obama are gearing up for round ten.

Of course, if I had to choose a victor tonight I would pick Obama.  In a conversation with my mother today, I decided that "hope" is not a policy position.

Hope will not defeat terrorists, stimulate the economy nor will it even appoint judges, justices and cabinet secretaries.  Therefore, running against "hope" is easy... if you're John McCain, a man who is capable of taking clear policy positions.

Furthermore, Obama carries a stigma that is nearly negative if you aren't in love with him.  After this primary season, it is clear that middle-of-the-road swing voters will decide our next president.  Barack Obama's stigmatizing stances on many issues (well, as many as he's actually articulated a position on) will clearly isolate a large sector of that important vote.

But who can complain.  The longer these two kick and scratch at one another, the longer John McCain can catch his breath.  

That being said, thank you.

I'm Back... At Last

Well kids, after secluding into a period of mourning I have decided to make my re-entrance into the blogging world.

I'm not really sure what I want to talk about first.  Let's start with Mitt Romney (RIP).

The reason Romney decided to make his graceful exit is because he is a sensible guy, a candidate too good to be true and because Iowa Republicans are apparently stupid.

What angers me most about Mitt's candidacy is that it finally captured the group of people it was targeted at a minute too late.  The right-wing sect of the Republican Party started this presidential campaign with luke-warm interest in the former Massachusetts governor.  However, as the candidates dwindled, the likes of El Rushbo and Laura Ingram flocked to support Mitt.  But Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither was Romney's new found conservative movement.  In the end, things happened too late and Romney was reasonable enough to realize it was time to call it quits.

Now, allow me to turn my sights on Mike Huckabee.

Dear Mike Huckabee, nobody cares.  The longer ole' Mike stays in the race the more Ron Paul appears to be normal.  While Huckabee has become nothing more than a Republican side show to John McCain, it is almost to the point of embarrassing.  What's sad about the state of his candidacy is the fact that it was he who triggered Mitt's early demise with an unexpected win in Iowa.  Oh well, let the man continue to waste his time and occasionally garner some media attention for the GOP primary.  At least I'll still have a choice when I vote in the North Carolina primary on May 6th.

And, finally, onto the Barack/ Hillary fiasco.

It almost makes me sad that Hillary Clinton is losing.  I mean, who would have thought that enough people would have found "hope" to be substantive enough of a platform to run a successful presidential campaign on?

In an "anyone on the Republican ticket" v. Hillary match up the victor would have been clear.  However, with a McCain v. Obama head to head in November, McCain is going to have to painstakingly point out to America why Obama is completely incompetent (as he's already begun doing).

Although I'm sure I missed A LOT in my attempt to sum up the past few weeks in presidential politics, it's after midnight and I keep thinking about my homework that won't get done.  Be sure, though, that I will post again tomorrow (and the next day, and probably even the day after that).

Why Hillary may be our best bet

In the aftermath of Super Tuesday, I have had the opportunity to read, discuss and think about what I, as a conservative Republican, will do in the general election if (who are we kidding, when) John McCain is our party's nominee.  Don't get me wrong, I consider myself a GOP party faithful when it comes to national politics, but that very reason is why I may be inclined to oppose the senator from Arizona.

Over the past several weeks I have made it very clear what I think of John McCain.  He is not conservative and he may not even be Republican (after considering a slot as John Kerry's running mate in 2004).  That being said, there will be little difference between a John McCain White House and a Hillary Clinton White House.  It is reasonable to assume that either candidate would push their liberal agendas through our government: appealing the Bush tax cuts, granting amnesty to illegals and levying tough environmental standards on big business.  It is also reasonable to say that much of their liberal agenda will not go over well with the American public once it is actually implemented.  Why do we- as Republican party faithful- want to put someone who will only bring down the name of the Republican party into the White House? 

A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote that will most likely restore our party back to power in Congress in 2010 and almost assure us the presidency in 2012.  Although I would rather a third option, where a true (or, at least, better) conservative were on the ballot, this may be the best option.

Dear main stream media

Your job is to inform the public.  Throughout the history of this country (since before it was a country, actually), you have been charged with the task of informing the public.  Although today you certainly make the public aware of goings on, you do so with a bias; I find this bias to be unacceptable.

Tonight's Super Tuesday election coverage was an absolute disgrace.  Throughout the night you made known your choice for a Republican presidential candidate.  Despite polls clearly showing a victory for Mitt Romney, you continued to put off projecting him the winner.  Regardless of his 14 point lead with over 80% of the precincts reporting, you chose, instead, to allow the totals to accumulate until you had no choice but to secretly put a check next to his name and bury him under the state totals for John McCain and Mike Huckabee.

If you looked around any of the news sites this evening, you saw a clear slant.  While everyone was enthralled with the Hillary-Obama showdown across the country, attention was diverted from the GOP race: the main stream media having already declared McCain the victor (a few days in advance, no less).

The interesting thing, however, is that it wasn't just Mitt Romney who did better than expected.  Mike Huckabee wowed pollsters, too.  Of course the effect that Mr. Huckabee will have on Sen. McCain's overall delegate count will be played down as producers all across the country attempt to portray Mitt Romney as the day's loser.  Instead, we will see phrases such as "Huckaboom II" plastered throughout the network sites, left-center leaning blogs and liberal daily newspapers.

While I'm not asking anyone to embrace a particular candidate, I am asking for fair coverage and treatment of all.  At the very least, it should be done out of respect for the voters

Why John McCain is wrong

Well, if I really wrote this blog to include everything that could be written on under its title I would fill up several pages of content.  Instead, I mean to refer specifically to John McCain's continual assertion that he- nor anyone else (like Bob Dole)- be attacked on anything simply because they are "decorated war veterans".

While I respect John McCain for his service to our country, and admire his ability to persevere through half a decade of captivity and relentless torture, I do not use that as a reason to not hold him accountable for his actions.  Sen. McCain's action in Vietnam are of a totally different nature than his action in the United States Congress.  Commanding a Navy unit does not make you invincible on your economic record.  Nor does it give you an excuse to side with Nancy Pelosi and her ilk on global warming.  Nor does it excuse you from partnering with Ted Kennedy (or Joe Liberman or John Edwards).

Again, though, the real blame rests with two other key groups of people outside of John McCain and his staffers.  The media and (thus far) a majority of the "Republican" (and independent) electorate have not done the country any favors by buying into his "I'm a hero and, therefore, do no wrong" rhetoric.  Either way, it's time for the general public (and not just Rush and company) to hold the Senator from Arizona accountable for his actions.

On Oprah

I was scrolling through the video section of RealClearPolitics.com today and decided that I was bored enough to watch clips from a Barack Obama rally (as if being at one in person wasn't scarring enough).  The first clip begins with his wife, Michelle, speaking.  Fair enough- I would hope that my spouse speaks at my presidential rallies when I run for president.  But the second clip is Oprah.

Now, I love the talk show diva just as much as the next guy, but after watching a few minutes of the YouTube video I can now say that I prefer her in front of an audience watching Tom Cruise jump up and down on her couch.  Simply put, Oprah is out of her element.  What expertise does Oprah have that suddenly makes her a persuasive political pundit?  Just because millions of Americans tune into your show each day does not qualify you to be an expert in presidential politics.

The sad thing is, however, that Oprah is not alone in her attempt to use star power to influence voters this election (or previous elections).  The scary thing, on the other hand, is that their star power actually works.  Although Oprah Winfrey and Steven Spielberg are certainly entitled to their opinions, I'm not sure they are any more entitled to grandstand on national television for their favorite candidate any more than I am (and I'm relegated to this here blog).

Dear Super Tuesday

Finally, you're here!  As I sit up tonight, anxiously awaiting your arrival, I have a few things to ask of you.

This year- the biggest Super Tuesday ever (even though I've heard at least three different counts of how many states are going to vote)- your day will count nearly as much as the general election in November.

Although you really don't have any control over this, please keep the main stream media from spinning your results in a manner favorable to John McCain and Hillary Clinton.  On that note, please provide results favorable to Mitt Romney.

My latter request isn't all that far fetched, given the Governor's continuing climb in the polls; in most cases leaving just a narrow gap between him and Sen. McCain.  Now that the conservative base is fired up- perhaps Mitt Romney will be propelled to victory.

Regardless of what happens tomorrow, I hope that all of the candidates (except for Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee) have enough sense to continue their primary efforts.  Roughly half of the country should not be able to decide the presidential nominees for the rest of us (some of us live in states like NC who don't get to vote until May 6th).

Sincerely,

Nick

The real flip floppers

Throughout the Republican presidential nominating contest thus far, much attention has been given to Mitt Romney and his drastically changing views on several issues.  While it is only fair to examine a candidate's record, it is not fair to mold sound bytes from an unsuccessful campaign that took place over a decade ago and use them as the basis for your claims of flip flopping.

What galls me, however, is the lack of attention that is being paid to the flip flopping being done by Mr. Romney's opponents: John McCain and Mike Huckabee.  Not only have both of them hanged their positions on issues from stances that they have taken recently, but they have also taken offense to anyone who questions their record.

For instance, Mike Huckabee has sought to align himself with some fiscal conservatives by becoming a leader in the Fair Tax movement.  But if we look to his record as Governor of Arkansas we see that a Fair Tax would have only stunted the amount of money he could have collected- each dime being needed more and more every time he wanted to raise spending.  Go to a Huckabee rally, however, and you find crowds of Fair Tax supporters adamantly supporting Mr. Huckabee-- all seemingly oblivious to their new found candidate's past as a fiscal liberal.

In what has got to be one of the largest flip flops ever, Mr. McCain is now releasing ads touting himself as a "true conservative".  If John McCain is a true conservative, then I must be as Libertarian as Ron Paul.   One need not look any further than a meeting between Mr. McCain and a room full of lawyers early in his campaign in which he called Samuel Alito too conservative.  Or, if you agree with his assessment of Justice Alito, you can look to his legislative efforts in the Senate: McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Leiberman, McCain-Kennedy-Edwards.  Each of these bills championed causes that were opposed by "true conservatives", such as campaign finance reform, amnesty for illegal immigrants, radical environmental reforms, and a patient's bill of rights that favors trial lawyers.  While one need not disagree with all of those positions to be a "true conservative", one cannot take each of those positions and still claim to be a champion of the conservative movement.

My real issue with Sen. McCain, however, is his inability to take criticism.  In New Hampshire, Mitt Romney launched a series of ads telling viewers about the two candidates' records.  Of course, much of the record that was uncovered in the ads were the same things that I mentioned above, and did not do very much to paint McCain as a conservative.  Rather than defend himself and his record, Mr. McCain attacked Mr. Romney for "attacking" him.  Only in presidential politics can one person call the strategy of bringing their record to light an attack-- and then get away with attacking the other person for it.  But the McCain camp's attacks do not stop with Romney's campaign tactics.  We have now recently seen an effort on the party of Sen. McCain to make Mr. Romney appear in favor of a war i Iraq.  If ever there was a time to cry foul, it would be on Mr. McCain for his outright fabrication of the truth.

If voters want someone who can stick to their positions and not change their public comments as called for by the electorate, they will support Mitt Romney (or Ron Paul if they're middle-aged and still living with their mothers).  And maybe at some point the main stream media will get a clue.

What the Super Bowl means for Mitt Romney

At the beginning of the season nobody gave him much of a chance.  After a few decent performances he showed some potential.  But in the big dance, nobody gave him much of a chance.

No, I'm not talking about Mitt Romney (yet), I'm talking about Eli Manning and the New York Giants.  

Talking with my friend this afternoon before the big game, I likened the Giants to Mitt Romney.  To begin with, both have been matched up against opponents hated by its opponents and vigorously loved by their supporters.  Additionally, Mitt Romney is staring down Super Tuesday the same way Eli Manning had to have stared down New England's defense.

While I have no hard evidence to prove that a win for the Giants assures a win for Romney on Tuesday, I can draw some more comparisons.

What happened to Bill Belichick and his team is exactly what Sen. McCain seemed to be plagued with in last week's debate at the Reagan library: a growing ego and unchecked confidence.  When you believe that you are invincible you also start to act like it: taking pot shots at your oppenent over comments that he clearly never made, going for it on fourth down when you could easily kick a field goal... you get the idea.  Either way, a cocky performance on the part of either Bill Belichick or John McCain can lead to the favorites marching off the field with two seconds left in the game, dissapointed.

This year's real constituency

Last night I was visiting with a friend at a retirement home in my hometown of Fayetteville.  This lady is absolutely wonderful and I enjoy having discussions with her (our discussion last night went on for nearly two and a half hours!).  For the first time since I've had the pleasure of knowing her our conversation turned to politics.

"I don't even care who about I'm going to vote for yet," she said.  "They all sound the same to me."

Although I may not agree with her, many Americans do and I certainly understand her point.  To the average citizen, who doesn't spend their day on realclearpolitics.com or at least peruse Carl Cameron's vlog on the Fox News website once in a while, this election may seem to have become stagnant.  As each side narrows their fields down to two clear front runners (sorry Ron and Mike), the race becomes less of an adventure and more of a battle where two candidates fight to see who can repeat the same rhetoric more often.  On the Democratic side we even have the two candidates fawning over each other as though they're long lost relatives.

While that certainly cannot be said for the GOP race, we certainly beginning to see the same old lines over and over again.  Yes, John, we know you think Mitt "wants to withdraw our troops from Iraq."  We also know that you're a veteran and that you think such a status entitles you to never be questioned on any part of your record ever.  And you, Mr. Romney.  We realize that you can "bring together the conservative coalition."  Yes- we got that you spent a lifetime working in "the real economy" (isn't that a clever phrase?) and we know you have a picture perfect family.

Even the messages of change are beginning to grow stagnant.  Although Obama may have laid claim to it first, it was quickly snatched up by Huckabee, Clinton (of course someone who IS washington can change it) and, most recently, Romney (I tend to put my trust in the latter).

Before candidates can begin to fight for voters in November, they're going to have to get their attention.

John McCain's greatest enemy...

is himself.  That's my take following tonight's debate at the Reagan Library.

There is no question that McCain is certainly the candidate to beat following his win in Florida (as much as it pains me to say it).  And tonight his attitude was certainly that of the cocky high school quarterback asking out the captain of the cheerleading team.  Of course, who could blame him: three major primary victories, the endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, the expected endorsement of Arnold Schwarzenegger and his long-standing lead in the national polls.  At the same time, the maverick isn't in the clear yet.  As I mentioned in a previous post, the competition between he and Mitt Romney is still close enough for an upset finish on Tuesday... an overly confident Senator from Arizona would only play to Mitt's advantage.

In addition to his cocky demeanor, McCain has also taken to outright lying about Romney's record on the war in Iraq.  If he wasn't criticizing the Governor from Massachusetts for his alleged support of a troop withdrawal, he was criticizing him for his negative attacks.  Oh the irony.  So much for straight talk, huh?

While we're on the subject of the debate, allow me to point out that Mike Huckabee has already taken his spot as the third wheel.  During tonight's debate he reminded Anderson Cooper several times that there was a third person in the race (unfortunately, there is a fourth too... poor Ron Paul).  Has Mr. Edwards already taken my advice and called Mr. Huckabee's campaign?

Every political commentator in the country said that Mr. Romney would have to pull some pretty big punches in order to come off as successful in tonight's debate.  While I'm not quite sure Mitt lived up to his end of the deal, Mr. McCain did the dirty work for him.

Goodbye John

Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later.  Finally, this morning, John Edwards withdrew from the presidential race.

I'm not sure I really blame him for staying in as long as he did.  In fact, I half expected him to stay in longer and use his delegates to broker a deal in his favor at the convention late this summer.  But after hearing the news of a spot already being reserved for him in the Obama administration as Attorney General I guess staying in the race isn't really necessary after all.  Whether he was staying in the race to gain power at the convention or not, I believe that he served a purpose.

After the debate sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus Institute in Myrtle Beach last week I had a chance to do a one-on-one interview with Edwards's senior advisor Joe Trippi.  Not surprisingly, his overall message seemed to echo what his candidate tried to remind everyone of throughout that night's debate: that there were three people left in the race- and the third person wasn't staying in just for the fun of it. 

I feel as though John Edwards hung around as long as he could to be a constant reminder that the presidential race wasn't about race or gender or slum lords or executive boards but, rather, about substantive issues.  Whether you agree with Mr. Edwards or not (I, of course, do not) you have to applaud him for not being so willing to lay down for the Clinton-Obama steamroller that seems to have run over this year's presidential race.

His departure, however, was certainly inevitable.  Now, lets hope that his people call Ron Paul's people and maybe even manage to convince Mike Huckabee's people that their campaign is become more and more of an exercise in futility too.

What Florida means... to me

Well, I can't say that John McCain's win tonight surprised me.  It certainly did disappoint me.  That sentiment, I'm sure, is shared by a great deal of the GOP.

Unfortunately, tonight's result will probably give the media enough reason to anoint John McCain the Republican pick for president.  Despite that fact, I'm not sure the Republican party will be ready to get behind "Comeback Mac".  Tonight's results only support this fact.

Mitt Romney got second place only about four percentage points behind his rival.  This tells me two things.  That a great deal of Republicans in Florida are split between the two candidates and that John McCain is unable to garner a solid majority of supporters anywhere throughout the country.

Had Mr. McCain's narrow victory been a first in this series of state contests it may have been excusable.  But instead this is his second straight close finish.  What would have happened if Fred Thompson had not been in South Carolina to splinter Mike Huckabee's control of the evangelical vote?  How would Florida's primary turned out if Rudy Giuliani had not spent months in the state- arguably drawing a fair number of voters away from Mitt Romney?

There is no doubt that John McCain is in a good position to do well on Super Tuesday.  If a significant amount of voters throw their support behind him a week from now, then we may be in a position to declare him the front runner.  But tonight all we have is another close election.  In its aftermath lie two factions of the Republican party feuding over the harsh words that have been exchanged in the past week.  John McCain's tough attacks and familiar campaign rhetoric only succeeded in alienating the very people he desperately needs to gain the approval of: actual conservatives.

Was Florida the end all be all that it was predicted to be just this morning?  I say not quite.  Had Mr. McCain's victory come by a margin just slightly larger, or if Mr. Romney had pulled off a victory this evening (he began campaigning here last week as the underdog) one may say otherwise.

Now, until next week, it's just wait and see.

Dear Florida

Today your residents go to the polls.  Well, actually, some of your residents have already been.  About half a million Floridian have already cast their ballot in early and absentee voting.  Either way, the decision you make today will certainly determine the course of the remainder of the 2008 primary.

The effects of your vote today will not only affect the GOP, either.  Despite Florida Democrats having had their delegates stripped away from them this year- as a penalty for moving their primary up- party faithful are still casting their ballots (also in record early voting numbers).  Accordingly, the Sunshine state will provide a glimpse at the candidates' ability without the rallies, commercials, push polls and bad talking.

Will Rudy Giuliani finally finish in the top three of a primary contest?  Can John McCain win a contest where only Republicans are able to vote?  Is Mitt Romney able to win in a state where he doesn't have any major underlying advantage (like virtually no opposition in Wyoming or Nevada and home-field advantage in Michigan)?

Today's contest will, indeed, be telling.  Check back later tonight for exactly what it told us.

Stuck in the past...

Is it 1960?  No, it must be 1980.  Of course not! Apparently it's 2008.

Not that you- or anyone else who has been paying attention to presidential primary race- would know.

I was listening to sound bites of Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama today on Rush Limabaugh's radio show.  After listening to the clips I realized that the Republicans aren't the only ones who are running on a platform of their forefathers.  While the GOP field is clinging tightly to Ronald Reagan, it seems that the Democrats are hanging ever so steadfastly onto John F. Kennedy.

Neither of these men are bad choices for presidents that current candidates should cling to.  In fact, it is probably fair to make some comparisons between JFK's ability to bring together this country and Barack Obama's rally of mainstream America.  Mitt Romney may be doing a standup job of molding himself into the candidate that can unite the old three factions of the Conservative Coalition.  Both of the latter, though, are also running on a campaign of change (albeit one long before the other).

But change is not a theme that stops with Barack and Mitt.  Hillary Clinton is advocating for change.  Mike Huckabee says that hope can bring change to his White House.  John McCain wants to change the way the federal government doles out money.

Can any of these candidates actually deliver?  Is change actually on any agenda?  I don't believe so, not when that change is going to come through presidents who served decades ago.

If there is one message I wish the candidates to glean from this point (because I'm sure their senior staffers are glues to this blog), it is that their messages should synchronize.  Or, if all else fails, the Romney camp should realize that one can only say "I'm going to re-unite the Conservative Coaltion" so many times before America gets tired of hearing it.

A tell tale sign

I opened my e-mail today and found a message from the Huckabee campaign.  The friendly folks at his campaign take time out of their busy schedule each day to let me (and hundreds of others) know where the governor will be the following day.  The contents of today's e-mail was telling.

The governor makes an early campaign stop at a polling place at 7:30 to kick off his day, followed by a second visit to a polling place again at 8:30.  Both of these visits are in Tampa, Florida.

But by 12:00 tomorrow Mr. Huckabee will be in Jefferson City, Missouri for a press conference announcing new endorsements.

He'll be back in Florida for the primary results, right?  No.  And for good reason: he's currently polling in forth in the Sunshine state.

2008 has been an interesting year for primary politics.  It is, apparently, acceptable for candidates who are clearly not going to be successful in a state to just skip it altogether.  That would explain why Rudy Giuliani skipped Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina.  That is also why Mitt Romney skipped town on South Carolina, John McCain put all of his eggs into New Hampshire's basket and why Fred Thompson concentrated almost exclusively on South Carolina- skipping both new Hampshire and Michigan.

Now Mike Huckabee is largely blowing off Florida.  Although he has campaigned meagerly around the state this past week, he spent a lot of time elsewhere at fundraisers and such.

For me, this style of concentrating only in contests where you know you will be successful is not the right approach for any of our presidential hopefuls to be taking; nor is it a strategy the GOP should be endorsing.

This pick and chose strategy of campaigning forebodes only bad things for the general election.  It has become clear that the United States is divided so sharply, and yet so indecisively, that every vote in every state will count.  Republicans cannot afford to relinquish states to their Democratic rivals like they have done in years past.  Rudy Giuliani makes a compelling point when he touts his ability to put "blue" states in play.  Hopping around from state to state- based on electability- is not the way to sharpen the vote-getting knives.

The winner of the Florida primary will certainly come out with a heavy advantage going into Super Tuesday just one week later.  Regardless of who wins, however, one thing is true: the candidates (or at least three of them) have made a valiant effort in the Sunshine state... with South Carolina all but a distant memory.

I see a trend

A few weeks ago I got a phone call from my mom.  

"I've decided," she said somewhat begrudgingly, "that you are right."

She was talking about my choice of presidential candidate: Mitt Romney.  I have been a Mitt Romney supporter since he appeared on the front of the Weekly Standard in June 2005.  Yes, I longed for him to be our commander-in-chief before he changed (no, lets go with tweaked) his views on abortion and long before he was anything close to a household name.

My mom's reasoning, she explained, was that there just wasn't anyone else with better conservative principles and a realistic shot at getting the nomination than my boy Mitt.  She had reached this conclusion while working out with her personal trainer at the gym.

So there we have two wayward Republican party faithful who had momentarily lost their way until they caught the light of Mitt Romney.  Yesterday I got a call from another Romney-convert.

My grandpa called me yesterday.  "I've had to switch," he declared.  His original candidate, Fred Thompson, had just dropped out several days prior leaving him without a candidate to latch on to.  You see, by originally supporting Thompson, he overlooked what my mom took into consideration- the issue of electability.  There just isn't any way that someone who is more wrinkly than John McCain would get the nod from the throws of the rank-and-file GOP.  So, recognizing the fact that Mitt Romney was his only choice left if he wanted to nominate a conservative in September.  

There we have it.  In just a matter of weeks I know of three people that have hopped on the Romney train.  Am I shocked?  Not really.  It is just a matter of time before the rest of the Republican party realizes that Mitt is the only conservative still in the race.  It may happen sooner than you think, given the neck-and-neck poll numbers coming out of Florida.