I've not detected any desperation in the Romney campaign prior to this move. Is it a concession that he is unable to win in either of the two big southern states rich in delegates? Or is it simply a move to guarantee victory in the state in which he was raised and where his father served as governor four decades ago?

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has decided to pull his advertising from South Carolina, where he was hoping to take on Mike Huckabee and John McCain, and from Florida, where Rudy Giuliani has been spending time and money.

"We feel the best strategy is to focus our paid messaging in Michigan," Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said Wednesday as the campaign launched its "National Call Day" fundraising effort.

The decision comes on the heels of back-to-back second-place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire for the former Massachusetts governor. Romney, a multimillionaire who had used some of his own cash, had invested heavily in both states, counting on the two to give him the momentum toward the nomination.

Romney should have won in either Iowa or New Hampshire. That he has not is troubling to many of us who have supported him. And yet, a string of second place finishes around the country combined with a few wins and a division of victories between his top two or three rivals (Huckabee, McCain, and, potentially, Giuliani) could leave the former Massachusetts governor with the largest pot of delegates at the GOP convention. At that point, he would be one of the most obvious choices for the nomination -- unless a brokered convention led to the selection of someone not currently running for the office.

Interesting analysis of the Michigan race from Debbie Schlussel, who questions whether Romney will win there for a reason I hadn't considered. Michelle Malkin discusses the fight for pro-lifers and Catholics in the state.

Posted by: Greg at 11:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.