Ok...first I will give deference to a good friend from New Hampshire-> I was wrong.

I have two good friends in Iowa. One is a Evangelical Christian from the Rural west. One is a reformed Catholic who gives more deference to fiscal issues than "pesky" social ones. I knew that the western friend would most likely be in Huckabee's camp. A call at six yesterday evening confirmed this. By my reasoning if my other friend was for Romney, the count would be tight. I called and to my surprise, he was swinging for Huck. At that point, I knew what the Nation would find out a few hours later. I turned to my wife and said..."Huckabee is going to rock..." It is with this in mind, that I am certain that the only way that Romney can overcome this...is to stop going negative. As a consultant, I don't mind contrast ads. BUT when one person's positivity is on the verge of surreal (read Huckabee and Obama). Constantly barraging them with negatives over and over is depressing. Will it stop? Romney has said no! and judging by his front man at Townhall Hugh Hewitt the chances of that tone dwindling isn't coming anytime soon. Seriously...after reading Hugh's hodgepodge, I am giving the "Huckster" another look just out of being pissed off by the negativity myself. What is the point of being negative? If you really have something to sell...if you have a message of betterment of lives...then why do you need to constantly "contrast" your efforts with your opponents?

Let's not forget, the betterment of people's lives is why we are all in this business of conservatism in the first place. Too often we come across as people who don't care about people and their lives. This is a dangerous line of thinking. We do care, in fact we care more than liberals. Just as a parent who does not spoil their children really loves them more than the parent who lets their children run the house. However, we embrace the negativity and the cruelty of our positions instead of the optimism and the hope that we bring. Handouts from the government are horrid and entitlements need trimmed...but where is the emphasis on the fact that conservatives give more to charity than their liberal counterparts and that non-governmental charities are more efficient and cheaper investments in helping the impoverished and effecting real change in those soul's lives. There isn't. Now...I am not a huge fan of "compassionate" conservatism or big government conservatism because it really doesn't help people and it really doesn't show care for anyone they are trying to help. In fact it is just a veiled attempt to spoil voters and buy votes. BUT we still must show compassion and care. Yes, we don't just give out the monies because it is being screamed for, but when they do get the money from the private source it was more effective and care was better given. That has to be our message and can't be lost. Because if that isn't our message, whoever the Republican nominee will be will lose. Because nobody wants to vote for a scrooge.

Romney better start speaking about how he can better lives or else a historical footnote he quickly will become.