You've asked why I seem to find the Romney campaign distasteful. Well, here's why.

By Erick Posted in | Comments (176) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

I will put this in the diaries. If one of the contributors wishes to front it, I have no objection.

"He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil." 1 Tim. 3:6 (NIV)

"The wealth of the rich is their fortified city; they imagine it an unscalable wall." Prov. 18:11 (NIV)

These are the two verses I've dwelled on for a while contemplating the Romney campaign. I've given a few people the impression that I dislike Mitt Romney. That could not be further from the truth. But, given repeated concerns, I figured I should tell you exactly how I feel.

In short, any position you can think of today held by Mitt Romney probably has a related sound bite of Mitt Romney saying exactly the opposite within the past five years. I am willing to suspend belief and believe that Mitt Romney's conversion to conservatism was sincere and not politically expedient. He did, after all, run as a Republican in Massachusetts and he won (of course it was as a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, anti-Bush tax cut, indifferent to Reagan New England Republican).

Nonetheless, I have a hard time seeing why we should hand the reins over to a new convert to conservatism. He has not yet had time in the wilderness through good and bad to make sure he has necessary fidelity to our core beliefs. I have deep concerns that when it becomes politically expedient for him to do so, he will sell us all down the river. As Paul warned Timothy, new converts tend to think it is about them, not the message. They grow prideful and arrogant. They get sloppy. They forget or suppress the principles.

You may take issue with that, but in looking at Mitt Romney's record as Governor of Massachusetts, I have seen no more than a handful of examples of him fighting the good fight on principle knowing he was going to lose. And if you don't believe me, I would point out again that he did not exercise his veto of the $50.00 abortions. Short of Saul of Tarsus due to his unique conversion, I believe we should put no new convert in charge of any movement, be it religious, ideological, or political, until the convert has had time to prove he really believes the tenets. In two debates already, Mitt Romney has used tokens of class warfare that should make any conservative wince -- once about tax cuts for the rich and once about social security benefit cuts for the rich to help the poor.

My other deep concern about Mitt Romney is not about him, but about his campaign. His campaign has largely operated on the idea that through their money they could wage war against anyone in the primary and anyone in the general election. That hasn't worked out so well for him. The arrogance of fortune in that campaign gave way to a sense of invulnerability. That sense led to the achilles heel of the campaign -- they could buy up all the air time, but they could not sell their candidate to the voters. He has a hard time connecting with the average person. I have no doubt that Mike Huckabee's line about people wanting to vote for the person they work with, not the person who laid them off, was directed at Mitt Romney, Huckabee's denials notwithstanding.

This fortress of wealth has made the Romney campaign one of the most predictable campaigns of all time. Every move seems choreographed through abundant polling and implemented with abundant cash. That captures the overwhelming point here. All of Mitt's money and all of Mitt's men have not yet been able to connect him to the voters at large, but they've spent a hell of a lot of money trying (I suspect they'll succeed in Michigan).

Finally, I will not belabor this point, but Ben Domenech successfully mocked my last concern. This has absolutely nothing to do with Mitt Romney himself, but it goes to the core of his campaign. Some vocal supporters and sycophants of the Romney campaign have deluded themselves into thinking that if a voter does not like Mitt Romney, he must be anti-Mormon bigots. It is unfortunate, but it has happened. Certainly some people will not support Mitt Romney because they are anti-Mormon bigots. But the vast majority of people do not support him because (1) they do not trust him or (2) they trust someone else more. It is unfortunate that in a Republican campaign, we have stooped to liberal attack canards, e.g. if you don't like affirmative action you must be a racist or if you don't like MItt Romney you must be a bigot.

You feel free to disagree with me on these points. I don't care. Many of you have asked about how I view the Romney campaign. Well now you know (and may wish you didn't).

reason conservatives do not support him....he is liberal in his policies...taxes..or if you like "fees"...the state healthcare..which penalizes you if you don't sign up...that is to big brother for me...Oh by the way you haven't heard that Morman thing lately have you? because it was never true anyway....and died because it had no life.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

by that question that GHWB was a conservative? Anything but...

The vast majority of the money he spent was to buy himself into the first eir early on in the game and build name recognition. To that end I would argue that he has connected with the average republican voter; just not the independents or evangelicals that vote GOP. Yet even in those subcataories he hasn't sucked he just has been overwhelmed by candidates caterong to those goups.

As for the new convert concern, I will note that he has kept his promises. People that talk about the policy changes tend to overlook that he has a history of honoring campain promises. I would have more of a problem with someone that promised something and didn't deliver than someone that keep their word. That is why I trust Mitt as a "new convert".

"I will note that he has kept his promises. People that talk about the policy changes tend to overlook that he has a history of honoring campaign promises. I would have more of a problem with someone that promised something and didn't deliver than someone that keep their word."

Actually, I have a problem with Mitt sticking by a campaign promise he made when he was wrong, and using the promise he made as a reason to not to try and change the pro-choice laws. I think it was on Meet The Press where he boasted that he kept his word by not trying to change the pro-choice laws in Mass. I'm sorry, but he made the promise when he was in the wrong, so now that he converted to being pro-life, and he’s on the right side of the issue, the life of the unborn and their protection trumps the promise he made. If you’re trying to win over the evangelical vote the last thing you should do is try to portray yourself as an honorable man because you honor a promise you made when you were pro-choice.

Presented in scripture as an example of IMproper behavior, memorialized by four days of lamentation every year (v. 39)

BUT...we're supposed to talk politics, not religion here. So, bad cwilson. No cookie.

are about politics as much as they are about religion, and to put them off limits in political discussions is to shoot ourselves in the eye.

because his word is that he is pro-life. Huckabee doesn't have a word, he hides behind God and religion, just ask the victum's families of the 1000 criminals he let out of jail. Rudy's word? Just ask his ex's about that. McCain gave his word to 20,000,000 illiegals that he would treat them with compassion and I believe that he'll keep it. Fred? I just don't know enough about him to comment. I suspect he's a straight up guy and will keep his word.

Mitt is not a recent convert to conservatism, he is a fake.
His comments this week regarding the auto industry reveal his love of big government 'solutions' for the auto industry which he promised the Michigan voters.

Michigan, and the auto industry, are both responsible for their demise. It's not the federal government's responsibility to bail them out - as any conservative knows. Michigan keeps increasing taxes resulting in more jobs leaving the state. The auto industry was complacent while foreign companies were innovative. Additionally, the greedy unions imposed high fixed costs that resulted in expensive vehicles that were not built the the quality standards of the foreign companies.

If Michigan wants to turn around industry:
Cut business taxes
Cut individual taxes

If the Auto industry is interested in increasing market share:
Invest in technical innovation and improved quality control
Get rid of the unions

====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

Since when is investing in technology and research not conservative. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime".

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

and in fact we invest 4 billion in the area that Romney wants to focus on. Anything that helps national defense is in play, and in fact should be focused on. So if increasing in that research helps out the manufacturing sector, all the better.

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

Which is oh so good, So I guess the way to make it better is waste invest more money ?

Defense research is not the kind of research that helps out manufacturing (esp mass manufacturing) in the short term. Unless you want Michigan to convert over to arms manufacture its not going to help much. If Arms manufacture does boom, well we will be more concerned about other things.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Just how long does it take research to go from start to product ?

Some how I don't see investing in research as solving Michigan's problems any time soon. Not unless Mitt plans to build a hell of a lot of research labs in Michigan.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Republicans look to long term, meaningful solutions.

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

...is the only real, long-term solution that actually works.

Take a drive along Eisenhower Parkway in Ann Arbor. And yes, there's a lot of government funding in those labs.

I'd hate to see it without them.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

in basic science, as opposed to applied, (mostly through universities) this is the sort of thing you cannot get private industry to fund, but it pays off many dividends.

I am a limited government guy, but you don't want to fall into the trap of being knee jerk and doctrinaire, there are always some exceptions to every situation.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

You just don't talk about basic science fixing a states current economic woes. Or, any current economic woes. Basic science takes upwards of decades to make it from the lab to the store.

Take a look at the transistor. You know it was first invented in the 20's ? (Google lilienfeld and fet). The spaceprogram is another. I support it, I just try not to drink the Koolaid about how its a positive return.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

sectors I'm missing.

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

....to the auto industry?

Seriously?

Couldn't you say that maintaining a strong manufacturing base is important? Plus fuel efficiency would leave us less reliant on foreign sources. There are tons of ways in which leading the world in these technologies would benefit America.

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

government from the marketplace, not by regulating or instituting protectionist policies.

regulatory.

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

You can provide this for research. Its worked out in the past.

Of course these days the regulation would be so written that there would be no choice in what to research.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

The point is, government should not invest in technology. If he had said, "I propose a,b,c, incentives to corporations who invest in tech.", he might have a good point. Let the private sector do what it does best, inovate. :)

but I'm pretty sure that America does benefit when we invest in technology. Look at the health industry. We are constantly putting money into research that benefits Pharmaceutical companies specifically, but the research is purposefully more general. We do the same in software and computer technology. None of these investments hurt us, but instead help us stay ahead in the game. The same principles can be applied to other sciences.

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Years of government "investment" have caused outrageous inflation in the medical care industry, leading it to be unaffordable without insurance to too many people.

And you want to do that with CARS?

HTML Help for Red Staters

I have been worried lately about our ability to manufacture necessary items for defense. It seems to me that there are a few industries that need some help (maybe through government contracts or such) to insure that we do not have to import our munitions and other defense supplies from China.

Of course, that would be limited to industries that are critical to the defense effort.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

I'd like to see that help in the form of getting the government and the legal system off of their back.

You have to admit Tort reform is cheaper to implement and more benefit to manufacturing than a dozen federal helping programs.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

That's the liberal / socialist view. See USSR for how successful that works.

Innovation, investing and teaching folks to fish are done by PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.
The government's role is to provide for the defense of the country, negotiate treaties, and provide the infrastructure (roads, police, firefighters etc) for support.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

"The auto industry was complacent while foreign companies were innovative. Additionally, the greedy unions imposed high fixed costs that resulted in expensive vehicles that were not built the the quality standards of the foreign companies."

"If the Auto industry is interested in increasing market share:
Invest in technical innovation and improved quality control
Get rid of the unions"

The American auto industry has been far from complacent for the last 25-30 years. Some of the innovations worked, some didn't. Some innovations were to use methods and techniques of management, production, and quality control that the Japanese had been using for decades. Plagiaristic, but effective. Quality standards now are the equal of the Japanese and surpass the Germans.

American automakers have long been developing and applying technical innovation as a matter of normal business practice. The teachings and research of W. Edwards Deming have been the primary tool used to improve quality for the last 20 years or more.

How do you propose to get rid of the UAW in Michigan?

One more thing. Union benefits may or may not be excessive, but employee health benefits in the auto industry are paid to all regular employees. I believe it's the single highest cost item (several thousand dollars) that goes into every car. This is a business expense that Toyota and Nissan don't pay at all (in Japan; I don't know what they do at their US plants). Figure a way to reduce that cost (something the industry is working on) and reduce the federal corporate income tax, and the US auto industry is immediately more than competitive.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

I've wondered since Thomas left why he had such a disdain for the Romney campaign. When I first came to this site I did not know really what I had found. My respect for this place has grown proportionally with my understanding of what all this really means. This place is probably hugely influential in the battle of opinions, so naturally all the candidates, I assume, courted you. Romney comes and says (much as I have thought to myself) "Look at my Resume, my Credentials, my Accomplishments, and lend Me your voice". When you declined or wavered in giving that support, the campaign was astounded and thought that the only way you could reject such a Republican darling, such an obviously superior candidate, was because of bigotry. Well, that is arrogance on their part, shame on them. I myself have been disabused of that approach with my time here. There is a very focused argument on why he should not be preferred, and while I think the distrust is misplaced, I now understand it's nature.

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

I know first-hand that bigotry has been a component to some quarters of opposition to Romney's campaign. And I also know that some of the FUD that Romney has had to contend with (E.g. the MassResistance FUD) has been used and spread by those same quarters. It's reality. Some of that FUD has landed in the robo-pushpolling-calls that Huckabee's campaign has launched.

Knowing if there is hidden motives behind such opposition is a wheat v chaff exercise.

No candidate can say they don't fight against some bigotry in their campaigns. Look at Thompson. I'm sick to death of the actor tag. Look at how Paul gets bashed for being loony toons... not that he isn't but he does deserve some small portion of respect for being a human being underneath it all. Can anyone tell me that there is not one person out there who won't vote for Guiliani because of his Italian sounding name or just the fact that he's from New York City? Or McCain simply for his Irish name and on top of that, isn't he of Catholic faith?

The media is the one pushing the bigoted angles and they're getting a free pass, while anyone who brings up doubts because of the media coverage gets called a bigot. In the meantime, they ignore the real argument Erick put forth: You can't trust someone who states they have changed without seeing evidence of that change through actions.

I have the same problem with Romney as I have with McCain. You can't trust what they say because there is no real evidence of the changes in positions they claim. Words are cheap. It's what they do in action that speaks loudest.

http://hillbillypolitics.com

You can't trust what they say because there is no real evidence of the changes in positions they claim. Words are cheap. It's what they do in action that speaks loudest.

Then look at what Romney did, as opposed to statements he made in 1994 ...

Or rather his supporters whom he has no control or direct affiliation with did.

I appreciate your rather deep objections to Mitt Erick. I wish I could say mine were as well reasoned. But they aren't. When I see Mitt Romney presenting his positions, he morphs into Cliff Robertson presenting for the old ATT (When there was just one phone co), or that guy who does the get rich quick infomercials on at late hours. I just know neither of them had the slightest knowledge of what they were the pitchmen for, and probably could care less. Their performances were technically impeccable but devoid of life.

When Mitt presents himself as a conservative thats what I take away from it. I get the feeling if he sent his suit and hair out to the cleaner on election day, they could wind up taking the oath of office while he was left at home. Whats more nobody would notice.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I feel is real, because it does seem that he made it when the life issue was front and center for him during the stem cell debate. The conistiant change in the message of his campaign I think hurt him. In Iowa it seemed like he was running for President Bush's third term with attacking Huckabee's attacks or diversions from Bush Adminastration policies. In NH, he campaigned as a change agent. Mitt needs to fire his PR guys and be himself.

McCain '08

And it was that he was one of few at the time who knew that he was considering his run for the Big House and he KNEW that the bill that he was suddenly "faced with" would wreck his chances before he even announced. He's the worst of all of the candidates in both party (IMO). At least we know what Hillary and the like stand for!

He lacks everywhere except the wallet and that is ALL that he brings to this election cycle!

There is a place in the race for guys like Mitt and it is under the watchful eye of a President! Romney for Commerce Secretary.

I will really question the agenda of any existing or former politician or pundit who gets behind one these frauds (i.e. Mitt, Huckabee, Rudy)

2008; Its about a Commander In Chief!

Fred08

And it was that he was one of few at the time who knew that he was considering his run for the Big House and he KNEW that the bill that he was suddenly "faced with" would wreck his chances before he even announced.

At the time, the top dogs to succeed Bush were Bill Owens in Colorado and George Allen in the Senate. Mitt wasn't even under consideration at the time simply for being a one-term Governor with good enough polling numbers to try for a second term in Cambridge.

It's not when Romney came to be considered a top dog that matters. It's when Romney himself seriously contemplated running for President that matters. If you check the timeline, it's clear that he's considering a run before he ever announced his change of heart on abortion.

... because for one thing, Romney is no fool.

Let's be perfectly honest; the guy switched on abortion and took a softer line on gun control before Bill Owens and George Allen's stars went down.

There's no way he (or any one right now in the field except McCain) could have thought he had a chance against any of those two. And he would be right.

No doubt, Romney is no fool, but that doesn't mean he lacks presidential ambitions. There was widespread public speculation about his aspiration to run for the presidency well before his flip flop on abortion. Here's one article from August 1, 2004. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/01/looking_to_2008_ro...

I am considered by most progressive politicos to be among the "rich" although I am earning at the lower end of "middle class." Why am I among the "rich" ? If you work you are a target in the current political climate and I work therefore I have a bullseye on my back .
Prov 18:11 is one of many used by the Religious Left to bash the "rich" even those who make less than them but have the "wrong" politics.
Mitt is human therefore he has many faults -like we all do - but class warfare is a tactic of the "progressives" so drop it !

I understand your concerns. There really is nothing new in your post that hasn't been posted a hundred times elsewhere. I understand why you feel the way you do. I didn't like Mitt Romney at first because I am a Mormon and didn't want to vote for him just because he is also one. I too was concerned about his "conversion" to conservatism. However, as I've looked harder at his past successes, which dwarf anything any other GOP candidate can claim, combined with the fact that I believe he will fulfill all campaign promises, he became and has stayed my top choice.

Compare him to the other candidates and I think you could (and probably should, since you singled Mitt out) write a similar critique of them. Here are just a few of major concerns with the other candidates:

McCain - More likely to betray our party and principles than any of the others based on the fact that he's done it so many times before.

Guiliani - Questionable ethics, low moral standards, pro-choice, etc...

Huckabee - Terrible on foreign policy. Unethical. Dishonest. Liberal.

Paul - Too easy.

Thompson - Slim record of achievements that resonate with voters. Poor campaigner and a surprisingly sub par communicator. Probably the most telling thing is that it is largely thought he would support McCain if he dropped out - McCain! A man who has repeatedly betrayed our party.

Erick - Romney's record, experience and judgement match up incredibly well against the other candidates even if you take into account everything you've mentioned.

As for the anti-Mormon stuff. RedState has done a commendable job of patrolling this site but go to any other site and read the comments after a Romney article and you will understand why people may quickly use the bigot card. I'm used to it. I've lived with it all my life. Most Mormon's are like me and don't care when people say this stuff to us directly; we do, however, care when a site tacitly endorses such comments by not seeing them as abusive. On RedState, I haven't noticed people throw out the "bigot" card unless it was used. I've used it three times and two of the three times the poster was immediately informed they were banned - so it is out there.

As for his record in Massachussets - you say you see very few examples of him fighting for a principle when he was going to lose. Do you hold Fred Thompson (who has been endorsed by HumanEvents your sister site? Fred Thompson clearly would not meet this standard any better than Mitt.

"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)

"As for the anti-Mormon stuff. RedState has done a commendable job of patrolling this site but go to any other site and read the comments after a Romney article and you will understand why people may quickly use the bigot card."

I'd sure like to know where you are talking about! I read everything I can and that includes comments and I haven't seen barely a think that was anti-mormon if at all.

are the worst offenders. It is all over Politico. I've reported a particularly hostile poster (GOP Latina) on Politico numerous times but she's still there. It is not at all hard to find so I don't think you're really looking for it.

"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)

the earlier poster was confused somehow, or missed your comment saying that RedState had done a good job of suppressing anti-mormon bigotry and thought you meant you had seen it here. In which case, it is not impossible to find, but is difficult to find, especially without an immediate response to the effect of "stop being anti-mormon".

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

From the commenters (not posters) at race42008.com.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Feel free to use the image as I uploaded it to ImageShack:

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/8369/prosperitytd0.jpg


Thompson - Slim record of achievements that resonate with voters. Poor campaigner and a surprisingly sub par communicator. Probably the most telling thing is that it is largely thought he would support McCain if he dropped out - McCain! A man who has repeatedly betrayed our party.

In terms of federalism what kind of achievements, exactly, should Thompson's record show? Having his name stuck on a bunch of bad bills with good intentions is not a record worth standing on... which is why McCain doesn't really talk about his record and deflects anyone else talking about it, as do Romney, Huckabee,and, to some extent, Guiliani. Bad bills with good intentions might make you feel good until it's time to pay up. Illegal drugs cost less than bad bills with good intentions. They make you feel good, too, for the short term, but nobody seriously proposes legalizing them.

1 of 100 during his Senate years, and the only one who ascribes to federalist principles. Nobody really asks why he didn't sponsor legislation. They only note that he didn't, which translates to a lackluster career in the MSM's eyes. One of the few times he moved away from those principles got us the McCain-Feingold. Do we really want to keep going down that road? Missed in the MSM and places like this, he has said he would get rid of at least part of that bill.

This is the most misleading claim among the claims against Thompson counting even the "conventional wisdom" that he got in too late. Too late for what, one wonders, when the only votes in are from some of the smallest states.

People who are dead set against giving him a chance because "he got in too late" are allowing the MSM to tell them who to vote for when the race is wide open, still. No, he doesn't have a chance if you allow that to happen instead of making up your own minds. Now, if you have your own reasons for not voting for him, i.e. not a federalist,don't agree with his positions, etc. that's one thing, but these MSM talking points are not good reasons when the MSM is not conservative friendly.

I don't believe he'll support McCain... another rumor allowed to grow into "truth". He has distanced himself from McCain in a number of ways but nobody is listening because the MSM Gods have declared it so. If you all allow this to happen because the MSM wants it that way, are you any better than McCain when it comes to betraying your party?

If so, then my faith in Americans ultimately doing the right thing is sadly misplaced.

http://hillbillypolitics.com

Thompson - Slim record of achievements that resonate with voters. Poor campaigner and a surprisingly sub par communicator. Probably the most telling thing is that it is largely thought he would support McCain if he dropped out - McCain! A man who has repeatedly betrayed our party.

Slim record - when did ten years in the Senate become slim career? It certainly isn't slim for the Democrats.

Poor campaigner, sub par communicator - whatever that means.

Here is the kicker: it is largely thought that he would support McCain... Who thinks that? Romney supporters? I'm sure that he declared his candidacy because he wanted to support McCain. Yeah, that's it. That makes a lot of sense.

So here's the big question re: Romney vs. McCain. Which is worse:

To stab Republicans in the back as a governor, disavowing everything that makes us Republicans: pro-life, anti-gay marriage, low taxes, the Reagan legacy, state-run health insurance, and then repent of it two years later when you run for the Presidency as a Republican

or

To stab Republicans in the back while serving as a Senator. But at least McCain has not been pro-abortion. He has not been pro-gay marriage. He has been stalwart on the GWOT, which Romney has not been.

If you want to slime McCain, fine. Go for it. But to use the friendship of McCain and Thompson to slime Thompson, that's a stretch.

obviously did not read my post very well. I clearly stated that what Thompson has done in the senate does not resonate with voters. You describe this as being because he is a federalist but that argument won't work with voters because why then would they think he would do anything different as president. He has a platform he's running on now, so why as a federalist are these things okay to do as president and not important enough to try to champion as a senator? Or was he just being opportunistic and didn't want to damage his conservative credentials in case he ran for president? - that's the same thing the other reply above accuses Romney of.

Other posters have used the argument that Fred supported Baker because he was friends with him. Why is it too hard to believe that Fred would support McCain due to friendship. He also was in favor of McCain Feingold and this really gives reason to question what he might really believe. Personally, I've decided to believe him but like I said, if he drops out and supports McCain that would be treacherous in my eyes. Many conservatives despise what McCain has done and if Fred were to support that, then that would be a betrayal within itself. Do you think Rush Limbaugh will be happy if that happens.

Mitt Romney was never Pro-Abortion or Pro-Gay-Marriage, so you are either misinformed or intenitonally being deceitful.

My point in the response to Erick was that every one of these candidates has flaws and yet he has singled out Romney in this post. That's fine, it's his right obviously to post his opinion. It's also my duty to call him on it.

"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)

Well, he's admitted to having been pro-choice, although not in so many words.

On May 10, he gave a speech to the Massachusetts Citizens For Life. Here is the introduction:

It's a honor to be with you and be with people who exemplify the pro-life values throughout their lives. I believe it's an honor to receive this award, as you can imagine. I recognize that it is awarded for where I am on the issue of life, not for where I've been. And I respect the fact that you arrived at this place of principle a long, long time ago. And I appreciate the fact that you're inclined to honor someone who arrived here only a few years ago.

I'm evidence that your work, that your relentless campaign to promote the sanctity of human life, bears fruit. And I do follow, as Kevin indicated, a long line of converts - George Herbert Walker Bush, Henry Hyde, Ronald Reagan. Each of them made meaningful contributions to this cause.

It is instructive to see the double standard at work here. When a pro-life figure changes to pro-choice, it hardly gets a mention. But when someone becomes pro-life, the pundits go into high dudgeon. And so, I'm humbled and grateful to be welcomed this evening so warmly and so openly.

-
NARF

that's not what he said in 1994. Or 2002. Or 2005. In fact, not only did he have a commitment to keep abortion "safe and legal," but he had personal reasons for having that commitment, which he cited on more than one occasion. I'm not saying he didn't change his mind - I'm sure he did, and thank God for it - but don't try to sell this "Mitt was never pro-choice" when even he states he was.
Fred Thompson, 2008

obviously did not read my post very well

What you failed to get out of my post is: nobody asked why he didn't. You just take the MSM's word for it. How can it resonate with voters in that case? How do you know it doesn't resonate with the voters? Because the MSM says so? You have also believed the MSM account of him dropping out and supporting McCain... a rumor started by another campaign and given more credibility than words from the man himself, while you argue we should take Romney's words at face value and trust that he's speaking the truth.

The problem is you can argue anything you want and find someone who agrees with you and ten others besides. Then you can make a case via the MSM that supports your argument. Frankly, the MSM is all over the place with their opinions and predictions.

I'm not here to change your mind but to ask that you at least research away from the mighty MSM before making those arguments. Why bother to vote at all if the MSM is going to choose the candidate for us?

Yeah, they're all flawed, one way or another. They're human, not Gods. If you want perfection look to something other than man.

http://hillbillypolitics.com

Which is worse ... To stab Republicans in the back as a governor, disavowing everything that makes us Republicans: pro-life, anti-gay marriage, low taxes, the Reagan legacy, state-run health insurance, and then repent of it two years later when you run for the Presidency as a Republican

Sorry to say, but you're way off-base.

Romney stood four-square against ESCR as Governor of Massachusetts - he argued against it and ultimately vetoed it. He was the primary force in the fight to get the Goodridge decision before the people of Massachusetts so they could get to decide on same-sex marriage instead of the MA Supreme Court. He never once raised taxes, sent tax cut packages to the MA State Legislature, and issued well over 800 vetoes to cut spending.

He headed off the implementation of a completely state-run single payer system of healthcare in Massachusetts (activists had already qualified it for the ballot and it was guaranteed to win) with his own, which he worked with the Heritage Foundation to create. In other words, he had a choice between bad and worse and he picked the latter.

The point is that Romney's governing record (and instincts as revealed over that time) is demonstrably conservative.

Like I said below; I believe that even if I were to clone Ronald Reagan and have him installed as Governor of Massachusetts he would hardly be able to put up a better record ... because it is MASSACHUSETTS - even I doubt that Reagan would have vetoed the $50 abortion co-pay seeing that the MA Supreme Court has stipulated that abortion must be covered by any healthcare plan where the state has a say.

Romney is not perfect by any means. None of our top fives are. His campaign tactics are far from what I'd have advised him to use. But he has never stabbed Republicans in the back.

The problem I have always had with Romney is that he has switched on so many issues, over such a short time, and now he campaigns on those very same issues (which he uses as a cudgel to pound his opponents for holding the positions he used to hold). Like many others have stated, I just don't think he is authentic, and it makes it hard for me to support him. (However, should he win the primary, he will have my support. The Dems just don't get it.)

I think a political tale from the 1940's is terribly appropriate here. When Wendell Willkie ran as a Republican for president in 1940, former Indiana Senator James Watson would not endorse the former Democrat. (Willkie had been a Democrat only the year before.) After Willkie lost, he supposedly went up to Watson, and asked Watson why he hadn't supported Willkie. Willkie specifically asked Watson why he didn't believe in "Christian forgiveness for a sinner who has repented?" Watson supposedly answered Willkie by stating, "I do believe in Christian forgiveness. If the town prostitute repented, and joined my church, I would welcome her with open arms. However, I damn sure wouldn't allow her, in her very first week there, to lead the church choir."

This nicely describes my lack of support for Mitt Romney.

Erick K. Knackstedt

If the prostitute repented, and had the skills to lead your choir, and you needed a choir director... true christian belief and faith in forgiveness would be to give her the job. Otherwise, you have not truly forgiven her for you are still judging her based on who she was and not on who she has become through repentance. Does a person receive forgiveness and then have to go through a time trial to prove their repentance. If so... we still judge. Consider again what 'forgiveness' truly is.

knockdaddy

We have 4 other qualified choir directors in the running.

Let's suppose the prostitute 'said' she repented just because she wanted the extra money from being choir director, but kept on doing what she was doing. Wouldn't the church look silly when she got discovered?

Forgiveness is not the same as trust. Forgiveness is given, trust is earned. Our reformed prostitute should be happy to sing in the choir, and then in a few years maybe take the lead position.

If she's up on the altar stamping her feet and claiming that she should be the leader (especially by going negative against the other candidates), that's not very reassuring as to the truth of her conversion.

That's the situation here.

One apparently does not believe in the doctrines of the Church (Huckabee).

One does not give the impression (right or wrong) that he really wants to be the choir director (Thompson).

One is still a prostitute, take it or leave it (Giuliani).

And the last is guaranteed to introduce hymns everyone in the Church hates (McCain).

That would be the former prostitute who attacks everybody else's purity. Plank from eye, etc.

... but it doesn't mean he wouldn't make the best choir master, does it?

PS: I'm on record criticizing Mitt for his campaign's tactics.

Mitt's record in MA is lukewarm at best, leaving aside issues of conservative or liberal affiliation.

... I think that's as best from a Conservative point of view, as can be expected.

You know what, I don't want to know.

Isn't it about time to lay this to rest?

"One does not give the impression (right or wrong) that he really wants to be the choir director (Thompson)."

How on God's green Earth can you continue to repeat this canard? The man quit a good paying position to run for this job. None of the others can say that. (Romney may have done the same, I'm not sure). He is practically going door-to-door meeting voters in an effort to get voters for his candidacy. He made something like 50 stops in 10 days in Iowa, promoting his candidacy. He's doing something similar in South Carolina.

He's doing this on a shoestring, and it's a smaller shoestring than necessary because people keep repeating this nonsense (doesn't want it; too little, too late; no fire in the belly) while they ignore the reality that's in front of their eyes.

Set your preferences as you will, but for heaven's sake base them on reality, not what someone else has made up! Show Fred the same courtesy you rightly ask for Mitt.

Incidentally, I'm for Fred, but Romney is my second choice.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

...my point.

I don't trust Mitt Romney. And I have no reason to trust him.

And you pro-Romney people have not yet made good arguments why I, or anyone else, should trust him.

Hence, Romney for some cabinet position or for VP. But I will endorse him over McCain, Huckabee, or Giuliani.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

have shown long-term, through-slings-and-arrows fidelity to parts of the conservative agenda. As I have said before, we know there are issues on which each of them will never sell us out.

With Mitt, there is no such issue, no proven core.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Dan by Cowboy

Do you consider Mormons (Utah) in general hard core conservatives? Just curious.

Romney's campaign in 1994 was extremely conservative minus the abortion issue. I'm sorry, I will never, ever support John McCain after he pulled that amnesty garbage---TWICE! Switching to the right side of Life and backing that up with vetoes is one thing. Betraying this country and sellling us down the river to the 3rd World is quite another.

I'll have you note who was running on a platform of limited illegal immigration in 1994. (HINT: Answer found below)

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

Hang on to that one.

I was just about to say that my biggest Romney issue is that of his campaign, and the buck stops with him.

I'm no fan of Huckabee, but good grief--the Romney campaign needs to reinforce why we should support him, not spend all their time talking about why Candidate X (usually Huckabee) is wrong (we know, we know!). And now the attacks on McCain...yawn. I don't even read my email updates from the campaign any more. I read Romney email from someone who isn't officially with the campaign, because he doesn't drone on the negative stuff, ever. He sells Romney.

See, if the campaign did more like showing that one little chart, they'd likely start getting a more positive response. I DO NOT WANT to hear constant negative campaigning (yeah, yeah, "contrasting the candidates," whatever), mainly because I'm going to vote for the Republican nominee, no matter who it is (except Ron Paul, obviously). All this negativity, though...it's just giving the Dummocrats ammo for the fall *and* it gives me a bad taste in my mouth.

Fred08 - Contribute Now

Or is it simply a matter of faith that he will ...?

I have to admit that I do tend to cut both Giuliani and Romney a little more slack for their previously held liberal positions because they ran in dark blue areas of the country.

If a politician runs to win, it only makes sense that he is going to avoid taking positions that make it impossible for him to win. So, I have retained the possibility that Giuliani and Romney were never truly committed to the pro-choice/pro-abortion view point (just taking the abortion issue as a helpful example) but only adopted that position because "political reality" demanded it.

A red state conservative doesn't really have that excuse. The only reason why a red state conservative takes a liberal position on an issue is because he thinks that this position is correct.

I realize that grading on this sort of "blue state, red state curve" isn't very satisfying for many conservatives. And I do realize that there are limitations to it. How far to the Left can a Massachusetts or New York City Republican be before we decide that he is not "one of us?" Shouldn't we judge all Republicans on the same set of standards regardless of whether they tried to win votes from the people of Massachusetts or the people of Arizona?

My answer is, "not really." If I am an investigator in a murder case, I might be asked to look at whether a suspect has a motive for murdering the victim. In this political mystery of who I will support, I have to consider the possibility that Candidate X only took this or that liberal position because of the political circumstances he was in, not because he was a true believer in the liberal idea, but because it was political required.

This "grading curve" doesn't explain all of Romney's or Giuliani's political behavior. And if conservatives had better choices available to them, we wouldn't have to consider voting for them in a primary.

But even Fred Thompson voted for McCain-Feingold and endorsed McCain. I consider both of those choices an example of taking a liberal position. And given that Thompson did not face any political pressure from his constituents in Tennessee to make those liberal choices, I have to believe that he believed in them.

Also, when a candidate takes a position or casts a vote, one should ask the question, "How decisive was that vote or position?" In other words, if a Republican takes a liberal position on an issue where the difference between a conservative victory or a liberal victory was extremely close, that liberal position has to be given greater weight than if the vote was lopsided.

That's why I have been very unforgiving of McCain vote his votes against the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and his lack of willingness to end the capability of Democrats to filibuster conservative judicial nominees. These weren't "lost causues" at the time that they were being fought for. We were on the brink of winning these battles and McCain tried to hand victory to the liberals.

If you look at Romney's record, I am sure you will find a situation where he too handed liberals a victory. But I haven't found that situation yet. The health care plan passed in Massachusetts doesn't really qualify given that Romney vetoed many aspects of it and was overridden by a 5 to 1 Democrat legislature. Again, the blue state red state curve.

He had an option--move. He could have spent a few years in one of the many more conservative states, and then run for public office there.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

be viewed as an "opportunist candidate"? wouldn't others in circles like this blogs say oh he moved there just to get elected he's not really a conservative.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

it is probably female, likely a raptor or some other type of carnivore, but it's certainly not a woman.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

That's an interesting point. And I think that it is partially helpful. One can look at the fact that Romney ran for senator and governor of Massachusetts and didn't run for, say, congressman or governor of Utah and try to gather some insight into Mitt Romney based on that.

I certainly think that the fact that George W Bush was a Red State governor helped him compile a record that was reasonably conservative on many issues before he ran for president. GWB's record was by no means perfect. But running for Governor of Texas did not provide GWB any political incentives to take liberal positions on social issues.

I do not believe that doing what Romney and Giuliani did is a disqualification for moving to the Right once they no longer need to appeal to the voters of those Dark Blue localities.

It does, however, make one more skeptical of Romney and Giuliani on various issues. Like I said, under better circumstances, conservatives wouldn't even have to consider Romney or Giuliani (or, for that matter McCain or Huckabee or even Thompson).

I'm not trying to say that Romney is, deep down, a perfect conservative. I'm trying to explain why I assign different weight to different positions the candidates have taken. I'm asking, "What political incentives/pressures were these candidates under when they took this or that position?"

Let's say that there are two Republicans running for president in the primaries.

Candidate A has served in the US Senate for 2 years and has a 100 percent perfect conservative record on the issues.

Candidate B has served in the US Senate for 8 years and has a 98 percent conservative record on the issues.

Let's say that 'A' and 'B' represent states that are both Red States, similar in political tilt.

I would tend to prefer candidate B even though his record is slightly less conservative than candidate A because candidate B has remained conservative over time. I figure it might not be hard to be conservative for a little while. But it gets tougher once you have been in Washington DC for a while.

Now, I could perfectly understand why another conservative voter could reach the opposite conclusion and vote for Candidate A instead.

It's just another example of how complex this decision really is. There are so many considerations.

Just speaking from my own perspective. If I were aspiring to a career in public life, I would not make a point of pursuing that career in a state in which success would likely depend on my compromising away my beliefs.

I once lived in Mass.--in Barney Frank's district--(and incidentally, when Romney was running his "I-love-abortion-as-much-as-Kennedy" campaign of 1994 (it was really depressing to me, especially coming on the heels of Casey, and the 1992 election)). I kinda-sorta thought that someday I might run for public office. It never even occured to me that I would remain in Mass. to do so.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

Although I think it was wrong for Fred to support McCain in 2000, I'm not prepared to pillory him for it. The McCain of 1999 was different than the McCain of today. For the last eight years he has courted the liberal media, supported the expansion of the federal government, teamed with Teddy Kennedy, opposed tax cuts and criticized the Presidents' policies during a war.

But if Fred endorses him this year, hand me the rotten tomato.

If he becomes the nominee they will bury him.

His record will then be hammered home to the base. They are ignoring it now. Hello Hillary.

You bring up two very valid points. I started off as a RomneyBot. But quickly learned that the smack down will ensue if you can't logically argue your case. Romney is not perfect. I still like him and next I like Thompson. The rest I like to a lesser degree, but I will vote for the nominee.

I have seen blind devotion among all the bots on the web, Romney's included, which meant me too. But I'm grateful for this arena to voice my opinion and get great feedback from the community. I still love to disagree with many, and I think Romney would be the best nominee, but I do not do so blindly any more and that is due to you and others that have challenged my opinion.

Thank you to all those that disagreed with me over the last 19 months.

Hyperbole is not exactly honestly. Even if you are trying to make a point.

Saying Mitt has a record somewhere of him saying the opposite of today is narrative but isn't reality.

Nice Huckabee strategy as well, transparent: I put this in a diary but if someone else thinks it front page stuff, well, it's not my fault.

I also think the whole "pile of money that bought nothing" is another MSM narrative. And who benefits from such a story? Well, there is one campaign who is chock full of class and group warfare and another that's so strapped for cash he needs the field cleared of any conservative alternative to win.

That said, I have a hard time getting behind Mitt because so many conservatives seem to have visceral reaction against him--and I really haven't been able to put my finger on it because their reasons are so inconsistent when applied to the candidates they do support.

It has been quiet around here on that lately so why now Erick?

I haven't seen many here saying that Hucks voters are bigots but that he is pushing his religious standing to the front of his campaign and that is the majority of his support.

As for his money you need to get over it. I think Mitt has raised as much or more than anyone so its not like he has self funded this entire race.

He didn't veto it because it was a court mandate that all medically necessary abortions be required under the healthcare plan. See Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Attorney General, 1997.

Do you have any idea how Broad a liberal court in MA reads the terms "medically necessary" ?

So what was Romney to do then? Had he vetoed it one of either two things would have happened, 1. The MA legislature overrides him on it like they did a ton of other things or 2. The veto is sustained and the healthcare plan is challenged in court as a violation of the so called "woman's right to choose" Equal Protection, etc etc.., such civil suits would have cost the state a ton of tax money and they would have lost anyways.

I believe Romney's commitment to conservative principles is real and if elected he will stick by them.

You are %100 correct. Repeat a lie enough and it becomes truth. I can't believe someone like Erick reference the $50 abortion lie. So much mud has been thrown at Romney over the course of 18 months that some of it has stuck - case in point. If all they can do is repeat this garbage, then I don't know what to say that can change their minds..

I understand your reservations. I like the choice of scriptures. Some may not consider that to be a valid argument against a President, but I definitely see where you're coming from.

But when it comes down to it, I think your reservations aren't any more earth-shattering than my reservations with Thompson (i.e. No fire in the belly, poor national strategy, lack of support for MLA, etc.).

I want a Romney-Thompson ticket. That's my hope for America in '08. That may or may not happen. You may not like it, but I think it'd be ideal.

I believe the LAW through the courts in Mass REQUIRES that abortions be covered as part of any insurance plan. Please check it out before continuing to blame him for not vetoing the whole bill for something the legislature could not have changed. Of course, I don't believe Gubmint should be involved in Education, Health Care... in the first place.

I want Fred to run with Romney as VP so we get the strengths of both. Additionally, 4 or eight years from now, if Mit proves himself, he could then run for PRESIDENT HIMSELF from a very strong position!!!!!

I would remind everyone that Senator McCain, although claiming to be the militaries strongest supporter, collaborated with Senator Kerry to totally shut down the search and accounting for our POW-MIA's. NEVER FORGET WHAT THIS MAN DID!!!!!! He also claims that torture doesn't work, yet, within 2 days of being captured, he traded military information for the medical care that saved his life!!!!! Senator McCain was part of the gang of 14. Voted against decreasing taxes. Worked with Dems on McCain Feingold, the latest attack on our right to Free Speech!!! Why is this man not in the Democratic Party????

Governor Huckabee has proven to be as slippery in his speeches as Slick Willy while being Big Gubmint and generally a Social Liberal.

Ron Paul?? Has the Constitutional stuff down better than anyone else. Sadly he is a LOON!!!!

On guns,
Lied about being a lifelong hunter, later lied about being endorsed by the NRA.

Now he wants every illegal immigrant to have a meeting with a federal bureaucrat? No Mitt.

Loves Mandates? No Mitt.

No choice but to have 50 dollar abortions and Planned Parenthood on the board but no prolife groups? No Mitt.

Lags 20 points behind Clinton in the general matchup and claimed to be UNKNOWN in NH after he lost a state 30 minutes from where he was governor? No Mitt.

Erick K. Knackstedt

One of your points is that the Romney campaign is predictable. You make that sound as though it might be a negative. It may be, in a game, however politics is not a game. It is about people. Some may scoff at predictability but I believe that predictability can be a comfort. Mathmatics is predictable. Mathmatics is also a foundation priciple of thought and an arch of rational thinking. Romney, like I, believe in people and in the ability of coalition. Some of the commentors to your blog make it sound as if partnership between the private sector and government is a bad thing. That partnership has helped U.S. businesses and the economy working since the founding fathers. Read the constitution and the guiding principles. Government and citizens (Which includes businesses) work together for the good of the people. Romney's statements to Michigan should be taken to heart. The great Michigan exodus is a business and economic failure of the state and of the federal government. Of course Romney can deliver on his statements that the auto industry can revive and actually thrive with a dual purpose partnership. The fact is.... Romney is the only cadidate capable of making Michigan's comeback take place. The other politicians do not have a clue how that could work unless there was a federal buyout...and that would be oh so short lived. We need a businessman now to make a comeback. Our country is a business. China is a business. India is a business. Who better than Romney to help the turnaround take place. Look at Romney's predictabilies as a solid foundation and not as a Monday Night Football game.

This is something that has crossed my mind in the last few minutes...

If Reagan were alive today and running, no one on this blog would vote for him, a former Governor of CA, and an actor..how dare one of those Hollywood Red try to pass as a serious conservative. Plus every speech he gave you would all question is he for real or is that just the actor in him, and then every promise he made would be written off as just pandering to get votes an appease an electorate.

Reagan didn't constantly recite The Bible but he was a religious man, to you all thats still not good enough.

Reagan signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act as Governor of CA, he later remarked that he had not been in office long and didn't realize the full aspects of the legislation and became much more pro Life. To you all, that would be seen as a "Flip-Flop"

Did you know Reagan was head of the Screen Actors Guild? My gosh what were Republicans thinking nominating this closet liberal to the Presidency!

Romney may be my #2, but there's no comparison between Romney '08 and Reagan '80.

Reagan signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act in 1967, 13 years before his 1980 presidential candidacy. Compare to Romney, who effectively ran on a pro-choice platform just 6 years ago. So no, the charge of flip-flopping doesn't compare.

In case you haven't noticed, most commenters here on RedState are supporters of Fred Thompson, a man who spent significant time as a Hollywood actor. So no, we wouldn't be concerned about Reagan's previous time as an actor.

The most notable thing about Reagan's time as the head of the SAG was his anti-communism. Believe it or not, there were anti-communist liberals in the '40's. In fact, one of the major criticisms of Reagan today (usually hurled from the left) was the actions he took against communism as SAG president. One of his first political acts was, as SAG President, testifying against communism before the HUAC. So no, none of us would've have portrayed him as a "Hollywood Red".

Reagan was politically a known quantity as a conservative even by 1968, running as the conservative alternative to Richard Nixon. So no, none of us would've had any concern about him being a "closet liberal".

-
NARF

You all still would have rejected him. As for the Abortion Act he signed why would you not call is conversion a flip flop then? You can call anything a flip flop if you want it's just you see Reagan as coming to the truth on the matter but when Romney says it And his record of vetoes backs it up, you call it a flip flop.

Besides we need to get off this kick about Romney and being pro choice, as long as he appoints conservatives to the Courts we're fine, he can't do anything else on that matter so it really shouldn't be of an issue. His business and turnaround experience is just too much to pass up we have to boot out the Washington elite.

Therein lies the rub... How do you know he'll do the ... as long as...? I have seen very little from him that shows he will do the ... as long as...

http://hillbillypolitics.com

Romney, like everyone else saw what happened when GWB tried to appoint Harriet Miers, the backlash was so big she withdrew. That would happen again if he did it, no doubt in my mind.

First, my point was not that one was a "flip-flop" and the other wasn't. My point was that Reagan's last (and only?) act that could be considered pro-choice was thirteen years before his 1980 candidacy. I can point to Romney taking an effectively pro-choice position just six years ago, and that's not even taking into account the complicated tax-funded abortion issue. Reagan's pro-life position was proven solid before and after the 1967 act. Romney was clearly pro-choice before 2002; he may have talked the talk since, but I'm not convinced he's proven to us yet that he walks the walk.

Second, Romney is still my #2. That's because he is at least talking the conservative talk on most issues, which is better than Huckabee, Giuliani and McCain.

Third, don't tell me what I would or would not have done. I laid out exactly why I and other Redstaters would not have rejected Reagan. You only attempted to refute one of my four points, and that refutation was based on a misunderstanding of my point; therefore, you're left with nothing but your opinion and whatever magic mind-rays you have to try to prove your point.

-
NARF

PRIOR to Roe v Wade Reagan signed a bill he thought would allow endangered women in the hundreds to have abortions. By the time he saw what happened with abortion on demand he became a staunch pro life candidate in every subsequent election.

Compare medical knowledge about gestation in 1969 to 1994 when Mitt and wife gave money to Planned Parenthood and ran a position on abortion Whoopi Goldberg and Streisand would love.

No comparison. None. It is either massively ignorant or deliberately misleading to compare then (no knowledge of fetal gestation stages) to 1994 (Dr. Anand and others having completed studies of fetal pain, showing responses etc.)

... but I don't consider it a viable strategy for the growth of the pro-life movement to treat recent converts to the side of life as pariahs.

It was a pleasure for me over the years to welcome converts to the prolife cause including past abortion providers and parents who had paid for abortion...

What I do not like at all is slurring the name of Reagan.

If a young man thinks about policy for the first time and changes his mind, good for him!

If a man in his 40s campaigns to the left of Ted Kennedy, I question his intellect, his judgment and his principles.

When Romney switches positions at the same time on gay rights, abortion, gun control etc and it happens when he is a governor lagging badly in polls for reelection and he decides to run for President? You better be ready for the dolphin costumed man.

Let's take a look at Romney's platform from 1994, shall we? Cause from your statement, I beginning to think you probably have no idea just how far to the Left Ted Kennedy actually is.

Please show me any issue where Romney is to Kennedy's Left. The fact is that Romney campaigned on what was essentially the Contract with America (get the Contract and compare it with the platform above). The only thing is that he had to shear it of its Republican identity to sell it in heavily Democratic Massachusetts.

To say that he campaigned to Kennedy's Left is just anti-Romneyite hyperbole.

When Romney switches positions at the same time on gay rights, abortion, gun control etc and it happens when he is a governor lagging badly in polls for reelection and he decides to run for President?

First of all, Romney has never changed his position on gay rights. As far as I know, his position since 1994 is unchanged; he remains opposed discrimination against gays in accommodation, employment, criminal justice, etc. Gay marriage is an entirely different issue that was not even on the radar in 1994, so accusing him of "flip-flopping" on that is a stretch.

On abortion and gun control, he changed his position well before it looked like he was a viable candidate for President. The reason being that there were two Colossi on the field; Governor Bill Owens of Colorado (National Review was already pimping him up as the best Governor in America and the heir apparent to Bush) and Senator George Allen of Virginia.

If anything, Romney is smart. If those two had not imploded, there is no way he, Huckabee or even Fred would have entered the race for the nomination. At the time, Owens was as close to perfection as it got, and Allen had the clout and credibility with all the wings necessary.

The timeline is no way near as clear cut as you make it out to be.

This debate over Romney's abortion stance is just astounding to me. Did anyone notice that our Economy is about to go right into the toilet thanks to the housing crisis?

With all do respect Who cares about abortion if children are born into a debtors prison in this country? We are wasting our time in nitpicking this issue when in reality as President he can't do anything about it other than appoint judges. If you honestly think Romney is going to wave some wand with an Executive order stopping all abortions your living in a fantasyland.

We also forget that Romney cannot do anything on his own as President Without Congress!..Why is there no talk of making sure we get a major conservative majority in Congress to pass legislation that the President can sign or veto and if demand suggests it, override a veto!

"With all do respect Who cares about abortion if children are born into a debtors prison in this country?"

I do.

I care just as much about the forced abortion policy in China as the situation here in the US, no matter the economic situation of the underclass there. Killing babies is killing babies. Attempting to trivialize abortion is precisely the wrong tack for a Romney supporter -- it suggests that your candidate will be as unserious about the sanctity of life as you are.

Here's a question in return: do you honestly believe that our country's abortion policy is completely dissociated from our economic vitality?

-
NARF

But there really isn't anything we can do about it except make sure the President appoints Judges to Courts who interprets the laws.

It will be years before we can completely get rid of Roe v. Wade, Reagan put up 3 to the Court, it didn't happen, Bush '41 put up 2, we ended up with the Casey decision, Clinton puts up 2, nothing changes, Bush 43 appoints a new Chief and a new Associate, and by 2006 we had our first victory by upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban.

In the meantime it is also important that we try and deal with our economic problems. Our President allowed Congress to run up Massive spending bills and never vetoed any of them, we still have Congressman and Senators who think Your tax money is just Monopoly money for them to use to fund bridges, highways, museums honoring useless stuff no one cares to see, buildings with Their names on it.

We have to get someone in office who will seriously fix Washington and who isn't some veteran politician who's NEVER run a business.

You have to quit reading nonsense from the left-wing press.

"Did anyone notice that our Economy is about to go right into the toilet thanks to the housing crisis?"

Nobody has noticed because it's not true. Do you remember the "Savings and Loan Crisis" of the late 1980s and early 1990s? That was supposed to put us out of business. It may have contributed to the slight recession of 1990-1991 that allowed Bill Clinton to reach new heights of rhetorical hyperbole during his campaign. As it turned out, there was a consolidation in the financial industry, some people were hurt, but the country managed very well, even with an all-Democrat government.

Then, remember the trouble we were supposed to be in during the '80s because all our government debt was being bought out overseas? That was either supposed to put us at the mercy of our enemies/foreign manipulators because we would owe them so much money we'd have to do their bidding (at least I think that was the reasoning), or when they quit buying our bonds, interest rates would go sky high. All that happened was--nothing. Another cataclysm that fell through.

Finally, remember the dire warnings when Reagan proposed to drastically cut income tax rates? National debt and the deficit were supposed to skyrocket. Interest rates were suppose to approach Jimmy Carter levels as inflation ran amuck. We were doomed, DOOMED I TELL YOU!!!!!

What really happened? Debt and the deficit did go up, but not because tax rates had been lowered. They went up because the Democrat Congress couldn't keep its greedy hands out of the windfall of tax receipts they were receiving because of the booming economy. They spent like drunken Members of Congress, and they reneged on their later promise to Reagan to cut that spending back if he'd only agree to an itty bitty tax rate increase.

Inflation? Held in check by the Paul Voelker Federal Reserve (the Fed that RoPaul has no use for). Interest rates? Yes, they did go up for a short time, but nothing like they had been during the Carter Administration that didn't "cause" it by cutting tax rates. And personal investment by "ordinary" Americans soared, thanks to the innovations of the IRA and 401k plans, all greatly expanded during that same time.

Sorry to take so long, but the point is that no matter what happens, the MSM is going to find a dark cloud to put in front of the sun. Then, it was tax-rate cuts, government debt, and underfunded S&L's. Today it's a non-existent "housing crisis." Consider the following:

92% of all home mortgage payments are being made on time. (I don't know what the "standard" monthly default rate is.) Of course, this means 8% have been late.

Who is hurt? Primarily, the LENDING INSTITUTION. But it has led to a downturn in demand for housing, so sellers will eventually be hurt by lower sales prices, as will real estate agencies. On the other hand, lower prices will help potential buyers, and that's precisely what will turn around this free market in homes.

Less housing demand will mean less new construction. The result will eventually be lower construction costs, or a mass migration of un-needed illegal immigrants back to their home countries.

Why did this all happen? Because government demanded that home lenders advance money to people who would ordinarily not qualify. Variable-rate instruments were created to accomplish the mandate, all the while everybody involved pretended that interest rates would NEVER go up again. Interest rates went up, and now some of those borrowers are in trouble. But it won't result in major economic trauma, AS LONG AS THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T TRY TO FIX IT.

Oh, yes, there is one more group that is being hurt by the real estate slowdown (NOT a housing crisis).

From the MSNBC/Financial Times website:

"By Joshua Chaffin in New York

updated 10:10 p.m. MT, Thurs., Dec. 27, 2007
The subprime mortgage crisis is tearing through the newspaper industry as US papers suffer sharp falls in real estate advertising."

Gee. Maybe that's why you're starting to hear so much about it.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

Correction: US homeowners are paying their home mortgages on-time at a 96% rate. My 92% figure was too low.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

Or more precisely, that people are expecting perfection in a candidate. I don't know if that's because we're so much better informed nowadays with teh internets--I think it is--but I'm really surprised at how much people expect from these men. Eight years ago, Romney--and WTH, maybe even Huckabee, if he weren't from Hope, Arkansas--would have looked like a fantastic candidate.

Does anyone remember this level of scrutiny going into previous (pre GWB) elections, outside of looking for extramarital affairs? Did everyone know all the candidates positions and voting records on every major issue like we do now? Remember when Bush couldn't say who the President of [some third-world little country...Sri Lanka maybe?] was? Anyone think Reagan would have been any different? Anyone think Reagan, God rest his soul, was perfect? I don't.

I've got my issues with Romney, but the way I see it (to paraphrase Reagan), the guy who agrees with me 75% of the time is not my enemy. Romney's not first on my list, but I'll have no problem voting for him in November if he's the nominee.

Fred08 - Contribute Now

the apostasy from conservatism shown by Bush has soured the movement and nearly killed it. If we get another GW (Huck?)compassionate conservative it will be the death of the movement if not the party, for a generation at least.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

... the essence of my own antipathy towards Mitt Romney and his campaign, which makes me feel a little better knowing I'm not alone.

As perhaps the most outspoken critic of Governor Romney on this site, I think I can point to three main beefs that most of the anti-Romney folks share. First, we're really sick of the attack-dog mentality of Romney campaign. As the recent New Hampshire debate demonstrated [1], Mitt Romney (or people working for him) have managed to PO nearly every other candidate in the race, and all the people working for him. He clearly irritates the usually unflappable Huckabee, and John McCain may well hate him more than any man other than Karl Rove and the Vietnamese guard who used to poke him with a pointy stick.

Second, we don't trust him. As a conservative, I believe in the power of conservative ideas, so I'd like to believe that Mitt Romney joined the our fold simply because he was persuaded by the force of conservative arguments. On the other hand, I also wasn't born yesterday. The fact is that if you strip away all the position-reversals that Romney has pulled off in the last three or four years, his conservatism boils down three propositions: budgets should be balanced, corruption avoided, and crime vigorously prosecuted. That is the most that his actual record in Massachusetts (as opposed to his words) seems to support.

That's not to say that his record is without merit. He had many fine accomplishments, including balancing the state's budget by the time he left office, but it is still not a "conservative" record as we usually understand that term. In this sense, he's actually a whole lot more like Mike Huckabee than either man would like to admit. Both men were Republican governors trying to run very Democratic states, and as such they became well-versed in the art of cutting deals with Democratic legislators. Both men got things done despite these obstacles. And both men left the fiscal house of their respective states in pretty good order. But both men increased the overall tax burden and failed to stimulate greater business interest in their states.

Third, there's little sense that Romney has actually connected with GOP primary voters on an emotive level (although we should note that he definitely has connected with some pro-Romney bloggers that way). For my part, I thought his most genuine moment of the campaign came with his religion speech, the one issue he had assiduously avoided talking about before.

[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0264367920080106?feedTy...

Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me

But, you have Fred disappearing, Rudy, they way will fracture the party (not sure about that) and all that is left is Huckabee and McCain.

Frankly I am more willing to take a chance on betrayal than to vote for those two whom I KNOW will betray conservatives.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

because I think his conversions ARE not genuine, and hes a total fake. Also my fellow R's never, ever forget that in the current climate we can not get him electe president we just cant, It wont happen not in 08, 12 or 16 he cant be elected and all of us who follow politics has to know this we need to make sure he loses Michigan and get him out of the race.

... he'll announce he is defecting to the Democrat Party, converting the West Wing into an abortion clinic, divorcing Ann Romney (why can't his 38 year marriage be fake as well?) and marrying Barney Frank, and finally, surrendering to government of Iran.

PS: I am one of those guys who thinks that any of our top five is capable of handily defeating any of the Democrats running now ...


absentee

| | |

I am one of those guys who thinks that any of our top five is capable of handily defeating any of the Democrats running now ...

I believe this election is about more than beating the Democrats. It's about getting this country back on the right track. Just settling for beating the Democrats won't do it.

http://hillbillypolitics.com

I believe this election is about more than beating the Democrats. It's about getting this country back on the right track. Just settling for beating the Democrats won't do it.

You don't have to tell me that. I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm the guy who went over to a "moderate" Republican site and celebrated the loss of Lincoln Chafee. I'd much rather have us in the minority than to have him as the 50th GOP Senator.

According to Erick, if one changes their positions on major matters, they are a LIAR and not to be trusted.

Erick may recall a fellow named Saul. Saul was the #1 enemy of Christians everywhere as he persecuted them with great zeal. To Saul, Christ was a LIE.

One day, however, this very Christ appeared to Saul while he was riding along and said "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?"

Thus Saul converted. This might have been the last we heard of Old Saul except that he changed his name - to Paul. He then went on to pen much of the New Testament.

I think anyone would agree that Mitt Romney's conversion from pro-choice to pro-life is orders of magntitude less dramatic than Paul's conversion.

And yet, by Erick's metric. This Paul, this great Apostle who gave Christianity much of it's New Testament is a LIAR and not to be trusted.

Too bad, I kind of liked the Bible.

Did this part of Erick's diary skip your attention?

Short of Saul of Tarsus due to his unique conversion, I believe we should put no new convert in charge of any movement, be it religious, ideological, or political, until the convert has had time to prove he really believes the tenets.

PS: I disagree with Erick but your comment was dumb.

Still a Romneybot I see.

If you read that book, while Christians took care of Paul, it took them a little while to actually trust him. He had to build up his credibility first. Something which Romney isn't willing to do.

It's not a matter of being "willing" ... Mitt has proven that he is "willing." Now, if he were smart enough to realize that he needs to confront his Conservative critics e.g. a two hour no-holds-barred interview with Michael Medved.

Either way, the real problem is that a lot of us aren't willing to let him. Too many people squeeze their eyes shut, stick their fingers in their ears and repeatedly shriek "flip-flop!" at the top of their lungs when they hear or see him speak, and then later on go about with quizzical quasi-thoughtful expressions on their faces saying things like "I have absolutely no idea what he stands for ...!"

Another subset of people listen to the guy with the preconceived conclusion that he's lying (or better yet, "flip-flopping") before he's even done talking and then twist and shape everything he's said so that it can be shoehorned to match their opinion of him.

Quite frankly, a significant number of Conservatives have not extended him the benefit of the doubt they have extended to a Democrat like Bill Richardson ... which is ironic, since it seems that the Left (the media and the Democrats) very obviously do believe him when he says he's on our side and not theirs.

Willing is not saying, "I'm really truly extremely and ultimately factually a conservative. Seriously! Now vote me as your leader!"

Willing is saying, "I'm a conservative. So now I'm going to run for Senator/congressman/governor AS a conservative. And I'll have a demonstrably conservative record. And in 4-8 years, I'll come back here with a conservative record to be the leader."

I live in MA, so I remember voting for pro-choice Mitt, ardent defender of a woman's right to choose. I didn't like it at the time, but he was the only game in town. So I would say I have a pretty good idea what Mitt Romney stands for.

... the fact that he was hemmed in on all sides by very heavily liberal Democrat-dominated elected/appointed bodies (i.e. General Court, Governor's Council, Supreme Court, etc.) and that a significant number of his vetoes and initiatives had to successfully overcome these obstacles. Considering the veto proof majorities of the opposition and the liberal inclinations of the MA electorate, the best he could often do is to redirect policy away from reaching 10 on the awful scale and keeping it down to a 5.

Are you sincerely telling me that you consider his record in MA (800 fiscal-related vetoes and all, opposition to ESCR, his fight to have the people of MA have a voice on the issue of same-sex marriage) to be a liberal record?

I dare say that even if I were to clone Ronald Reagan and have him installed as Governor of Massachusetts he would hardly be able to put up a better record ... because it is MASSACHUSETTS. The point is that his governing record (and instincts over that time) is demonstrably conservative.

Willing is saying, "I'm a conservative. So now I'm going to run for Senator/congressman/governor AS a conservative. And I'll have a demonstrably conservative record. And in 4-8 years, I'll come back here with a conservative record to be the leader."

Forgive, but I think if Mitt were to move to a more conservative state and decide to run for office there, like, let's say, Colorado, you would be at the forefront leaping up and down screaming that if he were not a dishonest opportunist, he'd have run for office in Massachusetts.

I'm saying Mitt should run as a conservative. It doesn't matter where, when, or if he wins. Just run for a lesser office than president. Build some credibility. Heck, why couldn't he have run for governor in MA in 2006 AS a conservative. Sure, he would have lost, but that would be a pretty good way to prove you were sincerely a conservative!

Which is solid on fiscal issues and more compromising on social ones. And he had little to show for it. He tried to untangle the gordian knot and couldn't do it.

I'll say I don't think he was a bad governor. He's certainly better than the one before and the one after him. But personally, I think there are better options out there on our side.

On the hostile territory of MA (if you'll indulge me sounding like a lunatic)...

Sometimes I think Massachusetts has a reputation for moonbat-ery that is exaggerated. The democractic party is in charge here, but it's a party of kleptocrats, not moonbats per se.

I think that conservative ideas can win here, but that they need a pretty good champion and that we need to try to win the legislature. I even think (and maybe it's foolish idealism) that an across the board uncompromising conservative candidate could win here.

I'll say I don't think he was a bad governor. He's certainly better than the one before and the one after him. But personally, I think there are better options out there on our side.

Unfortunately, they're "out there." I'd crawl through broken glass for Mark Sanford and if Jeb Bush had been Jeb Smith, him too. Fred is better, but as a candidate he has not yet resonated, as far as I have seen. If he were to pair up with Romney (with Mitt as VP) I think we could have a very viable ticket.

Sometimes I think Massachusetts has a reputation for moonbat-ery that is exaggerated. The democractic party is in charge here, but it's a party of kleptocrats, not moonbats per se.

I think that conservative ideas can win here, but that they need a pretty good champion and that we need to try to win the legislature. I even think (and maybe it's foolish idealism) that an across the board uncompromising conservative candidate could win here.

Strangely enough, I agree.

Unfortunately, one would need a truly strong supporting cast (from state Party chairman, to candidates on down), unity, and a lot of hard work, not to mention neutralizing the Democrats' Press/Media advantage and near picture-perfect marketing.

It's possible. But man, it would be a nightmare to pull off, and it will take a while.

Rebuilding the Repub party in MA is a herculean task.

Every candidate in this field leaves something to be desired and has, in some way, a shakespearean flaw that prevents them from being a slam-dunk.

I like Fred! a great deal, but got discouraged by the length of time he tested the waters, and I think his campaign is rather shoddy. Missteps like what happened to him in Delaware would kill us in the general election.

by asking for us to give him the highest position of government in this nation and we're stuck with whatever he dishes out for four years before we can reject him. Like the others, I don't trust his "conversions". Another above compared forgiveness to trust... forgiveness can be given freely but trust is earned.

I can forgive him his flip-flops if I can be assured that he has flipped for the last time. I can't say that, yet, because his "conversion" coincides so closely with his bid for the presidency. Now, we have to ask ourselves, is this coincidental or just part of the plan to sucker us into voting for him?

Unlike many on the conservative side, I don't worry overmuch about religion but core conservative principles. An atheist can have core conservative principles, so I'm really tired of the religion question. I know a few but they don't ever get noticed because it's so much the perview of the left. I'd trust one of them and their conservative principles over Huckabee for all his vaunted Christianity. Nor are they beating me over the head to convert me to their religion (It has an _ism so, yes, it is a religion.)The same goes for Romney and McCain.

If they flip-flop and give under heavy liberal pressure now, how will that change in office? I often wonder if their mantra of change means exactly that. Once the deed is done they change once again to be whatever the polls say they should be.

Every time I hear or read the words flip flop I'm reminded of a fish who has just been landed to the deck of a boat. The questions are: Who landed the fish, conservatives or liberals? And how many flip-flops are left before they stop?

http://hillbillypolitics.com

How many fail to meet the definition of Conservative? I count only one. How many has he changed positions on since then? Again, I count only (the same) one. And he went from Left (i.e. wrong) to Right (i.e. right) on it.

Second, there's never been an issue where he moved from Left to Right and back to the Left again. Every single one of his so-called "flip-flops" have been in one direction and have only happened once.

Third, he governed well to the Right in a very hostile state. I doubt even Reagan could have compiled a better record given the majorities the Democrats have in every elected/appointed body and the liberal leanings of the MA electorate.

Fourth, no Republican with ambitions to be a two-term President would ever forget what happened to Bush XLI when he went back on his word to the base on taxes. Apart from losing his re-election bid, he politically castrated himself long before he should have been a lame duck. Romney knows this as acutely as anyone.

Until all the attack ads and skulduggery that has been laid at his campaign doors. Yes, I know the same arguments can be laid on McCain and Huckabee as well as the others to a lesser extent. For McCain and Huckabee that issue is just one more loop in the noose. I'd vote Democrat before I'd vote for either one because... as I've said on another post... if somebody is going to FUBAR the country I'd rather have a -D beside the name rather than a -R. But Romney... when he started feeling the least bit threatened in his bid, he started attack after attack after attack. In the beginning, I tried to excuse even that.

So, when I was inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on those issues where I don't agree, he reinforces the doubt. Now, I'm pretending I'm from Missouri: You gotta show me first. And what he's done so far hasn't showed me anything that assuages my doubts about him one little bit.

http://hillbillypolitics.com

I can respect that. I despise the way his campaign has operated.

Paul probably wasn't in charge--rather, Barnabas was. This can be inferred by two things: first, in Acts 13:2, It says that God told some church leaders to set apart "Barnabas and Saul" for the ministry, and not "Paul and Barnabas" as the Bible references the pair after this missionary journey.

Also, when Barnie and Paul healed a cripple in Acts 14, the people there called Barnabas Zeus and Paul Hermes. Hopefully, I don't have to spell out that Zeus was the chief god of the Greek pantheon and that Hermes the messenger god. And I don't think that I have to elaborate the parallels between Barnabas and Zeus, and Paul and Hermes.

So not even Paul, who penned half the NT and was a major force in spreading the Gospel, was an exception to the rule referenced in Erick's diary. But, hey, I'm a Guiliani guy, so maybe I shouldn't be the one giving people theological lessons =)

saying that a Saul conversion is a possibility, Paul did not have his conversion and then the next week become the Pope (i.e. the leader of the Christian movement--I'm not catholic). In fact from what I have read it was several years between his conversion and even the first missionary journey.

In other words, even a Saul conversion requires TIME before he was trusted with significant ministry.

Erick's point is valid. Mitt is a "novice" conservative.

I find this type of blog distasteful.

First, their is the selective quotes from the bible. I thought of resorting to answering with other bible quotes, but thought not to lower myself to that standard.

Second, there is the class war fare here. All of the candidates are rich. Even Huckabee is worth over 700,00 and has a hefty income.

Third, they have all changed positions. The difference between Romney and the others is he ran as a moderate but governed as a Conservative. Many of the others ran as conservatives and governed as moderates. This is especially true of Huckabee and McCain.

Fourth: The $50 co pay for abortion is a red herring. It was never in the bill, and therefore Romney could not have vetoed it. It was a requirement that all insurance carries in state had to have abortion as part of the policies (made by the courts).

Including Planned Parenthood on the board and giving them money was mandated by no one.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/29/romney_officials_ap...

Then again, Romneys wife did not have to give money at a PP event he denied remembering even after photos surfaced with the two of them there.

Your link proves the opposite. This actually supports my position. And this is coming from the same paper that did the anti-recommendation.


Romney repeatedly used the power of his office while governor to advance socially conservative positions, including restricting stem cell research, pushing abstinence-only sex education in schools, and vetoing a bill to increase access to emergency contraception in hospitals.

.....

In a statement to the Globe, Kimball said that it was his policy not to brief the governor's office on initial approval of loans.

The use of money on the campaign is dead on accurate and coupled with the flip flopping makes people like myself really dislike Romney. It is one thing to change your mind on issues, but then to hammer your opponents for their stand on issues with advertising is wrong and makes people want to fight back harder.

I'm not trying to write that he can't advertise, but the campaign's attitude has been "well Romney thought through this carefully and changed him mind while the other guys are knuckleheads because of their previous stand". Then they unleash the advertising hounds and other campaigns have to fight back hard including their supporters.

When he doesn't get the nomination, I think Mitt really ought to look at the horrible job his campaign and consultants did for him. Sure they accomplished a lot in getting his name recognition up nationally from nothing, but there is a point of diminishing returns especially with negative ads.

IMWITHMCCAIN

I am left wondering if Mitt made the mistake of hiring Dan Bartlett. His consultants are so brutally out of touch it's embarrassing.

Erick, thanks for listing your reasons for opposing Romney. Your list and this diary seem reasonable.

However, none of the items listed seem sufficient to explain the animosity that your previous frontpage posts have exhibited. Had your list included the fact that Romney's campaign made relentless attacks against every other candidate, that might have been sufficient. But it did not.

Your list boils down to: 1) he's too recent a convert, 2) he has lots of money and thought it would buy him support, and 3) his supporters have called others bigots. I just don't see how any of those items are enough for the anger you have directed previously at Romney.

First, I think you judge Romney's record a tad harsh. Even in 1994, it's not like he ran as a classical Rockafeller Republican, right? He has certainly had recent conversions on some important issues and I wish he had been more forthright about them, but to suggest he's turned-over the entirety or even the majority of his platform is hyperbole at best and I think you know that.

As a follow-up to that point - do McCain and Huckabee get similarly criticized for their mid-campaign Romneyesque conversion on the subject of Immigration? Just asking.

Second, I'll suggest that sometimes recent converts to a cause can be the most effective spokespeople for said cause - though they should take care to not set themselves up as "the always and forever true believer - and everyone else sux". This is where I think Romney and his campaign can be rightly and rondly criticized.

Third, your critique would have more weight were the Perfect Candidate™ running - but he's not. With McCain we can count the days before President McCain goes Governator on the GOP (and it will be on immigration, bank on it), Huck gives us compassionate conservative on roids, Rudy causes (for some reason) a third of the coalition to walk and Fred has only recently started to even act like he sort of wants the gig. Mr Perfect isn't there - yet an even casual glance at your stories reveals that you reserve your best punches for Mitt.

Look, "Because I don't like the guy" of "Because I think he's run a crappy campaign" are perfectly valid reasons to not support someone for President. But I think you have over-and-over again begged the question with your posts "Why such vitriol for Romney?" and you've not remotely answered it here.

Finally, I find this...

It is unfortunate that in a Republican campaign, we have stooped to liberal attack canards, e.g. if you don't like affirmative action you must be a racist or if you don't like MItt (sic) Romney you must be a bigot.

... to be supremely ironic coming from an individual who wrote a front-page story something along the lines of "F-You all you bible thumpers..." - but what's a little irony during a Presidential campaign, eh?

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Their is anti-Mormon bigotry out in the real world. You will not see that much bigotry on most conservative blogs because conservatives have more class than the libs. There is also the fear of being pulled.
As far as Romney's money ,I don't care how much he spends to win the nomination as long as he doesn't break any laws.
Every candidate running today wishes they had his money.
Is he a damaged candidate because he is a "flipper"? Maybe yes maybe no. Unless you can look into his heart no one can be sure about things like that. When confronted by Alan Combs calling Mitt a flipper, Ann Coulter said yes but he flipped our way.
Will he be true to his promises? There again only time can tell for sure. But that goes for all the candidates.
Al Capp once said no matter who is elected president they end up being another Eisenhower. While that is not exactly true it does have a point,if you follow history.
When you consider the Republican side , in my opinion Mitt is above them all as far as potential is concerned.
The Fred Heads are loyal to their boy as are the brain washed Huckabutts. Personified Erratic Behavior McCain has his troops as does Rudy.
Including Mitt this is not a very impressive bunch, all things considered. But when you look at empty suit Obamna, and Mrs. Bill Clinton one or two begin to look a whole lot better.

but I know it will not be Mitt Romney. I am having a hard time choosing between Guiliani, McCain and Thompson because I can find big faults with each. Their are only two candidates that I can say a big no to - Romney and Huckabee. I just can't get behind Huckabee (maybe a little Arkansas bias - look at the last governor of that state that became POTUS), but with Romney it just pure dislike.

I think the man is a pure fake. I can't look at the man without thinking he is looking down his nose at "the common man" and just expecting us to follow him because he "fixed the Olympics" or some of the other BS he has been spouting.

I 100% agree with Joliphant - I get the feeling if he sent his suit and hair out to the cleaner on election day, they could wind up taking the oath of office while he was left at home. Whats more nobody would notice.

Becoming the POTUS should not be about who can buy the office, but I have the sinking feeling that it will be that way on both sides of the aisle. Romney also has the full support and backing of FOX News for some reason. Normally I enjoy watching FOX, but lately it seems like all the shows have been pushing Romney (esp. Hannity). Every time you turn around one of Romney's PR people is on pushing his talking points. Blech!

I can't look at the man without thinking he is looking down his nose at "the common man" and just expecting us to follow him ...

Has it occurred to you that that may be a flaw of your own creation, as opposed to him actually having the views you're assigning to him here?

To your list of things that becoming the POTUS should not be about, I would add the following:

    It should not be about vague feelings based on superficial examination and outward appearances

This is just reverse cult-of-personality thinking.

And Mitt's experience with the Olympics is neither "bs", nor a talking point, nor irrelevant. It's an extremely impressive and highly relevant qualification, and one I hope he keeps pointing out.


absentee

| | |

Erick, I think you're guilty of a double standard. Fred Thompson has now officially been endorsed by Human Events and I think it's safe to assume that you and a majority of RedState support him. The negative posts on Romney have ramped up and therefore I think it is only fair to ask why we don't hear more people respond to the following about Fred Thompson:

On a 1994 Eagle Forum survey, Thompson said he opposed criminalizing abortion. Two years later, on a Christian Coalition questionnaire, he checked "opposed" to a proposed constitutional amendment protecting the sanctity of human life. He struggled with the question of when life begins. "I do believe that the decision to have an early term abortion is a moral issue and should not be a legal one subject to the dictates of the government," he wrote in a campaign policy statement filed in the archives.

Stapled to the paper was a January 1994 interview that Thompson gave to the Conservative Spectator, a Tennessee newspaper. Thompson said he was "certainly pro-life." But he told the paper, "I'm not willing to support laws that prohibit early term abortions ... It comes down to whether life begins at conception. I don't know in my own mind if that is the case so I don't feel the law ought to impose that standard on other people." The file also includes a copy of answers provided in 1994 to another newspaper. "The ultimate decision on abortion should be left with the woman and not the government," he answered.

The Monica Lewinsky scandal was dominating Washington that year and Thompson, like every other Republican, was critical of Bill Clinton in public. But away from the cameras, he quietly reached out to the president in a letter sent through Clinton's chief of staff. "If the President is going to have any good cigars left over," he relayed to Clinton, who had once sent him a stogie, "in the spirit of bipartisanship I might be willing to help him out."

Thompson has also avoided the conservative backlash that John McCain, his friend and close Senate ally, is now suffering. The Arizona senator hasn't been able to shake a bad reputation with many Republicans for his crusade to limit campaign fund-raising, an effort they despised as government interference. But so far, they have been willing to overlook that Thompson was a strong supporter of McCain's bill. Thompson's files show that he was closely involved in helping to write the law, and pushed colleagues to sign on. When the bill passed in 2001, its Democratic sponsor, Russ Feingold, sent Thompson a thank-you note. "You were essential to our success," he wrote.

Like McCain, Thompson showed he was willing to buck his party, even if it meant making enemies. In 1997, he was appointed to lead hearings into Democratic fund-raising abuses in the 1996 campaign. It was a starring role for a first-term senator and a nod at his popularity within the GOP. But the warm feelings didn't last. When Thompson broadened his investigation to look into alleged abuses by Republicans, he became an enemy to his party. "Fred was under considerable pressure to turn up and publicize evidence of wrongdoing [by Clinton], but his goal throughout was to be thorough and fair, and that didn't endear him to either side," says Sen. Susan Collins, a friend of his.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19263100/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1...

If ever there was a shining example of pork and corporate welfare, the Clinch River nuclear breeder reactor project in Tennessee was it. The conservative Heritage Foundation called it “a multibillion-dollar folly.” As reported by Politico.com, Congress “finally killed the project in 1983. By then, though, taxpayers had sunk into it $1.7 billion, more than four times the original estimate, and were left with only a giant hole in the ground to show for it.”

And what was Fred Thompson’s connection with the Clinch River folly? He had two lobbyist connections, actually. Westinghouse was a client of his for 14 years, and the federal government paid Westinghouse over $500 million to design the reactor. Stone & Webster was the project’s prime contractor, and it put Thompson on its board and paid him for legal work. Together the two firms paid Thompson more than $1 million.

Stone & Webster also remembered Thompson when he ran for the Senate in 1994 and 1996. The company’s PAC, its employees and executives, and their families were the second biggest source of contributions to his campaigns.

“In total, GOA tracked 33 votes in the U.S. Senate while Thompson was there,” reports Fields. “He voted pro-gun 19 times.” That means he voted anti-gun 14 times, or 42% of the time! Not exactly my idea of a principled conservative defending Second Amendment gun rights.

Fred Thompson’s pro-amnesty, open borders votes
http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=TN&VIPID=743#Citi...

Out of the 50 appropriations bills the former Senator voted on between 1995 and 2002, he voted for all but 2 of them. (Appropriations bills are the ones that take money from the Treasury and mark it for spending. This is, it's safe to say, where one has a good chance of spotting who is truly for small government, or federalism, and who is not.) These bills Mr. Thompson voted to pass spent billions upon billions of dollars on, among other things:
Agricultural subsidies (to dairy farmers, tobacco growers, livestock producers, peanut farmers, and others)

Federal crop insurance

Guaranteed subsidized loans to farmers

Subsidized loans for rural housing, electricity and telephone service

The National Endowment for the Humanities

The National Endowment for the Arts

The Peace Corps

The Job Corps

The Federal Railroad Administration

Discretionary education spending

School violence treatment and prevention

The Commodity Credit Corporation (for the purpose of influencing production, prices, supplies, and distribution of agricultural commodities)

The National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education

The Smithsonian Institute

The United States Holocaust Memorial

The National Science Foundation

The Dept. of Housing and Urban Development and its various community development initiatives
He also voted for the No Child Left Behind Act and the McCain-Feingold Act. He voted for increasing benefits to workers who have been displaced due to increased imports, voted for many tens of billions of dollars in foreign aid, and he voted to double the President’s salary. (On a side note, Mr. Thompson’s penchant for having the federal government underwrite insurance appears to predate his term in the Senate, going back to his lobbying efforts for the Tennessee Savings and Loan. I would ask Mr. Thompson how extending government support of the S&L industry through the FDIC figured into his concern for the principle of federalism).
http://republicanrenaissance.blogspot.com

Thompson flip-flops on taxes
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3428541

Thompson lobbying for pro-choice
http://thatslifeinthecity.blogspot.com/2007/07/fred-thompson-flip-flops-...

Fred Thompson changes mind on ethanol, CAFE, and climate change
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/10/07/fred-thompson-changes-mind-on-et...

Fred - not religious
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/us/politics/20values.html?ref=politics

What did Fred Thompson's son, Daniel, do to earn the more than $170,000 that his firm, Daniel Thompson Associates, was paid from his father's federal political action committee, the Fred D. Thompson PAC?

The records suggest he did next to nothing
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2007/07/24/...

That's enough for now. Fred has flip-flopped and has many issues just like Romney. I believe him now and I believe Mitt. Lets stop with the double standard.

"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)

Go for the trifecta and you might get into some real trouble.

HTML Help for Red Staters

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

I don't know why that happened. Is there a way to edit it? I don't consider a threadjack since it seems to fit with the rest of the posts - if anything it was threadjacked a while ago.

"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)

(Sorry c17wife, your reply went with it unfortunately; fortunately I'm already talking about the threadjacking for us so your point is well-covered :-)

So that knocks the spamming off your charge (I read the begining and the end of each post and they looked different, so it didn't look like a duplicate to me).

But one person's threadjack doesn't justify more threadjacking. You are more than welcome to write a diary attacking Fred Thompson though.

HTML Help for Red Staters

My main point here (and it comes at great risk, since I've tried to be on my best behavior about Fred) is that similar criticism that was made about Romney could be made about Fred. I am a Romney supporter but I don't ignore his past but I believe him now and I think his strengths far outweigh his weaknesses. I feel the same way about Fred and that is why he is my second choice but he does get a pass on many aspects of his past.

"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)

Erick wrote this article about Mitt Romney, and his problems with the Romney campaign.

Feel free to write about the Thompson campaign similarly.

But hijacking his discussion for your preferred topic is unfair to those who want to discuss Erick's topic.

Thank you for your cooperation,

HTML Help for Red Staters

I see how this can be seen as a "thread-jack" but I don't think it is since I am contending that Erick's main point is a claim that Erick's post uses a double standard against Mitt Romney but never against someone who is frequently claimed to meet the standard he's setting - Fred.

Either way, I will comply by trying to keep my posts relevant to the main topic but I hope you will recognize that every Romney post almost immediately turns to a conversation about Fred and yet you're saying here that this is not okay when it is vice-versa.

Again, I hit enter when my gut was telling me not. I should have listened to my gut. It is never a good idea to criticize Fred on RedState but I still like it here.

"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)

Hit my contact form personally if you like when it happens. I'm happy to break up threadjacking parties.

If I seem inconsistent in them, it's because I skip almost ALL of the 2008 primary diaries these days. I'm in this one because Erick's been hinting at its coming for a while.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Neil - sorry to add again to this growing thread but I just wanted to say you can feel free to delete my post in it's entirety. I don't want to cause a problem. I will move my comments somewhere more appropriate.

"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)

I'll leave it because my offer stands to others who may read this: If you're trying to bash Fred Thompson or back some other candidate in a diary, and your diary's being threadjacked, contact me.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Instead of repeating the line that there's some institutional bias toward Fred Thompson here, just give the site adminstration an opportunity to prove that it's fair. Instead of breaking the rules, next time one of your diaries is threadjacked, just hit me up and I'll bug the offenders.

HTML Help for Red Staters

"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore

The problem with Romney isn't his recent "conversion" it's the lack of any evidence of conversion. Hear me out...

What first got me on the anti-Romney boat had little to do with his flip-flops. I initially wrote him off as the GOP version of Kerry and didn't think much of him again until I heard that one of the few issues he hadn't flip flopped on was banning some of my guns. And I learned this in the interview where he claimed NRA support in the same breath.

It wasn't until digging into that and learning about his life-long hunter lies, and flip-flop from distancing himself from anything NRA to becoming a life member shortly before announcing his candidacy for president.

Since then almost every position he has stated recently turned out to be a flip flop or a significant change from the past, either by distancing himself from it or contradicting it.

The most recent being his sucking up to the auto industry and ripping on another candidate's support of fuel efficiency standards... which as it turns out he himself supported along with extra taxes to buy SUVs and incentives to buy hybrids when the Japanese had that market overwhelmingly cornered.

If it was just that and the other well known ones it wouldn't be so bad, but that's also true of his claims of being a Reaganite, supporting free market solutions, opposing corporate taxes, opposing amnesty (which he contradicted less than 2 weeks ago during an interview on Fox), opposing sanctuary cities, having a strong record on job growth, supporting the Bush tax cuts, and even his view of McCain being a proponent of change.

The article in the American Spectator, a conservative website linked in the sidebar here, noted that Romney's economic record in Mass was nothing to brag about. Something noted repeatedly in his exaggerations and deceptive claims on factcheck.org.

As we've seen with Romney, his campaign promises aren't usually what results with his actual performance in office. We've seen that evidence repeatedly pointed out with his campaign poster that's been thrown out numerous times on this page. He's promised to be a conservative, he's promised to be a liberal, he's promised to be the conservative status quo, then the candidate of change, then the candidate who can defy every economist and conservative pundit about protecting and returning the jobs back to Michigan.

The problem? His short record in office contradicts pretty much all of it at one point or another. What did he have to show for it? Slower growth than the rest of the nation, capitulating to Democrats, and increased taxes/fees on corporations and individuals.

The problem isn't that he's converted or changed so much. It's that his record doesn't show much change. Just his rhetoric... which appears to change drastically depending on who he's pandering to.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service