I Want To Support Rudy, But I'm Supporting Romney

By Erick Posted in Comments (136) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Were the Presidential Preference Primary held today, I'd be voting for MItt Romney. I'm not very enthusiastic about Mitt Romney, but I won't be voting for Mr. Instability a/k/a John McCain. My preference is Rudy, but his positions on social matters prevent me from voting for him. I hope he'll have a come to Jesus moment.

Now that I've said I intend to vote for Romney, all things being equal, I want to also admit that I am one of those southern evangelicals who has deep qualms with Mitt Romney being a Mormon. I know I shouldn't, but I do. And while everyone is talking about whether it will matter or not, I think I should chime in and say that yes it will, but no it shouldn't (by the way, RedState is *not* the appropriate venue to debate Mormonism).

Read on . . .

I was talking with a writer in D.C. some months back who viewed Mormonism as just another Christian denomination. I expressed to him that to me, voting for a Mormon would be, to me, no different that voting for a Muslim -- it is not a Christian denomination in my book. Nonetheless, Romney has my vote.

Growing up in the South, I remember opening my grandmother's closet one day to find several dozen Books of Mormom. "Nanny," I exclaimed (yes, my Southern grandmother was "Nanny"), "what are these doing here?" "Well," she responded with a look of grave concern, "as long as they're giving them to me, they aren't giving them to anybody else." That upbringing is tempered with the fact that my best friend growing up was Mormon. But I say this all to say that while it shouldn't -- rationally and otherwise it should not -- Mr. Romney's religion weighs on me. I'm just glad it does not weigh on the constitution, which prohibits required fidelity to a religion in order to serve our country.

So if the Presidential Preference Primary in Georgia were tomorrow, I'd vote for Mitt. Sure, he has waffled on social issues -- but I think that highlights his pragmatic approach to politics. He was never going to get elected as a pro-life candidate in Massachusetts and he knew it. I won't fault him. I think, if he gets elected based on conservative support, he won't betray that support in office.

At the same time, Mitt Romney does not excite me like he does some. He's very polished and very smooth. His RedState Radio interview was great. But, again, I think it is my upbringing; I prefer candidates with a little less polish. Mitt still has work to do. I'm not in his camp permanently. I'm there now, but watching for someone I think is a better candidate. So far that person has not emerged. Well, okay, Brownback has my heart, but I don't see him really going anywhere right now. If he can convince me otherwise, I just may have to jump ship.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, highlights my frustration with the Republican lineup for 2008. My candidate, Jeb, is not running. I'm left, at the moment, with several choices. The one I'd prefer (Rudy) won't get me with his presently held views on social issues. The one I'd love to go with (Brownback) just isn't viable right now. That leaves Mitt Romney and Insane McCain -- and that, as it is, is a no brainer for me.

« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | John Edwards and the mainstream mediaComments (4) »
I Want To Support Rudy, But I'm Supporting Romney 136 Comments (0 topical, 136 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

But they lead me to different conclusions. I really feel that Romney is not a whole-hearted pro-life candidate. Huckabee has my heart in general, but though I think he's more viable than when he started, he' still not viable. I'm still momentarily throwing my chips in with McCain; I think he's solid on the issue. (Though he's very pro-embryonic research; but I feel that will achieve a veto-proof majority reasonably soon. Maybe not? I suppose it could swing me Romney.)

I'm still looking for a solid Conservative Champion.

Like GOPaisano, I'm impressed with Huckabee. I'm impressed with Brownback as well; I'm a little more comfortable with Huckabee, but Brownback would be an easier sell to the economic conservatives. Unfortunately, no one seems to be coming to the fore.

Despite the MA campaign talk, Romney seems the most conservative on social issues of the current big three. None of the big three are great on economics. If he can talk a good game on foreign policy and shore up his social-issue cred, he'd be the conservative's choice.

McCain is weak on economics, but Giuliani and Romney are both solid fiscal conservatives. That's the only reason I could possibly, maybe, under the exact right circumstances almost bring myself to vote for Giuliani.

--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.

Considering the guy supported Cuomo for governor in 1994 in order to get more State funding for NYC and made his peace with D’Amato because of the latter’s ability to bring home federal funding for his city as well.

Oh and suggesting that John McCain who has one of the best voting records in opposing wasteful spending (no on Medicare Part D, no on the farm bill, no on the transportation bill, and no on the energy bill) of any member of Congress is somehow “weak on economics” is just laughable.

Giuliani:

Tax Cutter? Check.
Budget Balancer? Check.
Entitlement Reformer? Check.
Government Shrinker? Check.

How is that not fiscal conservatism?

McCain:

Pork Fighter? Check.
Entitlement Reformer? Check.
Tax Cutter? Ha!
Government Shrinker? Hahahahahaha!

Um... yeah. There ya go.

--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.

Is there anything Rudy could say to you that would change your mind?

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

Yes by Erick

(1) Abortion and gay marriage are issues solely for the states.

(2) I will appoint judges in the mold of Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito who understand point one and I'll not push a liberal social agenda in the Executive Branch.

what he has to say. And he better be quick about getting that message out there, if he intends to. I would also like to here him say that he respects our borders and wants to reduce illegal immigration. And I especially want to here him say he will veto any overspending.

Of course I want to hear every candidate say that. I suppose Romney would not be so bad, but Guiliani would be more electable in the general election, and a stronger leader. (probably)

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

won't he be "flip-flopping" on his long held positions?

In any case he would have to do more than say these things to the conservative base. I'd need him to actually make the argument to the country that Roe needs to be overturned so that abortion can be returned to the states.

I, too, am an evangelical who is weary of Giuliani's social liberalism. And I think you're absolutely about him needing to take a strong stance on states' rights and court appointments, to really have a shot at the nomination.

My question, though, is this: What if Rudy doesn't necessarily go as far as you'd like him to on those subjects? Would that still disqualify him? If he doesn't outright say those two things you mention, but does say he'll keep the status quo, would that be good enough? The only reason I ask is because that's about the most extreme scenario under which I could consider voting for him, and I could feasibly see him making such a statement.

For example, what if he said, "Yeah, I'm a socially liberal Republican...always have been. But, I also realize that most of my party does not share those views, and that much of Middle America has shifted to the right of me in the last 20 years. So, if the GOP is so gracious as to give me their nomination, I vow that I will not move this country any farther to the left of where it stands now. I won't necessarily try and move it to the right, but I certainly won't let it move to the left." For you, would a statement like that be sufficient or disqualify him?

As much as I desire a gung-ho conservative, I realize that may not be an option in 2008. Having a Republican who's strong on national security, taxes, and law and order, but "status-quo" on social issues might appeal to me. I just don't know, though. I guess it comes down to which issues are most important, and if I could stand to see the nation stagnate, socially, for another term. What say you?

In a world full of twists and turns, the ultimate twist...is a straight line.

The constant societal pressures towards the left are so strong in this country that only a concerted effort at promoting social conservative values keeps the status quo.

You really think the country has moved right? On economic issues, sure, but not on social issues- and I'm both fiscally and socially conservative.

than on economics. Well over half of EVERY poll, included polls conducted by NARAL, think that abortion should be regulated pretty significantly. Constitutional Amendments to state constitutions defining marriage pass routinely with large margins. Those two issues are just the tip of the iceberg.

Just try to get the government out of the retirement business (social security). Or Medicare. Or eliminate farm subsidies. Or "highway" subsidies. Or sending "education" money from DC to wherever you live.

Don't kid yourself. The social side of conservatism is in pretty good shape (not "there", but moving steadily in the right (pun intended) direction). The fiscal side is a disaster and moving in the wrong direction.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

I think the nation used to be (what is now considered) extremely conservative socially, and has been steadily moving left since the late 60's.

Meanwhile the nation used to be very liberal economically (due to the Depression) and has been moving right in fits and starts since the early 50's.

Right now the nation is still more conservative socially than it is economically- but this a result of the respective starting places, not the direction of change.

A very good article here on it, including the following observations;

a Gallup poll from November 2006 reported that 69 percent of adults believe it is "the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage."

A CBS News/New York Times poll from June 2005 reported that 80 percent of adults believe it is "the government's responsibility to provide a decent standard of living for the elderly." A USA Today/Gallup poll from April 2006 reported that 70 percent of adults favor "price controls on gasoline."

So I don't think the country has moved much to the right on economic matters.

With respect to social issues, the country took a hard left swing starting in 1960 and that ended about 1980. Every major "social" measure I can think of that doesn't involve government expenditure is moving right. Abortion, gay marriage, treatment of criminals, union membership in the private sector to add to my previous list, all are moving right.

Your notes on fiscal issues, which will in fact bring anarchy if not dealt with very soon, are right on the money. We are a socialist nation that just hasn't taken over production yet. Yet.

And, IMNSHO, when the fiscal crash comes, the pendulum will immediately swing to the far left side of the spectrum.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

1) There are the 2nd Amendment issues at well. Dems run away from guns every election cycle because of the power of the NRA in places like WV, MO, and OH.

2) I don't think people know how nasty his marriage life has been. He is on his third wife and one wife divorced him for "cruel and inhumane" treatment. Not exactly irreconciable differences.

>>wife divorced him for "cruel and inhumane" treatment. Not exactly irreconciable differences.

NY divorce law is pretty restrictive, pretty much what British law was up until the 1960s. To prove irretrievable breakdown you have a very limited list of reasons to give. Cruel and inhuman treatment is one, and you have to cite three examples. It is not enough to say, for example, that you have been separated for some time and neither party wants to get back together. My wife divorced her first husband for "cruel and inhuman treatment", even though they are still close friends and work together regularly. It was the best of a limited range of options available to her. She got his boyfriend to serve the papers on him.

That said, I understand Rudy's differences with at least one of his ex-wives were pretty serious, at least at the time. There may be embarrassing stories there.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Do you really think there's a non-semantical difference between "marriage" and "civil union"? I don't. And for those of you who oppose gay marriage (or gay civil unions), is that really your only qualm? That it not be called "marriage"?

Far be it for me to speak for gay couples who wish to consecrate their relationships in some official manner (not to mention gain the many social benefits of such a union), but I really don't think they're going to care too much whether it's referred to as a "civil union" or a "marriage." And, eventually, nobody else will either.

I understand that the institution of marriage carries with it a lot of religious significance and foundation. And, because of this, it's offensive to many people of all sorts of different faiths to think about the concept of redefining it to include same-sex participants.

But do we really have to carry on this charade in the public policy debate? There's no meaningful distinction between the two. If it makes you feel any better to call it a "civil union", knock yourself out.

What it's called is beside the point.

But he has publicly commented on the nominations of Alito and Roberts. Here's what he wrote:

Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito are models of what judges should be in this country. They are principled individuals who can be trusted to defend the original intent of the Constitution rather than trying to legislate their own political beliefs from the bench.

I'd say that's about what you've been looking for on judges.

Now, doesn't it logically follow if he supported these nominations using the words he did ("original intent", "legislate...from the bench"), that abortion and other such social issues would make their way to the states under a President Giuliani?

Even if he's politically pro-choice, for instance, if he would support originalist justices like Alito and Roberts, doesn't that implicitly mean that he does think issues like abortion belong in the political, rather than legal, sphere?

Seems to me like it does. Consider your reservations answered.

Scalia as CJ.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

I ever said or did about gun control and abortion" would get me to perk up my ears a smidgeon...

What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius

I apologize for endorsing Mario Cuomo. I was pandering to lefty New Yorkers, and I really should have known better.

Run like Reagan!

Most people say it's not a factor for them. Some of them are telling the truth.

I actually think it will be a much bigger issue in the general (still largely unspoken, but bigger) than in the primaries, should Romney get to that stage. Many swing voters are uncomfortable with any openly religiously faithful candidate; some of those will be especially concerned about aspects of the LDS faith. Given recent elections, if one percent of the general elecion voters swing Democratic because of this issue, it's a decisive issue. And that's not even to get to how aspects of the LDS history and teachings can and will be used to energize blacks and women if Romney is the candidate (and I'm not talking the long abandoned practice of polygamy here.)

I haven't decided where I stand on the issue, other than being concerned at a "Can we win with Romney" level. I may never get to actually dealing with it, because unlike you I don't think Romney can be trusted. If the "pragmatic" move is to sell out the social conservatives, I think he would do it in an instant. There's no apparent constancy there. That it was expedient for him to dissemble and hide his true beliefs does not, for some crazy reason, give me confidence that he can now be trusted.

I don't think any candidates "religion" matters, it is their CORE beliefs and values that guide their decisions that are important.

I helped work on Mitt's campaign when he ran against Ted Kennedy. He held conservative values in that campaign, but hey ANY values, would have been considered "conservative" next to Ted Kennedy. Mitt had a lead in the polls, then Teddy Kennedy's army rolled out the smear/slime machine and Mitt lost a close election.

Then Mitt saw acting Governor Jane Swift sinking, so he jumped into the race for Governor. THEN surprise...he did a little shuffle to the middle, and toned down his views.
Now yes mASS. is the blue cesspool of the nation, and it is amazing there are ANY Republicans left in this state at all.

The point is did Mitt do what he had to to get elected in mASS?, or will he do WHATEVER it takes ANYWHERE to get elected.

Some have commented on what Rudy might have to say to perk up ears, what about hearing some things from Mitt, so we can understand where he stands.
Will the REAL Mitt please stand up!!

Have his recent interviews with NRO, Human Events and Redstate not told you were he stands? How about his actions as governor defending traditional (which he had victory today in-albeit small)? What could he say that would satisfy your worries?

www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com

***My comments are my own opinion. Please don't confuse them with anyone elses despite my websites and allegiances***

Essentially what Romney said in his interviews on abortion was that he had given so little thought to the issue that a single conversation that just so happened to coincide with buzz about his Presidential bid changed his mind on the issue. I`m not saying that people can`t change on the issue. I`m quite happy with the leadership of many who have. Unfortunately, though, Romney`s timing, along with his long-stated advocacy for, the other side is incredibly troubling. If he threw them under the bus because he decided to run in America instead of Taxachusetts, what makes anyone think he wouldn`t do the same to us if he thought it would help him? I can hear the Romney/GOP establishment apologists of 2012 now, asked about Romney not having appointed Scalias and Thomas`s to the Court: "Well, would you rather have Barak Obama picking Supreme Court Justices?" Having marginally better nominees than any Democrat would select, at least for me, doesn`t cut it. Enough Kennedys. Enough O`Connors. Frankly, I`m far from convinced that we could count on Romney to do any better than those two if he thought it would get in the way of his reelection campaign.

As much as I'd love a hardcore, convicted, does-it-because-he-believes-it conservative as our nominee, I know that is probably not going to be the case in 2008. At best, we may looking at a guy who do really good conservative lip service. Sadly, "The Next Reagan" isn't always on our slate of options. (sigh)

As I think it thru, though, my real only expectation of a Republican president is that he produce. If he doesn't believe in what he is doing, that's his issue. Ultimately, as long the policies and actions coming out of the White House are something conservatives can support, who's to be upset? Yes, it would bother me that he didn't believe in what he was doing. Yes, I would worry that he would change later on down the road, since its not a part of his core convictions. And, yes, I would question his character.

But, in the long run, and in the face of a Hillary or Obama, can we afford to get tangled up in issues like this? If Romney doesn't really believe the conservative line, but is faithful to execute it, he's fine by me. As long as the movement is advancing, and liberalism is not, I'm basically okay.

In a world full of twists and turns, the ultimate twist...is a straight line.

I do hope that his religion isn't a factor. This also goes for Mormons as well, they shouldn't support him because of his religion. I just fear that either side will see his potential success as an affirmation of Mormonism. This mentality only serves to splinter parts of the conservative movement.

and not because I don't like muslims or anything like that. It is because the culture which goes with that religion is IMO completely incompatible with our modern, secular/tolerant, democratic, human rights oriented, freedom oriented, society.

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

As a Protestant Christian, I also have issues with the Mormon faith, but I wouldn't hesitate for a second to vote for a Mormon. In fact, it might even be considered a plus for me because I've found Mormons to be such solid, good people.
They seem to take their faith more seriously than a lot of other denominations.

My issue with Mitt's Mormonism is how the general public will react to his faith. Let's be honest here, politics isn't fair. The general public, especially secularists, view Mormonism as some sort of strange cult.

The dominant issue will be Mitt Romney's faith if he gets the Republican nomination, and count on the Mainstream Media surfacing every strange detail of Mormonism.

I really don't want to lose the White House over this issue, and I don't want to place all my chips on the open-mindedness of the American people.

I plan on supporting Giuliani, despite his flaws, because he is the only candidate besides the intolerable McCain that can take on either Clinton or Obama.

"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "

William F. Buckley, Jr.

I'm one, I know. And you'll rarely get more than a smile and a chuckle from a Baptist on that subject. It's almost the only thing we agree on. :>)
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

Truth be told, right now it would probably be a close call between either he or John McCain in 2008. McCain’s major liability being his age (but I can see that just as easily being an asset) and I suspect he might be more aggressive about regulations than Bush 43 was. On the other hand he’s better on entitlement reform and spending than most Republicans. I also think a McCain presidency would have a positive coattail effect on Republicans who are perceptually moderate but substantively conservative (we have the reverse right now in the form of President Bush) and help us regain the House and Senate.

Romney’s asset IMO is that he has strong executive experience, knows how to think outside the box, and is a wonk who knows how to communicate his ideas well. In many ways that makes him the “un-Bush” which I think we will need lest 2008 become a referendum on whether we want another four years of the Bush administration (which is why I think Governor Jeb Bush is pretty much out of the question).

I agree with most everything you stated. A Romney candidacy will prevent Dems from making 2008 a referendum on Bush and his allies in the Senate and House. It is clear the country has Bush fatigue right now and I think the party needs someone fresh. It's the natural course of politics.

A Romney candidacy juxtaposed next to a Bush presidency will reaffirm the GOP as a big tent party. To be a majority party, the GOP needs to be a big tent party without compromising core values. Romney will do nothing to challenge the GOP platform or core values. At the same time, he shows that conservative principles are transcendent. They are not attached to a region, race, sex, religion, class or generation, which is unfortunately the popular perception, which in turn becomes reality.

I too think McCain is too old. I don't question his decision making or executive capabilities, but I question his ability on the campaign trail. I fear he will come across old and tired and lack the dynamic and charasmatic personality that is needed on the campaign trail throuout a tough primary and tough national election.

Well said. I think the differences between Bush and Romney will help Romney win the primary in the end. Even among Republicans there is a clear desire to have someone different than Bush and Romney is the most distance from Bush seeing he is an outsider. More important than his outside status, Romney has a successful business record and balanced the budget in MA without raising taxes. Bush is very much an idealist, but Romney comes off as far more practical.

"Have his recent interviews with NRO, Human Events and Redstate not told you were he stands?"

I have not seen a strong stance on the 2nd amendment. I have dealt with the consequences of his weak 2nd amendment positions when he was Governor. If he has made any strong clear statements in that regard for example, I may have missed them.

SO those interviews were satisfying as far abortion and gay marriage, but no for guns? Or you are you only/mostly concerned with guns when you ask if he is really conservative? Just a clarification.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com

***My comments are my own opinion. Please don't confuse them with anyone elses despite my websites and allegiances***

"Or you are you only/mostly concerned with guns when you ask if he is really conservative? Just a clarification."

Yes, I am satisfied with Mitt's stand on the other issues.

As far as 2nd amendment HE was weak for sure, I saw this fact first hand in MA. If he has changed his stance or even suggested a change, I have not seen it.

I see the issue of gun rights as being one of the major signs of a conservative. Romney ought to make his views on this more clear. However, I am willing to wait a bit. We are still a full year from the primaries. I know we all want to know where each candidate stands on every issue that we find important.

I think we need to remember that despite the instantanous nature of communication today, the is still something to be said for a more deliberate pace of responding to political issues. Speed doesn't always signifiy a depth of commitment.

That said, I will expect Romeny to pick up the pace on answering these questions- now that his term as Governor has ended, and as we will soon be having the "offical" announcements of candidacy.

Bills he signed or statements he made? If he has a bad record on the 2nd amendment I would sure like to know about it... thanks.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

mostly because shared Judeo Christian values are more important than the actual theological beliefs, and while I have some huge theological differences with the LDS church, I can appreciate the shared values.

I do have an issue of the changes on social issues-pro life/pro choice/pro life etc, because his changes seem to be based on what is politically expedient not on what is inherently right. This makes me very leery of him, and not too trusting.

Rudy's positions on social issues bother me-although he could maybe overcome that, but I am not sure about him as a candidate-I think in some areas he would be good.

I can't stand McCain.

I like a lot about Newt Gingrich, but I am not sure he is right for the presidency-I sometimes think he would be better in an aid type position rather than the out front guy. I do think he is one of the few candidates who seems to know what he believes and articulates it clearly-just not sure.

Shoot at this point, while I have a list of "I can't stand him, no way no how" I just can't find anyone I really want to vote for. I just keep hoping some dark horse candidate will declare over the next year and fit my ideal candidate better-probably won't happen, but I keep hoping.

I wouldn't vote for either Rudy Giuliani or John McCain in the general.

I'd rather vote for Newt Gingrich, but I don't see him winning the primaries given his personal track record (as opposed to his political, which is outstanding).

I'm warming to Sam Brownback, though unless he changes his voting pattern on illegal alien legalization, I'd hold my nose a little to vote for him.

Mitt Romney though? I won't vote for him in the primary if a conservative is running. But so far I THINK I could vote for him in the general. That says something.

Run like Reagan!

water under the bridge?

I mean, McCain is running. If the surge in Iraq is a success, the nomination is his without breaking a sweat, and so most likely is the WH.

If Iraq gets worse and is still a problem in 2008, no GOP candidate is winning so it won't matter who gets the nomination.

Rudy is not a serious candidate in my book, and never really has been.

If anyone here thinks that he is a serious candidate, I suggest they read the following and then ask themselves the question again:

Archives of Rudolph W. Giuliani, 107th Mayor

Opening Remarks to the N.A.R.A.L. "Champions of Choice" Lunch

The Yale Club, Thursday, April 5th, 2001

As Delivered

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you very much for inviting me to say a few words of welcome. This event shows that people of different political parties and different political thinking can unite in support of choice. In doing so, we are upholding a distinguished tradition that began in our city starting with the work of Margaret Sanger and the movement for reproductive freedom that began in the early decades of the 20th century.

As a Republican who supports a woman's right to choose, it is particularly an honor to be here. And I would like to explain, just for one moment, why I believe being in favor of choice is consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party. In fact, it might be more consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party. Because the Republican Party stands for the idea that you have to restore more freedom of choice, more opportunity, more opportunity for people to make their own choices rather than the government dictating those choices. Republicans stand for lower taxation because we believe that people can make better choices with their money than the government will make for them, and that ultimately frees the economy and produces more political freedom. We believe that, yes, government is important, but that the private sector is actually more important in solving our problems.

So it is consistent with that philosophy to believe that in the most personal and difficult choices that a woman has to make with regard to a pregnancy, those choices should be made based on that person's conscience and that person's way of thinking and feeling. The government shouldn't dictate that choice by making it a crime or making it illegal.

I think that's actually a much more consistent position. Many Republicans support that position, but you don't hear that as often. For example, in a recent poll by American Viewpoint, 65 percent of Republicans supported changing the plank in the Republican platform that calls for a constitutional ban on abortion. That's 6.5 out of every 10 Republicans. And over 80 percent of Republicans believe that the decision with regard to an abortion should be made by a woman, her doctor, and her family rather than dictated by the government.

[Applause]

In any case, I just wanted you to know that many of my fellow Republicans stand with you on this issue. So I thank you, I thank NARAL for taking the lead in establishing freedom of choice for all of us, and as the Mayor of New York City, I thank you for being here in New York City.

Again, Rudy has no shot whatsoever. None. I suspect he knows this. I think he's just sticking around hoping that maybe McCain falls apart or the surge fails or the hatred of McCain is so strong that Rudy is left as the only one who's seen as being able to beat Hillary, but that's a long shot. I look for him to make it official that he's not running by the Spring.

Basically, the nom is McCain's to lose. The only way he does so is if Iraq continues to fall apart(in which case, the dems win no matter who gets the nom). If Iraq improves, McCain is unbeatable.

You have an issue with Rudy's positions, so you support a candidate who couldn't bring himself to support the Contract with America and explicitly rejected the notion of being a "Reagan" Republican? Being a mormon is the least of Romney's problems. His candidacy isn't going anywhere.

Conservative Compendium

Seriously whenever someone throws around the phrase “Reagan Republican” or “Reagan conservative,” it’s usually a sign that they’re more interested in symbolism than substance because that’s pretty much what Reagan delivered. Frankly that’s what cost us control of Congress in the last election, except of course for the fact that Congressional Republicans unlike Reagan didn’t call for tax increases and the House at least wasn’t in favor of a Reagan-style amnesty for illegal aliens.

I’ll judge the candidates based on their substantive position on the issues. If McCain is the best person to cut spending and reform entitlement programs, I’ll back him no matter how often people thump their chests and cry “Rino! I’m staying home if he’s the nominee because he was too nice to the Democrats on the Sunday morning shows!” If Romney really does have some good ideas for fixing health care in a way that empowers consumers, then I could give a rodent’s arse what he said or didn’t say 12 years ago when trying to get elected in perhaps the most liberal State in the country. And if Giuliani really is the best guy to wipe terrorist scum from the face of the Earth, I don’t care if he was a rotten husband and he can have Roman-style orgies in the Lincoln bedroom for all I care.

It’s issues that matter, the amateurish Karnack act of trying to tell people that your ability to parse words gives you some special insight into the soul of a man who has accomplished more than you ever will and probably doesn’t even know you’re alive is pathetic. Look to some other hobby for your validation, politics should be for serious people.

Thorley, tell us how you really feel.

Well said.

I mean, everyone knows that what Thorley values in a chief executive is the only objective criterion for the value of a chief executive.

Imagine, stupid, plugged-in voters having different priorities from The Great Thorley.

And the worst part? By not adopting your worldview (and by criticizing future Dear Leaders! How dare they?!), they're clearly showing their unseriousness!

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

After all, what unserious moron could even seriously claim that irrelevant things like personal character should be taken into account when selecting the leader of the free world? Clearly, issues are the only things that matter. And issues don't matter in and of themselves, what matters is what the candidate himself says about the issues, evidence that he doesn't intend to deliver on his campaign rhetoric notwithstanding.

All serious people know this, and other people should just shut up.

Or The Great Thorley will be very irritated at you.

------------
Fnord.

The orgies were Greek.

If we're to believe this, they were myth altogether, at least in the usual sense of the word:

In Greece and Rome, there were elaborate, drunken feasts, but sexual encounters and affairs were private and removed and not the orgiastic events contemporary culture has come to accept as historically true.

Helveticus, You said it well. If Iraq goes badly there will be no Republican in the WH and fewer in Congress.
I can only hope that Bush will find a way to rally America to this war and to share a commitment to win.

He is the only candidate that will make me sit out 2008 or vote third party.

The more I hear about the man, the more I like him, but someone named Mitt or Newt won't win. And I'm not sure someone named Barack can win either.

George, Bill, George, Ron, Jimmy, Gerald, Richard...

These guys sound like guys you'd go bowling with.

I think his name hurts him more than his religion.

Bono is not an Evangelical.

They will if his opponent is named Barack Hussein Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I don't know. I know he wouldn't carry his home state of MA, but that's all right. The problem for Romney is that he will have equal or less foreign policy/national security credentials as perceived by the voters than any of the major dems.

As much as we dislike McCain/Giuliani for specific positions, we might have to cave in so we can get a winner.

The idea that Rudy has foreign policy national security credentials is absurd. He was a mayor.

He's seen as the hero of 9/11, making the American people think that he has the best national security credentials of anyone around.

As a sidenote, I think he'd be a great AG.

The only place you get foreign policy "experience" is by serving as President.

If National Security is still an issue in 2008, then THE "Foreign Policy Credential" which counts will be whether the man (or woman) elected truly appreciates the threat. Would anyone care to argue that Rudy doesn't?

The other characteristic he/she will need is the tenacity to see it through. I think Rudy qualifies here, too.

People forget the flack he used to endure before 9/11 - every aspect of his program was under attack by the so-called sophisticates of New York City, yet he stood his ground. Despite the best efforts of some pretty reprehensible characters to undercut him, Rudy's leadership helped New York City overcome the injuries inflicted by David Dinkins & his ilk.

Rudy's a natural leader; we're going to need one of those.

Same for Bernard Kerik until they put him under the microscope.

I have serious misgivings about Romney's role in the Mass health care reform. I've made some of these points very clear in previous posts about Romney. Yes, I know the original plan may have been developed, or supported, or whatever by the Heritage Foundation. More often than not, they are the correct side of the issues of the day, but in this case, I vehemently disagree. You can find a full report here by Michael Tanner of the CATO Institute, but here is the Executive Summary:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Massachusetts has enacted one of the most far-reaching state health insurance reform packages in recent decades. Much attention has been focused on the act’s unprecedented mandate
that every resident obtain health insurance coverage. However, the act goes far beyond an individual mandate to radically change the way health insurance is bought and sold in the state. Many observers see Massachusetts’s reforms as a model for the nation, but a closer look provides ample reasons to be skeptical. Among them:
• The individual mandate opens the door to widespread regulation of the health care industry and political interference in personal health care decisions.
• The act’s subsidies are poorly targeted and overly generous.
• The Massachusetts Health Care Connector, which restructures the individual and small business insurance markets, is a form of managed competition that has the potential to severely limit consumer choice.
• The act imposes new burdens on business and creates a host of new government bureaucracies to manage the health care
system. Health care needs more consumer control and freer markets, not more government regulation, controls, and subsidies. The Massachusetts reform takes us in the wrong direction.

This may be the best that Mass can get, and still get Kerry and Kennedy endorsements, Romney had the opportunity to do nothing, which was better than what happened, IMO. Since Gingrich isn't a viable candidate, McCain will probably be my pick. I trust him in the GWOT, and actually believe he wants to tear down the current entitlement behemoth that is our federal gov't. Campaign finance reform is simply a lesser problem to me than the ever-growing bureaucracy.

Regardless, getting serious limited-government candidates in Congress better be a priority for the GOP, or no Republican executive will be able to make an impact on our spending run amok.

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/

I also would like to support Guiliani but as of right now I will not support him and I also can't support McCain..The one the dems want. He is not a good Repubbie and now he will change his spots to try to give the conservatives what they want..Where was he for all of Bush's 6 years? He was with the demonrats and as far as I am concerned he can stay there. Maybe Hill will take him as her Veep

You need to have some sort of hype or name recognition behind you if you want to win. I bet if you asked 10 Americans who Mitt Romney was only 1 out of 10 would say yes. He's a total unknown. Guiliani is the big player because of 9/11 and his charm to win votes. Romney is another George Allen.... No personality at all. So vanilla, so zzzzzzzzzz. At this point Guiliani is a lock to win the Republican nomination. The only way he gets knocked off is if the troop surge in Iraq goes really well and the credit goes to McCain for calling for it months and months ago. If not, Rudy runs away with it and beats Hillary.

but "he has no personality" is a new one. He's got a ton of charisma.
_______________________________________________
"Tradition is the democracy of the dead. It refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around"
-G.K. Chesterton

Romney has much more charisma than Rudy. Rudy is not charming. Most women, a key swing vote, think he's sleazy.

Mormonism, fairly or not, will be used to energize women for the Democratic candidate if Romney is the candidate.

It will be child's play for the Clinton or Obama team to box him in a corner on this one. It's not just that the LDS leadership excludes women at every level, it's also the very different celestial rewards offered to married women, never married women, and divorced women. If you know any moderate to liberal women, you will recognize here deep emotional triggers that can be used to mobilize an army of activists and to marginalize Romney as outside the mainstream of America. (I'm not saying that's fair; I'm just predicting with confidence that it will happen.)

The more I think about it, the more I think nominating Romney represents a death wish for the Republican party.

what you are talking about. If you did any research regarding women in the LDS Church you would find that the leaders of the church teach that women are of vital importance and that they are to be highly respected and equal to men. The only women I see having an issue with this is the group who thinks you need to abort all babies/never have children, because they get in the way of your career and desire to gain respect...because they think the only way to gain respect is in the business/political arena. Are these type going to vote for a republican anyway?

You made my point for me about how easy it will be to make Romney, and Mormons, seem threatening to many swing voting women.

Some of them do vote Republican - maybe not so much in the primaries, but in the general, and if you tell them from the get go that you really, really don't like them because they are a bunch of hairy legged feminazi's who look forward to aborting babies, you are going to have a problem winning the election.

On the merits, I'm not interested in debating Mormon doctrine. It may be that the church is in sync with contemporary attitudes toward women, but I think even if that's so, the Clinton and Obama people are still going to have a pretty easy time of it making the Mormon position seem more what you expected in the pre-suffragette era ("we value women equally; we just don't think they should vote") than what most people think today. You don't discuss the theological distinctions drawn between married and single women, but I think that's going to be even more explosive politically, and it's a very core part of LDS doctrine.

My problem with Romney is not that his beliefs are right or wrong. My problems with Romney are 1) I can't trust him based on his history of taking insincere positions and claiming dramatic conversions, and 2) I think he will lose and take the party down with him, in part because women who want to be respected on their own will think all Republicans view them as "the group who thinks you need to abort all babies/never have children." People talk about Hillary Clinton uniting the Republican base - this kind of talk will unite and motivate the Democratic base in a way we've never seen.

I think this one blew right by you. I said nothing about a women who wanted to have a career. I was talking about the women who view children as a hinderance in thier lives/carreers. These women will/would never even vote for any republican. I think you are missing the point in what I am saying. I think that Romney will be a very attractive canidate to single women, married women, indepentant women. He has looks, a great family life, and a wife who is no slouch...so much for the "mormon's do give women equal rights" garbage. His wife and many other examples of successful mormon women will be brought up as examples if that kind of talk starts. And as far as uniting the Democratic base as never seen with comments like mine, I have news for you, the feminist movement is largely dead and most men/women think the way I do when it comes to what the feminist movement really is.

By the way elaborate on your "You don't discuss the theological distinctions drawn between married and single women" comment. There are no distinctions. I think I already know your reply, but give it anyway.

I have no interest in trying to talk past you. Nor do I wish to become the inhouse critic of the LDS religion.

I think I'm right. I think you don't get out enough and mix with the kind of people who are swing voters. You think, I expect, that I don't get out and meet the right kind of people. I'm not committed to Romney or anyone else, and think I am looking at this dispassionately. You obviously are committed to Romney and a whole set of beliefs, and may not be able to step back and look at it as other people might.

We aren't going to resolve this by continuing down a path toward sniping at each other, so I will shut up and sit down. If Romney gets the nomination, we will find out then if I was right. I would certainly rather see any Republican become President than, say, Hillary Clinton, so I would actually welcome being proven wrong if that comes to pass.

As far as expostulating points of LDS theology, I'll pass. I would be happy to read, and learn from, your discussion of what some misinformed people believe, and why it's wrong.

I guess we agree to disagree at this point. We may or may not see, based on what happens in the primary. I guess my overall point is that I tend to think the American people are smarter than to fall for the garbage the MSM and Democrats have to say. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of idiotic people out there that will believe whatever the MSM has to say but I tend to think that most people that vote can see past it. Of course Bill Clinton was president for 8 years so maybe I am totally up in the night... :) I do believe that Romney has the best chance in the general and out of the "Big 3" mentioned IMO he would follow the most conservative path.

As for the theolgy questions, if you wanted to discuss them through email or such let me know and I would be happy to have an open discussion with you about it.

I think you will find that the number of female Popes still stands at zero. Number of female Catholic priests, also zero.

Would this be your explanation for Kerry's defeat? If so, how do you explain Kennedy?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

I explain Kerry's defeat on the grounds that he was/is a huge loser.

Kennedy defused the Catholic issue, in part because he attacked it directly in a speech in which he stated unequivocally that, his faith notwithstanding, he would not take direction from the Pope on any issue. Even then, I'm sure he lost (and gained) votes on the issue. That was, however, a different era and a different America.

The LDS is different from the Catholic church in many ways, both organizationally and theologically. I'm not interested in debating the rightness or wrongness of LDS doctrines or structure, but I do think when the whole package is taken into account, the Democrats in the general will have a field day. I may be wrong, but I respect the political knife-wielding skills of the leading Democratic contenders, and I think there are levers they can push here to make Romney seem outside the mainstream.

Will everyone buy it? Of course not. But, if 2008 is as close as 2000 and 2004, only one to two percent of the voters need to have qualms on this issue to make it a locked down Democratic year.

>>I explain Kerry's defeat on the grounds that he was/is a huge loser.

I disagree. He was an articulate exponent of a set of views that a small majority of Americans rejected. He won the debates. People listened, understood, and voted against him. I doubt any other Democrat would have done better. He lost because the views he expounded are not popular. But this is something of an aside . . .

>>Kennedy defused the Catholic issue, in part because he attacked it directly in a speech in which he stated unequivocally that, his faith notwithstanding, he would not take direction from the Pope on any issue. Even then, I'm sure he lost (and gained) votes on the issue. That was, however, a different era and a different America.

Agreed on all points. I was, of course, being facetious. My point was simply that belonging to a faith that:
a) excludes women from its leadership, and
b) is criticised by many for having 'anti-women' views
did not stop Kennedy getting elected. I don't think it had a net negative effect on Kerry, either.

>>The LDS is different from the Catholic church in many ways, both organizationally and theologically.

Agreed, and perhaps the biggest difference is in the fact that far more people are familiar with Catholicism, and therefore less vulnerable to misrepresentations of its doctrines.

>>Will everyone buy it? Of course not. But, if 2008 is as close as 2000 and 2004, only one to two percent of the voters need to have qualms on this issue to make it a locked down Democratic year.

All other things being equal, yes. But all other things never are equal. The comparison is not Romney as a member of the LDS church and another Romney, with all his attributes, but who is not a member of the LDS church. It is a whole package. It seems to me that Romney has a great many things going for him as a candidate. Not least the fact that he has three home states. The MidWest has been the key swing region at the last few elections, and the interior west is moving in the same direction. A candidate who can out-perform Bush in Michigan has a distinct advantage. Utah is not, of course, a swing state, but Arizona, Colorado and Nevada are.

The blanket application of 1 or 2% here or there ignores the fact that the Electoral College chooses the President. If a Republican was 5% down on Bush's total in Texas and 5% up in Michigan it would be a net loss in the popular vote but a net gain in the College.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Quentin your last paragraph brings up a good point. The Democrats, especially in the Midwest, win by far smaller margins than the Republicans in the South and even most of the West. A 5% swing to the Republicans in Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, etc... gives the Republicans 50+ more electoral votes while a 5% swing to the Democrats in Texas or South Carolina still equates to a Democratic defeat.

I think both you and Take 08 are missing the situation.

Republicans don't win the women vote. Republicans don't need to win the women vote- they just need to not lose badly- tha is what is called "winning". Furthermore, the places where the women vote is most essential is in the Midwest, which is filled with the demographic "middle mother" I will discuss below.

Now you make an excellent point- the feminist movement will go bonkers in attacking a Mormon. After all, the Mormons were one of the major factions that helped defeat the Women's "Equal Rights" Amendment. Mormons are known for promoting homemaking and motherhood. The feminists will hit all kinds of emotional pressure points, and it won't matter that 95% of what they're saying is total slander- they will motivate their constituancy to vote against Romne

However, you are missing the point that the majority of those women are already firm Democratic votes. The "women's vote" is split down the middle. There are a large number (I'd guess 40% plus) who identify with the feminist movement- they are usually childless.

Then there are the mothers. The mothers are themselves split. There are the strongly Republican "traditional" mothers, (about 35%).

Then there are the middle mothers. Usually these are women who are both mothers, and professionals. Strongly courted by the press, they are sometimes called: "soccer moms", "security moms", or in a non-political setting "Super-Moms". In someways one could say that they have a foot in both camps.

Romney is perfectly positioned to appeal to this group. Now, half of them will probably vote Democratic anyways, but we only need half of this group.

You see, these middle mothers have two concerns: First, they want someone who will empathize with their desire to succeed in the workforce. This is how the feminists appeal to them. The best candidate to make this appeal for the Democrats is Hillary Clinton. Condi Rice could make this same appeal for the Republican party.

However, they also want someone who empathizes with the both the difficulty and the joy of raising a family. In other words: A husband figure. Mitt Romney is by far the best candidate the Republicans have to make this appeal.

Furthermore, he understands this appeal, as can be shown by the infamous "topless" ad the Romney campaign ran showing him at the beach playing with his children. Many complain this was an ad that was hoping women would vote for Romney because of his good looks. This critisism missed the point. The ad showed a handsome father playing with his children. This ad was designed to make these middle mothers say: "I wish I had a husband like him" or "He reminds me of my husband- I'm so glad I have a husband like him". Thus gaining a positive image in women's minds.

Additionally, this middle mother's group is sick of the rhetorical war going on between the other two women groups. They resent the constant stream of disdain and putdowns for stay-at-home mothers put out by the feminists, because they relate to the other mothers and their concerns. They are also upset with the many men who have adopted the feminist viewpoint as a way to insist on women doing both the housework- and having a fulltime job.

However, they are also wary of "traditionalist" mothers because they feel vaugely guilty that they are still working instead of spending more time with their children, and they sense that there is an unspoken feeling of superiority among "traditionalist" mothers- despite the efforts of "traditionalists" to court the middle mothers.

Because of this, alot of them are going to have a double negative reaction to the feminist propoganda. On the one hand it will cause them to worry about Romney, but on the other hand it will turn them off towards whoever is making the attacks.

Romney can easily neutralize this worry with ads similar to the one described above. When the comment is directly addressed to him about Mormons encouraging motherhood, (and it will be) all he has to do is say: "My faith teachs that our families should be the priority in our lives, for both fathers and mothers. The most important thing I have done with my life is to be father, and I have tried to make time for my children. My time with my family is more vaulabe to me than politics, or the Olympics, or anything else I've done in my life. One of the Mormon prophets put it best: 'No other success can compensate for failure in the home'."

Of course he'll follow this with all the needed reassuarnces about how he cares for the working mother, and supports the rights of women in the workforce- but that won't be the part that sells him. What will sell him to the swing women vote is that he's a man who is faithful to his wife and vaules his children- he doesn't leave his wife with the job of raising the kids, but he sees that as part of his duty too.

Expect to see Romney appearances with father groups promoting active fatherhood as the pancea to the worlds problems, (and unlike most pancaes this one might actually make a difference).

Of all the current Republican candidates, Romney has the best chance at "winning" the women's vote.

Of course one can also see why a combination of Romney/Rice would be dynamite in attracting the women's vote.

Of much greater concern will be the accusations of racism against the Mormons- which is very unfair, seeing as Mormons were run out of Missouri for being abolishionists, and supported the Civil Rights Movement from the pulpit starting in the 1950's. None of that will matter though, nor the fact that Mormons have aggressively sought black converts since the late 70's.

Once again, it is an issue that a Condi Rice at the VP slot will be a big help with.

(PS. I noticed in the down thread a comment about the difference between single and married women in Mormon theology- I can only assume you are refering to the common slander that Mormon women can't be saved without their husbands. This is actually backwards. Single Mormon women are constantly being reassured by the prophets that they will be saved even if they don't marry- It's the single men who are told to marry or be damned.)

While I don't entirely disagree with you on the name recognition thing, I also don't think it is the be all, end all to who can get elected.

Clinton was an unkown nationally, and when he decided to run most people were pessimistic about his chances, because he didn't have "name recognition" being the governor of a small state in the South.

All the folks who were unknown to the general public didn't just appear from nowhere. They were more on the order of folks who had spent ten years working very hard and in a very focused manner to become an overnight success.

Clinton was a known comer in the Democratic party since he became the youngest ever AG in Arkansas. I remember hearing people talk about whether his career was over before it started when he lost that first election for Governor when he was practically a kid. Years of networking at places like the conference he attended faithfully at Hilton Head had built a network of connected, wealthy, motivated supporters ready to work their butts off when he was ready to go.

Nixon, after a couple of years out of the limelight, had spent years rebuilding his connections in the party. In 1966, he campaigned all over the country for Republican candidates, and his support made a difference in helping to elect many of that year's freshman class (such as Howard Baker in Tennessee). The guy at the diner may not have been saying Nixon, but the party professionals knew he was coming on strong.

Ditto with Reagan. He didn't emerge from nowhere. He worked - heck, created - the conservative movement, and had an army of enthusiasts ready to make it happen when he was ready.

I wish we had a conservative candidate like that this year. Huckabee and Brownback don't have that kind of foundation built. What's more, the foundation is more important now than ever, partly because it costs more, and partly because laws like the one Sen. McCain sponsored create huge barriers for grassroots candidacies that need to raise money in a hurry. The donor limits and the paperwork make that very, very hard. You can win Iowa, and even win Iowa and New Hampshire, and still starve to death for lack of funds in the next round down the road, because it's just so hard to raise money in a hurry with those laws in place.

Not to compare the two but had anyone heard of William Jefferson Rodham? I think there is plenty of time to get known.

Why are we not all clamoring for Pence? We all know that he is what we want?

Yes, few folks know him but this is not a beauty contest. This is about what our party and our nation need.

"It is hard for the other fella' to hit you when your fist is in his face." -James Carville

Or at least do some time as the VP. It would be nice if he is a very prominent voice in the GOP for years to come, though.

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/

wait for who?

Pence is hands down the best guy face to camera of anyone we have mentioned. He is the darkhorse that so many believe is out there.

In January of 2003 no one had ever hear of Howard Dean. Now dont get me wrong that is not what I am looking for. Anyone who has read Friedman's book the World is flat knows that technology could make this happen. The landscape to campaign on is a lot "flatter" than it used to be.

"It is hard for the other fella' to hit you when your fist is in his face." -James Carville

... if you believe the Roll Call/Weekly Standard guys, and I do.

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/

Before you get too Romneyeyed, you should read this:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53598

And then when you are done read this. It really shows what a piece of garbage that article you linked to is.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com

***My comments are my own opinion. Please don't confuse them with anyone elses despite my websites and allegiances***

WND is a sad reminder that the Left doesn’t have a monopoly on the crazies.

_______________________________________________
"Tradition is the democracy of the dead. It refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around"
-G.K. Chesterton

What ever happened to voting for a true social and fiscal conservative for President? Let's all see what happens between now and November '08 because it's still too early to be talking in detail about the final choices for President '08 from any political party! Anything is possible in the world of politics.

"It is hard for the other fella' to hit you when your fist is in his face." -James Carville

when he says he's interested in running.
_______________________________________________
"Tradition is the democracy of the dead. It refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around"
-G.K. Chesterton

I'm still waiting to get more info and see if a solid conservative starts to generate some buzz and get some traction. Someone like Hunter, Keating or Gilmore. I can't get behind someone who isn't pro-life (Giuliani / Condi) and doesn't accept an enforcement-first approach to illegal immigration (Brownback / Huckabee).

Of the "big three", I'll take Romney, but I can't write off the possibility that no-one else is going to emerge and get some traction. At least not two days into 2007.
_______________________________________________
"Tradition is the democracy of the dead. It refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around"
-G.K. Chesterton

I'm in the Romney camp now- but he really is my third choice, as my first two choices aren't running. (Jeb Bush = 1st, Condi Rice = 2nd). Basically he's the best out of the top four.

I'm tempted by Newt, but just don't see how he can pull it off.

I'll keep an ey on Brownback- but I just don't think he has the mojo. He seems like a good guy though.

All of your picks for GOP President in '08 are also "pro-amnesty for illegal immigrants"! A country without laws is truly not a country, and any amnesty for illegal immigrants in the U.S. will only cause the entire U.S. to vanish as a country! This could even happen before November '08, and if it does, then conservatism as well will also end up dying because the Democrats will end up enrolling many of these illegal immigrants as new voters for leftist politics! Conservatives will not be able to recruit new voters at the same rate that the political left will be able to with an annual giant influx of the illegal immigrant population coming into the U.S. Illegals won't vote for "pro-enforcement of all of the present laws that deal with illegal immigrants" politicians. The U.S. will be finished as a country very soon, and all of us conservatives will be forced to see it happen.

I certainly do hope that either Michael Steele or J.C. Watts is the Republican choice for Vice President in '08 no matter who ends up getting the final nod for President.

and run his campaign through his myspace website haha

There have been worse starts to successful campaigns.

"It is hard for the other fella' to hit you when your fist is in his face." -James Carville

Yeah but this isn't for county treasurer.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com

***My comments are my own opinion. Please don't confuse them with anyone elses despite my websites and allegiances***

McCain and Giuliani have a similar argument they can make over Romney, that Romney can make over Pence on that.

If the frontrunner today is forever the frontrunner, Gov. Romney should just stay home and go back to supporting abortion.

Run like Reagan!

I guess that is a matter of opinion. I think Romney has a much stronger campaign start than Guiliani as far as infastructure and money raising. He is not to far off of Guiliani and last I heard has raised more money than McCain did in the last quarter of 2006.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com

***My comments are my own opinion. Please don't confuse them with anyone elses despite my websites and allegiances***

"Not too far off of mccain" is what I meant.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com

***My comments are my own opinion. Please don't confuse them with anyone elses despite my websites and allegiances***

Mike Pence should put all of his political energy into knocking that phony Evan Bayh out of the Senate.

Erick,

I'm not leaving this reply so as to debate Mormonism...seriously. Fair notice, however, I am a Mormon, and I would rather have Jon Kyl - but Romney would suffice.

As many have noted in above posts, Mormons have a reputation for being "solid, good people" despite the minior differences that we have with other Protestant denomination's theology.

I'd like to make a suggestion, as a serious, "investigative", matter-of-fact quest for reality: attend ONE Mormon service on a Sunday, just for the comfort that you can see that we are not a bunch of freaks. Sincerely, this is not some hidden, covert attempt at converting heathens like you :) but as a person of prominence at RedState, you do hold a lot of weight with many of us Conservatives, and if people can get past the Romney-Mormon issue, they can see that Mormons are VERY conservative, VERY patriotic, and would give our lives for the benefit of this country, then, the questions about Romney as it relates to Mormonism can be set aside and we can deal with how he will govern.

Of course, anyone's politics are grounded in their history, experience, upbringing, religion, and other things that determine their values, and that's why even though people have some xenophobia in regards to Mormonism, they still find themselves liking Romney. So, the stuff that makes Romney must have SOMETHING good in all of it or we (or J-Lo as an example) wouldn't be fawning over him like a teenager at a Fabian concert.

And honestly, if Romney was a member of YOUR church, and his religion were not an "issue", what would you think about him compared to the other canidates? The dude has a lot going for him, and again, that's why there is such great appeal, despite their understanding of "Mormonism".

(BTW, truth in advertising: I'm personally hoping Jon Kyl (R) AZ, throws his hat in the ring. I have always liked him, and think that he would make a great President. However, since he isn't even mentioned, I'd rather have a Newt/Romney or Romney/Newt mix... McCain isn't worthy of being elected as dog catcher in my book, and although Guliani is solid as a head of "state" (Governed more people in NYC than many in their entire state), I too have misgivings about his record on life, not to mention some of his other liberal leanings.

In any event, my whole point was this: Most people have NO idea what Mormons are. (And again, this is not to open or try to open, a debate on the matter.) But as an "experiment", so to speak, go attend a random service at one of our chapels. You will hopefully come away with fewer fears of "freakazoid Mormons" as it relates to Romney, and then we can get down to debating more important issues.

Conservatives have always prided themselves on NOT being xenophobic...let's not let that start to taint our debate as it relates to someone's religion...especially when he has so much history to observe.

Millinerfamily

Those of you supporting Romney would do well to check out this article on Worldnetdaily.com

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53598

This information is identical to what multiple conservatives have been saying about the situation in Massachusetts since it occurred. Romney apparently chose to: a) first order same sex marriage in contravention to state law, b) then try to ride the controversy to make himself some kind of hero.

I've had enough of such Republican 'heros.' The kind that pretend to stand up against the 'judges' all the while happy as clams that 'progressive' policies are being implemented that they support. These politicians get to come out and run against 'unelected' judges, but are never actually forced to stand up to the judges because everyone knows the law requires doing whatever a judge says.

This is all hogwash. Romney is a two-faced liar. A political opportunist of the first order that any decent conservative should shun. The fact that with 2 years to go this is the best many Republicans can envision only shows that the spanking we got in November obviously didn't sink in. Or, if it did, many of you learned the wrong lesson.

Rank-and-file Republicans feel like the party is soft on the issues. They feel the party has abandoned core principals, and is too willing to compromise and sell out its base.

How do you combat this? By giving them a proven sell-out to vote for? Who's going to rally to that?

No one. If the Dems get smart and put up a governor who isn't too scary (Bill Richardson comes to mind), then 2008 will be a Democratic sweep if someone like Romney is head of the ticket.

Get real, Republicans. Either find someone who is actually likely to fight for Republican issues rather than sign Ted Kennedy's next education/spending bill, or understand that the Grim Reaper is waiting for you in 2008.

I should rephrase that: who do you have in mind who actually stands a realistic chance of getting elected?

Because, first, Bill Richardson isn't going to be the Democratic nominee. It's, at best, a race between HRC, Obama, and Edwards. And probably a race between HRC and Obama -- assuming Gore doesn't get in.

So, let's just keep ourselves within the realms of reality on the Dem side as well as the Republican side.

As for the GOP...who? Sam Brownback? Newt Gingrich? Mike Huckabee? You think any of these purebreds have a realistic shot at winning anything?

If you think 2006 was simply about Republicans not being Republicans, I want to remind you that both the education bill to which you refer and the Medicare drug fiasco both came prior not to the 2006 election, but to the 2004 election where the GOP swept the House, Senate, and White House.

I think each of us has to come to grips with the fact that the GOP's nominee is going to be somebody that each of us, in our own ways, will have some major beef against. If you can't live with that, tough. Because it's that person....or HilBamaEdwards.

In 1991, did you have Bill Clinton pegged as the next President? By 1965, didn't the whole world consider Nixon a has-been after having been beaten in 1960?

Did you see those politicians coming? Did you see 'W' as the man-to-beat in 1998? What about Reagan? Did you see Reagan coming on strong in 1978?

Or, would you have been one of the George H. W. Bush supporters, who was telling yourself that Reagan was 'too conservative' to win?

I doubt highly that you saw any of those trends coming before they arrived. Most people didn't, yet now everyone assumes that he can perfectly forecast who will be the nominee two years hence.

I doubt highly that Hillary will be the nominee. Neither will Obama. The Dems aren't that stupid. Edwards? May be, but he's so yesterday's news. Senators don't have such a good track record winning elections, in either party.

The Dems went with Kerry in 2004 because they actually thought he was an electable moderate with a military record. Suprise on them, when it turned out otherwise. The chances of the Dems picking a Northern liberal are slim. The chances of them picking a Northern liberal named Clinton are even slimmer.

The 2004 election was prior to the full weight of the Education and drug fiascos coming to light. Not to mention the rest of the disasters that I've covered elsewhere. What are you pulling for? A kinder, gentler Republican Party that is more centrist?

Are you pulling for the situation in the old joke, "The Dems proposed burning down Washington. The Republicans objected and proposed phasing it in over the next five years."

How about we actually pull for a conservative, for once in the past decade or two, and let the chips fall where they may? We might, just might, actually replay 1980 and 1984. Or we can just keep going with 'electable' candidates who make a mockery of us.

Me? I'll be voting for one of the conservatives you branded as 'unelectable.' I'm not sure which one, yet, but given that we are two years out from that decision, I have plenty of time to make up my mind.

I don't feel like surrendering pre-emptively.

In 1975, who was picking Carter? In 1991, did you have Bill Clinton pegged as the next President?

They're both Democrats. And Democrats have always picked their presidential nominees differently than Republicans. I'm not saying I like the way our party does it, but it is typically the way our party does it.

Democrats frequently nominate "insurgent" candidates. Republicans tend to stick with the CW candidate. Don't blame me -- I'm merely pointing this out.

Did you see 'W' as the man-to-beat in 1998?

Mmm, just about. By 1999, certainly.

Did you see Reagan coming on strong in 1978?

Well, yeah. He nearly won the 1976 primary and was considered by many people to be the GOP frontrunner the day after Ford lost and Carter won.

I doubt highly that you saw any of those trends coming before they arrived.

With the Dems, you'd be right. With the Republicans, you'd be wrong. I've never been wrong a year or so out predicting who the Republican nominee would be -- and I've been following elections for quite some time.

And it's not that I'm some great handicapper. It's just that Republican primaries aren't really all that competitive.

I doubt highly that Hillary will be the nominee. Neither will Obama.

You may be right. As I said, the Democrats have always tended to have a more open primary where a darkhorse can sneak in. I'd say that candidate this cycle is actually Obama -- although he's getting tons of positive press.

Are you pulling for the situation in the old joke, "The Dems proposed burning down Washington. The Republicans objected and proposed phasing it in over the next five years."

Well, no. I'm taking issue with people who say they'll abandon the Republican Party if it nominates somebody who they find less than perfect.

I have never, and will never, understand that mindset. Politics, they say, is the art of the possible. That means that, sometimes, you have to settle for something less than ideal -- if only to avoid something much worse.

I'll be voting for one of the conservatives you branded as 'unelectable.'

That's fine. I'm not telling you who to vote for or not vote for in the primary. I'd be more than happy to pull the lever for a Sam Brownback, though I'm no social conservative.

I'm simply saying that, come general election time, I think we have to accept who's there rather than take our ball and go home because we think there's somebody better.

Ok I can tell this article was written by and for the World Net Daily freak crowd who thinks the world is coming to an end every day.

So if Romney did not follow the Court order, would you doubt that the State Legislature would have probably impeached him? If you believe the legislature would not have impeached him, I have ocean front property to sell you not in Arizona, but Utah.

Remember the Court ruled that the legislature was bound by the Constitution to do their duty. Like it or not, Romney followed his duty as Governor even though he disagreed with the ruling. Again, I should not suspect anything different out of the WND freaks who wanted to send in the 82nd Airborne to save Terri Schiavo. In fact, having an anti-Romney article on their site is a good thing because it shows he is a sane human being.

a high compliment.

The court had no authority to compel the governor to do a blessed thing. The governor should have ignored the order. If the Senate had impeached him for that, then he could have become the hero conservatives are actually looking for. It would have been the same as Coolidge breaking the Boston Police Strike or Reagan firing PATCO.

So sane, to you, is bowing and scraping to judges, even when they exceed their authority.

Nice to know. I would hazard a guess that most Republicans don't agree, which is why campaigning against 'unelected' judges is a perennial theme in Republican campaigns.

Romney's duty as governor was to preserve the power and authority of his office, which was compromised when the courts overreached their authority in issuing an order they could not enforce. A chief executive who feigns powerlessness is not my idea of suitable president.

Perhaps you prefer pre-emptive surrender in your leaders. I do not.

Apparently you seem to oppose the concept of judicial review based on your comments. Like the concept of judicial review or not, remember it has been a part of our system since the Founding generation via Marbury vs. Madison.

It seems you cannot put some fundamental concepts together:

SJC rules law unconstitutional

Romney follows their ruling (If he does not, he will not be fulfilling his oath of office to uphold the oath of office)

If Romney decided to not follow the ruling the State Legislature could claim he was not fulfilling his oath of office.

Not fulfilling your oath of office = impeachment by the Legislature

This is important considering the Court stated the Legislature was violating its oath of office by not voting on the measure. Even if the Court could not directly force the Legislature to vote, they could in theory be removed from office by refusing to uphold their oath.

Like it or not, Romney was following the rule of law. Sometimes the rule of law does not produce the results we want, but it is the system free society is based on.

Again I assume you are one of those people who supported WND and their assertions Bush should have sent in the military of necessary to save Terri Schiavo.

I believe 'tempest in a teapot' would best describe it. The issue is not judicial review. The issue is, as Jefferson described it, that the Constitution becomes mere putty in the hands of the judiciary if they are the only interpreters of what it means.

We are living with that today in the form of Roe vs. Wade, the Michigan Case, etc. The problem in Massachusetts is that the court behaved in a fashion which anyone could see violated the plain construction of the Constitution. Your view comes straight out of Casey v. Planned Parenthood where O'Connor basically stated that the rule of law depends on people following what the courts say.

Conservatives like me say that this is complete garbage. The idea that a Constitution can be twisted to say anything a majority of justices wish it to say, and that the 'rule of law' is dependent on all accepting this, is plain nuts.

This is past Romney. This is a Republican disease at this point. We grouse and we grouse about the courts, we get one bad ruling after another, and we sit idly by and do zilch.

In the name of the rule of law. This is a recipe for what we have gotten since 1973.

Perhaps we should be impeaching activist judges. That would be a start. But any action at this point besides surrender would be a step in the right direction.

I support impeachment of justices who overstep their bounds, but until they are removed and the rulings are overturned through another ruling or constitutional amendment, the rulings stand.

I would argue your point of view is dangerous as it tells Americans to in effect rebel against the legal authorities. Like the rulings or not, you must follow them.

Now you can exercise your hinted desire to ignore the civil authority and the rule of law, I promise anyone who tries will be subdued and brought within reason by the body politic and its government through force if necessary.

of government. The courts trump all.

Where is the line here? If the courts declare the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, are we to follow that? If the courts declare that the name 'Corpus Christi' is an unwarranted establishment of religion, then are we to surrender to that also?

You mention Lincoln, but the problem wasn't Lincoln but rather the Supreme Court. By invalidating political compromises in Dred Scott, the Supreme Court made the political atmosphere poisonous in the United States. The same thing happened with Roe v. Wade.

The reason judges have not been impeached is that politicians have been cowards. Not only that, but let's face it. It's a great way for progressives to enact their agenda, and for 'conservatives' to sit back and win a campaign issue.

"Look at those activist judges. Vote for us!"

Of course they don't actually do anything about it. They continue to allow their authority to be over ruled.

Really, is there anything a court could do that would make you embrace your inner Patrick Henry?

Would Romney have been impeached? No. He wouldn't have.

I can't see it. And if he had, then he would have been a hero in any event. He would have been the first person to stand up to the courts since FDR.

Your attitude and that of Republicans like you is why we have had a damaging slide into judicial imposed tyranny. I for one, wish to exit this ride. I don't like where it's leading.

If romney had ignored the court, it would have been a signe that not only does he execute the law, he interprets it also. Which is exactly opposite of how it should work.

Since you are unfamiliar with checks and balances this is ho it works:

IF the legislature wants to influence the court, they have the ability to impeach. In MAss the judges are not appointed for life. So both the executive
(who appoints) and the legislature (who confirms) can influence and keep a chec on the court.

If the Executive could reinterpret than it would stand to reason the Court could hire it's own militia when they decide they feek war is necessary and the president doesn't. It would also stand to reason if congress ever decided to impeach a president than the president could refuse and stay in office, if he thought there impeachment was unfair. Most would call that a civil war or at keast a breadown of goverment.

Sometimes you have to follow the game plan even when it doesn't work out to your advantage. You can't just change the rules when your loosing.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com

***My comments are my own opinion. Please don't confuse them with anyone elses despite my websites and allegiances***

I'm no Romney fan, but the idea that he shows some kind of liberal taint by not defying a court decision is both ludicrous and dangerous.

Excellent analysis.

One thing you mentioned in there frightened me: The idea of the judicial branch have a militia to enforce its decision.

Currently, we don't have any.

The bottom line from all of you is this - the Constitution means exactly what the courts say it means. It can be the most blatant, most contrived bit of social engineering on the face of the planet. It could, in fact, be so egregious that a five year old could spot the manifest stupidity of the ruling.

But, there's nothing we can do about it. The legislature can impeach the judges, but that never happens. So the only option is to do what we've been doing - vote for Republicans who promise to affirm judges who will be better masters for our new judicial oligarchy.

Nice. No wonder we've been regularly winning elections since the 70's and have got so little to show for it.

The founders never envisioned the courts acting this way. Except one. Patrick Henry warned of this exact outcome in his opposition to the Constitution. He was the only one who saw that the judiciary would, in fact, emerge as the strongest branch of government. The Federalist Papers, of course, assured the nation that it would be the weakest.

Yet, here we are. We suffered a Civil War thanks to a bad decision, and now we find our entire national politics mired in what should be state issues because of others.

And all of you seem to think this is somehow the way it should be. The idea of a judicial militia is silly. So is the idea that the executive and legislative branches don't interpret laws or the Constitution. They have to do so in order to do their jobs. It's just that the judiciary reserves the right to trump their actions unilaterally.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

As someone previously noted, this link exposes that hack job. This witchhunt just confirms Romney's credibility. No one is going after any other candidate this hard. Some people are very afraid.

http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/front_page/mitt_romney_chose_gay_marr...

“He has been in fights with liberals on every social issue imaginable — gay marriage, cloning, abstinence education, emergency contraception, gay adoption. At times, it's almost been as if the conservative capital of America has been in that tiny slice of Boston occupied by Romney's office.”

-Rich Lowry, National Review

published is that when confronted with a situation as follows:

What does this mean? It means that the court interpreted (that's another word for "construed") Massachusetts law to mean that two people of the same sex could marry--and that any interpretation contrary to the court's would violate the rights of homosexuals. In other words, the court did not order the legislature to do anything. Instead, it did what the constitution allows it to do--it interpreted the law. It did so in an improper, activist way that abandoned the obvious original intent of the Massachusetts constitution and the Massachusetts marriage laws, but it interpreted the law nonetheless.

So the whole ruling was patently anti-Constitutional. The court was clearly out-of-control. Romney complied with this court, and ordered the registration of same-sex marriages. And, this is a good thing? The articles says the following:

Frankly, it is sad that so many could be misled by something so simple--and simply wrong. When the Governor confronted the Massachusetts Supreme Court, he had two choices: (1) He could fight the decision using legal means; or (2) he could risk contempt citations and impeachment in an ineffectual, grandstanding attempt to block same-sex marriages. Rather than becoming the what the media would undoubtedly call the "George Wallace of gay marriage" and hand homosexual activists a propaganda victory to go along with their court victory, Governor Romney fought using the law and using his enormous gifts of persuasion. As a result, the same-sex marriage movement has lost public momentum, has lost court cases, and has lost at the ballot box. And we have Governor Romney and his principled, courageous, and compassionate defense of traditional marriage to thank for much of that success.

The author of this article makes clear the actions by the court were illegal. They violated the plain intent of the Constitution of the state. How then is the Governor supposed to fight an illegal action with legal means? Well, I guess the way he did which has, so far, yielded zero results.

How is this any different than all the other Republicans who have rolled over for one bad court decision after another?

I suppose we are going to just keep on pretending that the law is whatever judges say it is, even if a five year old can understand that it isn't?

Do you people actually think this kind of squish is what Republicans want? Do you think we want more politicians who complain about judges and then roll over for every decision they make?

Go with Romney if you want to, but don't bother complaining about the government enforcing bad court decisions. Romney will execute any and all of them, no matter how absurd an abuse of power they might be.

By the way, Romney does make a lot of Republicans nervous. Think of that as a good thing if you will, but the track record around here for prognostication has been somewhat lacking lately. This is another example of it.

Like it or not, bad court decisions must be enforced until they are ruled unconstitutional or the legal framework is changed so they are no longer in force.

Your zealot approach to this reminds me of those who attack Lincoln for refusing to free the slaves quickly. Lincoln detested slavery, but he realized within the existing framework it was legal. Only after the framework was changed could slavery be banned.

Also under your logic, Nixon should have never recognized Roe v. Wade? I cannot explain my disdain for the ruling, but I accept it as the law of the land until it is dealt with through constitutional means. I assume you are one of those who suggest it should be ignored. I suggest someone should try it and see the reaction of the American people.

Furthermore, if the judicial branch is truly out of control, why are they still in office? Should not have they been impeached for their crimes and violations of their oaths of office? Like it or not, the acts of the judiciary stand as long as they are in office and they are not overridden through the constitutional means.

You never answered my question whether Romney would not have been impeached if he refused to follow the decision of the Court?

That is utterly ridiculous.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Are you listening to yourself?

You sound like the 911 conspiracy theorists.

Them: "Bush blew up the towers so he could get political cover to attack Iraq to get oil for Haliburton"

You: "Romney imposed gay marriage on Mass. so he could campaign against gay marriage in order to fuel his Presidential campaign."

Now I can understand the fact that many conservatives feel Romney should have planted the flag, declared the Mass. Supreme Court's interpertation of the Constitution as unconstitutional, and refused to implement it. Win or die in the attempt to kill gay marriage.

I think this is short sited, as I think Romney would have lost- badly. Instead Romney managed to contain the damage to Mass. Notice that a few county recorders even defied Romney on that- what would have happened if Romney had ordered them to refuse any gay marriage license requests?

Power is an illusion- a matter of perception. True, legally the Court had no power, and Romney did- but the perception amoung people is the the Mass. Supreme Court had the power and that Romney was required to obey. And the perception of power is power- particularly in a democracy.

This recent "admittance" by the Court that they don't have the power does not reflect poorly on Romney- it reflects poorly on the Court. The Constitution is so unambiguous that the legistlature must vote on the ballot issue that Court dared not rule otherwise way- if they tried to, they would lose their illusion of power because the people of Mass. would percieve them as tyrants instead of judges. But the Court didn't want the legistlature to vote the ballot measure forward- so they gave a thinly veiled hint that nothing would happen if the legistlature refused to move the ballot forward in violation of the Court's ruling. In essence, they tried to entice the legislature into ignoring the Court's own ruling that the legisture was (through not acting) in violation of the Constitution.

The above interpertation makes sense.

Your interpertation does not.

And frankly, for any Editors reading, I am very concerned to see that prominent members of the RedState Community are supporting this view- giving the the poster "fives" and so forth.

This kind of conspiracy mongering should not be tolerated here at Redstate. If it is, we will shortly become like the Kossacks.

Now please understand- I agree that our courts are out of control and that we need elected leaders who will stand up to them. As I expressed above I think it is entirely legitimate to think Romney should have fought the good fight and gone down in flames.- but to claim that Romney is somehow the perpertrator of gay marriage in Mass. all as part of some plot to create an issue to run against while running for President is insane!

Isn't it far more rational to assume either: a) Romney is a true opponent of gay marriage and did what he thought would be most effective in fighting it (my view). Or less charitably: b) Romney is an opponent of gay marriage, but lacked the guts for the kind of fight he'd have to go through in denying the judges orders?

Editors, I ask that you discuss this amoung yoursleves and I urge you to perclude the promotion at Redstate of this or any similar conspiracy theories that require the assumption that Republican politicans are evil Machivellian geniuses who can succesfully fool the entire world.

We libertarian Republicans have some problems with Rudy too. But we're skeptical cause we view him if anything, as too conservative on social matters.

This is the guy that cracked down on prostitutes in Times Square. He's also a bit of a Drug Warrior. And more, he lends the impression that he would support smoking bans.

At this point, I like Rudy. I like his style. I like his pizzaz; something the GOP DESPERATELY needs. Last thing we need is tired, old, grey, and boring (McCain - cough, cough). Or worse, out of touch with youth, socially prudish, and less than good looking (Huckabee and Brownback, cough, cough).

Rudy shows that he has that critical Star Power.

But his socially conservative positions on some key social matters, deeply trouble me and other libertarians. And before he wins the nomination, he will have to explain himself to us libertarians on these issue. I hope he comes around, and realizes that Nanny-statism tellins us what we can smoke and injest and Big Brother spying on us in our bedrooms, is not the way to go.

Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

That on "Nanny" state issues Rudy is okay with government intervention- but on moral issues such as abortion which can be legitimately portrayed as murder he is opposed to government intervention?

He's never been elected as a legislator, so maybe those actions you cite simply came with the job descriptions of prosecutor and mayor. Still, I agree with what you're saying. We know that there will be no perfect candidates, and the choice will come down to which imperfect candidate will offer the best leadership.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

The mainstream media is truly doing all that it can do to put GOP Presidential candidates Romney, Rudy, and McCain to the front of attention while also just as equally ignoring all of the truly solid conservative GOP candidates who are also "running/possibly running" for President in '08. The more attention that Rudy, Romney, and McCain get, the less attention that all of the other GOP candidates get. If and when the final choices for President in '08 and beyond are between a "liberal/RINO" Republican and a "socialistic" Democrat, then "leftist politics" ends up winning the elections every time! Too many conservatives are already falling into the political trap of ignoring the truly conservative GOP candidates who are also "running/interested in possibly running" for President in '08 at the cost of truly moving conservatism and capitalism forward throughout the world!

that the media has long had an unhealthy affection for John McCain, the reason Mitt Romney has not been able to get his name out as of yet is the same that Evan Bayh and even Mark Warner were polling single digits before they dropped out; until eyeing the Oval Office they had very limited name recognition outside their respective states. This is particularly troubling when the frontrunners have a great deal of name recognition, as former keynote speaker Obama, Hillary, McCain and Rudy all do.

Bernie Sanders is a leftist. John Conyers is a leftist.

Rudy may support some issue like abortion, gay rights, and gun control(things that 99% of all New Yorkers do)but he's no disciple of Che GUevara. He doesn't have copies of Das Capital or Manufactured Consent on his bookshelf. He doesn't subscribe to The Nation.

He's actually the only candidate in 2008 that actually was part of the Reagan administration.

When it comes to fiscal policy, defense/foreign policy, law and order, and business/economics he's as conservative as anyone in the field.

I still think he has no shot but he's no socialist.

and to a T. There is truly not one word that I couldn't have written myself.

And it's the reason Barak Obama is going to be our next pres. Sigh.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

Even if you look as far back as the 1994 election, pro-choice groups were attacking Romney. There are a couple of great articles (linked at the site below) from 1994 that show Romney was hardly the Pro-Choice candidate the media and other campaigns (hint, hint McCain)are trying to portray him as.

-MR
http:/www.mittreport.com
Together, we can find the truth...

People forget that he was endorsed by Right to Life in the 1994 campaign also.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


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