Redstate

Especially considering the ARG poll that put him at 18% in Iowa.

Seems like a solid conservative from what I've heard so far.

I mean Erick, not Romney. We've had the transcript of this before, now it's just in video form - i.e. nothing has changed.

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

Which means it will probably be used in the 2008 presidential primary and possibly in the general election (although it might make Romney seem like the reincarnation of Arnold Vinick to the West Wing watching base of the Democrats).

Fortunately for the Romney campaign, it showed up nearly two years before the 2008 Presidential election rather then in the 11th hour when it could have been most damaging. Which not only gives Romney plenty of time to respond but for people to be sick of this before they cast their vote in either the primary or general election.

Yep Romney was pro-choice some twelve years ago when he ran for the Senate but had a change of heart and governed as a pro-life governor. He was in favor of “gay rights” when it was mainly about things like job discrimination and supported civil unions (sort of like President Bush) but drew the line at “gay marriage” which puts him pretty much in the political mainstream.

In the meantime he’s been a solid supporter of entitlement reform including Medicare and Medicaid (which most Republicans won’t even talk about), knows how to think outside the box on health care reform, has been remarkable at trying to hold the line on spending and taxes in Massachusetts of all places, and has the right positions on judicial nominees and winning the War.

ROMNEY CANNOT WIN THIS COUNTRY--deal with this and move on to somebody who can win. Giuliani can win, McCain possibly can win. Brownback, Gilmore cannot win. Better to get 75% of what you want than zero. Or find a candidate who can win.

Romney certainly has his faults but one of them is not that he isn't electable. He's the most electable candidate we got, IMO.

If you want to talk about unelectable, McCain is your man. If somehow, in some parallel universe (the only place it could happen), he was able to win the primary, he'd blow up several times on the campaign trail and that would kill his candidacy right there. He blows up when he isn't campaigning... what do you think the high pressure, attacks, media setups, and 24 hour attention are going to do to him? McCain would be having Dean scream moments a few times a week by the time October rolled around.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Since you seem insistent on regurgitating old smears from the 2000 presidential primary, you may as well go all the way.

What smears from 2000? There have been several "why don't you go go vote for the vegetarians, then" moments in the past couple years and the campaign isn't even on yet. These aren't things he plans to say in advance. Imagine what the media will do to that stuff if he were in the spotlight with a hostile media.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

That contains a pretty nice example of what I'm talking about.

"By the way, I think the fence is least effective. But I'll build the godd*mned fence if they want it.

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

It may not be what some of us what to hear but the fence always struck me more of one of those symbolic things that the Republican leadership brought out to energize the base.

I don’t see that as a lack of being able to control one’s temper but rather a sign that he’s saying what he really thinks even if people may not want to hear it. Which is frankly a refreshing change from the pandering that so many in the bases of both parties seem to place a premium on from their candidates.

You don't throw words in there that can't even be used on this site in their entirely unless you have a temperament issue. I tell you, that kind of talk really gives me the warm and fuzzies about McCain. I'm glad to know he's willing to put up with my extreme stupidity in wanting a fence if that's what it will take to earn my vote.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Sort of like the leftists who were equally disingenuous when they feigned concern over some choice words from then Governor Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Pathetic.

I don't have a problem with him using the word. I have a problem with him using the word to denigrate a popular conservative position. The fact that he's doing it at the same time he is attempting to pander on the issue is just bizarre, but the kind of thing I've come to expect from McCain.

If he doesn't think the fence will do anything, why is he willing to build it? To earn votes in the primary. That's pretty much the textbook definition of the word.

It pretty clearly demonstrates, despite all of his pandering to conservatives, that he still holds them in utter contempt. He just can't wait until he wins the primary and doesn't need us any more. Then he can finally cut us loose for good.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

authorises Senators to spend taxpayers' money on projects which they do not believe will benefit the United States but which they do believe will benefit their prospects in primary elections?

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

in "necessary and proper."

In Vino Veritas

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

You don't have to go back to 2000, McCain, just last year blew up on camera and insulted all of us who are concerned with the border issue and called us intolerant. He does this with regularity.

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

NT

McCain would probably have trouble winning the primary--I know I couldn't vote for him, but he certainly would do better nationally than Romney. Romney is charismatically challenged, he is an empty suit, and he probably could not even win his own state in a presidential election.

I'm not a Mitt guy, but I could probably support him in the general. He's got solid executive experience although I would have preferred to see what he could do with two terms as MA Gov, but he's still got better experience than everybody but Rudy.

Most of the ashes in the air right now are just that, ashes. We won't know anything until the candidates start facing the press (who will likely be hostile as all get out) and the voters. Personally, I think Romney and Rudy will do very well in that venue, McCain will implode and Brownback will put people to sleep.

I don't know that much about Mitt, but the one thing I hear from people who've been around him is that he is definitely NOT "charismatically challenged" nor is he "an empty suit". And you're right, he probably can't win Massachusetts but neither can any other Republican.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

I love the idea that Romney cannot win because he altered his stance on abortion, but Giuliani can win. How does that work? He strikes out on more issues than Romney does. Giuliani has shown in actions and words that he is anti-gun, pro-abortion, and pro-gay marriage. I find it more than a little ridiculous to hear conservatives pan Romney for being pro-abortion in 1994, and then say they would really like to vote for Giuliani.

Here is the brutal truth-Giuliani has no chance of getting the GOP nomination---none---whatsoever.

Rudy loves baseball analogies so here is one: Mr. Mayor you strike out with the GOP base on abortion, gay marriage, and guns, how are you ever going to get elected by conservatives?

McCain's condenscension towards the conservative base in the last 6 years of the Bush presidency has been appalling, and his sudden "transition" to kissing the conservative base's butts is equally as transparent as Romney's pro-life stance.

McCain's health and age is going to be a huge issue as surgeons do not intentionally give you distinct facial scars unless they remove peripheral tissue to prevent the cancer from reoccurring. Not to mention the fact that McCain would be the oldest president in American history--if elected.

If you like the way Governor Huckabee and Senator Sam Brownback position themselves on life issues-great, but they will not be the President of the United States.

Americans and many conservatives are sick and tired of President Bush's inability to articulate conservative principles and policy to the American people at-large. If it weren't for two "charismatically-challenged" Democratic presidential nominees-Bush would not have won.

Yes, he earned the most votes ever, but 2008 is going to be about partisanship in sheep's clothing.

Moderates will be wooed by a liberal like Obama who is an impressive speaker.

I think that Romney may be the GOP's only chance despite a late conversion on life issues. By the way, a Governor Reagan was a divorcee who signed the most liberal abortion law in California's history to that point in time.

Well he has at least one thing over Romney: we know what he really believes.

He hasn't made policy at the Federal level yet and hasn't made his positions from a Federal perspective known yet, so I'm not sure how anybody could know what he really believes. He is the biggest stealth candidate in the race right now, which is why he gets high marks from across the political spectrum. He's an empty vessel into which people can place their hopes. He can't help but disappoint some people once he opens his mouth.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I think that Romney may be the GOP's only chance despite a late conversion on life issues.

How do you know it's a real "conversion?" It's clear that Romney originally believed that abortion was wrong. Then, when he was running for Senate in Massachusetts, he had a "conversion." Now that he running in the Rebublican primaries, he's supposedly had a second "converstion?" How convenient!

Sorry, but I do not trust Romney one bit. He's slick. He flip flops whenever it is politically expedient. At least I believe Guliani has the courage of his convictions. In contrast, Romney is a spineless panderer.

That mormon thing is a pretty big handicap. The consensus of evangelicals groups is that mormons are so far out to lunch with their views on JC that mormons are virtually untouchables.

Checkout www.exmormon.org when you get a chance. Google 'are mormons christian' and you see what I mean.

It would take very little political hinky-doing to make this a major crisis for the Republican party - given the need to keep evangelicals in line.

Next...

I'm an Evangelical, have way more than serious theological issues with Mormons, and would vote for Romney in the general. I don't know anybody - as in Evangelicals - who would not support Romney against any available Democrat or who would "stay home".

OTOH, I also don't know anybody who would vote for John McCain.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

If I were running the Dem campaign (and I'm not)...I package my guy as a moderate & a solid christian.

I then take 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' approach and replace 'Swift Boat' with 'Concerned Christians'. I inject some relevant pro-choice snippets, I package it correctly and deliver it in the south and west.

If that program is executed correctly there is a serious risk here for the GOP. Some red states are red by a relatively thin margin.

To be sure, if I were Karl Rove's evil Dem twin, I'd fund that campaign in a heartbeat.

Romney is not the candidate here.

Here's the basic problem with your construct. An interesting one, BTW, but problematic. The SwiftVets were presenting a factual, truthful argument that Kerry had never backed away from and realistically had no argument against. He couldn't release his military records, they would show he got a less than honorable discharge that was "fixed" by Bunny Carter. (I realize that statement is conjecture, but what other reason could he possibly have for withholding them, especially given all the fire he took.)

Romney, OTOH, can immediately go on the offensive and challenge the video. "Yeah, I said that, I was wrong. And here's what I'll do as your President: X, Y, Z." An attack like that would be the best thing that could happen to him because he would get the opportunity to address the issue head on. The big side benefit is that he gets to show a group calling itself "Christian" to be throwing mud at him. That will piss off the Evangelicals - at the people who are taking out the ads.

It will get him big time votes.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

...and yes - the scenario you describe is plausible.

If Romney responds appropriately, he might well get a boost from it. In the end, it comes down to a numbers game, quality-of-execution vs. quality-of-response.

I too was baffled that Kerry had nothing to offer in response to SBV. I was left to conclude that he either had something to hide or he made a horrible mistake.

In any case, I see his Mormon background as a risk that is not to be entirely dismissed.

Anyway... enough of this thread...we both have better things to discuss.

The reason your construct would be such a boon to Romney is precisely because the "Mormon" thing is a perceived problem with Evangelicals. It's not one he can address head on and be successful. If he defends LDS as a "branch" of Chrisianity or a "denomination" he's in big trouble with Evangelicals. He's in a no-win situation if he has to confront the issue head on. An attack such as you suggest gives him the opportunity to win big points with Evangelicals.

And on Kerry, he made no mistakes. He has 30+ years of calculated loathing of and using of the US military and his "career" in country in Vietnam. The only thing that will rehabilitate John Kerry is a treason trial for his trip to Paris. We seem to have developed a soft spot for executed despots.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

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

I find the purity tests counter-productive myself. But tone is what trips up the typical newbie commenter, more than content.

One can fault the Libertarians for such things.

However, we're talking life and death, here.

However, we're talking life and death, here.

Not that it matters much with the current state of the law in this country being what it is. As a result, I care a lot more about judicial philosophy than whether someone running for POTUS is personally pro-life or not.

I'm not sure where Romney and Guliani stand on that more important issue... there's a lot of guesswork involved there. McCain, on the other hand, I have a pretty good idea where he stands on the issue, and it is not at all comforting.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I'm going to be nice and simply tell you that 1), the tone is unacceptable; 2), you aren't nearly as funny as you think that you are; and 3), if you attempt to reproduce the circumstances that sparked observations 1) and 2) you'll be shown the door.

Savvy?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Must've come off wrong. I apologize. Wasn't trying to be funny. Just really bothered by the litmus test.

Maybe it's because I just don't see abortion as a winning issue right now; coupled with the tactics employed by most of those opposed to abortion as unlikely of success.

If the Republican party is going to be the party that needs the votes of Specter, holds fundraisers keynoted by Guliani, sees Rice as a somewhat dream candidate, then the abortion issue needs a realistic evaluation.

I'll cede my opposition to abortion to no one but I realize that too many Americans don't see it for the evil it is. That's reality. It's an emotional issue and I don't think one can, by pure emotion appeal, change someone's mind. It must be through reason and education. And we want to change minds. And we need people who changed their mind as advocates for life.

That said, I have found little to like about any of the frontrunners and Romney will likely collapse under his own weight long before the primary. But for crying out loud, and like I said before: We just got our rears handed to us and need unity now more than ever just to keep hope alive for 2008 and we are focusing on stuff that won't be relevant for nearly a year.

Talent tied up slinging mud at each other frees the opposition to act. Even if the mud slung is interesting.

I think Abortion is horrible, but nearly 40 years of resistance to it has not done much to change people. DO you know what has? things like programs where you can actually see the baby in the womb. That has done more to change peoples hearts than demonstrations and the like.
I cannot get behind any litmus test or any single issue. The presidency is much too important to be a single issue thing.

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

I think the only way we are going to win the abortion debate is to look at it like Romney did, from a scientific perspective. I think science holds the key because it is non-emotional and it clearly shows when life begins from a molecular perspective. I think Romney conversion might be an asset in the general because it makes him look intelligent because he is not governing through emotions but cold hard science.

for a lot of other issues, unfortunately. It's particularly important at the Presidential/Senatorial level, because being pro-choice often comes bundled with a defense of Roe v. Wade. That, in turn, severely hinders good judicial nominations — people willing to read that sort of "emanation and penumbra" into the Constitution are unlikely to take any sort of principled stance on Constitutional limits to Federal power, etc.

The problem is that you had a chance to make a very important point but the people you were trying to reach are unlikely to be responsive because they don’t like the tone.

Which actually is a pretty good summation of the point that I think you were trying to say. Social conservatism, like it or not, has been successfully caricatured as mean and intolerant in the MSM and we risk playing into that misperception every time someone on our side publicly indulges in “you’re not 100% pure on this issue” game.

Remember the old saying (when we were the majority) about how “conservatives are looking for converts while liberals are looking for heretics”?

It’s an important lesson to keep in mind. The fact is we all pretty much knew this about Romney’s positions 12-years ago for quite some time. It’s old news and has been dissected and addressed ad nausea on this and other sites.

If you can accept that he had a sincere change of heart and that his actions as a pro-life governor are more important than what he may have said 12-years ago when running for the Senate, then we can move forward onto other issues.

If not, then you have other choices for a candidate whose every word that has been publicly spoken or written which you can scrutinize and pour over to your heart’s content.

It shouldn't matter where someone was yesterday, so long as they are with you today.

As someone who believes that the abortion issue is the number one issue facing America today, I've got no problem with anyone who changes their mind and becomes pro-life. But, that's my problem with Romney. His language and his actions have consistently shown that he'll do and say whatever is politically expedient at the time. Right now, it's politically expedient for him to be pro-life. But, what happens when he's elected president, a supreme court position opens and he's facing a Democrat Congress? I do not trust Romney to be strong and fight for a candidate to overturn Roe. I think he'd sell out and nominate some milktoast pseudo liberal like Souter. That's why I cannot support him.

Two questions. First, who are you supporting at this point? (Full disclosure, right now I'm a Rudy guy) Second, just what do you expect a President to do with respect to abortion? What's your best case scenario?
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

1. Brownback.

2. First, he should use the bully pulpit of the presidency to help renew American culture by supporting a culture of life. I want someone who is not afraid to talk about the moral issues facing our country. Second, he should appoint conservative, non-activist judges to all levels of the federal bench. Obviously, the Supreme Court is the most important and he must be willing to go all out for a good nominee who will vote to overturn Roe. Third, there's a host of federal legislation directly or indirectly related to abortion and promoting the culture of life in America. I expect him to support good legislation and veto bad legislation. See the National Right to Life website for the kind of federal legislation I'm talking about.

You should write a blog on this. I'd like to discuss it but it would be a major threadjack here. I think it would be interesting.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

nt

McCain has managed to offend social conservatives on a number of these issues

It's not just social conservatives, it's conservatives in general.

As for Giuliani, I'm not sure his position on non-social issues are any better than his position on social issues. We don't really know his position on anything at this point. I'm not even so sure he is in it for the long haul. He seems to be lagging behind Romney in McCain in seriousness about running. Maybe he's just looking to be a kingmaker.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

From reading about the 1994 campaign, Romney was a big deficit hater and its very reasonable to see him oppose Reagan and Bush economic policies. In reflection, I agree with Reagan's tax cuts but his deficit spending is unacceptable. I feel the same about Bush 43.

To be fair to Reagan he was dealing with a Liberal Congress and was over coming the years of inflation that occured under other people's watch.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

He was President of the United States, had a Republican Senate for 6 years, and still had the power to veto legislation that didn’t have a veto-proof majority.

Moreover, he never sent Congress a balanced budget and more damning IMO championed things like farm subsidies and entitlement spending while making meaningless noise about “government spending.”

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Clinton did not balance the budget by choice but through the force of Newt. I respect Reagan, but the record deficits he ran cannot be overlooked. Deficits serve as an excuse for Democrats to raise taxes.

A balanced budget is a sign that taxes are too high, I say.

Run like Reagan!

I've read the transcripts before and had serious doubts about Romney. But, the video is much worse. His tone and body language conveyed deeply held beliefs on abortion, etc. Either, he still secretly holds those beliefs or he's just your typical, slick, say-anything-to-get-your-vote politician.

Yep this is nothing new.

Name a single politician who has not ever disappointed his or her supporters by doing what they thought they needed to do while in office even when it contradicted what they promised they’d do during the campaign or what their supporters expected them to do if elected.

The constitution was kind of set up to create pragmatism. With a 2=party system and 2 houses of Congress and 3 branches of goverment, bargaining has to happen.

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***

Yes I think some of the ideological zealots on here forget that the Constitution itself was a compromise. Life is a compromise along with government. That is why pragmatic politicians make it farther.

You know the last politician who told me that he was big on compromise and bargaining, and against 'right-wing crazies' was? Governor Arnold "socialized medicine" Schwarzenegger himself.

And gee, what is Mitt known for in Massachusetts? Trying to bargain with the Democrats on that very issue, and getting burned by having them use HIS name to pass Hillarycare!

Run like Reagan!

This is what primaries are for. Primaries are to test candidates as much as anything. It is not a good idea to take it easy on our candidates in the primary, because however bad it gets in the primary, it will be much worse in the general. We need to see who can stand up to the abuse.

We need to wait until it becomes obvious who has the nomination before we get together and sing Koombaya.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

And the one that doesn't bode well for is McCain. He of the unstable temper.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

Rudy would be more fiscally conservative than Bush, more law and order conservative than Bush, and more confrontational with the press than Bush. Rudy would also be more electable than Romney and Rudy has a good shot at winning New York--Romney would not win his own state.

(Draft Fred Thompson!!)

Rudy will not win New York. Period. He won't even make it competitive.

1. He will make the Dems spend money here
2. He can win NJ and PA
3. He might, maybe make a dent in RI due to the large Italian population

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

Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan

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

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

Romney would probably put the Midwest into play though.

It's that simple folks, and yes he is VERY electable...smooth guy.

A little too smooth for my liking.

Why should I or anyone else believe that Romney has had a real conversion (apparently his second) to being pro-life? His "conversions" on this issue coincide with political expediency. Given his flip-flop-flip on abortion, why should I have confidence that, if elected, he'll stand up to a Democrat Congress and fight for a judge who will overturn Roe?

I would say it coincides with Romney's decision to look at the issue from a rational perspective aka science. Romney previously looked at abortion from an emotional personal perspective, a relative dying in a botched illegal abortion. When he looked at it from a scientific view, he came to the conclusion when life starts. I think in many respects if we would de-emotionalize the issue, we might have better success getting pro-life converts. The pro-life movement is too tied to religion for its own good. The scientific evidence is a very compelling case.

...Senator Kerry never stopped changing his opinions. To this day, we do not know what his true position was on the war*.

I say this strictly for historical purposes; I am a Romney agnostic.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

*No, really, we don't. The closest that we got was when he insisted that we could only go to war with a predefined mission and passing a global test; in other words, conditions such as could be found in the first Gulf War... which he voted against. And if he's ever repudiated that vote, it's news to me.

his disgust for the US military.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

Was busy lying to Congress, meeting privately with our enemies, and committing treason. We aren't talking about his positions in the 70s. We are talking about his conduct. You should be able to see the difference there.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

It is easy to waffle on this position because you are not born with a political system of beliefs of how the law should effect every situation. I realize this is your sacred cow but to not allow someone to ever change their mind is damaging to the cause.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

a fool. You are marking a line in the sand with a backhoe when a stick is the more appropriate tool.

In case you hadn't noticed, the natural political progression in life is to be liberal when you are young and become more conservative as you age and gain wisdom. Obviously it doesn't work in every case, but that is generally the way things work.

In the case of abortion policy, many if not most conservatives started out as pro-choice. In 1973 I was still a McGovern supporter and pretty close to being a socialist. When Roe was affirmed, my natural tendency was to accept it as good social policy because all of the politicians I admired said it was.

By 1980 I had begun to age and be exposed to both truth and wisdom. And by then, I was an ardent pro-life, conservative Republican who supported Ronald Reagan for my first Republican vote. As I recall, Reagan was at one time both a Democrat and pro-choice. He became an eloquent voice for life. Many of us here at RedState have made that journey.

If you managed to avoid it, good for you, but don't expect a break on your first comment from me, and I expect you won't get one from many others as well.

Don't take this as an attack from a Romneybot™, I happen - at this point - to be leaning to Rudy, but I would certainly give Romney a fair look when it comes time to actually make a decision.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

It is a KnownFact that anyone who is not dedicated to Romney's destruction must, of necessity, be secretly controlled by him and a mysterious conspiracy of Mormons. Take me, for instance. I have been to Utah several times, so that proves it.

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

the '60's.

OTOH, while I've never been in Utah, I've hauled a bunch of Mormon missionaries into my house to discuss their theology. Maybe they left some SparkleDust™ or something...
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

I have a couple weeks in Utah too. They must have got control of my mind somehow too.

These claims are about as stupid as the claims coming from the Kos people who wear tin foil on their heads.