Romney Rising: And this time, it's for real
By Alexham Posted in 2008 — Comments (205) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
There weren't many fireworks during last night's debate, but one candidate did stand out in a big way: Mitt Romney. He was good. Very good. Indeed, for the first time I thought to myself: "You know, this guy is pretty damn impressive. I think I will take that BMW after all." And his line about Bill Clinton "in the White House with nothing to do" was nothing short of priceless.
So, what happened? Why does Romney all of the sudden strike me as the best person to represent the Republican Party this fall in the presidential election?
Come with me below the fold.
It's really rather simple. I think we are finally seeing the real Mitt Romney: The smart, wonkish, well-mannered, technocrat, problem-solving businessman. That's who Mitt Romney is, and he has finally revealed his true persona to the rest of us. And I, for one, appreciate it.
Now, I know some of you are thinking: "Wait a second! Isn't Alexham a big SoCon? Why in the world would a guy who supports Huckabee be impressed by some business wonk?" Well, I'll tell you why: I appreciate and respect authenticity. I see it in Mike Huckabee, John McCain (to some degree), Barack Obama, and now in Mitt Romney. And authenticity is important because if someone is honest about who he is, the likelihood is that he will be honest with me about how he will deal with the issues I care deeply about. And the truth is, I don't think Romney is very comfortable discussing the SoCon agenda. That's just not his bag. I wish it was, but it's not; and every time he attempts to articulate the conservative viewpoint on social issues, it just comes off flat. Romney is at his best when he is engaged in wonkish problem solving, and issues like abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, and cloning, require a different, perhaps more holistic, approach. I am not saying that Romney cannot be an effective spokesperson for a "Culture of Life" in this country, but I don't think it comes naturally to him. In fact, were I Romney, I would have said something along these lines to SoCons from the very get go:
I realize that my record on social issues may strike some of you as spotty at best; and because of that many of you are reluctant to support me. I understand that completely. The truth is that I am a bit of a wonk. A business geek, if you will. Indeed, I've dedicated most of my life to solving problems in the business world. And while my personal views on life issues have always been fairly conservative, I am ashamed to say that I have not always stood up for my beliefs in the public square. This is something I deeply regret. Like many Americans, I am in a work in progress. And every day, I pray that God will mold me into the person I am meant to be.
That having been said, if you examine my record as governor of Massachusetts, you will find that I was one of the most prolife governors in that state's history. That may not seem like much to some of you, but I hope you can appreciate that I did take some strong stands for life in a state that is overwhelmingly prochoice. And while I understand that many of you will continue to have concerns about my commitment to promoting a "Culture of Life," let me be clear: I know how important these issues are to the prolife community, and I have great admiration for your selfless dedication to the most vulnerable members of our society. You can rest assured that I share your values on these issues, and I will stand by my campaign promises to you. Your priorities on life issues will be addressed when I am president. And while I may not be the most eloquent spokesperson on life issues, my actions will speak louder than words.
If he had said that to SoCons from the very beginning, I think he could have possibly prevented Fred Thompson from entering the race, avoided the Huckaboom, and won both Iowa and South Carolina. But what's done is done.
In any event, the bottom line is that Romney is now showing his true colors, and I think that's a extremely positive development for his campaign. As he goes forward, my hope is that he will be frank with SoCons about his overall record on life issues, let us know specifically what he will do as president to promote a "Culture of Life" in this country, and disclose who he will seek advice from on these issues as president.
Be who you are Mitt, and you may just become the next president of the United States.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Hillary's Rezko Humiliation Photo — Comments (6) »
Romney Rising: And this time, it's for real 205 Comments (0 topical, 205 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
and glad to see that this post has really summed him up so well. I think last night's debate showed that Romney really is the guy we want for the nomination, and my second choice, Guliani, would be a great attorney general.
...but he's the best we have at this point. I'm really glad he quit with his embarrassing pandering to values voters.
BTW, Intrade has Romney now at 60 to win Florida, McCain at 31.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I also felt that Romney had matured and presented himself very sincerely in last night's debate. I thought he was particularly effective when he reminded voters that he is a proud member of the foreign policy, economic, and social camps of the Reagan coalition.
I think that winning and losing on the campaign trail - in other words dedicating himself to becoming a better candidate (unlike Thompson and Giuliani) - has had a very positive impact on him.
Actually I think this long campaign has made all of our guys better candidates. Its helped that way.
There's no denying that Romney has had a rough time establishing himself accurately and favorably in the campaign thus far. There are lots of reasons for that, but I'll just say that it's nice to know that when the real Romney shines through, we've got the best person to lead the country.
He handled virtually all the questions (except the financial one) pretty well.
Though I still like Huckabee, Romney would be a palatable alternative.
McCain's stances on SCOTUS appointees made me wretch. Obviously, he's forgotten about the gang of 14 club! He's a hawk on defense, but his SCOTUS and McCain/Feingold nonsense would keep me from voting for him in the primaries. If he's the nominee, I'll vote for him... only because the Dem alternative is far, far worse.
Romney would definitely benefit from saying just what you said. But I hope he doesn't, we don't want a Biden/plagiarism meltdown. But I hope someone on his staff takes this statement to him and works up a paraphrase that covers all of the points you mention. I hope he delivers his version of this statement soon, definitely before February 5th.
Your diary qualifies as the nicest post by a Huckabee supporter yet. Thanks, we need more of these nice cross-over posts. There are far too many of the negative stripe.
Yes, and for what its worth, Huckabee was warm and friendly last night, and though his question for Romney was an 'attack' question, it was totally fair. All the awkward religious moments were manufactured by the moderators. The inheritance thing was lame but it wasn't as lame as everyone is saying.
Romney was great last night. He stood head and shoulders above the other candidates. For the life of me I cannot figure out why he has not been running as the "change" outsider this whole time. He has the resume to do it, but for some ridiculous reason he did not have the confidence to do it from the get-go. Thankfully he is doing it now and it is paying off.
I don't think the GOP has a chance in the general unless our candidate is truly an outsider who can change Washington. If Romney can overcome the bungled beginning of his campaign and make this stick, he will be in good shape.
I have said consistently that Romney is the most viable conservative voice out there.
No one is perfect, and nit-picking candidates to death is silly. To expect any person to be the exact mirror of ourselves is juvenile. The Republicans need to gather behind this man if they want to further their cause. Huckabee would be a disaster in the general election, Rudy is done, and McCain is nothing more than a soft Republican cake stuffed with creamy Democrat filling... and apparently, with a very long shelf life.
Romney is solid. Many of you mocked me for saying it, but he is solid.
To show no hard feelings, however, on the first day of the Romney administration, you can all come over my house for a cup of joe, and a few McCain cakes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“It must not be supposed that folly is as powerful as truth,
just because it can, if it likes, shout louder and longer than truth.”
--Augustine
I'm not a Ra Ra Romney guy but he's become my 1st choice with Fred gone. With the economy going down I clearly see the benefit a Romney Presidency would have. Maybe he could get fiscal con cred back for the GOP that Bush and Congress abandoned to try to buy votes. Plus he's got that outside Washington thing and needs to push that big time.
I'm ok with Rudy, too, but suspect Mitt will have more appeal nationally. I like him. There's something to be said for competence, and Mitt exudes it.
but I think McCain has a better shot at winning the general election (assuming he emerges from the primary).
I'm not a Romney supporter, but I'm ready to vote for him if necessary. Honestly, I will be using my vote as a defensive move to prevent the nomination of Huckabee. Huckabee is a nice guy, but unfortunately he is also a Reagan-democrat. I welcome their votes, but I don't want an actual Reagan-democrat headlining the GOP ticket in November.
there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress
--AuH2O--
Mitt Romney has proven his support for conservative policies can't take the pressure of defeat. The first time things don't go his way in Washington, against Reid and possibly Pelosi, just watch. He's already proven he'll bend as far left as he think he has to, by his sudden turn to 'change' in Michigan.
I don't see Giuliani bending under a hurricane, to be honest. I'd be shocked if he were different leaving office from how he entered.
Huckabee, ditto. He can't be bent a whole lot further left on economics, and every time he got challenged on social issues, he'd stiffen his back and fight on.
McCain, well, I honestly can't say with certainty how he'd govern as President, but I think it likely he's going to surprise a lot of RS readers.
All of the remaining four candidates will disappoint us after election.
Some are telling us now. Some are faking and will tell us later.
Either way, conservatives will be disappointed.
Disappointment implies not getting what you expected. I think it's clear exactly what we'll get from McCain, Giuliani, and Huckabee.
With Romney however, we have uncertainty.
I think the rational course here is to pick the guy who has the least downside. McCain's downside is well known and documented. Romney's is bottomless.
For those that are willing to gamble, Romney has a significant upside potential that doesn't exist with McCain.
Disagree. I think its hysteria to say that because Romney ran as a moderate in Mass. and governed as a moderate-conservative hybrid, and is now running as a conservative nationally, that there's some rational possibility that he's going to become a Nazi or Communist in office (which is what 'bottomless' means, yo). That's crazy talk.
And Romney has more upside than McCain. For instance, we know McCain will screw us on global warming. Romney probably won't.
Yeah, it safer to stuff your money under your mattress. You know for sure you won't lose it. But all told you're better off in a mutual fund.
With McCain you are guaranteed a lot of really bad stuff (carbon caps, for example), and you are taking a big risk at some horrible stuff (bad SCOTUS picks chosen with a CFR litmus test, tax hikes).
You are fooling yourself if you think you are limiting your risk with McCain. McCain is probably the least likely of the 4 to make good SCOTUS picks. Now that's what I would call downside. And you know you aren't going to get much upside with McCain, unless you think the stuff he's promising, like carbon caps, are good.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I'll add my obligatory "In my opinion, Giuliani is disqualified due to his social liberal standing", and I believe that trumps any "toughness" he may have. I'd rather have someone who is saying the right things and might actually deliver (Romney), than someone who refuses to change their (incorrect) positions at all (Huckabee, McCain, Giuliani). Wrong trumps consistency.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
He's already spent eight years governing in a toxic waste dump of the left and didn't move left.
Huckabee would "fight" on social issues. He'd have a love fest with Reid/Pelosi on everything else.
McCain would be McCain. Unreliable to the max.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
If I didn't think Giuliani would embarass and infuriate far more Republicans than McCain would, I'd flip my preferences on the two.
But when I look at the pro-life activist movement out there, and the dead-set opposition to Giulani there, I fear losing them more than I fear losing people like myself, heh.
If people like me were big enough in the party, I'd still backing Thompson and not having this conversation at all.
insisting on voting for Huckabee (their #1) even though they knew that other legs of the stool considered Huckabee their #5.
Fred was endorsed by many pro-life groups. He was the #2 for social conservatives, but he was also the #2 for foreign policy and #3 for economics.
Before this election, I never used the words "their" or "they" to describe social conservativces. I am pro-life and I am a social conservative.
I am expected not to vote for Rudy since that will split the coalition and treat social conservatives like second class citizens. Yet, 30% of the South Carolina voters were not will to go with their #2 instead of their #1 in order to keep the party united.
Huckabee supporters actually treated the other parts of the Reagan coalition worse than the Rudy supporters. I know many Rudy supporters who were concerned about preserving the coalition and were open to other options. Huckabee supporters insisted on making the other legs subservient to social issues, and thus we will end up with a candidate who is neither #1 nor #2 for social conservatices.
This social conservative, and plenty of other social conservatives, have always backed candidates with lesser pro-life credentials than Huckabee (Thompson, Romney, McCain), precisely because we don't want to boot the rest of the coalition.
And the speed and success with which Huckabee tacked to the right in SC and presented himself as a genuine conservative.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
Well I mean would it be so terrible if he as President, got together with the Dems and the GOP and they broked a Real deal on something? and by that I mean a piece of legislation that will not cause an entire group of voters to jam Congressional phone lines over in protest of the bill.
If he can put together people that will work the problem and not run out to the tv cameras declaring they can't reach a deal because both sides go in and dig in and won't cave, then more power to him.
One of the problems with Reid and Pelosi is they just dig in and don't want to work, Bush as well, they all talk about bi-partisanship and I think it was Fred Thompson that said something of the sort about they all go into their respective corners and pull out the knives, if we keep doing that we don't get anything done, so if Romney as President gets them to actually work on a real workable deal, that everyone likes, then I don't think I'd be disappointed in him.
There in is the rub. the pattern for going on 100 years now is that the Dems hold their ground because the Repubs ill eventually cave. This is the way socialism has crept up on us as it has. I say enough. When Dems and Repubs get together on anything...Bend over cause we're getting screwed. Better to have nothing happn than to keep losing ground!
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
I'm speaking of Democrats over the long haul. My point wasn't made well.
We win victories and they keep coming back for another bite of the apple. The ultimately win when we compromise because they advance the ball toward their goal.
My problem isn't with taking whatever yardage we can get it's that we're always playing on the Dem's side of the fifty yard line. We're always going for a little less socialism instead of playing on our side of the fifty yard line and rolling back the socialist policies we already have. As long as we always play defense they always advance the ball toward their goal.
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
I wasn't happy with his Michigan pander, but I think you blow that out of proportion.
Second, John McCain has a long, illustrious, and PROVEN record of stabbing conservatives in the back and sidling up with Democrats and the mainstream media.
I'll take Romney in that situation.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
You say "stabbing conservatives in the back" as though McCain said one thing and did another, surprising you with a betrayal.
That's not true at all. Not true. He is who he is, and has been for years. He doesn't stab anyone in the back. He's completely open about his positions that aren't in line with conservatism. He's not one, never has been, and hasn't pandered as one, either.
...as them more accurate term would be "stabbing them in the front".
Some people like the honesty. I just don't like getting stabbed so much.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Romney has demonstrated that he is capable of frequent vetoes, and that he can deal with negative press. He also seemed to do a decent job of negotiating the legislature in Mass.
Can McCain point to a even a single concession he ever received from the Ted Kennedy? Does anyone think McCain will do a better job of negotiating with Democrats in Congress than Romney.
A big X Factor for McCain is how he reacts to negative press. He received pretty favorable press throughout this process. How will he react with the MSM inevitably makes things difficult for him. Will he (a) go further left, (b) get increasingly frustrated and ineffective, or (c) go right in defiance?
I think (b) is almost certain, with a several touches of (a). No chance of (c)
While McCain has been steadfast against abortion. So yes, I think Romney is capable of bending much further left than McCain's ever, ever gone.
That was a court ordered mandate in Massachussetts that would have been a veto that would have been easily overridden in Mass. Would you prefer no health care bill at all?
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
and made them override him. He would've still gotten the health care bill he negotiated AND would've made a statement.
Romney thenis someone who breaks his campaign promises not to change any abortion laws in Mass. That sets up more of the untrustworthy stuff. Mitt Romney kept all of his campaign promises, and it would have been a huge waste of political capital for a sure override. There's nothing about Romney that suggests NewTone as much as Huckabee and McCain's Bipartisanship.
f you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
He was negotiating with these people to get something through, why waste his capital on something he had no ability to win, that in the minds of most of the Dems in the statehouse would have been completely off topic?
same line of reasoning they have used to skewer Huck.
*Sheesh* the IQ and hypocrisy level here continues to rise.
And I also forgot how Arkansas was as liberal as Massachusetts. Huckabee did not just sign increases, he campaigned for them. How's that Kool-Aid tasting?
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
Oh wait... Mitt called them "fees". Additionally, the point is that Huckabee is constantly chastised here for not "taking a stand" and "spending his political capital" in fights he couldn't win. Looks like apples to apples to me.
The kool-aid is good. Hows the coffee?
Mitt did not raise taxes ever. Look in his record and show me where he rasied taxes. He raised fees on things that hadn't been raised in years, like parking tickets and boating yachts. In addition, because he's not clueless on economic matters, he alos turned a surplus every year and left Mass with a 2 billion dollar surplus, which Deval Patrick I'm sure has already squandered. Furthermore, what political capital did Huck spend in fights he couldn't win. Like the time he campaigned to rasie taxes (show me where Mitt campaigned for a tax increase), or the time where he issued 1033 pardons and commuttations as governor (Mitt had 0), or the time where he opposed vouchers (which is why he got the NEA endorsement). The coffee is good-keeps me on my toes about distorted records.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
Mike raised taxes on stuff like cigarettes and alchohol. The sales tax raise was less than a penny although CFG only refers to it by saying 37% because that makes it sound like more. The taxes Mike raised still left Arkansas taxes lower than those in Mass. Huckabee left Arkansas with 800 million in surplus.
Bottom line:
Mitt raised 300 million in "FEES" over four years. "Fees" are just another word for "taxes" my friend.
Mitt also closed 300 million in tax "loopholes" I bet the people who paid after that considered it a tax increase? You think?
Mitt's own site says the surplus was 1 billion not 2.
Smoke em if you got em.
or economics because there's no mention of God or abortion, let me break it down for you. I'll go slow for you...taxes (are you still with me?) are something that affects everyone. A tax is something that everyone has to pay, regardless of whether they use the service or not. This is the basic definition. Fees...are something that only affects the people that use the services. Is paying 10 dollars for a marraige certificate as opposed to 5 dollars unreasonable in an economy where the costs have risen? Not to most reasonable people. You don't make money with regressive pricing, and indeed that is partially why Massachusetts was in a trillion dollar deficit. You really want to quibble about the surplus Romney left? How much was your guys? And by the way, just in addition because I know all you people care about it abortion and gay marriage-Rudy had less abortions performed as mayor of NYC than than the Huckafraud did as governor. See there-I even let you in on one of the only 3 topics you people understand.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
Your definition of taxes is
a. ludicrous
b. misleading
c. strange
d. All of the above?
Look it up. Plenty of taxes only effect sub groups of the population. Let me give you a few:
Property taxes: only those who own property
alchohol taxes: only those who drink
Income taxes: only those who get income
State taxes: only those who live in a state
Tobacco taxes: only those who use tobacco.
Do you wan't me to continue?
If you read my post rather than spouting off you would know I mentioned in it the size of the surplus left by Huckabee.
Homework assignment. Read carefully before posting.
Until then, you can keep drinking your Jesus juice and enjoy your economic FairTax koolaid. You want to see economic policies that are never going to be implemented feel free to pick Pastor Huckafraud. The point is that Mitt Romney did not raise taxes on the whole population of Massachussetts as mandated by the government. Huckabee did, and cry all you want but both the Cato Institute and the CFG (I know they're biased) have given Huckabeee atrociuios ratings, lower than mnay Democrats, where Mitt has done well. Now we can quibble about what is or isn't a tax-or you can come up with proof other than the Kool-Aid you guys are drinking than Huckabee has an inkling of a clue when it comes to economics. And if you think the FairTax works, than you are even more lost than I originally thought. How is that post Iowa bump working out by the way?
Your homework assigment:don't be a tool
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
Like many you resort to name calling and strident replies when presented with the facts.
You may like your guy and that's ok. I like mine and that's ok. Unlike some I try and look at it fairly not with bias. Mitt will be my choice if Huck drops out but I still don't like the hypocrisy.
Keep your eyes closed if it helps you sleep well at night.
Peace
Perhaps its not you, but the whole socon wing of the party that irritates me for putting abortion and gay marriage above everything. Not to mention the fact I'm extra cranky this morning because I'm snowed up North and not home in Texas yet. The point that I have been attempting to continue to make is that Huckabee has no grasp outside of tax and spend on how to run an economy, and has a terrible history of working with anyone who disagrees with him (Shiite Republicans). In a nice way, I am tryingto explain the FairTax is regressive, and would require a repeal of the 16th amendment which will never happen. Mitt has proven himself of being a turnaround economic leader not just as governor, but as head of 3 major companies Bain Capital, Bain & Company, and the Olympics Committee. Fiscally, I have no faith in Huck especially when his priority is to mold the Consitutionto fits God's standards,whatever that may be.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
taxes. To say that they only affect those who are directly taxed is to ignore the downstream effects. To whit: Property taxes are also dispersed on down to renters, state taxes affect who will and who won't build factories and other corporate entities in a state, etc. The fact is that ALL taxes affect all of us in some way. Don't give homework assignments until you have done yours.
I would argue not wholly so. However in the context of our discussion BR was attempting to differentiate betwen "taxes" and "fees".
Cleary what you say above holds true of "fees" also and thus proves my point about Romney.
Additionally I would still argue there are some that do not effect everyone and if you wish to continue that conversation it will be hard to do so in this ever shrinking thread.
On the homework I would likewise mention that I only suggest BR peruse my post before replying.
Good day.
even if you want them to be.
The dictionary definitions are not the same.
FEE: a payment for services
TAX: a charge against a citizen's person or property or activity for the support of government
If what Mitt Romney raised were fees to cover the cost of providing services then those were fees. If he instead had raised taxes for the general support of government then those would be taxes. There are taxes and there are fees. They are different. They are not the same. The words have different meanings. One cannot be substituted for the other unless you are in politics where words don't mean what the dictionary definition says they mean.
Some infer that Mitt will break his current campaign promises because he did not veto the abortion line in the law. As we know that was based on an old law that due to judicial ruling was placed in the new law. Had Romney vetoed that line, he would have broken his 2002 campaign promise of a moratorium to the MA voters that he would not loosen or tighten the current abortion laws in MA. Paint it how you will, he chose to be consistent on his previous campaign promise which is what most of us would like to see out of him now.
It's a court ordered mandate. Thunder has kindly reprinted all of it in a diary-nothing about 50 dollar abortions, contrary to the Huckabots claimsm
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
My point still stands, any effort Romney was supposedly expected by many folks here to do on that issue would have broken his 2002 campaign promise.
I prefer my Presidents to have some backbone and stand up for the executive branch against the judiciary.
Um, the only reason gay couples cannot go to MA, get married, and then return to their home states to challenge their marriage in court is because of the Romney Administration. Romney fought the activist courts in MA to the bitter end over gay marriage, and while he couldn't overturn their decisions he at least stopped the spread of their madness. And you call him a supporter of judicial supremacy?! Give me a break, this is exactly the guy I want to in the White House to fight back the arrogant judiciary.
So the next President should just call out the troops and start shutting down abortion clinics? The Supreme Court has said otherwise in Roe, but we should just ignore that, right?
Even Abraham Lincoln accepted the Dred Scott decision. What you propose is a revolution from above. Its not conservative and its not justified.
Taking this a bit far aren't you? The Romney Administration tactfully used an old MA law to prevent an activist state judiciary from imposing its will and values on the American people. Thats good legal work and an appropriate way to check the power of a separate branch of the gov't, not some military coup that you are talking about.
Romney could have thrown his hands in the air and said, "There is nothing I can do. The MA Sup. Ct. has spoken." But instead he made every effort to legally check their power. Thats impressive.
This is another issue I'm sick of. Since when does one branch of government overrule the other two? The courts have no ability to enforce their rulings without the Executive branch. Andy Jackson had a great rejoinder when the Supreme ruled against something he'd done. He said "Let them enforce it"!
I've seen Huckabee and Romney both fall back on the "It was court ordered" as a defense. It's nothing more than a duck for politicians to acomplish unpopular goals without having to face the popular will!
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
Real presidents respect the roles of the other branches of government even when those other branches are wrong.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
The power to appoint and the power to impeach are in the hands of branches other than the judiciary can both be used to fix the judiciary. Simply ignoring them when you don't like their decisions is not the proper way you do it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
The Constituion doesn't grant the Courts the authority just to ignore the President and the Congress, after all.
So if they're going to take that authority for themselves, to ignore duly passed laws because they feeel the laws to be unconstitutional, then the President and the Congress ought to have the same authority to ignore unconstitutional rulings of the courts.
Are the branches equal, or not?
Not only can the executive ignore the courts when it thinks they are wrong, it can ignore the legislature. If the executive doesn't like legislation passed by the legislature, vetoes it, then gets overridden, it can just ignore that too, right? Claim it is unconstitutional, or something. What's the legislature going to do about it? How are they going to enforce it? The executive has the enforcement powers. If the branches are free to ignore each other, power would get concentrated very quickly in the branch with the enforcement powers. I'm not interested in going down that road.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
like the last one, but right now we have 5 oligarchs that can be overthrown bloodlessly.
See new comment in new thread below with Lincoln on Dred on Jackson on Douglas on the Bank Act case.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
Because the other two branches of the government have ceded their powers to an overreaching judiciary. The idea of checks and balances depends on two coequal branches of the government being able to over ride the third. The idea that a bill could go through both houses of Congress and be signed by the President and the Supreme Court could overthrow the law and the will of the people's representatives is tyrannical and and Constitutional.
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
Attempting a veto that would've been a certain override is a tremendous waste of political capital. I don't see the point in it, especially if you think you can get their support on something in the future.
No offense to the SoCons here, but a veto in MA on something like that would be about all the Dems would need to draft articles of impeachment.
"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk
Romney is going to be over a legislature that if finally not 90 percent Democrat, and he will govern as the conservative he is, not stepping on eggshells in liberal Mass
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
... no, they won't have a veto-proof majority. And even if they did, it'd be far more ephermal than one in MA.
All you need is a majority in the House to impeach. You need 2/3rds in the Senate to convict, however.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
We can raise all sorts of examples where McCain has veered left when there was a Republican President and Republicans controlled both chambers of comerce.
I would support Rudy except that I don't want to see the Reagan coalition suffer any more damage i
If I had a clear way of quantifying that for objective wager resolution I'd put money down right now.
Can you document an example of when McCain has *changed* a stated position leftward, though? All the cases I know of him working with Democrats, he agreed with them all along.
conservative rating throughout his career? In particular, since 1997, the slide seems automatic and built into who he is. The global warming energy tax is the natural result of the slide.
I don't share your trust of McCain. The fact that McCain cannot (to my knowledge) point to any concessions he obtained from Kennedy and company means to me that he is not an effective negotiator.
Romney may shift left, but he would do a better job at getting some concessions for democrats.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
My point is as I understand it, the passed Insurance bill. It didn't give the specific of what was covered. There was nothing in the bill about abortion.
In Mass if you have insurance, you are required to be covered for abortion by state law (made by the court). So its a stretch to say abortion was in the bill.
The question becomes: Why didn't he fight that ruling the way he fought the marriage ruling? Was it prior to his administration?
My understanding was that this was a more than 20 year old ruling in Mass, it came up long before Romney was in office.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
is you wish that Romney would have put up a fight on something we know he would have lost just to make a statement. He would have lost it, because the court already has mandated it, not because he wouldn't have had enough votes.
This veto wouldn't have any effect in MA since the whole state is basically pro-choice, so it would have been a statement for out of state voters. Isn't that exactly what Alexham is complaining about?
He damned if he panders, he's damned if he doesn't.
The Ds made it clear they wouldn't tolerate his meddling with their compromise, but he made four easily overridden vetoes anyway. What's one more?
he had a plausible argument to the people of Mass, but he had no argument for the abortion veto, other than he was show boating.
Maybe there's an argument for governors overriding court orders, like Andrew Jackson with the Cherokees, but I'm pretty dubious about it myself.
Apparently the abortions weren't even part of the bill.
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/thunder/2008/jan/25/there_was_nothing_in_r...
how much further left can you get when you are promoting amnesty for illegal aliens, Social Security credit for illegal aliens, criminal trials for terrorists, stem-cell research on human embryos, global warming legislation and campaign finance laws? To say nothing of voting against the Bush tax cuts, voting against a marriage amendment to the Constitution, and voting against drilling in Alaska.
A democrat in the White House could hardly do much worse.
McCain hasn't asked for concessions because he hasn't wanted them. These liberal bills he sponsors aren't the best deal he can get. They're what he actually wants.
among candidates who each have their own particular flaws.
I don't think I can support the person who I know wants to do things I wont like over the person who at least is giving voice to what I want him to do.
Also, we have no idea how McCain will react when the media turns on him. He has been running with the wind at his back for much of the last 10 years. What happens after the reversal.
He is not Fred (yes still a Fredhead) but he was very good last night, and he has become my 2nd choice (well now 1st choice unless a brokered convention)
He seemed more real last night and not near as plastic. He is a brilliant businessman and if he can connect with voters on a personal lever, he will win, not just the nomination but the whole thing.
"What would Reagan do?"
I actually, honest to God, agreed with something Mittens said.
I loved it when, during the debate, Romney proudly admitted that he led a compromise between pro-gun and anti-gun groups. Ooops, there goes the 2nd amendment! But look I can work with liberals! Or Mitts opening answer to the "stimulus" package put forth by the Bush admin, saying that it wasn't enough, that the fed should pull this lever, squeak that horn, and twist that nipple, to coax capitalism along. Until Huckabee put him in his place by clarifying that this package would stimulate China more than us. And further, that the role of Government in stimulating the economy is to grease the skids of it's own infrastructure, (AKA widen I95 from Bangor to Miami) not try to reach into privately held infrastructure, or checkbooks. "Positive" reinforcement in the form of giving people money is just as bad as the "negative" reinforcement of taking it away, because they both involve the word "enforcement". Which reminds me, I stumbled on a past post from RedState that made me laugh out loud. A Massachusettes resident had just recieved their Romneycare paperwork in the mail instructing them on their personal health insurance options and some proudly defended Mitt by stating that this was not socialized medicine! They were still in the "this is a nice hot tub" phase of the frog slowly coming to boil scenario.
Link to referenced RS post: http://www.redstate.com/blogs/eabo_clipper/2008/jan/05/received_my_romne...
I support Governor Mike Huckabee for President.
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
Until Huckabee put him in his place by clarifying that this package would stimulate China more than us. And further, that the role of Government in stimulating the economy is to grease the skids of it's own infrastructure, (AKA widen I95 from Bangor to Miami) not try to reach into privately held infrastructure, or checkbooks.
eworthi
Except for tax cuts, business included, I'm not sold on any stimulus package but we'll see.
Huckabee pandered, don't kid yourself. If the stimulus is supposed to be immediate, how is a infrastructure package going to help in the next two months? His stimulus wouldn't take hold for a couple years becuse of planning etc.
He should have said to put them to work building a border fence instead, THAT would be immediate.
That for me is the whole point, what exactly happened in the past few weeks that makes "stimulus" needed? Government should keep its cool and work the long term plan, not pander to the emotions of a stock exchange with a quesy stomach, or a bunch of over-extended mortgage holders (of which I am one), and the other candidates pandered to that "Mr fix it" gimme gimme crowd, but Huckabee did not.
I liked that Huckabee insisted that he get to address the FairTax's impact on Social Security too, even though Russert tried to shut him down with "it won't happen" and "it's effect is too long term", that's baloney, I don't want the Fed to be a fire department, or a Mr Fix It addressing every bump in the market. I do want the Fed to address true emergencies, like how Huckabee kept his cool during Katrina and handled over 75,000 refugees being welcomed into his state.
I support Governor Mike Huckabee for President.
And if you like the hot tub, you'll love the Kool-Aid!
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
to Mitt with Fred gone. Being a conservative in NJ and vactioning in cape cod a lot, I feel for any Republican in either of these states. I don't think people have a full understanding of how crazy Mass is, these people are just backwards. It's one of the reasons I shrug when people look at his record, it's not a true litmus test. Holding one's ground in that state is a giant win forget trying to advance positions.
I am glad to see you warming to Romney, but this line I don't agree with
It's really rather simple. I think we are finally seeing the real Mitt Romney: The smart, wonkish, well-mannered, technocrat, problem-solving businessman. That's who Mitt Romney is, and he has finally revealed his true persona to the rest of us. And I, for one, appreciate it.
This is what we all saw in Romney in 94 who have followed, and I understand you are not approving of his pro-life shift or whatever, but I don't think he ever stopped being that smart technocrat. I don't know how many times I have seen him speak live, maybe 30+ times in the last year and a half, and can't remember a single time he hasn't come off wonkish.
Actually his stump speech is nearly exactly the same as his campaign kickoff speech last February.
But here's my point: Because of his spotty record on social issues, his initial focus was to rebrand himself as a staunch SoCon. And it is just didn't work. It made him look like a phony.
I am not suggesting that he ever stopped being wonkish. I am saying that his real personality got lost in a fake persona.
I don't think that makes him a bad person. It just means he was given some crappy advice, and made a mistake in following it.
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
no denying it, some people liked it and some didn't. Part of the problem was that in competing in IA, every single meeting he was asked where he stands on Abortion and Marriage. There were thousands of emails sent out about Romney being a real danger. He had to give some push back or else he would have been quickly dismissed.
I have an email from Gary Glenn saying his plan was to force Romney into flip flopping as much as possible to discredit him. He did, but fortunately Romney was the better, and smarter man.
Not sure how the positive and negatives weigh out, but I think they had to make a choice. It wasn't like he chose his message in a vacuum, there was serious pressure on all sides.
I am not sure your solution for an answer is all that much different than what he said. BUT...I definitely appreciate this post.
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
Michigan was the state where Romney could finally be the Romney that I believed in-Mr. Fix it, a persona he's going to ride to the White House. My criticism of him since I became a supporter was for him to shut up about abortion and gay marraige and push Huck back on its the economy (stupid), which Huck has nowhere near the credibility that Romney does. Romney the businessman is why he will win in an election where everyones nervous about the economy-this is Mitt's passion, and its why hes going to win Fla.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
He knows who is going to elect him, and it's not the Independents or Democrats. His push is toconservatives, and we will leave him like a stuck pig if he pulls a NewTone, McCain style. On the other hand, you can be sure that McCain will not rebrand-he will be the same pain in the side to conservatives he's always been. I can't wait to see what Cabinet position he has for Drunken Uncle Teddy.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
And that's what scares me about McCain (among other things). There is a real question as to whether he'll serve more than one term given his age.
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
We don't have to support a thrid party, we will just stay home and ensure he does not get re elected. Not to mention Ross Periot was effectivly the primarying of GHW Bush-unfortunately for him, it was a general election primarying. Neil, I have never seen you so unbelieveably angry at Romney for this whole Michigan thing. I still think your way overreacting, especially when all of your attacks are the same sort of attacks you used to defend Romney from most of the primary season.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
My defense against those attacks was "He follows through." But he's already repudiated one of the big reasons I backed him through Iowa and New Hampshire, making a fool out of me for defending him all this time against the flio-flopping charges.
I still maintain that he did not personally promise 20 million to the Big three, but 20 million to invest in research, which I think is inf act a good thing. Michigan is personal for him, and his business sense is that investing in a way to reinvigorate mIchigans economy is a worthwhiel investment. Certiain not something that Jennifer Granholm cares about. Trust me, I live partially in Michigan-the economy is awful and Granholms high tax policies are driving jobs to other states and overseas. Perhaps that's why I am more sympathetic because I have a persepcetive of someone who lives here.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
He's going to creat jobs through investment, and at the end of the day, he's a businessman who has run 3 giant companies, if you count the Olympics as the 3rd. He knows that the way to keep jobs here is not through "fair trade", but through cutting corporate taxes and creating incentives for companies to want to keep their businesses in America, which is why he proposed the largest corporate tax cut of all the candidates.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
Mitt Romney's stance (and it's mine as well) is that we are not boosting our economy as long as we are bought and paid for by the Chinese economy. He means that we need to create our own jobs and have less dependence on China to fund our economy. Come on Neil-do you really see Romney, the populist?
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
If he thinks promising lower taxes on imports will win, he'll do that.
If he thinks promising higher taxes on imports will win, he'll do that, too.
That's what I see.
Romney's shtick is that he's in the private secotr and knows the economy. Why would he then look to solutions that he knows kill the economy in times where a recession is feared?
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
Guys like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have no problem endorsing policies that would make it harder for others to follow their paths.
Of course that's what they support. Mitt Romney has never once said, I don't want anyone to ever be successful so i'm going to tax you all to death. I guess I'm just disappointed that you're so disappointed Neil, you always are my favorite person to disagree with, but it was nice to be on the same side for awhile.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
The Dems have taxed Michigan into oblivian and Romney wants the Federal government to bail them out? never mind the obvious issue of whether it's even the Federal government's place to bail Michigan out but why in the hell would you bail out a Dem controlled debacle so they can hide the fact that their policies were a failure?
"Hey, the liberals are in trouble....Send Mitt to ride to the rescue"!
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
What Mitt said was that he will invest 20 million in research in an industry that directly affects Michigan. And yes, it's nice for someone to put effort into improving a situation rather than letting those of us who did not vote for Granholm suffer because she is a disaster. When we invest reasearch into improving an industry, we are successful-its how we have the best military and health care in the world, and it's how we were able to put the first man on the moon. We will invest on alternative energy, and we will begin making our own cars and exporting them. Mitt's whole stance on fair trade in Michigan has to do with the fact that he does not support strengthening China's economy at the expense of our own, which is what he meant by supporting trade deals that our fair. He never lined up and said here's 20 million for the Big 3-spend it how you want.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
Isn't that the spin Slick Willy put on increased spending in the 1990s? If you insist I will use your term for it.
Show me anywhere from any free market economist like Friedman, Rand, etc that calls for "Investment" in certain industries by the Federal Government. Show me any article of the Constitution or Constitutional Amendment that calls for or authorizes "Investment" in any industry by the Federal Government! Anti Huck fanatics always play the..."He's and economic Liberal" as an excuse for their opposition but they ignore their own candidate's liberal policies. That dog won't hunt any more.
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
We invest billions in military research every year-it's part of the budget. What I see that we would do would be to cut wasteful spending and redirect some of the money that we have saved into reaserching creating alternative sources of energy, which would allow us to make cars and produce our own fuel, which would mean to don't have import small gas effieceint cars anymore, saving us boatloads of money every year.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
He is not a fiscal conservative. He really isn't. I don't care how the bail out of Detroit is viewed it is still government intervention. He not only wants to stimulate the economy he wants to double what is being done now. He came very close to telling the folks in South Carolina he would bail out the textile industry. When his campaign was failing he reached into his own pocket and spent more money. I do think Mitt would throw money at our greatest problems. I really do. It is how he understands success. His signature company, Bain, was about the bottom line, and so is he. He is a succesful business man, but hardly a fiscal conservative. Rudy is a fiscal conservative and so I McCain. I happen to agree with McCain, the Bush tax cuts failed because there was not spending restraints added to them. I will say this, Romney is not a bad choice and I will support him. But he is not a fiscal conservative nor a social conservative. He is a good man, but in my opinion not our best candidate. I too lean toward Mike Huckabee, also not a fiscal conservative, but I love the fair tax plan. It not only will work, it can be implemented. However, all that said my first choice is John McCain, because of electability issues. All four would make fine presidents. But let's look at this objectively.
We were sold the "Electable" bill of goods with Boob Dole and look where that got us. If McCain's the guy I expect to see him with the same deer caught in the headlights look when his MSM buddies turn on him once he's the Republican Nominee.
He's untested by negative press and I fully expect to see him melt down like he did in Michael Reagan's show in 2000 once he's pushed.
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
I am solely thinking in terms of who can beat Hillary Clinton. The fate of the Supreme Court and emanating rights that could be found by a couple of Hillary nominees is what will drive my decision.
Last on my list now is Guiliani. His social policies are anathema to me and he can put whomever he wants on his "judicial nominee committee". I simply do not trust him on the vital marriage issue.
I won't support Paul solely because clearly he can't win. I'm not negative on him as the GWOT crowd is.
I fear Huckabee can't win either because of anti-Christian bigotry, although I trust him the most on social issues.
That leaves me with McCain and Romney. I fear McCain will go Goldwater on us on social issues in his old age and he let us down on the marriage amendment and he's too accomodating on the judicial nominee issues. I worry with Romney that anti-religion bigotry will hurt him in the fall.
I applaud those who have made a decision. I'm just not there yet.
But I wish we had established a solid cast of fiscal and socially conservative Governors, particularly in the Midwest, Southwest or Southeast over the past several years. Jeb was pretty much disqualifed because of the Bush dynasty issue. Owens in Colorado I guess was scarred by the divorce? Barbour was too new and too busy post-Katrina, plus would receive the dreaded "lobbyist" tag. But, we really don't have a solid cast of Republican Governors ready to roll in 2008.
After watching that wallpaper hanging exhibition last night here are my impressions:
1) Tim Russert is a tool. A certified tool. I'm no fan of Romney, but his ridiculous scourging of Romney over the money he has spent was over the line. His idiotic question of "how would you beat Hillary Clinton?" was such Clinton promotion that I wonder if Hillary transfered the funds last night.
2) Mike Huckabee looked tired and worn down. Didn't have the buoyancy he normally does. Mitt Romney was just plain boring. He gives textbook answers, unfortunately he sounds like he's actually reading the textbook. Ron Paul was Ron Paul, nuff said. Rudy is unflappable. When stuck with the Russert Cuban refugee question he didn't even blink and replied with certainty and calmness. John McCain looked like he was in the catbird seat. Grinning the entire time with calm, relaxed effortless answers.
3) Those who "needed" to win last night did not show any flashes of anything.
4) There just seemed to be an air of somberness over the entire proceeding. No one except McCain looked relaxed and comfortable. The entire debate felt tense, and the moderators were clearly unhospitable and ungracious.
Unfortunately the candidates came away NOT being the story.
The story was in fact the moderators and their obssesive need to be noticed. I felt as if Russert and Williams were putting ona show of themselves for their buds in the MSM. Clearly Russert was out to prove he was the toughest questioner in the MSM and Williams was out to prove how intellectually suave he was. It was a pathetic display.
The night proved to be a complete dud.
NOTE: It has become uncomfortably clear that Romney speaking at media events is full-on, hardcore porn for Hugh Hewitt. I tend to think the man, once he completes his post-debate commentary, lights a cigarette and basks in "after-glow".
"Strength and Honor."
"What we do in life, echoes in eternity."
not one question on immigration? I like Jeff Sessions' list of questions and hope somebody has to answer it. My question to McCain, if he knows about border security: How come a Democratic Gov takes a stronger position on this than you? Since it seems to be working, why won't you back this position if that's what your state wants?
But they never asked any questions about it. It also happens to be the issue that's weakest for temporary media darling McCain and especially for the real media darlings, the Democrats. Biased much?
I almost spilled my coffee from that. I know that Hugh is a little over the top, but the imagery from that was great.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
"It's really rather simple. I think we are finally seeing the real Mitt Romney: The smart, wonkish, well-mannered, technocrat, problem-solving businessman. That's who Mitt Romney is, and he has finally revealed his true persona to the rest of us. And I, for one, appreciate it."
I agree. If he had run as himself from the get go, I might have considered him more. He has also done a better job of mitigating his negatives (unlikeability due to inauthenticity) than McCain has (reassuring on issue positions).
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I, like you, am hoping this Mitt - the one I got to see as MA GOV, behind enemy lines so to speak - decides to stick around.
A most welcome development that I've been asking for, frankly, since about October. Better late than never, I suppose.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
It took me a few seconds to get it, then I bust up.
Also, I like your draft speech. I think its probably the real explanation. And I like the idea of an apology.
Romney was always my #2, and with Fred gone (after a period of mourning and depression) I've moved him up to #1 and really hope he wins.
There is such a large gulf for me between Fred/Romney and the others that I really hope I don't have to move again. And I hope Romney can get Fred as VP. Now that would make my little heart pitter patter once again.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 01/25/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Very good post, Alexham. I think you're probably right. Romney, as a businessman, wasn't typically concerned with social issues because when it comes down to it, that's not where his experience is. And that's fine with me.
That's not to say that social issues didn't matter. It's just that in his career, that's one of the things he rarely had to address. That's just how it is.
But Romney does take the right positions on social issues. And I think his answer to Huckabee's 2nd Amendment question was extremely impressive. I was a little shocked at how good it was because quite frankly, I felt like 2nd Amendment issues were a weak spot for him...and I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Romney supporter.
He is becoming more and more Presidential the longer this process goes on. And with Fred out of the race, Huckabee down in FL, Romney is becoming very appealing to the SoCon base. I think he's got what it takes.
Frankly, should Romney win the nomination, I'll be twice as excited about him as I was Bush in 2004.
He is not an ideologue. He is a problem-solver generally traditional values.
When I looked at Mitt from an ideological perspective, I saw an opportunistic flip-flopping pol.
When I looked at him as a problem-solver I recognized a patriot competently working for solutions generally based on traditional values I share.
I have presently concluded that the latter is the true Mitt.
And I presently find I prefer the good and competent problem solver to the ideologue, even though it is only the ideologue that satisfies the craving for certainty. Yes, Mitt the problem-solver puts preferred factional outcomes at risk by critically examining all sides. I can't justify my intuition but I feel that Mitt will make this approach pay off for us. Perhaps it is because I find I can identify with his values and articulated thought processes, that I am personally committed to this approach, and that his successes testify to his skill in applying this approach. Whatever.
Regardless of the varied inclinations that compete to determine our candidates, it is a relief discover that our varied perceptions of them may be reconcilable after all. This builds good faith and respect. Thanks for that Alexham.
Are these his true colors or the rainbow of colors we've been treated to up till now?
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
I understand a lot of conservatives want a win, but what does it profit America to win an election and lose our souls?
Romney and McCain are liberals masquerading as conservatives to get elected. If either one is elected, they will go left faster and sooner than George W did.
I prefer that if we must have a liberal in the White House, let it be a Democrat so the Republican party isn't tainted by their liberalism, and can take back the White House and Congress after 4 years with true conservative leadership.
As for Romney being a good choice because of his business experience, I see his "business experience" about as relevant as Hillary's White House experience. Being a venture capitalist doesn't come anywhere close to the daily running of a business where you have to make payroll for people you know and work with, deal with competitors that you go to church and/or Kiwanis with, and respond to, and retain customers. For that matter, Huckabee having to do exactly that in pastoring churches gives him more credibility when you add to that Huckabee's experience as governor where Huckabee wasn't nearly as liberal as Romney, even though Huckabee had a majority Democrat legislature to work with.
On election day, I am voting in the other races and issues, but choosing not to vote for any Presidential and VP candidate if Romney or McCain are the Republican candidates.
Huckabee isn't nearly as liberal, and Romney and McCain aren't nearly as conservative, as the pro-Romney/pro-McCain spin doctors allege. With Thompson and Hunter out of the race, Huckabee is the only conservative left in the race.
----
Christian. Husband. Father. Grandfather. Conservative. US Navy Veteran - all by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
Huckabee is more conservative than Romney-really? What positions was he more conservative about-giving tuition to illegal aliens? His opposition to vouchers and his Arkansas Aarts initiative? His campaigning to raise taxes in Arkansas? Oooooh-he opposes abortion and gay marraige. I get it-so does the rest of the field. I'm really starting to lose respect for the Social Conservatives who just had a President where the only thing he was good on was the GWOT and social issues. How about since we're in the possibility of a recession, we elect someone who has economic experience and not someone who screasm FairTax!, which has no possibility of getting passed sinceit requirres a new contitutional amendment, which would make it the 3rd rediculous amendment Huck has passed. Southerners are better than this, ya'll are embarrasing yourselves.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
I know that a lot of Huckabee supporters favor him because of his experience as a pastor and as Mormon, I wanted to point out that Romney was a bishop, which is equivalent to a pastor. It is an untrained and unpaid position, so there was no seminary, but he was in charge of a congregation and had to organize and deal with the people and issues presented to him.
Since last night's debate everyone is leaning towards Mitt! Most were for Fred (except the loose screw Dems in the family). Not a one likes McCain. The reasons are vague and intangible yet election outcomes usually are based on those.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
over a year ago.
It is good to see so many folks coming around but lots of us saw Mitt for what he was a long time ago.
I do not think Mitt is any different today than he way then but rather you all are looking at him differently.
In any case, let's hear it for having a competent, intelligent, accomplished, energetic, successful PROBLEM SOLVER in the White House!!!
The way he governed especially concerning foreign policy with the Soviets seems like he was at war with Communism in the same way neo-cons are at war with terrorism and the need to eradicate fundamental Islam. Not to mention he backed the Human life amendment. I've read a lot that says Reagan fueled the neo-con movement. Correct me if I'm wrong here Neil, especially since I was 3 during the Reagan years.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
With Romney last night. Even when russert tried to put him on the spot, He was able to answer with class.
He looked very Presidential.
He has class.
I am a Romney supporter, but I am even more impressed since last night's debate.
He will make a great president.
Is everyone here so out of touch with America that they think a rich white invester will win this year?? The dems will turn him into the guy who made the lousy home loans and got a golden parachute. Reps are only 32% of the population. How many independents (who you all seem to hate) will vote for the rich guy?
The most important thing Governor Romney proved last night was that he could stand on the stage even with absolutely low-blow ringers of questions being hurled at him and respond assertively and effectively. He'll be terrific in debates in the General and he demonstrated again why I placed so much confidence in his abilities at the beginning. He's the best candidate in the field.
Go Mitt!
It's a shame he doesn't even have the confidence to face a debate without having prompts being whispered to him:
for President in 2008Something along the lines of "When Republicans act like Democrats, America loses." Talk about irony. Maybe he'll remember that one when he's in office.
His excuse? He was Governor of Massaschusetts. When you're Govenor of Massachusetts all things related to principles are thrown out the window.
Romney's been carrying around the reputation of being untrustworthy and somebody who will say anything to get elected for months now. But what did me in was the ABC New Hampshire debate. Right after Iowa, right after he lost his lead to Huckabee. He changes his whole message and makes it all about "change". Why? Because Obama won with it. He sees that Obama won with that message... so he'll run with it as well. Once he brought it up, he started kissing Obama's [expletive deleted] and talked about how difficult Obama would be to beat in the general election. Spoke of how we can't not run on the message of change, all because Obama won with it... How a candidate can't tout leadership because it didn't work against Obama in Iowa. Went on about how he was the candidate that could beat Obama... when in fact he looks the worst in regards to electability. Yet, he changed his message to "change" all because Obama won with it. It's what defines Romney. He's more than willing to change his stance on an issue or change his message... all in order to win.
You may want to review the posting rules again.
Also, I'm sorry Romney changed his message after Iowa since you were buying the first one so much better. Are you officially opposed to change? Does that include all change or just change in Washington? You seem pretty upset about his message of change.
He's more than willing to change his stance on an issue or change his message... all in order to win.
Gosh, he'll change his message to try to win. How awful. I can't imagine anything worse for a candidate running for office.
I apologize for that.
It wasn't that I wasn't buying his message. I'll state the obvious... I've never thought highly of him. But he was growing on me before Iowa. To the extent, where although I wouldn't vote for him in a caucus, but to where I wouldn't of had a problem with him winning the nomination.
But then he went right back to saying anything...
The fact is change is inevitable. Each candidate will bring some form of change. It depends on wether or not it's good change or bad change. Putting an emphasis on "change" is just another empty cliche slogan...
of changes he said last night that Washington has promised but which they have yet to do: Social security, reducing spending, making taxes more fair, securing the borders, etc.
He isn't just saying "change for the sake of change" you just aren't listening to him because you've
never thought highly of him.
but he won't because I don't think it's true. I decided after his Michigan speech that he would no longer be my number 2 choice, but if I hadn't Perry vs Rommney note from the Washington Times would have done him in for me. Anybody who disses the Boy Scouts gets written off by this Eagle Scout.
This was a combination of an 18 year old age limit and a prohibition on uniforms (you have no idea how crazy olympic sponsors are on branding). Long since disputed by the very Scouters quoted in the articles.
But people will see what they will.
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/front_page/jay_sekulow_responds_to_bo...
But his answer re: gun issues was a train wreck. He would have signed the assault weapons ban renewal... but he doesn't think we need new gun laws at this time. Huh?
I give Mitt some advice on how to build some legitimate bridges between his campaign and gun-rights supporters here.
He clearly absorbed that bit of stupidity from McCain, just like he absorbed a bunch of rhetoric from Obama after he won NH. It's kind of disturbing how we does that, but I'm not sure it is such a bad quality to have in a politician.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Yeah, that's a much better way of flipflopping than straight up changing like Romney had been doing before. He's clearly learning from his opponents.
And I also agree with Zuiko that Romney is to a certain extent a mimic: but there are two important things:
1) His mimicry, if you can call it that, trends in our direction.
2) It is the responsibility of people who are concerned about 2nd Amendment rights to continue to engage with any politician, whoever the President is.
That is why I agree with the NRA that one of the most important things in this election cycle is to grow the ranks of NRA members. I also think it's crucial that at some point we begin to focus more on state and local races again, because these are where the day-to-day 2nd Amendment fights are taking place all throughout the country.
Romney has shown in his tenure as Massachusetts governor that there is a limit to the power of the chief executive if the legislature is overwhelmingly disposed against him. I think that what we should be doing strategically is:
1) Maximize the membership of the NRA and contribute and support other pro-2nd Amendment rights groups while also...
2) Returning to a much more comprehensive focus on the legislature, both at the state and federal levels.
Essentially we need to provide the next President with as much freedom to act as possible, and in order to do that we'll need a strong Republican congress and a vigorous and healthy NRA that can continue to exert influence on the legislative process.
Romney's statements were encouraging but my reading of them last night was: "I'll meet you half way. Don't give me an overwhelmingly Democrat Congress, because my power will be limited in that instance." And I think that's a good way to think of this election, because I don't have any doubt that Romney will stay true to his word on "no new legislation" but it would be much better if we never had to reach that point in the first place.
There is absolutely no way I can support John McCain for President after McCain/Feingold and especially after Romney said in his videotaped statement to the NRA that "We ought to get rid of the entire bill."
He's absolutely right about that, and that's why in this closely fought struggle of a race I'm supporting Mitt.
The one item in Romney's record that causes conservatives concern (other than maybe abortion) is he required everyone to purchase health insurance and if they didn't, they had to pay an additional tax.
I compare this to mandating auto insurance. Many conservatives have a problem with the government mandating auto insurance, but I do not. We expect people to be responsible for their actions. If a person gets into a wreck and they expect others to pay for the damage, that is not taking responsibility.
By the same token, if someone gets sick and expects us (the taxpayers or people with insurance to pay through higher prices) then they are not taking responsibility for their actions. I am willing to listen to even a national mandate for people to purchase at least critical health insurance coverage as a requirement for personal responsibility. (Although I worry any time the government gets involved in a market)
Some Authoritarians are right authoritarians, others, are left. But only an authoritarian would put a gun to your head and make you call GEICO (or Progressive, or Allstate...)
"If this ain't a mess, it'll do until one shows up." -Sheriff Bell, No Country For Old Men
When you talk about MassHealth, one thing that usually gets overlooked is the composition of the Massachusetts Legislature, who were absolutely dead-set on enacting some kind of comprehensive, mandatory health insurance *regardless* of whether the governor was Mitt Romney or Milton Friedman or Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
For people who have forgotten, I post this from time to time. In addition to noting that this is Ted Kennedy and John Kerry's home state, it's important for RedStaters to remember that Mitt Romney successfully governed as a Republican and a moderate Conservative in a state with a legislature that looks like this:
The Massachusetts House of Representatives
The Democrats hold a supermajority in the House, the largest of its kind in any state legislature over the Republicans.
| Affiliation | Members | |
|---|---|---|
| Democratic Party | 137 | |
| Republican Party | 19 | |
| Vacant | 4 | |
| Total | 160 | |
| Majority needed | 81 | |
The Massachusetts State Senate
Democrats hold a supermajority in the Senate.
| Party | Senators | |
|---|---|---|
| Democratic Party | 35 | |
| Republican Party | 5 | |
| Vacant | 0 | |
| Total | 40 | |
| Majority needed | 21 | |
Romney did a very good job of dealing with this crew. He'll do an even better job for Republicans and Conservatives in a less-lobsided universe.
Abraham Lincoln on the Dred Scott Decision
Judicial decisions have two uses—first, to absolutely determine the case decided, and secondly, to indicate to the public how other similar cases will be decided when they arise. For the latter use, they are called "precedents" and "authorities."
We believe, as much as Judge Douglas, (perhaps more) in obedience to, and respect for the judicial department of government. We think its decisions on Constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control, not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution as provided in that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution. But we think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it, has often over-ruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it to over-rule this. We offer no resistance to it.
Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents, according to circumstances. That this should be so, accords both with common sense, and the customary understanding of the legal profession.
If this important decision had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and had been in no part, based on assumed historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and re-affirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, to not acquiesce in it as a precedent.
But when, as it is true we find it wanting in all these claims to the public confidence, it is not resistance, it is not factious, it is not even disrespectful, to treat it as not having yet quite established a settled doctrine for the country—But Judge Douglas considers this view awful. Hear him:
"The courts are the tribunals prescribed by the Constitution and created by the authority of the people to determine, expound and enforce the law. Hence, whoever resists the final decision of the highest judicial tribunal, aims a deadly blow to our whole Republican system of government—a blow, which if successful would place all our rights and liberties at the mercy of passion, anarchy and violence. I repeat, therefore, that if resistance to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, in a matter like the points decided in the Dred Scott case, clearly within their jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution, shall be forced upon the country as a political issue, it will become a distinct and naked issue between the friends and the enemies of the Constitution—the friends and the enemies of the supremacy of the laws."
Why this same Supreme court once decided a national bank to be constitutional; but Gen. Jackson, as President of the United States, disregarded the decision, and vetoed a bill for a re-charter, partly on constitutional ground, declaring that each public functionary must support the Constitution, "as he understands it." But hear the General’s own words. Here they are, taken from his veto message:
"It is maintained by the advocates of the bank, that its constitutionality, in all its features, ought to be considered as settled by precedent, and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I cannot assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power, except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as well settled. So far from this being the case on this subject, an argument against the bank might be based on precedent. One Congress in 1791, decided in favor of a bank; another in 1811, decided against it. One Congress in 1815 decided against a bank; another in 1816 decided in its favor. Prior to the present congress, therefore the precedents drawn from that source were equal. If we resort to the States, the expressions of legislative, judicial and executive opinions against the bank have been probably to those in its favor as four to one. There is nothing in precedent, therefore, which if its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of the act before me."
I drop the quotations merely to remark that all there ever was, in the way of precedent up to the Dred Scott decision, on the points therein decided, had been against that decision. But hear Gen. Jackson further—
"If the opinion of the Supreme court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the co-ordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the executive and the court, must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer, who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others."
Again and again have I heard Judge Douglas denounce that bank decision, and applaud Gen. Jackson for disregarding it. It would be interesting for him to look over his recent speech, and see how exactly his fierce philippics against us for resisting Supreme Court decisions, fall upon his own head. It will call to his mind a long and fierce political war in this country, upon an issue which, in his own language, and, of course, in his own changeless estimation, was "a distinct and naked issue between the friends and the enemies of the Constitution," and in which war he fought in the ranks of the enemies of the Constitution.
I have said, in substance, that the Dred Scott decision was, in part, based on assumed historical facts which were not really true; and I ought not to leave the subject without giving some reasons for saying this; I therefore give an instance or two, which I think fully sustain me. Chief Justice Taney, in delivering the opinion of the majority of the Court, insists at great length that negroes were no part of the people who made, or for whom was made, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution of the United States.
On the contrary, Judge Curtis, in his dissenting opinion, shows that in five of the then thirteen states, to wit, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and North Carolina, free negroes were voters, and, in proportion to their numbers, had the same part in making the Constitution that the white people had.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
I sure would like you to cite some specifics, Alexham.
'Cause if you're talking about his Michigan campaign, we need to sit down....
I'm glad there is someone on RedState that isn't buying Bishop Romney's snakeoil.
------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the IRS and all payroll taxes! http://www.fairtax.org
As I have focused on Romney recently, I have come to the conclusion that not only would he be a great nominee, he very well might be the next president. The election remains up in the air, but there is a strong probability our nominee will be Romney. And we could do worse. Much worse.