Redstate

At the anti-corner.

www.mymanmitt.com

Why don't you elaborate?

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

so why should we?

answer to Thomas?
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller

except the Lord, the American public, or his wife.

I mean, if the left hadn't been trying to advance socially liberal positions during Mitt's period of governance, and you just looked at what he accomplished as far as getting the state back on a firm financial footing, Mitt probably would have had tremendous approval ratings.

But, there were issues of gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research. Mitt made the hard, if unpopular, socially conservative decisions - and became unpopular in Massachusetts.

Would we have rather had it any other way? I sure wouldn't.

I think part of the point of the original post is that Romney has held contrary positions in prior elections. And that while he took the conservative position, he may have done so only to bolster his resume for this run since he had already seen the writing on the wall that he's lose a reelection bid in 2006; and that had he been running for reelection all along his positions would have been more in line with his positions from 1994 and 2002 when he ran for office - considerably more liberal.

The second point is that there is a question as to what makes Romney a "top-tier" candidate. A challenge to supporters to make the case for why a one-term governor who ducked a reelection run and who has no prior elective office experience, should be considered one of the powerhouse candidates in this race.

For fully grasping the point, reldim.

That doesn't make the way it was couched any more valid or any less intellectually bankrupt.

Ez, you may disagree with my interpretation of the facts, but it's a giant step to say there is something seriously deficient about the analysis. The point is to explain your disagreement rather than to improperly throw around haymakers like "intellectually bankrupt." You devalue a perfectly good phrase that way.

I'm intrigued. I'd appreciate your underlying logic.

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

And don't forget how Rudy fought so hard against gay marriage in NYC and vetoed the morning after pill. He did a great job a getting relected with a social conservative platform!
Don't tell me you forgot these important facts.

www.mymanmitt.com

the City was on sound financial footing and you could walk the streets in relative safety.

I guess it just depends on what your priorities are.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller

and kudo's to him, he did some good work. But you can't hold it agaist Mitt for not beig reelected when Rudy did, if Rudy did nothing to fight for social issues and Mitt did.

That's all my point is, it's an unequal comparison. If Rudy had taken socially conservative positions, then I would doubt he would have been reelected.

www.mymanmitt.com

One big problem with that is this: if you want to claim he was some kind of big time SoCon during his tenure as governor, then you'd have to admit that he lied in 2002 when he was campaigning for the job. What would that indicate about his honesty in 2007?

Personally, I think he said he'd try to maintain the status quo and that's what he did. I wouldn't call maintaining the status quo in Mass "fighting for social issues," though.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

It depends how you define status quo. If you define it as where abortion was the day he took office, then he did keep the status quo. If you define Mass status Quo (as I do) as an ever increasing liberalization of the abortion laws, than he fought it.

It would have been very easy for Mitt to work in pro-choice legislation. He didn't. He has a great record of governing pro-life and it's beyond me, as a conservsative activist, why any conservative would want to punish him for it.

www.mymanmitt.com

Except for spare children. Those, you can slice and dice, because while it's downright murder to abort any of them, or slice and dice wanted ones, it's ok to dissect the ones no one wants.

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

We should make sure all unused embryo's are implanted in mothers. None should ever be thrown away. As long as you create life in a petri-dish you will have life thrown away.

And I forgot how great Guiliani and McCain are on Embryonic stem cell research. Thanks for the reminder.

www.mymanmitt.com

Outside of your tunnel vision, I keep noting that I actually hate them as much as I hate Romney. Not that you'd notice, all praise to Mitt.

There is a long difference between being pro-life and deciding that unwanted lives are up for grabs. I suspect Mitt is hoping we'll ignore that, all praise to his name. There is also a long distance between electing not to forcibly implant "unused embryos" (I love how y'all change terms when the debate doesn't favor Mitt, a thousand blessings on his name) and actively killing those children.

However, I wouldn't actually expect you folks to realize that. Mitt worship can be soul-consuming, all glory to his line.

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

Actually the original point of this thread was comparing Mitt to Rudy. But since your tunnel vision consist of only bashing a Mitt supporter and not reading the whole thread, thus engaging in a semi-thread jack, you failed to catch that. All hail to self-defeating cynicism.

www.mymanmitt.com

But I'll accept that rebuke, because you clearly can't even stand on the same ground to defend Your Man.

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

Mitt promised a moratorium on abortion law. Thus, he fought the tide to make Massachusetts's abortion laws more liberal while also not attempting to make them more socially conservative - because it would have been a moot battle that he would have lost.

In other words, Mitt kept his word on abortion when he ran for governor.

When faced with gay marriage, he acted like any self-respecting socially conservative Republican governor would have. He fought it. He made no promises to the electorate about laying down and letting the SJC run all over the Mass Constitution.

He promised to "preserve and protect" a woman's right to choose and indicated his support for Roe v. Wade. I've never read anywhere that Romney promised a moratorium on abortion laws. That's false.

Gay marriage is legal where? And exactly what did Mitt do to reduce or eliminate abortion in MA? And how is MA a more socially conservative state now than it was in 2002?

I'm not saying that Mitt didn't DO anything as governor, I'm just missing the big socially conservative impact he had on MA. He apparently got their balance sheet in order, a good thing. He's been active in MA politics since 1994 when the Republican party was huge mess in MA. 13 years later it's still a mess. Other than the state's finances, Mitt hasn't had much in the way of impact on the state.

At least Rudy was followed by a Republican mayor, no matter how much I dislike Bloomberg, he's still better than the alternative.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller

1. You can't hold Mitt responsible for the actions of an out of control, activist SJC

2. You know that he has done everything within his power to put this to a vote before the people, and to even throw that out there shows just how disgustingly disingenuous the opposition to Mitt is becoming. I can respect honest disagreements and honest skepticism, but what you're now trying to pass off as an argument is sinking to a very scummy level.

3. Mitt promised a moratorium on abortion law in an overwhelmingly pro-choice state. He delivered. Considering what Massachusetts is, slowing the tide can be considered nothing short of victory.

4. Michael Bloomberg WAS NEVER A REPUBLICAN before he changed his party affiliation right before the mayoral election. He's less conservative than even Giuliani is - and even then he had to be dragged accross the finish line by Giuliani, who was still popular because he was a social liberal.

5. I fear that the GOP will just lose its brand as a great conservative party if we nominate Rudy. Social conservatives will be disaffected and question if they really have any party that will listen to them. Rudy could very well be a sign to social conservatives that the GOP is about to start treating them like the Democrats treat the blacks - taken for granted. Except, a lot of social conservatives are independent thinkers who won't come out to support a president the way the blacks constantly come out to vote for Democrats if they disagree with him on such important issues. And then, that will guarantee more Democrats in office.

6. Giuliani was a great mayor who was terrible on social policy from a conservative point of view. Romney brings all of Giuliani's strengths from an executive management point of view AND adds in the social conservative position to the formula.

I'm not predisposed against Mitt or for Rudy.

I just happen to think that the Mitt folks we see here seem to think that Mitt walks on water with regularity and my initial post was, more than anything, just some red meat to see what would happen. I wasn't surprised.

Mitt did an OK job in MA. I'm sure he was better than who ever he beat would have been. I do think it's really too bad that Mitt seems to be saviour for SoCons around here because, like it or not, POTUS is going to have some level of impact on social issues only with SCOTUS nominations. I'm also pretty sure that Mitt (or anybody else for that matter) won't have any more impact on social issues than Rudy or McCain.

I'm most interested in what the various candidates would verbalize as their vision for their Presidency. I've yet to hear that from anybody except a really dumb statement by McCain in Iowa a few months back. Any POTUS has the opportunity to actually accomplish very few things and have an impact on very few more. I want to know what the candidates expect to be able to accomplish and to impact. And I'm not interested in platitudes or generalities (a kinder, gentler Presidency...).
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller

No, he go re-elected be cause he did all that AND he didn't buck the socially liberal establishment.

If you think that Rudy could have gotten away with fighting gay marriage the way Romney has, with becoming a strong critic of embryonic stem cell research, and all of the other social issues that Mitt has had to deal with AND STILL GOTTEN RE-ELECTED, you are absolutely out of your mind. The NYC liberals would have said, "thanks for cleaning up the city, now on your way cuz we would rather have a social liberal."

If Mitt was judged solely on his record of accomplishment in Massachusetts, then he would have gotten re-elected just as Rudy was. You can't say that Mitt Romney didn't do a spectacular job as Governor of Massachusetts, as evidenced by the fact that you're NOT saying that.

You're just upset that he didn't run for re-election so that he could go on to certain defeat for being a social conservative - thus either paving the way for or suffering the same fate as one of your preferred candidates. I think that you're really just upset that Mitt is so dang smart!! LOL

Cleaning up government, getting the balance sheet in order, cutting taxes, law-and-order...these are all very popular conservative positions. And if these were the only issues Mitt had to deal with in Massachusetts, he'd still be governor.

But it is the social issues that divide us and cause contention. Mitt was faced with difficult decisions on social issues that were being forcefully advanced by liberals, and Mitt Romney chose to stand with social conservatives. His popularity was hit as a result, and this is the thanks he gets.

Of course, since Rudy IS a social liberal, he didn't have that problem. The liberals cheered him on as he "boldly" took liberal positions, antithetical to the Republican Party, in one of the most liberal cities in America. Rudy could have gotten elected over and over again in Massachusetts because he would not have fought the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's ruling, and he wouldn't have vetoed embryonic stem cell research.

Mitt is simply pretending to be someone he is not. He said what he needed to say in order to get elected governor, and that's exactly what he is doing now.

The head of the Log Cabin Republicans puts it perfectly in a Human Events article:

-----
Of Romney’s effort to distance himself from his past statements on the issue, Vaughn said: “He’s trying to be something he’s not. Rudy Giuliani once wore a dress [in a comedy skit in New York], but no one would believe he’s a woman. Mitt Romney is now going out in conservative drag, but no one will believe he’s a conservative.”
----

Romney is going to get slammed like this the entire year, and his campaign is going to have a spend a lot of time trying to clean up the flip-foppin mess he has made.

In other words, we shouldn't support Romney because liberals say we shouldn't.

What else ya got?

For now on every time I start in about Guiliani I will preface it with "I don't care that he is a Catholic but..." and see where that gets me.

www.mymanmitt.com

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

his wiki bio says he came from a Roman Catholic family and his first marriage was a catholic marriage?

www.mymanmitt.com

I have no doubt Mr. Giuliani even goes to Mass.

Doesn't make him Catholic.

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

Is he a CINO?

www.mymanmitt.com

I suppose one feels the need to say it because that is the presumed knock on Romney -- evidenced by his press coverage -- and one wants to ensure others realize one is not a religious bigot, but instead has other reasons for questioning his candidacy.

I have huge theological problems with LDS (which I have no intention of arguing here). What I don't care about is his faith in relation to his POTUS candidacy.

Somewhere upthread (I think it was here) someone asked about the question of religion if he were a Hindu, Scientologist or Muslim. My answer to that would be the same for the Hindu or the Scientologist. There is pretty much no situation where I could see myself voting for a Muslim for POTUS.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller

Ah, the your-a-bigot-if-you-criticize-Romney card. Nice!

Valid point. The candidates record in this area rarely gets discussed. In liberal Massachusetts, Mitt worked to

- End bilingual education and promote english immersion

- Empower state police to enforce immigration laws (which was subsequently repealed by Deval Patrick)

- Stop taxpayer funding of illiegal alien tuition in state schools

All three movements were succesful(at least temporarily). Mitt is not a ironclad right wing firebrand, but this is a good example of how he sought pragamatic solutions and pushed the conservative agenda as much as one can in Massachusetts.

____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller

____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller

A good link on Mitt and immigration:

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/immigration

I like McCain and don't really care for Rudy, but neither comes close on the issue.

"against an amnesty and against anything that provides an incentive for people to come here illegally." - Mitt Romney

Well, I tried to reply to "A good link on Mitt..." but it put my comment outside of the thread. Here is is again:

There is a problem with the link. It should have been:

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Immigration

It is difficult to get a clear idea of Romney's views on amnesty, mainly because you have to read the fine print. The link says:
"[We need] Provisions that will allow undocumented workers to earn legal status so that they can continue to remain in the workforce."

which is exactly what amnesty is. Also he wants to increase legal immigration. Apparently there is an article from "The Lowel Sun" where Romney is quoted as saying "I don't believe in amnesty" while at the same time saying that illegal immigrants should have a chance to obtain citizenship. If this means that we enact some special new "path to citizenship" then I definitely have a problem with this.

I find this tactic of playing around with the definitions of words to be annoying. It only serves to confuse the issue.

Did Romney campaign on any of these issues in 2002? Or, did his his anti-immigration posture coincide with his presidental ambitions?

Just another example that Romney knows his target audience?

issue in MA in 2002. Were he a governor in the southwest I might be willing to question him, but he gets a pass from me on this one for 2002.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller

The first step in Giuliani's plan on immigration is to seal the borders. Then he would handle those who are already present on our side, and who are working forcing them to learn English if they want to earn citizenship and screening them in order find out who is a terrorist or a drug dealer, etc.

Is a guest-worker program really the same as refusing to protect our borders?

on immigration, then I would love to be corrected but I just checked out his website and immigration isn't even addressed. Guess he doesn't think its important.

No, a guest-worker program is not the same as refusing to protect our borders but I don't want a guest-worker program either until we start treating all the illegals who are here like the felons they are and returned back and the border is sealed with a fence. Then we can talk about a guest-worker program.

Somewhat irrelevant. I'm not entirely sure that you can compare the Romney to Kerry. For one, I don't think there will be a "Howard Dean-like meltdown" by any of the people polling ahead of him. Kerry's movement late was the result of many suddenly having a panic attack at the idea of Dean as the nominee because he was just to far out there to win. Kerry took advantage of a "we need someone who can win" sentiment to get the nod.

Romney actually faces the opposite problem. He needs to get people AWAY from the "he can win" prism. That's where people like McCain and Giuliani (both ahead of Romney) gain - there are Republicans who might like Romney but see McCain and Giuliani as both having more appeals to the "unaffiliated" voter who will likely tip the scales in key states.

And it's not such high praise to be running 4th when there are basically only 6 declared candidates (I count McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Hunter, Brownback, Huckabee) and 2 of them (Brownback adn Huckabee) are being written off by many already, and 1 more (Hunter) isn't getting much "buzz."

Isn't Glenn Beck LDS?

a late convert, as I understand it. while/after recovering from addiction, he and his family started visiting churches (I guess he was previously agnostic or non-practicing something), and his initial reaction was "we're never coming back here" but his family surprised him by loving it, and he soon did too. at least that's the story as I remember it.

Romney wants more legal and educated immigrants. I don't have a link that says exactly that but he wants to bring in the best and brightest of other nations over here and encourage them to become Americans. In his first ad, he talks about competing economically in the world and Asia in particular. Bringing in highly skilled immigrants is for America's benefit.

Check my reply at #44. For some reason my initial replies are added at the end of the list, rather than after the comment I am replying to.

Massachusetts will lose 2 seats in the U.S. House after the next census. People are moving out in droves. How else do you explain the Red Sox being the #1 road show in baseball. We outnumber the home team's fans.

That's useful stuff, Cicero, but it doesn't explain bailing out immediately after setting up this ambitious health care plan.

Why is it assumed that someone who intends to spend full-time seeking the presidency is bailing out if they don't run for reelection?

Let me guess, he should have run for reelection so that he could spend all his time traveling the country and leave the governor's office vacant. That really makes a lot of sense.

This has to be one of the lamest attempts to create an issue yet.

It's not lame to raise the question of not running for that second term. Typically, a candidate seeking the presidency who is also a governor will win his governor's seat for a second term as a show of electoral strength and then go on to run for the White House. This is a clear break in that pattern and should be considered.

Just because this has been done in the past does not make it the right choice. I don't see how it makes sense for a candidate to seek an office for which they have no intention of actually serving in.

When 95% plus of a candidate's time is spent on a presidential campaign, they are clearly not focused on the issues of running a state. Why wouldn't it make more sense to have a candidate run that actually wants the job of being governor?

The last two years George Bush was governor in Texas it was commented that his chief of staff was actually running the state. If that's what the voters wanted, why didn't the chief of staff actually seek the office instead?

I don't see how in all fairness this can be held against Mitt Romney. He clearly intended to run for president and has wisely focused on that instead.

I have no problem with H1B immigration. It should be greatly expanded. The alternative to H1B immigration is offshoring, which is becoming more and more commonplace in technical fields. I'd take some possible negative consequences for some people (more competition for technical work) versus negative consequences for everybody (that work not even being done in the US any more).

This isn't really comparable to, say, picking oranges, where there is basically zero value in having that work performed in the United States at all and zero native born citizens engaging in that line of work. Using illegals to pick produce is probably a pretty big net negative when you factor in all the government support of agriculture, trade barriers, the costs of dealing with the impoverished field workers and their families, and the fact that there's a ton of capital tied up in what is business that is totally unworkable without government support.

You can't say the same about Microsoft hiring a few skilled programmers from India, bringing them into the United States, and paying them a decent wage so they can support their families as productive members of society.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman