This Is Why I Support Mitt Romney
By Congressman Pete Hoekstra Posted in 2008 — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Of the 43 Presidents of the United States, only a handful have distinguished themselves as giants who truly changed history. In every case, it was because they brought a new vision to America in times of great international challenges, and by force of their leadership, brought us from turmoil and uncertainty to building a strong America and a safer world.
Whether it was President Truman’s clear-eyed approach to containing the spread of Communism, or President Reagan’s plan to finally confront and defeat the Soviet threat, all great American Presidents are willing to buck the conventional wisdom of Washington and affirm the power of American leadership in the world.
I believe we need that kind of leadership again, and that is why I support Governor Mitt Romney for President of the United States.
Most voters know Mitt Romney from what he did as Governor of Massachusetts, where he took a financial crisis many deemed hopeless and restored the state’s economic strength – turning deficits into surpluses without raising taxes. This built on a business career specializing in taking companies facing difficult challenges and leading them to stunning successes.
Read on . . .
What most voters may not know, however, is that Mitt Romney’s real world experience and vision makes him the ideal person to lead our nation as we face a new generation of global challenges. And his experience is much different from being in Washington. After 9/11, many argued that we should cancel the Winter Olympics in the wake of these terrorist attacks. Yet Mitt Romney led efforts with leaders and government representatives from around the world to secure the first major international event on U.S. soil since that tragic day. Throughout his business career, he worked with leaders from across the world and made hard decisions with companies, jobs and critical resources on the line. His work has taken him from places ranging from Beijing to Guantanamo Bay, and to critical nations such as Israel, Iraq andAfghanistan.
The challenges we face today are fundamentally different than the industrial military conflicts of the Cold War era, and we must go farther than responding to threats once they reach our borders. No candidate for President understands how to succeed in this new era better than Mitt Romney. No one has a clearer vision of how we can build a strong America and safe world.
The Romney plan starts with a strong military. When he came into office, President Bush inherited a military that had been deprived of the funding necessary to defend America’s interests overseas. Those technological and manpower gaps remain to this day. Governor Romney knows that nothing is more important than supporting our troops and providing them with the resources they need. That is why as President, his first priority will be to invest in and strengthen our military.
His plan calls for the addition of 100,000 troops, an increase in military spending to at least 4 percent of GDP, and eliminating pork-barrel spending and waste so that we can focus on providing the personnel, modern equipment, training and health care needed to support our troops.
At the same time, Governor Romney understands that for America’s economy to be secure, we must achieve energy independence. He believes strongly that America is vulnerable because of our increasing dependence on foreign oil, often from unfriendly or unstable countries. Governor Romney has a plan to reduce this dependency by helping America become more energy efficient and attain clean, affordable, renewable and American produced sources of energy.
To prepare for the conflicts of tomorrow, Governor Romney also understands that we must learn from the conflicts of yesterday. We cannot solve every conflict and crisis with military force. Yet, America has too often treated its dozens of civilian institutions as an afterthought.
To meet today’s challenges we need to fundamentally rethink and revitalize our civilian instruments of national power as well as how they work with our military forces. Governor Romney would coordinate and unify the goals of these civilian institutions, responsible for everything from reconstruction, hunger relief, emergency health care delivery, economic growth and education. He would then give control over these various aspects of foreign policy and outreach to skilled leaders with the authority and accountability to achieve results.
Finally, Governor Romney will revitalize our alliances and act to take on radical jihadists and their sources around the world: the hateful ideologies and bleak policies that produce hopelessness and violence in the Middle East.
As President, Governor Romney would strengthen alliances such as NATO and unite the developed nations of the world with modern Muslim states to create a Partnership for Prosperity and Progress. The Partnership would support the efforts of these modern Muslim nations to turn back the jihadist movement both through stepped-up security and intelligence and through the introduction and improvement of basic services such as proper education, health care and economic growth.
By working with the rest of the world to strengthen democratic institutions and human rights in the Middle East, young Muslims can have an optimistic vision for the future beyond the false call of violent jihad.
It is a proactive and positive plan for America. It is a plan I believe most Americans will support. Sadly, so many Presidential candidates are not as bold or as optimistic about our ability to shape the world. They talk of false deadlines and of retreating from the world. I support Mitt Romney because he is different. He is a leader. He has a record of real-world executive success. In the faces of a new generation of challenges, he knows how to make America strong and build a safe world and prosperous future.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | God Bless Iowa — Comments (41) »
This Is Why I Support Mitt Romney 30 Comments (0 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I like Romney's health care solution in MA because he did not create some large state medical insurance bureaucracy. The bill required individuals to get their own policies or face a penalty, and then they subsidized the rates for the poor. I can't imagine a smaller government solution. What is remarkable, is that he was able to get anything done at all. A great solution is meaningless if it can't be implemented. Romney has a track record of solving problems and fixing broken organizations. We are extremely fortunate to have someone so competent and willing to want the job.
My guess is you think the government should also require you to wear your seat belt and stop eating trans-fats.
I'm not a health care expert, but I'm sure there are at least a dozen smaller government solutions than RomneyCare.
For starters, how about promoting HSAs? How about restoring some connection between demand and price? How about we stop subsidizing through tax incentives the provision of third-party payer systems that serve to distort (by greatly increasing) demand for unnecessary and costly medical procedures?
Wow, look at that, three smaller government (read: market-oriented) solutions than RomenyCare.
Now, if you want to argue that Mitt's plan was better than the socialized medicine proposals that usually come from the Democrat Party, I probably wouldn't argue with you. But Mitt didn't start with a truly market solution and wind up cutting a deal with the Democrat Legislature in the form of his proposal, that was the proposal that came from his Administration.
If that's the kind of "smaller government" solutions we can expect from a President Romney in attacking health care, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, I'm gonna need a second job just to pay the taxes for it.
Realdem,
Good try. You pull at our heartstrings with a system that fiscal conservatives may love, but like a libertarian, you miss the practicality boat. Mitt was governor of Massachusetts, not Idaho or some other conservative bastion. Besides, even in a conservative bastion, your market-driven solutions could not become law because moderate conservatives are not willing to make the leap of faith required to make it work.
That said, Massachusetts is 87% democrat: If you managed to sneak yourself into office as governor, would you just tick-off everyone by suggesting a plan that you knew could only garner 13 votes (at best) in the legislature. No. Doing so would destroy your credibility with the electorate.
Instead you would suggest the most market-driven plan possible and, thus, preempt future plans that would completely socialize it. Keep in mind that the plan saved about a billion dollars and did not raise taxes (unless you consider it a tax to be forced to choose your own private insurance company and policy).
I personally don’t like force in most economic settings, but HillaryCare is coming down the pipe, and that should be more clear than ever now. So what he did in Massachusetts is nothing short of another miracle –- but he is well known for miracles in the financial world. That’s what he did for a living (and why he is so rich). The same cannot be said of any other candidate.
Mitt Romney is separated by many factors. He is, first and foremost, one of the most intelligent people you will ever meet. He graduated Harvard with his JD and MBA simultaneously in the top 5% of his business class.
Governor Romney also has more experience than anybody else in the race in reforming government. He was elected in Massachusetts because the state had a 3 billion dollar deficit. By cutting back on waste and vetoing every unsatisfactory budget, Romney was able to rein the deficit in. That's the kind of leadership we need to fix Washington.
Mitt has a unique approach to fixing organizations that built up Staples, saved the Salt Lake City Olympics and got Massachusetts back on track. He compiles data and pours over it. People who have worked with Romney always are impressed by his ability to take dozens of numbers and make a coherent picture of a situation out of them. Romney then gathers a team of the best experts in the field and encourages them to debate so the best solution can be found. No other candidate has that kind of proven leadership experience.
Mitt Romney is a different type of candidate, essentially the 'anti-Bush.' That is probably the only type of Republican we can get elected because of W's low approval ratings. Romney has proven that Democrats will cross the aisle to vote for him in large numbers because they see a man who can find new and innovative solutions to the challenges facing America.
-Reece Epstein
I think Mitt is a very nice person, extremely intelligent and all that but politically Mitt is weak. I live in Massachusetts and with any political fight, Mitt was weak and usually lost. He could not beat the nitwits in the state house here and those people are pathetically weak and frankly, stupid. I know Mitt talks a good game but under pressure, he folds quickly.
I wish I paid more attention to Romney when he was Governor of MA - I live on the West Coast. My impression is that any Republican Governor would have limited political power in MA. It is remarkable that he was able to win the election with only 17% of the voters registered as Republicans.
I find it amazing that he was able to get anything done at all. He stopped the tax increases and balanced a $3B budget deficit (WOW!). I believe that only he and Obama have demonstrated an ability to build bi-partisan support and get people on both sides of the fence to work together for the better good. Guiliani has the opposite reputation and Thompson has zero administrative experience.
control the state house 8 to 1 and do whatever they want basically, unless you can build pressure on them (they are spineless) though the local media. Every state office, all the congressional reps, both senators, etc are D's. The voters are not as much liberal as they are just stupid and vote D no matter what. Kerry is not liked but he's the D candidate so they vote for him, then complain about him. The voters here are just morons.
Romney did not raise taxes in the sense of income taxes or sales tax, etc. but massachusetts has fees for just about everything in the world. The fees are just another form of taxing but the people of the state don't see it as clearly as an income tax increase, so it goes over with little criticism. Romney passed a budget that increase fees by huge amounts for almost everything, so he did raise taxes. My gun license was $25 now after what Romney signed, it's $100. You want a fishing license, ditto. He had limited power but really did not put up much of a fight. What he said about gay marriage was just lip service for the national crowd, he did not do anything to fight it in this state.
Don't get me wrong, I think Mitt's a brilliant person, great looking, great family and hugely successful in his career. But I know Mitt is not a fighter and will cave to the liberal media and the congress. I agree with all the things that Mitt says in the campaign, I just know from experience that Mitt isn't a fighter when there is resistence. I think he would be very similar to Bush 41 and the "read my lips, no new taxes" then cave to the pressure.
What could Romney do about gay marriage? Since your Supreme Court trumps your Governor, your comment is obviously disingenuous or comes from a lack of knowledge.
Also, fees are a fiscally responsible way limiting demand on resources by having the user pay for the impact of the use. I understand he cut capital gains. If the net tax is the same, then it does not matter that he shifted the burden onto others. That's a good thing because cutting capital gains does far more for your economy than a cheap fishing license (and I like fishing).
The “good” caused by a lower capital gains tax is probably unmatched by any other single tax incentive. Again you prove how astute Mitt is.
Hoover, if you live in MA, then you know all but 13 are stupid -- stupid and stuck that way. All that these "weak" people (as you put it) need to do is vote their mind -- and Mitt was smart enough to know he was not going to change their mind on many things.
Folding quickly is sometimes the smartest thing to do. So you show that he knows when to fold em. That's good if you ask me.
By the way, If those people are so "pathetically weak" as you say, why can't you simply talk them out of voting or being Democrats. It's not that easy! I think you might really be a lib.
but I confess I don't find this very compelling. Many things are easier said than done: energy independence, revitalize our alliances, strengthening human rights in the Middle East, etc.
Merited or not, Romney is often considered more willing to say things to please a crowd than most candidates. While I recognize the dangers of being specific so early in the election, I think he'd benefit by committing to a concrete platform.
If you're familiar with his plans, and want to share some of the nuts and bolts, I'm more than happy to listen. I would also be favorably impressed by his recognition that not all things are possible, and his commitment to one priority over another. A well-thought-out, well-articulated policy would put him head-and-shoulders above most of the field. As much as I respect our President's willingness to stick to his guns, I believe he has convinced the party to look for someone who can aim well.
Is what makes him a very compelling candidate - even while I seem to line up with Fred Thompson more philosophically.
I'm leaning towards an ideal ticket of Thompson/Romney where Thompson gives Mitt wide latitude to deal with serious government restructuring.
Just a few questions. I noticed you didn't type the word "Iraq" once in your piece. If Mr. Romney is committed to "taking on radical ideologies", what is his plan for containing the violence spreading from Iraq into other nations, and what will he do to transform Iraq from a breeding ground for terrorists into a sustainable, stable, safe country? This is a topic that I wish more Republican presidential candidates would tackle, and I think the process must begin with a thorough critique and examination of the policies implemented thus far.
The war is the most important subject for 2008 voters but, Congressman, you choose to describe Mr. Romney's plan for a larger, more powerful military and his endorsement of a certainly idealistic Partnership for Peace and Progress. What states are included in this plan? Would a Romney administration engage Syria and Iran, and to what degree?
I have no doubts that Mr. Romney is a fantastic businessman and one capable of managing the largest economy on earth. Unfortunately, this fact won't win him the election. I, and voters, have yet to hear a comprehensive, competent plan explaining how Mitt Romney would conduct the Iraq War, and anyone expecting to win the presidency cannot ignore the issue.
“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” Mark Twain
what is his plan for containing the violence spreading from Iraq into other nations
Spreading FROM Iraq into other nations? Ever hear of Syria or Iran. I believe the violence is going the other way! Or are you trying to suggest that the violence in Gaza or Lebanon is somehow President Bush's fault? NOT!
Would a Romney administration engage Syria and Iran, and to what degree?
Ah, good, you have heard of them. That answers question 1. What does "engage" mean? You want to talk-talk with madmen? Or do you mean "engage" as in, take the military out of PARk and into DRIVE? No, somehow, I don't see you as a driver -- more of a cab rider.
....anyone expecting to win the presidency cannot ignore the issue.
Oh, you mean like the comprehensive plans for victory that all of the Democrat candidates have put forth?
From the NIE, via the Times, last September:
A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.
The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled ''Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,'' it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.
An opening section of the report, ''Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,'' cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.
Maybe I shouldn't have used the word violence, but I certainly could have said "terrorism tactics" or, for that matter, "radical ideologies."
And yes, I would like to talk-talk with madmen, something the State Department did just three weeks ago.
P.S. I didn't say anything about the Democratic candidates in my post. Why bring it up? Red herrings don't win elections either.
“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” Mark Twain
I've been around, reading and observing. Just getting a feel for the atmosphere.
“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” Mark Twain
I can see the flip flops swaying at the Democrat convention if we let this man get the nomination. He changes positions like I change socks.
For me it depends on what suit I am wearing. For him it depends on who he is trying to appeal to that day.
Just say NO to Romney, there has to be a better option.
1. I'm not a Mitt guy. He's way down on my list of candidates.
2. John Kerry arguably committed treason in the '70's when he went to Paris while an officer in the USNR.
3. Kerry has, as a civilian, lied about the actions of US military personnel in Vietnam.
4. As a US Senator, he has voted against every major weapons system proposed for the military.
5. He is a signator of the "Dear Commendante" letter in the '80's.
6. As a sitting Senator, he's yet to meet a leftist dictator he wasn't willing to bow down to.
Mitt Romney, for any and all of his faults, is not comparable to John Kerry in any way other than they are both legal residents of Massachusetts. Romney is head and shoulders a better man than the junior Senator (who should be charged with treason, tried and, if convicted, executed by hanging).
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
It is tiring to see people accusing Romney of "Flip-Floping". I have studied his positions, and the shift from moderately pro-choice to Pro-Life is the only change I have seen him make. The others are just the results of people over simplifying a variety of complex issues.
I know that my opinion on various political issues have evolved over time, and I have no problem allowing the same latitude with others.
I respect Romney's integrity to keep his campaign promises while Governor, and I am confident he will do the same as President.
I think it is silly to fault him for statements he made at the infancy of his political career - his many accomplishments are by far the more relevant evidence of what he would do as President.
You make great talking points, please show a little proof. "I have a plan" is not proof
Aside from his support of draconian gun laws, Romney did about as admirable job as governor in a liberal state like MA as can be expected.
However, with Bush's failures in upholding conservative principles on spending, small government and immigration (to name a few), I'm not ready to take a chance on someone who in very recent years governed and campaigned as a "moderate" Republican and still supports big government (as he suggested in the debates) to suddenly undergo a conversion to a conservative as President.
We got fooled once with Bush, I'm not going to be fooled again by a smooth talking Romney. He gets the nomination, I stay home or vote third party for the first time since 1988. For me, the short term harm done by the likes of Hillary doesn't offset the long term damage to the Republican party and conservatism in general by continuting down the path set forth by the likes of Bush, Lott, Martinez, Rove and Cole.
No to FlipFlop Mitt.
No to RINO Rudy.
No to Maverick McCain.
The Republican party is at an ideological crossroads, and whether I stay on board or jump ship largely depends on whether the lessons of 2006 will be taken to heart and conservative principles are taken more seriously. Nominating known RINOs like Romney, Rudy or McCain is not the way to demonstrate such a commitment.
However, after investigating Romney's record, his positions, and indeed, the allegations of flip flops, I come out on the side that Romney is quite unlike Bush, McCain, or Giuliani when it comes to respecting conservative principles.
Unlike Bush, Romney is extraordinarily competent. Based on his record in both business and in MA, and his history of keeping campaign promises, he can be trusted when he says he will use the veto pen to cap any spending measures at inflation minus 1%. That is both a clear, bright line campaign promise and a huge shift toward fiscal discipline unlike that ever imagined in the Bush administration. Also, his record of fiscal discipline in MA is bonafide and documented. He stood on the backs of the PEOPLE to bully the legislature into fiscal discipline, not the other way around.
His record in Massachusetts cannot be compared to the RINO record of McCain on campaign finance, judicial appointments, immigration, etc. His experience is primarily as a business executive and he has shown he values competence, efficiency, and common sense action over political expedience ala the likes of McCain. Romney did have to pick his battles in Massachusetts. But he did not sell out his principles, and it only takes a bit of research beyond the MSM froth and the opposition research hit pieces to discover the truth.
We need someone who is willing to carry the conservative banner and do it with competence, efficiency, and responsibility. I had my doubts about Mitt and his supposed "flip-flops." After researching him further, I have concluded that he is both the most prepared, most hard working, most competent, and most trustworthy candidate in the field. Don't confuse his willingness to work with both sides on an issue with a tendency for pandering and political sell out style compromise ala McCain. Romney searches for solutions that work, putting what is right ahead of who is right.
I encourage you to look into his campaign info. seriously and thoroughly before opting out of the election should he become the nominee. He is the only candidate who has put forth concrete policy positions on Iran, the economy and taxes, fiscal discipline, the military, the family, etc. The positions are not too hard to find on his site, though most, it seems, are willing to take their cues from the MSM coverage and the echo rooms in the blogosphere. IN order to correctly calibrate and come to a reasoned conclusion, I believe the candidate's own words, pronouncements, platform positions, etc. should also be thoroughly studied.
Just my 2 cents.
There haven't been 43 presidents of the US. Exactly 42 men have held the office. The incumbent is classified as the 43rd because Grover Cleveland is counted twice.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Brit to point out that bit of trivia. :>)
Thanks Q.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
He's polling in the single digits!
He's got the deepest pockets in the field, been an active candidate longer than anyone except maybe McCain who never stopped running, and has almost as much face time in the MSM as Hillary ... yet still polls in the single digits.
Either he isn't effective in delivering his message, or American's don't like what he's pitching.
Conservatives need someone who can deliver, Mitt shows no evidence of being a viable national candidate. He's a nice guy, takes a good picture, snappy dresser, good stage presence, ... but not good at delivering polls.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_pre...
If you're going to let polls NOW determine who you pick as the most likely to win, you never predict such winners as Bill Clinton.
Run like Reagan!
The primary season is more compact than it was when Bubba Klinton ran. Getting more compressed as we speak.
Most telling has been the relentless number of polls showing Conservatives dissatisfied with the field as it stood before Fred entered (will enter) the fray.
Mitt has been there from the start, people know who he is, the MSM has seen to that. Yet he has no traction, he's loosing ground faster than ... perhaps Edwards?
Sure a miracle (or disaster) could happen to propel him into a non-also-and position since the election is still somewhat remote.
But even hard line Mitt supporters would have to admit in their saner moments that he has spent more time and money than just about anyone else to get his message out ... and ... "Ineffectual" is the best way to describe his performance thus far.
I don't think so many people do know who he is. Every poll I've seen shows about 50 to 60 percent do not. Some polls show voters more uninformed than the general public! In polls against most Democrat nominees, he shifts about twenty percent of voters who would otherwise support McCain or Rudy to the "undecided" category. However, he still gives Hillary's and Obama's numbers a boost in a lot of the polls I've seen.
I couldn't find any recent polling data that factors in "name recognition", could you point out some sites?
True that most of the electorate isn't engaged yet, but I haven't seen anything to indicate he can catch on.
may turn out to be that he is peaking too soon. He is already ahead of McCain in the early states.
What you don't seem to have grasped is that candidates do not aim to be ahead before the election. They aim to be ahead in the election. Nothing else matters.
You know the primaries start in January, right?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Almost all the major republican candidates promote a strong military and want to rid the world of Al Qeada. With all due respect, there's nothing in Romney's record that suggests he would be a better foreign policy leader than Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani.
What concerns me about Romney's record as governor was his government mandated health care plan. We don't need more government, we need less.
I'm not an agent, I just write books