Change Begins With Us
By Gov. Mitt Romney Posted in Republicans — Comments (60) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Today, our country faces an inflection point where our course must change if we are to meet unprecedented challenges here at home and abroad. As we have always done, the American people will rise to the occasion. But at this critical time, Washington is failing us.
The blame for Washington's failures lies not just with the Democrats but with Republicans as well. We have to put our own house in order. We can no longer be a party of big spenders with ethical standards more fitting of a Jay Leno punch line. We can no longer pretend our borders are secure. When Republicans act like Democrats, America loses. It's time for change in Washington and change begins with us.
Republicans for Change believe in small government. Government should be restrained so that the freedoms and vitality of individuals and enterprises can be unleashed. Compared to free markets and free enterprises, government is slow to act, wasteful, bureaucratic, inefficient and unresponsive. At this time, we cannot solve our problems with bigger government and higher taxes. The right answer is less government, less regulation, more individual responsibility, and more of the market dynamics that propel the rest of our economy.
Republicans for Change are also fiscally responsible. We refuse to charge our children and grandchildren for our excessive spending. In Massachusetts, the legislature and I closed a nearly $3 billion budget gap, balanced the budget every year and replenished the rainy day fund, without raising taxes or our borrowing cap. Now, Washington must do the same. As President, I will veto non-defense appropriations not capped at inflation less one percent. It's time to put fresh ink in the presidential veto pen.
Please read on . . .
Republicans for Change believe in strength. The best ally peace has ever known is a strong America. We will strengthen the military with more troops, better armament, and better care for our veterans. We will also strengthen our economy with lower taxes and energy security. And we will strengthen the American family because there is no work more important to our future than the work that goes on within the four walls of the American home.
Republicans for Change know how to run a tight ship and have high ethical standards. The Katrina response didn't look like Republicans were in charge. There needs to be more accountability in Washington. We should expect more from our leaders. They represent the American people and are held up before our children as good role models. Presidents lead by example. One of my first acts as President will be to issue an Executive Order prohibiting the immediate family of my Cabinet and Senior Staff from lobbying the Executive Branch. The standard for high ethical conduct has to be set at the top.
Republicans for Change are respectful and civil. We will work with good Democrats to change Washington and confront the new generation of challenges we face. The political atmosphere has become so toxic, we are in danger of weakening ourselves from within. America needs unifying leadership that will find common ground and show that conservative principles will work for America.
Republicans for Change aren't afraid to tackle big problems. None is greater than the spread of radical, violent Jihadism. John Edwards says the War on Terror is just a bumper sticker. Tell that to the people of Indonesia, Malaysia, Bali, Tanzania, Kenya, Spain, London, Washington and New York City. There is a war being waged against us by the terrorists, and if I am President, the war against the terrorists will be won.
Republicans for Change fight to protect families. The family is under attack. Our children need to be taught that marriage comes before babies. The ideal setting for raising a child is and will always be where there is a mother and a father. Some liberal judges don't see it that way. That is why it is time for a federal amendment that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
We also need to protect our children and clean up the culture that surrounds them. Every home computer should have an easy to engage filter to keep filth out of our homes. We need to enforce our obscenity laws, and for those who use the internet to prey on children, it will be "One Strike and You're Ours" with a long prison sentence, and lifetime GPS tracking.
Republicans for Change are patriotic and aren’t afraid to talk about faith. We love the flag, say the Pledge of Allegiance and support our troops. We recognize the hand of the Creator in the founding of our nation and will fight to keep the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on the front our money.
American patriotism is why I am convinced this nation will always prevail as the greatest hope of the earth. America faces unprecedented challenges, a virtual perfect storm buffeting the pillars of our strength. The course of our history will change. For America to remain the great nation it has always been, it will look to Republicans for leadership.
« Burn the Witch — Comments (18) | The NRCC and "Rediscover Your Party" — Comments (10) »
Change Begins With Us 60 Comments (0 topical, 60 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Democrats repaid him by treating him more viciously than a President has been treated in quite some time.
I still can't forget Ted Kennedy going on the floor of the Senate, saying that the President had told "lie after lie after lie" on Iraq---and the MSM editorial pages putting their fingers to their collective lips and whispering "Shhh! Don't say anything."
If Republicans---especially their leaders---do not defend themselves, they will be used as punching bags.
I don't want the next GOP President to be a John Brown, but I CERTAINLY don't want him to come off like a pushover, either unwilling or unable to engage his critics in verbal combat. IMO, George W. Bush leaves the impression that he is an easy mark for his critics, and either unwilling or unable to return the jabs thrown at him.
We need a capable verbal pugilist in the White House.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
From the master, who for all his sunny optimism knew how and when to fight back:
Pat Brown brought Senator Edward Kennedy to California to help him campaign, and he began a speaking trip around the state declaring, "Reagan has never held any political office before and here he is seeking the top spot in the government of California." He abandoned that theme after my next speech, when I said, "I understand there's a senator from Massachusetts who's come to California and he's concerned that I've never held office prior to seeking this job. Well, you know, come to think of it, the senator from Massachusetts never held any job before he became a senator."
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Neil,
While Governor Romney argues that "Republicans for Change are respectful and civil" and that they "will work with good Democrats to change Washington and confront the new generation of challenges we face", he isn't going to pull any punches when it comes to challenging Democrats who don't understand the threat posed to our nation by radical Jihadism. Case in point: in this very post, he reiterates his criticism of Senator Edwards' outrageous claim that the War on Terror is nothing but a slogan for a bumper sticker. I think the Governor would agree with your conclusion, "We can keep our dignity but still fight for what's right."
Thanks,
Stephen Smith
Director of Online Communications
MittRomney.com
Glad to hear it.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Thanks for posting Governor. You have great ideas and are very qualified for the job. Please take off the gloves and get off script and let it fly!
As Neil said we need someone who will not take the high road and will smack down the BS from the biased media and the left. This crap must be smacked down on a daily basis to prevent it from growing out of proportion. Call out those traitors.
When in the White House, more communication direct to the people via radio and TV chats/updates will help bypass the drive-by media filter.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
...with regard to whom I want to be our nominee. I have been quite impressed with your candidacy thus far, and I think you have found a great message. Newt Gingrich, a man who I admire greatly, has articulated that the GOP needs to make a clean break with the Washington establishment, make a strong case for the kind of conservative change they want to bring to our government, and explain why the left-wing "change" of higher taxes, big government, trial lawyers, and activist left-wing judges is the wrong kind of change to make. Your post here tonight along with your speech in Michigan indicates to me that you are the same page.
I think that this "Sarkozy"-style campaign is the winning formula for 2008. If Newt doesn't jump in the race himself, I would highly recommend consulting with him.
Finally, I think you're trying just a little too hard to woo conservative Christian voters. Lines like "our country's future won't be decided by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA" come across as overly corny and Christian social conservatives like myself are turned off by them. Social conservatives can easily detect when they are being pandered to. That being said, I think you are highly qualified and I am leaning towards supporting you for the GOP nomination. Keep the message simple and bold, and you can't go wrong.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
...in calling for Ted Stevens, Don Young, Larry Craig, John Doolittle, and other Republicans who are under an ethical cloud and/or federal investigation to step down or not run for re-election the way Rick Renzi has done so graciously?
BR,
Governor Romney has taken the lead in calling for the highest ethical standards within our Party. And he's laid out two specific proposals along these lines:
- Governor Romney will strip federal employees convicted of official misconduct of their pensions. He's said that we should expect more from our leaders in Washington and those convicted of breaking the law should be stripped of their government pensions.
- Governor Romney will prohibit family members of cabinet and senior staff members from lobbying the executive branch. If elected President, one of his first acts will be to issue an Executive Order prohibiting the immediate family of his Cabinet and Senior Staff from lobbying the Executive Branch. The standard for high ethical conduct has to be set at the top.
More specifically to your question, when Senator Craig initially decided to resign, Governor Romney supported his decision, "'Certainly, it was his decision to make. It was between himself and his conscience and his fellow citizens in Idaho. He made the decision he thought was best. And I support his decision,' said Romney." (Philip Elliott, "Romney Says He's Not Too Nice, Takes Dig At Rival," The Associated Press, 9/4/07)
Thanks,
Stephen Smith
Director Of Online Communications
MittRomney.com
Will you follow the entire Constitution if elected, not just the parts you agree with? By that I mean the 2nd Amendment and the 4th Amendment. It's well known when you were you Governor of Massachusetts that you passed a lot of anti 2nd Amendment bills. Why should we believe you that now you all the sudden have found religion on the 2nd Amendment? I also want to know if you think all parts of the Patriot Act are constitutional. These are important issues to a Republican voter like myself.
Allan Bartlett
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Gee you're really dumb sometimes Neil. Did it ever occur to you I might have a choice between Romney & Hillary if Ron Paul doesn't get the GOP nomination. Am I entitled to ask the Governor a few fair questions about what I think are important issues.
Allan Bartlett
That... is a far better answer than I ever expected to get. Much more useful anyway.
thank you,
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
These are important issues to a Republican voter like myself.
...
Did it ever occur to you I might have a choice between Romney & Hillary if Ron Paul doesn't get the GOP nomination.
As a "Republican voter," I wouldn't think a choice between Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton would be very a difficult decision. Anyway, I think it's pretty clear where the man stands on the Patriot Act. So you can go back to considering a vote for Hillary now.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Well after reading that article, his stand on the Patriot Act is very disappointing to a civil libertartian like myself. I don't think most of the Patriot Act is constitutional. I'm not a Con Law lawyer, but I can read the Bill of Rights. That's the only thing a President swears an oath to, not the Republican Party.
As for Hillary, she's no better on the issue either from what I've read. Don't worry, I will never vote for Democrat unless it's someone like Zell Miller, but we don't have those kinds of Democrats here in California.
Allan Bartlett
but Huckabee smokes him on 2A. I agree, we should not freak on every issue, and I am BIG TIME PRO 2A. I don't think Romney will curtail our rights. One thing many partisans fail to understand is presidential coatails. Even if a Repub were not an NRA life member, he would bring in THOUSANDS into the Executive Branch who are pro 2A and will likely gain us at least a part of the legislature.
It amazes me how so many focus on a single person, they attack every possible foible like they do not even understand the effect of presidential elections. A Rudy/Romney win, brings in THOUSANDS of pro 2A people, a Hillary/Obama win brings in THOUSANDS of Brady Bill lovers. That is the reality, and I used to work on the Hill. I am just telling you like it is.
Molon Labe!
Here's a good balanced article for starters. The scariest quote from the article..."We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them. I won’t chip away at them. I believe they protect us and provide for our safety"
The only thing Governor tough gun laws do is take away rights from law abiding citizens and makes people less able to defend themselves.
Allan Bartlett
I take it that means your answer to the challenge is, "No, I can't name one "anti-2nd amendment bill" that Gov. Romney has passed."
Right?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
to also tell Allan:
Q.E.D.
Vos can't ledo astrum si vos intentio pro clouds
Formerly known as ShowMeConservatism. For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.
But that's sort of the "end-zone dance" of blogging and I'm just not big on those (can't dance, after all).
Cheers...
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
1.) Articulate wherein Rommey sought to more actively restrict the right to bear arms; more specifically, why should there be completely unfettered access to arms? (and, since you seem to be such an avid constitutional scholar, please cite existing SCOTUS doctrine on the ability of the state to make certain restrictions deemed to be in the best interest of public safety)
2.) Cite instances where Romney has supported every and all clauses of the USA PATRIOT Act, no exceptions or qualms.
3.) Please explain why you feel the need to insult other people's intelligence simply because they make an assertion that you are already heavily leaning towards the primary election of a specific candidate.
You see, Allan, I've been coming here for over a year and a half now (with some breaks to concentrate on work/school/campaigns/sanity. As far as I know, it seems to be standard practice to ask the tough questions of the high-profile figures who grace the pages of Redstate, but be fair. To me, it seems like you don't hold to that standard. When talking about candidates whose initials aren't RP, you seem to want to bring out every little nitpick. OMG, Larry Craig is connected to Mitt Romney LOL! The reason that Paul doesn't have that problem is not because of a thorough vetting process, but because, at the federal/governor level, Romney already has 31 endorsements, and Paul has 0.
I like Paul domestically, but his foreign policy concerns me, to say the least. But, if I saw a post by him on here, I would try to keep it more respectful. Surely, you're able to keep the same standards.
Vos can't ledo astrum si vos intentio pro clouds
Formerly known as ShowMeConservatism. For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.
Here's Gun Owners Of America's take on the Gov Romney:
Will The Real Romney Please Stand Up?
by Erich Pratt
Director of Communications
As he travels through the South -- contemplating a run for the presidency -- Mitt Romney sounds like the modern-day incarnation of John Wayne.
He tells shooters how he used to hunt rabbits as a boy. He visits with attendees at gun shows, impressing them with his knowledge of the Bill of Rights. He quotes the "right to keep and bear arms" language from memory and assures gun owners he's on their side.
But wait, isn't this the same Mitt Romney -- the former governor of Massachusetts -- who boasted that his view on firearms was "not going to make me the hero" of the gun lobby?
[Remainder redacted. We make good faith efforts to recognize fair use here: do not print the entire text. Link and excerpt, instead. This is not negotiable. - Moe Lane]
So you see Nick, the Gov wants it both ways on this issue. In other words, he's a typical politician I guess.
Allan Bartlett
I feel that they are legitimate concerns. After all, you asserted that Mitt Romney would be a foe of 2nd Amendment and 4th Amendment supporters. You also called someone dumb when they said that you already had a horse in the race.
So, Mitt Romney would, by his own admission, not be the hero of the gun lobby? With all due respect, there are many people, even here, who would not be the hero of the gun lobby, because of concerns with assault weapons and the like. That doesn't mean he doesn't support the 2nd amendment-rather, it is an acknowledgement that he sees the need for restrictions in the interest of public safety. Many in the gun lobby also oppose background checks. If I support them, in order to make sure that criminals and mentally unstable people can't have access to weaponry, does that make me someone who would like to see the 2nd amendment thrown out?
I know it might seem like a personal attack when I say this, but you are being either purposefully evasive of my questions (although I don't know why that could POSSIBLY be the case), or just don't understand what the word 'question' is implicitly asking for (HINT: it rhymes with 'manswer').
Vos can't ledo astrum si vos intentio pro clouds
Formerly known as ShowMeConservatism. For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.
Allan, I'll let Governor Romney's able defenders here at RS handle most of the back and forth on this topic but I did want to make clear that Governor Romney believes in the individual right to keep and bear arms and as president and will vigorously defend the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
Moreover, Governor Romney repeatedly sided with Massachusetts gun owners and sportsmen in defending Second Amendment rights. Here are a few examples:
- In July 2006, Governor Romney signed legislation reversing burdensome regulations for the makers of customized target pistols. Gun Owners' Action League (GOAL) Executive Director James Wallace responded: "Target shooters are an important part of our membership and I know they will be very pleased with this change." (Office Of The Governor, "Governor Romney Approves Exemption For Target Pistols," Press Release, 7/26/06)
- Governor Romney supported and signed into law legislation clarifying the definition of a loaded muzzleloader. Here are the Governor's comments on the legislation: "Today, we are simplifying the gun laws in Massachusetts ... With this legislation, our hunters will know precisely what is expected of them. ... Hunters now no longer face the lengthy, complex and unnecessary task of cleaning the barrel every time they encounter a public way, nor will they unknowingly violate the law by only removing a gun's priming device." (Office Of The Governor, "Romney Resolves Long-Standing Conflict In State's Firearm Law," Press Release, 11/22/05)
- In July 2004, Governor Romney signed major legislation supported by gun owners that reformed the state's onerous gun laws. Here's the Globe's report on the legislation: "The bill enjoyed the support of Massachusetts gun owners because it also encompassed several measures they favored – including a lengthening of the terms of firearm identification cards and licenses to carry." (Scott Helman, "Romney Retreats On Gun Control," The Boston Globe, 1/14/07)
And here are a few of the improvements in the law that helped sportsmen:
• Establishing The Firearm License Review Board To Review Cases Of Those Applying To Have Their Firearm Licenses Restored.
• Extending The Term Of Firearm Licenses From Four Years To Six Years.
• Re-Instating A 90-Day Grace Period For Citizens Trying To Renew Their Firearm License.
Thanks,
Stephen Smith
Director of Online Communications
MittRomney.com
Stephan,
Tell my good friend Todd Cranney I said hi. We worked together on Victory 06 out here in California.
Allan Bartlett
One can not be a supporter of the 2nd Amendment (or the Constitution in general) when they actively support a federal ban on so-called "assault weapons" as Mr. Romney has done in the debates.
No candidate who supports more federal gun control gets my vote, and Mitt Romney supports more federal gun control.
For the primaries, that makes sense (given your user name).
For the general, if it's Hillary vs Romney, you have to look at the whole picture. Romney is going to give you judges (at least) who are better on 2nd Ammendment stuff so there is still an advantage.
I certainly don't want the likes of Hillary to be President, but as disgusted as I am with the Republican party lately I'll likely just sit this one out unless a conservative is nominated. I know a lot of people believe that's equivalent to a vote for Hillary, but this time I'm not going to vote for the "lesser of two evils" and vote for someone I don't really support. I'm tired of fighting my own side.
Not that it much matters- I live in Minnesota, a state consistantly blue in Presidential elections.
I'll never understand the "sit this one out" thinking. It's like you are on an island and the only food offered is chicken or beef on a daily basis and you don't like either one so you don't eat.
Not voting for the lesser of two evils allows others to make a choice for you. It just doesn't make any sense in reality.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
I understand where you're coming from, but at what point do conservatives take a stand and say "enough"? The failings of President Bush and the Republicans in Congress to uphold conservative principles hardly need recounting here, as I suspect we're all well familiar with them by now.
Do we allow this leftward shift to go unchallenged by simply pulling the lever for whomever has the "R" next to their name? I've done that in every election since old enough to vote in 1988, but I've had it. Not this time. The Republican party no longer deserves my blind support after abusing our trust so completely- they have to re-earn it as far as I'm concerned. I won't have left the Republican party, they will have left me.
I'm not going to tell anyone else how to vote, and certainly don't blame those who'll vote for whomever the Republicans nominate. I'm just not one of those people, not this time.
The time to get mean and nasty to make some changes is in the primary.
Only a fool would not vote in the general for the lesser of two evils. The reality of not voting is not cancelling out a vote for the worse of two evils.
One can rationalize all they want about civil disobedience and not vote in the general to make some principled stand but the reality is it only helps the worse of two evils and that's all that really matters.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
Hollowpoint,
Governor Romney does not support "more federal gun control":
"...'There are people in this country who desire the removal of all guns in our society, and the elimination of Second Amendment rights, and they're wrong. I'll fight to protect our right to bear arms,' he said. 'I'm not looking for any change in gun laws in this country.'" (Jason Spencer, "Right To Bear Arms Inviolable," Spartanburg Herald-Journal, 4/23/07)
Thanks,
Stephen Smith
Director Of Online Communications
MittRomney.com
Sir, at CPAC Governor Romney claimed to support a renewal of the so-called "assault weapon ban". Can you explain why he said that and how it correlates with a strong support of the Second Amendment?
Are you saying that he's changed his position? Supporting a renewal of the "assault weapon" ban most certainly would be a case of "more federal gun control".
From the May 15 debate in South Carolina, Mitt Romney said:
"First of all, there's no question that I support 2nd Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban."
I'm not sure by what rationale that he considers an "assault weapon" ban being consistant with 2nd Amendment rights, but unless he's changed positions, he most certainly does support additional federal gun control laws.
This is why Romney will never get the nomination. He's been to the John McCain School of Media Love.
It isn't just the Second Amendment. Romney is constantly doing this. He picks up memes from CNN and the WaPo and confuses those with actual "mainstream" thought.
What Romney's support of an assault weapons ban tells us is that (a) he doesn't know an assault weapon from shinola, and (b) he thinks that the magic phrase "assault weapons ban" is something with near-universal support. That's partly because of (a) and partly because he still gets his news from CNN and the WaPo and he doesn't understand that most Republicans (and especially the ones who vote in primaries) have long since tuned those out.
This is also why he thinks that Republicans will flock to him if he talks about a "Republican culture of corruption." No one is in favor of corruption, but Republicans don't want their candidates spouting Democrat talking points that they've picked up from Democrat media. Like McCain, Romney confuses Media Love with the support of voters. Like McCain, Romney is allowing himself to be used by a pro-Democrat media to throw Republican-branded spears at Republicans.
People despise McCain for that. Why Romney would emulate it is a mystery.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Come back soon, and often.
Best -
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Your campaign is a breath of fresh air, and the fact that you are willing to confront the problems we've seen in the last few years with Republicans losing their way is a welcoming platform. You have plenty of support here in the Show-Me state.
Vos can't ledo astrum si vos intentio pro clouds
Formerly known as ShowMeConservatism. For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.
Good luck in your campaign.
I understand that the campaign trail leaves you little time for this type of interaction, and so your participation at RS is greatly appreciated.
That said, if you could find the time to respond to some of the questions raised, it would send the message that you are willing and able to address the concerns that Conservatives have in this election.
Posting the first step. Responding to (serious) posters would be the next.
Assuming that the whole primary thing doesn't work out like you plan, would you consider serving both state and country and relieving the US Senate of the execrable John F. Kerry?
I saw a flash poll a while back where Kerry had a 3% lead over some guy named Beatty. Imagine the beauty of a US Senate where John F. Kerry no longer reports for duplicity?
Freedom Fighter in Occupied VA
In Massachusetts, the legislature and I closed a nearly $3 billion budget gap, balanced the budget every year and replenished the rainy day fund, without raising taxes or our borrowing cap.
Forgetting the increase in the gas tax and the doubling (or even quadrupling) of state fees? Those are tax increases.
And to say that spending was cut when that decrease in spending mostly consisted of reductions in aid to local governments is playing a shell game. The local governments made up for the loss of revenue with property tax increases, therefore the overal tax burden in Massachussets didn't go down at all.
Go save the GOP in Michigan. Seriously, we need you there.
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 09/28/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
I wish you luck in the primary however I will stand with the whomever we all decide is the winner. I do appreciate your recent stand on illegal's in this country. I hope you accept some advice and start talking about the type of Supreme Court Justices you personally want to seat and why that is.
I personally know that most of the largest issues, abortion and 2nd amendment etc. will be decided by the court and it is important to me that they be conservative federalist.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Jaded,
Governor Romney has talked about the type of Supreme Court Justices that he'd want to appoint. To take one example:
"The U.S. Supreme Court would see more conservative justices under a Mitt Romney administration, the former Massachusetts governor told an audience at the McKelvie Middle School last night. 'I will tell you that this is a watershed point for the Supreme Court,' Romney said. 'And I will appoint justices like Roberts and Alito and Scalia . . . and Thomas.' Romney said he would appoint justices who would abide by the Constitution and refrain from legislating from the judicial bench." (Stephen Beale, "Romney Wants Conservative Judges," New Hampshire Union Leader, 7/26/07)
Thanks,
Stephen Smith
Director of Online Communications
MittRomney.com
my point was he should talk about over and over and appeal to the religious right based on that. I think that a commercial with those views should be running in all the early states. Thanks for responding to me.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Mr. Smith –
The Governor would do himself, and the country, a lot of good if he would pledge to have a knowledgeable team do a complete audit of the federal gun laws and eliminate the stupid and/or ineffective ones.
Like most police officers, I am a strong 2A supporter (Chiefs—who are politicians, not cops—are a different story). So the Governor would also get some serious law enforcement support with this measure, too.
Looks like Romney is afraid of a Gingrich run. This is has been a part of Gingrich's core message for the last few years. Hopefully Romney is genuine in his adoption of these ideas and not just trying to prevent voters from encouraging a Gingrich run.
AmericanSolutions.com
If this wasn't pre-planned, then this is a stepped up campaign in response to a slipping grip on New Hampshire. Giuliani is the threat, not Gingrich.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
You may well be right. Who are we to read Romney's mind on this. It is however, clearly an adoption of a message Gingrich has been hammering home for a long time now. If Romney is sincere, then thats a good thing. I just hope he is AND that he actually understands the seriousness and scale of change we need. This is about much more than just the presidency or a handful of Republican leaders. It's really stunning how ineffective Republicans have been in office the last number of years.
Be yourself. Your best showing on RedState was the radio show host tape of you when you did't know he was recording you.
You don't have to be everything to everyone all the time.
Thats Hillary's game.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
Would Romney sign a federal Egg and Sperm law that prohibited making people from cloning and genetic engineering and same-sex conception? The President's Council On Bioethics recommended in 2004 that Congress prohibit all forms of creating children other than joining a man and a woman's actual genes. Missouri passed a similar law as part of their controversial Stem Cell Initiative, prohibiting implanting embryos that are genetically modified or not from a man's sperm and a woman's egg.
Does Romney renounce the principles of Transhumanism? The easy way for him to renounce transhumanism and convince me he's not in favor of developing genetic engineering and achieving immortality is by endorsing an Egg and Sperm law preserving natural conception. Would he support the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise?
Thank you for posting. I just wish I could believe you.
Thank you for coming here. I have a question, though (naturally!),
President Bush has been civil to the Democrats his entire administration, as part of his effort to bring a New Tone to Washington. He, too, said that the atmosphere in Washington was toxic, and he, too, said that if he only came to the White House and spoke with dignity and respect, that he could transform the atmosphere in the capital.
Democrats repaid him by treating him more viciously than a President has been treated in quite some time.
So I wonder why you don't seem to think America would be better served by a strong Republican President who is willing aggressively to challenge Democrats when they undermine our war effort, when they slander and libel our troops (using the floor of the Congress as legal cover), when they lie about Republican policies and about Republicans ourselves, or when they propose policies that just won't work?
We can keep our dignity but still fight for what's right. Ronald Reagan never pulled punches, though, and I hope you won't, either.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.