You've asked why I seem to find the Romney campaign distasteful. Well, here's why.
By Erick Posted in 2008 | Spotlight Blogs — Comments (176) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I will put this in the diaries. If one of the contributors wishes to front it, I have no objection.
"He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil." 1 Tim. 3:6 (NIV)
"The wealth of the rich is their fortified city; they imagine it an unscalable wall." Prov. 18:11 (NIV)
These are the two verses I've dwelled on for a while contemplating the Romney campaign. I've given a few people the impression that I dislike Mitt Romney. That could not be further from the truth. But, given repeated concerns, I figured I should tell you exactly how I feel.
In short, any position you can think of today held by Mitt Romney probably has a related sound bite of Mitt Romney saying exactly the opposite within the past five years. I am willing to suspend belief and believe that Mitt Romney's conversion to conservatism was sincere and not politically expedient. He did, after all, run as a Republican in Massachusetts and he won (of course it was as a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, anti-Bush tax cut, indifferent to Reagan New England Republican).
Nonetheless, I have a hard time seeing why we should hand the reins over to a new convert to conservatism. He has not yet had time in the wilderness through good and bad to make sure he has necessary fidelity to our core beliefs. I have deep concerns that when it becomes politically expedient for him to do so, he will sell us all down the river. As Paul warned Timothy, new converts tend to think it is about them, not the message. They grow prideful and arrogant. They get sloppy. They forget or suppress the principles.
You may take issue with that, but in looking at Mitt Romney's record as Governor of Massachusetts, I have seen no more than a handful of examples of him fighting the good fight on principle knowing he was going to lose. And if you don't believe me, I would point out again that he did not exercise his veto of the $50.00 abortions. Short of Saul of Tarsus due to his unique conversion, I believe we should put no new convert in charge of any movement, be it religious, ideological, or political, until the convert has had time to prove he really believes the tenets. In two debates already, Mitt Romney has used tokens of class warfare that should make any conservative wince -- once about tax cuts for the rich and once about social security benefit cuts for the rich to help the poor.
My other deep concern about Mitt Romney is not about him, but about his campaign. His campaign has largely operated on the idea that through their money they could wage war against anyone in the primary and anyone in the general election. That hasn't worked out so well for him. The arrogance of fortune in that campaign gave way to a sense of invulnerability. That sense led to the achilles heel of the campaign -- they could buy up all the air time, but they could not sell their candidate to the voters. He has a hard time connecting with the average person. I have no doubt that Mike Huckabee's line about people wanting to vote for the person they work with, not the person who laid them off, was directed at Mitt Romney, Huckabee's denials notwithstanding.
This fortress of wealth has made the Romney campaign one of the most predictable campaigns of all time. Every move seems choreographed through abundant polling and implemented with abundant cash. That captures the overwhelming point here. All of Mitt's money and all of Mitt's men have not yet been able to connect him to the voters at large, but they've spent a hell of a lot of money trying (I suspect they'll succeed in Michigan).
Finally, I will not belabor this point, but Ben Domenech successfully mocked my last concern. This has absolutely nothing to do with Mitt Romney himself, but it goes to the core of his campaign. Some vocal supporters and sycophants of the Romney campaign have deluded themselves into thinking that if a voter does not like Mitt Romney, he must be anti-Mormon bigots. It is unfortunate, but it has happened. Certainly some people will not support Mitt Romney because they are anti-Mormon bigots. But the vast majority of people do not support him because (1) they do not trust him or (2) they trust someone else more. It is unfortunate that in a Republican campaign, we have stooped to liberal attack canards, e.g. if you don't like affirmative action you must be a racist or if you don't like MItt Romney you must be a bigot.
You feel free to disagree with me on these points. I don't care. Many of you have asked about how I view the Romney campaign. Well now you know (and may wish you didn't).
in his budget package?
by that question that GHWB was a conservative? Anything but...
The vast majority of the money he spent was to buy himself into the first eir early on in the game and build name recognition. To that end I would argue that he has connected with the average republican voter; just not the independents or evangelicals that vote GOP. Yet even in those subcataories he hasn't sucked he just has been overwhelmed by candidates caterong to those goups.
As for the new convert concern, I will note that he has kept his promises. People that talk about the policy changes tend to overlook that he has a history of honoring campain promises. I would have more of a problem with someone that promised something and didn't deliver than someone that keep their word. That is why I trust Mitt as a "new convert".
"I will note that he has kept his promises. People that talk about the policy changes tend to overlook that he has a history of honoring campaign promises. I would have more of a problem with someone that promised something and didn't deliver than someone that keep their word."
Actually, I have a problem with Mitt sticking by a campaign promise he made when he was wrong, and using the promise he made as a reason to not to try and change the pro-choice laws. I think it was on Meet The Press where he boasted that he kept his word by not trying to change the pro-choice laws in Mass. I'm sorry, but he made the promise when he was in the wrong, so now that he converted to being pro-life, and he’s on the right side of the issue, the life of the unborn and their protection trumps the promise he made. If you’re trying to win over the evangelical vote the last thing you should do is try to portray yourself as an honorable man because you honor a promise you made when you were pro-choice.
Presented in scripture as an example of IMproper behavior, memorialized by four days of lamentation every year (v. 39)
BUT...we're supposed to talk politics, not religion here. So, bad cwilson. No cookie.
are about politics as much as they are about religion, and to put them off limits in political discussions is to shoot ourselves in the eye.
because his word is that he is pro-life. Huckabee doesn't have a word, he hides behind God and religion, just ask the victum's families of the 1000 criminals he let out of jail. Rudy's word? Just ask his ex's about that. McCain gave his word to 20,000,000 illiegals that he would treat them with compassion and I believe that he'll keep it. Fred? I just don't know enough about him to comment. I suspect he's a straight up guy and will keep his word.
Mitt is not a recent convert to conservatism, he is a fake.
His comments this week regarding the auto industry reveal his love of big government 'solutions' for the auto industry which he promised the Michigan voters.
Michigan, and the auto industry, are both responsible for their demise. It's not the federal government's responsibility to bail them out - as any conservative knows. Michigan keeps increasing taxes resulting in more jobs leaving the state. The auto industry was complacent while foreign companies were innovative. Additionally, the greedy unions imposed high fixed costs that resulted in expensive vehicles that were not built the the quality standards of the foreign companies.
If Michigan wants to turn around industry:
Cut business taxes
Cut individual taxes
If the Auto industry is interested in increasing market share:
Invest in technical innovation and improved quality control
Get rid of the unions
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
Since when is investing in technology and research not conservative. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime".
"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
and in fact we invest 4 billion in the area that Romney wants to focus on. Anything that helps national defense is in play, and in fact should be focused on. So if increasing in that research helps out the manufacturing sector, all the better.
"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman
Which is oh so good, So I guess the way to make it better is waste invest more money ?
Defense research is not the kind of research that helps out manufacturing (esp mass manufacturing) in the short term. Unless you want Michigan to convert over to arms manufacture its not going to help much. If Arms manufacture does boom, well we will be more concerned about other things.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Just how long does it take research to go from start to product ?
Some how I don't see investing in research as solving Michigan's problems any time soon. Not unless Mitt plans to build a hell of a lot of research labs in Michigan.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Republicans look to long term, meaningful solutions.
"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman
...is the only real, long-term solution that actually works.
Take a drive along Eisenhower Parkway in Ann Arbor. And yes, there's a lot of government funding in those labs.
I'd hate to see it without them.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
in basic science, as opposed to applied, (mostly through universities) this is the sort of thing you cannot get private industry to fund, but it pays off many dividends.
I am a limited government guy, but you don't want to fall into the trap of being knee jerk and doctrinaire, there are always some exceptions to every situation.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
You just don't talk about basic science fixing a states current economic woes. Or, any current economic woes. Basic science takes upwards of decades to make it from the lab to the store.
Take a look at the transistor. You know it was first invented in the 20's ? (Google lilienfeld and fet). The spaceprogram is another. I support it, I just try not to drink the Koolaid about how its a positive return.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
sectors I'm missing.
"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman
....to the auto industry?
Seriously?
Couldn't you say that maintaining a strong manufacturing base is important? Plus fuel efficiency would leave us less reliant on foreign sources. There are tons of ways in which leading the world in these technologies would benefit America.
"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman
government from the marketplace, not by regulating or instituting protectionist policies.
regulatory.
"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman
You can provide this for research. Its worked out in the past.
Of course these days the regulation would be so written that there would be no choice in what to research.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The point is, government should not invest in technology. If he had said, "I propose a,b,c, incentives to corporations who invest in tech.", he might have a good point. Let the private sector do what it does best, inovate. :)
but I'm pretty sure that America does benefit when we invest in technology. Look at the health industry. We are constantly putting money into research that benefits Pharmaceutical companies specifically, but the research is purposefully more general. We do the same in software and computer technology. None of these investments hurt us, but instead help us stay ahead in the game. The same principles can be applied to other sciences.
"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Years of government "investment" have caused outrageous inflation in the medical care industry, leading it to be unaffordable without insurance to too many people.
And you want to do that with CARS?
I have been worried lately about our ability to manufacture necessary items for defense. It seems to me that there are a few industries that need some help (maybe through government contracts or such) to insure that we do not have to import our munitions and other defense supplies from China.
Of course, that would be limited to industries that are critical to the defense effort.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
I'd like to see that help in the form of getting the government and the legal system off of their back.
You have to admit Tort reform is cheaper to implement and more benefit to manufacturing than a dozen federal helping programs.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
That's the liberal / socialist view. See USSR for how successful that works.
Innovation, investing and teaching folks to fish are done by PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.
The government's role is to provide for the defense of the country, negotiate treaties, and provide the infrastructure (roads, police, firefighters etc) for support.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
"The auto industry was complacent while foreign companies were innovative. Additionally, the greedy unions imposed high fixed costs that resulted in expensive vehicles that were not built the the quality standards of the foreign companies."
"If the Auto industry is interested in increasing market share:
Invest in technical innovation and improved quality control
Get rid of the unions"
The American auto industry has been far from complacent for the last 25-30 years. Some of the innovations worked, some didn't. Some innovations were to use methods and techniques of management, production, and quality control that the Japanese had been using for decades. Plagiaristic, but effective. Quality standards now are the equal of the Japanese and surpass the Germans.
American automakers have long been developing and applying technical innovation as a matter of normal business practice. The teachings and research of W. Edwards Deming have been the primary tool used to improve quality for the last 20 years or more.
How do you propose to get rid of the UAW in Michigan?
One more thing. Union benefits may or may not be excessive, but employee health benefits in the auto industry are paid to all regular employees. I believe it's the single highest cost item (several thousand dollars) that goes into every car. This is a business expense that Toyota and Nissan don't pay at all (in Japan; I don't know what they do at their US plants). Figure a way to reduce that cost (something the industry is working on) and reduce the federal corporate income tax, and the US auto industry is immediately more than competitive.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
I've wondered since Thomas left why he had such a disdain for the Romney campaign. When I first came to this site I did not know really what I had found. My respect for this place has grown proportionally with my understanding of what all this really means. This place is probably hugely influential in the battle of opinions, so naturally all the candidates, I assume, courted you. Romney comes and says (much as I have thought to myself) "Look at my Resume, my Credentials, my Accomplishments, and lend Me your voice". When you declined or wavered in giving that support, the campaign was astounded and thought that the only way you could reject such a Republican darling, such an obviously superior candidate, was because of bigotry. Well, that is arrogance on their part, shame on them. I myself have been disabused of that approach with my time here. There is a very focused argument on why he should not be preferred, and while I think the distrust is misplaced, I now understand it's nature.
"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman
I know first-hand that bigotry has been a component to some quarters of opposition to Romney's campaign. And I also know that some of the FUD that Romney has had to contend with (E.g. the MassResistance FUD) has been used and spread by those same quarters. It's reality. Some of that FUD has landed in the robo-pushpolling-calls that Huckabee's campaign has launched.
Knowing if there is hidden motives behind such opposition is a wheat v chaff exercise.
No candidate can say they don't fight against some bigotry in their campaigns. Look at Thompson. I'm sick to death of the actor tag. Look at how Paul gets bashed for being loony toons... not that he isn't but he does deserve some small portion of respect for being a human being underneath it all. Can anyone tell me that there is not one person out there who won't vote for Guiliani because of his Italian sounding name or just the fact that he's from New York City? Or McCain simply for his Irish name and on top of that, isn't he of Catholic faith?
The media is the one pushing the bigoted angles and they're getting a free pass, while anyone who brings up doubts because of the media coverage gets called a bigot. In the meantime, they ignore the real argument Erick put forth: You can't trust someone who states they have changed without seeing evidence of that change through actions.
I have the same problem with Romney as I have with McCain. You can't trust what they say because there is no real evidence of the changes in positions they claim. Words are cheap. It's what they do in action that speaks loudest.
You can't trust what they say because there is no real evidence of the changes in positions they claim. Words are cheap. It's what they do in action that speaks loudest.
Then look at what Romney did, as opposed to statements he made in 1994 ...
Or rather his supporters whom he has no control or direct affiliation with did.
I appreciate your rather deep objections to Mitt Erick. I wish I could say mine were as well reasoned. But they aren't. When I see Mitt Romney presenting his positions, he morphs into Cliff Robertson presenting for the old ATT (When there was just one phone co), or that guy who does the get rich quick infomercials on at late hours. I just know neither of them had the slightest knowledge of what they were the pitchmen for, and probably could care less. Their performances were technically impeccable but devoid of life.
When Mitt presents himself as a conservative thats what I take away from it. I get the feeling if he sent his suit and hair out to the cleaner on election day, they could wind up taking the oath of office while he was left at home. Whats more nobody would notice.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I feel is real, because it does seem that he made it when the life issue was front and center for him during the stem cell debate. The conistiant change in the message of his campaign I think hurt him. In Iowa it seemed like he was running for President Bush's third term with attacking Huckabee's attacks or diversions from Bush Adminastration policies. In NH, he campaigned as a change agent. Mitt needs to fire his PR guys and be himself.
McCain '08
And it was that he was one of few at the time who knew that he was considering his run for the Big House and he KNEW that the bill that he was suddenly "faced with" would wreck his chances before he even announced. He's the worst of all of the candidates in both party (IMO). At least we know what Hillary and the like stand for!
He lacks everywhere except the wallet and that is ALL that he brings to this election cycle!
There is a place in the race for guys like Mitt and it is under the watchful eye of a President! Romney for Commerce Secretary.
I will really question the agenda of any existing or former politician or pundit who gets behind one these frauds (i.e. Mitt, Huckabee, Rudy)
2008; Its about a Commander In Chief!
And it was that he was one of few at the time who knew that he was considering his run for the Big House and he KNEW that the bill that he was suddenly "faced with" would wreck his chances before he even announced.
At the time, the top dogs to succeed Bush were Bill Owens in Colorado and George Allen in the Senate. Mitt wasn't even under consideration at the time simply for being a one-term Governor with good enough polling numbers to try for a second term in Cambridge.
It's not when Romney came to be considered a top dog that matters. It's when Romney himself seriously contemplated running for President that matters. If you check the timeline, it's clear that he's considering a run before he ever announced his change of heart on abortion.
... because for one thing, Romney is no fool.
Let's be perfectly honest; the guy switched on abortion and took a softer line on gun control before Bill Owens and George Allen's stars went down.
There's no way he (or any one right now in the field except McCain) could have thought he had a chance against any of those two. And he would be right.
No doubt, Romney is no fool, but that doesn't mean he lacks presidential ambitions. There was widespread public speculation about his aspiration to run for the presidency well before his flip flop on abortion. Here's one article from August 1, 2004. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/01/looking_to_2008_ro...
I am considered by most progressive politicos to be among the "rich" although I am earning at the lower end of "middle class." Why am I among the "rich" ? If you work you are a target in the current political climate and I work therefore I have a bullseye on my back .
Prov 18:11 is one of many used by the Religious Left to bash the "rich" even those who make less than them but have the "wrong" politics.
Mitt is human therefore he has many faults -like we all do - but class warfare is a tactic of the "progressives" so drop it !
I understand your concerns. There really is nothing new in your post that hasn't been posted a hundred times elsewhere. I understand why you feel the way you do. I didn't like Mitt Romney at first because I am a Mormon and didn't want to vote for him just because he is also one. I too was concerned about his "conversion" to conservatism. However, as I've looked harder at his past successes, which dwarf anything any other GOP candidate can claim, combined with the fact that I believe he will fulfill all campaign promises, he became and has stayed my top choice.
Compare him to the other candidates and I think you could (and probably should, since you singled Mitt out) write a similar critique of them. Here are just a few of major concerns with the other candidates:
McCain - More likely to betray our party and principles than any of the others based on the fact that he's done it so many times before.
Guiliani - Questionable ethics, low moral standards, pro-choice, etc...
Huckabee - Terrible on foreign policy. Unethical. Dishonest. Liberal.
Paul - Too easy.
Thompson - Slim record of achievements that resonate with voters. Poor campaigner and a surprisingly sub par communicator. Probably the most telling thing is that it is largely thought he would support McCain if he dropped out - McCain! A man who has repeatedly betrayed our party.
Erick - Romney's record, experience and judgement match up incredibly well against the other candidates even if you take into account everything you've mentioned.
As for the anti-Mormon stuff. RedState has done a commendable job of patrolling this site but go to any other site and read the comments after a Romney article and you will understand why people may quickly use the bigot card. I'm used to it. I've lived with it all my life. Most Mormon's are like me and don't care when people say this stuff to us directly; we do, however, care when a site tacitly endorses such comments by not seeing them as abusive. On RedState, I haven't noticed people throw out the "bigot" card unless it was used. I've used it three times and two of the three times the poster was immediately informed they were banned - so it is out there.
As for his record in Massachussets - you say you see very few examples of him fighting for a principle when he was going to lose. Do you hold Fred Thompson (who has been endorsed by HumanEvents your sister site? Fred Thompson clearly would not meet this standard any better than Mitt.
"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)
"As for the anti-Mormon stuff. RedState has done a commendable job of patrolling this site but go to any other site and read the comments after a Romney article and you will understand why people may quickly use the bigot card."
I'd sure like to know where you are talking about! I read everything I can and that includes comments and I haven't seen barely a think that was anti-mormon if at all.
are the worst offenders. It is all over Politico. I've reported a particularly hostile poster (GOP Latina) on Politico numerous times but she's still there. It is not at all hard to find so I don't think you're really looking for it.
"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)
the earlier poster was confused somehow, or missed your comment saying that RedState had done a good job of suppressing anti-mormon bigotry and thought you meant you had seen it here. In which case, it is not impossible to find, but is difficult to find, especially without an immediate response to the effect of "stop being anti-mormon".
"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan
From the commenters (not posters) at race42008.com.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Feel free to use the image as I uploaded it to ImageShack:
http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/8369/prosperitytd0.jpg
Thompson - Slim record of achievements that resonate with voters. Poor campaigner and a surprisingly sub par communicator. Probably the most telling thing is that it is largely thought he would support McCain if he dropped out - McCain! A man who has repeatedly betrayed our party.
In terms of federalism what kind of achievements, exactly, should Thompson's record show? Having his name stuck on a bunch of bad bills with good intentions is not a record worth standing on... which is why McCain doesn't really talk about his record and deflects anyone else talking about it, as do Romney, Huckabee,and, to some extent, Guiliani. Bad bills with good intentions might make you feel good until it's time to pay up. Illegal drugs cost less than bad bills with good intentions. They make you feel good, too, for the short term, but nobody seriously proposes legalizing them.
1 of 100 during his Senate years, and the only one who ascribes to federalist principles. Nobody really asks why he didn't sponsor legislation. They only note that he didn't, which translates to a lackluster career in the MSM's eyes. One of the few times he moved away from those principles got us the McCain-Feingold. Do we really want to keep going down that road? Missed in the MSM and places like this, he has said he would get rid of at least part of that bill.
This is the most misleading claim among the claims against Thompson counting even the "conventional wisdom" that he got in too late. Too late for what, one wonders, when the only votes in are from some of the smallest states.
People who are dead set against giving him a chance because "he got in too late" are allowing the MSM to tell them who to vote for when the race is wide open, still. No, he doesn't have a chance if you allow that to happen instead of making up your own minds. Now, if you have your own reasons for not voting for him, i.e. not a federalist,don't agree with his positions, etc. that's one thing, but these MSM talking points are not good reasons when the MSM is not conservative friendly.
I don't believe he'll support McCain... another rumor allowed to grow into "truth". He has distanced himself from McCain in a number of ways but nobody is listening because the MSM Gods have declared it so. If you all allow this to happen because the MSM wants it that way, are you any better than McCain when it comes to betraying your party?
If so, then my faith in Americans ultimately doing the right thing is sadly misplaced.
Thompson - Slim record of achievements that resonate with voters. Poor campaigner and a surprisingly sub par communicator. Probably the most telling thing is that it is largely thought he would support McCain if he dropped out - McCain! A man who has repeatedly betrayed our party.
Slim record - when did ten years in the Senate become slim career? It certainly isn't slim for the Democrats.
Poor campaigner, sub par communicator - whatever that means.
Here is the kicker: it is largely thought that he would support McCain... Who thinks that? Romney supporters? I'm sure that he declared his candidacy because he wanted to support McCain. Yeah, that's it. That makes a lot of sense.
So here's the big question re: Romney vs. McCain. Which is worse:
To stab Republicans in the back as a governor, disavowing everything that makes us Republicans: pro-life, anti-gay marriage, low taxes, the Reagan legacy, state-run health insurance, and then repent of it two years later when you run for the Presidency as a Republican
or
To stab Republicans in the back while serving as a Senator. But at least McCain has not been pro-abortion. He has not been pro-gay marriage. He has been stalwart on the GWOT, which Romney has not been.
If you want to slime McCain, fine. Go for it. But to use the friendship of McCain and Thompson to slime Thompson, that's a stretch.
obviously did not read my post very well. I clearly stated that what Thompson has done in the senate does not resonate with voters. You describe this as being because he is a federalist but that argument won't work with voters because why then would they think he would do anything different as president. He has a platform he's running on now, so why as a federalist are these things okay to do as president and not important enough to try to champion as a senator? Or was he just being opportunistic and didn't want to damage his conservative credentials in case he ran for president? - that's the same thing the other reply above accuses Romney of.
Other posters have used the argument that Fred supported Baker because he was friends with him. Why is it too hard to believe that Fred would support McCain due to friendship. He also was in favor of McCain Feingold and this really gives reason to question what he might really believe. Personally, I've decided to believe him but like I said, if he drops out and supports McCain that would be treacherous in my eyes. Many conservatives despise what McCain has done and if Fred were to support that, then that would be a betrayal within itself. Do you think Rush Limbaugh will be happy if that happens.
Mitt Romney was never Pro-Abortion or Pro-Gay-Marriage, so you are either misinformed or intenitonally being deceitful.
My point in the response to Erick was that every one of these candidates has flaws and yet he has singled out Romney in this post. That's fine, it's his right obviously to post his opinion. It's also my duty to call him on it.
"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)
Well, he's admitted to having been pro-choice, although not in so many words.
On May 10, he gave a speech to the Massachusetts Citizens For Life. Here is the introduction:
It's a honor to be with you and be with people who exemplify the pro-life values throughout their lives. I believe it's an honor to receive this award, as you can imagine. I recognize that it is awarded for where I am on the issue of life, not for where I've been. And I respect the fact that you arrived at this place of principle a long, long time ago. And I appreciate the fact that you're inclined to honor someone who arrived here only a few years ago.
I'm evidence that your work, that your relentless campaign to promote the sanctity of human life, bears fruit. And I do follow, as Kevin indicated, a long line of converts - George Herbert Walker Bush, Henry Hyde, Ronald Reagan. Each of them made meaningful contributions to this cause.
It is instructive to see the double standard at work here. When a pro-life figure changes to pro-choice, it hardly gets a mention. But when someone becomes pro-life, the pundits go into high dudgeon. And so, I'm humbled and grateful to be welcomed this evening so warmly and so openly.
-
NARF
that's not what he said in 1994. Or 2002. Or 2005. In fact, not only did he have a commitment to keep abortion "safe and legal," but he had personal reasons for having that commitment, which he cited on more than one occasion. I'm not saying he didn't change his mind - I'm sure he did, and thank God for it - but don't try to sell this "Mitt was never pro-choice" when even he states he was.
Fred Thompson, 2008
.
obviously did not read my post very well
What you failed to get out of my post is: nobody asked why he didn't. You just take the MSM's word for it. How can it resonate with voters in that case? How do you know it doesn't resonate with the voters? Because the MSM says so? You have also believed the MSM account of him dropping out and supporting McCain... a rumor started by another campaign and given more credibility than words from the man himself, while you argue we should take Romney's words at face value and trust that he's speaking the truth.
The problem is you can argue anything you want and find someone who agrees with you and ten others besides. Then you can make a case via the MSM that supports your argument. Frankly, the MSM is all over the place with their opinions and predictions.
I'm not here to change your mind but to ask that you at least research away from the mighty MSM before making those arguments. Why bother to vote at all if the MSM is going to choose the candidate for us?
Yeah, they're all flawed, one way or another. They're human, not Gods. If you want perfection look to something other than man.
Which is worse ... To stab Republicans in the back as a governor, disavowing everything that makes us Republicans: pro-life, anti-gay marriage, low taxes, the Reagan legacy, state-run health insurance, and then repent of it two years later when you run for the Presidency as a Republican
Sorry to say, but you're way off-base.
Romney stood four-square against ESCR as Governor of Massachusetts - he argued against it and ultimately vetoed it. He was the primary force in the fight to get the Goodridge decision before the people of Massachusetts so they could get to decide on same-sex marriage instead of the MA Supreme Court. He never once raised taxes, sent tax cut packages to the MA State Legislature, and issued well over 800 vetoes to cut spending.
He headed off the implementation of a completely state-run single payer system of healthcare in Massachusetts (activists had already qualified it for the ballot and it was guaranteed to win) with his own, which he worked with the Heritage Foundation to create. In other words, he had a choice between bad and worse and he picked the latter.
The point is that Romney's governing record (and instincts as revealed over that time) is demonstrably conservative.
Like I said below; I believe that even if I were to clone Ronald Reagan and have him installed as Governor of Massachusetts he would hardly be able to put up a better record ... because it is MASSACHUSETTS - even I doubt that Reagan would have vetoed the $50 abortion co-pay seeing that the MA Supreme Court has stipulated that abortion must be covered by any healthcare plan where the state has a say.
Romney is not perfect by any means. None of our top fives are. His campaign tactics are far from what I'd have advised him to use. But he has never stabbed Republicans in the back.
The problem I have always had with Romney is that he has switched on so many issues, over such a short time, and now he campaigns on those very same issues (which he uses as a cudgel to pound his opponents for holding the positions he used to hold). Like many others have stated, I just don't think he is authentic, and it makes it hard for me to support him. (However, should he win the primary, he will have my support. The Dems just don't get it.)
I think a political tale from the 1940's is terribly appropriate here. When Wendell Willkie ran as a Republican for president in 1940, former Indiana Senator James Watson would not endorse the former Democrat. (Willkie had been a Democrat only the year before.) After Willkie lost, he supposedly went up to Watson, and asked Watson why he hadn't supported Willkie. Willkie specifically asked Watson why he didn't believe in "Christian forgiveness for a sinner who has repented?" Watson supposedly answered Willkie by stating, "I do believe in Christian forgiveness. If the town prostitute repented, and joined my church, I would welcome her with open arms. However, I damn sure wouldn't allow her, in her very first week there, to lead the church choir."
This nicely describes my lack of support for Mitt Romney.
Erick K. Knackstedt
If the prostitute repented, and had the skills to lead your choir, and you needed a choir director... true christian belief and faith in forgiveness would be to give her the job. Otherwise, you have not truly forgiven her for you are still judging her based on who she was and not on who she has become through repentance. Does a person receive forgiveness and then have to go through a time trial to prove their repentance. If so... we still judge. Consider again what 'forgiveness' truly is.
knockdaddy
We have 4 other qualified choir directors in the running.
Let's suppose the prostitute 'said' she repented just because she wanted the extra money from being choir director, but kept on doing what she was doing. Wouldn't the church look silly when she got discovered?
Forgiveness is not the same as trust. Forgiveness is given, trust is earned. Our reformed prostitute should be happy to sing in the choir, and then in a few years maybe take the lead position.
If she's up on the altar stamping her feet and claiming that she should be the leader (especially by going negative against the other candidates), that's not very reassuring as to the truth of her conversion.
That's the situation here.
One apparently does not believe in the doctrines of the Church (Huckabee).
One does not give the impression (right or wrong) that he really wants to be the choir director (Thompson).
One is still a prostitute, take it or leave it (Giuliani).
And the last is guaranteed to introduce hymns everyone in the Church hates (McCain).
That would be the former prostitute who attacks everybody else's purity. Plank from eye, etc.
... but it doesn't mean he wouldn't make the best choir master, does it?
PS: I'm on record criticizing Mitt for his campaign's tactics.
Mitt's record in MA is lukewarm at best, leaving aside issues of conservative or liberal affiliation.
... I think that's as best from a Conservative point of view, as can be expected.
You know what, I don't want to know.
Isn't it about time to lay this to rest?
"One does not give the impression (right or wrong) that he really wants to be the choir director (Thompson)."
How on God's green Earth can you continue to repeat this canard? The man quit a good paying position to run for this job. None of the others can say that. (Romney may have done the same, I'm not sure). He is practically going door-to-door meeting voters in an effort to get voters for his candidacy. He made something like 50 stops in 10 days in Iowa, promoting his candidacy. He's doing something similar in South Carolina.
He's doing this on a shoestring, and it's a smaller shoestring than necessary because people keep repeating this nonsense (doesn't want it; too little, too late; no fire in the belly) while they ignore the reality that's in front of their eyes.
Set your preferences as you will, but for heaven's sake base them on reality, not what someone else has made up! Show Fred the same courtesy you rightly ask for Mitt.
Incidentally, I'm for Fred, but Romney is my second choice.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
...my point.
I don't trust Mitt Romney. And I have no reason to trust him.
And you pro-Romney people have not yet made good arguments why I, or anyone else, should trust him.
Hence, Romney for some cabinet position or for VP. But I will endorse him over McCain, Huckabee, or Giuliani.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
have shown long-term, through-slings-and-arrows fidelity to parts of the conservative agenda. As I have said before, we know there are issues on which each of them will never sell us out.
With Mitt, there is no such issue, no proven core.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Do you consider Mormons (Utah) in general hard core conservatives? Just curious.
Romney's campaign in 1994 was extremely conservative minus the abortion issue. I'm sorry, I will never, ever support John McCain after he pulled that amnesty garbage---TWICE! Switching to the right side of Life and backing that up with vetoes is one thing. Betraying this country and sellling us down the river to the 3rd World is quite another.
I'll have you note who was running on a platform of limited illegal immigration in 1994. (HINT: Answer found below)
"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan
Hang on to that one.
I was just about to say that my biggest Romney issue is that of his campaign, and the buck stops with him.
I'm no fan of Huckabee, but good grief--the Romney campaign needs to reinforce why we should support him, not spend all their time talking about why Candidate X (usually Huckabee) is wrong (we know, we know!). And now the attacks on McCain...yawn. I don't even read my email updates from the campaign any more. I read Romney email from someone who isn't officially with the campaign, because he doesn't drone on the negative stuff, ever. He sells Romney.
See, if the campaign did more like showing that one little chart, they'd likely start getting a more positive response. I DO NOT WANT to hear constant negative campaigning (yeah, yeah, "contrasting the candidates," whatever), mainly because I'm going to vote for the Republican nominee, no matter who it is (except Ron Paul, obviously). All this negativity, though...it's just giving the Dummocrats ammo for the fall *and* it gives me a bad taste in my mouth.
Or is it simply a matter of faith that he will ...?
I have to admit that I do tend to cut both Giuliani and Romney a little more slack for their previously held liberal positions because they ran in dark blue areas of the country.
If a politician runs to win, it only makes sense that he is going to avoid taking positions that make it impossible for him to win. So, I have retained the possibility that Giuliani and Romney were never truly committed to the pro-choice/pro-abortion view point (just taking the abortion issue as a helpful example) but only adopted that position because "political reality" demanded it.
A red state conservative doesn't really have that excuse. The only reason why a red state conservative takes a liberal position on an issue is because he thinks that this position is correct.
I realize that grading on this sort of "blue state, red state curve" isn't very satisfying for many conservatives. And I do realize that there are limitations to it. How far to the Left can a Massachusetts or New York City Republican be before we decide that he is not "one of us?" Shouldn't we judge all Republicans on the same set of standards regardless of whether they tried to win votes from the people of Massachusetts or the people of Arizona?
My answer is, "not really." If I am an investigator in a murder case, I might be asked to look at whether a suspect has a motive for murdering the victim. In this political mystery of who I will support, I have to consider the possibility that Candidate X only took this or that liberal position because of the political circumstances he was in, not because he was a true believer in the liberal idea, but because it was political required.
This "grading curve" doesn't explain all of Romney's or Giuliani's political behavior. And if conservatives had better choices available to them, we wouldn't have to consider voting for them in a primary.
But even Fred Thompson voted for McCain-Feingold and endorsed McCain. I consider both of those choices an example of taking a liberal position. And given that Thompson did not face any political pressure from his constituents in Tennessee to make those liberal choices, I have to believe that he believed in them.
Also, when a candidate takes a position or casts a vote, one should ask the question, "How decisive was that vote or position?" In other words, if a Republican takes a liberal position on an issue where the difference between a conservative victory or a liberal victory was extremely close, that liberal position has to be given greater weight than if the vote was lopsided.
That's why I have been very unforgiving of McCain vote his votes against the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and his lack of willingness to end the capability of Democrats to filibuster conservative judicial nominees. These weren't "lost causues" at the time that they were being fought for. We were on the brink of winning these battles and McCain tried to hand victory to the liberals.
If you look at Romney's record, I am sure you will find a situation where he too handed liberals a victory. But I haven't found that situation yet. The health care plan passed in Massachusetts doesn't really qualify given that Romney vetoed many aspects of it and was overridden by a 5 to 1 Democrat legislature. Again, the blue state red state curve.
He had an option--move. He could have spent a few years in one of the many more conservative states, and then run for public office there.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
be viewed as an "opportunist candidate"? wouldn't others in circles like this blogs say oh he moved there just to get elected he's not really a conservative.
reason conservatives do not support him....he is liberal in his policies...taxes..or if you like "fees"...the state healthcare..which penalizes you if you don't sign up...that is to big brother for me...Oh by the way you haven't heard that Morman thing lately have you? because it was never true anyway....and died because it had no life.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion