The Presidential Election and Connecticut’s Social Conservatives
November 28th, 2007 by Peter
No–for those of you who have been asking–FIC will not be making an endorsement in the presidential election. Our flagship organization does not make endorsements and our PAC only endorses in state, not federal, elections. As for me personally, I have been approached by two campaigns, but I am not yet supporting any candidate.
“Fine,” I’m hearing, “but what about our fellow FIC members? Where are they?” We haven’t polled them, but I can offer some anecdotal evidence.
The first thing to jump out at me are those of you supporting Ron Paul. Perhaps this should not surprise me, since we discovered during the 2006 primary a number of Ned Lamont voters who oppose both the Iraq War and same-sex “marriage.” Connecticut’s Ron Paul voters are thinking along the lines of a blog I posted last March:
It would be too much to say that because the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 Connecticut legalized same-sex unions in 2005. But there is no denying that an anti-Iraq War backlash played a powerful role at Connecticut polls in both 2004 and 2006–leading eventually to the defeat of two veteran Republican congressmen and the election of Democrat supermajorities in both houses of our legislature. Yes, Republican Rell and pro-war Lieberman are obvious exceptions to the wave that hit nearly everyone else, but the question remains: How different might our legislature be today if we had not invaded Iraq–or, rather, if the war had gone better? And how much further along would the pro-life and pro-family causes be–both in Connecticut and nationally?
But even the mainstream media now reports that a successful “surge” has led to improved possibilities for both Iraq and the political future of conservatism. And regardless of whether this remains the case, most of our members do not plan to vote for Ron Paul.
What about Rudy Guiliani? I know one FIC supporter who admires his toughness and trusts that he would keep his promise to appoint strict constructionist judges to the courts. Indeed, in many ways, Guiliani is one of the most impressive political figures to emerge on the American scene in the last twenty-five years. Nevertheless, most of you shared my negative reaction to the news that Connecticut’s top GOP lawmakers are supporting their party’s only pro-abortion presidential candidate.
I have not heard a single word from any of you about John McCain. I also have not heard anything–or anything positive, anyway–about any of the Democratic candidates. Ditto for Hunter, Keyes and Tancredo. On Fred Thompson, many of you were initially enthusiastic but the excitement seems to have dropped off.
That leaves Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney and most of you seem to be supporting one or the other. Romney supporters are telling me that their man is the only across-the-board Reaganesque conservative and that Huckaby is an economic liberal. Huckabee supporters tell me Romney’s a flip-flopper who could have done more against same-sex “marriage” and that his Mormon faith will cause the loss of crucial votes in the South.
On Romney and same-sex “marriage,” it’s worth noting that our peer organization in his home state, the Massachusetts Family Institute, holds him in high regard. And on Huckabee, it is worth noting a nice-guy authenticity to the man that could play well in Connecticut. It even earned him a favorable mention from liberal columnist Colin McEnroe:
I like Mike [Huckabee] even though I don’t agree with him about many things. He seems so nice! He opposes the right to abortion, gay marriage, civil unions and gun control in the nicest possible way. He seems to lean creationist, although his current position is that he can’t imagine why anybody needs to know — in order to vote for him — whether he believes humans evolved from monkeys. He appears decent, as opposed to Rudy Giuliani, who believes what I believe on every single one of the above issues but is obviously a fraudulent creep.
Of course, Colin also says that Huckabee has no organization in Connecticut and that a Huckabee victory here would be “crazy.” But he goes on to note that crazy primary results are a Connecticut tradition.
Romney, meanwhile, does have a state organization that will now be co-chaired by Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton.
Connecticut’s primary will be held on February 5th.
Loading ...
I find it hard to believe that anyone, conservative or not, can be fooled by Romney, he has “evolved” his opinions on so many issues. If he told me it was raining out I would go check. Considering how the issue of flip-flopping was beaten to death in the last Presidential election it would be a bit ironic to turn around and support Romney. I think that Huckaby’s supporters are correct that Romney’s Mormonism will negatively impact some voters, and not just in the south. I believe there is a strong distrust of the Mormon religion in this country among both conservatives and liberals. Probably it will be the strict literalists in the conservative churches who will be the most vocal about it but like racism, bias against other religions or denominations is there even if no one is bragging about it. Since he’s really not looking for support among the liberals it doesn’t really matter what we think but he definitely needs to please both the center and the right of the Republican party if he wants a chance at winning. I’m no fan of Giuliani’s since I lived in NYC during his reign. Not that he didn’t do good things but the people got stomped on at times, not something I find endearing about a candidate for higher office. I bet if you watch closely as the race runs on that his liberal side will be hidden more and more and he will court the right as sweetly and convincingly has he can.
I feel bad (it’s true!) for true social conservatives there really is no candidate who represents you. Then again, there’s never been one who represents me and any vote I have cast for President has simple been a lesser of two evils decision. Actually, no, the first time I voted was for a President who believed much as I do. His time in office was short
So, not that you were looking for the opinion of an unaffiliated voter who can count on one hand the number of times he voted Republican, but there it is.
Peter,
Sigh! So many thoughts…so little time!
My guy is unequivocally Duncan Hunter, A.K.A.: “WHO????” I’m a realist. Hunter surviving Iowa and New Hampshire will b a miracle. He will most likely be long gone, come our primary, in which case, I will vote for Mike Huckabee. Chronilogically down the list from there for me is Tancredo, Keyes, Cox and Paul, in that order. As in 2000, I like all or most of the “second tier” guys and none of th first tier. I wouldn’t give a plug nickel for Rudy, Mitt, McCain or (ZZZZZ!!!), Fred. Psst..hey Fred…wake up…yo, Fred….!
With respect to both brevity and the focus of this blog, I will shy away from elaborating further on specific secular issues from the candidates, with the exception that practtically none of the candidates are discussing the North American Union, and that is a real threat to our sovreignty, economy, Constitution, liberties, courts and security. The NAU is being pushed by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Thompson, McCain, Dodd and Clinton are all CFR members, and Giuliani’s law firm is currently reprsenting CINTRA, a Spanish company that has a 50 year contract to build the NAFTA Super Highway, beginning in Texas, and I consider that a conflict of interest, even though Giuliani is not a CFR member. As far as I am concerned, that entire organization are traitors, and I trust no one (including Bush 41 & 43) who belongs to it. Party affiliations are fine, but I am an American first.
I am a little disappointed that FIC is not endorsing a candidate, but I understand and respect your position. Endorsements are more fun and controversial that truly significant anway. I was far more grossly disappointed that the National Right To Life endorsed Thompson over Huckabe, but with like with the Christian Colaition in 2000 with Bush over several “second tier” candidates who were far stronger on life/family issues, , the real issue seems to be more of electability than principle, a defeincy I have found in several groups on both sides of the partisan aisle.
The Iraq war is probably the only issue on which I disagree with Ron Paul. I beleive his Constitutional argument is mostly sound, but pulling out suddenly now would be utterly reckless, both to the security of Iraq and the US. As John McCain said in tonight’s debate, unlike Viet Nam, according to the writings of many of the people we are fighting, their plan is very much to follow us here. I support this war for a host of reasons, but it isn’t a perfect situation, either. While I respect the opinion of those who view this very contentious isue differently, how we got into this situation is now far less of an issue than how it will be concluded.
Speaking of McCain, I disagree with him on several issues, but again, in keeping in focus to this blog, one of those issues specificaly is his approval of embrionic stem cell research. McCain claims to be pro-life, but I guess his stance has an age limit, and embryos just don’t cut the mustard. That just doesn’t fly with me.
As I once pointed out to another blogger on this site, Giuliani appointed liberal judges to the city courts when he was Mayor of New York. Actions go farther with me than words. I just do not beleive that he will appoint “strict constructionist” judges, as he pledges. I also beleive Giulian’s far left social ideology will all but destroy the conservative movement, and vry possibly, significantly weaken the GOP, if that’s even further possible. That all said, thus far, (this current week’s shocking new polls aside), Rudy is the only candidate who has shown the ability to beat Hillary in at least some polls, and in most cases, by only roughly 3%, which is pretty much the margin of error anyway. Lots can still happen, but love him or hate him, so far, he is the GOP’s only chance, and a slim one at that.
David and I seem to have found some comon ground on several fronts of this issue. Furthermore, he was much nicer to Romney than I would have been. Many people are calling Romney a “flip-flopper” because of his coin-flip changes on so many issues. Romney is not a flip-flopper: he’s a liar! I’ll take right over wrong instead of right over left any day. Romney is bereft of core principles. I couldn’t care less if he agreees with me or not. The man is an abysmal disgrace. As far for his Mormonism, it is not an issue for me, but I agree again with David that the Mormon issue will hurt Romney even more is time goes on. Romney neds to get a head of it, like John Kennedy did. The American people are an opn minded people, but open minds are not effected unless they are engaged. Communication is the key, and Romney is dropping that ball. It will hurt him as the lack of communication with the American people has hurt Bush.
Now you have hard it from both sides; David is libral and unaffiliatd, and I am conservative and affiliated, and both of us also agree that too often, we, the electorate are stuck with forcing to vote for who we deem to be the lesser of two evils. I again cite my comparison to the Republican candidates in the 2000 and 2008 elections; the second tier canddiates are the best and soon self-destruct, leaving us a first tier of several lessers of two evils, one of which will be coronated, but not nominated. The media, big money and an apathetic, unfocussed, and grossly uninformed electorate top the short list of reasons for that insidious and unnecessary dysfunction. In that regard, the Republicans and Democrats are probably equally guilty. The two titan parties have each morphed into being sekers of power instead of conduits of principle, and the American voters on both sides of the partisan aisle have been cavalierly abandoned in the process, to our gross national detriment.
I have very high regard for Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton, but given his record on being tough on illegal immigration, his investment of time into “Flip” Romney’s campaign is astonishing and ill-advised. (No it’s not…yes it is…no it’s not…yes it is….no it’s not….yes it is……” ) When it comes to candidates who are strong in illegal immigration, who’s Tom Tancredo…. chopped liver??? There is yet another example of individuals and/or groups choosing the ‘electable” over the “agreeable.” This cunnunndrum is kind of like the college grad who can’t find work because he or she has no experience, yet nobody will hire that grad to give him or her the expereince. How will back tier canddiates ever become front tir candidates until we start supporting those canddiates with whom we want, vs. the ones we think will win. Otherwise, we’re back to, as David cited, “voting for the lesser of two evils,” and for that reason, deservedly so. In short, we reap what we sow.
Doug
Mr. Wolfgang,
I just wanted to add to comments earlier about Duncan Hunter. All the candidates keeps talking about “their conservative records” but in reality, only Hunter and Tancredo have complete conservative, value-based records. With over 20 years as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Hunter has a 100% rating from Eagle Forum, Right to Life, NRA, and multiple other conservative organizations, with an overall rating from the American Conservative Union of 92%. He is also a Marine who served in Vietnam, and the father of a son who has served 2 tours in Iraq, and 1 in Afghanistan. He is a strong Christian, staunch supporter of marriage as the union between one man and one woman, and believes that life begins at conception. He is also a creationist, and believes that we have a right to learn about all types of science, not just state imposed evolutionism (Direct quote, “an atheist is a man who can look at a stone arrowhead and say ‘no one made this,’ then look at a mountain made out of the same rock and say, ‘no one made this.’ “). Please check him out at http://www.gohunter08.com.
If anyone wants to learn more about our efforts in CT, please email me @ stephenmlyon@gmail.com - and I’ll give updates on the CT Duncan Hunter for president campaign.
In response to some of the earlier written comments about a “lesser evil,” I’m copying a blog entry that I wrote the week after attending the Washington Briefing: Value Voters Summit in Washington D.C. I will yield that it is bold (I had someone accuse me of being a conservative Howard Dean.), but sometimes we have to be bold if we want our voice to be heard.
——-
“Lesser Evil” by Stephen M. Lyon
——-
What’s the problem with “choosing the lesser of 2 evils”? Answer: IT’S STILL EVIL!!!
I’m sick of conservatives and republicans forsaking their values and considering this election an anti-hillary campaign, and not a pro-values campaign. What’s with everyone writing off a true conservative, value driven candidate for president?! I for one, even I’m the only one, refuse to accept this falsehood.
I attended the “Washington Briefing” this weekend in Washington DC. At this “Value Voter Summit”, I heard from every candidate, and I see 4 candidates who are qualified to be our nation’s president: Representative Duncan Hunter, Representative Tom Tancredo, Former Governor Mitt Romney, and Former Governor Mike Huckabee.
I cannot support a candidate that condone’s the killing of innocent babies, be it under the guise of “woman’s rights” or “scientific research.” Secondly, we need a candidate ready to promote and sign the Federal Marriage Amendment, defining marriage in the United States Constitution as the union of one man and one woman.
Former Mayor Giulliani stated today that it was better to have a candidate who stuck to his beliefs than to conform for votes. I have a better solution - pick a candidate who doesn’t have to change his beliefs! Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, in particular, have stuck to their values no matter what the consequences have been and will be. The media, because of these beliefs, has refused to give them any media attention whatsoever. Both have incredible records in the United States Congress on all conservative issues, including: immigration, abortion, stem cell research, border control, national defense, Iraq, marriage, and tax reform. In fact, they are the only 2 that can honestly state that their records haven’t faltered on these issues through out their political careers.
“A house divided on itself cannot stand!” We, the conservatives and Christians and Jews and citizens of faith, need to unite as one and say “WE WILL NOT COMPROMISE!!!” How long is it going to take us to realize that the main stream media is NOT telling us the truth??!! The only hope for the GOP and Conservatives is NOT Rudy Giulliani! It is NOT Fred Thompson! THE HOPE OF OUR NATION RESIDES IN THE MINDS AND HEARTS AND SPIRITS OF THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!! We are “One Nation Under God” NOT one nation under politicians! Mike Huckabee eloquently stated that GOD is more important than GOP.
So, I’m not going to vote for Rudy or Thompson just to keep Hillary or Obama from becoming president for the reason I stated earlier: “the lesser of 2 evils IS STILL EVIL!”. Evil under NO circumstances is an acceptable alternative. Just because a candidate believes “personally” that abortion is wrong, doesn’t mean anything - its only political rhetoric. The same damage will be done by a candidate who “personally believes” or doesn’t “personally believe”, because THEY WILL STILL SIGN THE BILL! THEY WILL STILL APPOINT PRO-CHOICE JUDGES! THEY WILL STILL VETO CONSERVATIVE PROPOSITIONS!
WE CANNOT COMPROMISE!!! We tell children, in regards to drugs, under ALL circumstances to, “JUST SAY NO!” What kind of an example are we being to our future if we tell them to stand up for what’s right, but we’re aren’t willing to “SAY NO” to what’s wrong?! It’s time for the citizens of the United States of America to take off their diapers and start acting like adults! Its time for us to take responsibility for our actions! The future is now! It’s in OUR hands, not the media’s! It’s in OUR hands, not the politicians’! It’s in OUR hands, not the parties!
The time for people with convictions to unite under one standard - a standard which shouts to our states, our nation, and our world - “WE SHALL NOT COMPROMISE!” Join me in this battle - and this is exactly what it is - a battle. We have to fight or be trampled. Are you willing to join me? If so, please comment and tell others. We’ll do whatever we have to. Through the internet (blogs, facebook, myspace, etc) and through other grassroots efforts, we will let our voice be heard from the our house, to the school house, to the courthouse, and to the white house!!! WE WILL NEVER SURRENDER!!!
Remember, together we can, and will, make a difference! Together, WE WILL EMERGE VICTORIOUS!!!
Guys, it’s Huckabee - not Huckaby.
Thanks. I’ve fixed the post.
You see it in these comments and I’ve seen it in my in-box since I posted this blog. There’s a Duncan Hunter contingent in the Constitution State…something I didn’t know until this week. You guys have been less vocal than the Ron Paul crowd, but you’re definitely out there.
Overall, though, and my spelling issues aside, most of our folks still seem to want either Huckabee or Romney to be the nominee. Which, come to think of it, are probably the two contenders that state GOP leaders would least like to see nominated.
I am still very passionate about Duncan Hunter as a candidate, as slim as his chances are. Mr. Lyon succinctly summed my reasons as well. I will also add one more: China. China is the big, ugly, menacing elephant in the middle of the room that nobody wants to discuss, not just on economic and trade issues, but on military defense issues as well. I have read very much on China, and beleive me, Taiwan is only the tip of the iceberg, while also gas on the fire. That showdown is coming sooner rather than later, and it will make these rag-tag toungue-twirling, eye-rolling, head-chopping chanting fanatics look like the Avon Lady on a bad day without elecetrolisis and in Salvation Army attire. Our $200 + billion trade defecit with China has allowed her too double her military budget each year for the past 15 years. China has already shot out one of our satelites, and secretly traild one of our aircraft carriers undetected. Now the Chinese are building underwater cavs to serve as secret bases for their nuclear sub,arines. And there doesn’t even have to be a war. China could practically close us down now by our debt, the ongoing and unchecked unfair trade practices that we have created and allowed, and the buying and possible dumping of US dollars. China is now doing to us what we did to Russia to win the Cold War. I may have heard a couple of the other canddiates remark in passing on China, but not to the extent of Duncan Hunter, the only one who truly seems to know what is really going on and isn’t afraid to discuss it openly. Most of the others have various eupahimisms for our relationship with China. Hunter is a true Amercian, a real statesman, a staright arrow and a genuinely good man (Which are probably all or most of the reasons why he is losing so badly!) . For those who speak much more softly, if at all, about China, follow the money, and I mean even beyond the Clintons and the Democrats. I know we try to stick to family and life matters on this blog, but China is a real threat, and make no mistake about it, a danger to our lives. Much like with the North American Union, the same members of the Council on Forign Relations, which is comprised much of big name government and press and media officals, don’t want us to hear about China too much, hence all the droning on with incessantly mind-numbing drivel about such relavent and significant news items like Britney Spears, etc..
Hey, I was probably Bob Smith’s only campaign worker in CT in 1999/2000, and in my town, only 12 others besides me voted for Alan Keyes (after Smith dropped out) in the Republican Presedential primary. I don’t ignore polls, but I don’t let them sway my ideals either. “Duty is ours; results are God’s.” (John Quincy Adams).
But alas, the polls don’t even list Duncan Hunter. It is as likely that his name will be on our state primary ballott on Feb. 5th as it is that mine will appear there. So, assuming the status quo continues (a big “if” in politics), I will most likely be voting for Huckabee in Hunter’s absence.
A friend of mine is as equally conservative as I am. He often first checks the movie reviews before even considering shelling out coin to see a flick. If the dysfunctional, degenerate and subversive Hollywood gurus are sweating, stammering, salivating and getting hot over a film, he knows to stay clear away. Likewise, if they give it the kiss of death, he’ll be first in line at the box office. As the sage adage reminds us, “Consider the source.”
Likewise, if the “Connecticut Democrat Auxiallary” (AKA: Connecticut Republicans) so bristle at Mike Huckabee, I gotta know I’m on the right track! Although, I must admit that their equal distain for “Flip” Romney puzzles me a bit. (No it doesn’t….yes it does….no it doesn’t….yes it does….no it doesn’t….yes it does….)
Doug
Doug,
I enjoy reading (other than the typos and misspellings) your comments and agree with most of them–other than your views on Mitt Romney. I glean much information from your posts, but wonder why you have been so quick to accept the msm’s characterization of Romney as a “flip-flopper.”
I hope that you will listen to his speech that he is to give this Thursday. I’m sure that if you do you will hear for yourself some of his true character and stands on many of the issues important to you as an American, a religious person, and one concerned with moral values in this nation.
Of this speech that he is to give in Texas, Romney said:
“I want to make sure that we maintain our religious heritage in this country, not of a particular faith, if you will, not of a particular sect or denomination, but rather the great moral heritage that we have that’s so critical to the future of this country,” Romney said. “So, I’ll be talking about faith in America–not my own faith in America–and of course I’ll answer the obligatory questions, as he did.” (The “he” referred to being JFK.)
I look forward to a response from you, Doug. I wonder why you referred to Romney as a “liar” (”Romney is not a flip-flopper: he’s a liar!”) in your post number 2 on this thread. Such an appellation is neither deserved by Mitt Romney nor very “Christian” coming from you, imo.
Hi, Tricia.
Thank you very much for the kind kudos. You also made me chuckle! You’ve got me dead to rights on the typos and misspellings! Usually, it is from lack of time, and/or sometimes being tired, but I do try to check back and correct them when I can, but even then, I know I sometimes miss some. You might notice that some of my posts are better or worse in that regard. Also, I have a new keyboard which has a very finicky letter “e,” for some reason, and thus often misses that letter. I really do much better with spell check, but admittedly, that is no excuse, and your point is, much to my chagrin, well taken.
Respectfully, I disagree with you on the Christianity of choosing the word “liar” over “flip-flopper.” To me, they both mean the same. I also beleive that Christians should seek truth, and distinguish good from bad. That is not to say that Romney is a persisiant liar, but one who tells a lie is thus, at least at that time, a “liar.” I unabashedly bristle at euphamisms. We have far too much double speak and political correctness in our society today. People now waste more time talking, only to now say less. I know I tend to hammer points a little hard now and again, and maybe sometimes even to a fault, but that’s me. I’m a straight shooter. You might not like what I always say, but you’ll never have to guess about the validity of my beliefs, either. I recently read a quote from somebody, I forget whom, possibly Hillary, who retorted, “I don’t even know what that word means…what is a flip-flopper?” OK, if it was Hillary, we know her motives, but neverthelesss, the point is well taken. Liar, as ugly as it may appear, is pretty definitive. Take the frosting off the cake, and you usually know what flavor it is underneath.
I have no beef with Mitt being a Mormon. In fact, I think far too much hey has been made of it. Nowadays, I am grateful to see anyone of faith, whatever that faith may be, and espescially in public service. I have heard some people disect the Mormon relaigion and call it a cult. I freely admit to you that I know little of Mormonism, but to at least some degre, they seem to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior, and they love their neighbor. Doctrinal issues aside, that’s a pretty good foundation in my eyes. I don’t question his religion, other than I am befuddled as to how he can have (or allegedly had) some of his political views regarding abortion, so-called “gay rights,” etc.. By the way, I haven’t seen or heard his speech, but I think I will check it out. From a tactical political position, I think he waited too long to give it, but nevertheless, he was right to give it. Ditto with JFK. (And how sad is that?)
I do beleive Mitt is a liar. People can have changes of mind and even ideology on issues, but at his age, to have so many epiphanies on so many issues, and all within roughly the same time frame, and so soon before a Presedentail campaign? Liar! Tricia, I am not ruling out my own personal cyniscism here, either. I am sick and tired of being lied to by politicians, both individually, and collectively via their parties. Given the circumstances of these various changes of mind, juxtaposed against what I have seen and heard from politicians before him, I just can’t buy what Mitt is selling. There are just way too many coincidences that he wants us to believe.
There was a Christian/conservative Internet web site/newsletter called Alain’s Newsletter, which unfortunately and apparently went belly up about October/November last year. There was an extensive and well written piece in the final issue that laid out Mitt’s history on these issue changes. Also, check out Ontheissues.org, and click onto Mitt. Then scroll down on statements and bills from him that are very contradictory on several issues. There is also an excellent Boston Globe piece that I have saved by Joan Vennocci from November 26, 2006 (last year), entitled, “Romney’s Dance to the Right.” You should check that out as well. I have also read countless other sources, most of which I cannot recall over quite some time now that all pretty much lead to the same disturbing trail.
On abortion, gay rights, immigration and second amendment, he has contradicted himself, and/or suddenly had a change of mind on these several issuses within a short period of time. I just don’t trust the guy. As the saying goes, “Lie to me once, shame on you. Lie to me twice, shame on me.”
I am also privvy to what a couple pundits and columnists have noted, that Ronald Reagan was pro-abortion, but then later genuinely changed his mind to bcome pro-life. True enough, but actions speak louder than words. If you like Romney, I respect your opinion, and it is certainly your right to vote for him if you so choose. In my heart and mind, I must rely more on record than rhetoric. I am just not that trusting with politicians. I don’t like being that way, but that’s the hand that ahs been dealt to me, and when it comes to my country, I am as protective as a mother hen over her freshly hatched chicks. I would much rather risk misjudging a man than compromising or endangering my country of millions of men, women and children.
On The Issues also blatantly shows “Fact Checks” that reverse some of Romny’s claims on immigration. I have heard him say in the debates that he upgraded the Mass. State Police in forensics and in immigration investigation, but that site denies that the MSP followed up on immigration investigaations pending that upgrade. It also cites that Romney ignored four existing sanctuary cities. (However, in all honesty, that site also denies in the Romney section that New York, I presume addressing Mitt’s debate with Rudy, never called itself a sanctuary city. OK, maybe not, but let’s face it, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,….) I won’t fall into the political trap of the personal attack on him by Rudy, saying that he employed illegal immigrants at his house. Those immigrants worked for a contractor. Was Romney guilty? Maybe, but it’s weak, and I think, even trite. He hired the contractor. In all fairness, it was the contractor who should have ascertained that his employees were legal, not Romney, the customer. As Romney said to Rudy in the debate, you can’t question people just bcause they have a foreign accent. The only thing to the right of me on the illegal immigration issue is the wall, but on that matter, I tend to agree with Romney. Plenty of legal, naturalized US citizens speak English with a foreign accent. That accusation was simply a cheap political attack.
Romney also boasts being an NRA (National Rifle Association) member, yet it was recently disclosed in the news that he just recently (like within the past several months, I think) joined the NRA. To me, this guy just continually exudes rank opportunism.
Romney might otherwise be a very decent and religious man, and let’s face it, all the polygamy jokes aside, Romney has been faithfully married longer and to the same woman than many of his opponents can claim in their own personal lives, but I view politicains with a scale and while there may be some legitimate weight on one side, he clearly has some warts on the other side that concern me. Hypothetically, if he was to become President and demonstrate that he means what he says and says what he means, then I would accept his epiphanies and honestly consider voting for him in a second term, but as far as a first term, he has simply lost me as a voter.
Now, I just know that ten seconds after I send this post, I will inevitably think of a couple other items that I forgot to mention to you, but that aside, I think you get the gist of my stance on Romney. Romney might well be a very good man, Tricia, but there are several other good men running on the GOP side as well, but with them, I don’t have to guess what their true stand is, so why should I have to do so with Romney? Again, Romney might very well genuinely be a good man, but if one adage warns us to “Go with the devil you know,” then why not with the “angel” you know, such as Hunter, Keyes, Cox, Tancredo, Paul, Huckabee, etc..? (And yes, belive it or not, Alan Keyes is running again. The press and medai now seem to completly ignore him, as they do John Cox. I think at least part of the problem is that Keyes announced in September, and thus was overshadowed by the grand entrance of Fred Thompson that same month.)
I’ll watch for your response if you choose to send one. I hope I have clarified my points. Thanks for writing, Tricia. I wish you well.
Doug
I’m still undecided. But, for whatever it’s worth, I take Romney’s pro-life stance to be genuine. I don’t think he’s a liar, but even if he is, I suspect the deception (or self-deception) is not his current stand but the pro-choice one he took when he was running for office in MA. Quick, how many pro-abortion Mormons do you know? Exactly.
Speaking of his faith, like Doug, it’s a non-issue in my decision. A candidate need not share my belief in the Nicene Creed to get my vote for President.
I”m looking forward to his speech today.
Peter,
Your point is well taken, and I am even willing to accept at face value that Romney is true to his religious faith.
But respectfully, given that premise, he sold out his principles, in effect, to procure a job (Governor).
On the issues, maybe we are now seeing the true (conservative) Mitt Romney, but meanwhile, when it came to standing firm and facing the fire for very crucial issues like the sanctity of life, and traditional marriage for starters, he capitualted, or he sold out.
If his core principles, assuming he has any, can be so easily subdued or abandoned by simple electoral pressure from voters, how will he stand up when the heat is really ratcheted up by powerful, fanatical bloodthirsty evil thugs like Putin, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, Osama bin Laden, etc… ? I have heard people cite both Romney and Huckabee as being weak during time of war in foreign policy, because both were governors, yet Huckabee (OK, given, Huckabee came from a more conservative state, although Arkansas is highly Democrat) at least stood up and maintained his stance on the same issues that Romney waffled (or lied) on. Maybe they are both too inexperienced in foreign policy, but facing off manno to manno against the likes of Putin or Ahmadinejad, I’ll sleep better with Huckabee in the Oval Office than Romney.
Every citizen is entitled to his or her opinion and vote, and I respect that right, but for me, I say it again, I think as a true leader, this man is an abysmal disgrace. No voter should ever be forced to guess where a candidate stands. Such an ideal separates the politicians from the statesmen. If I have to guess, my vote is already decided. In general, he might very well be an otherwise decent man, and I am not ruling that out, but in my opinion, he is a lousy presedential prospect.
I think the way the country is scrutinizing Romney for his Mormonism (and Liebrman for his Judaism and JFK for his Catholicism) is a sordid and humiliating national stain. But given Romney’s previous (and fairly recent) record against life and family issues, frankly, I think he owes more of an explanation to his Church than to his country if he is indeed as faithful as he claims. (And yes….ditto for Lieberman, too.)
Doug
Doug,
Happy Friday to you. Before I get into the meat of my post here–perhaps you could use the rule I learned in grade school in Oregon:
“i” before “e,” except after “c” (Thus, “believe,” not “beleive.”) I’m lucky, I guess, that I’m usually a pretty good speller, but I still often type into our “textedit” program that marks misspellings, and then copy into the blog frame.
Anyway, on to my response to your last two comments here. I sincerely hope that you have watched, or at least read the text of, Mitt Romney’s speech “Faith in America” given yesterday. I believe that anyone who views (listens to, or even reads) it with an open mind and heart observes some of “his core principles,” his leadership abilities, his courage, and (I will now be so bold as to state) Romney’s ‘presidential’ demeanor. You may disagree, Doug, with my characterizations.
However, the response to Romney’s speech, from almost *every quarter* has been overwhelmingly positive–in many cases effusively so. These praises have come from as diverse observers as the Boston Globe (hey–how many times have they “flip-flopped” on Mitt Romney?), Pat Buchanan, Chuck Colson, James Dobson, Sean Hannity, Mike Huckabee, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Chris Matthews, and–in Rush Limbaugh’s first hour today–a 21 yr. old self-described “conservative atheist.”
Yes!! Believe it or not, she (an atheist) called in and effusively praised Romney’s speech of yesterday. She was “moved and inspired” by Romney’s speech, and commented at length on his courage and convictions etc.–and was “not at all offended by” the fact that he did not mention or include atheists in his speech. (Maybe the reason she could be so objective as an atheist has to do with the fact that she admires her Catholic mother and Islamic father.)
And hey–the above sources are just from the first half of the alphabet! Below are two of the comments:
PAT BUCHANAN: TERRIFIC SPEECH FROM EVERY STANDPOINT
“I thought it was just a terrific speech from every standpoint, I mean if he wins this election, he wins iowa, I think it will be because of this speech. this was one of the most this was one of the most formidable addresses I’ve seen any candidate deliver this year. ”
– Buchanan on MSNBC
Chuck Colson press release (posted at evangelicalsformitt.org):
“While I never endorse candidates, believing it is wrong for religious leaders to do so, I do commend Governor Romney for today’s remarks. This is a balanced statement which shows a real appreciation for religious freedom and religious influence in public life. Ironically, Romney managed the balancing act more skillfully than did John Kennedy in a similar circumstance in 1960.”
Of course, you and many others may not agree with the positive assessments in every respect. And yes, I know that the praise for Romney’s “Faith in America” speech is not universal (I’ve read or heard some of the criticism, such as on Charlie Rose last night), so don’t bother citing opposing views for me to read, Doug.
If you have not by now seen or read Mitt Romney’s speech “Faith in America” from yesterday, you can watch and listen to it at http://www.evangelicalsformitt.og, under Dec. 6 entry titled “Today’s the Day”–there is a link marked “watch the speech here.”
This is already getting longer than I wanted it to be–so I’m going to do a separate post to help clarify for you the so-called “flip-flops” Mitt Romney has made. But Doug, my friend (if I may be so bold as to call you such), fellow Christian, and fellow fighter to protect life, faith, and family in this state and nation–you have been misled and in some cases “lied” to about Mitt Romney.
The msm, and other sources you have cited, SPECIALIZE in distortions, and taking statements out of context. Also, their agenda is NOT that of faithful, true freedom loving people such as you and me and the other supporters of The Family Institute.
Keep in mind, also, Doug, that Mitt Romney has NOT BEEN a professional “politician” before the last 5 years (yes I know about the brief run for Senate in 1994), when in 2002 he was elected as Governor of Massachusetts. He has been poorly advised in some cases; and no one’s beliefs and views can be adequately explained/elucidated in 30-sec. sound bytes. Life issues, as well as many others, have extensive ramifications. (ie, are you for forcing a rape victim to carry a pregnancy to term?)
I will state, now and categorically, that Mitt Romney was NEVER in favor of “gay marriage.”!!!! He is and was against discrimination towards any in employment, housing—so-called “civil rights.” Some in the gay community and the media erroneously INTERPRETED that as meaning Romney was in favor of ssm–but ***nothing could be further from the FACTS.**** No one but Governor Romney has been so severely tried in the crucible of **actual** ssm, and thus is so well-prepared and motivated to prevent its further enactment in this nation.
Indeed, Mitt Romney did everything he legally could as governor to give the citizens of MA the chance to reverse the SSM dumped on them by unelected judges. No politician that I can think of has said and done more to stand for the rights of children to have both a mother and a father who are MARRIED TO EACH OTHER, no matter what the damage to his own political aspirations. (see his latest 30-sec. ad and other documentation at http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org)
I have been following Mitt Romney longer than you have Doug, and have read much on the evangelicalsformitt.org site, which I recommend to you for a more balanced and accurate view of Romney’s record. They have no axe to grind other than as they say:
“Evangelicals for Mitt exists because we want a president who shares our political and moral values and priorities, can win in 2008, and can govern effectively thereafter. We believe that the leader of the free world should not only understand, but also articulate why, a values-based governing strategy will result in a more humane, just, and compassionate society. We believe we have found just such a person in Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. He’s not just a candidate evangelicals can support—he is the best choice for people of faith. It’s not even close.”
I agree with them, and I’m not an evangelical. (You also probably know that some evangelicals are very vocal in their anti-Mormon, anti-Romney stance.) Even though you have posted some very unkind and insulting* (and in my view undeserved) remarks about Romney, I appreciate that you “have no beef with Mitt being a Mormon.” (*One of the insults is that you said, at least twice–”this man is an abysmal disgrace.”)
But, more importantly, Doug–even though I would gladly vote for Duncan Hunter or Mike Huckabee if one of them gets the Republican nomination–many smarter than I am are recognizing that Mitt Romney is by far the most electable of the Values Conservative candidates we have to choose among. (He IS also a true conservative fiscally, on defense, immigration, constitutionally, etc. and is for self-reliance & independence in general.)
If Huckabee survives the current scandal (over the released rapist-murderer who went on to murder another young woman in Missouri) to get the Republican nomination–he would be massacred by the national media, and has NO CHANCE in the big “blue” states such as California, Michigan, the northeast states, etc.
Sincerely,
Tricia
Trish,
Romney gave one of the most remarkable speeches in our recent political history. Very impressive.
Tricia,
Believe it or not, at one time, I actually was a good speller.
But onto Mitt.
All sources and their posible agenda aside, Romney’s actions ar a matter of record, and he himself as said that he has supposedly changed his mind on several issues.
I read the speech, and then I viewed it via a You Tube link. Unquestionably, it was excellent, and I am willing to bet it will some day be historically revered by scholars and historians.
But I think we’re talking apples and oranges here.
His speech, as good, and as sadly necessary as it was, was irrelevant to me because as I have stated several times before, I really could not care less what faith my President has, as long as it is a peaceful, loving faith, and he or she actually practices it. Romney’s speech was primarily directed at the bigots who have a beef with Mormons. I’m not in that group.
If you are hanging your hat on the fact that his speech somehow proves his faith and shows how he will lead on social issues, then perhaps you should review the line in which he said that as Governor he did not let his faith interfere with his governing (as we have already seen) and as President, he would govern with the same mindset. I couldn’t care less what his faith is, if he doesn’t observe its tenets. Again, I don’t profess to know much, if at all about the Mormon faith, but I don’t beleive it sanctions abortion and civil unions/gay marriage.
And you said it….expereinced “politician.” And that is what I have been saying about him all along. he strikes me as aquintisentail politician in a sleazy kind of way. He’s a weathervane, a hack, a vote counter, and his faith hardly seems to have much influence on him in that regard. I don’t mind having a Mormom president….so long as he is truly a practicing Mormon president.
Wethr it’s a change of mind, or bad advice (from advisors he picked), a man of his age tends not to have so many changes of opinion on so many isues and at such a coincidental time. I say again, if he can’t stand up to the votrs, how can he stand up to global tyrants who wish us harm? And why don’t some of the other candidats, Huckabe, Tancredo, Hunter, paul, Cox, Keyes, etc…have this problem? So then why should I vote for Romney? That question is not rhetoricla, Tricia, I really would lik to know, given all this we have discussed, why should I vot for Romney?
As Peter said, how many Mormons are pro-gay/pro-abortion? So if Romney’s faith is supposedly so important to him, why the (OK, I’l be nice…) “flip-flops”? I think the real truth is closer to what Romney himself said, his faith is (supposedly) important to him, but he won’t let it interfere with his governing. Let’s take religion out of the equation all togther. Just for moral reasons, he should still oppose those issues.
As far as bad advice and poorly being handled, that’s passing the buck, and I won’t accept that for an excuse, and it is an excuse, not a reason. I’m looking for a leader with core principles and the guts to carry thm out, not Zogby, testing the winds, and taking a poll. we have far too many of that example in office today already. I’m looking for true change.
I’m sorry, Tricia. You are entitled to your own opinion and vote, but this guy just doesn’t do it for me, and to the limited extent his recent speech even had on his ‘flip-flopping” reputation and motives, if anything, it only solidified my opinion. The guy is a windbag who doesn’t mean what he says and doesn’t say what he means, and blaming anyone else in his inner circle will not convince me otherwise.
Our country has had far too many “politicians,” hence, many of our current problems. I’,m looking for a leader and a statesman. I do not see that in MItt Romney.
Furthermore, our own electorate and the 4th estate are deserving of some blame, too. Romney’s faith should not at all even be an issue, but his issues, and the ambiguity he has created surrounding those issues should be the focal point of our national discussion regarding his candidacy.
Last but not least, who is the real Mitt…the old one or the new one, and why are there 2 of them, and how do we know which one is the real one, and for that matter, for how long?
And by the way, ditto with Kerry, Hillary, and all other so-called “flip-floppers,” and like candidates of any and all parties and ideologies, past, present, and dare I say….future.
Take care.
Doug
Tricia,
Quick post script to my previous post, you inferred that that the sources I cited were liberal.
Alain’s Newsletter was very conservative, and Christian.
On The Issues seems nonpartisan and fairly objective.
The Boston Globe, well…..
I also wanted to mention to you about Project Vote Smart, but I couldn’t recall the name before. (Or what I had for lunch yesterday!!!) That site also seems fairly non partisan and objective, and Romney refused to even send them his issue stances. Now, in all fairness, some other candidates have also refused, by they aren’t being called a “flip-flopper.”
Furthermore, trust me, I listen/read/view actually very little of the farce called “main stream media” because that is about all I can tolerate from them.
But the flip-flopper label has been lodged at him from both directions, and it seems to me, mostly from the right, which is where I do get most of my news from. plus, as I mentiond before he has already admitted to supposedly changing his mind on some issues.
It is what it is.
Let’s assume for a minute that Romney is genuinely conservative. He certainly hasn’t been honest. The only question then is when he lied about his issues stances….before or now. Again, (the electability issue aside) why should I vote for him, when I (at least, so far) have several other equally, if not even more conservative candidates to choose from, who don’t flip-flop and are confident in their core principles?
If I’m looking to buy a car (and price is no obstacle) , and I’m hot for Chevies, why should I settle for the car at the Chevrolet dealership that has a dented fender, when there are hundreds more on the lot in mint condition?
See my point?
I am tired of having to tolerate double-talking liars in the Oval Office (from both parties). If they happen to agree with my ideology, that is of little comfort to me.
As a nation, we cannot realisitically expect higher standards from our leaders if we tolerate the same bar that they have lowered.
Doug
My apologies to all who have had to strain their eyes in trying to navigate through my various misspellings and typos. With my longer posts, it has been tougher to get a handle on it, even despite my checking back for mistakes, and complicated by a new and finicky keyboard, which I am already regretting. I recently did a little experimenting and discovered that I can copy and paste my posts onto this blog, which also allows me a spell check (apparently better than my own “spell checking”). Hopefully, this will resolve the problem.
Doug
“I am tired of having to tolerate double-talking liars in the Oval Office (from both parties). If they happen to agree with my ideology, that is of little comfort to me.
As a nation, we cannot realisitically expect higher standards from our leaders if we tolerate the same bar that they have lowered. ”
Excellent statement! While without a doubt we completely disagree how a candidate should stand on some issues, I can totally support this statement. When Clinton ran again, I don’t think I went so far as to vote Republican
but he sure didn’t get my vote. And I felt sick to my stomach as I pulled the lever for the creep the Dems ran for president in 2004 but I had to register my vote against Bush. I think the whole 2008 race is populated with people that don’t belong in higher office, but that is what we’ve allowed to happen, starting at the local level. I live in Hartford, so you know what my local gov’t is like.
What I’m about to say next would get me in hot water in certain circles (to say the least) but I respect Huckabee for not backing down on statements about HIV/AIDS that he made in the past. What he said then disgusts me and I would be mortified if he were actually elected president, but he explained what he meant, put his statements in perspective but did not try to distance himself from them. The possiblity is that it would cost him some votes but he had the backbone to take that risk. That is integrity and would love to see that in a candidate I could support!
David,
I agree with some of what you posted yesterday, but wish that Huckabee would have “the backbone to take” responsibility for his role in pardoning Wayne DuMond, who had raped 17 year-old Ashley Stevens.
Brian Ross’ investigative report for ABC (shown on both GMA and nightly news with Charlie Gibson–I believe on Dec. 5) revealed that DuMond, who was released from Arkansas custody in 1999, was specifically instructed that **he had to leave the state.** (I am both appalled and incensed at a state ‘unleashing’ convicted rapists and criminals into *other states!!*)
Huckabee made a personal appeal to the parole board on DuMond’s behalf, after “a group of ministers” had appealed for his help for DuMond. A former member of the Arkansas parole board, who served at the time, was interviewed by BR and said that “if it was so important to the governor,” they decided to grant his request on DuMond’s behalf.
DuMond went on to rape and murder at least one other young woman, Carol Shields (a mother) in Missouri in 2000. He was “also a suspect in the death of Sara Andrasek, also of the Kansas City area.”
Huckabee has practically denied ever meeting Ashley Stevens (the Arkansas rape victim), who met with Governor Huckabee in person, in his office, to plead that DuMond not be released.
Trying to distance himself from her now–and any connection with this incident and the subsequent murders–may be politically *expedient,* but is not evidence of “integrity” on his part, imo.
If you have not heard or read, also–it is now revealed that Huckabee pardoned/commuted sentences of 1003 convicted Arkansas prisoners.
The DuMond case, in particular, after “a group of ministers” had appealed for his help–is an example, in my view, of too much “religious influence” in how one fulfills elected responsibilities. That gives me serious concerns about Huckabee as a President, even though I agree with and admire his *moral values,* in general.
No matter what legitimate criticisms of Mitt Romney can be lodged–as governor of Massachusetts, all of his *actions* were on the side of protecting LIFE. Also, Romney *never imposed* his personal religious beliefs in his governance–although some Log Cabin Republicans and other gay activists are not happy with him for his strong defense of marriage being only “between a man and a woman.”
In contrast, Huckabee seems to show evidence of wanting to impose his own religious beliefs upon the governed–with such ideas as making smoking illegal nationwide. I admire his goals, but sometimes his means seem less than Constitutional.
Hey Doug,
Glad you liked my suggestion of “typ[ing] into [a] “textedit” program that marks misspellings, and then copy into the blog frame.”
I wish, however, that you were willing to have an open mind to a little more of what I had to say about Romney in my post # 13, in which I suggested that you read some of what http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org have to say about him. (David French and the others there are *genuine conservatives* who just happen to be “evangelical Christians.”)
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree about some things, Doug. But are you willing to at least take a second look at Romney, now that National Review has endorsed Romney?
And, what do you think about the fact (on Drudge report, etc.) that for some time now, since Huckabee has been rising in the polls, the Democrats have issued NO statements on Huckabee? I believe the statement made in the article is that Huckabee “has a glass jaw,”–that he is perceived by the Democratic party as the weakest of the Republicans going for the Presidential nomination.
I believe that the Democrats DO want Huckabee for their opponent, because he has *no practical chance,* with the electoral college, etc., of taking enough big states such as California, and the big northern, and especially the northeastern states of gaining the White House for Conservatives.
I want the chance to be able to vote in November 2008 for a Republican nominee who has a realistic chance of putting true conservative principles into the White House–conservative Constitutionally as well as morally.
To me and to countless others, including at National Review, Mitt Romney is that candidate.
Tricia,
Are you sure you’re not letting your own religious bias mislead you about the candidates? While good ole Mitt was presiding over his state, homosexuals won the right to marry. And yet while Huckabee was governor in Arkansas, they passed a constitutional amendment that firmly defined marriage as between one man and one woman.
Romney strikes me as the typical “slick politician” who will say whatever it takes to sway voters, rather than holding firm to his principles.
Just watch him in this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI – to see what he once had to say about a number of issues that are critically important to social conservatives.
Romney has said “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in the country”, and by his own admission held that view consistently for over 30 years.
This was hardly a momentary lapse of judgment on his part. It was a deliberate course of action. And it’s not as though he was merely neutral on the question. He was actively, vigorously promoting his support of a woman’s “right to choose”.
During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney vowed to remain “pro-choice” (or as we like to call it “anti-life”) and uphold a woman’s so-called “right” to kill her child in-utero.
In his 1994 campaign, Romney promised “to do more to promote gay rights than Senator Kennedy”. Judging by the ultimate result in Massachusetts with the legalization of SSM, I guess we finally got what he promised after all.
His ability to flip-flop seems boundless. In that same video clip cited above, we see him say (on the question of the Boy Scouts of America having the right to exclude gays from membership in the group) “I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue” and then just a few seconds later says “I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.” Well, which one is it? This is the kind of evasiveness one would expect of Hillary Clinton (e.g. her discussion of the NY state plan to issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens) or perhaps John Kerry (“I voted for it, before I voted against it”). It’s not what we expect to hear from a Republican candidate for the presidency.
Earlier you wrote about Romney that “as governor of Massachusetts, all of his actions were on the side protecting LIFE”. Clearly you must see now, based on the record, this is patently false.
Folks may like or dislike where Huckabee stands upon the issues, but at least they know where actually stands. With Romney, you can’t tell what he truly believes or what he will do in the future.
And, to be fair, since you brought up “Evangelicals for Mitt”, fair is fair … you should also check out the “Mormons Against Romney” site at http://mormonsagainstromney.blogspot.com/
In particular, I found their tag line to be enlightening:
Nicely said. A bit more elaborately expressed than Doug’s reference to a “double-talking liar”, but the net effect is the same. To me and countless others, Mitt Romney is just that, a deceitful man who is driven by his own personal ambition and lust for power, and who cannot be trusted.
I guess any of us with a strong commitment to a particular faith could be said to have a “religious bias” in its favor, but I would be slow to read political support for a co-religionist as a manifestation of it. In the case of Romney, he has friends and foes all over the map. This thread has mentioned both evangelicals for Romney and Mormons against him. There are also some heavy-hitting Catholic and Jewish intellectuals–Mary Ann Glendon and Hadley Arkes come immediately to mind–who have lined up behind Romney.
On Romney and abortion, I think Tricia and Dave are both right. Romney unmistakeably ran pro-abortion campaigns in Massachusetts. But once in office he did nothing to advance that agenda and eventually announced a change of mind. The most charitable interpretation I can make of it is that he convinced himself he was “pro-choice” but once in office his conscience got the better of him and he couldn’t bear to further the pro-abortion cause.
The same-sex “marriage” stuff is thornier and I welcome Tricia’s (and other Romney folks’) thoughts on the matter.
Hi, Tricia.
Thank you, I did use your suggestion, sort of. I thought you had some special program/software. I started playing around with Windows and found I could copy and paste onto a blog, which I didn’t even know was possible. (I continue to learn more about this cyber stuff every day!)
Dave stole much of my thunder with some very good points. I am also glad to see he and I agree on Romney’s persona. I said “sleazy,” Dave said “slick,” jut the gist is still the same. You mentioned before that Romney appears “presidential.” Yes, he does….and that’s the problem!
I did look at Evangelicals for Mitt. They claim that the LDS have no official position on abortion, but the June 6th, 2005 Weekly Standard piece, “In 2008, will it be Mormon in America,” says the Church makes exceptions for incest and rape. Which one of those sources is wrong?
In the same piece, Romney’s advisor, Mike Murphy, called Romney a pro-life Mormon, “faking it” as a pro-choice politician. The Boston Globe, NewsMax and National Review during the summer of 2005 also quoted Murphy, yet Romney says he changed his mind. Which is it?
I say again, why should I have to bother myself with a compass, a map, a weathervane and a GPS device to determine what a candidate’s stance is? I know you, Peter and Dave disagree with my admittedly harsh (but I believe, accurate) verbiage about Romney being a liar, and that is fine, but I am sticking to description. When you boil down “flip-flopping,” it’s lying without the frills. Too often nowadays, we sugarcoat what needs to be said. If someone pickpockets me for my wallet, I won’t say he conducted an unauthorized transfer of property, I will say the thief stole from me. Ditto with Romney. Given his alleged self-made reputation of morality, I find the man repugnant, reprehensible, and yes, “an abysmal disgrace” as a presidential candidate, or for that matter, any person to be awarded any charge of notable trust. However, when he says he won’t allow his religious beliefs to interfere in his governing, this I do believe. The same could be said of John Kerry, and despite being a fellow Catholic, I didn’t vote for him, either.
I don’t care if National Review endorsed Romney. Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Giuliani. National Right To Life endorsed Fred Thompson. Neville Chamberlain also thought Adolph Hitler was a pussycat. Endorsements are worth about as much as a Confederate one-dollar bill in 1866. I am not easily swooned by other people’s opinions and endorsements. Along that same line, could the Dems view Mike Huckabee as their 2008 media darling (as they did with John McCain in 2000)? Sure, that’s possible, and your hypothesis about their devious motivations might well be warranted, but I think the Dems are acting on already refuted allegations by the Club For Growth on Huck’s fiscal policies and because he has a softer approach on social issues than Rudy, the bulldog. But I don’t let what the Dems say (or don’t say) sway me either. If I were so easily swayed, I would believe Dubya that Harriet Miers was qualified, the Dubai Ports deal was good for the US, and the North American Union is fictitious, and that Bill Clinton did not have sex with “that woman, “ Miss Lewinsky, despite his Oscar-worthy act of angry grimacing and finger wagging. Talk is cheap. One of the proudest votes I ever cast was in the 2000 GOP primary. Only 12 other people in my town voted for Alan Keys besides me. I had no illusions about his chances, but like my bluntly calling Romney a “liar,” I make no apologies for that decision, either. Opinions aren’t necessarily meant to be contestants in a popularity contest.
As for Huck not having a chance, he has an increasingly better chance every day, and nationally he is now # 2 behind Rudy, and Romney is down to about 12%, while McCain’s campaign remains on life support and his fellow one-world-order enthusiast and CFR member, “Not Quite Ready Freddy” Thompson, is taking a nap, but as I stated before, my guy is Duncan Hunter, and then Huck only after Hunter presumably gets knocked out of the race soon, and no, electability is not a factor in my vote. If Hunter is still on the ballot in February, I am voting for him. Issues and integrity are what count in my vote. Romney’s out, and no, I will not reconsider. How would he persuade me now? More backpedaling? He’s damaged goods in my eyes.
By the way, Huckabee may have pardoned 1,003 inmates but he also executed 16 of them.
No candidate is perfect, but Duncan Hunter comes closest for me, and with he and Huckabee, I don’t have to guess what their issues are (this week), and why should I? We can play the “tit for tat” game on issues, but Romney has a credibility problem that many of the other GOP candidates don’t have, so why should I even bother considering him?
If I was an employer, I would not hire Romney, given what I know if him. The American electorate are employers, and for one of the most important jobs in the world, and we need to end the excuses, euphemisms and tolerance for dishonesty, even if it is for somebody we like.
Sorry, Tricia, but again, you are certainly entitled to your vote, but you’re flogging a dead horse in trying to get me to vote for Romney. I am sure you and I agree on many issues, but clearly, not this candidate. In my lifetime, I have already had a bellyful of elected chameleons. I don’t want another one.
Take care.
Doug
Tricia,
Just one more thought, I particularly resent how Romney (and various other past and present candidates) apparently view and treat the most prevalent issue of the sanctity of life as a self-serving political calculation.
Doug
Doug (and others who are casting *personal* aspersions on Romney),
First, let me apologize up front, for anything I have written in my posts, which was, or may seem to be, of a confrontational, negative and divisive nature–concerning Mike Huckabee’s character or motivations. As I have stated before, I believe he is a fine Christian and I like many things about him, including his moral and pro-life values which I share.
I will have more to say (in a separate post) about *the facts* concerning Mitt Romney’s *actual record,* both in past campaigns and as the Governor of Massachusetts.
But for now, Doug, IMO, you are unfairly characterizing his *motives,* of which you can have NO KNOWLEDGE, as no one but God can know another person’s heart.
I just wish that people would stop making *personal* aspersions, as to someone else’s *motives.* IMO, to do so about Romney, or anyone else, is contrary to our better *spirits,* and unproductive toward electing a Conservative Republican who is guided by our common moral values.
As your *spiritual sister* and fellow child of God, I just wish to invite you and others attacking Romney personally– to consider that angry personal attacks are very unbecoming and NOT representative of what we (I include myself, here) should be doing as Christians.
By “Christians” I mean *genuine followers* of Jesus’ teachings and example (regardless of denominational labels). I don’t mean to imply that if we exhibit the normal human failings and sins we can’t be *genuine followers* of Christ. I have all too many of my own shortcomings, and I’m sure Mitt Romney has some–although not nearly as many as you claim, Doug.
But back to my defense of Mitt Romney–much of the information which you have read and heard, Doug, was deceptive by design. Appearances–ESPECIALLY with how *the media* treat prominent people–can be deceiving.
Because the liberal media (and even other non-”liberal” sources) have incessantly repeated distorted reports, and out of context past statements of Romney’s, I guess it is not surprising for people to be led down their primrose path of questioning Romney’s integrity. They incite these doubts and misperceptions of Romney because their agenda is secular, belittling ALL people of faith; and they want a liberal like Hillary in the WH. And they rightly perceive that Romney–with NO *personal baggage,* a ‘presidential’ bearing, a lovely family, and a stellar resume of qualified executive experience–is a grave threat to their agenda.
But I KNOW that Romney would NEVER “treat the most prevalent issue of the sanctity of life as a self-serving political calculation,” as you have asserted in your post # 25, Doug. (The only thing I liked about it was your brevity, :-).)
How can I say that with any knowledge, you might ask? Well, first, I have extensively *searched for* ANY statement made *by Romney in favor* of abortion or same-sex ‘marriage.’ (Yes, he did support leaving laws allowing abortion in place when he ran for governor of MA, but that was against an opponent and general population who wanted to *further liberalize* the existing abortion laws–which a governor cannot overturn, anyway.)
More to the heart of the matter is that Romney is an adherent to the pro-family, pro-life *essential* doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as am I.
These doctrines are clearly and best-summarized in my following post in which I will quote over half of “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” which was released by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, over 12 years ago. I am quoting it because it is the simplest, most accurate way of conveying to you some of Mitt Romney’s *core and driving* values and beliefs concerning Life and Marriage.
You may also be interested to read that in the introductory sentences of the entire “Proclamation,” is the statement:
“Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”
As mentioned in my just prior post–these are some of Mitt Romney’s core and driving beliefs, as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This quote is over half of “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” which was released by “the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” in 1995.
The entire text can be found at http://www.lds.org, by clicking on the link of the picture of a family on the left side of the home page.
“We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.
Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.
The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.
We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. ****Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.****
We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”
This proclamation was read by President Gordon B. Hinckley as part of his message at the General Relief Society Meeting held September 23, 1995, in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Any person who believes these things, as does Mitt Romney, and as do I, would NEVER be a proponent of abortion or SSM.
(Please just keep this in mind, and ’suspend your disbelief’ regarding apparent inconsistencies of Mitt Romney’s past statements–until I address some of these in my next post.)
Tricia,
There isn’t much more I can say regarding this topic that I haven’t already said before, so I guess I will just repeat myself again for the most part.
By what I have heard, saw and read, from liberals, from conservatives, and already in many instances, recent and past, by Romney himself, he is a quintessential “flip-flopper,” to coin the more popular parlance.
You said that I cannot know what is in his mind regarding his motives. True, and fair enough.
Thus, I can only judge him by his behavior and actions, and they do not at all impress me.
His performance on “Meet The Press” this morning only further solidified my opinion of him, which has been pretty solid all along.
“Aspersions”? While some of my characterizations of Romney may be interpreted as aspersions, they are also observations…of him.
Many people in the kingdom of the popular children’s fairy tale also feared that it was “an aspersion” to say that the Emperor was wearing no clothes. Like I said before, sometimes, like it or not, it just is what it is. If your vision of so clearly seeing and so freely citing my errors was as unclouded and unrestrained as seeing and citing Mitt’s flaws, perhaps you might recognize that fact. “Christianity,” Tricia, has as much to do with truth as it does tact.
And for all his backpedaling, I still have some disagreements with him on immigration, guns, embryonic stem cell research, gay issues, abortion, etc.. , even when he does keep his stances for more than five minutes at a time.
You’re right Tricia; I cannot read his mind. I can only base my judgments based on what I have seen, and little if anything I have seen of this man at all impresses me. Even Tim Russert (and granted, no conservative by any stretch) quipped to Romney this morning what I have already posted and otherwise said about him numerous times, for a man of his age, to have had so many “epiphanies” (my words), or an “evolution” (Russert’s words) on so many issues, and within such a short and seemingly convenient amount of time has at least the appearance of a pretty foul stench to it, all potentially expressed aspersions aside. Romney’s reply was droning on about learning from experiences, keeping an open mind, etc.. Some issues are more right than wrong than right and left, and that extent of being “open-minded” is beyond being open minded. It gives the appearance, be it right or wrong, of a weathervane, with a constant finger in the wind, or an inept leader with no vision or moral compass.
If that is all coincidental, and I am wrong about Romney, then so be it, but again, as I said before, I would much rather be wrong about him (in my opinion) than be wrong (in my vote) for my country’s leader, mind you, I say again, “leader.”
I see little, if anything in this man that demonstrates much semblance of either true conservatism or true morality with any real and unquestionable consistency. And again, thus far, I am offered too many other far qualified candidates who are more conservative, are more moral and with whom I don’t have to try to guess what they really say or mean, whether by sheer coincidence, poor communication, or intentional deception.
Respectfully, Tricia, on at last two occasions thus far, you have promised to elaborate more and solidify your argument about Mitt later in future posts, but you have thus far provided little substance in that regard. And why is it such further elaboration and evidence is promised in future posts?
And again, as I said before, if per chance (and it is looking less likely every day) Romney becomes President, if he truly reforms in action (more so than in words) then I will keep an open mind to voting for him in a second term, but for a first term, or in the primary, he has pretty much no chance whatsoever of me voting for him now.
With regard to your allegation that the Democrats don’t want to seem bothered to mention or go after Huckabee because they view him as not much of a threat, Romney is now going after Huckabee, so I think he’s seeing the tealeaves for what they are now, too. And do know what? He deserves it! As my mother always said when I was a kid, “You make your bed…you sleep in it!” In politics, anything can change, but thus far, Romney appears to be going down, and he is already almost relegated to “back tier” status among the current candidates. And make no mistake about it, he brought it on himself, for “wanting his cake and eat it too” on the issues. And in the end, I think the issue of his membership in the Mormon Church will have little to do with it. Nobody can be everything to everybody, something “politicians,” by your own correct wording (not true statesmen) never learn. Call it an aspersion or whatever you like, but a sage and surly adage reminds us, “The only things found in ‘the middle of the road’ are dead skunks and long, yellow streaks.”
And, once again, matters like ideology, strength, leadership, morality, integrity, ability, etc.. will all play into formulating my vote, but electability, or lack thereof will play no part in that recipe whatsoever.
You are right. I can’t read Mitt’s mind. So I don’t know for sure if he is a liar, or if he simply has no real, solid core beliefs, but what I do know is that in either case, he is unfit to be my President, so it’s a moot issue, and thus, I will vote accordingly.
And with respect to “brevity,” as well as having already repeatedly flogged this dead horse now, I believe, more than enough, this is my final post on this topic.
I wish you well.
Doug
Anyone hear the news that CT’s own Joe Lieberman is about to endorse McCain? Brownback, a staunch pro-lifer, endorsed him too after dropping out of the race. But I’m not aware of McCain having changed his position on embryo destruction…
Tricia,
One final postscript.
Romney already stated that he will not allow his faith to influence his governing, so your given history of the doctrines of the Mormon faith, while interesting, are a moot point.
As for Romney upholding Mormon principles of the sanctity of life, by his own words, which I heard with my own ears, he previously championed abortion, a stance that Jesus unquestionably did not. And Romney certainly did little to stop abortion. Any principle worth having (assuming he has any) is one worth defending. He dropped the ball, period. So much for his alleged devout practice of the Mormon faith.
Furthermore, we are electing a President of our country, not an elder of your Church. From what I have seen of this guy, he is a snake oil-selling hypocrite and worthy of neither position of honor.
As for his abandoning his alleged moral and conservative principles, as well as those of the Mormon Church, and especially on the abortion issue, your continual excuses of Romney contending with liberal opponents, liberal demographics, and poor advisors (I say again, picked by him) are all flatly lame, and given your own professed morality, you should be ashamed for even trying to forward them.
And in that regard, forgive me, Tricia, but I can’t help but wonder, seeing that you so often bring up Romney’s Mormon faith when it is either unrelated to his issues, or abandoned by him by his deeds, as well as by his words, if your passionate and unshakable defense of this double-talking farce (to himself, his faith, and to his prospective constituents) would be as strong if he were a Catholic or a Jew. I pose that question to you solely in a rhetorical fashion, but I hope it inspires some reflection on your part. I genuinely believe that you sincerely mean well, but I am also coming to believe that your opinion of Romney is blindly biased, even if subconsciously so.
Romney also said in his speech that he does not necessarily expect support because of his faith, either. Make no mistake about it, despite being a Catholic, I have never voted for Chris Dodd, John Kerry, or any other Catholic of such immorality and opposing ideology, nor would I ever.
As the polls now well indicate, it (so far) appears that your boy is going down, and I believe, not because he is a Mormon, which I don’t believe most Americans (including me) mind, but because he is a chameleon, which I do believe, most Americans (including me) are well fed up with.
OK, now I’m (really) done on this topic.
Given your previously claimed, although yet oddly undemonstrated fondness for “brevity,” from here on, I will leave that to you.
Doug
Peter,
I did hear that Brownback endorsed McCain, much to my chagrin, although this is the first I have heard about Lieberman endorsing McCain.
When I heard of Brownback’s endorsement, I had the same thought, because yes, McCain does embrace embryonic stem cell research, although he has given some often convoluted caveats to it, as related to cloning.
Given McCain’s position, Brownback’s endorsement shocked me. I really don’t know what he is thinking.
I hate to say this, but I suspect it may be the perceived “electability” issue, as Huckabee had not yet moved up into the so-called “first tier” when Brownback made that announcement. Let’s face it, Brownback is directly opposed to Rudy on the life issue, Thompson also has some baggage relative to abortion, and Romney, well…let’s not go down that road again.
Lieberman and McCain, I believe are personal friends and they have also co-sponsored several bills together. McCain, like Lieberman, is also a centrist and I don’t see much love between Lieberman and the Democrat Party any more. I think from Lieberman’s perspective, he now feels somewhat liberated from the Democrats, and now feels he has little to lose, which he doesn’t. The Dems want nothing more to do with him, and he still avows to never join the GOP, and independents can only climb so far up the electoral career ladder. Politically speaking, I think he is pretty much dead after this term, barring a state or federal cabinet appointment by either party……maybe.
That all said, as Lieberman is a moderate Democrat and an Orthodox Jew, I really wish he would publicly now lean more in favor of life/family issues, which I believe he feels in his heart, but suppresses for political reasons. But sadly and realistically, I don’t see that happening either.
Last but not least, all three men are Senators. That so-called “upper chamber” of the Congress tends to be a pretty cliquey club, so from that perspective, I guess these endorsements are to be, at least somewhat, expected.
Doug
Tricia,
Thank you for pointing out that we should strive to find common ground in our support for traditional family values. Despite the theological differences that exist between Mormons and Evangelicals, between Catholics and Protestants, or between Christians and Jews, we do all share a common heritage that guides us in understanding morality.
You are correct in saying only God can know what is in a person’s heart, and to the extent I may have come across as unduly harsh I want to apologize. But we cannot avoid passing judgment altogether, since ultimately we will have to choose for whom we will cast our vote. And since we cannot truly know what someone feels and thinks inwardly, it seems we must thoughtfully consider their past words and actions in the public square as a harbinger of their future approach to governance.
It is for this reason I continue to have doubts about Mitt Romney. We know he claims to oppose SSM. But he alone chose to implement SSM in Massachusetts, even though he was under no constitutional requirement to do so. Yes, there was a judicial ruling. But the response to that ruling ought rightfully to have been crafted by the legislature. Romney did not need to act in a manner that was effectively complicit with this fraudulent redefinition of marriage. Take a look at http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/
Did you know Romney banned the Boy Scouts from helping in the 2002 Olympics because of their ban on homosexual leaders?
Did you know that in 2002, a year before the Goodridge ruling, Romney refused to sign a petition in favor of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman? And that his reasoning was that such a position seems “too extreme”?
Is this the track record of someone acting in accord with the pro-family proclamation that you cited? I don’t know how you can reconcile these actions with what a faithful pro-family leader ought to do … which is to recognize that “the family is ordained of God” and “marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan”.
I hope you’ll understand that for many of us, the reason we can’t support Romney has nothing to do with his religious denomination. It has everything to do with our ability to believe that he will uphold his promises. His record just speaks so loudly that it seems he can’t be trusted to stand up for socially conservative values, and hold firm to them even under pressure. I prefer to support someone who has the courage of their convictions.
Doug,
I guess you will still read this, despite your declaration over 2 weeks ago that “this is my final post on this topic.” (In your post of 12/16 # 28.)
At the beginning of your post # 30 on the same day, you stated:
“One final postscript.” and then, after several paragraphs–
“OK, now I’m (really) done on this topic.
Given your previously claimed, although yet oddly undemonstrated fondness for “brevity,” from here on, I will leave that to you.”
LOL, Doug– but that could be called “flip-flopping” or, dare I say it, even “lying” by you!
I, on the other hand, have been *silent* on this blog for over 2 weeks.
Is that “brief” enough for you, Doug?
Despite any disagreements over politics–I hope all had a joyous, peaceful and holy Christmas. And Happy 2008!
Doug and Dave,
What are your feelings on Huckabee’s latest tactic of pulling a negative ad (anti-Romney) to *take the high road* and showing it to the press—who then show it all over Iowa without Huckabee having to pay for the ad showing?
Tune in to the discussion today on Sean Hannity if you are interested. It is on now on AM 770 (Romney will be his guest later), and delayed later I believe on AM 760 if you can get either of these stations.
Oops! On two counts I was wrong in my last post.
AM 760 runs Sean Hannity’s radio program at the same time (3 to 6 p.m. EST) that AM 770 does.
Also, the reference to Romney being his guest later was apparently to his FOX News cable program at 9 p.m. tonight.
I am going to NHampshire to campaign for McCain on FRIday-Saturday.
-Thompson has zero campaign in NH.
-Huckabee has an incompetent office up there and is focused on Iowa. Ron Paul …
It is a two-man race up there and my sense is that the folks who don’t trust Romney are correct not to. So McCain it is.
A bizarre choice for social conservatives? Not really.
On principal, some people refuse to ever support anyone who is ‘Pro-Choice’. Along the same lines, I refuse to support anyone who has buffoons running his campaign, or anyone who has no campaign at all. On principal.
I guess you could say that I am pro-life, anti-buffoon, and anti-fringe. And I am now also anti-Romney, in a polite kinda way.
Mitt Romney has spent more on advertising than any of the other Republican presidential candidates, and he’s orchestrated a virtually incessant bombardment of negative attack ads that have been airing for weeks. And yet, as the song says, “Money can’t buy me love”. Ultimately the candidate who prevails will need to win the hearts and minds of prospective voters. Isn’t it quite a surprise that the biggest impression is often made by simple one-liners and anecdotes that get retold freely in the press and directly from person to person! For example,
“You know you’re over the target if you are getting some flak.” (Huckabee)
“Never get into a wrestling match with a pig. You both get dirty - and the pig likes it.” (McCain)
“We’ve had a Congress that’s spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop.” (Huckabee)
In response to Hillary Clinton’s attempt to spend 1 million of our tax dollars on the Woodstock concert museum, “Now my friends, I wasn’t there. I’m sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event. I was … tied up at the time.” (McCain) Yeah, tied up as in being a Vietnam P.O.W.
Of course, we have good ole Mitt with the memorable “I saw my father walk with Martin Luther King” … and then later when caught in the apparent misrepresentation, saying “If you look at the dictionary, the term ‘saw’ includes ‘being aware of’”, and rationalizing it by saying “When we say I saw the Patriots win the World Series, it doesn’t necessarily mean you were there.” Umm, yeah. Talk about embarrassing. Besides it being reminiscent of Bill Clinton and “the meaning of ‘is’”, did anyone happen to notice that Mr. Moneybags doesn’t know the difference between the football and baseball teams in his own home state? That’s a good sign of how disconnected he is from the average American.
In the end, this is what Romney lacks … a sense of genuineness and believability. No amount of money can compensate for this flaw in his candidacy.
Dave,
About your “doubts about Mitt Romney,” please read the following *facts* about his ACTUAL RECORD of governing in Massachusetts. These come from David French, an esteemed and acknowledged *Conservative* attorney who is one of the co-founders of EvangelicalsforMitt.org. I don’t know how much of this I can post here–but you can look up the entire document at:
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/massresistance/therealtruth.pdf
Mitt Romney: The Real Truth
David French1
***No American governor has faced more critical cultural issues than Mitt Romney,
Massachusetts’ chief executive from 2003 to 2007. In the midst of Governor Romney’s
efforts to rescue his state from a fiscal crisis and create lasting and innovative health
care solutions, activist judges and a far-left legislature forced issues of same-sex
“marriage,” abortion, religious liberty, stem cell research, and gay rights into the
forefront. Each time he was challenged, the Governor not only made the conservative
choice, but also did so with an optimistic, unifying message. In doing so, he became a
national leader on these vital cultural issues without squandering his ability to govern
the Commonwealth.
In four years, Governor Romney turned a deficit into a surplus without raising taxes,
created a health coverage plan that is applauded by experts on both sides of the aisle and
is designed to reduce costs while preserving personal choices, and effectively responded
to the deadly collapse of one of the most expensive construction projects in American
history. He did all these things in one of America’s most liberal states at the same time
that he vetoed expansive stem cell legislation, vetoed the expansion of abortion rights in
Massachusetts, defended the religious liberties of Catholic Charities from an assault by
homosexual activists, and launched a multi-year (and multi-state) campaign to preserve
traditional marriage after Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court’s decision to legalize
same-sex marriage.****
In spite of this impressive conservative record, a group called “MassResistance” has
been circulating a lengthy document called “The Mitt Romney Deception.” Combining
old statements, half-truths, and some completely misreported stories, the document has
gained some traction in the conservative community, with anti-Romney activists
forwarding the document dozens of times (apparently without any independent
verification of its facts). In much the way as urban legends gain traction through repeated e-mail “forwards,”
(1 Editor’s note: David French is a co-founder of Evangelicals for Mitt (www.evangelicalsformitt.org), an
independent website dedicated to spreading awareness about Governor Mitt Romney among Christian
conservatives. David holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School and is a leading constitutional attorney. He
lives outside Nashville with his family and worships at Zion Presbyterian Church, a congregation of the
Presbyterian Church in America. E-mail: david@evangelicalsformitt.org)
****the seriously-flawed MassResistance piece has led a few individuals to question the Governor’s commitment to conservative principles.
MassResistance’s document, however, suffers from at least five fundamental errors.
These errors are:
1. MassResistance fails to account for the Governor’s very real move to the pro-life side of the abortion debate;
2. MassResistance indulges in an illogical reading of the Goodridge v. Department of Public Health same-sex marriage decision and thereby completely mischaracterizes the Governor’s response to the Massachusetts same-sex
marriage crisis;
3. MassResistance fails to account for the Governor’s very real defense of religious liberty over the entitlement mentality of homosexual activists;
4. MassResistance falsely claims Governor Romney excluded the Boy Scouts from volunteering during the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics; and
5. MassResistance indulges in leftist-style identity politics by urging that Governor Romney (or any other Republican) participate in a search-and-destroy operation against any government-employed homosexuals. *****
The centerpiece of the MassResistance presentation is a series of quotes—taken primarily from Governor Romney’s 1994 Senate campaign against Ted Kennedy—and
then the implication that these quotes (regarding abortion and “gay rights”) are indicative of his current political positions and his actions in office. Nothing could be further from the truth. A lot has happened since 1994, and as a result, the Governor has become firmly pro-life, opposes adding sexual orientation to federal employment nondiscrimination laws, and has been one of the nation’s foremost advocates for traditional marriage.
To consider just a few events that led the Governor to change his mind: Nondiscrimination laws have been used to dramatically restrict fundamental First Amendment freedoms—including the ability of Christian student groups to meet on
campus and religious adoption agencies to place disabled children with appropriate families; an activist state supreme court unilaterally redefined marriage; and the growth
of embryonic stem cell research has led to the commodification of human life.
Faced with these realities, the Governor has consistently made the right choices.
MassResistance ignores these choices.
EFM *facts* about Romney Pt. II
SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE”
From the moment the activist judges in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
handed down their breathtakingly arrogant decision in Goodridge v. Department of
Public Health, the Governor took strong and consistent actions to defend marriage. He
also took decisive action to make sure his state would not grant marriage licenses to out-
of-state couples, thereby guaranteeing that Massachusetts would not become the “Las
Vegas of gay marriage” (as he called it) and trigger a constitutional crisis as couples
returned to their home states with Massachusetts licenses. He also initiated and led an
effort to amend the Massachusetts constitution by referendum and has gone so far as to
file suit against the Commonwealth’s own legislature after it took action to prevent the
people of Massachusetts from voting on that amendment—a suit that resulted in the
legislature complying with its constitutional responsibilities and sending the marriage
amendment on to the next stage of the ratification process.
Critically, he has become a leading national advocate for marriage, with his optimistic
and uplifting message dominating the public debate. Rather than casting the debate as
one over adult rights, the Governor has made the best possible case for marriage, noting
what we all should know but too often forget (at great cultural cost): Marriage does not
exist for the convenience and enjoyment of adults, but as the best possible way of raising
and nurturing children. The credible defenders of marriage in Massachusetts all agree,
and through their own statement they have recently and emphatically made their
feelings clear: Mitt Romney has been an invaluable supporter and advocate.
Yet despite this record, *****MassResistance claims that Mitt Romney actually enabled gay
marriage by not defying the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts—in other words,
by not breaking the law. In a truly baffling bit of legal reasoning, MassResistance argues
that the court ruling “simply advised the Legislature to pass legislation codifying its
opinion on changing the marriage statutes” and that Governor Romney was therefore
“not bound to enforce same-sex marriage prior to legislative action.”
This is simply an incorrect reading of the decision. Here is what the Supreme Judicial
Court actually said: “We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two
persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others.” In other words, the court itself
changed the definition of marriage. The reference to legislative action in the opinion
merely gave the legislature a chance to amend the law to state what the court already
said it meant. This was not advising the legislature; it was changing the law. Any
governor who defied this decision risked contempt of court. Rather than becoming what
the media would undoubtedly call the “George Wallace of gay marriage” by standing in
the courthouse door and barring couples from receiving marriage licenses, the Governor
chose legal means to resist the court’s decision.*****
And his decision was correct. It is now clear that the Goodridge decision represented
not the beginning of the end of traditional marriage but what may well be the high-water
mark of the same-sex marriage movement. Since that decision, homosexual marriage
activists have been on the defensive virtually everywhere, losing referenda and losing
court decisions. Had Governor Romney not offered a principled and effective defense of
marriage, the outcome may very well have been quite different.
Connecticut is winner take all on Feb 5. Much will happen between now and then. I would not try to predict the results. I haven’t even a good guess.
The whole GOP race could turn into a long dragged out delegate battle.
Leaving at 7 a.m. Friday for Keene, NH. For McCain. Not Romney.
(Sadly, Fred Thompson has nowhere to campaign at this point. Might as well take the weekend off!)
“Combining old statements, half-truths, and some completely misreported stories” That’s all MassResistance has ever done. It becomes a problem now that it’s vomit is aimed at a fellow conservative? Interesting. And all this talk of same sex marriage makes me wonder what platform candidates from the right will run on when it becomes a non-issue. I suppose I don’t have to worry about it since it won’t happen in my lifetime. I’m sure you’ll find some else to blame all societies ills on. In the meantime, if it comes down to the choices being Romney or Huckabee who are both flawed in the eyes of different sets of conservatives, who do you think the evangelical vote would go for? I think y’all will really need a united front to go up against whoever the Dems pick unless the pull some harebrained stunt like 2004 and run a candidate nobody wants to vote for. And what impact do you think Bloomberg would have if he throws his hat in. I imagine he could pull the votes of the moderates in the GOP but does he have a chance of getting any of the conservative vote? And what about the Ron Paul factor? Funny but I pay more attention to the battle on the Republican side than I do on the other. I guess that’s because I can trust the Democrats to pick the most unwinnable of all their candidates
Tricia,
For clarification, I have not “declared war,” as you erroneously and presumptively claimed, on anybody.
I meant what I said. I believe that we/I have flogged this dead horse of a topic more than enough. This discussion has now grown as tedious to me as your numerous and poorly veiled snide remarks.
That all aside, belated Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you as well.
Doug
Pete,
Currently, and as this race continues to evolve, I think the best real guess or prediction any of us can now make is probably that (for at least the Republican side of the race), the nominee might well not be known until the convention in the summer.
Wow….a convention with real and significant meaning besides just hype and hoopla! (Like they used to be!) Won’t that be a new and refreshing twist!
Admittedly, I’m not much of a McCain fan, but I nevertheless envy your jaunt to New Hampshire during this very exciting and historical time. Whatever the turnout, enjoy the experience… and try to keep warm up there, in this frigid seasonal climate of what the locals there refer to as “Mooselandia”!
Happy New Year.
Doug
Dave,
You mentioned in your post 21 a youtube video of Romney.
I’m hoping that you will copy the following link in your browser and watch this one (from over a year ago) of Governor Romney defending the rights of Catholic Charities–and religious freedom. (Unfortunately Romney could not overrule “the law” and the adoption situation in Massachusetts did not end up the way we all would have hoped.)
The point of watching this old video is the evidence that Mitt Romney’s devotion to conservative social issues is both firm and heartfelt. (The first part is Hannity quizzing him on a Pres. campaign, but after that comes Alan Colmes repeatedly grilling Romney and attempting to get him to recognize the “rights of gay couples to adopt” over the religious freedom rights of Catholic Charities.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDPifOZ6j1Y
I will also say again that every ACTION that Romney took as Governor was on the pro-life, pro traditional family side. He has admitted that his *statements* in the past were “effectively pro-choice.” As Reagan changed to the pro-life position, so has Romney. No one referred to Reagan as a “flip-flopper” for having changed that position once. Neither should anyone label Romney a “flip-flopper” for changing to the active pro-life camp.
On Marriage, on Sept. 14, 2007:
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough: “Do you support a national constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage?”
Governor Romney: “Boy, I sure do. You know, that’s a topic that’s really, I think, very important to the country because marriage is not just about adults. Marriage is about the development and nurturing of kids, and in my view, the development of a child is enhanced by having a mom and dad. And so, I think it’s very important that we have a national standard because marriage is a status. You get married in one place and then you move to another, you’re still married at least in the eyes of the community and the children and the benefits may not follow you, but ultimately we’re going to have one standard of marriage in this country and that standard ought to be one man and one woman.”
Scarborough: “Any other major Republican candidates support the marriage amendment?”
Governor Romney: “You know, I don’t think that Rudy or Fred or John McCain support the marriage amendment and I think they’re in error on that one.”
To watch Governor Romney, please see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSRzeAb4SDs
Tricia,
Are you familiar with this Bible verse?
In other words - talk is cheap, and actions speak louder than words.
Romney may claim to be a proponent of the federal marriage amendment, but his past record casts doubt on his true feelings. Why? Because in 2002, he REFUSED to sign a petition in favor of a Marriage Protection Amendment in the State of Massachusetts. And in the same year his campaign distributed flyers in support of “gay pride” and echoing the LGBT manta of “equal rights, regardless of sexual preference”. I know this last one sounds quite unbelievable, but you can see it with your own eyes from ABC News by following this link - http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Romney_Flier_Pride_Weekend.JPG
Actions speak louder than words.
Meanwhile, during that same 2002 time period, Gov. Mike Huckabee successfully led the effort to pass a state constitutional amendment in Arkansas that bans same-sex marriage and equivalent “marriage in all but name” civil unions.
Mitt Romney’s pattern of flip-flops is cleverly detailed at “The Reagan Wing” if you follow this link - http://thereaganwing.wordpress.com/2008/01/06/from-%E2%80%9Cbest-of-%E2%80%9807%E2%80%B3-series-mitt-romney-quiz/
In the interest of brevity, I’ll refrain for posting it verbatim and just let you read it at the source!
One more point I simply must add, because it is news-worthy within pro-family circles. There is a letter circulating in the past week that was signed by a coalition of respected leaders on family issues, which is extremely critical of Mitt Romney.
The letter details 7 specific issues of concern with his record, and the following excerpts will give you a good impression of what these 19 highly-regarded family leaders are saying overall.
You can read the full text of the letter by following this link -
http://republicansforfamilyvalues.com/2008/01/02/a-stern-warning-to-the-conservative-elites-about-mitt-romney/
Who knew that such a tiny minority of people could have such power to bring down civilization. Pretty insane thinking. Perhaps what will truly bring down civilization is the totalitarian means that the right will use to control us. Even the most pacifist people in this country will be willing to put aside their petty differences and fight such a move to the death - which actually would be quite quick since the majority of the weapons owned in this country are by people on the right. Bye Bye USA just because of a number of people are just terrified of those who are different. What is quoted above is far beyond a difference of political opinion. It is yet another declaration of war against freedom and is an extremely distructive attitude that can only bring pain to those it is aimed. What Romney is is quite clear, what is even clearer is what the “19 highly-regarded family leaders” truly represent. They are quite correct when they quote “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” And if the good men and women in this country don’t wake up to the danger of the above statement, evil will truly triumph. And all in the name of God, does mankind ever learn from past mistakes?
Once again, David pulls out his favorite debating technique – the tired old argument, “if you don’t share my politics, it means you’re trying to kill me.”
Weren’t you asked to stop that already, in a previous post by Peter Wolfgang? And yet you keep coming back to it. How many times must we explain that saying “no” to SSM is not equivalent to advocating physical harm?
David’s got a response in the moderation queue denying Dave’s description of his argument…and explaining himself in a way that will leave many of us with the impression that Dave’s description is accurate.
Rather than going down that road, I’ll ask that folks posting in this thread get back to the main topic. I understand there were some new developments in New Hampshire last night…
Speaking of recent events in New Hampshire …
Mitt Romney’s campaign continues its absolutely shameful and disrespectful actions toward other Republican candidates. Now they’re caught on video, by a team from WCVB-TV (Ch. 5, ABC), as they are systematically removing dozens of McCain signs and replacing them with Romney signs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m01L_YZce78
Dirty tactics such as these are bound to backfire, as demonstrated by the NH primary results. In the end, I believe most voters are smart enough to see through his misrepresentations and distortions - despite a heavily bankrolled campaign - and place value upon the honesty and integrity evidenced by the other candidates. Character does matter.
“Money can’t be me love” … or can it?
After going back one more time to read through Peter Wolfgang’s original posting here on Nov. 28th, I noticed this remark:
Do they now? I guess they must, since Romney donated $10,000 to the group. As reported in the NY Times during March 2007,
In a similar fashion, Romney paid $15,000 to Massachusetts Citizens for Life, which promptly changed course in its writings. Previously they had been critical of Romney for his position on abortion. I guess if you write a big enough check, all is forgiven!
Overall he spent at least $250,000 across a number of conservative charities, as reported in a Nov. 2007 Boston Globe article that was somewhat critical of the candidate’s intentions. Was it truly philanthropy, or was it all part of a calculated plan to bolster his candidacy? It’s certainly something voters should consider as they contemplate each candidate’s sincerity. And it is likewise something the IRS should consider, as the Boston Globe aptly noted:
We’ve all heard that the magazine National Review endorsed Romney. Now is it a coincidence that Romney had donated $10,000 to the affiliated organization “National Review Institute”?
Max Blumenthal of The Nation sums it up nicely:
Peter,
Indeed, there were new happenings in New Hampshire. McCain won. So did Hillary. Hillary put on a contrived crying act (kind of like what hubby once suddenly did when the TV camera caught him chuckling it up at at Commerce Secretary Ron Brown’s funeral), McCain did not. This is the strident feminist who’s accent changes depending upon what region of the country, or what ethnicity she is addressing, and the woman who once ridiculed stay at home Mom’s for “baking cookies,” yet she other night, she flicks a switch and suddenly dons the demure little, whimpering schoolgirl act, just like she did after the debate over licenses for illegal aliens and just like she did when Rick Lazio stepped off his podium and got in her face in their Senate debate. I was waiting for her to suck her thumb next! Will she playact like that for Ahamdinejad, bin Laden, Kim Jong Il, Hugo Chavez, et al as well if/when the time comes, and the stakes are a little higher?
Just the day before her little charade, Hillary was speaking to a journalist about men and women showing emotions. Was her little media stunt choreographed, as well as contrived?
And to the feminists who were duped by that nauseating and insidious performance and insist that there is a double standard, they’re right, but not for the reason they think.
Such (alleged) expression of emotions once gave Edmund Muskie a bump, too…but out the door, and not onto the next primary!
If it comes down to it, despite all previous positions I have stated aside, I’ll even take Mitt Romney over Hillary!
And if Romney (or whoever else) does win, as far as I am concerned, Hillary can then have Al Gore’s Oscar Award for a consolation prize! She deserves it more than him anyway, even though they both staged a farce.
“I am President….hear me whimper!”
This…in the post-9/11 world! God, help us!
Disgusting!
Doug
Peter, I want to add that I know you don’t have an easy job deciding what to let through our not. And I have no doubt that you get some responses worse than mine. I don’t always agree with your decisions to delete mine, though one or two times I actually did agree, but I fully acknowledge that it is your right and your responsibility to your readers to do so. I’m sure that FIC gets bombarded with phone calls and emails that are spiteful, abusive and offensive. I worked for a church once and the pastor received a daily phone call from the same person saying she would burn in hell and at times death threats because the church was pro-LGBT. It can be tough being the head of an organization that is the target of such strong negative emotions. I want to thank you for the job you do on this blog and thank you for at least letting some of my posts through. Many blogs on both sides allow no opposing viewpoints. I totally disagree with your position at least on SSM but no one should have to put up with abuse for their beliefs. David
I don’t understand why some people (like Doug and Dave) express such evidently personal dislike for Mitt Romney. I assume they have never met him and have not in any way been personally wronged by him. Nevertheless, they seem to almost be on a personal crusade to say only negative things about Romney.
As to Dave’s last post, Mitt Romney has evidently *put his money where his mouth is* in donating to pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and Conservative organizations. These are some of the causes that are dear to his heart, in his concern for the future of this Nation and its future children.
Tricia,
Regarding my opposition to Mitt Romney’s candidacy, it’s not a matter of personal liking or disliking so much as it is trying to reconcile his past words and track record with what will be best for the country. Do we need to personally and individually meet with each candidate in order to reach an informed decision about how to vote? Obviously that is impractical, and for most of us we need to filter through the information we are seeing and hearing to discern the truth. And having watched and listened carefully … I believe we cannot trust him to represent our interests, because it is impossible to gauge his true feelings when he acts like a “political chameleon”.
I would love to suspend disbelief about the true motivation behind his apparent generosity to causes that are dear to my heart too. But the process of discernment requires that we look beyond superficial impressions - to walk fully in the light of knowledge, wisdom and truth. On a matter of such importance, circumspection is prudent. We should apply our insight and good judgment to properly determine the qualifications of prospective candidates.
This pattern by Romney of using his money to divert attention from past statements is not limited to issues such as SSM and abortion. For years, he campaigned as an advocate of stricter gun control laws. Then suddenly last year he changed his stance on the issue, and around the same time he bought himself a lifetime membership in the NRA. Probably the $1,000 fee is small change to someone like Romney, but it sure seems like a lot of money to the average American. Why the sudden switch? Was it a part of posturing for his presidential campaign? And how can we know his true feelings on the 2nd amendment? A healthy degree of skepticism is understandable under such circumstances, prompting responses like this one from Gerald Stoudemire, president of Gun Owners of South Carolina (an NRA state association):
And on fiscal policy too, his record doesn’t quite line up with his recent self-portrayals. According to the Boston Herald in a Feb. 2007 column by Virginia Buckingham, Romney’s message that he was a governor who stood by a no-new-taxes pledge is “mostly a myth”, since he raised $500 million in fees, raised $210 million in corporate taxes, and “flip-flopped on rebating capital gains taxes to taxpayers.”
Now that the New Hampshire primary is behind us, one of the next states in the cycle is Michigan. Even though it is Romney’s home state, it’s likely to be difficult for him to get traction when folks like Gary Glenn (president of the American Family Association in Michigan) decry his “glaring pattern of flip-flops on issues across the board.” His wealth may also prove to be a detriment, rather than an advantage, in winning the hearts of minds of middle-class workers so downtrodden by their struggling local economy. It’s small wonder that John McCain was able to defeat him in New Hampshire, where the Union Leader described Romney as “a limousine liberal portraying a conservative to win the 2008 GOP nomination.”
Surely you can vote as you will, but I believe that the electorate is best served by having more information – not less of it. And, as the Shakespearean saying goes, sooner or later the truth will out. Better that it should so do now, while there are still alternative candidates to choose for the Republican Party nomination.
Dave,
I am not trying to tell other people how to vote, but simply trying to defend Romney’s actual record, motivations and character against people making unfair and inaccurate (in many if not most cases) statements defaming him. It just seems to me that you and Doug are doing your level best to convince everyone else NOT to support or vote for Mitt Romney.
After all, I assume there are more than just 5 or so people reading this thread, let alone all the anti-Romney articles in the MSM as well as on the “new media.”
Bottom line–for every group or statement deploring Romney and his record/candidacy which is cited, I can cite others praising him and supporting Romney for President. As Charles Mitchell wrote yesterday (on EFM):
“I think if you were a conservative frightened by the prospect of a GOP nominee who shares very few of your values, you might pick the guy who’s been endorsed by National Review, who’s proven himself an excellent leader, who’s an across-the-board conservative, who’s competitive in the primaries, and who’s got the financial resources and campaign organization to keep fighting.”
The folks at Evangelicals for Mitt are far from alone in their support of Romney as the best prospect for getting someone in the Whitehouse who will fight for those moral, family and pro-life values which are “dear to [our] hearts.”
Mark DeMoss, in a Jan. 1 article “Covering the Conservative Bases: why Mitt Romney does it Best,” mentioned a few of the many prominent Romney supporters:
“Finally, I like that Mitt Romney has not been endorsed by any particular wing of the conservative spectrum exclusively – he has been endorsed by conservatives of all stripes and categories. Defense conservatives like Representative Pete Hoekstra (MI) are on his team, as are fiscal conservatives like American Conservative Union (ACU) chairman David Keene and leading conservative magazine National Review. Social conservatives like Reverend Lou Sheldon and Bob Jones III, and pro-life leaders and attorneys Jim Bopp, Jr. and Jay Sekulow and others have been supporting Governor Romney for quite some time. In other words, the so-called Reagan coalition appears to be alive and well within the Romney fold right now. It just may prove to be a winning combination.”
Bottom line on Romney–what will “values voters” have gained if they continue to campaign *against* Mitt Romney, who is self-admittedly “not perfect,” but who has “learned and changed” from the former “in effect pro-choice” position he once held? They may get a Republican nominee who shares AND *will fight for* almost none of their moral values–or who cannot defeat Hillary or Obama in November.
I would also urge those who have characterized Romney as “too slick” to remember when Reagan ran for President (presuming you are old enough to have voted back then). Now–be honest! Did you perhaps say of him–”Well he was not pro-life” or “He’s just a has-been actor?” Where would we be now if those anti-Reagan voices had prevailed?
Romney has been **through the FIRE** on the Life and especially the MARRIAGE issues. He is strengthened like STEEL on them now, and is prepared and committed more than any other to fight for them as President. No other candidate has made the position *central* to his campaign that America’s strength rests NOT in Washington, D.C., but in its FAMILIES–”within the walls of America’s homes.” No other candidate will (and CAN precisely because of his experience in MA) fight as he will for a Federal Marriage Protection Amendment to the Constitution.
Tricia,
Regarding the last statement I made in passing about Romney, somehow, I knew I would regret it. I should have known better. I said it in “tongue in cheek.” Take a breath!
No, I don’t like him, no I never met him, and no he has never done anything to me personally. He’s just another double talking, cheap suit political hack in a sinking country already far too burdened with far too many of his slick kind already, including Hillary. Dave and I have both now repeated our reasons of him being a deceptive chameleon and even as you said, a “politician,”(hence, his response in the debate that he would first check with “the lawyers” first to decide what to do if Iran fired a missile at us!), and we have also both cited sources with which you disagree because they are not your own sources and you quickly deem them “liberal,” be they conservative or otherwise, because our sources don’t fit your agenda.
I am not on any personal crusade, and I am not doing “my level best” to convince anyone of anything, one way or the other, but such clearly seems to be the case with you. Quite frankly, your zeal for this guy has now well surpassed admirable and is now bordering on irrational. Why?
Are you affiliated with his campaign?
I was (mind you, “was”) only participating in a discussion about this particular political candidate because you kept it going (and then tediously continued to beat it into the ground, which is why I got out). Even when I was participating in that debate, I was not trying to influence anyone’s opinion one way or the other. I was only expressing my own (differing) opinion, which you seem to handle about as poorly as you do with Dave’s (differing) opinion. As matter of fact, I believe on at least 2 or 3 occasions, I even mentioned words to the effect of “you are entitled to your own opinion.” Does that sound like I am on a personal crusade of trying to sway opinions and/or votes?
It is you who are trying to influence other people’s decisions.
If you wish to keep this debate going with other people, that’s your business, but please keep me out of your obsession!
Doug
Tricia,
Post script, your repeated, if not incessant mention of National Review’s endorsement of Romney, and the web site, “Evangelicals For Mitt,” also seem to be much of the crux of your sources. You might try hanging your hat on a few other nails once in a while.
I believe Dave has also called your attention to a Mormon based site which speaks negatively of Romney.
Pardon the pun, but as the saying goes, “consider the source,” and not all of them are necessarily “Gospel,” (especially in political matters) despite your perception, and/or the impression you are trying to give.
Doug
Color me very disappointed in this thread. It was started as an opportunity for all FIC supporters to explain whom they would support, not whom they despise. However, it *immediately* devolved into an anti-Romney screed. (I note with irony that it was an anti-FIC liberal who started that divisive discussion, but that it was continued by a few FIC supporters.) Peter was wise not to have FIC make any endorsements at this time.
Dave, I normally am very impressed with your analysis. In the case of this thread, however, I have to express my disappointment. Here are just a few examples of why I am disappointed:
In your most recent post you refer to an article in the Boston Herald without providing a link. I like to go to the source (in this case, a tabloid) to get the full story. Although I have not been able to locate the original article I feel comfortable commenting on the snippets I have seen. Regarding Governor Romney’s increase in “fees,” both U.S. and international public-sector accounting standards draw a clear distinction between reciprocal transactions, which include “fees,” and nonreciprocal transactions, which include “taxes.” When a private party obtains a private benefit from the government, such as permission to erect a billboard on a public highway, I expect . . . no, I demand that that party pay a fee. If they don’t, they are obtaining a private benefit at public expense. I was impressed that Romney understood and was able to clearly communicate in the debates the difference between his fees and Governor Huckabee’s taxes.
I was even more impressed when Romney correctly stated that “broad-based” fees, which he did NOT increase, can be considered taxes. Second, governor Romney has clearly stated in the debates that the fees were less than half of the claimed $500 million, and I believe him because he also said that he can show his opponents the numbers, and his opponents have not subsequently challenged him on that. So the fact is, he cut taxes while governor. It is not “mostly a myth,” as the tabloid claimed. And he did that while simultaneously eliminating a state deficit of over $3 billion! I have personal experience in seeing my own words misconstrued in a tabloid, so I have very little confidence in reporters’ getting the facts straight, especially when it comes to technical matters.
Earlier in this blog Tricia referred you to EvangelicalsforMitt.org for facts about Romney. That is a website run by well-versed conservative Republicans who will quickly admit that they don’t agree with Romney on theology, but that they do agree with him on policy. Your subsequent postings show no indication that you looked at that website. Rather, you come back that Tricia should look at MormonsAgainstRomney. You show no indication that you looked at that website either. That website has a picture of the bloggers who run it. They look like a bunch of teenagers. A quick review of their website shows links to various liberal causes and Democrat websites. Although they haven’t posted anything in several months, one of their posts in early 2007 is all about their efforts to prevent Vice President Cheney from speaking at the BYU commencement. This is clearly a bunch of immature liberal Democrats coming together to blog against Republicans. However, those kids seem to believe that they can fool people into believing that they are really just “Mormons” against Romney when they are in fact Democrats against Romney using their religion as a cloak. In your case, that deception seems to have worked.
You referenced a letter by “a coalition of respected leaders on family issues, which is extremely critical of Mitt Romney.” However, you failed to note that a number of the signatories either work for MassResistance or are closely associated with it. It is not surprising then that the letter should contain the very same misrepresentations about Romney that MassResistance promulgates. The letter starts by linking to a 2006 article about Romney on gay issues. So imagine my surprise when I followed the link and found that the article was titled, “Romney’s thoughts on gay marriage, circa 1994.” Yes, the letter is condemning Romney for his views circa “1994!” And what does Romney say in that article? I must admit that I found his views on the homosexual agenda to be naive, BUT SO WERE MINE IN 1994! Where we are now was unthinkable in 1994!
Most people have only recently become aware of the radical nature of the extreme gay agenda, and I am probably overly optimistic about the awareness even now. Romney got quite an education on that agenda while governor. He now clearly supports a federal marriage protection amendment. Is that a flip? I call it learning. (NOTE: Changing position once is called a flip. Changing back to the original position would be a flop. It is incorrect to say that Romney has flip-flopped on this or any other issue.) But why in the world would we, of all people, condemn someone for learning more and becoming more conservative???
But back to the 1994 article. Regarding marriage rights for gays, Romney said, “My understanding is that he [then current governor Bill Weld] has looked at the issue and concluded that certain benefits and privileges ["visitation rights and leave privileges and things of that nature"] should be offered to gay couples. But he does not feel at this time that he wishes to extend legalized marriage on a same-sex basis, and I support his position.” So Romney was against same-sex marriage way back in 1994! Guess what, he always has been against it. He has publicly stated so on many occasions and I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary. Any!
Most of the media sources that you cite for quotes against Governor Romney are liberal, some extremely so. No one can claim that the Boston Globe or the Union Leader are friends of conservative politics, so it is no surprise that they would go negative on Romney. Romney is now firmly committed to the conservative moral agenda.
These are just a few examples. I have not gone back to the first sources on all of the claims made against Romney in this thread, but I have done so for enough of them to satisfy myself that they are grossly exaggerated as the norm! All save one. He is polished. (I chose not to use the derisive terms that others have used.) I count his polish and poise under pressure as a positive attribute, not a negative one. I, for one, would rather elect someone who modulates his remarks than someone who threatens our allies.
Dave, I know you can do better. You can do a far better job of sourcing material and being more objective and skeptical regarding the “facts” spread by the anti-Romney sources, such as the Democrats and the media. (My research gives me the clear impression that the mainstream media and the Democrat party in particular are far more opposed to Romney than to the other candidates, which speaks volumes to me.) I have come to expect a higher level of analysis from you. Unfortunately, your posts here do come across, like Tricia said, as an “evidently personal dislike for Mitt Romney.”
In light of the above, I favor either returning this thread to its original intent, or closing it. As for me, I like Duncan Hunter (but I know that’s not going anywhere), and Romney second.
NaCN,
I agree we have all beaten this subject into the ground. I will gladly refrain from further comments if others will similarly agree to “cease fire” on behalf of their favorite candidates. I am reminded of 1 Corinthians 13 in as much as this entire process of caucuses and primary elections - while it is designed to act as a crucible, in which “fire will test the quality of each man’s work” – is also a means by which “jealousy and quarreling” can have a tendency to develop among us, despite the many principles and values we all hold in common.
However, I do want to answer your question about substantiation of sources with web links, etc. The fact is that sometimes the blogging software gets in the way of posts that include web links, and in the past some of my most extensively supported and documented postings have been inadvertently blocked by being mischaracterized as spam. If you could see the inner workings of the moderation queue, you would be truly dismayed by the great volume of spam that arrives daily. Some of this is filtered out by automated processes, and still more must be filtered out manually. Consequently there have been times when my own writings were blocked by the spam filter, and as a learned reaction I’ve tended to avoid including many links when materials seemed easily locatable with ordinary search tools like Google, while still including the occasional link to material that is more difficult to find. This is particularly applicable to when I am posting comments, rather than writing a base article, due to the differences in the way these 2 functions operate in the blogging software.
For example, the “no new taxes … mostly a myth” remark can be easily found in a wide variety of places, including an article on Rudy Giuliani’s campaign site at http://www.joinrudy2008.com/article/pr/877
If you look more closely, you’ll see this remark has it roots in a 2006 report by the Cato Institute. This is hardly a fly-by-night source, but a highly-respected public policy think-tank that’s existed since 1977. So in truth the “mostly a myth” phrasing did not originate with the Herald.
Likewise, you seem ready to dismiss the relevance of the Boston Globe. Keep in mind it’s the most widely circulated newspaper in Boston. Founded in 1872, it reaches over half a million households each week. We may not like its viewpoints on many things, and it’s not surprising to know that it’s owned by the New York Times Company, but we ought not to dismiss its relevance. They among other media sources are in an especially advantaged position to provide insight on Romney’s track record as Governor, having studied it so closely through these past years.
You are correct that fees cannot be deemed as entirely equivalent to taxes, but to some extent revenue sources are fungible. And for average Americans who are trying to make ends meet in an ever-more-challenging economic environment, it all comes out of the household budget whether you call it a tax or a fee. When we read in the Associated Press that a 2003 survey of states by the National Conference Of State Legislatures found Massachusetts imposed at least $501.5 million in fee hikes, “far more than any other state in the nation that year”, I find that to be a fact this is relevant and worthy of consideration … from a highly reputable source, not just an angry opponent with an axe to grind.
From what I’ve been seeing on our other discussion threads, besides this particular one about the Republican primary candidates, FIC supporters still have a lot in common despite their differences of opinion about who would be the best person to lead our country. I do think we need to keep in mind that a viable candidate for President needs to be able to reach out and embrace all of the American citizenry in some way, rather than having limited to appeal to just a hard-line conservative or liberal audience. But as it is being made clear once again in this election cycle, there is no way to please everyone all the time.
Connecticut is a Winner-Take-All state. And that means that candidates that have no chance to win here … they have no chance of getting any delegates. And this primary is an election to select delegates, after all.
If will be difficult to explain to supporters of Huckabee, Paul, and Thompson that their votes will not be counted toward the delegates, as 3rd place is just as useless as 6th place. It isn’t that they’re throwing away their votes, they are practicing stupid politics. And “Faith and Values” voters have a moral obligation not to be stupid.
If the social conservatives don’t join the coalition for McCain (or Romney), Guiliani will win all the delegates and those social radical Republicans supporting Rudy will go to the upcoming brokered convention to help select the nominee.
Massachusetts delegates are awarded proportionally, so there is some sense to supporting a candidate who gets 15% of the vote. But not in Connecticut.
If pro-life voters don’t understand the implications of being in a winner-take-all state, they could pray much about it. If they still don’t understand it, they could pray some more.
Key concepts:
-Winner take-all.
-Moral obligation not to be stupid.
-complicit in the consequences of your actions.
If Social Conservatives are stupid and support Huckabee or Paul or Thompson in Connecticut, they are complicit when Rudy walks away with ALL the delegates.
The solution is to be sure you are supporting someone who has a reasonable chance to defeat Rudy in the Connecticut primary.
How to be reasonably sure? Empiricism. It is a theologically sound idea.
Unless something of particular interest to FIC pops up, this will be the blog’s only thread on the presidential election. So I want to leave it open. But I do just want to ask everyone to try to express disagreement in as charitable a manner as possible, remembering that our agreement on the issues is bigger than our differences regarding the candidates.
Darn, NaCN caught me! See, it’s part of the homosexual agenda to go onto conservative family websites and drop secretly coded posts that when read by other people on the board will cause them to erupt in anger at each other, thus distracting them while we run around and put conversion chemicals in the water supplies in all public places. Then we convert all your churches to discos, force you all to get good haircuts and wear fashionable clothes. When you finally stop fighting with each other you’ll find out that the poufs from “Queer Eye” have replaced the supreme court and Judy Garland’s birthday is now a national holiday.
NaCN, you must have the same speech writer as Hillary did when you blamed the vast right wing conspiracy for the fact that her husband couldn’t keep his zipper up.
Did any other Catholic read David’s “convert all your churches to discos” line and find himself thinking of those insipid Mary Haugen hymns? Sigh. Sometimes truth is stranger than parody.
Now THAT’s the Dave I know and appreciate! Thanks. I’ll follow up when I get some time.
David- So YOU’re the one who stole my speech writer.
No, I’m NOT “affiliated with [Romney's] campaign.
Nor am I trying to sway the votes of Dave or Doug, who seem to be for “anyone but Romney!”
I evidently did not succeed in making clear that my posts are in response to others (such as Dave and Doug) who may be feeding a negative stream about Romney–simply in hopes of giving some **balance** to those *others* who have not yet made up their minds.
Since some sources I have cited are getting too repetitive for Doug ;)–Mark Levin is telling Michigan voters to “Vote for Romney!”
He and other talk show hosts state categorically that McCain and Huckabee are NOT “conservative.”
Dave,
I checked out the Cato quote on the Giuliani website. The Giuliani website quotes Cato as follows: “As Mitt Romney launches his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, his fiscal record as governor should be scrutinized. Romney likes to advance the image of himself as a governor who has fought a liberal Democratic legislature on various fronts . . . .” I was wondering what was cut and replaced by ellipses so I checked Cato and found that the next line is, “That’s mostly true on spending: he proposed modest increases to the budget and line-item vetoed millions of dollars each year only to have most of those vetoes overridden.”
The Giuliani website also fails to note that that report focuses on 2005 and 2006, which were the last two years of Romney’s governorship. The prior Cato report (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa537.pdf, page 42) states, in pertinent part, the following: “His first budget, presented under the cloud of a $2 billion deficit, balanced the budget with some spending cuts, but a $500 million increase in various fees was the largest component of the budget fix. Romney’s second budget proposal basically kept real per capita general spending frozen. In the first indication that he intends to actively cut taxes, Romney announced in May 2004 that he wants to cut the top income tax rate from 5.3 to 5 percent. As expected, the legislature did not pass the tax cut.”
Funny how the Giuliani team left that out. I mean literally funny. The Giuliani website provides the quote from the 2006 Cato report but mistakenly provides the page reference from the 2004 report, which they chose not to quote. I had to laugh at that.
I find it troubling that the 2004 Cato report gives Romney the nod for announcing tax relief efforts, but their 2006 report says, “He announced in May 2004 that he wanted to cut the top income tax rate from 5.3 to 5 percent, but that was hardly an audacious stand. Voters had already passed a plan to do just that before Romney even took office.” Huh?! If voters had passed a plan to do just that, then why was it not done? Why does Cato say earlier that “the legislature did not pass the tax cut”? Where is the context to explain this inherent contradiction in the Cato analysis?
Cato is libertarian so it is no coincidence that tax policy appears to be their number one criteria in the rankings. That said, I have to take exception with Cato’s apparent contention that Romney’s closing tax “loopholes” is a bad thing, or in their implying that fees are equivalent to taxes. I don’t mean to denigrate the good people at Cato, but their analysis is far too summarized to allow for independent review. Fees and taxes are fungible in general only to the recipient (the government). Other than broad-based fees that hit everyone, which Romney did not increase, fees generally are avoidable to the extent that they represent reciprocal transactions (also called “exchange transactions”).
(Even those fees that may not be easily avoidable, such as drivers’ license fees and marriage licenses, cannot be considered taxes if the value received is equivalent to the services provided. The question then is this; Are the values exchanged essentially equivalent?)
You are right that we cannot ignore the Boston Globe. This is what they said back in 2003: “While bickering about details, Romney and legislative leaders finally agreed to close the gap through a combination of cuts, fee hikes and rainy day funds, rather than new taxes.” (Source: http://www.boston.com/news/specials/year_in_review/2003/articles/mass_politics/) Note that, at that time, the Boston Globe did NOT claim the fees were taxes. It is only later that they change their story. Hmmm.
I’ve been trying to find more information on the NCSL study, with little luck so far. I found one second-hand account of a Romney spokesman complaining in 2003 that the NCSL study misrepresented the governor’s record because it combined two years of data. Given the date of the report I presume that the first year was from before Romney was in office, but I cannot know for sure without reviewing the report. I also cannot tell which fees may have been inflation indexed via legislation that predates Romney’s time in office. If you run across the original NCSL report, let me know.
Pending evidence to the contrary, I’m believing what Romney said about the fees during the debates.
Tricia,
Are you sure about that bit with Mark Levin? I had heard him saying “I’ve decided that there is no solid conservative in the Republican race now, so I am going to support a third party candidate.” Just listen to the beginning of the January 9th broadcast in the audio archives, which can be found online at http://www.marklevinshow.com/audio.php
NaCN,
I think you can get the original NCSL reports from their online bookstore at http://www.ncsl.org/bookstore/ … try searching for product IDs 0151010130PDF and 0151010131PDF.
To be fair, Giuliani’s campaign is not alone in using the “Romney rhetoric on taxes … mostly a myth” intel. The same verbiage can be found at John McCain’s official campaign web site.
For good or bad, the issue is out there, and it didn’t start with me harping on it. Quite honestly I think the issue most people will have with the quote is not that fees were raised, but that Massachusetts raised its fees “far more than any other state in the nation”. Reasonable people will recognize that sometimes fees have to be raised to adjust for inflation, or to insure that the cost of services being provided are matched by the revenue that is being generated from users. But here’s the comparison. MA raised fees in that year $501 million, while 2nd place NY raised its fees $367 million. The population of MA is 6.4 million people. The population of NY is 19.3 million people. Between these two, he state with far fewer residents actually raised its fees the most. And if you simply do the math, the rate that per-capita fees were raised in MA was more than quadruple the rate that such fees were raised in NY. Quadruple!
Pete,
I agree with much of what you said in your post (#62) about Connecticut being a “winner take all” delegates state in our Feb. 5th Primary. We DO need to pull together for the sake of getting a nominee who shares a FIRM commitment to as much as possible of our moral VALUES.
On that thought–did you see the article by Kathryn Jean Lopez following Mark Levin’s Jan. 10th interview of Rick Santorum on his views of a McCain presidency? (I’m assuming you did not hear the interview itself.)
Here are some excerpts from her article:
“In an interview with Mark Levin on Levin’s radio show Thursday night, Santorum went so far as to call McCain ‘very, very dangerous for Republicans’ on domestic policy. Santorum said: ‘I just have to tell you, as a leader, as someone who had to put these coalitions together, it was always hard and we very rarely on domestic policy had any help from the Senator from Arizona.’
Santorum told Levin: ‘The bottom line is that I served 12 years with him, 6 years in the United States Senate as leader, one of the leaders of the Senate — the number-3 leader — who had the responsibility of trying to put together the conservative agenda, and almost at every turn on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side.’ . . .
“Although McCain has a largely pro-life voting record, Santorum — who led on pro-life and marriage issues in the Senate — cautioned against misunderstanding McCain’s public stance: ‘Not only was he wrong on embryonic-stem-cell research, but on a whole host of conservative issues, where he may have voted with us.’ Santorum took radio listeners into the back-room workings of the Senate, emphasizing how the first step toward legislative success is finding time on the floor to discuss and vote on the issues: ‘That discussion is held in private, where you’re jostling and jockeying to get your legislation into the queue so that you can have your time on the floor to get something done. And I can tell you, when social-conservative issues were ever raised — whether it was marriage or abortion or a whole host of other issues — there were always the moderates who said ‘no, no, no, we can’t: they’re divisive, divisive, divisive.’ And more often than not, John McCain was . . . with them,’ agreeing that these were divisive issues that the Senate should not bring to a vote.
‘That’s wrong,’ Santorum added, ‘and that gives me an insight into what he would really be like [on these issues] if he were president of the United States.’ . . .
“In the Levin interview, Santorum warned that with a President McCain, ‘I’m concerned we’d have a president whose first reaction would be to go to the other side to solve a problem instead of trying to find like-minded Republicans to come up with solutions. There is nothing worse than having a Democratic Congress and a Republican president who acts like a Democrat in matters that are very important to conservatives.’”
Tricia,
Again I think you’re reading too much into Mark Levin’s remarks. As he said during his January 14th broadcast, “I’ve been leaning towards Fred Thompson.” If you listen regularly to the totality of his radio shows, then you know he’s more anti-McCain than he is pro-Romney.
Personally I find his broadcasts too militant for my taste, and can only stomach so much of it because of the disrespectful tone he uses. He demonstrates a lack of civility that is so extreme that it reflects very badly on the conservative movement. It sometimes seems that he views people with differing viewpoints as if they were a lower class of citizenry, or perhaps a lower life form. He is fond of saying, “Liberals can go to hell”, and calling people “morons” when they don’t agree with his opinion. And he regularly mocks Mrs. Clinton with the phrase “her thighness”. If anything, he represents a fringe element within conservatism that is so extreme they have alienated themselves from meaningful dialogue with the American electorate.
We do need to remember that people with differing opinions are still worthy of respect. And that character attribute, the ability to treat others with dignity - including opponents, may yet prove its importance in this election cycle.
Senator Sam Brownback on McCain:
“The suggestion that John McCain was not a consistent conservative in the Senate is flat wrong. I have seen John operate out of the public view and there is one thing I know for sure: John McCain is a Reagan conservative we can trust.
His record of over 25 years is clear: tax cuts, less government and cutting wasteful spending, an unflinchingly strong national defense, respect for life, pro-Second Amendment, conservative judges, and and protection of the sacred institution of marriage.
The fact is, John McCain was voting consistently pro-life in the 1980’s long before it became politically safe to do so. His record is not only one of Reagan conservatism, but also of consistency. Further, John brings a great moral authority in his positions to public service because his life experiences have always made his arguments more persuasive and effective in the various battles that we have fought together.”
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Yzg3ZWFkYjQ5OGYxODNjOWI2Mzk4MGVhNWM0MTY4NGY=
In Winner-Take-All Connecticut, pro-lifers need to rally around someone who can beat Giuliani.
Dave,
I normally don’t listen to Mark Levin because he yells too much for my sensibilities, but I have listened on occasion. The quote you provided from him seemed a little out of character, so I checked out the link for a listen. He does start his program with that quote and for the next eight minutes calmly discusses what he puts forth as modest changes that are needed to laws and the constitution. But at that point the program takes a sharp turn.
At time stamp 8:14 he says the following: “Now ladies and gentlemen, I don’t support any of that crap. That’s all baloney!” The entire first part of his program was just a parody! A parody with emphasis on some of the proposals of McCain and Huckabee.
Levin spends at least the next eight minutes thoroughly excoriating McCain and Huckabee. He states that he finds their policies repulsive and calls them dingbats and morons. (Just a note to let you know I don’t believe that myself.) And that is just the stuff I can print. He makes absolutely clear that he doesn’t consider them to be conservative.
I didn’t listen to more because my ears were starting to melt. Wow. Dave, I hope you don’t mind a little ribbing because you sure put your foot in that one. (Remember, A merry heart doeth good like a medicine.
)
Changing the subject to fees for a moment (and then I hope never to speak on this subject again). As I said, I remain unconvinced that the fees in question were all attributable to Romney or to just one year, but more importantly, fees are not charged on a per-capita basis so analysis on a per-capita basis is not highly relevant. I understand your point, but a meaningful comparison of Massachusetts and New York would have to consider far more than just fees. Bottom line to me is that Romney successfully blocked broad tax increases, fought for lower tax rates, and closed the state’s $2-3 billion dollar deficit primarily by cutting expenditures, and he did that under an extremely liberal legislature. That’s a compelling story to me.
Yeah, that Mark Levin is one funny guy alright. But to be absolutely clear on that January 9th parody segment, included among the things he ridiculed were:
- The idea of amending the constitution to ban abortion
- The idea of amending the constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman
Now that we’re clear that on his true opinion – as Levin explained, “I don’t support any of that crap. That’s all baloney!” – and I’m glad some took the time to hear it for themselves directly from this remarkably uncouth fellow – it ought to serve as a wake-up call for values voters.
It isn’t necessarily true that fiscal and defense conservatives will support the issues of importance to social conservatives. With this figurative 3-legged stool, which many have taken for granted during these past few decades, the problem is that GOP leaders haven’t been doing enough to fairly represent the interests of all 3 constituencies. And this is precisely why some are now saying the “Reagan coalition” is dead. It’s because for too long social conservatives have been getting the short end of the stick within the GOP.
The relationship is effectively characterized by Richard Viguerie, who writes:
In a similar vein, Pat Buchanan writes:
Fred Thompson seems to miss the point when he takes the remark as if it were disparaging the Reagan legacy. It isn’t about a lack of respect for a historical figure and his accomplishments. Not at all. Quite the contrary - it’s about an apparent lack of respect by the GOP for the values voters.
Dave,
I agree with your comments on Mark Levin’s *style*–which is far too abrasive much of the time. I will continue to listen to him, however–for few are as dedicated and persistent as Mark Levin is in getting to the FACTS about a candidate’s actual *record* of votes and DEEDS, rather than just repeating their *words.*
I also agree with you “that people with differing opinions are still worthy of respect. And that character attribute, the ability to treat others with dignity - including opponents, may yet prove its importance in this election cycle.”
IMO, Mitt Romney has been truly exemplary in treating his opponents “with dignity”–even in heated debates when others have been ‘piling on’ and making personal insults/snide comments about him.
Perhaps that demeanor and taking more of a high road, as evidence of Romney’s “character,” played some role in his great win in Michigan yesterday–as well as the fact that he leads strongly in the delegate count to date.
Re: Fred Thompson–I like him and most of his positions on the issues very much (and think he would be an excellent VP choice). However, I have two major reservations about his Presidential candidacy:
1. I believe that his two pre-school age children need the priority position in their 60-yr old daddy’s life. The demands of being POTUS, and the attendant accelerated aging, would imo cheat Fred Thompson’s children of the prime attention they deserve from their father.
2. Fred Thompson is “not clearly Pro or Con” on “Should there be a Constitutional amendment or federal law defining marriage as only between a man and a woman?” (According to 2008ElectionProCon.org)
Mitt Romney has made “Defending Traditional Marriage” and “Strengthening the American Family” major issues in his campaign, because he believes that these institutions are the source of America’s strength (rather than government).
I believe that few candidates, if any (and especially among those who are truly electable), will *fight* from the Whitehouse to protect and strengthen traditional marriage and family as Romney will.
Rush just said “You can tell who the genuine *conservatives* are by who the media hates most.” (In the context of a discussion and negative quotes from David Brooks and others about Romney.)
p.s. Dave, have you ever read Levin’s book “Men in Black”? I particularly recommend chpt. 5 “Justices in the Bedroom” about the gay ‘marriage’ issue.
Dave,
I just saw your post # 75 *after* I posted my response on Levin to you, so now I need to add another postscript.
Re: Levin and the “baloney” on the “idea of amending the constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman.”
Something must have been lost in the transmission of Levin’s view on the subject, because in “Men in Black” pp. 86-87, Levin states:
“There are essentially two options available to the elected branches of government to prevent the judiciary from seizing the ultimate authority to define marriage–to amend the federal Constitution, or for Congress to pass a law denying the federal courts jurisdiction to rule on this subject.”
Levin further stated, in defense (against the objections of John McCain “among others”) of such a “federal marriage amendment,”:
“The amendment process itself–involving all state legislatures and requiring a super-majority for passage–**is** federalism.” (I put the asterisks around “is” because I don’t know how to italicize in these posts–and “is” was italicized in Levin’s book.)
Good reference, Tricia – Levin’s book (“Men in Black”) can be found on books.google.com for those who are interested in browsing through a sampling of its pages. He’s certainly easier to tolerate as a writer than as a bombastic talk show host. Plus it’s apparently easier for him to write in a self-consistent manner, given the way he sometimes twists himself into contradictions during a live radio broadcast. I agree; it seems that something must have been lost in the translation of Levin’s thoughts into the words he actually spoke. But that’s so often the problem with his pattern of tirades. It’s a form of communication, I suppose, but one that reflects very poorly on the cause.
Now I think it’s fair to say that it’s still premature to declare a winner in this race. In fact, we’re only 4% of the way along in it, with 96% of the delegates remaining to allocate – at least for the Republicans.
Interestingly enough the Democratic race is further along, relative to the total number of delegates at stake. They’re at about 8% complete right now. How can this be? Part of this is due to the overshadowing effect of “superdelegates” – a feature uniquely prominent within the DNC, and quite ironic given its decidedly undemocratic impact upon the voice of the people. In addition, the states we have seen so far in this election cycle haven’t been equally representative of both Republican and Democratic voters.
For a graphical illustration of this phenomenon, jump over to http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/
You’ll find an ordinary map of the states, followed by a “cartogram” (a type of weight-distorted map) that represents the breakdown of “red and blue” states by population.
What have we seen so far during the race? The impact of one tiny red state (Wyoming), one fairly small red state (Iowa), one fairly small blue state (New Hampshire), and one pretty big blue state (Michigan). Little and big, of course, in the sense of how many voters each state actually represents. And yet folks within the media strive to extrapolate from this towards prognostications of the final outcome in each party.
As any good sports fan knows, “It ain’t over till it’s over”. This phrase was originally inspired by the 1973 Mets come-from-behind rally, when it originally seemed their chances were hopeless in winning the NL East title. And it seems especially apropos during this election cycle, since the early states are both poor indicators of national sentiment and diluted in their impact to the convention (thanks to the RNC rule that halves the number of delegates from any primary before February 5th). It’s certainly going to be an interesting Super Tuesday this year.
Republican Straw Poll for the entire state of Connecticut.
I believe you must be a registered Republican to participate.
Friday, January 25th
Middletown Elks Lodge
Maynard Street
Cost: $10.00
6:00PM
voting is at 8pm
Maynard is a block from Saybrook Road. Bow Lane exit off of Route 9.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&output=html&q=maynard,+middletown,+ct&zoom=0&zp=OO
Show support for Traditional Marriage and vote for the candidate of your choice.
I don’t know anything more at this time.
Jim Geraghty comments on Giuliani today:
“This morning one of my Smart Washington Guys told me, ‘Know who the most powerful guy at the 2008 GOP convention is going to be? Rudy Guiliani. None of the candidates are going to have a majority, and Rudy is going to have just enough delegates to put one candidate or another over the top.’ ”
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGU2YTY5NjJjZDNlNTg5NjE0MDM4ZWJlMTU0YzliY2U=
Social conservatives should defeat the Giuliani delegates here in ‘Winner-Take-All’ Connecticut.
There is a new study released yesterday by The Pew Research Center, which details public perceptions of the candidates in both the Republican and Democratic parties.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=385
What I found especially interesting in the report was a section that graphed “Candidate Ideology”, in which respondents were asked to rate each candidate on a spectrum ranging from very liberal to very conservative. Naturally it is no surprise that the Democratic candidates were pegged as being liberal, and the Republicans were considered as being conservative. But the graphs also indicate how the candidates rate, relative to each other, along the spectrum of conservatism - as perceived by the respondents, rather than how the candidates attempt to portray themselves.
Tricia,
You are obviously blinded by your own apparent infatuation with Romney, and that is your business. Regarding your accusations of Dave, I will let him speak for himself if he so chooses, but I will not let your propaganda of me stand. Once again, you have falsely put words into my mouth. This is starting to become a pattern with you.
(Once again) If you look back, you will see that I originally had something to say about several of the candidates, and some I liked, and some I disliked, so obviously, it is not a matter that I am for “anybody but Romney.” For that matter, I also stated that I am supporting Duncan Hunter (assuming he makes it to our primary) and I had little more to say about my candidate choice after that, unlike you.
And the “negative stream” I wrote about him was in response to your incessant and obsessive writings defending him, which pretty much practically transformed this thread into one solely about Romney. By the way, was that your original intention?
It is you who are trying to sway votes, or “give balance.” The rest of us were just engaging in a discussion that you obviously could not handle because it opposed your tunnel-vision-agenda. As you have probably guessed, I won’t be voting for Romney, but as far as I am concerned, how anybody else votes is their business and their right, whether I agree with their choice or not.
Such is how it is in the United States of America.
Doug
I’d like to focus on the line in Doug’s comment that brings us back to the original intent of this thread and see if we can’t all get back on track…namely that it is not the case that he is for “anybody but Romney.”
Romney won MI and may yet be the nominee after all. I’m getting e-mails from former opponents–some who have said things as harsh as anything posted in this thread–who say they have changed their mind and will vote for Romney (the defacto support of Rush may be a factor).
I’m also still getting e-mails from vociferous supporters of Ron Paul asking me to use my “influence” to help him–though, curiously, none of them have posted in this thread.
And we have Middletown Pete’s intriguing comments about McCain, strategy and CT’s winner-take-all process. Word is, none of the candidates will be visiting CT before our Feb. 5th primary.
That’s an update on feedback I’ve been getting from all of you since this thread was first posted. It’s interesting to see the twists and turns now that the contest has finally started. One thing that remains constant: the question of who is the true conservative is foremost in your minds. But the answer seems to shift back and forth.
How can any conservative vote for Romney?
He was listed as one of the top ten Republicans in Name Only by Human Events Magazine.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=11129
What will he be after the primary?
And would he be another George Bush if he gets elected?
Peter,
While some people may (and inevitably will) disagree with this statement, I concur with many of the pundits who are now stating, and correctly, I believe, that conservatives among the GOP side are seeking the next “Ronald Reagan,” and none of the (“top tier”) GOP candidates meet that mark.
As I believe I have stated before on this blog, I believe that in this race, like the 2000 race, the best GOP candidates are sadly in the “second tier.” Why? Your guess is as good as mine. To at least a certain extent, I think the press and media coronate certain candidates and the money flows from there. The most Reganesque candidates are most likely Duncan Hunter, Alan Keyes, John Cox, Ron Paul, and Tom Tancredo (who has since dropped out.) Meanwhile, the average “John Q. and Mary Q. Voter” probably have little, if any idea who these people even are, let alone where they stand on issues.
On the first tier, the closest candidate I see in the Reagan mold is most likely Fred Thompson, although he has some baggage, too. Besides Thompson’s “baggage,” I will not vote for any member of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) for any political office, or anyone who in any way supports the North American Union. On the GOP side, Thompson and McCain are both CFR members. Giuliani is not, but his law firm has strong financial ties to the CFR and the North American Union, which is being forced down our throats by the power of the CFR and its cronies.
Looking at the so-called “top tier,” I have heard a couple people correctly refer to the analogy of a table, which would be Reagan. Instead, we have several table legs, which is to say that each candidate has a piece of Reagan in him, but none are the complete package.
Giuliani, Romney and McCain are beloved by fiscal conservatives. Thompson and Huckabee are endeared by social conservatives. Giuliani and McCain are prized by those whose priority is military defense.
I find this whole process as frustrating as I do exciting. For all the hype about February 5 (AKA: “Super Dooper Tuesday”), it is becoming more apparent that we may still not have a clear cut winner by time the smoke of that day clears, which may very well mean that in this race, the GOP convention may actually have a purpose for a change.
In this race, I think many traditions will be broken regarding previous “conventional thinking” and predictions coming out of New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina. Furthermore, each candidate now faces the daunting task of proving that he can be elected in states where he is not expected to win. In other words, McCain needs to win in a state where true, red meat conservative Republicans, and not liberal-leaning independents rule the roost. For Huckabee and Thompson, just the opposite. They need to win in the more secular, “purple” states. For Romney, he needs to win in a state that he is not tied to (MI, UT, MA, etc..), and/or, unlike Michigan, a state that had a recession when the other 49 states were doing well, in a state that is more fiscally sound.
While Romney’s showing has been overall mediocre at best, he has currently the most delegates, courtesy of his “gold” in Michigan, a highly populated state.
Rudy took a big gamble. He had as much or more money in his coffers as Romney, and now his campaign is on the skids about as much as McCain’s was this past summer. Rudy was probably correct in thinking that many, if not most of the “Super Dooper States” share his liberal social ideology, including Florida (I believe a week before) to a certain extent, due to all the transplanted “sunbirds” from the north. But he has since gone a long time while all but ignoring the first states and being way in the back of the line. I question if he can recover. But then again, a few months back, we also said that of McCain, while we were asking, “What’s a ‘Huckabee’?”
Huckabee has less cash and less of an organized campaign, but seems to chip along and thrive week to week from his “bumps,” big and small. Long term however, that is a risky strategy also.
I suspect South Carolina will be the final nail in Thompson’s coffin. I would venture a guess that he will again be a private citizen by Monday, and he will most likely resume his nap on Tuesday. Perhaps by Wednesday, Freddy will be feeling better.
Of course, the top three right now appear to be McCain, Huckabee and Romney, but it appears that the highest probability of going any kind of real distance now lies with McCain and Romney.
In South Carolina, McCain is in first, Huckabee is 2 points behind, and then Romney by about 10 points less. Supposedly, Evangelicals tend to be the most difficult group to accurately poll, as they tend to poll less and show up more. Huckabee could well pull off a close victory over McCain and win South Carolina, and while South Carolina, unlike New Hampshire, often is the presidential bellwether, in this case, I don’t think this win will do much for Huckabee, other than knocking off Thompson, who has recently had a major personality change from lethargic to irascible. I think Fred has had enough, and please pardon this phrase, but in his case, I think the death of his candidacy will be a “mercy killing” for him. Thompson looks about as zealous about campaigning now as I was about Algebra in high school.
The conventional wisdom is to lean further toward the base in primaries, and more toward the center in the general election. That makes McCain and Romney each a coin toss, as long as they can both survive the primaries until the convention. Romney seems to be better funded, but McCain has risen quite miraculously like a Phoenix from the ashes.
No matter how you slice it, this race will still continue to be one that is not for the feint of heart.
Post script to South Carolina, on the Dem side, when, not if, Edwards loses, he should drop out of the race. If he refuses, I think the humane thing to do would be for his staff to physically pick him up and carry him away.
He is quite apparently unelectable in either of the “Americas” he preaches about. He should stick to what he does best, which is obviously chasing ambulances for cash, and not delegates for votes.
Just as well. Have you seen him lately? His hair is getting a bit shaggy….by about $400 or so.
Doug
Doug,
I am truly sorry for ‘getting your goat.’ (Here–take him back. I don’t like goats. ;-)) I guess that in a prior attempt at (failed) humor I “falsely put words into [your] mouth,” and for that I apologize.
And I don’t like contention–although it probably seems at times as if I do. That is because I *will not hesitate* to speak up in defense of what I believe to be right or true. I try very hard to base my opinions upon facts and true principles which will stand up to any scrutiny. When my opinions are *proven* to be based on erroneous information, then I change those opinions and apologize where called for.
In reference to your “I also stated that I am supporting Duncan Hunter (assuming he makes it to our primary) and I had little more to say about my candidate choice after that, unlike you.” As I have said before, Duncan Hunter is a good man and candidate for President, and I would GLADLY vote for him if he were the nominee.
I have *no problem* with anyone stating why they *support* a candidate, and I have NOT been the one constantly bringing up Romney’s name in this thread.
To the contrary (there I go arguing again;-))–I have only *responded* in *defense* of Romney after David, you, Dave, and now Steve make very negative comments/insults (in my view) about Romney.
I have just spent the last couple of hours reviewing and rereading posts in this thread from the beginning, Doug. So my statement that I have only “responded” to others’ comments is a FACT.
Be well, Doug–and have a good weekend. You certainly have my permission to ignore my further posts, if you can–but I will make no promises to be silent here. I only wish that this forum would not have evidenced some of the “tag team” of anti-Romney rhetoric that fills the MSM.
Doug,
Further, your statement “You are obviously blinded by your own apparent infatuation with Romney,” is your *opinion,* to which (of course) you are entitled. But that opinion is not based in fact. My support for Mitt Romney to be the Republican nominee is NOT based on any “infatuation.” That support is based on fairly extensive research of his record as Governor of Massachusetts AND the Romney “Agenda” of “Protecting American Taxpayers,” “Solutions to New Global Challenges,” and “Strengthening the American Family.”
My support of Romney’s candidacy is NOT based on any “identity politics” or choosing someone “just because I *like* him”–which to me seems to be what *far too many* voters do. In fact, I am both appalled and amazed (with what abundant sources of information we have today) that voters in states such as Iowa, New Hampshire, etc. could be “undecided” just days–or even hours–before their caucus or Primary day as to who they would vote for.
The results from South Carolina are going to be *interesting* to say the least!
Tricia,
Thank you. For any offense I may have caused, I apologize as well. I don’t like contention, either.
Nevertheless, I think you and I are probably about as equally stubborn/zealous/passionate about defending our stances. As a result, “responses” get “responses,” which in turn, get more “responses,” and on and on the merry-go-round goes.
I cannot intelligently speak for anyone else on this forum, but I was not trying to “tag-team” you. What I said of Romney, I was saying for myself, and I still believe what I said. And to speculate, and of course, it is only speculation, I don’t think anyone else was trying to “tag-team” you, either. For that matter, while Dave agreed with me, he did disagree with my usage of the word “liar” to describe Romney, yet I never thought that you and Dave were tag-teaming me. People are entitled to hold and express their opinions despite their agreement, dissent, or how many other people share or oppose that opinion. It just so happens that several for us disagree with you on this particular issue. Do the math. How many candidates are still left in this race? It should not surprise you that two or more people disagree with your choice of a candidate. You do seem to take this matter rather personally. Be careful of that. Emotions and logic, despite how altruistic the motivation may be, are not necessarily always compatible with each other, and in some cases, they are contradictory. Let’s keep our eye on the ball. At the end of the day, whichever candidate wins, you and I will have both had very little influence in creating or preventing that outcome.
With regard to facts, you have disputed facts several of us have brought up regarding Romney, and we have disputed some of yours, and that was on his record, in endorsements and quotes from other people, and even in quotes from Romney himself, yet we still are on opposing sides of the fence. Facts indeed, are facts, but how we interpret those facts, be it positively or negatively, consciously or unconsciously, is a whole other issue and can still vary from person to person. And yet, both sides defend their positions with their versions of “the facts.” If we are all standing on the same street corner, you may see a blue car drive by. Dave might see a Chevy. Peter might see a sedan. David might see a vintage classic. Pete might have seen an Impala. Steve might have seen a 4-door. I might see a deluxe edition of the model. We all might describe it differently, yet we all saw the same car. See what I mean?
Suffice to say that regarding Mitt Romney, we agree to disagree, and I doubt either of us will change the mind of the other. You spoke of balance earlier. Dissent isn’t such a bad thing. Dissent gives balance. And besides, like I said before, the debate was getting tedious.
I was off this forum this week because I had bigger fish to fry. I almost lost a beloved family member due to a very serious illness. I spent most of my days by her bedside in the ICU and the small portion of my remaining nights wide wake and as anxious as a cat on a hot tin roof. Thank God, she is now OK and back home from the hospital. Now I am (physically and literally) sick and tired from that event. From every tragedy comes some gem of wisdom if we are open to receiving it. Politics are important, despite the sad apathy of much of our nation’s electorate. Arguments over politics are not important. Life is too short and far too precious to sweat the small stuff. In short, if there is no specific objective, then there is no real purpose.
I am sure that in the future, there will be other subjects on which you and I do agree. Meanwhile, let us now put this disagreement behind us and move on.
Besides, like I said….I’m tired!
Take care.
Doug
Tricia,
One quick postscript. (This is starting to become a trademark with me!)
On Romney, you and I obviously differ in opinion on the word “rhetoric,” but that said, I don’t believe what the MSM says is all conclusive and all true, either, but I do believe some of it has some merit, but let’s not go down that road again. We have well beaten that path already to no avail on either side.
You could easily substitute Romney’s name for several of the other candidates as well when you cite “anti-Romney rhetoric.” As Huckabee quipped, “If I’m catching flack, I guess I’m over the target.” Put another way, even bad press is good press. I think you well know the MSM’s bias. They don’t cozy up to many candidates with the dreaded letter “R” in front of their name, but even bad press gives name recognition, which indirectly produces positive results.
I am sure Hunter, Keyes and Cox would love some of the bad press that Romney, Rudy, McCain, Thompson, Huck, and even Paul are catching right now. Instead, they are all relegated to abandonment and silence. They are not even acknowledged enough to be disrespected. How sad is that?
Also, if you were to talk to Romney, I would wager he would most likely tell you that he doesn’t like the negative press, but he lets it roll off his back. Any candidate even remotely worth his salt would, and any candidate who cannot or does not should not be running for office. Like it or not, American politics is not a gentlemanly athletic event governed by the sportsmanship, wholesome good will and the Marquis of Queensbury Rules. It is a ruthless, bare knuckles, bloody, fight to the finish, last man standing, no holds barred brawl, and anyone who can’t stand the sight of his own blood (as Huckabee also said) shouldn’t “step into the ring.” (My words.) Even when the candidates run clean campaigns, the MSM muddies the waters. It’s inescapable. Right or wrong, love it or hate it, it is the nature of the beast. That all said, I would say Romney is holding up OK in that regard. Trust me on this one, if the candidates are letting such negative press roll off their backs, then it makes little sense for their supporters to get so rocked by it. I know a little something about politicians. Trust me on this one, even if he knows you personally, you are probably much more concerned about Romney, than he ever would be for you. And ditto with all the rest of them, too. I believe you mean well, but try to keep it all in perspective. Some of these guys are better than others, but none of them is a consummate Sir Galahad by any means.
Save your strength. You’re going to need it. It is of little matter who the GOP eventually nominates, because Hillary will inevitably be our next President. Then the real fight is on, and at that time, most of us from this forum best put our minor differences and squabbles behind us and unite to fight our true nemesis against all we hold dear for at least the next four years. And may God help us then.
Take care.
Doug
As I have stated before, I am no big fan of John McCain, but one statement repeated about him by the press and media makes me bristle.
Yes, he opposed the Bush tax cuts, but because he wanted tax cuts and spending cuts simultaneously. Legislation he proposed in that regard was shot down by the “porkers” on both sides of the partisan aisle, who waste our money to pad their districts, strengthen their sinecures and continually violate our Constitution on matters not legitimately of federal purview.
Meanwhile, President Bush has outspent President Clinton on domestic spending alone while he keeps blaming the Congress for wasteful spending, yet hardly ever raising his veto pen.
This is typical Bush hypocrisy. Campaign finance reform is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled in Buckley vs. Valeo that money (political contributions) is speech and is especially protected by the 1st Amendment. Yet, Bush called McCain/Feingold & Shays/Meehan “unconstitutional,” and then signed the (combined) bill into law, supposedly thinking the Supreme Court would throw it out later, although I don’t buy that excuse. Since then, of course, the Supreme Court has since sadly dropped the ball.
Tax cuts with unchecked, out of control spending are ludicrous. What’s fair is fair. McCain was 100% right on that one.
Republicans should have known which way the winds were blowing when Ed Gillespie was RNC Chair. He told the editorial board of the Manchester, NH Union Leader newspaper that the GOP is no longer the party of less spending and limited government. I found that odd since the party platform regarding fiscal issues hasn’t really changed all that much. About a month later, Gillespie then spoke to a group of college Republicans and pontificated on the GOP’s fiscal conservatism. OK, Ed, so which is it?
George Mason University economist Walter E. Williams once sat on a commission appointed by Congress to review the federal budget. Williams, et al found that if the federal government simply abided by the Constitution, at least 2/3 of our federal budget, federal agencies and programs and overall wasteful bureaucracy would not even exist, and that money would instead be in the pockets of the states and the individual taxpayers, where it belongs.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution articulates the powers of Congress. Article 2, Section 2 articulates the powers of the President. Count them. There are only roughly 20 powers appointed to each. Meanwhile, the 10th Amendment states that any power not articulated in the Constitution is a state, and not a federal function. From there, each state has its own state constitution framing its government. This isn’t exactly rocket science.
The problem is that nobody wants budget cuts that affect him or her. Other free governments in history have eventually met their demise by a combination of moral decline and fiscal recklessness. Both ultimately point to hedonism, an abandonment of mores, taboos, societal rules, and traditions that once kept us all in check, and society functioning and civilized, and both are also increasing right now, before our very eyes.
Those who cynically say that the Democrat and Republican parties are morphing into each other aren’t that far off the mark from the truth, all cynicism aside. Both parties now tax and spend like drunken sailors on leave. Republicans, more and more, make excuses for so-called “moderate” Republicans, who are in fact, liberal, and have publicly abandoned any allegiance to conservative social issues and traditional family values. The parties have mutated from conduits of principle to platforms of power. None of the third parties are strong enough to even merit mention. Meanwhile, as the Democrat and Republican parties slowly but steadily merge into each other, we are slowly evolving to a one party system in our government, and we all know where that leads. We fought a Cold War, not all that long ago, over such unipartisan politics.
Those who laugh at and ridicule Ron Paul, a strict constitutionalist, ought to try picking up a copy of the Constitution and flipping through it every once in a while.
Try as you may, you just never find this kind of information on the sports page, or on “American Idol.”
The increasing numbers of the apathetic, distracted, ignorant, misguided American electorate is like a sleepy frog,dozing in a pan of cool water, sitting atop a stove.
And the heat is slowly getting turned up.
Doug
Doug, do you really think Clinton will win? Don’t you think that her nomination would spur the Republicans to band together and get out to vote for whoever the party is running against her? Or do each of the GOP front runners have enough against them that some would just stay home. If the GOP runs Huckabee it would be a landslide Dem win but with Romney or McCain I think it could be close. If Clinton does win it will be the result of many of us voting for her just to keep the GOP out, not necessarily because we support her. But either way, God will no doubt help us, after all He has managed to keep the madman currently in office from totally destroying the country. And the one before him, and the one before him, and the one before him, etc. etc. etc.
Completely off topic and outside the purpose of this blog, but I would like to ask y’all to pray for a man I work with. His father died by falling down the stairs and nobody knew until he didn’t show up where he was supposed be. My co-worker had to break in to the house and discovered the body. Years ago he was also the one to find his brother’s body. He always has been very tightly wound and I fear that his may be too much. I don’t know if he is a believer or not but I do know that the only way he can get through this is with God giving him the strength and comfort. Thank you, Dave
I am grateful to God that most people are not long-winded.
Wow!
Doug,
I am not going to bother to address *all* of the many points you have made since my last post–in consideration of those others patiently following this thread. However–you have again misunderstood my motives in “defending” Mitt Romney against some of the many erroneous/unfair claims/insults made against him by you and others here, not to mention those in the MSM. “Trust me,” I’m not quite as naive as you think. I am over a half century into my life on this earth–so you don’t need to explain the rudiments of “politics” to me.
I am “defending” Romney for 2 reasons (neither of which has anything to do with taking it “personally”):
1. The MAJORITY of voters do NOT do their own research, and are only too quick to internalize and accept at face value the labels and adjectives the MSM and various pundits assign to a candidate. The label “flip-flopper” is DESERVED by John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, because they readily and repeatedly switch batch and forth on their past and current positions on issues. It is *not deserved* by Mitt Romney. One could say he “flipped” from his former (as he *admitted*) “effectively pro-choice” position, when he became pro-life and VETOED embryonic stem cell legislation as Governor of Massachusetts. He has NOT “flopped” back to a pro-choice stand.
2. More *importantly,* I support and defend Mitt Romney’s candidacy for POTUS because I genuinely, as an informed and CONSERVATIVE voter (knowing he is not “Sir Galahad”)–believe that he would be by far the best President for this nation at this time. (I am speaking of all the candidates realistically still in the race–on the GOP side including Giuliani, Huckabee, and McCain.)
Doug,
I disagree strongly with your statement: “Hillary will inevitably be our next President.”
I actually deplore such a defeatist attitude. The stakes are too great to allow that to happen, as Middletown Pete has alluded to before. It is highly likely that the next President will be appointing at least 2 new Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Hillary has such high negatives (even among Democrats) that I believe she is very realistically beatable by a good, strong truly *Conservative* candidate from the Republican Party. (If she ends up putting Obama on her ticket as V.P–she would never take 2nd position if he wins the nomination–then the odds change–but then so would the Republican strategy on their V.P. adjust.)
In my mind, McCain is NOT that “truly conservative” candidate. (See the recent George Will column at http://www.townhall.com for just a few reasons.) He also is AGAINST a Federal Constitutional Marriage Protection Amendment, and said of “some of these [radio] talk-show hosts” that “I don’t think they’re good for America.”
I don’t go so far as a townhall poster who calls Rudy “the bald Hillary,” but obviously he does not share the Conservative moral VALUES and will not get the support of much of “the conservative coalition,” if there still is such a thing. (I do believe it can be reconstituted.) Also, did you hear that if Hillary and Giuliani are the two nominees, then Bloomberg will run as an Independent?
Fortunately, Doug–not everyone shares your pessimism. Also, not all voters are listening to the MSM and pundits who have tried to eliminate Romney from the race and count him out almost from the beginning (hmmm, I wonder why?). Millions of Americans support Romney, as shown by the latest polls and results in recent Primaries.
Also, they are not all being fooled by the left-leaning media’s free exposure of and promotion of Huckabee to be the Republican nominee. Of course the MSM wants Huckabee as the nominee, because either Hillary or Obama could handily defeat him, imo.
David,
I probably should not make such far out predictions. A day in politics is like a year in the rest of the world, and much can happen between now and Election Day. One major event, be it a terrorist attack (God forbid), a financial crisis, a major scandal on either side, etc.., could turn the tables or solidify the status quo. This race has had a few surprises and upsets already.
However, I am still inclined to see Hillary win, much to my chagrin, despite how polarizing she is. The Clintons are as ruthless as they are ingenious when it comes to politics. They also have a well-established machine that a novice Obama is no match for. Even with Hillary’s persona and baggage, there is a whole machine behind her that if quite powerful and formidable and will do whatever it takes to win. Obama clearly has rising star potential, but I don’t think this is his year.
Watch the south, though. Winning the majority of the south is key for both parties.
Also, I see the Republican Party very fractured this time. To say that a “malaise” exists is to put it mildly. Between abandoning its own platform on issues, and the various screw-ups and scandals, it has little sympathy right now in or out of its base. Each party goes through this phase every so often. Right now it’s our turn. Lord Acton was right that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There are aspects of conservatism to each of the top tier candidates, but none of them is the complete package. There is also an old saying in politics that no one is ever voted into office, they’re only voted out. Incumbents tend to be safe for a number of reasons, such as a lazy, apathetic, disenchanted electorate voting for the “devil they know,” plus donations and support from PACs, lobbyists, etc.., but considering this election will be an open seat, I think sufficient anger now exists in the country that it wants change. The Democrats are smart to grab that phrase, despite the fact that they aren’t defining it.
The general rule is to lean toward the base in the primary season (left for Democrats, right for Republican), and then drift more toward the center in the general election. Each party only has roughly 30-40% of the electorate, which makes the unaffiliated voters in the middle of the road the necessary prize catch at the end of the campaign.
Also, follow the money. Republicans tend to bring in more overall money that Democrats, although, contrary to popular belief, the Republicans tend to collect more smaller donations ($100 and less) and the Democrats tend to collect more larger sums of donations. Right now, however, the Democrats are raking in more money than the Republicans. That’s probably a pretty good bellwether, but like I said, the campaign season is still young.
Whoever the GOP nominee will be, he most likely won’t be a rock-ribbed, red meat model of Ronald Reagan this time, so that may help somewhat in the general election, but I don’t think the GOP can overcome the anger factor in the country right now, plus depending who gets the nod, enough conservative Republicans might well stay home and sit this one out in disgust.
I have been watching the polls, but have been otherwise distracted from them and remiss for about the past 3 weeks or so. Giuliani was the only one who showed any semblance of beating Hillary, and that was only in a few polls, and by the margin of error (on average, about 2-5%). While I haven’t seen any recent polls, I hear that McCain is now beating Hillary, but I don’t know and haven’t seen yet in how many, or by how much.
A moderate Republican could give Hillary, a good run for her money in a close race, but I just think this year is for the Democrats.
I think 4 years from now, the primaries will be back on a normal schedule again. Both parties got hurt by this massive frontload shift of dates. Less money is being spent simply because there is less, and for that matter, ample time to campaign effectively between some primaries, and in some cases, delegate numbers have been punitively taken back by some states.
Regarding your co-worker, I will be praying for him, as well as his father and brother and all of his family, living and deceased. That is an awful experience to go through once, but twice is unthinkable. My heart goes out to him, as do my prayers.
Doug
David,
Just a couple more points.
While many people view Obama as charismatic and a refreshing change, Bill makes up for Hillary’s deficits, and then some, and I think many people will tolerate her just to get him back. He is still very popular among Democrats. I think many Democrats are viewing a Hillary presidency, and correctly so, I believe, as a package deal. And contrary to popular belief, First Ladies have more influence on their husbands and their policy than Presidents like to let on. I have no doubt that the status quo will remain with “First Husbands” and Presidents as well.
With that in mind, I think the Democrats are also sacrificing a bit to sway toward someone they view electable instead of likeable. I think right now, the Democrats are chomping at the bit, both for change and a return to the White House. Hillary wins in that category as well.
The same can also be said for the Republicans. That fact reverts back to Hillary’s polarization. They despise and fear her so much, that they are willing to sacrifice many of their core principles, just to beat Hillary. For that matter, even Obama would be a challenge. Either a woman, or a black President would be a historical precedent and novelty that is a nemesis to all of these white men.
Back when the race seemed to be Rudy vs. Hillary, both sides spoke of the high negatives of both candidates, yet despite all this hand wringing about high negatives, both had everybody else swamped at that time. So much for high negatives.
I have already heard predictions that if she is elected, Hillary being Hillary, the GOP might well take back the Congress in either 2010, or 2012, and that she might so enrage the country that she will be only a one-term president. I can easily see the former prediction, but I’m iffy on the latter.
Like I said, much can still happen to upset the apple cart, but for right now, I’m still predicting a victory for Hillary.
And the New England Patriots.
Doug
How much support can money buy during an election cycle? There’s a new interactive map posted at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/map/ that describes, on a state-by-state basis, how much money is flowing into each candidate’s campaign. If you zoom in on Connecticut, it looks like Guiliani is the top fund-raiser for the Republicans, and (once you set aside Dodd, since he dropped out) it’s Obama who is leading on the Democratic side.
Any thoughts on how that will correlate to Super Tuesday’s results for us?
Dave,
I could see Rudy, Romney, McCain, and maybe even Paul doing well in Connecticut. I doubt Huckabee will draw many votes.
The big question with Rudy, however, is whether or not he can get past Florida. Florida might well catapult or terminate his campaign.
Money in political campaigns is kind of like chicken soup for a cold: it might not help, but it can’t hurt.
Despite their individual wealth, Steve Forbes and Ross Perot couldn’t pull it off.
After Florida, the northeast states were the ones Rudy was concentrating on. That is where he sees his strongest potential, probably due to close proximity and like ideology.
He may have dumped lots of money here, but right now, his campaign is practically on life support. His top campaign workers are voluntarily forgoing their pay for a month.
Also, media is the biggest expenditure. I would imagine New York media will cost more than Connecticut media, but Fairfield County leans Republican, and Rudy would be smart to also invest in New York media to saturate the Connecticut commuters from the panhandle region who work in New York.
While Rudy certainly has no problem with name recognition, due to our close proximity to New York and the number of Nutmeggers who commute there to work and conduct much of their business and socializing there, I think he also figures that here, his name recognition will also get him more bang for his buck.
Romney won’t have that same advantage as Boston is too far to be a commuter town for Connecticut folks, but I think he will fair well here, simply because of his moderate ideology. McCain was a big hit here in 2000, and I think he will be again. For that matter, all three of them are somewhat moderate, which will help them. I think Huckabee will be hurt here because of his religious views. Huckabee is conservative on social issues and liberal on fiscal issues. That is the opposite recipe to attract the majority of “RINO” (Republican In Name Only) voters who dominate Connecticut, where they value their money more than their God. Ron Paul might even do fairly well because of his stance on Iraq.
I think here, it’s more ideology over money. I put (not necessarily in chronological order) McCain, Romney and Giuliani in our top three slots for votes cast.
Doug
Here’s some new info for this thread. The Courant had a Jan. 20th story on its poll of CT presidential preferences:
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hcu-ctpoll-0119,0,7087100.story?coll=hc_tab01_layout
Basically, it’s Hillary for the Dems and McCain for the GOP, both by wide margins. The interesting thing is that the GOP’s legislative leadership, Rep. Cafero and Sen. McKinney, signed onto Guiliani’s campaign early, when it looked like he was a sure bet. But as we get closer to Feb. 5, CT’s GOP voters appear to prefer the more conservative McCain to the party’s only pro-abortion candidate. (Though, to be sure, I have heard from people who argue that we are more likely to see pro-life Justices from Guiliani than McCain, given that the latter is thought to crave media approval more than the former.)
Family Reseach Council Action has its presidential voter guide up:
http://frcaction.org
Also, I was at the March for Life in Washington yesterday. I’ll have more to say about it later. For the purposes of this thread, I want to note the significant number of Ron Paul signs. Last year it was all Sam Brownback signs, this year it was all Ron Paul. Paul was also the only presidential candidate to address the March, though Brownback did deliver a message from McCain promising to be the pro-life movement’s unswerving ally. There was no similar message from any of the other presidential candidates.
Peter,
When McCain “unswerves” himself away from favoring embryonic stem cell research, then I will be a little more impressed with his support of the pro-life cause.
Granted, he is far better than Giuliani in that regard, but his platform is still not unblemished on the life issue.
Remember, too, that Jerry Falwell (may God bless his soul) was formerly considered by McCain to be an “agent of intolerance” until McCain showed up at Liberty University’s commencement with a warm smile, an “aw shucks” demeanor, and the strong encouragement to forgive and forget their previous squabble once he remembered that he needed support from Evangelicals for his campaign run. I guess “intolerance” is in the eye of the beholder, depending on current need.
The “straight talk express” seems to have at least one flat tire.
Doug
Peter,
Also, regarding appointment of justices, yes, McCain is a media darling who does crave their left-leaning attention.
On the other hand, Giuliani, despite all his recent pseudo-conservative rhetoric, appointed liberal judges to the city courts when he was Mayor of New York.
As I have said before, I couldn’t care less what any of these clowns say.
Just show me what they’ve done.
I’ll decide from there.
Doug
How can any FIC supporters consider McCain “conservative,” when he has outspokenly come out AGAINST a Federal Constitutional Marriage Protection Amendment? When it was brought up in the Senate in July 2004, McCain said it:
“strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans.”
Also, McCain-Feingold has been *very bad* for those concerned with First Amendment Rights, traditional marriage and family activist groups, and specifically Wisconsin Right-to-Life in 2006. (For those who are not aware–McCain in 2006 actively stood AGAINST the right of Wisconsin Right-to-Life to run ads in the 60 days prior to an election.)
Doug & Trish,
Just to clarify, I was referencing a Courant poll of Republican voters in our state, not FIC members. I only described McCain as “more conservative” than Guiliani–which, on our issues, is accurate. Your points about McCain’s support for taxpayer-funded destruction of human embryos, opposition to the marriage amendment and so forth are, of course, true.
Doug,
I think you hit upon an important point in speaking about the impact of voters who value their money more than God.
How sad it is when people turn their backs upon the social issues that impact the family, simply for the sake of their pocketbook.
The evil lies not in having riches, but in so distorting the importance of those riches that one turns a blind eye towards doing what is right.
So many tend to forget that when resources are placed into our hands, we are merely stewards of that which God has entrusted to us. Yet another example of selfish interests that lead us astray.
My husband and I attended the Connecticut Republican Straw Poll in Middletown last night, and WOW were we in for an unexpected thrill! As far as we could judge by the buttons and signs people were wearing and holding, we expected that Ron Paul would take first place and McCain second.
So, imagine our joy when the results were announced, starting from the BOTTOM, and both Paul’s and McCain’s numbers had been called before we heard “our man Mitt’s!” (And no, Doug and Dave–we did not contact other Romney supporters to be there, and we did not even know anyone else at the event.)
Here is the vote breakdown, from the total of 382 votes cast:
Mitt Romney 136 35.6%
John McCain 104 27.2%
Ron Paul 96 25.1%
Rudy Giuliani 34 8.9%
Mike Huckabee 9 2.4%
(3 votes were split between Hunter & Thompson)
Tricia,
I’m glad you were able to find joy in the Middletown social gathering. However we all know that straw polls have proven to be unreliable indicators, due to the opportunity for either willful manipulation or inadvertent skewing due to self-selection. Bottom line is that they are just not as statistically valid as a random sampling of likely voters. And thankfully it is the real election that matters, rather than any straw poll or random-sampling poll.
If straw polls were to have been believed … Ron Paul would have won in Nevada, Mitt Romney would have won in Iowa, and Chris Dodd would have won in South Carolina. (Yeah, those straw polls are equally unreliable for both parties).
Incidentally you failed to disclose the full details about the Middletown straw poll. Apparently some folks voted in-person while others voted only by a virtual online presence.
The in-person votes totaled as follows:
McCain: 78 31%
Paul: 75 30%
Romney: 66 27%
Giuliani: 24 10%
Huckabee: 3 .01%
Thompson: 2 .01%
Hunter: 1 .00%
It was the Internet-based voting that tremendously skewed the voting:
McCain: 26 20%
Paul: 21 17%
Romney: 70 55%
Giuliani: 10 8%
Add these two segments together and you get the final results that you reported. Judge for yourself if that seems to have been somehow manipulated, based on the fact that pattern of distribution differs so greatly between these two voting blocks.
By the way, see also Tim White’s blog for details on the CT GOP straw poll results.
http://timwhitelistens.blogspot.com/2008/01/ct-gop-straw-poll.html
I was not attempting to mislead anyone about the Friday night CT GOP straw poll results. I did not know that people could vote online. If I had known that, we might have chosen to vote online rather than spend our evening driving an hour each way to participate.
Maybe not, though. I have more or less ‘been bitten’ by the politicking bug, since getting involved with FIC a few years ago trying to stop the imposition of SSM upon the citizens of Connecticut. Since then we (my husband and I) have campaigned door to door, making phone calls etc. in support of candidates who support not only conservative principles–but *especially* for those who support and will work to preserve our traditional Moral Values, the traditional definition of Marriage, and First Amendment Rights. Mitt Romney is such a candidate.
Yes Dave, “it is the real election that matters, rather than any straw poll or random-sampling poll.”
I do find it significant, though, that Romney’s percentage of the vote total, even in the “in-person votes” of the straw poll, was *up there* very close with Paul and McCain. Also, that Giuliani’s totals were consistently LOW–10% or less.
And yet just a month or two ago, the common dictum from the ‘talking heads’ of the pollsters and MSM was that “only Giuliani” could beat Hillary. Now the pollsters are saying that *nationwide* only McCain can beat Hillary or Obama.
Well, the pollsters are standing on shifting sands. The voters in MOST states know little about Mitt Romney at this point. Recent weeks have shown that the more people become familiar with Mitt Romney, his experience and his plans to reform government from Washington, D.C.–the more they like and support him.
I don’t usually write letters to religious leaders concerning politics, but this year is quite different. In recent years we have seen many issues that touch upon religious and conservative ideals — Same Sex Marriage, Abortion, Religious Freedom, and more — attacked by politicians on many levels. When we protest, we often are pushed aside, or simply discredited by the media and special interests.
But I’m trying not to be negative. Actually, this is an exciting moment in our nation’s history. It is a critical moment, too. We can’t sit back and allow just anyone to become President. In fact, THIS Presidential election offers you the best chance to get involved in the process. Neither political party has a clear nominee. And our chance to vote is only days away!
Days, you ask? Yes. The primary vote on February 5th is more important than the vote in November. Why? Well, if you are a registered Republican, you can select from 4 candidates. If you are a Democrat, you can choose from 2. In November you will likely choose from only two. I hope you will inform parishioners of the importance of this vote.
Now you may ask, with all these choices, and with little information from media outlets, who should we vote for? I suggest Mike Huckabee. Mike is a former Baptist minister who just completed ten years as Governor of Arkansas. There he inherited and fixed a state with the worst roads and public educational system in the country. While working with a 90% Democratic legislature, and promoting “educating both sides of the brain” in our children, he was named one of Time Magazine’s “Five Best Governors” in the nation.
Oh, and did I mention he is Pro-Life and opposed to Gay Marriage? He has also written five books on faith and healthy living. After being diagnosed with diabetes in 2003, he then lost 110 lbs. and has run in five marathons. A man with this kind of common sense, determination and commitment to goals will be the perfect leader for our country.
We can use your help. There will be a rally for Mike Huckabee on Saturday, February 2nd at Bushnell Park in Hartford at 11 am. Meet at the Carousel and bring your families, homemade signs and your spirit! We will provide flyers and enthusiasm! The rally will move to the Hartford Civic Center just before the UConn game to let our friends and neighbors know about Mike and the important election on Tuesday. Please call me with any questions on what else you can do. Or, go to http://www.meetup.com to see more events and connect with supporters.
Oh- anyone is free to contact me to help out.
cobrien7@hotmail.com
(203) 558-5817
Chris O’Brien
The pundits say that John McCain is now either unbeatable or nearly unbeatable for the GOP nomination. What are the thoughts of our state’s social conservatives as to where that leaves us?
McCain supports using tax dollars for embryo-destructive research. He is quoted in last week’s National Catholic Register saying that, even after the new scientific breakthough making embryo killing unnecessary, he’s concerned about coming over to our side because of “the flip-flop aspect.” That seems to confirm my concern that slamming Romney for flip-flopping in our direction would hurt us in the long run. The recent breakthrough is a perfect opportunity for McCain to change his position, a prerequisite before many pro-lifers will take a second look at him. But he and Romney’s other opponents have made flip-flopping to the pro-life position such a radioactive thing that McCain can’t afford to do it.
If the choice is now McCain or “not-McCain” does that mean that many of you on this thread will put aside your reservations about Romney, the most competitive of the “not-McCains”? Or, like Chris in the comment above, are you sticking with Huckabee? Or, like MiddletownPete, do you think McCain is the best choice for conservatives in this present election cycle? The CT primary is this Tuesday and I’m curious to hear your thoughts.
I’m also curious to hear your thoughts on the Democratic contest, which has narrowed to a two-person race. Obama appears to have closed the polling gap with Hillary in our state. Hillary, meanwhile, is snubbing pro-life Democrat Mike Jarjura because of the Waterbury mayor’s decision to hire former Gov. Rowland. Any thought on who would be the best or the least-bad Democratic nominee for our issues?
On your last question, Peter–I’d have to agree with Pat Buchanan’s answer when asked a couple of months ago (can’t remember by whom, and I may be paraphrasing slightly–):
Interviewer: “If the screws were put to you and you had to choose between Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama–who would you choose?”
Buchanan: “I’d say–keep turning the screws.”
Peter, I can’t tell which would be “the least-bad Democratic nominee for our issues.”
I can only say for sure that Hillary’s nomination would usher in the NASTIEST Presidential campaign EVER! **Particularly** if her opponent is John McCain!
To amplify my last statement (in my previous post today), IMO, Hillary Clinton and John McCain are BOTH masters of the *lie, deny and smear* tactics that are the very worst characteristics of career politicians. Each is totally convinced that he/she is ENTITLED to (*deserves it, has EARNED it* however you want to phrase it) the Presidency, and NOW! d**n it! Because of that personal avarice, IMO, both McCain and Clinton are convinced that *no tactic* is TOO SLEAZY, no lie too UNBELIEVABLE (based upon McCain’s recent dissembling, even in the debate two nights ago)–in short “the end justifies the means.”
Also, IMO, *personality and style-wise* Hillary and McCain are quite similar in that they have severe anger management problems and HOLD GRUDGES (seemingly forever).
Hillary has taken some ‘acting lessons’ lately which seem to have softened the edge somewhat–but I’m afraid McCain is ‘too old a dog’ to learn those tricks very well.
(I’m going to post separately some excerpts of a newsmax.com Jan. 11 article which cites vivid examples of McCain’s explosive temper, recounted in the Feb. issue of “Vanity Fair” and elsewhere.)
In fact–as much as I disagree with McCain’s too liberal voting record (and McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, etc.) and his non-support of a Federal Constitutional Marriage Protection Amendment–I’m almost MORE FRIGHTENED by the prospect of his *hair trigger* temper in the White House, and dealing with sensitive diplomatic matters.
Bottom line, Peter, I am quite skeptical of being able to MOVE McCain to our side, and then having any confidence of being able to TRUST him, even if he says he has changed his view. I say this because of McCain’s dissembling over his past votes and stands on issues– such as his motivations for voting against tax-cut bills, etc.– besides McCain’s history of enjoying “picking fights.” As a specific example of my lack of trust for McCain:
McCain sponsored the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill which would have granted permanent residency status immediately (through “Z visas”) to all illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. (except those guilty of other crimes). NOW he says he has accepted the “will of the people” and will first “build your d**n FENCE!”
BUT, when asked two nights ago in the debate if he would sign an “in effect AMNESTY” bill if Congress should pass another one similar to McCain-Kennedy, McCain insisted repeatedly that Congress “will not pass” another one like it–rather than stating firmly that “I WOULD VETO such a bill!” Does that not seem reminiscent of Hillary’s waffling and “flip-flopping” on the issue of NY driver licenses for illegal immigrants?
Peter,
As Laura Ingram has correctly said, it’s 1976 (Ford) and 1996 (Dole) all over again. (And I would add, 1992 as well.) And I think that fact is significant.
In 2001, shortly after Bush’s inauguration, I attended the annual CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) in Arlington, Virginia. I was among roughly 4,000 attendees who rose to their feet and gave Barbara Olson a raucous standing ovation when she simply said, “Friction causes change,” meaning the transition of Clinton to Bush in the White House. (Barbara Olson was killed on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon several months later on September 11th. Her last act of patriotism was relaying descriptions of the hijackers via her cell phone to her husband, then Solicitor General, Theodore Olson, who in turn, was relaying the information to the FBI on another phone.)
What we are experiencing is nothing new. The polarization between conservatives and “moderates’ (usually polite code for liberals) existed in 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt broke off with the GOP and founded the Bull Moose Party, which created a four way race, ironically giving a plurality win to liberal Wilson, and creating a long and strong personal rift between Roosevelt and his once dear close friend, William Howard Taft, who was literally driven to tears over the argument.
Each GOP candidate seems to wield his own cadre of die-hard supporters, but there is no consensus among any of them. Each candidate mostly represents and attracts a different variety of conservatism and few exude the complete package. The ones farthest from the standard are the ones who typically invoke Ronald Reagan the most. Real conservatives don’t have to convince anyone of their conservatism with words.
Friction does cause change, and while this divide is not new, the vast moral deterioration of our society over extreme attacks to life, family and society that never before challenged a Truman or a JFK, have now driven the Democrat Party from liberal to socialist and the Republican Party from conservative to increasingly more liberal, under the guise of being “moderate.” Speaking of euphemisms, if someone is liberal or conservative, that’s their business, but I wouldn’t give two bits for anyone who can’t admit to his or her own ideology and finds it trendy to hide behind a euphemism for whatever excuse.
I believe out of this latest dealt hand, which appears to be McCain, the conservative base of the GOP may become more unified and more determined because of its rage and disgust with repeatedly being used and treated like a red-haired stepchild. We’ve been told to shut up and accept “the lesser of two evils” too often and for too long, and the base is now starting to rightfully vote with its feet. For those who must win no matter what, what have you really won in the end, when your candidate is just a clone of the opposition? Political parties were formed to advance certain ideals into public office and transform them into public policy. Now they exist simply to win, and the ideals (and often, our country at large) are an afterthought at best. The party may become stronger, or one of the existing third parties may become stronger, or perhaps another third party will emerge, such as the Republicans once did in the time of Lincoln, back when our platform meant more than lip service and before we lost our way. Then again, the tight controls now built into the system by the current Democrat and Republican parties to impede third parties did not exist back then. I believe something will come out of this. How big and how effective that something may be is another issue. But no matter how you slice it, the Republican Party is now again long overdue to be given a stern spanking and sent home in shame by its base. And yes, if that means enduring the short term pain of enduring another 4-8 years of “team Clinton” to straighten the GOP out on a (hopefully) long term basis, then that is what I am prepared to do. If the “Prodigal Sons (and daughters) of the GOP think the grass is so much greener with their beloved left, then let them eat cake. This is the same party that turned its back on the late (and pro-life) Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey at the 1992 convention, and more recently, with Mayor Mike Jarjura in Waterbury. And they won’t likewise flip on John McCain, et al when they have outlived their fleeting use? Good luck! What these two-faced, double-talking, left-leaning media darlings who so disdain their own Republican Party so much fail to grasp is what Harry Truman once came right out and said (paraphrasing), “A Democrat will always vote for another Democrat before voting for a Republican who just sounds like a Democrat.” Now that’s what I call “straight talk.” Say good night, Johnny.
I will no sooner vote for Romney than I will McCain. The conventional wisdom, in opposition to McCain, tells us that Romney is our conservative knight in shining armor. I still have grave doubts in that regard, as I did back in 2000, when we got the same argument, and again, in opposition to McCain. The end result was a closet liberal George W. Bush, and our GOP now on life support. My gut had the same queasiness back then. This time, however, I will listen. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
I very much liked Huckabee early on, but now, under a closer microscope, I see yet another Bush clone, someone conservative on social issues, but liberal on fiscal issues, and with a veiled fondness for illegal immigration. Eight years of that recipe is more than enough for me.
I like Ron Paul, except for his stance on Iraq. Try as I may, I just can’t get around that.
That pretty much leaves me with Alan Keyes, for whom I voted in 2000, and whom I agree with 100% on the issues. But much has changed since 2000.
Alan Keyes just doesn’t get it. He is unelectable. He has now officially achieved “perennial candidate” status, which publicly makes him look like an incredulous whacko, whether he is one or not, and in politics, perception is as good as reality. The unwritten but generally understood rule in politics is if you can’t get elected after 3 tries, hang it up and find another line of work. Keyes is now running for President for the third time, and he has unsuccessfully run for US Senate 3 or 4 times in 2 different states. That’s beyond the boundary of admirable perseverance, and well into the category of sheer folly.
Sitting out an election or skipping a ballot line is not beneath me, but it is a last resort. I am guided by my core beliefs and not by the polls. I liked Duncan Hunter, but he’s out now. I now see no remaining option (for me) but Alan Keyes. I’m many things, but I’m no litterbug. If I am going to throw away my vote, I might as well at least throw it away into a proper receptacle. And make no mistake about it, if either McCain or Romney is the nominee, I will vote for whoever the Constitution Party puts up, which at this point, according to the recent scuttlebutt, might very well be Alan Keyes anyway. Ideologically, I agree more with the Constitution Party than the GOP anyway. The Constitution Party has a far better platform, and they actually mean what they say. The pro-life plank in the GOP platform is just a bone, thrown to social conservatives as bait to reel them in in election years, and to discard them afterward until they are needed again. We now spend and grow government as much or more than the Democrats, and our immigration policy looks like it was authored by Vicente Fox. On the state level, the GOP has no platform, which is probably even worse. When you don’t stand for anything, you stand for nothing. The problem is that for the most part, they are stubborn amateurs, idealistically content on remaining as amateurs, which is half the reason they never get any traction. (The rigged game in many states between the Democrats and Republicans is the other half of the reason.) If I need to get somewhere, an old, dented beat up Chevy will get me farther than a brand new Ferrari with no wheels on it.
Regarding Hillary vs. Obama, it’s like Baskin Robbins. 30 some odd different flavors, but at the end of the day, it’s still all ice cream.
And the “lesser of two evils” is still evil.
Doug
“NASTIEST Presidential campaign EVER”
You mean nastier than the “swift boat” attacks? Nastier than what his own party did to McCain? Nastier than the words that flow from the likes of Coulter, Limbaugh, Savage, Malkin and the rest towards any one even slightly moderate or liberal? The Clinton machine is disgusting and amoral but NO ONE can match the antics of the far right when it thinks it’s strangle hold on this country is threatened.
On a lighter note - I registered with a party for the first time in at least 25 years just so I could cast a vote against Clinton. Come to think of it the last time was because I wanted to vote for a Republican! If only the GOP was still what it was back then.
Peter,
Tricia and I disagree on Romney, but we agree on McCain.
I am also quite concerned about his temper, and his questionable mental/emotional stability. Remember, this is the guy who may have his finger “on THE button” some day!
Ditto on his liberal record, including Democrat collusion, and his sleazy campaign tactics as well.
McCain once almost bolted to the Democrat Party once before. Great! HE hesitated….and now WE’RE lost!!
And forgive me for beating this drum once again, but John McCain is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which is a secretive, globalist organization that is a driving force for the North American Union (NAU), which is the textbook antithesis of American sovereignty, liberty, prosperity and security.
Yet, I am well aware that John McCain also was a war hero.
For those who hang their hats on his support for the surge and that he will supposedly protect us in the war on terrorism, I remind those folks that he is also opposed to waterboarding, a proven effective means of extracting life-saving information from our enemies that is not torture, and Guantanamo. Where would he prefer we house those terrorists? Or should we just release them all, and if so, where? Arizona, perhaps? His record on illegal immigration is itself a direct threat to US security. Roughly 1/3 of our border prisons are now occupied by illegals, a large percentage of violent crime and gang warfare in border states (and in the case of MS-13, the most violent gang known, they have now expanded into 33 states, including Connecticut) is now conducted by illegals, and terrorist groups are now seeking to blend in with illegals to cross the border and enter our country. “War hero?” So was Benedict Arnold at one time.
Given his abysmal record on trying to cram illegal immigration amnesty down our throats, that should not be a shock to anyone.
I also mentioned (in passing Vicente Fox) in my last post, the former Mexican President. I recently heard in the news that one of Fox’s former cabinet members is supposedly on McCain’s campaign staff. I doubt coincidence there, either.
Or in other words, maybe “The Fox is guarding the McCain house!”
Doug
I now note that the article I referred to earlier is from Jan. 11 2007 (last year) http://www.newsmax.com, by Ronald Kessler. I found it on google when I searched on “John McCain’s anger.”
Here are just a few excerpts:
“The story cites a well-publicized nasty letter the Arizona Republican wrote to Sen. Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat, for “what amounted to little more than a misunderstanding over how Obama intended to proceed on the issue of lobbying reform — something that could have been cleared up with a chat in the corridor.” Instead, the Vanity Fair story says, “McCain let loose, writing Obama the kind of missive, lacerating in its sarcasm, that Harry Truman used to compose late at night, but then prudently put in a drawer.”..
“”I have witnessed incidents where he has used profanity at colleagues and exploded at colleagues,” former Sen. Bob Smith told me for the article. A New Hampshire Republican, Smith served with McCain on the Senate Armed Services Committee, on a select committee on POWs missing in action, and on Republican policy committees.
“He would disagree about something and then explode,” Smith said. “[There were] incidents of irrational behavior. We’ve all had incidents where we have gotten angry, but I’ve never seen anyone act like that.”…
“A former Senate staffer recalled what happened when McCain asked for support from a fellow Republican senator on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.
“The senator explained that he had already committed to support George Bush,” the former Senate staffer said. “McCain said f*** you and never spoke to him again.’
“He had very few friends in the Senate,” said former Sen. Smith, who dealt with McCain daily. “He has a lot of support around the country, but I don’t think he has a lot of support from people who know him well.”..
“People who disagree with him get the f*** you,” said former Rep. John LeBoutillier, a New York Republican who had an encounter with McCain when he was on a POW task force in the House. “I think he is mentally unstable and not fit to be president.”..
“In 1992, Robin Silver and Bob Witzeman, both medical doctors, met with McCain at his Phoenix office to discuss the endangered Mount Graham red squirrel. At the mention of the issue, McCain erupted.
“He slammed his fists on his desk, scattering papers across the room,” Silver said. “He jumped up and down, screaming obscenities at us for at least 10 minutes. He shook his fists as if he was going to slug us.”…
“Over the years, when people have come forward to relate their bizarre experiences with McCain, only minor local publications or the foreign press have run their accounts. The favored treatment is reminiscent of the way the press turned a blind eye to John F. Kennedy’s dalliances — except that ****voters have far more need to know about evidence of instability in a candidate than about infidelities.”***
(asterisks are mine)
Chris (& other Huckabee supporters),
I’m sure that you and the other Huckabee supporters are sincere, good, well-motivated people, and I admire your activism.
However–sorry to burst your bubble–but according to Sean Hannity and Mark Levin (and many others much smarter than I am)–Huckabee has NO CHANCE of getting the Republican nomination.
They further state that Huckabee is “only staying in the race” to help McCain give the shaft to Mitt Romney.
I just have to say it to Chris and the Huckabee supporters:
How much integrity can Huckabee have, when he aligns himself with McCain–who stands AGAINST **The Federal Constitutional Marriage Protection Amendment?** Huckabee also joins McCain in lying about and attacking Romney as to his record of governance in Massachusetts, and Romney’s positions on various issues.
Are those actions exemplary of a true Christian?
David,
I also have doubts if this is the nastiest campaign (in words and/or actions) ever. It may or may not be, but history is replete with many prizewinners that have long since been forgotten.
Plenty of dirt has been shoveled from both parties. Always was, always will be, sadly. Both sides contain far more horns than halos.
And “stranglehold”? Which party last formerly held onto the Congress for about 40 consecutive years? What do you call that….a gentle embrace???? And by the way, we live in a representative republic and not a dictatorship. Call it whatever you like, but it happens (and remains) by votes, not mandates.
Several of those swift boat accusations against Kerry have been proven true, such as his exaggerated injuries for which he demanded Purple Hearts, including the literal scratch he received in his buttocks, which was treated with topical antiseptic and a band-aid, hardly Purple heart criteria. For that matter, he colluded with the enemy and committed questionable treason. For his actions, he deserves far worse than what he got. He was a traitor. The North Vietnamese don’t award and post a plaque with your name on it in a communist museum if you are an American hero. We also now know that his anti-American ramblings further ratcheted up the torture to American POWs still in captivity at that time. And why do you suppose so many of Kerry’s fellow servicemen have come out against him, minus the one guy he saved from drowning?
Speaking of collusion, there was once talk and negotiations between Kerry and McCain for a fusion ticket.
And by Kerry’s own words, he supposedly committed, as well as witnessed war atrocities, assuming we can even believe him.
Getting his mug in the background of photos with Jane Fonda and burning American flags is hardly an endearing accomplishment to brag of, either. (Ditto to Bill Clinton, another traitor and communist collaborator!)
As for his protests and throwing his medals (no wait, ribbons, no..they were medals, no, they were somebody else’s medals, no, they were mine, no, on second thought…) over a wall, he started that debate, and flip-flopped so much he couldn’t remember what the original story was, if it even existed at all.
Folks on this blog don’t like it when I use this term, but too bad. Sometimes it still needs to be said, and plainly! Kerry is a “LIAR.” And that’s the least of his faults.
Liberals vs. conservatives and Democrats vs. Republicans can have their legitimate disagreements, but I draw the line on a traitor, and I don’t care who he or she is or of what ideology or party he or she hails.
Defend the Democrats to your heart’s content if you so desire, but that one was a bad choice.
Doug
Here are just a few examples of McCain’s lack of Presidential Temperament (although he has been crafty enough to usually not do it when cameras are around).
They don’t show anything as VIVID as the examples described in the article I referenced above, but they give a taste of his scary short-fuse, and intimate the **grudge-bearing** which seems to drive him so often.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSlAJ5hkAC4&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCAqm286eAM&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcvSNxQqcmI&feature=related
David,
Speaking of vile, angry and for that matter, even murderous rantings, your list seems conspicuously yet mysteriously absent of liberal infamous names like Rosie O’Donnell, Joy Behar, Spike Lee, Conan O’Brien, Keith Oberman, Randy Rhodes, Alex Baldwin, et al, just to name a few.
Like I said, the dirt gets amply shoveled from both sides.
Doug
Seems strange to relate that I have something in common with David. I too have just registered with a party, for the first time in my life. I intend to vote AGAINST Senator McCain.
I have never donated to either party because neither has convinced me that they are thoroughly committed to the best interests of the people, especially the play-it-safe, go with the PC crowd parties in this state. (There is a reason the word “politician” has negative connotations.) Prior to this election cycle, I have never donated to any candidate except those who have been endorsed by FIC. I have campaigned for, and will continue to campaign for any candidate, regardless of party, who truly supports and defends marriage and the family. That is why I cannot support the Senator from Arizona.
And that is why I support Romney. Regardless of all claims to the contrary, his personal life and actions in office sufficiently manifest to me his commitment to faith, family, and marriage. Further, having watched most of the debates, he impresses me as more intelligent and far better prepared/informed than the other candidates. (Governor Huckabee also impresses me more than most as inherently intelligent. However, his fiscal policies, among others, fail to impress me.)
So how will I vote if McCain is the candidate? I will cross that bridge IF I come to it. Enough said.
As for the Democrat candidates, I believe that Hillary is less dangerous than Barack. She, at least, seems more willing to let our troops succeed. It never ceases to amaze me that the “progressive” dialogue is that we cannot stand by and watch the genocide in Africa (a noble position), but that we should just pull our troops out of Iraq regardless of the consequences to the millions of innocents who live there. I find that repugnant.
Doug,
I wasn’t defending Kerry at all, he was perhaps the worst choice the Democrats could have made. The way the so-called swift boat veterans presented their case is what I have a problem with. Some of, maybe all of what they said was true but the manner and visciousness of the attacks were completely unacceptable. Also I think that one needs to be very careful when throwing around the word traitor, often it is thrown at the wrong people while those truly guilty of betraying the people of this country get away scott free and sometimes even with the approval of many citizens. I am quick to point out the errors of the Democrats though not so much on this blog because y’all do a good job without my help. I see more and more how far apart we are in our views Doug. You say you are 100% supportive of Keyes while I think that he is certifiably insane and a completely heartless …um well I’d better not us that word on here.
Well, as I said in my first post on this thread, it certainly is a tough year for you and I don’t envy your choices. Perhaps this is all I will say about this election until we’re down to the two who win the nominations since these are issues to be argued among conservatives. A couple questions though, what are your ideas on who might be tapped for VP and I suppose I can look this one up myself but when and where are the party’s conventions?
Tricia, you focus on the destructive amendment to the Constitution so much that I think you are completely missing the issues that are far bigger threats to us in the USA and the rest of the world. Our survival is at stake with the continuing escalation of violence and hatred around the world. Whether you accept “global warming” you can’t deny that that environmental issues need to be dealt with. Here in CT we can’t see the air that we breathe but that is universally true. As stewards of the earth we can do better don’t you think? The world economy is a meltdown waiting to happen and something needs to be done fast. I know that the amendment is important to you but realistically speaking, a candidate will not rise or fall based on that issue in this election. Even in polls of those calling themselves Evangelical it is not even in the top 3 of major concerns I believe. Certainly polls aren’t the same as elections but a candidate ignores them at his/her peril. It used to be that a conservative candidate could say the words “homosexual threat” or “babies being murdered” and count on winning multitudes of votes. Just as a liberal candidate would use “woman’s right to choose” or “families living under the poverty level”. It seems to me that this tactic is losing it’s power. Not that people have backed down on their opinions but they are being looked at as part of the larger picture. Not less important but included with a whole range of concerns. To me that is a good thing and it should happen all along the political spectrum if we are to make informed choices and put people in office who might actually be useful for once. ok, enough from me.
I have to hand it to Tricia, who excoriated others for supposed personal attacks against Romney, and who now shows no hesitation in leveling her own personal attacks against other candidates. When you let your zeal for a particular candidate consume you to this degree, sooner or later you begin to alienate others with whom you might have had some common ground. I am reminded of the words Jesus spoke, “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” (Matthew 7: 3)
Discerning voters will realize that once again we are being played like a fiddle. We are being manipulated into believing who’s electable and who’s not. It is the same question that rears its head in almost every election cycle … are you going to vote your conscience, or are you going to vote based on “electability” as portrayed by the media’s reporting? I for one am not going to let my vote be dictated by the talking heads on TV or the blabbering mouths on the radio. This is supposed to be a government of, by, and for the people – not a government of, by, and for the media. WE are the ones who get to choose. WE are the ones whose vote matters. When we let ourselves be manipulated like puppets by the media, we’re giving them much more power than they deserve.
And when it comes right down to it, to the extent that we look to our peers and their voting plans to reach our own decision about the candidates, we are likewise letting ourselves be manipulated. Ultimately it doesn’t matter who I, Peter, Doug, Tricia, Chris, Middletown Pete, NaCN, or anyone else on this blog plan to support on February 5th. It matters who YOU choose to support!
But since Peter raised this question in his February 1st posting – as to whether John McCain is nearly unbeatable, and how that might influence our planned voting – it’s worth a response at least. I’m still voting for Huckabee. His record is the most pro-family, and as an FIC supporter that is what matters to me. For example, see http://www.afa.net/pdfs/08vg.pdf for a non-partisan summary of where the candidates stand on key issues. He successfully led his state into adopting an amendment that protects marriage as between one man and one woman. He’s not running exclusively based upon his credentials as a Baptist minister, despite the media’s attempts to trash him. He has over ten years of experience running state government. He was highly respected in this role, so much so that the National Governor’s Association selected him to be their chairman. He was honored by TIME magazine as one of the 5 best governor’s in the United States.
This race is still very much a toss-up, despite what the media is trying to tell us. There are still 92% of the delegates left to be won. Huckabee is still a viable candidate, and still within striking distance to win additional delegates. According to yesterday’s Fox News poll of registered Republican voters, he’s tied for 2nd place nationally.
I don’t want to add to the mud-slinging, but I will say this. The debates are really helping the candidates to show their true colors. Ask yourself these questions: Who is behaving in a presidential manner, and who is behaving in an arrogant or self-centered manner? Who is addressing questions with thoughtful concern for the average American? Who is acting petty and insecure, afraid to have their track record aired for public review? Who understands that being President ought to mean listening to the people, instead of making the people listen to him?
If we fail to vote our conscience, and we compromise our values, we deserve what we get afterwards even if it’s a disappointment. So in parting, let me just paraphrase the words of William Shakespeare … when you vote on February 5th, remember this above all else, to thine own self be true.
David,
The act of, and advancement of homosexuality is a threat to society, and abortion, is “murdering babies.”
I agree with you that those other issues are important, but what issue is more important than human life? If we are dead, the other issues don’t matter anymore. We now kill both our young and our elderly and infirm for simple convenience, hardly a noble cause. Who’s next?
Our genocide is comparable to that of Hitler, Stalin and Mao, now almost 50 million, and still, some call it “choice.” Now that is an abuse of words.
I won’t deny that some politicians load up their language for effect, but political correctness has also diluted our language and encroached upon free speech, and that is a dangerous trend. I couldn’t care less if people think it’s rude. Free speech is already greatly diminished in Canada, and that is supposedly based on politeness. Saying, “I disagree with homosexuality” is now considered “hate speech” and would now get me imprisoned in Canada, a supposedly free country like ours, and there is no need for evidence that I even said the remark, just evidence that somebody else was offended by it. That is why I will continue to call someone who is lying to my face a “liar” and not a “flip-flopper.” For me, it’s not about shock, nor even defiance. It’s simply about truth and trying to stop what inevitably comes next down that slippery slope. The answer to the riddle, “How do you eat an elephant?” is “One bite at a time.” It’s all about incrementalism, whether its political correctness to stifle dissenting speech or fluffy euphemisms to justifying the snuffing out of those whom we deem annoying. It’s all the same tactic in the end.
I agree that global warming is occurring. I disagree that man has caused it, and Al Gore’s farce, now required propaganda in many public schools, has already been disproven on many points. Gore’s “Oscar” should be replaced with a “Pinocchio.” Global warming has existed (cyclically) long before we ever existed.
But do-gooder plans like the Kyoto Treaty give severe polluters like China a pass, while penalizing the US, which probably does more to clean up our environment than most if not all countries. Ditto with these human rights advocacy groups, which complain because prisoners in Guantanamo have to eat the same cold cereal for breakfast in the morning as our GI’s but then turn a blind eye to real atrocities going on throughout the world.
At the crux of such endeavors is most likely the best of intentions, but sadly anti-American bias is part of the motivation all too often, and the biggest offender is the United Nations.
I don’t think Alan Keyes is nuts. I think his perennial running for every office from dogcatcher to President sadly gives that perception, and discredits his otherwise very worthy message, though. Listen to what Dr. Keyes has to say. You may disagree with the religious side of his argument, but he also bases his platform in the Constitution, which sadly most politicians, barring Ron Paul and a few others do not, or don’t do so completely. As far as his exuberant passion, I think that is just his public persona when he speaks. That’s another reason why I like him. He truly believes what he says. A core belief system is a refreshing change in any politician nowadays, whether you agree with him or her or not.
Doug
For what it is worth–Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Laura Ingraham announced yesterday that they will be voting for Mitt Romney on Tuesday in the Republican Primaries.
They and Rush Limbaugh have all said repeatedly that Huckabee is acting as “a SPOILER” by staying in the race and *splitting the vote of CONSERVATIVES.* By doing this the “conservative cause” is harmed, and ONLY John McCain benefits.
Laura Ingraham yesterday even called for Huckabee to withdraw from the race and endorse Romney. (I honestly cannot imagine him doing that, because Huckabee–as well as McCain–have repeatedly demonstrated through both insulting words and facial smirks, etc. their extreme animosity towards Romney.)
It certainly seems that to Huckabee and McCain *the enemy of my enemy is my friend.* And, IMO, it is the cause of CONSERVATISM, and the best good of the American people, who get the shaft if McCain wins on Tuesday.
Many commentators have asserted that there must be some deal between Huckabee and McCain that if Huckabee continues to gang up with McCain against Romney–then Huckabee would get the V.P. slot.
If Huckabee believes that–then I predict (along with many others much more expert than I am in politics) that he will be sadly disappointed. It would be another of John McCain’s many “flip-flops,” such as on illegal immigration, why he voted against the Bush tax cuts, and whether or not he approached John Kerry to be his V.P. YES, McCain did indeed almost *flip* to the DEMOCRAT PARTY!!
I WISH HE HAD!! If McCain had become a Democrat in 2004, or in 2001* when he also seriously considered it, then the Republican party would not be in this sorry mess now.
*http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html
David,
I previously heard where the GOP convention is this year, but I can’t recall right now.
Up until the Democrat debate/love-fest the other night between Hillary and Obama, I would have tapped Bill Richardson for Hillary’s VP.
He’s from the southwest; she’s from the northeast, so the geographic demographics are balanced.
He’s a Latino.
He has a well-established history of being a good Democrat foot soldier, not rocking the boat and always doing what he’s told, sadly to our nation’s detriment at times, like during the ongoing espionage at the Los Alamos Nuclear Lab.
He has a good blend of domestic and foreign policy experience, Governor, Congressman, UN Ambassador, Secretary of Energy, etc..
He is a mild mannered, generally affable man. Hillary needs to be in charge and won’t do well with someone of comparable ego encroaching upon her shadow, like a rising star like Obama. Hillary likes the stage all to herself.
The debate act may have just been to cool down the pot that they stirred, or maybe a backroom deal was struck.
While many think Hillary/Obama would be a dream ticket, such might be so to procure victory, but those two together for any length of time, I think, would be a train wreck.
As for Obama, I couldn’t even fathom yet whom he might pick. Supposedly, he struck a deal with Edwards to be his Attorney General, but I thought I recently heard something on the news that now Edwards flipped and may back Hillary instead? I’m not sure about that.
As I have mentioned before, I don’t put much stock into endorsements, but if they had any real value, Obama would be President tomorrow. He’s collecting them now by the bushel and drawing many from Hillary’s camp and with big time star-studded names. In the end, I still see Hillary taking it, if even by a squeaker, because of the establishment, the Clinton machine, and the super-delegates.
Although, I would still love to be a fly on the wall when the now split Kennedy clan gathers for Thanksgiving at the family compound in Hyannisport this year!
Doug
The media can spin all it wants. It’s still YOUR vote, not THEIRS. It’s still YOUR choice.
In response to all of this rumor-mongering, Mike Huckabee has said the following during his recent speeches:
Tricia,
Watch who you quote.
Laura Ingram has been doing some flipping and flopping too.
Early on, she ridiculed Duncan Hunter for staying in.
Then she said Fred Thompson should stay in to the end.
Then she said nobody should drop out before Super Tuesday.
Now, yes, she is saying that Huckabee should drop out.
Jed Babbin from Human Events is doing the same thing.
First he ridiculed the debate sponsors early on for allowing the back tier candidates to even participate in the debates.
About a week or two later, he claimed the back tier candidates were the only true conservatives in the race.
Dave,
You’re right. The press and media are playing us like fiddles, and then we turn around and lambaste them for coronating our candidates for us. Sage reminder, folks, this is a presidential race, not a horse race, and the stakes are truly much higher. Vote based on your core beliefs, not on the predicted odds, or chess-like strategies of which candidate will supposedly bump out or later support another candidate. The only safe prediction we have learned in this race is that it has been very unpredictable, and it’s still far from over yet.
Remember:
“Duty is ours; results are God’s.”
(John Quincy Adams, and he won his race!)
Peter,
I chuckle every time I see more posts snowballed onto this thread. I think this post now brings the total to 130. Is that a record? You really tapped into a raw nerve with this topic.
Not that any of us bashful introverts has an opinion, mind you!
Doug
While most of the country’s attention is currently focused on federal, more specifically, presidential, candidates for elected office, let us not forget that as an even-numbered year, 2008 will also be an election year for some of our state officials as well.
Bearing that in mind, Americans United For Life, http://www.aul.org, ranks Connecticut 48th, or third from the bottom, in terms of the most “pro-life” states. (Further individual state information and ranking criteria can be found on that site’s state page at: http://www.aul.org/Your_State.)
While pro-life and pro-abortion candidates are in both parties, the Democrat Party officially champions abortion under the deceptive and sugarcoated euphemism of “choice.” I wonder how many potential registered Democrats were also snuffed out in the early stages of their lives, and without themselves ever being given any “choice.”
The sanctity of human life is an issue that transcends party lines. Our laws better protect endangered species of wild animals in their developing phases than we do our own people.
Between now and Election Day, let us all reflect upon the fact that thus far, we have taken the precious lives of almost 50 million of our most vulnerable and innocent brothers and sisters.
And on Election Day, let us all also remember (and hopefully, vote accordingly for the most truly humane candidate of any party), that our state is the third most zealous state in the continuation of that heinous and needless endeavor.
Doug
Just a few minutes ago on on the Sean Hannity radio show, Mitt Romney (live) was asked about some of his *conservative* differences with Senator McCain. (Romney was also asked about his feelings about Mike Huckabee–and he was very generous and restrained in his comments about Huckabee.)
Mitt Romney replied to Sean that while McCain is **against** a Federal Constitutional Marriage Protection Amendment to define Marriage as being between a Man and a Woman–he (Romney) called upon Senators (several years ago when he was Governor) to support the Federal Marriage Amendment. Romney also mentioned the specific actions he took in Massachusetts to try to reverse the imposition by judges of SSM.
Romney said that he recognizes that some people have other views, but that to him the needs of children to have both a mother and a father are paramount.
Massachusetts is the battleground tomorrow in the Northeast. Proportional delegates.
Huckabee needs 15% to reach viability and get any delegates. Candidates with less than 15% do not receive delegates.
CT-NY-NJ: all are winner-take-all.
Doug, you should see my in-box. Speaking of which, here’s the latest on the feedback I’m getting:
On Saturday, the Huckabee meet-up in front of the old civic center in Hartford took place (the one Chris alerted us to in his comment above). It received respectful attention from the Hartford Courant. Huckabee’s local supporters seems to include several good folks I know from CT Right to Life.
On Sunday, Ron Paul supporters were outside of my church, handing out flyers which declared their man “the only pro-life and pro-peace” candidate. Ron Paul has been running regular ads in the Waterbury Republican that leave out the “pro-life” part.
I continue to hear from people who tell me they’ve been swayed at the last minute to vote for Romney, largely because of talk radio.
But I am also now hearing from several of our members who say they have decided at the last moment to vote for McCain. They see it as a two-man race and their distrust of Romney runs deep. Many of them are e-mailing me this article:
http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2407&Itemid=48
When I ask about McCain’s support of taxpayer-funded destruction of human embryos, they cite Sam Brownback’s endorsement of McCain and their belief that Brownback will bring McCain around on the issue. Brownback’s endorsement appears to have had a much bigger impact on some of our membership than his actual candidacy ever did.
I have heard from one registered Democrat supporter of FIC who told me she will do a write-in vote for “the spirit of the late Gov. Bob Casey.”
Peter,
The article you referenced is replete with inaccuracies about and distortions of Romney’s record.
But the BOTTOM LINE SUMMARY IS:
A POTUS can do very little to reverse Roe vs. Wade EXCEPT appoint the most CONSERVATIVE, ORIGINALIST SCOTUS JUDGES. Who do people think will do that **for sure?** Romney or McCain?
I submit that Romney WILL (both because of his ACTIONS as Governor) and his bedrock “principles,” as stated in his December “Religion in America” speech. Romney believes that our U.S. Constitution (and our Nation) was Divinely inspired and foundational to our survival. Romney also believes and has stated many times that traditional Marriage and Family is foundational to our Survival as a nation.
From Mitt Romney’s 3-fold STRENGTH issues of his ‘platform,’ the 2nd is “Strong Families: the Romney Plan for Stronger Families:”
– “Promote a culture of life”
– “Stop activist judges from taking the bench by appointing strict constructionist judges who respect the Constitution and the rule of law.”
– “Preserve the sanctity of marriage by **passing a Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.”**
On those last 2 points–McCain has DEMONSTRATED **beliefs CONTRARY to everything FIC stands for** in actual practice–ie “Gang of Fourteen,” McCain-Feingold legislation inhibiting our First Amendment Rights, standing AGAINST the rights of Wisconsin Right to Life (in 2006) to run ads in the 60 days prior to the election, and stating that he is AGAINST a Federal Marriage Amendment.
McCain has also stated that he would probably NOT APPOINT justices like Samuel Alito, because he “wears his conservatism on his sleeve.”
Why conservative folks such as supporters of FIC would TRUST John McCain to be ‘on our side’ other than on abortion is beyond me to understand, when his almost **every action** shows an eagerness to pick fights with our free speech rights and actions to protect Traditional Marriage.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, as Governor “fought activist judges who imposed same-sex marriage on Massachusetts and testified before Congress in support of a Federal Marriage Amendment. He is now firmly on the pro-life side, as well. As Governor **EVERY ACTION** he took was on the side of LIFE. Such as: Governor Romney **vetoed** the legislation funding embryonic stem cell research.
This post is already long, but I will post separately addressing some of the inaccuracies in the “Inside Catholic” article.
Trish, are you aware of any response to the article from the Romney campaign itself? Posting it here instead of responding to each point yourself might save you some time. It was a long article.
One Romney supporter has sent me this article and asks if Brownback “was hallucinating” when he gave the quote about McCain:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTU2YTJhZDNlMWMwYjFjYjA4ZTJhZDZkNmMyZTE1Njk
Peter,
You’re certainly right about “It was a long article.” And I don’t have time to respond to every point.
But about Brownback’s endorsement of McCain, readers may find the following interesting and pertinent. Also, many may not know that Sam Brownback “converted” to Catholicism just 5 years ago. (I’m not inferring anything and do not know the circumstances or reasons.)
From “Vox Nova,” Jan. 4, 2008:
“Catholics for McCain?”
“Jay Anderson has a post on what is, to me, a surprising development in the 2008 presidential race. Senator Sam Brownback, a darling among many conservative-minded Catholics, has thrown his support behind Republican candidate John McCain. Brownback stated:
“As Catholics, we are proud to announce our support for John McCain, a genuine American hero with a conservative record who has what it takes to lead this country,” Brownback said in a statement.
“As Catholics?!? Perhaps I am ill-informed–and this occurs often–but McCain is a supporter of embryonic stem cell research. According to the Pew Forum, while McCain does not back stem cell research on cloned human embryos, he does support research on embryos from fertility clinics that are “left-over” and set to be destroyed. I presume that McCain’s rationale is that human life should not be brought forth deliberately for death through research, but that it is ethically licit to bring death through research to those embryos that will be killed anyway.
“John McCain also advocates access to abortion in at least the case of rape. When asked how an alleged rape could be verified, he replied, “I think that I would give the benefit of the doubt to the person who alleges that.”
“To me, it sounds like Brownback has taken two of those “non-negotiable” issues and made them negotiable, despite the fact that there are more consistently pro-life candidates among the Republicans.”
To address just two points from the beginning of your cited article from Deal Hudson, Peter:
Romney NEVER had a “pro-gay marriage platform.” When he ran for governor he did support “civil rights” such as employment and housing for all, regardless of sexual orientation. Romney still does support those “civil rights,” but SSM was NEVER and NEVER WOULD be supported by Romney, in word nor in deed. See some of my earlier posts in this thread for more details on this issue.
Also, Romney did NOT “promise a $20 billion taxpayer bail-out to the Detroit auto industry on the eve of the Michigan primary.” He DID promise to do everything possible to retain and restore auto industry jobs to Michigan–but the “$20 billion taxpayer bail-out” is simply something the media have extrapolated and said, to try to “manufacture” another of their **media created** flip-flops which they can attribute to Romney. In my view, this manufacturing of Romney “flip-flops” has become the MSM and anti-Romney version of the game “Wack-a-Mole.”
Peter,
I did not yet find “any response to the article from the Romney campaign” re: the “Inside Catholic” article.
However, I did find the below, which is enlightening about McCain, from a Feb. 3, 2008 press release at mittromney.com:
“Today, The Washington Post Revealed Sen. McCain Is Not Interested In Social Issues:”
Sen. McCain: “It’s Not Social Issues I Care About.” “McCain seems distinctly uninterested when asked questions concerning abortion and gay rights. While campaigning in South Carolina, he told reporters riding with him on his bus that he was comfortable pledging to appoint judges who would strictly interpret the Constitution in part because it would reassure conservatives who might otherwise distrust him. ‘It’s not social issues I care about,’ he explained.” (Juliet Eilperin and Michael D. Shear, “Contenders Highlight GOP’s Ideological Struggle,” The Washington Post, 2/3/08)
“Others Have Noted That McCain Doesn’t Care About Social Issues:
“A Former McCain Aide Previously Said “His Heart Isn’t In This Stuff.” “‘Yes, he’s a social conservative, but his heart isn’t in this stuff,’ one former aide told me, referring to McCain’s instinctual unwillingness to impose on others his personal views about issues such as religion, sexuality, and abortion.” (Todd S. Purdum, “Prisoner Of Conscience,” Vanity Fair, 2/07)
“- Former McCain Aide: “But He Has To Pretend [That It Is], And He’s Not A Good Enough Actor To Pull It Off. He Just Can’t Fake It Well Enough.” (Todd S. Purdum, “Prisoner Of Conscience,” Vanity Fair, 2/07)”
Sean Hannity just announced that:
James Dobson has just said that he “will *NOT* vote for John McCain under *ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.*
Here’s Dr. Dobson’s statement in full:
I am deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, voted for embryonic stem cell research to kill nascent human beings, opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, has little regard for freedom of speech, organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters in judicial hearings, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.
I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has sounded at times more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP caucus in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry’s running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does NOT make the medicine go down. I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.
But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives. Should Sen. McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can’t vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life. These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I am affiliated. They do reflect my deeply held convictions about the institution of the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country.
“The act of, and advancement of homosexuality is a threat to society”
Doug, the growing acceptance and the equal treatment of LGBT people is a threat only to those who believe that their religious beliefs are applicable to all of us and that the laws of this country should reflect that. Society always benefits when archaic and ignorant prejudices are finally laid to rest. You certainly can and no doubt will continue to support candidates who share your attitudes but you will ultimately have to come to grips with the fact you are dangerously wrong and cause much harm to innocent people. You either need to learn to coexist without endless hostile agression towards us or take the route of the Islamic fanatics (this is where Dave always misinterprets and claims I believe you want to kill us). I don’t think that at all but I do wonder what happens in the future when it because painfully (for some) clear that there is nothing that can be done to stop us. When backed into a corner humanity does not always react in a civilized manner. On the issue of abortion and so called “mercy killing” I believe it simplistic to wrap it all up in a neat package and claim it’s done as a matter of convenience. I absolutely agree that these practices that are apallingly misused, where we differ is on what the solution should be.
It is petty I know, but to read that Dobson is disappointed that the GOP is not bowing to his will is quite gratifying. It’s about time. Whatever flaws McCain may have the fact that he is hated by so many members of the far right speaks well of him. Not that I want him as president of course.
My question is, how serious do you think Coulter is about about supporting Clinton if McCain gets the nomination? Her venomous attacks on the Clintons in the past make me think it’s not likely but she certainly sounded adamant. I do understand why so many are against McCain as the nominee but to actively help the “other side”. Ann Coulter is the last person I would think who would do that, maybe she just needed more attention, it has been awhile since she was the focus.
My opinion–The election is over, and America lost.
Whether we like it on not, candidates get elected because they turn out people to vote on the issues or because of excitement. Senator John McCain has rejected many of the issues that excite the base, and his charisma is slightly less than that of stewed prunes. (The guy has lost every debate I have watched, which is most of them. That is the assessment of the control groups watching, and it is my assessment.)
It is just so frustrating and unfortunate that most Americans vote without watching the debates and informing themselves about the candidates–their records and stance on the issues. Instead, they vote because of *identity politics* and name recognition.
I came to the conclusion that McCain will lose in November before reading the post about Dr. Dobson’s position. I will, reluctantly, do my duty and pull the lever for McCain, but only because the alternatives are so much worse. But history shows, time and time again, that *many* will not vote given such a choice. Now it is even worse because many who would normally vote like me are pledging NOT to vote for McCain. I think history will remember John McCain as the man who won the Republican convention but lost the Republican party.
(By the way, a friend of mine had two Mitt Romney signs stolen from his front yard, while McCain signs showed up nearby. I realize you cannot blame the candidate for the actions of his overzealous staff, but that is all too indicative of the McCain style.)
Should Mitt Romney bow out now? No!!! Romney should stay in the race and take as many delegates as he can. That may give him the ability to extract promises of conservative action from McCain in exchange for delegates at the convention. But, at the end of the day (or, rather, November) I doubt that will help excite conservatives to vote for McCain.
Should Huckabee bow out? I don’t think he has any other option. He has attracted primarily one type of voter–evangelicals. Further, I believe his appeal to that base was not so much his policies as it was their prejudice against Romney, the Mormon. Having had his run through the Bible belt, there are few remaining states where Huckabee has a realistic chance. I think history will remember him as “Huckabee, the spoiler.”
David,
OK, fine, take religion out of the question. I can do that debate as well.
Homosexual behavior and advocacy (and again, to specify, not homosexuals themselves), is very much a threat to humanity.
We are the only species that seeks to destroy ourselves collectively.
The misalignment of anatomical parts in homosexual sexual relations should be a natural clue to all such participants that they are conducting an inherently unnatural act, whether you wish to believe that people were made by God, evolved from apes and dinosaurs, or from particles that exploded in a “big bang” of the universe, or whatever floats your boat.
Secondly, the homosexual sexual act is also physically unable to create life.
To prematurely respond to what I believe would be your likely knee-jerk response to that statement, yes, single people, divorced people, married couples without children and/or the ability or desire to have them all also add to that equation.
But two wrongs don’t make a right. What sense is there in exacerbating an already detrimental situation?
Thus, homosexuality is very much a threat to humanity as it further lessens our overall capacity to reproduce as a society. Since you mentioned abortion and euthanasia, they are both factors to our demise as well.
“Simplistic”? I get real “simplistic” when it comes to defending life. Like it or not, many, if not most abortions and euthanasia really do boil down to “convenience.” I stand by that statement. And nowadays for abortion, especially. Anguishing parents who physically cannot have children and are desperate to adopt wait for years, and sometimes to no avail. On the other end, some kids in foster homes and institutions never get adopted out. When adoptions do occur, often, some crack-head mother who formerly gave up her child comes forward with a bleeding heart shrink and lawyer team several years later, and tries to rip her child out of a well-established loving home. Hence, the increase of parents now adopting kids from foreign countries, at an average of about 20-40 grand per adoption….for those who can afford it. And Heaven forbid we ever ask a woman to close her legs when outside the band of marriage or exercise some personal accountability for her actions and at least carry the baby to term and adopt him or her out if she does not want the child. And likewise, shame on these phony and narcissistic “Sir Galahads” who do most of their thinking between their legs instead of between their shoulders, and pressure women into sex after they have sprung for a dinner in an expensive restaurant and then offer “to take responsibility” by paying for an abortion, and then patiently wait for their anticipated “thank you” and pat on the back for their grossly ill-perceived magnanimous act. They are equally at fault.
There are now many facilities nationwide that provide support at many levels to pregnant mothers so that they don’t have to choose abortion. And yes, know that spousal abuse is often a big factor. There are protective shelters for women now, where they and their children can live within security and confidentiality. Adoption, pro-life pregnancy crisis centers and battered women’s shelters are all very much readily available, David. That’s not a glob of tissue. It’s life. It feels pain very early on, is developed and developing and as we now know from DNA, sonograms and the increase of premature babies who survive at increasing earlier stages, it is very much life. Where do you draw the line? Yes, at some point that glob of tissue is still developing, so do adolescents. Should we also kill off all mouthy, bratty, moody teenagers? At what point do we draw the line, and what does it say about us as a society that we do not protect the most innocent and vulnerable among us? For all this talk about “choice,” like many other euphemisms, it’s forwarded by flagrant liars or people in denial who won’t or can’t think about what they are really talking about. If you could have had a “choice” in your mother’s womb, and for that matter, even if she had asked you, would you have “chosen” to be burned to death in saline, sucked out until all your body parts were ripped off you (in earlier times, I believe that term was known as “drawing and quartering”) or being scraped off your point of attachment by a sharp instrument, or being stabbed without anesthesia in the base of your skull and having your brain sucked out? And all while you can feel pain? And, if by some miracle, your abortionist somehow screws up, and you survive any of those procedures, somebody lays you, face down in a small pan of saline to helplessly drown? And then you get some legislator, like Barack Obama, who actually defends all that I have mentioned, including drowning you to death while born, and then says, when asked, that he cannot and will not even consider the alternative because then we would have to reconsider the entire issue of a “woman’s right to choose”? Yes, Heaven forbid. If given that situation, and given that you really would not have any choice, would you reject the efforts of a maternity nurse like Jill Stanek, who lost her job because she saw such acts and tried to defend you, even though she herself was thwarted by Barack Obama and others in their mutual state of Illinois? To put a new twist on Jack Webb’s famous line: “The story you have just read is true. The names were not changed to protect anybody.” And to also put a new twist on Lloyd Bentsen’s famous line, I have news for you, for those who are now saying that Barack Obama is the next John F. Kennedy, trust me, “He’s no John F. Kennedy!”
And in defense of Dave, he’s right. For that matter, and in all fairness, he and I have both in the past accused you of going a little over the top with some of your statements. Then you deny believing them, as you just did again. David, I want to believe you, but when you keep going off the deep end and referring back to “aggressive hostility” and Islamofacism as it relates to your correctly or incorrectly interpreted perception of mass violent persecution against homosexuals, what are we to believe? I am not trying to define or redefine your thought process, but you frequently come back to such melodramatic points while denying you believe them. At the very least, you give mixed messages, whether you intend to or not.
Almost 50 million dead infants since 1973 in our once great nation as of today is what I define as “hostile aggression.” It’s not choice, it’s not compassion, it’s “infanticide,” as correctly once dubbed by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), hardly a champion of conservative ideology. When carried out by Hitler, Stalin and Mao, the millions of such executions were correctly called “genocide.” Now, because feminism is involved, we are supposed to give this sugarcoated barbarism a pass with a wink and a nod? Not me, and not as long as I still have air pumping in and out of my lungs, and blood flowing through my veins….NEVER!
And I don’t want to hear any more of this crap from Democrats or republicans about “reducing the number of abortions.” The tools are already out there, but they won’t do much good unless somebody uses them. Every time you liberals disagree with an issue, our side is called “simplistic”, or your side throws out curve balls like “complex,” and “nuances.” It’s al crap, David. I know it, and you know it. It’s what is called in football parlance as “running interference.” Those who truly wish to “reduce the number of abortions” will stop talking about it, and start doing something about it, whether it’s Rosa DeLauro, Rudy Giuliani or any other double-talking “LIAR.”
Planned Parenthood got its start from Margaret Sanger, who wanted to have her insidious and evil idea of the “perfect” (all white) race. (And today, Planned Parenthood protects child molesters. Yes indeed, that very wholesome organization consistently ranks right up there with baseball, apple pie and dare I say….”motherhood,” doesn’t ‘t it?) I cringe when I read that people like Rosa Parks fought over a bus seat for Blacks, but was active in the abortion movement in murdering infants. You yourself most likely screamed bloody murder for justice when Matthew Shepard was murdered, as well you should have. 50 million executed defenseless babies, whose only crime was to be not wanted, and they were tried and convicted without a court of law. David, any one of those babies could have been Matthew Shepard. What do you say for them? Go ahead, David, tell me all about “civil rights” and “equality.” I have news for you, it begins with DAY # 1 of the most significant “civil right,” LIFE, not bus seats and not same sex marriage, but LIFE, like it or not.
I’ll take religion out of the equation again, David. Forget what Mother Theresa said about the woes of our country being because of evil. I’ll be “simplistic” again, my religious faith aside, I still believe that in the natural order of life, as the adage goes, “What goes around comes around.” Any country that possesses the intellect and reason to understand that slavery is wrong, but then turns hypocritically around and cheerfully embraces abortion and euthanasia does not deserve to be any kind of power, super or otherwise.
As I stated several times on this blog before, I don’t do euphemisms. I don’t do political correctness, and I truly do not seek to offend anyone, but at the same time, I also don’t lose a whole lot of sleep over who now gets offended in a thin skinned society that has made a cottage industry of people perpetually seeking to find offense, both small and large, real or imagined, and become offended by it. Truth is truth, period. And a “liar” is still a “liar,” and “infanticide” is still “infanticide.” You might not always like what I have to say, but you won’t have to guess what I mean by it, either.
And now, briefly back to religion. The 5th Commandment says, “thou shalt not kill.” The 5th Amendment says (in part), “…nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law…” What say you, David? Or do you “take the 5th”?
Regarding Ann Coulter, her inflammatory statement of endorsing Hillary, I believe, had more to do with denouncing McCain than truly endorsing Hillary. Translation: shtick via shock.
Not to be confused with “sticker shock,” a whole other entity in the current marketplace of our pending, if already not arrived recession.
Doug.
David,
Post script….
We were discussing “homosexuality.”
As Ronald Reagan would say, “There you go again!” You are back to the “Woe is me, everybody is persecuting us” tactic again. OK. I’ll play along.
Regarding the “growing acceptance of equality for LGBT people,” I zealously accept the (genuine) equality of all people in terms of education, housing, employment, etc…
But I reject false notions such as “hate speech” and “hate crimes,” and affirmative action quotas that rely on matters other than merit and ability, that either restrict free speech and/or are redundant of existing criminal statutes, and/or actually defy the entire premise of “equality” by hypocritically raising one group of people above all others. As our Declaration of Independence says, “All men (and yes, women, too) are created equal.” That doesn’t mean favoring a majority over a minority, but it also doesn’t mean favoring the trendy, politically correct victim class du’ jour over the majority, either.
If, however, you mean same sex marriage, I stand by what Bishop Fulton Sheehan once said, and from a religious or a secular viewpoint, he was still correct in that “Truth is still truth whether everybody believes it, only some people believe it, or nobody believes it.” I don’t need to take a poll to define my core beliefs. I’m not looking to win a popularity contents and I couldn’t care les what some vocal minority, or for that matter, even a majority has to say. Never mind God’s law, which is in writing, natural law demonstrates that homosexuality is unnatural, hence why it is not expressed in writing. Common sense, before the days of having to print, “Caution, contents are hot” on coffee cups, never had to be put into writing.
Same sex marriage, David, is a lie to truth and to humanity, secularly as well as religiously.
You might also reflect upon what Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Propaganda Minister once said, “A lie, repeated often enough, soon becomes truth.”
So frankly, I couldn’t care less how “widely accepted” same sex marriage as an alleegd “right” supposedly is.
You want to ignore religion, but who do you suppose gave us “rights” in the first place? Some old crusty piece of parchment, written by a bunch of guys in powdered wigs 200 years ago?
So getting back to the topic of “homosexuality,” I believe I have now covered all bases.
Doug
I’d like Doug’s comments above to be the last ones posted on homosexuality in this thread. No doubt there will soon be other forums on this blog for us to return to that conversation.
Regarding the topic of this thread, though, I understand Romney is suspending his campaign.
Also, it’s been assumed by some that our membership all went for Romney or Huckabee. And they were the lead choices among our folks when I wrote the original post for this thread last November. But if the anecodotal feedback that I’m getting is any indication, FIC members who voted in Tuesday’s Republican primary voted the same as the rest of the state: most of them went for McCain, followed by Romney, then Huckabee, then Paul. Brownback’s endorsement appears to have had a bigger impact on some of our people than the displeasure of Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham or even James Dobson.
I won’t mention the forbidden “h” word, I do want to suggest to you Doug, try reading the words I wrote not what you want them to say. My words can in no way be interpreted that I support abortion, yet your extended response shows that you think they did. Your reponse to other parts of my post show the same issue. I know it’s not a lack of reading skills or an inablity to comprehend, so that leaves only one explanation. The bases you covered are the same ones you covered before. A canned response however emotionally delivered and simply your opinion, which you are of course entitled to have and to share. And actually I do enjoy reading them and appreciate your candor.
What matters on this thread is your and other’s opinions of the race to the White House, especially now that Romney has dropped out. That surprised me and I truly would like to hear the conservative side - at least as represented on this blog.
Lastley, I never take religion out of the equation. It is an important part of our existence and I would not expect anyone to deny the influence it has on their lives. The major issue is that it needs to be understood that it is belief, and a belief no matter how widely held is not necessarily a fact. If various beliefs (presented by the church as facts) were not challenged we would still be living in a manner close to that of the Dark Ages. Much progress and certainly some changes that can’t be called progress were stringently opposed by church authorities (and I’m not pointing at any specific church here).
NaCN,
It ain’t over yet!
Much of our electorate is in fact, walking clueless. Hence, all the obsession with Britney Spears, American Idol and other such weighty matters.
I’m not quite sure McCain has killed the Republican Party, although Bush certainly gave a big boost to its demise. Maybe we need to take this hit now to strengthen the party and come back as we did in 76 and 96. Or maybe the GOP has outlived its usefulness, and a new third party will emerge or an existing one will blossom further.
I’m no fan of Larry, Moe or Curly, but I still believe that each of them has a right to stay in the race if he wants to.
On average, only 50% of the registered electorate votes, closer to 75% in presidential years. Only 1/3 of registered Republicans voted in my precinct (as compared to 2/3 of the Democrats). Do the math. What’s that tell you?
We had three empty suits who most voters didn’t like and didn’t trust, and two nobody’s who could not get their message out. None of these clowns should be patting themselves on the back any time soon, including McCain. I couldn’t care less how many people voted for him. How many people stayed home?
Come November, it will most likely be deja vue.
McCain’s numbers reflect that in some polls he can beat Hillary by the margin of error (Rudy’s old stats) and that he can’t beat Obama at all. Face it, whichever of these three wins, you have a liberal in the Oval Office to varying degrees.
The presidential race is now all but over for us, so it’s time we focus on the Congressional races.
Whoever we get as a President, if we can take back the Congress, we can neutralize him or her.
And as Tricia said, the President can only nominate judges. That is true. But the Congress approves them. Also, the Congress has the constitutional authority to overturn Roe vs. Wade. The Executive Branch does not.
We have one so-called “Republican” left in our delegation, Shays, and his remaining days in the Congress are numbered. His race is always among the most targeted by the DNC. Plus he sponsored the House version of McCain/Feingold, so we all know what little he’s worth to us anyway. Meanwhile, nobody of any weight ever challenges Larsen and DeLauro. Those two are among the most radical of liberals in the Congress and continue to get coronated every two years. Meanwhile, their power only grows.
Let’s acknowledge what we have lost, move forward and focus on and fight the fights we can and should fight. Granted, our chances are slim, but they are even slimmer if we give up.
Does this sound familiar:
“Lord, Grant me the serenity to accept the things I can change, the courage to change the things that I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”
Keep the faith!
What other choice do we really have?
Doug
Doug, thanks for mentioning the congressional races. I may open up another thread just on that topic and use your comment as the starting point.
Back on the presidential race, here’s the latest. Dr. Dobson has endorsed Mike Huckabee. Brad Davis, our local conservative talk radio host and a Romney supporter, took issue with it. Pastor Will Marrotti of New Life Church in Meriden was going to be on Brad’s show after the 7:30 news this morning, perhaps to take issue with Brad’s objections. Unfortunately, I was busy at the time and missed Marrotti’s comments. Did anyone else hear what he said?
Finally, at what seems to be the 11th hour in this race, Dobson chooses to endorse a candidate. If only he’d had the courage to pick sides a little sooner, perhaps we wouldn’t have squandered the influence of social conservatives with an unnecessary rift between 2 major candidates.
As the AP confirms in its reporting this morning, “Huckabee is still mathematically viable in the race”. There is still an opportunity for people to support a true, authentic, and consistent conservative - as long as no single candidate has yet reached the “magic number” of 1,191 delegates. Or we can just collectively throw in the towel and accept a nominee like John McCain, who’s ridiculed us as being “agents of intolerance”. For those who have forgotten his true colors, let me remind you how he spoke of the religious right 8 years ago with disgust and disdain. And let’s also remember when and where he launched this vitriolic criticism – February 2000 in Virginia. How appropriate it is that we are soon to revisit this state (on the 12th) during this year’s primary election cycle.
Sure, he’s trying to backpedal now, because he want and needs our support to emerge victorious. But 8 years ago, he characterized the leaders of the Christian conservative movement as “evil”, and asked “You’re supposed to tolerate evil in your party in the name of party unity?” Let that sink in a while. Deep in his heart, McCain thinks that the folks who hold socially conservative values based on a deeply-held Judeo-Christian faith – the folks who would fit the mold of the typical FIC supporter – are to be counted as “evil”. Sure he’s willing to play nice for now, when he needs our votes and our support. But know this: he is not our ally. And once elected he is likely to abandon our cause at the earliest opportunity.
Sadly it’s too late for Connecticut voters to change their mind, at least with respect to the primary election. But is it fair for the GOP nomination to be considered a “fait accompli”, when the citizens of 21 states haven’t even had their chance to express an opinion about who should lead this nation? That fact, above all else, is ample justification to continue the campaign – despite the calls for the mainstream media that we should just concede defeat. There’s another 42% of the country that hasn’t yet had its voice heard on this critically important decision. Let them be heard.
Consider this – what is truly needed is not for Huckabee to reach 1,191 delegates, but merely to prevent McCain from reaching that magic number. If it seems that McCain needs another 477 delegates to get a lock on the nomination, then that means he’s only 60% of the way home. We can still stop him on that last 40%, if social conservatives will band together and let their voices be heard. I have to believe that even if Mitt wants to personally throw his support behind McCain as the apparent nominee, there are plenty of Romney supporters who would balk at the idea of backing a man who’s vilified the values and principles that they hold dear!
And in looking back at the states where social conservatives represented a greater percentage of voters than the support garnered by McCain, a unified front would have prevailed in 24 states:
Alabama 59 %
Alaska 66 %
Arkansas 74 %
California 46 %
Colorado 73 %
Delaware 48 %
Florida 45 %
Georgia 64 %
Iowa 59 %
Maine 58 %
Massachusetts 55 %
Michigan 55 %
Minnesota 61 %
Missouri 61 %
Montana 53 %
Nevada 59 %
New Hampshire 43 %
North Dakota 56 %
Oklahoma 58 %
South Carolina 61 %
Tennessee 61 %
Utah ??? — McCain didn’t even try here
West Virginia 74 %
Wyoming ??? — ditto
Indeed, such an “alternate universe” scenario would have had McCain winning only his home state of Arizona, and a gaggle of blue states – Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York. In other words, if we had united instead of being fractured, social conservatism would likely have carried the day, and McCain would be looking like the underdog with only 5 states won.
By allowing our efforts to be diluted, fractured and divided, we have yielded much valuable ground to a man who in his heart opposes the values and principles we hold dear, and who looks upon them with scorn and derision.
As it was said by that wise GOP leader, Abraham Lincoln, so it remains true to this day – “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
Speaking of Honest Abe, the story of how he navigated his candidacy through a brokered convention bears striking parallels to what may be unfolding before us in this year’s campaign. For a historical review, see http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/nomination.htm
David,
While I mean no offense to any other denomination, Jesus Christ founded one Church. All the rest came later, or splintered off from the one He founded. The beliefs of the Church are facts, and the belief in that they are facts is called faith, including in absolute truth, untainted by current moral relativism, or pseudo-scientific explanations from the very beings who either deny or attempt to dilute the God who created them. Faith requires humility, as Jesus said, “like a child.” When I was a child, my mother had another phrase. She called it “being too big for your britches.” Even what we consider to be “fact” can be wrong, and overdone. As St. Bernard said, “Humility is the mother of salvation.”
If you have been following the rants back and forth between Tricia and I, you well know my stance on Mitt Romney. I think he’s a phony, a weathervane, no true conservative, and at best, and I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt here, a “moderate”(as opposed to a true liberal).
Furthermore, I find it imbecilic and an upsetting deja vue that the conservative pundits all coalesced behind this guy. Romney is no conservative. Neither is George W. Bush, but this year, just like they did in 2000, they waved their magic wands, “poof,” and transformed a liberal (or moderate) into a “conservative,” and ironically, in both years, to avoid McCain. We all saw how Bush turned out, and I predicted that about him then. I was luke warm on him at best. Ditto with Romney. All the conservative talking heads had to pick what they deemed the lesser of the offered evils, and Romney won all the marbles. Had he won, I think he would have governed in similar fashion to Bush, and I do not mean that as a compliment.
Endorsements are about as important as an elevator in an outhouse. What does it say when a moderate like Mitt Romney gets endorsed by the conservative magazine, National Review,” but flat out rejected by the conservative Boston Herald-American? What does it say when John McCain gets endorsed and supported by a liberal (although, granted, not as liberal as some) Democrat Senator like Joe Lieberman, and also by the extremely conservative Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK)? All much to do about nothing. The only endorsements that matter in the end occur in little booths on the first Tuesday of November. Lest we ever forget the infamous press headline, “Dewey Defeats Truman.”
That all said, I was kind of sorry to see ‘the Ken-doll” go. Perhaps he can find a job somewhere now as a news anchor. All the spectators in the nosebleed seats keep trying play Monday morning quarterback and dictate who should or should not get out. I think each and every candidate has the right to stay in as long as he wants to, or until the party formally nominates someone. And even then, there is a petition process. Those who want free government should not complain when they get it. Romney has as much right to be in the race as Huckabee, McCain and anyone else.
I also have to laugh at the CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) charade. I have been to several CPACs. I don’t ever recall seeing any of these overnight “conservative” wonders, like Mitt, Rudy or McCain there before. (Love him or hate him, Vice President Cheney only missed one or two years, and he doesn’t have to go around invoking Ronald Regan and talking about his conservatism every five minutes!) Rudy went there last year for his own selfish purposes, and lost anyway. Ditto with Romney. He’s there again now, possibly because he already committed, and/or because he is planning another run in 2012. But Rudy’s gone now…nothing in it for him anymore. McCain blew it off last year, but now he is there and wants to kiss and make up because he needs votes from the conservative base he so hates, just like he did with Jerry Falwell at Liberty University, who just a couple years before, was “an agent of intolerance.” And now, after ignoring CPAC for 8 years, Dubya suddenly shows up. Why? To preserve what’s left of the farce he can call a legacy to fill a library dedicated to himself! Only in America does a President whose favorability ratings barely scratch 30% gets to retire for life on the public dime and have a “golden calf” built for him that is camouflaged with the euphemism, “library.” Liars and frauds. They all make me wretch. I always said that the only things found in the middle of the road are dead skunks and long yellow streaks, but our electorate best wake up, and head for the middle of the road and soon. By middle of the road, I don’t mean in terms of ideology, but reality. We seem to be currently predominantly bifurcated into two extremes, cynically apathetic and naively Pollyanna, and in today’s world, one extreme is as dangerous to our national survival as the other. We have to start paying more attention and roll up our sleeves, put down the sports page, shut off the brainless TV reality show, and become both informed and involved. On the other hand, we also best learn to distinguish a shark from a bunny rabbit before reaching our hand out to pet it. I have been and am involved in politics. There are many politicians I like, but very few I trust.
I’ll tell you something else, I personally couldn’t care less who my President is in terms of sex, race, faith, etc.. I’m looking for principle, ability and leadership (and yes, conservatism). That all said, no, we are not ready for a Mormon, a black, a woman, a Latino, or any other category of person that derives from whatever is deemed “majority.” Why? Because we keep ranting and dwelling on being Mormon, a black, a woman and a Latino. For that matter, David, I wouldn’t even care if my President was gay, as long as he or she didn’t force the gay agenda on me. When we shut up with this nonsense and stop making them issues, then we will be ready. And likewise, there are people out there who only vote for who looks like them. Some woman had the audacity to accuse Oprah Winfrey of choosing skin color over gender because she endorsed Obama and not Hillary. What ever happened to issues? Is this a presidential race or a beauty contest? How many precious weeks did we waste dwelling on Romney’s religious faith, or some inane remark Bill Clinton made about Jesse Jackson? That was all time that could have been devoted to issues, but we couldn’t handle it, which is why most lemmings wandering on almost any “Main Street” can’t name their own member of Congress, but can keep you apprised in real time as to Britney Spears’s latest dysfunctional antics. Personally, I think voters should be required to take IQ tests first. I am sick and tired of these dolts canceling out my vote over matters of dimples and pimples instead of issues and ability. I’m a Roman Catholic of Irish and Italian descent, and I wouldn’t give you a plug nickel for either Chris Dodd or Rosa DeLauro. I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard somebody voted for a candidate because they seemed “nice,” or had a nice smile, or was of the same gender, faith or race as them, or whatever. All drivel, and a vast, deplorable and cavalier waste of a precious right that millions around the globe desperately wish they had.
I love my country dearly, but I am sad to say , it is still just a big, 232 year old adolescent that thinks it’s mature, thinks it has made it, and thinks it has all the answers, but in reality, is still wet behind the ears and still has much more growing up to do.
And time is running out.
Doug
Dr. Dobson is so quick to tell us which candidates he opposes. Perhaps he ought to find a congressional candidate that he can support and help get that person elected.
Here’s my response:
“If you’re too busy to go to Iowa and organize house parties, or go to New Hampshire and knock on doors, you have chosen not to participate, so try to refrain from the negative editorials.”
Where was Dobson when Huckabee needed him in South Carolina? He is not the only Christian who conducted a pseudo-boycott of this presidential election. Dobson has not shown himself to be much of scholar on presidential politics.
Boycotting is not an effective election day tactic.
David,
Harry Truman once said, and correctly so, that a Democrat will vote for another Democrat before ever voting for a Republican who just sounds like a Democrat.
I wish John McCain well in his arrogant basking in his precious15 minutes of shame while simultaneously flirting with the left and spitting on the right. The unaffiliated/centrist voters are truly what decide every election, but only after first securing the candidate’s respective (liberal or conservative) base of his or her party.
Come Election Day, like any good roast when the bell rings on the oven, stick a fork in him…he’ll be done.
Doug
At this writing, and with 100% of the precincts reporting, Huckabee beat McCain in the Kansas GOP caucus, 60-24. I think Ron Paul Got 15. As usual nobody is even discussing Alan Keyes.
Prior to the caucus, the delegate count (with 1191 needed to win) is McCain 724, Huckabee 196.
At CPAC today, Huckabee gave a rousing speech (one of his best) that silently attacked McCain on his CFR membership. Huck denounced international tribunals, the Kyoto Treaty, the Law of the Seas Treaty, etc.. Among his talking points, he was strong on national sovereignty and of course, strong on life/family issues.
Meanwhile, while not officially backing out yet, Ron Paul is now giving signals that he is considering it. He is facing a primary battle in his Congressional district, and let’s face, in the prez race, it just ain’t happenin’ for him.
I voted for Alan Keyes and I stand by my vote. Like Duncan Hunter, he is solid on every issue for me, but like Duncan Hunter, his chances fall somewhere between dim and dismal.
With 27 states left to go, Huck just might have a chance, albeit a squeaker. In his SCPAC speech today he unequivocally denied any consideration of pulling out. I believe him. He’s here to stay.
There are issues that I disagree with him on, but if Huck is the nod, I will vote for him. John McCain will only drive me to the Constitution Party.
(Side bar, regarding the Constitution Party. I recently heard that Joe Zdoncyck, State Chairman of the Concerned Citizens Party, the Constitution Party’s State affiliate is now gravely ill in a convalescent home in Wolcott. Please remember him in your prayers.)
I haven’t seen what states are left, but I think which way the sway will be by color: red, blue or purple. McCain will likely win the blues, Huck the reds, and the purples are up for grabs.
Contrary to what they say, I don’t see the talk radio folks taking as harsh a stand on Huck as McCain. They fear, distrust and disagree with both, but with McCain, there is widespread and very personal vitriol from conservatives. That strong emotion does not exist toward Huckabee. That could be as much a factor as Hillary vs. Obama. They are equally far left, but Hillary is mean to the core, and does not hide it well, and her latest antics only display those traits even further. Say what you will of Obama, but he is an amiable guy. Issues of McCain’s infamous temper are again coming forward, and certainly, we went after Mitt Romney’s jugular vein above and beyond what is called for in campaigning. I suspect Romney voters won’t forget that anytime soon, either.
If McCain gets the nod, some names being thrown out include Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, and Huckabee. The Huck camp denies this, but I can’t see Huck as McCain’s veep. Huck only ads to McCain’s problem with conservatives. McCain has given us a clue, though. He came right out and said that he does not care about geography to balance a ticket, but is more concerned with somebody you could easily take over at a moment’s notice. I translate that to mean foreign policy and defense matters.
I’m thinking Rudy. Rudy already denied that, but tactically, he should, as good cover for now. They both love each other, and who else is big on the national defense side? Rudy is no conservative either, but remember, the right has already come out against Huckabee. In the beginning, the right, including Christians groups, were abandoning their principles and fawning all over Rudy. Even Pat Robertson came out for him. (See what I said before about endorsements? Worthless! Ditto with National Right to Life’s endorsement of Fred Thompson, and NRL even admitted that viability was a big factor in their decision.) Although I did not hear him say it, supposedly, McCain already said he would not seek a second term if reelected. With his strong ego, I don’t see Rudy playing second fiddle to anybody, but given McCain’s age, his statement about not seeking re-election, and whatever backroom deal they brokered, I can also see Rudy patiently waiting it out for 4 years to try for a comeback, and next time, as Vice President, that much farther up the ladder, and with a better resume. Rudy is no dummy. He is as much tactician as he is an egotist.
McCain is leaning on his defense expertise, yet while he supported the surge, he opposed Guantanamo and waterboarding. Several people have already questioned his mental stability, temper and the fact that his finger would be on THE button. Count me in that group as well. In that regard, Huck’s amiability would be another factor that could play either way.
The down side is that current polls now show McCain beating Hillary in almost every poll, although by the margin of error. I think that says more about Hillary’s drop than McCain’s rise. McCain loses against Obama in every poll. Huckabee loses against Hillary and Obama in every poll.
But if per chance, Hick were to overtake McCain, and granted, it’s a long shot, his numbers could rise to where McCain’s numbers are now, just like how McCain absorbed Rudy’s numbers when he dropped out.
And again, the right has the same gripes with Huckabee as it does with McCain, minus the personal vitriol.
In the end, that could make a difference.
Somebody once said that politics is Hollywood for ugly people, but the fact is that physical appearance, as well as personality and charisma are huge factors. That is what helped Romney, and that is a big factor in Obama being beloved while people are bailing off the USS Hillary as it sinks like a stone. If nothing else, Huck’s personal likeability could sway voters away from McCain. Like Hillary, even when McCain tries to be nice, he can’t pull it off. He just looks like a rotten, nasty guy trying to seem pleasant. It’s like splashing perfume on manure. The end result is stinky manure that also smells like perfume. For less informed voters in particular, and sally, there are many of them, personality will be a huge factor, and Huckabee plays an audience about as well as that guitar of his.
What I do like about Huckabee, I like enough to vote for him if he does get the nod. Otherwise, given a McCain nod, he can just keep courting those independents and Democrats he loves so well, but like with a teenage summer romance, that love fest will be fleeting at best.
And in the end, the sway of affiliated partisan registration ha just swayed from republican to Democrat by at least 15%.
And on Super Tuesday, 15 million Democrats votes, and only 8 million Republicans voted.
This is all a fun game to play, but like I said before, now it’s pretty much time to reshift our focus to the Congressional (and state) races, and maybe, maybe, the 2012 presidential race.
For Republicans in 2008, much like Marlon Brando how was once told in the movie “On the Waterfront,” “This just ain’t your night, kid.”
Doug
Shame on Texas Governor Rick Perry for telling Mike Huckabee to get out of the race.
Perry is a CFR hack.
It was his former boss, another CFR sycophant, George W. Bush, (who was Texas Governor when Perry was Lt. Governor), who started the North American Union on its way.
It is Rick Perry who is currently behind the NAFTA Super Highway, being built in Texas, that will take millions of acres of private property from Texans via eminent domain to build this North American Union gateway, which will be several football fields wide and will be connecting the US with Canada and Mexico after our borders are supposedly going to be formally erased in 2010. A checkpoint and toll station will be built on the highway in Kansas City. Almost like a foreign embassy, the property under and surrounding that station will be given to Mexico, and the toll station will be staffed by Mexicans. Mexico will actually own a little piece of Kansas City on the NAFTA Super Highway. The North American Union flag has already been designed and the “Amero” is already being set up to replace our not so coincidentally devalued dollar. We are already giving Mexico $200 billion (as John “CFR” McCain would say, “That’s billion with a ‘b’!”) to improve their infrastructure, while our bridges, such as the recent one that collapsed in Minneapolis, killing several people, continue to rot away, ignored.
Rick Perry originally backed Giuliani, who is not a Council on Foreign Relations member, but was hired and made senior partner to his law firm, Bracewell and Giuliani, just three weeks after Bush made the NAU agreement with Fox and Martin in Waco Texas in March, 2005. Giuliani’s law firm has a 50-year contract with CINTRAS, the Spanish firm building the NAFTA Super Highway in Texas.
Now Perry is backing CFR member John McCain.
Politics is like a magic show. Little of what you really see is what is really happening, or at least for the reasons that you are made to believe. The real action is what goes on behind the scenes.
And in that regard, it is little wonder that so much the CFR and the Trilateral Commission do is so secretive.
We need to stop fawning over John McCain’s war record as a hero. That was then. This is now. Like Benedict Arnold, he is a hero turned traitor.
McCain wants to keep talking defense.
How safe will we be when our borders are erased, and “illegal” immigrants are now just “migrants” and al Quaeda and other terrorists can even more easily blend in with them to enter our country?
How safe will we be when we are in a defense pact with Mexico and Canada and have to defend them as well?
Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee spoke strongly on several key points regarding preserving American sovereignty at CPAC.
Forget about all this talk about a Constitutional amendment regarding marriage.
How safe will we be when a North American tribunal rules over our Constitution, usurps our own courts and tramples all our liberties?
John McCain is a dangerous globalist. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Ditto with Hillary Clinton. Bill is still a CFR member. So is Bill Richardson. So Is Fred Thompson. For that matter, so are Joe Lieberman (McCain’s good friend) and Chris Dodd.
The Texas primary will give either McCain or Huckabee some big momentum. That will be held on March 4th.
Human Events did a big piece on McCain this week and his record. He has previously given completely opposite statements to his stance on abortion and Roe vs. wade in South Carolina and in San Francisco. I will admit that Mike Huckabee is not perfect on every issue, but he is perfect and he has been consistent on pro-life/pro-family issues. In that regard especially, we have no other choice.
Ron Paul is (probably) soon getting out (right now, he is only hinting, due to a potential primary battle in his Congressional district) and Alan Keyes is politically a practical non-entity. We need to rally behind Mike Huckabee. If McCain gets the nod, we need to back whatever candidate is nominated by the Constitution Party, and yes, that might well be Alan Keyes (Despite consistent rumors to the contrary, Ron Paul keeps denying that he will run on the Constitution Party ticket. I believe him.).
The CP will nominate their national candidate in April in Kansas City, yes…Kansas City, while it’s still (all) part of the USA! How ironic is that?
That will be the only even remotely viable (and it is remote) option for pro-life/pro-family, Christian, conservative, moral traditionalist, patriotic Americans.
Please reflect on this little historic gem of wisdom, currently posted on the home page of Alan Keyes’s campaign web site:
“If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God.”
(George Washington)
Kudos to CT GOP Chair Chris Healy, who on Channel 3’s “Face The State” today told Dennis House that the CT GOP already has candidates (soon to be announced) lined up to take on Democrat Representatives John Larsen in the 1st District and Rosa DeLauro in the 3rd District. Let’s just hope that they are quality candidates of name recognition and electablity, and not just another patriotic sacrificial lamb with more ideals than ability.
I say again, I have no illusions about our chances in the Presidential race, but overall, this fight isn’t over yet. We must still fight the good fight in the Congressional and state races. In military parlance, if your enemy has a strong front line, implement a flanking maneuver!
But whatever we do, we must not give up this fight! Far too much is at stake in this election year!
“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”
There is some dispute about who actually said that famous quote, whether it was John Adams or Thomas Jefferson. It doesn’t matter. The point is still both significant, and relevant, then, and now.
Doug
We currently have the European Union.
The North American Union is being built, as a semi-hibernating America obsesses over sports stats, drools over scantily clad degenerate and dysfunctional pop celebrities, and gazes in awe over “Survivor” and “American Idol.”
Similar future “unions” are already being planned and proposed for Asia, and even the Middle East.
We have the United Nations.
We have the World Bank.
We have the World Trade Organization (WTO).
We have NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and various other regional international trade treaties.
We have the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission.
We have the KYOTO Treaty, which penalizes a very green USA, while giving heavy polluters like China a free pass.
We have the Law of the Seas Treaty, appropriately known a “LOST,” which willfully gives away all rights of 200 miles of ocean off our coasts, not only stripping us of sovereignty over our own valuable sea routes for trade and mining rights for development, but also avenues for our own naval defense.
We have multi-national corporations.
Etc, etc..
And we have people, like John McCain, who and subtly embrace all this shrinking of our globe, this consolidation of power, and this affront to American ideals and liberties.
And then, we have the Book of Revelations, 17, 12-15:
“And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings for one hour, together with the beast. These are of one mind and give over their power and authority to the beast; they will make war on the Lamb, and the lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.”
We never see beach erosion as it happens, only after it’s too late. The principle of incrementalism in politics, be it local, state, antional, or global, is as key to every grain of sand, undetected by the human eye, but present nevertheless, that washes out to sea with each outgoing wave.
A sage riddle asks us, “How do you eat an elephant?” the answer is: “One bite at a time.” We are like the frog, unknowingly sitting in a pan of cool water, atop the burner of a stove, slowly turned up to a gradual boil, and so too, we will slowly but ever gradually succumb unless we jump out of the hot water.
The incrementalism of biblically prophesied, evil, and anti-American globalism did not happen over night, but it is continuing, and thanks to the Revelations of John, and no, I don’t mean “McCain” we know how it will all end.
I suppose our remaining choice is how fast or slow it will end, and which side will we be on. I think that choice is given to us as a gift from God. It is a gift we may not always have forever, but it is a gift of great significance while we do still have it.
And that gift is called “elections.”
We don’t need a “globalist” in the Oval Office.
We need an American.
Now, more than ever.
Doug
Thanks for the Truman quote, it just goes to show that politicians have been spouting cliched nonsense. As far as your history of Christianity, you repeat what you were taught, that’s fine. Aren’t you the one who constantly says “a lie oft repeated” blah blah blah? Believe what you will thankfully we have progressed far enough that your church can’t force us all to submit to it’s teachings, or have we? Watching what is happening in Spain and Italy right now I wonder.
Regarding McCain, I’ve decided I want him to win the election. Whoever is elected will inherit a total disaster which will take more than 4 years to even begin to correct. Since the American people are completely impatient the next President will likely only have one term, so if he’s a Republican, even if only in name as some claim, they aren’t going to vote in another one for years and years. That is, as the saying goes, a good thing. (In my opinion of course) Plus, I would hope that some watching McCain butchered by the “conservative” members of his own party will finally wake up to see what a dangerous force they have unleashed by not paying attention to the “fringe”. I think the latest Clinton antics have finally opened the eyes of some former supporters. I hope so anyway.
Doug you mentioned a third party perhaps replacing the Repubs for conservatives (I think it was you). Where do you see that coming from, an already existing one like the Constitution Party (if they still exist) or the Ron Paul machine, or whole different direction? And do you think the time has really come for a third party to challenge the two big ones at a national level?
David,
See, this is exactly what I mean. You make outlandish, ridiculous remarks, like about my Church making people subject to its rulings, and then when I respond, you will inevitably deny that is what you said or meant. If you can even remotely do with a fiberglass rod and some nylon string what you often do with your manipulation of verbiage, clearly, you must be quite an accomplished fisherman. To my knowledge, my Church is not forcing anyone to be subjected to its rules. We’re not the ones running around chanting with our tongues twirling in our mouths and lopping heads off with swords to coerce conversion, not that that radical (and true “dangerous fringe”) minority represents its faith. We have a much subtler marketing approach, so stop watching so much “Rosie” and stop filling your head with so much gobbledygook about “radical Christianity,” before you also soon try to convince me that Bush, Cheney and Rove conspired to hit the Twin Towers and Pentagon on September 11th. And the emphasis of my previous statement in one of my previous posts, which you seem to have missed with your biased eyes against organized religion, was more focused on the individual; that being on faith and humility as opposed to arrogant pride and the abuse of intellect.
And you lost me regarding what is happening in Spain and Italy right now. What specifically are you referring to? That is another one of your tactics. You go cryptic on me, and then when I press you for a complete answer, you don’t produce. Please break with tradition and actually elaborate this time. Or is that a fly in the ointment?
You are also footloose and fancy free with the word “fringe.” Most of this country is conservative. The “fringe” folks are the ones committed to violence, sedition and anarchy, and both sides are beleaguered with (a minority of) them. Someone confident in their views and not wandering in the middle is not necessarily fringe.
As for “butchering,” guess who cut off Bob Casey’s microphone at the Democratic Convention in 1992 because they so bristled at having a pro-lifer among them. And guess who “uninvited” Waterbury Mayor Mike Jarjura from attending a pro-Hillary event at the last minute on his own green after he gave Rowland a city job. Which faction steals conservative newspapers from college campuses and shouts and boos down conservative speakers, and throws pies in their faces? How’s that “compassionate” Democrat party working out right about now for Joe Lieberman, hmmmm….? How about the Democrat caucus in the General Assembly, who recently tried to strip Senator Hartley of all her privileges for casting vote against her own side recently? And WE are the “dangerous” ones? Go ahead, David. I’m waiting. Tell me all about how patient, understanding, sensitive, and NOT SO DANGEROUS your side is. Your use of the term “butchering’ is as loose as your use of the term, “dangerous fringe,” but whatever you choose to call it, it also exists on both sides, so when you throw around phrases like “conservatives butchering McCain,” it’s kind of like spitting into the wind, so I hope you are not overly shocked at what comes back at you. Shock belongs to Stern. Sound bites belong to Leno. Find your own shtick, David.
Regarding third party, that was me who brought it up. I think this race will generate some big third party momentum, but I don’t think we will see any significant results this year. It’s getting late. The Constitution Party is still around and it is the third largest party in the country. Its success, thus far though, has been nil. The America First Party is attempting its third resurrection. The Libertarians don’t seem to get much traction, and I don’t pay much attention to the Greens, or this so called Unity Party, if it is even organized now, but ditto with them as well.
I suspect their numbers will grow in registrations from disenchanted voters from both sides jumping ship and seeking a new home. A new third party or two might even emerge. The Constitution Party will inevitably have a candidate in 08 and I suspect their numbers will rise higher than usual, but third parties typically don’t go too far, not even in good years for them, like The Reform Party with Perot in 92.
Most of them are amateurs. Typically, they are composed of idealistic patriots who wake up one morning, pour themselves a cup of coffee and think, “Hmm I think I’d like to be a Senator today,” and away they go. They know and/or practice little of politicking on a professional level, be it cultivating a bench, fundraising, getting their message out, etc.. Politics is about name recognition and money. If you are unable or unwilling to develop both of those, and preferably with a ten-year plan, you’re done before you start. Half the problems facing third parties they bring on themselves from inexperience and stubbornness. The other half of their problems are built into a rigged system by the colluding Democrat and Republican parties. For all their hot air, the one issue they are truly bipartisan on is keeping third parties out. Neither party wants the competition. Some states are worse than others in that regard. Simply obtaining, and worse yet, maintaining ballot access is a deplorable dog and pony show that is inevitably making our nation’s founding fathers roll in their graves in extreme torment. I find it very dismaying and incredible that such affronts to liberty are so conspicuously entrenched in our country. Then I think of slavery and abortion and my feet are back on the ground in the real world again.
I think the level of disgust on the conservative side now is such that it will give third parties a boost, but not enough to make a significant difference in 2008. They need to keep that momentum going a for a few years, and thus far, I haven’t seen any of them really do it. 2012 has possibilities, but they need to start work now and stay at it. They also need to first field local candidates and then groom them up through the ranks. A quality candidate has to have proven viability. If you can’t be elected as local alderman, it’s asinine to run for Congress. And if you can’t get elected after three tries, hang it up. Above all, the third parties need a really big name. People like recognition. How willing would most people be to pay money to hear a concert or see a movie from singers/actors they don’t know? Same with politics. If nothing else, John McCain has name recognition. So does Rudy Giuliani. So does Mitt Romney. Ron Paul really didn’t, but he did an admirable job of building it. Lack of name recognition, among other factors, was much of what hurt Duncan Hunter and (still), Alan Keyes.
If something big does not blossom from a third party, be it a new or existing one, the Republican Party may rise from these ashes like a phoenix. I would hope so. Right now, the party is pretty well broken up and at or near rock bottom. The only remaining option is upward, assuming it can do it like it did after the 76 and 96 elections.
Both parties should hop for the survival of the GOP. We need a bare minimum of two viable parties to keep our country free, and both parties have proven repeatedly through history that left in power too long, they prove Lord Acton correct and go corrupt. We can all chose our sides between Republicans and Democrats, but make no mistake about it, as free Americans, we need both parties, at least, to thrive.
Doug
David,
Your apparent vitriol of my Church, and I believe, of organized religion in general as so often displayed by your comments, is in fact very often the rejection of scripture itself.
If your pride so impedes your intellect that you really see no difference between the propaganda of Joseph Goebbels and the teachings of Jesus Christ, perhaps this passage may be helpful:
“At that time Jesus declared, “I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will.”
(Matthew, 11, 25-26.)
You can’t always make complete sense of faith, David. Nor should you. There is a certain degree of mystery to it. That is why it is called faith.
Doug
It’s worth noting that Huckabee does not have to hit the magical 1191 mark in delegate votes.
All he has to do is run enough interference to block McCain from accruing that amount.
Then the horse-trading begins and the nominee is decided at the convention.
Given the roller coaster ride this race has been so far, I wouldn’t rule any surprises out.
If I’m McCain right about now, I’m asking myself two hard questions:
1.) How personally likeable am I generally perceived?
2.) How electable am I perceived, primarily within the (conservative) base of the GOP?
Doug
“Huckabee and McCain ‘respect each other. They’re both men of integrity,’ [Ed] Rollins (Huckabee’s campaign manager) said.”
HA!! Neither showed “integrity,” or even MATURITY in their double-teaming Romney with juvenile smears, smirks and lies about Romney’s record.
They pulled an especially SHAMEFUL scam against Romney in West Virginia. McCain and “the Huckster” colluded to eliminate Romney, who had the advantage of being by FAR THE BEST CANDIDATE for Conservatives, and for **all Americans,** IMO.
Now we’re stuck with two mediocre Republican candidates, NEITHER of whom is **truly CONSERVATIVE** on the full range of crucial issues, as Romney is.
It will be quite some time before I am inclined to say anything other than “a pox on both their houses” regarding McCain and Huckabee.
Except–that if Huckabee were the Republican nominee, it would be political suicide for the party, IMO. His name will turn off those who vote based on name recognition; and his running as the “Christian leader” candidate will turn off all the millions of secularist voters.
That would also mean that Hillary or Obama would, most probably, be appointing 2 or 3 U.S. Supreme Court Justices.
Tricia,
“A pox on both their houses”? Pretty ironically harsh words, considering you once said I was unChristian-like for calling Romney a “liar.”
I have never heard any substantiated proof to the widely speculated allegation and wishful thinking that Huckabee and McCain conspired against Romney in West Virginia. And if they did, why specifically West Virginia? It doesn’t even make sense. Delegate wise, West Virginia is about as helpful as a dead bolt on a screen door. It’s hardly a California, New York, Texas, Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc..And even if they did, the outcome (Romney dropping out) would still be the same. For that matter, even if they did, so what? That does not constitute an ethics violation. Maybe they mutually perceived Romney as a greater threat and triangulated their strategy to knock him out. That’s politics. It’s all a big strategic chess game designed to make somebody lose. Suck it up. As for Romney as a “conservative” candidate, he had his share of baggage, too. Had a true conservative been left standing, the movement would have coalesced behind that candidate and then they would be bad mouthing Romney right now as much as they are Huckabee and McCain. If the rest of the party agreed with you that Romney was the best conservative choice, then he would be the nominee right now. The bottom line is he had his chance and he couldn’t produce, and to the limited extent that anybody’s statements played any real role in his campaign’s demise, his own numerous robotic, clumsy, inane, and contradictory statements probably hurt him more than anybody else’s remarks did. Had he been elected, he would not have been any asset to the party’s survival, either. In general, conservatism was dealt a lousy hand this year.
Theoretically, you can choose your poison, or the lesser of two evils. A good argument can be made that either McCain or Huckabee as the nominee could finish off what’s left to the party.
I am less than fully enthused about Huckabee too, but at least he is 100% pro life (and mentally stable). I would trust Charles Manson with a chain saw long before I would ever trust John McCain with his finger on the “nuke” button. McCain favors embryonic stem cell research and has already given contradictory statements on his stance on abortion and Roe vs. Wade, in South Carolina and in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle. Huckabee is also untainted by the open borders, anti-American, anti-sovereignty, trade-give-away socialist globalists at the CFR and the UN, unlike their “Manchurian candidate,” McCain, and whoever is President in the next term will have to deal with the expansion of the North American Union and the proposed official dilution of our borders in 2010, as per the 2005 Waco agreement between the “3 stooges”: Bush, Fox and Martin.
You can “pox” whoever you like, but no matter how you slice it, you only have two choices as a conservative: the GOP nominee, which will be either McCain or Huckabee, and most likely as it looks now, McCain, or you can vote for the Constitution Party candidate, which could well be Alan Keyes or some other lightweight.
And in the end, it won’t matter who you vote for because the Dems will take it this year anyway. Write in Elvis Presley if that floats your boat. It won’t matter. Even if McCain does win, if you think he’s liberal now, wait until that 72-year-old man who already announced he will only seek one term gets elected, when he’s got nothing more to lose. He’ll let loose on this country like a little kid locked up alone in a candy store. Your prediction and concern regarding Hillary or Obama picking the next 2 or justices are accurate and warranted, however, I would feel almost as little solace at the prospect of McCain having that choice.
The Prez race for us is now pretty much over for us, and the next one is four years away. Crying “Coulda, shoulda, whoulda” won’t bring it back. It is what it is, like it or not. We now need to unify and reshift our focus now onto the Congressional and state races, where we can at least neutralize the Dems and do some damage control.
Doug
Huckabee did not collude with Romney in any way. If anything, they will need to work together - or at least their delegates will - if there is a brokered convention.
Bottom line though is that McCain has voted for embryonic stem cell research, trampled on free speech rights for all Americans, and has advocated military action if Iran gets nuclear technology. (other nations already have weapons that we’re nervous about, but action not necessary yet).
At any rate, Huckabee remains optimistic and keeping faith in God about what should become of his bid for President. At the same time his supporters are contributing more to his campaign now than they have in the previous three months. They vow to stay with him up until the convention. Some can say he is hurting the party, others that if he keeps the Republican race alive, he’s earning more media attention to Republicans that would otherwise be non-existent during this campaign.
There is still a chance Huckabee can win. In fact, I’m one of the quickly- growing number of leaders who are organizing a full-fledged war in Rhode Island and Vermont supporting Huckabee’s campaign. His pro-life and protection of marriage beliefs are without question. He is a likeable guy and very trustworthy and honest. When was the last time we elected someone you could say that about?
If you would like to get involved, please contact me at cobrien7@hotmail.com or (203) 558-5817. Go to http://www.mikehuckabee.com if you wonder about any of his positions. http://www.meetup.com has ways you can link up with a local campaign.
Chris O’Brien
Wolcott
Tricia,
“Except–that if Huckabee were the Republican nominee, it would be political suicide for the party, IMO. His name will turn off those who vote based on name recognition; and his running as the “Christian leader” candidate will turn off all the millions of secularist voters.”
- You think that rag-in-my-mouth McCain can really have a logical debate with Obama? McCain says he doesn’t care about social issues, “doesn’t know much” about the econonmy, and who knows what other issues. Besides putting so much time into being Senator and wanting to cut spending, is there any other reason he’s running?? Presidents need to be more global than just balancing the budget and carrying out the war.
He may have a shot at Clinton, but again - while clinton has plans for health care (although the wrong ones), and other topics, McCain seems to have no plan at all to anywhere.
From what I can tell Huckabee is the logical, trustworthy candidate.
And turn off your radio. Who cares what the people paid by Mitt Romney and try to make their own news and create a new conspiracy theory every week rather than report on it say? How many times have they been WRONG so far?
If your weatherman is consistently wrong, don’t you usually change the channel?
In 2012, there will inevitably be a new field of Republican candidates for President.
Mitt Romney might well be one of them.
Inevitably, at or about that time, somebody will remember that today, Valentine’s Day, 2008, Romney sold out life and family issues, as well as conservatism in general by handing all his delegates over to John McCain, who, not all that long ago, was Romney’s arch-nemesis.
When some of these many conservatives who have no use for McCain remember that sell-out from Romney, they will be beating the drum loudly to remind everybody about it.
Make no mistake about it, I will be one of them.
Doug
Chris,
I WON’T be “turn[ing] off my radio.”
I guess you don’t listen to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin–because if you DID, you would know that they are *very seldom* “wrong.”
It is the MSM “talking heads,” PBS pundits, and even many “pollsters” who have been proven almost consistently WRONG–saying just a few weeks ago that Giuliani and Hillary would be the candidates–erroneously predicting the outcomes of various primaries and caucuses, etc.
Incidentally, Chris–Sean has had Huckabee as a guest many times on both his radio and FOX News shows.
None of these talk radio hosts I have been listening to are (or were) “paid by Mitt Romney.” I don’t know who you were referring to, but Sean, Rush, Mark and Laura Ingraham did NOT endorse Mitt Romney, or even sound very supportive of his campaign until the last couple of weeks, after Giuliani withdrew from the campaign for the nomination.
What a klutz, I had a response almost finished and I must have hit some key I didn’t mean to and it’s gone. ok, here’s the compact version
Doug,
1) I don’t pay the slightest attention to Rosie, never have, never will.
2) My opinions are not formed from reading left wing propaganda, but from reading that from the right.
3) You claim I don’t respond when you ask me to explain something I said. The truth is that in most cases I have and I spent a lot of time on some of them, answering point by point. But, once I hit enter it is out of my hands whether you see it or not, that is up to Peter or another moderator if there is one. And as I’ve said before, I acknowledge and accept that it is the moderator’s job to control the content of the blog so I’m not complaining. But it is frustrating to spend that time only to have it disappear into the vast wasteland of discarded data
Since I don’t often save what I have written I can’t offer to send them to you. Hmm, does that sound evasive? It’s not, really but I guess you only have my word for that.
4) Vitriol - I had to look it up to make sure I had the correct definition in my head. It’s not vitriol you read from me it is reaction and opposition. They can be the same I know, but that’s not what I have written here. Perhaps that’s just what you expect so it’s what you see? Perception is everything and I have read many things on this blog that I find far more venomous than anything I have written here.
5) Constitution party - it’s funny because my post came after yours but I wrote is before I read you thoughts on the party so you answered the questions that hadn’t been asked yet.
I said I’d be brief didn’t I? Ok, the last thing, the following quote comes from a letter to the editor on CNS News, I wondered what the thoughts on here would be about it.
“As a conservative who feels only true conservatism can save the nation, I will vote Democratic if Sen. John McCain is nominated to represent the Republican Party in the presidential election. The Democrats tell you up front what they are about ? including higher taxes and government ‘nanny-care’ ? unlike the Republican Party, who says one thing and does another. Like my parents taught me, a liar is worse than a thief, for a thief will only take what you have. A liar on the other hand can never be trusted. There you have it in a nutshell, liars and thieves, make your choice.”
Trish has hit on something important which I’d like to explore further in this thread. Based on the anti-McCain sentiment in this space, I don’t expect anyone to agree with me, but I throw this thought out there for your consideration.
What strikes me about Trish’s quote above is how the talk show hosts didn’t rally to Romney until *after* Giuliani withdrew. I agree; it looks to me like talk radio expected Giuliani to be their firewall against McCain–and by the time they realized they had miscalculated and threw their support to Romney, it was too late.
But what if talk radio had been right? What if Giuliani had stopped McCain and secured the nomination? If Guiliani had instead been the victor, would the same talk radio hosts–who now make such a point out of their principled opposition to McCain–be telling pro-lifers that they need to suck it up for the good of the party?
McCain–despite the occassional odd utterance–had a solid pro-life voting record until the taxpayer-funded destruction of embryos issue arrived. Giuliani, on the other hand, was about as pro-abortion as any major candidate for the GOP nomination that we have ever seen.
I infer from all this that the other issues on which McCain departs from conservative orthodoxy–on say, immigration or McCain-Feingold–matter more to these talk show hosts than abortion. I further infer that some of the same celebrity conservatives who make such a point of their opposition to McCain because of his betrayals of the movement would have been happy to go along with the party’s nominee and to tell pro-lifers to suck it up had that nominee been the pro-abortion Giuliani.
There’s a lot more to be said on McCain and social conservatism, of course (I haven’t even mentioned his vote against the federal marriage amendment). But all of the above is something that pro-lifers ought to consider as they listen to talk radio’s opposition to McCain.
David,
What I was referring to was some cryptic crack you made regarding the Church in Spain and Italy. What did you mean?
As far as my remark regarding vitriol, specifically, I mean that it seems to me that after a few innocuous, non-provocative discussions, you often suddenly make an unsolicited, unprovoked wise crack at religion.
We can tit for tat back and forth between Democrats and Republicans and not get anywhere. Actually, no, I don’t think Democrats usually say what they stand for. More often than not, I hear feel-good sound bites and abstract platitudes coming from their side more often than substantive issues. And the rest of their drivel is Bush bashing or Republican bashing.
Regarding the Republicans, as I said, there is wrong on both sides. Frankly, I am grossly disappointed and disgusted by the modern GOP as well. So is the rest of the conservative base. Hence the backlash against psuedo-conservatives like Bush and McCain, who view the party platform with about as much respect as a spittoon.
Doug
Hi all,
I’ve opened another thread on the presidential election. Please post any further comments about this topic in the new thread.
Doug: I posted your response to me in the new thread.
My thanks to all of you for making this thread so lively.