Mitt Romney for President, MyManMitt.com
About Us
Contact Us
Donate to Mitt Romney Campaign

Mitt Romney on the Issues
Videos Mitt Romney
Help Mitt Romney




Saturday, September 8, 2007
posted by jason | 7:48 AM | permalink
Rick Brookhiser at The Corner says what every non-Tennessean is thinking today:


Fred Thompson came to the offices of National Review some years when he was still in the Senate. I liked him fine. He has done nothing, anywhere, ever. The Hubble Telescope could not find what he has done, because he has not done it.

It would be unwise to put such a man in the White House at this moment in history.


Obviously Rick hasn't seen Fred? talking to Michael Moore while smoking a cigar on video. That would change his mind very quickly.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Nothing a Cigar Can't Fix
  • DiggNothing a Cigar Can't Fix
  • Fark:Nothing a Cigar Can't Fix
  • Furl:Nothing a Cigar Can't Fix
  • Ma.gnolia:Nothing a Cigar Can't Fix
  • Netscape:Nothing a Cigar Can't Fix
  • NewsVine:Nothing a Cigar Can't Fix
  • Reddit:Nothing a Cigar Can't Fix
  • Slashdot:Nothing a Cigar Can't Fix
  • StumbleUpon:Nothing a Cigar Can't Fix
  • TailRank:Nothing a Cigar Can't Fix
  • Technorati:Nothing a Cigar Can't Fix
  • YahooMyWeb:Nothing a Cigar Can't Fix

Technorati Tags: |
 
5 Comments:


Well said. Well said. I posted a few Fred-related stories at NY for Mitt this morning. Fred is not impressing too well.



Actually, if Fred ever ran a Cigar Store he would at least have a little executive experience.



Fred Thompson is a lightweight. He said today that the tide is turning in Iraq because of Al Qaeda's smoking ban:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/09/08/2007-09-08_fred_thompson_al_qaeda_smoking_ban_pushe.html

ROFL



Old Friend-

I was just going to mention that same thing. I just read that comment by Fred Thompson about the Al Quaeda smoking ban and thought that he can't be serious!

It's only estimated that over 400,000 American die each year due to smoking-related diseases. That leads to problems on two levels for good-ole Fred.

First, his attacking the anti-smoking crowd could obviously offend a huge number of people who have lost loved ones or suffer from disease because they used to smoke or continue to smoke as well as offending those who have had to be around smoking enough that it has affected their health as well.

So, for Fred to use that as his example is just dumb politically. Let's go out there and offend potential voters. Good thinking Fred! I'm sure that the #1 thing that voters want in a President is someone who will defend the Constitutional Right to Smoke!

More accurately, smoking bans pass almost everywhere that they go on the ballot. Is Fred dumb enough to attack the electorate that is supposed to put him in office? Here in Arizona, a state with about 150,000 more Republicans than Democrats, a wide in-door work smoking ban passed overwhelmingly, even though RJ Reynolds spent millions to fight it.

That's only one problem with Fred's position here. A lot of people actually view smoking as a character flaw, and Fred might not want to show off the fact that he loves to chomp on a cigar so much, especially if he wants to attract the votes of mothers across America who want the President to be a role model for their adolescent sons. "The Smoker for President" thing might not be so appealing to a large number of the 77% of Americans who don't smoke. They might ask themselves, does he smoke because he doesn't understand the health consequences of such a filthy habit? And this could lead to them asking themselves if they want a President who lacks the mental ability or self control to stop smoking.

I personally put the fact that George Allen was a chain smoker as a reason not to vote for him when he was considered a Presidential contender. And it was because I just naturally assumed that he must be challenged in the IQ column because he lacked the mental power to understand the negative affects of smoking or that he lacked the self control to make the sound health decision & stop such a filthy habit.

I'd suggest to the Thompson campaign that they pick more important rights to fight for than "the Right to Kill Everyone Around You by Blowing Second Hand Smoke in their Faces on a Daily Basis."



By the by, George Allen and Jim Webb both bragged that they both chewed as well. Ugh.




Friday, September 7, 2007
posted by Devon Murphy | 11:26 PM | permalink
He cut taxes 23 times in New York and turned a $2.3 billion budget deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus, while balancing the city’s budget. Because he turned his conservative principles into action, New York City taxpayers saved more than $9 billion in taxes...


That's the official line according to Rudy's website. Cesar Conda, former assistant for domestic policy under Vice President Cheney begs to differ:

"Upon closer inspection, however, Giuliani?s record on taxes isn't as conservative as advertised. In fact, a nonpartisan independent organization found that Mayor Giuliani actually opposed significant tax cuts, and would have denied hundreds of millions of dollars in tax relief for New Yorkers had he gotten his way.

"FactCheck.org, which is run by the non-partisan Annenberg School at the University Of Pennsylvania, has pointed out that Mayor Giuliani fought Republican efforts to kill the city's commuter tax [$360 million annual], and actually went to court to keep it alive."
...
"In another instance, FactCheck.org reported that Giuliani strenuously opposed a personal-income-tax-rate cut amounting to $469 million – but now claims credit for it as one of the 23 taxes he cut."
...
"Moreover, [Giuliani's] refusal to sign Americans for Tax Reform?s 'Taxpayer Protection Pledge' raises serious doubts among economic conservatives about his commitment to keeping income-tax rates low.


All in all, while Rudy claims to have cut or eliminated taxes 23 times for a total of $9 billion dollars (and at times his campaign has claimed $9.8 billion), he actually can only claim to initiating 15 tax cuts for a total of $5.4 billion dollars. To put this in proper perspective, let's dig a little more:

When he took office in 1994, Giuliani was indeed facing a $2.3 billion deficit for the next fiscal year. But Giuliani's last budget, issued in May 2001 – before 9/11 – for fiscal 2002, projected a deficit of nearly $2.8 billion in fiscal 2003, the first budget year the new mayor would face. The IBO estimated the deficit would be even larger, about $3.3 billion. In reality, thanks to 9/11, the budget hole turned out to be around $5 billion.


And let's not forget the city debt. When Rudy came into office, he inherited $26.6 billion of general obligation loans. When he left, that number was at $43 billion and climbing. The increase in debt, $16.4 billion, was over 3 TIMES THE CUTS IN TAXES over the same period. Borrowing rose at about 5 percent each of the last five Giuliani years. Currently, NYC pays roughly 10.4% of its total $59 billion budget and 17% of its tax revenue EVERY YEAR to cover the interest on a $51 billion debt (PDF warning). Using those numbers as a model, the debt that Rudy was directly responsible for ($16.4 billion) cost the city in the neighborhood of $6.5 billion dollars over his eight years in office, over a billion dollars more than the tax relief during the same period.

So, to summarize the points here...

1. Rudy left the city with a $2.7 billion greater single-year budget shortfall than he found it ($1 billion if you don't count 9/11).

2. Rudy actually lowered taxes by $4.4 billion LESS than his campaign has claimed.

3. During the booming 1990's, Rudy borrowed an additional $16.4 billion on city debt, costing New Yorkers over a billion dollars more than their tax cuts to just pay the interest.

Labels: ,

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Rudy's Fiscal Record
  • DiggRudy's Fiscal Record
  • Fark:Rudy's Fiscal Record
  • Furl:Rudy's Fiscal Record
  • Ma.gnolia:Rudy's Fiscal Record
  • Netscape:Rudy's Fiscal Record
  • NewsVine:Rudy's Fiscal Record
  • Reddit:Rudy's Fiscal Record
  • Slashdot:Rudy's Fiscal Record
  • StumbleUpon:Rudy's Fiscal Record
  • TailRank:Rudy's Fiscal Record
  • Technorati:Rudy's Fiscal Record
  • YahooMyWeb:Rudy's Fiscal Record

Technorati Tags: |
 
3 Comments:


I definitely want the candidate who will hold the line on spending and balance the budget. Giuliani is a RINO on fiscal conservatism and much as any social issue.



I agree with you.

But the Republican Party's problem is that, after 8 years of Bush's deficits, most Republican primary voters no longer view extensive debt as a bad thing. They think that at some point in the faraway future, the Fairy Godmother will pay off the debt by eliminating Big Government.



Timotheus, agreed. Rudy is unique among candidates in that he is pushing some of his weaknesses (GWOT and fiscal policy) as if they were strengths, relying on a wave of public emotion to pull him through the primaries.

Woodrow, the deficit mentality of our culture is something I find extremely depressing. And after years of deficit leadership in government, is it any wonder that the average Americans' saving rate is negative? This is just the time that we need a leader who can institute a policy and mentality of responsible fiscal stewardship.




posted by Kyle Hampton | 3:47 PM | permalink
It took me a bit to get to watch Wednesday’s debate (I had to sit through a three hour patent law class during the live feed). I wholly endorse Jason’s observations (along with Timotheus in the comments afterwards). I did want to chime in on one moment that has generated some buzz: Romney’s “apparently” comment and McCain’s response. There has been some back and forth about it at NRO specifically (Ramesh Ponnuru, Andy McCarthy, Kathryn Jean Lopez, David Freddoso, and Jim Geraghty).

First off, McCain’s comments were petty and misdirected. McCain’s absolutist position on the surge, while admirable in his support of our troops, is almost the dictionary definition of ideologue. It’s not the facts that convinced McCain that the surge is working, but the idea itself. In McCain’s mind it would be working whether or not the facts showed it, because the idea is right in his mind. This is the same kind of stubbornness that has kept him supporting “comprehensive immigration” when the facts don’t support him. Similarly campaign finance reform has been an abject failure, but McCain still supports it because the idea is right, in spite of the facts. Likewise McCain has come to the correct conclusion on the surge, not lead by the facts, but lead only by the idea. McCain is right more out of luck than any sort of analytical process that lead him to the right conclusion. Such a blind adherence to ideas is unsupportable, which, luckily, is what most Republicans have come to conclude

The episode, to me, illuminates one of the areas where Romney stands above other candidates: his strict adherence to facts and analysis. Romney’s “let’s let the facts be told and then decide” sounds so ordinary and common sense in the normal world, but yet so out of place with politicians. No rational person would make decisions like McCain (and, honestly, most other Senators), giving unfailing support to ever failing ideas. Romney’s analytical processes are much more reasonable and certainly more reliable to produce the best results.

Specifically in reference to Iraq, Romney’s stance is no less resolute or bold than McCain’s, just grounded in facts and analysis. Romney has never backed away from his understanding that Iraq is key and that we MUST win there. However, Romney understands that facts are key, not only in prosecuting the war, but also in persuading the American people of its success, in a way that pronouncements about ‘honor’ or ‘reputation’ are not.

Labels:

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:McCain v. Romney
  • DiggMcCain v. Romney
  • Fark:McCain v. Romney
  • Furl:McCain v. Romney
  • Ma.gnolia:McCain v. Romney
  • Netscape:McCain v. Romney
  • NewsVine:McCain v. Romney
  • Reddit:McCain v. Romney
  • Slashdot:McCain v. Romney
  • StumbleUpon:McCain v. Romney
  • TailRank:McCain v. Romney
  • Technorati:McCain v. Romney
  • YahooMyWeb:McCain v. Romney

Technorati Tags: |
 
1 Comments:


I don't think I've ever read a better summation of the case for Romney. Even when I think his statements are nutty, I think its possible that after a little experience that he'll see the issue differently over time.

I don't have that feeling with McCain or Giuliani.




Thursday, September 6, 2007
posted by Justin Hart | 7:32 PM | permalink
A new poll by ARG shows a huge leap for Romney in Michigan.
Romney had the support of 39% of those surveyed, compared with 13% for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, 12% for former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee and 9% for Sen. John McCain of Arizona. The poll was taken Saturday through Tuesday and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The numbers are a little bit crazy but closely shadow Romney's margins in New Hampshire and Iowa almost overnight. While questions remain the trend is undeniable:
Romney's margin was so huge that some questioned the results.

Charlie Cook, who runs the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan, Washington, D.C.-based newsletter analyzing elections and campaigns, said it appears too high to be true. But, he added, the ARG result, along with other polls, give him little reason to doubt that Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, "is the front-runner at this point in Michigan."

"The trend is really clear," said Mark Blumenthal, editor of Pollster.com, a nonpartisan Web site that aggregates and charts polling data. He, too, questioned the strength of ARG's result, but said it's easy to see Romney's support is growing in the state. Other polls, including one conducted in January for the Free Press and WDIV-TV Local 4 television, had shown Giuliani with a clear lead in Michigan.

Labels:

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Romney Surge in Michigan Poll!
  • DiggRomney Surge in Michigan Poll!
  • Fark:Romney Surge in Michigan Poll!
  • Furl:Romney Surge in Michigan Poll!
  • Ma.gnolia:Romney Surge in Michigan Poll!
  • Netscape:Romney Surge in Michigan Poll!
  • NewsVine:Romney Surge in Michigan Poll!
  • Reddit:Romney Surge in Michigan Poll!
  • Slashdot:Romney Surge in Michigan Poll!
  • StumbleUpon:Romney Surge in Michigan Poll!
  • TailRank:Romney Surge in Michigan Poll!
  • Technorati:Romney Surge in Michigan Poll!
  • YahooMyWeb:Romney Surge in Michigan Poll!

Technorati Tags: |
 
1 Comments:


Yeah!!

Look, Mitt Romney is the cream - and the cream always rises to the top.




posted by Kyle Hampton | 4:41 PM | permalink
Tom Bevan, over at RCP blog, has some details about Fred Thompson's campaign launch:
The buzz among the press at Fred's kickoff event is all about the small-ish size of the crowd. I believe the campaign is circulating an official number of 450 people, but it looked to be considerably fewer than that. I'd guess more in the 250 range, and a decent percentage of folks in the room (perhaps 20-25%) were members of the media.

I asked David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register how Fred's crowd compared to the size of crowds pulled by other top-tier candidates at recent events. Yepsen said he thought Romney could come to Des Moines any weekday afternoon and generate the same sized crowd.

Of course the Thompson folks will surely argue that we should compare it to other candidate launches and not with what candidates can garner after months of campaigning. In an ideal world that would be correct, but in a season where the campaigning started at 8 months ago, the comparison Yepsen makes is apt because Thompson doesn't have the time to make up for lost opportunities that other candidates have taken advantage of. As Mitt emphasized last night, he has done over 400 events in Iowa and New Hampshire. Thompson doesn't have the luxury of trying to compare what he's doing now with what others did months ago.


***Update: More from Yepsen himself

Fred Thompson’s announcement speech Thursday in Des Moines was underwhelming.

The former U.S. Senator and movie actor formally announced his long-awaited candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination at the Des Moines Convention Complex. It wasn’t very impressive.

The crowd of a few hundred didn’t seem enthused. Thompson’s oratory didn’t soar but was somewhat rambling.

Labels:

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Fred's launch
  • DiggFred's launch
  • Fark:Fred's launch
  • Furl:Fred's launch
  • Ma.gnolia:Fred's launch
  • Netscape:Fred's launch
  • NewsVine:Fred's launch
  • Reddit:Fred's launch
  • Slashdot:Fred's launch
  • StumbleUpon:Fred's launch
  • TailRank:Fred's launch
  • Technorati:Fred's launch
  • YahooMyWeb:Fred's launch

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Kyle Hampton | 2:23 PM | permalink
Hard to argue with the facts:


In addition to this, Reid Wilson makes the obvious point:
The problem, as Thompson and Giuliani hope they don't find out, is that "traditional" campaigning -- winning Iowa or New Hampshire after months of building an organization and spending lots of money there -- is tradition for a reason: It works. The past five Republican nominees and six of the past eight Democratic nominees have all won either Iowa or New Hampshire, or both. Only George McGovern and Bill Clinton didn't win either, though Clinton had native Iowan Tom Harkin and New Hampshire neighbor Paul Tsongas in the race. When a candidate strays from the traditional route, they're seemingly begging for trouble.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Pathway to the Nomination
  • DiggPathway to the Nomination
  • Fark:Pathway to the Nomination
  • Furl:Pathway to the Nomination
  • Ma.gnolia:Pathway to the Nomination
  • Netscape:Pathway to the Nomination
  • NewsVine:Pathway to the Nomination
  • Reddit:Pathway to the Nomination
  • Slashdot:Pathway to the Nomination
  • StumbleUpon:Pathway to the Nomination
  • TailRank:Pathway to the Nomination
  • Technorati:Pathway to the Nomination
  • YahooMyWeb:Pathway to the Nomination

Technorati Tags: |
 
1 Comments:


I guess that Rudy's plan is that he thinks the early states don't matter. he thinks that because Florida has been moved to January, with 20 states having their primaries on February 5th, will counterbalance any boost Mitt receives in the early states.
Rudy's assumption will prove to be fatally flawed. Mitt is winning 5 of the 7 states voting in January. Mitt's winning: WY NV MI IA NH and is rising in SC and FL. He may have all the early states wrapped up, or at least 5 or 6 of them. Rudy will lose.




posted by jason | 1:16 PM | permalink
Pretty busy today, but I had a couple quick thoughts while watching the debate last night:



Huckabee: A good showing. During his interesting spat with Paul, I think Huckabee showed two things: 1. Good at Rhetoric 2. Poor at substance. Yes, a president should make decisions based on his honor and morals, but we all agree why not defend the war on factual statements. How about specifics? Huckabee is gaining traction for his ability to speak to a higher cause, but right now I am a little unconvinced of his abilities to speak the nitty-gritty.




McCain: I think Huckabee and McCain seem to be cut from the same cloth. McCain was also light on details. Most of McCain’s responses where based on gut instincts and feeling. He made a good argument about torture, but I think his presence seems to be more novelty than ability at this point. His comment on Romney’s usage of “Apparently” was an astute political move on his part but hurt the debate substance in general. His comments on “apparently” added little in the way of value to the argument, yet it allowed him to attempt to portray Romney as weak on the war- which Romney clearly is not. In fact while it hurts John McCain in the short term, in the end it does the conversation on Iraq no good. Also the fact that the debate turned into a McCain love fest at some points seems to show the lack of seriousness the other candidates take his candidacy.




Romney: Was pretty good. I think he took a couple of cheap shots from McCain (as discussed above) and Chris Wallace on immigration, but he did the best he could. I think he really shone (and exhibited the biggest difference between him and his competitors) on the Iran Case study question. To me his answer was text book business style. List what we can infer from the hypothetical situation, list the pro’s and cons, define the issue, how we will attack, and then ad some sweet rhetoric. His answer was about as comprehensive as could be expected in a few minutes. The others gave less comprehensive answers in my opinion, which is a common theme in the various campaigns to date.




Giuliani: Ok. While I thought his answer on his family life was about as good you could ask for, it was factually wrong. Unfortunately he has a record in NYC that shows his personal life affecting his political judgment. These would include offering state protection to his mistresses, arguing the government to pay for abortions, leaving his city in massive amounts of debt, Bernard Kerik, etc. These all seem like reckless decisions that in my opinion reflect a reckless personal life. I suspect these questions will be brought up again. Yet Rudy does get high points for answering with detail- such as his answer to Wallace’s immigration question.




Over all these debates mean less and less the more we have them. The candidate invite list needs to be whittled down. Paul, Brownback, Tancredo, Hunter and to some degree McCain are irrelevant at this point.




We would get much more out of this with Rudy, Mitt and Fred.


These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Some Thoughts on the Debate
  • DiggSome Thoughts on the Debate
  • Fark:Some Thoughts on the Debate
  • Furl:Some Thoughts on the Debate
  • Ma.gnolia:Some Thoughts on the Debate
  • Netscape:Some Thoughts on the Debate
  • NewsVine:Some Thoughts on the Debate
  • Reddit:Some Thoughts on the Debate
  • Slashdot:Some Thoughts on the Debate
  • StumbleUpon:Some Thoughts on the Debate
  • TailRank:Some Thoughts on the Debate
  • Technorati:Some Thoughts on the Debate
  • YahooMyWeb:Some Thoughts on the Debate

Technorati Tags: |
 
8 Comments:


I think that if indeed Rudy's personal life did not intermingle with his political life, then in addition to the mistresses (more than one)protection details, Rudy should tell us why he put his mistress, Judith Nathan, on the Board of Trustees of the Twin Towers Fund, along with other appointments made by Guiliani. It would be fine to ignore his personal life if he clearly keeps it out of his political life but he has proved unable to in the past, such as announcing his divorce to his wife at a news conference, and can't prove that he will keep it out of his life as President. America does not need another president who can not keep his promises to us or his family.



I'll add my few thoughts here:

Jonathan Martin at Politico wondered aloud why Huckabee didn't take a shot at Giuliani or Romney on abortion when a question was pitched to him about the issue. Huckabee is a natural vice president candidate to either Giuliani or Romney, as he could help either one increase their bona fides in the south. Basically, I have concluded that he is running for vice president and knows that. On the other hand, he has no reason not to bash on Thompson. He isn't going to be on a Thompson ticket.

I thought Giuliani completely blew the family question. First of all, he sputtered for 10 seconds before even responding. When he did respond to a question contrasting him with Romney, he made the statement that he isn't running as the perfect person to be President (my logical conclusion was that he was conceding Romney is).

I also thought Giuliani saying he isn't running on what he did on September 11 was an interesting comment because other than that, I can't figure out what he is running on other than a mythical notion that he made New York the safest city in America. That isn't true. I happen to think that much of the credit goes to the officers, including Chief of Police Bratton whose broken window strategy helped reduce crime. Not to mention the fact that the federal government is the one who gave them the funds to hire extra officers.

Outside of crime dropping in New York, as it did in the rest of America during that time period according to the FBI, Giuliani's record in New York is not particularly good. Americans don't know or don't remember this. It has been a while. In fact, I think they have so little understanding that when Giulilani compares the crime rate of New York to Boston it seems like a slight to Mitt (Mitt wasn't even in government when Giuliani was Mayor. Hello! A deceitful comparison!) I think it may be time to begin highlighting Rudy's record in New York because the facts don't support the myth.

Romney did the appropriate thing when attacked about his sons serving their country. Frankly, I thought the question was utterly absurd. The person is that hurt by it? Are you kidding? You lack pride in what your son is doing so much that even when no offense is intended you are extremely offended? Come on. Everyone knows Romney didn't mean to denigrate the service of our men and women.

Romney should have slammed McCain's "apparently" attack back down his throat. I am not sure how it would have played but McCain's self righteous, I am the all knowing candidate, when it comes to military matters needed to be called out. I probably would have said, "Because of my executive experience, before I make decisions about whether something is working or not, I want to get all of the information I can, get the data, determine what standards we are measuring success by and see if we have met those goals. Simply saying something is working has never helped any venture succeed. As President, I will look at the current Iraq situation with a lens that is grounded in realism."



The comments on this blog are excellent.

Timotheus, it's too bad you're not an advisor for Mitt Romney. Your last paragraph was spot on.

Unfortunately, the candidates have such little time to respond it's amazing they come off as well as they do.

No matter what happens I am more and more impressed with my candidate, Mitt Romney.



I agree with your assessment of Huckabee. Part of being a leader is being able to persuade people to your position. I think he does well in explaining the ethics or morality of his positions. I think he can come up with clever analogies of what the problems are. I'm just not sure he can come up with the best solutions, or how effective he will be at implementing those decisions. It's nice to say if you broke it you pay for it, but it doesn't give a plan for how you are going to fix it. Sure it's nice to comment that FedEx can do a better job of tracking our immigration than our government. That's an entertaining statement but it's not a real plan (at least I don't think it is).

The nice thing about Romney is that not only does he have a moral standing, but he knows how to come up with the best plans, and how to implement them.

I don't get why people think that you need to pick someone from the South to be a VP if your from the North. I have never voted for a President because of his VP selection, I vote for the President. To me, the VP should be whoever would make the second best president. Of course he needs to be supportive of the presidential candidate and his positions.

I agree with Rudy that the next President should not need on the job training. I don't think Huckabee is ready for the Presidency. But I do think he could get that job training as a VP in the Romney Presidency.



You're right Tim,

It was McCain playing with Semantics and I wish Romney would have called him on it.



Genius post Tim. Outstanding.



I don't agree with the idea of narrowing the debates. Before the debates, I was leaning towards Giuliani, and McCain was my second choice, and Romney my third. I like Giuliani much less after the debates, and Romney much more (and also a few of the minor candidates as well).

It might be that I would have gotten as much out of the debates if there were just three or four candidates on the stage. But I doubt it. I think that if there are only three candidates on the stage, they'd be trying even harder to seem like ideological clones.

For example, having Paul on the stage makes it easier for the less ultrahawkish candidates (Brownback, Romney) to take more nuanced positions, because everyone looks like a hawk compared to Paul.



Ron Paul was the best in the debate and he won the text poll by almost double over 2nd place Huckabee.

Why should he be cut out of the debates again????? Where are anti-war conservatives supposed to go???? I am sick of my government throwing away $12 billion a month with nothing to show for it while they want an open border (the REAL continental threat.) How again are VILLAGERS supposed to attack our country if we keep it secure? They don't even have a navy and you guys are scared to death of them. PATHETIC!




Wednesday, September 5, 2007
posted by Kyle Hampton | 10:15 PM | permalink
Is it just me or does it go to the issue of Fred Thompson’s judgment that his announcement of the most important decision is made on a comedy show? What Fred Thompson is telling us is that in his judgment the single most professional way to announce that he is running for President of the most powerful nation on earth (The United State of America) is on a comedy show. Why would you do that?

Labels:

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Reader David writes
  • DiggReader David writes
  • Fark:Reader David writes
  • Furl:Reader David writes
  • Ma.gnolia:Reader David writes
  • Netscape:Reader David writes
  • NewsVine:Reader David writes
  • Reddit:Reader David writes
  • Slashdot:Reader David writes
  • StumbleUpon:Reader David writes
  • TailRank:Reader David writes
  • Technorati:Reader David writes
  • YahooMyWeb:Reader David writes

Technorati Tags: |
 
2 Comments:


Rush Limbaugh said today announcing on Leno devalues the Office of the President.



I'm surprised Rush would say something negative about Thompson, since everything Thompson says is tailored to the intellectual level of the talk show (i.e. purely following the "party line").

Great debate, by the way. Romney took some body blows on his gaffe about his sons, but still came across better to me than McCain and Giuliani. (Of course, given that I usually support losers in GOP primaries, this may not be a good sign).




posted by Jon | 4:44 PM | permalink
I’m not normally one to cheer at the failings of others, but in this case I’ll make an exception. The motion picture September Dawn was hoped by many to be a body blow to the Romney campaign specifically and the LDS Church in general. The “truth” about the events of September 11, 1857 would “finally” be told and a “reckoning” would be had once and for all.

In the end, September Dawn turned out to be little more than it really was – Wishful Fiction.

For the record, I have not seen, nor will I see the movie. Frankly there are other more entertaining movies for which I’ll shell out my $8.50. Judging by the numbers, I’m not alone.

It took roughly $11 Million to make this film. After an opening weekend which grossed a whopping $601,857 from the 857 theaters which saw fit to show the film – breaking down to a very underwhelming $702 per venue – September Dawn has barely surpassed the $1 Million mark in total revenue ($1,059,110). I think I’m safe in assuming there won’t be a sequel.

To give an accurate comparison, three other LDS history inspired “Period Dramas” – The Work and The Glory, The Work and The Glory II: American Zion, and The Work and The Glory III: A House Divided each grossed more than September Dawn even though they had a much smaller release.

Just prior to the movie’s release, Blogfather Hugh interviewed director Chris Cain and main star Jon Voight. Both men came across as likable and although I admire most of their other work, all I needed to know about the foundations of September Dawn I learned in but one exchange:
HH: Did you help write it, Chris?
CC: Yeah.
HH: And when you sit down to do that, did you go to the Salt Lake City people first and say to them, I’m going to write a movie that’s got Brigham Young in it, do you have any tips?
CC: No, I did not do that.
HH: Are you glad that you didn’t? Or do you regret that you didn’t?
CC: Oh, we did the research. We’re in a time when you have computers. You can find almost anything you want on the internet, now. Most of our research was done through the internet. A lot of the stuff came out of the Mormon library.

The Internet is a great research tool, but nothing can substitute for an actual conversation or interview. If you “google” Mountain Meadows Massacre you’ll find a lot of information, but you’ll get most of it from people with several axes to grind. On the Internet, one source can appear to be as credible as the next even though said source writes from a hysterical point of view.

To the Blogfather’s credit, he published an email from a listener who took issue with a premise held by Chris Cain and most of the axe grinders – that being Brigham Young had knowledge of and probably personally ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The listener, Mr. MacDonald, shreds Cain’s premise with stubborn things called facts. While Mr. Cain can claim not to have had an anti-Mormon agenda when making this film, the fact of the matter is he was heavily influenced by those who did.

In the final analysis, it doesn’t really matter. September Dawn will go down in movie history as not just a bomb, but a WMD. At its present pace, it won’t even out perform Mariah Carey’s Glitter – and that, dear reader, is a pretty damning indictment if ever there was one.

Labels:

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:September Dawn's Sunset
  • DiggSeptember Dawn's Sunset
  • Fark:September Dawn's Sunset
  • Furl:September Dawn's Sunset
  • Ma.gnolia:September Dawn's Sunset
  • Netscape:September Dawn's Sunset
  • NewsVine:September Dawn's Sunset
  • Reddit:September Dawn's Sunset
  • Slashdot:September Dawn's Sunset
  • StumbleUpon:September Dawn's Sunset
  • TailRank:September Dawn's Sunset
  • Technorati:September Dawn's Sunset
  • YahooMyWeb:September Dawn's Sunset

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Kyle Hampton | 4:40 PM | permalink
A few random pre-debate thoughts:
  • What is the first topic for the candidates? It'll either be the gay-marriage ruling in Iowa or the upcoming Iraq report by Gen. Petraeus. Talking about gay-marriage is an obvious negative for Giuliani (although he is closely followed by Ron Paul).

  • Who should be the next candidate to pull out now that Gilmore and Thompson are gone? Personally I think it should be Brownback. No one else has run such a negative campaign while garnering decreasing support. This would be true even if we discount the Romney attacks. He doesn't add anything to the debate and his description as "whole life" makes me think of bread more than anything.

  • Will we get the fire-and-brimstone McCain or sedate McCain? My money is on fire-and-brimstone McCain. I'm hoping for him to announce he will follow the Iowa judge to the gates of hell.

Any thoughts?

Labels:

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Pre-debate thoughts
  • DiggPre-debate thoughts
  • Fark:Pre-debate thoughts
  • Furl:Pre-debate thoughts
  • Ma.gnolia:Pre-debate thoughts
  • Netscape:Pre-debate thoughts
  • NewsVine:Pre-debate thoughts
  • Reddit:Pre-debate thoughts
  • Slashdot:Pre-debate thoughts
  • StumbleUpon:Pre-debate thoughts
  • TailRank:Pre-debate thoughts
  • Technorati:Pre-debate thoughts
  • YahooMyWeb:Pre-debate thoughts

Technorati Tags: |
 
3 Comments:


Apparently I missed. Fred Thompson was topic number 1 followed by immigration.



Here's a GOP debate liveblog.

http://political-buzz.com/2007/09/05/new-hampshire-republican-debate-liveblog/



They didn't ask Rudy the question I sent in.
"Mayor Giuliani, Georgiamom wants to know if you are elected President will you or will you not wear a dress to State Dinners?"




posted by Devon Murphy | 4:26 PM | permalink
Iowa's favorite klown is back, with a post on the recent judicial activism overturning Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. Highlights:

Romney was the first to respond. “The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."

In addition to his statement Romney also helped organize a konference kall with Iowa legislators and pro-family leaders in Massachusetts last week. The purpose of the call was to share suggestions and insights as Iowa policymakers and pro-family organizations consider options in defense of marriage. Krusty Kudos to Romney for helping get our leaders up to speed on the issue.


Summary: Romney and Huckabee win, Rudy loses, and Fred is STILL not a candidate yet.

Labels: , , ,

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Krusty Komeback!
  • DiggKrusty Komeback!
  • Fark:Krusty Komeback!
  • Furl:Krusty Komeback!
  • Ma.gnolia:Krusty Komeback!
  • Netscape:Krusty Komeback!
  • NewsVine:Krusty Komeback!
  • Reddit:Krusty Komeback!
  • Slashdot:Krusty Komeback!
  • StumbleUpon:Krusty Komeback!
  • TailRank:Krusty Komeback!
  • Technorati:Krusty Komeback!
  • YahooMyWeb:Krusty Komeback!

Technorati Tags: |
 
1 Comments:


It's good to have Krusty back. There's not a better Iowa source, except perhaps our own Jeff Fuller.

As Krusty observed, only one candidate actually DID something: Mitt Romney. Everyone else made a nice statement, but did absolutely nothing. Typical politicians.




posted by Kyle Hampton | 3:17 PM | permalink
In spite of the evidence that Jason posted of Brownback's masses, it is Romney that leads in Michagan according to a new ARG poll:

39% Romney
13% Giuliani
12% F Thompson
9% McCain
4% Huckabee

Labels: ,

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Arg's Michigan Numbers
  • DiggArg's Michigan Numbers
  • Fark:Arg's Michigan Numbers
  • Furl:Arg's Michigan Numbers
  • Ma.gnolia:Arg's Michigan Numbers
  • Netscape:Arg's Michigan Numbers
  • NewsVine:Arg's Michigan Numbers
  • Reddit:Arg's Michigan Numbers
  • Slashdot:Arg's Michigan Numbers
  • StumbleUpon:Arg's Michigan Numbers
  • TailRank:Arg's Michigan Numbers
  • Technorati:Arg's Michigan Numbers
  • YahooMyWeb:Arg's Michigan Numbers

Technorati Tags: |
 
1 Comments:


Another poll showing Romney in the lead in Michigan. He is showing some great strength there, but don't be surprised if the next Michigan poll has it a lot closer. This poll was done over Labor Day weekend. Most polls done over any weekend can be a bit screwy and one over a holiday weekend could be even more messed up. And we are dealing with ARG which isn't the most accurate polling firm anyway.




posted by Anonymous | 2:39 PM | permalink
The next Republican Presidential Debate will air tonight on Fox News at 9:00 pm Eastern Time.

Make sure to catch the Late Show with David Letterman at 11:30 pm Eastern Time after the debate (Special Guest actor Danny DeVito [It would be interesting to compare his Career with another actor to figure out who is a bigger star], Musical Guest Avril Lavigne)!
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Debate Tonight!
  • DiggDebate Tonight!
  • Fark:Debate Tonight!
  • Furl:Debate Tonight!
  • Ma.gnolia:Debate Tonight!
  • Netscape:Debate Tonight!
  • NewsVine:Debate Tonight!
  • Reddit:Debate Tonight!
  • Slashdot:Debate Tonight!
  • StumbleUpon:Debate Tonight!
  • TailRank:Debate Tonight!
  • Technorati:Debate Tonight!
  • YahooMyWeb:Debate Tonight!

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by jason | 11:25 AM | permalink
As we can see here, Brownback is really making a surge and speaking only to packed crowds!!

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Brownback Surge
  • DiggBrownback Surge
  • Fark:Brownback Surge
  • Furl:Brownback Surge
  • Ma.gnolia:Brownback Surge
  • Netscape:Brownback Surge
  • NewsVine:Brownback Surge
  • Reddit:Brownback Surge
  • Slashdot:Brownback Surge
  • StumbleUpon:Brownback Surge
  • TailRank:Brownback Surge
  • Technorati:Brownback Surge
  • YahooMyWeb:Brownback Surge

Technorati Tags: |
 
4 Comments:


I think Sam's motioning for people to fill up the front row first. It won't look so sparse that way.



How many of the audience do you think are staffers? I figure at least the two in front with the matching shirts.



Nah. All the staffers are back in class right now.



You're kidding me, right? They had a fire drill or something and are just trickling back in, right? Really, what is this?




Tuesday, September 4, 2007
posted by GeorgiaMom | 4:23 PM | permalink
Did the Fredheads get marching orders to attack Mitt Romney today? Looking around the Internet I am seeing LOTS of very old news and old attacks against Governor Romney being regurgitated by Thompson Supporters.

Why would supporters of the "Conservative Messiah" be so terribly afraid of Mitt?
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Who's afraid of Mitt Romney?
  • DiggWho's afraid of Mitt Romney?
  • Fark:Who's afraid of Mitt Romney?
  • Furl:Who's afraid of Mitt Romney?
  • Ma.gnolia:Who's afraid of Mitt Romney?
  • Netscape:Who's afraid of Mitt Romney?
  • NewsVine:Who's afraid of Mitt Romney?
  • Reddit:Who's afraid of Mitt Romney?
  • Slashdot:Who's afraid of Mitt Romney?
  • StumbleUpon:Who's afraid of Mitt Romney?
  • TailRank:Who's afraid of Mitt Romney?
  • Technorati:Who's afraid of Mitt Romney?
  • YahooMyWeb:Who's afraid of Mitt Romney?

Technorati Tags: |
 
4 Comments:


http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/5/29/133920.shtml?s=al&promo_code=34AB-1
The above link and article is quite interesting. Fred may not be the conservative rescue that some GOPers are looking for. As long as American continues to honestly pick a leader
that can bring change and has a past record of success then the name Romney will continue to rise.

sport



By the way, Welcome to My Man Mitt GeorgiaMom. Introduce yourself sometime.



Cuz he ain't no Messiah.

In fact, he's extremely mortal. We'll see more of his mortality over the next few weeks.

Today's skipping of the NH debates is a clear manifestation of his short-sighted vision and judgment.



From what I can see, this site

romneyforpresident.townhall.com/
has been consistent in posting about Mitt Romney. No conspiracy theories here.

Like Mormonism, the blog isn't what it seems.

Since you have left a comment on that blog, you'll leave this comment on your blog, right?

(Funny photos too!)




posted by Anonymous | 3:40 PM | permalink
Elect Romney in 2008 reports, the Governor of Michigan has signed legislation moving the state's nominating contest to January 15, 2008. I would try and tell all of us what position this puts the current schedule in but I would be wrong by this afternoon.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Michigan to January 15
  • DiggMichigan to January 15
  • Fark:Michigan to January 15
  • Furl:Michigan to January 15
  • Ma.gnolia:Michigan to January 15
  • Netscape:Michigan to January 15
  • NewsVine:Michigan to January 15
  • Reddit:Michigan to January 15
  • Slashdot:Michigan to January 15
  • StumbleUpon:Michigan to January 15
  • TailRank:Michigan to January 15
  • Technorati:Michigan to January 15
  • YahooMyWeb:Michigan to January 15

Technorati Tags: |
 
1 Comments:


This is where Mitt Romney will really shine. His organization is deep and wide and can rev up to speed just about anywhere in short order.




posted by Anonymous | 3:22 PM | permalink
As you know, the Romney camp has a contest running to create their next 27 or 57 second ad.

These two ads seem to be winning the "Love It" race at the moment:

If It's Broken (27 Seconds).

This ad has a great theme that plays to Romney strength as an outsider to Washington. I would think that somehow, imagery needs to be combined with the ad to play to the viewers who are zoned out to the speech. Nevertheless, the starkness of the ad obviously reinforces the simple message.

Ready for Action (57 Seconds). This would play well as an introduction to the candidate. I sometimes forget that still needs to be done since I am so steeped in the cause.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Grassroots Ads
  • DiggGrassroots Ads
  • Fark:Grassroots Ads
  • Furl:Grassroots Ads
  • Ma.gnolia:Grassroots Ads
  • Netscape:Grassroots Ads
  • NewsVine:Grassroots Ads
  • Reddit:Grassroots Ads
  • Slashdot:Grassroots Ads
  • StumbleUpon:Grassroots Ads
  • TailRank:Grassroots Ads
  • Technorati:Grassroots Ads
  • YahooMyWeb:Grassroots Ads

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Kyle Hampton | 2:46 PM | permalink
...from the Washington Post? I hardly would have believed it myself until I read it. It's hard to argue with these quotes though:
But Romney's manner never changed; whether describing his appreciation of the symbolic importance of the American flag or talking about issues such as illegal immigration, the ex-governor almost never stopped smiling.

Romney was the only GOP contender in New Hampshire on Labor Day, and two of his main opponents, the undeclared Thompson and former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, did not hold any events yesterday.

Labels:

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Something positive...
  • DiggSomething positive...
  • Fark:Something positive...
  • Furl:Something positive...
  • Ma.gnolia:Something positive...
  • Netscape:Something positive...
  • NewsVine:Something positive...
  • Reddit:Something positive...
  • Slashdot:Something positive...
  • StumbleUpon:Something positive...
  • TailRank:Something positive...
  • Technorati:Something positive...
  • YahooMyWeb:Something positive...

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Anonymous | 2:24 PM | permalink
There are several quotes out today about Romney's campaign organization, answering tough questions and being nice.

AP video is here.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Romney AP Quotes
  • DiggRomney AP Quotes
  • Fark:Romney AP Quotes
  • Furl:Romney AP Quotes
  • Ma.gnolia:Romney AP Quotes
  • Netscape:Romney AP Quotes
  • NewsVine:Romney AP Quotes
  • Reddit:Romney AP Quotes
  • Slashdot:Romney AP Quotes
  • StumbleUpon:Romney AP Quotes
  • TailRank:Romney AP Quotes
  • Technorati:Romney AP Quotes
  • YahooMyWeb:Romney AP Quotes

Technorati Tags: |
 
Monday, September 3, 2007
posted by Anonymous | 1:54 PM | permalink
The new Political Derby Power Rankings:

1. Romney (previously 3)
2. Giuliani (previously 1)
3. Thompson (previously 2)
4. Huckabee (previously 5)
5. McCain (previously 4)

Read the round-up at Iowans for Romney. [Note: Previous version of this post referred readers to Race42008, which is the source of the Iowans for Romney post, not the source of the rankings.]
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Romney Tops Power Rankings
  • DiggRomney Tops Power Rankings
  • Fark:Romney Tops Power Rankings
  • Furl:Romney Tops Power Rankings
  • Ma.gnolia:Romney Tops Power Rankings
  • Netscape:Romney Tops Power Rankings
  • NewsVine:Romney Tops Power Rankings
  • Reddit:Romney Tops Power Rankings
  • Slashdot:Romney Tops Power Rankings
  • StumbleUpon:Romney Tops Power Rankings
  • TailRank:Romney Tops Power Rankings
  • Technorati:Romney Tops Power Rankings
  • YahooMyWeb:Romney Tops Power Rankings

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Anonymous | 12:56 PM | permalink
Boston Globe Today:

"Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney says he agrees that Democrat front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton will bring change to Washington.

"Speaking to reporters on Monday as he prepared to walk in a Labor Day parade, Romney said Clinton will bring change to the country in the form of big government, socialized medicine and a less secure country. He was riffing off Clinton's speech in New Hampshire a day earlier in which she said she can work for change from within the Washington establishment."

Yeah, he could of added more cronyism, more corruption, and more well, I'll just euphemistically say scandal.

UK Times:

"Thompson will be seeking to detach voters from Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts and a Mormon, who has a slick, well financed campaign and is beginning to win over evangelical Christian voters. 'If we had Romney’s organisation and Fred’s personality, the race would be over,' said a Thompson insider. He has already had a near fatal impact on John McCain’s campaign. The Vietnam war hero is now down to 11% in the polls."

Mitt's organization is really good, but you have to have a candidate with substance and ideas to make it run.

The Christian Post:

"Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney was the first to denounce the decision by Polk County Judge Robert Hanson, who last Thursday ruled that the state’s decade-old same-sex 'marriage' ban violated the couples’ constitutional rights. Romney even voiced support of a federal ban on same-sex 'marriage.'"

"Likewise, Romney is viewed with suspicion by many conservative Christian voters for being the former governor of the only state in the nation where same-sex 'marriage' is legal."

"His quick move to denounce the ruling is said to be a political maneuver to enhance his conservative image among Republican voters."

I haven't laughed so hard in a long time. Then I realized that there probably are people out there who don't know about Romney's Herculean efforts to overturn the Goodridge decision in MA and that he is the only Republican who supports the Federal Marriage Amendment.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Some Clips from Labor Day
  • DiggSome Clips from Labor Day
  • Fark:Some Clips from Labor Day
  • Furl:Some Clips from Labor Day
  • Ma.gnolia:Some Clips from Labor Day
  • Netscape:Some Clips from Labor Day
  • NewsVine:Some Clips from Labor Day
  • Reddit:Some Clips from Labor Day
  • Slashdot:Some Clips from Labor Day
  • StumbleUpon:Some Clips from Labor Day
  • TailRank:Some Clips from Labor Day
  • Technorati:Some Clips from Labor Day
  • YahooMyWeb:Some Clips from Labor Day

Technorati Tags: |
 
1 Comments:


I read an article in www.realclearpolitics.com that Mitt also said that Hillary would bring change to Washington -- and it would be a sharp left turn.

I thought that was a great line!




posted by Kyle Hampton | 12:55 PM | permalink
Nobel laureate Gary Becker, at his blog with U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner, has an interesting look at Israeli kibbutz, socialistic societies that started in the early twentieth century in what was then Palestine by Zionist émigrés from Europe:


Capitalism, industrialization, and the conventional family repelled these émigrés. Kibbutzniks, as they were called, replaced these fundamental aspects of modern societies with collective agriculture where all property was owned by the kibbutz, where adults were treated equally regardless of productivity, and they were rotated every few months among the various tasks that had to be performed on a farm, such as milking cows, planting crops, serving meals, and so forth.
The children were placed in Platonic-type settings, away from their parents, to be taught the ideals and norms of their society. Posner comments that these utopian societies were helpful in Israel before statehood when there was no effective central government:


Collective ownership and wage equality are ways of protecting each member of the collective from economic and other vicissitudes; "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"--the communist slogan actualized in the classic kibbutz--is then a method of social insurance.
These were especially important in protecting the recent settlers from So what’s the point of all this? Well, predictably, most of the kibbutz have failed. Becker and Posner each list several reasons for their failure:

Becker: However, from what I was told and could observe during my brief visit, there was not much harmony-jealousies abounded of those who were only a little better off…Anger was also felt toward those who were considered slackers since they clearly lived off the labor of others. Since everyone ate, worked, and socialized together, small differences were magnified, and became festering sores. Nor were the family arrangements any more satisfactory since parents missed their children, and visa versa.

Posner: There have always been communes, such as the Israeli kibbutzim, but they have usually failed, mainly because of free-rider problems. If wages are uniform, shirkers flourish; also, incentives to undergo training that would increase the value of one's output are blunted. Thus we read in the New York Times article of August 27 mentioned by Becker that "Mr. Varol was born on a kibbutz in the far north, but he left at 18. He is at peace in his new home, but bitter about the past. 'My parents worked all their lives, carrying at least 10 parasites on their backs,' he said. 'If they'd worked that hard in the city for as many years, I'd have had quite an inheritance coming to me by now.'"
So why talk about this on a blog about Mitt Romney? I think there are a few points to be taken from this

First, despite the seductive platitudes of socialism, in practice, even on a small scale, it does little but impoverish all those under its dominion. This may seem a fairly ordinary conclusion to MMM readers, who are no doubt attracted to Romney’s stout defense of capitalism. Yet in spite of the success of capitalism, free markets, and individual incentives, there is still a culture of collectivism in Washington. Thus, it is not sufficient for a President alone to embrace capitalism, but there must be a change in the federal government’s culture in order to effectuate change. For that I offer this from the South Carolina debate:


Second, family structure matters. Becker’s conclusion is this:


Basically, they ignored the evidence of history that self interest and family orientation is not the product of capitalism, but is human nature due to selection from evolutionary pressure over billions of years.
It is common to find politicians deride the importance of the family. Even some Republicans (I’m looking at you Rudy) seem to embrace the notion that family is an artificial construct, that can (or perhaps should) be disregarded as elemental to the preservation of our society. This notion is present in the ever expanding role of schools in teaching about sexuality. Some programs proposed (I’m looking at you Barack) imply that schools are the better environment in which to broach sensitive topics. Alternatively, they find little use for increased parental involvement and responsibility for their children’s education. Additionally, the nature of marriage (instrumental in the formation of a solid family structure) is under attack almost daily, as evidenced by the recent court decision in Iowa. All these ideas, as Becker concludes, are inconsistent with billions of years of natural selection. The family has been the constant structure of society. As governments have come and gone, the family has survived and provided the most important elements of human existence. Romney understands and advocates strengthening the family:




Third, Mitt Romney is the best candidate to advance those themes. In fact, I think that these two Becker conclusions, along with the main purpose of government in providing for the common defense, are Romney’s campaign pillars:

Labels: , , ,

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Kickin' in the Kibbutz
  • DiggKickin' in the Kibbutz
  • Fark:Kickin' in the Kibbutz
  • Furl:Kickin' in the Kibbutz
  • Ma.gnolia:Kickin' in the Kibbutz
  • Netscape:Kickin' in the Kibbutz
  • NewsVine:Kickin' in the Kibbutz
  • Reddit:Kickin' in the Kibbutz
  • Slashdot:Kickin' in the Kibbutz
  • StumbleUpon:Kickin' in the Kibbutz
  • TailRank:Kickin' in the Kibbutz
  • Technorati:Kickin' in the Kibbutz
  • YahooMyWeb:Kickin' in the Kibbutz

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



Sign up for MyManMitt
Enter your email address:

RSS Feed MyManMitt.com
Mitt Romney Facebook MyManMitt
Mitt Romney YouTube






Copyright 2007 MyManMitt.com