|
Saturday, December 1, 2007
posted by Myclob | 8:57 PM | permalinkNone of The Below
By George F. Will
Sunday, December 2, 2007; B07 ...  On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee's candidacy rests on serial non sequiturs: I am a Christian, therefore I am a conservative, therefore whatever I have done or propose to do with "compassionate," meaning enlarged, government is conservatism. And by the way, anything I denote as a "moral" issue is beyond debate other than by the uncaring forces of greed. His is a moralist's version of the intellectual vanity once ascribed to Oxford's Benjamin Jowett: My name is Jowett Of Balliol College; If I don't know it, It is not knowledge. Many Iowans think it would be wise to nominate a candidate who, when the Republicans were asked during a debate to raise their hands if they do not believe in evolution, raised his. But, then, Huckabee believes America can be energy-independent in 10 years, so he has peculiar views about more than paleontology. Huckabee combines pure moralism with incoherent populism: He wants Washington to impose a nationwide ban on smoking in public, show more solicitude for Americans of modest means and impose more protectionism, thereby raising the cost of living for Americans of modest means. Although Huckabee is considered affable, two subliminal but clear enough premises of his Iowa attack on Mitt Romney are unpleasant: The almost 6 million American Mormons who consider themselves Christians are mistaken about that. And -- 55 million non-Christian Americans should take note -- America must have a Christian president. Another pious populist who was annoyed by Darwin -- William Jennings Bryan -- argued that William Howard Taft, his opponent in the 1908 presidential election, was unfit to be president because he was a Unitarian, a persuasion sometimes defined as the belief that there is at most one God. The electorate chose to run the risk of entrusting the presidency to someone skeptical about the doctrine of the Trinity. If Huckabee succeeds in derailing Romney's campaign by raising a religious test for presidential eligibility, that will be clarifying: In one particular, America was more enlightened a century ago. Labels: mike huckabee
posted by Kyle Hampton | 5:11 PM | permalinkIt's somewhat ironic to me that Huckabee was able to trim his figure while governor while not able to do the same to his state budget. Indeed, there could be some funny jokes made using Huckabee, the state budget, and many of the common euphamisms for spending. I'll let your mind work out a few options. Besides waistlines and state bottom lines, there is a world of difference between Romney and Huckabee. From the AP: Mitt Romney loves statistics. The former venture capitalist pours over charts and grafs. He analyzes situations and data from every angle. It's little wonder, then, that as he campaigns for president, the Republican sometimes shows his wonkish side. Huckabee is the opposite: Mike Huckabee is the easygoing ex-governor of Arkansas who charms his audiences with homespun stories of growing up in a family of modest means while sprinkling in broad policy stances under the themes of patriotism and core values. The former Southern Baptist minister tends not to dwell on the details of policy matters, choosing instead to tug on his audiences' heart strings. So is this just a contract in style? On the surface it might seem that Romney is wonkish, while Huckabee is a smooth-talker, both with equal substance behind the facade. However, I think that Huckabee's style hides his lack of depth. Quick, name me the last policy proposal that Huckabee has generated? The fair tax you may say? We can hardly credit Huckabee with the proposal. Besides, does he even know how it would work specifically? Yes, he says it is fairer, flatter, and family friendly, but what does that mean? Who decided it was those things? And how much good will it do for use if it won't ever be passed? OK, next policy proposal? I'll just wait here patiently...........Still waiting............still waiting. I think you get my point. But you might say that we don't need new ideas, just old ones that get done. That may be, but is Huckabee really the man to get stuff done? Is that his platform: competence? Huckabee is what I call an issue-candidate. We have several issue-candidates in the race this year. Tancredo is an issue-candidate on immigration. John McCain is an issue-candidate on the war. Mike Huckabee is an issue-candidate on life. Beyond that we get little if anything from him (or any of the others on topics other than their issue). Mitt Romney, on the otherhand, is a complete candidate. As he's been arguing for months, we need a BROAD coalition of conservatives from three major camps: economic conservatives, foreign policy conservatives, and social conservatives. Mitt Romney would effectuate policies for all three camps. Huckabee would attempt to make a solid, balanced, three-legged stool into a hopping pogo-stick. Much in the same way that Rudy Giuliani would leave the traditional conservative coalition missing key elements, Mike Huckabee would alienate key constituencies. Romney is the only candidate who embraces and would further the interest of all three groups. Additionally, Romney IS running as a candidate of competence. As his ads routinely reiterate, he's done it in business, at the Olympics, and as Governor of Massachusetts. He can point to specific policies that he enacted, a budget crisis he saved, and a vigorous fight for life and marriage that he led. For all of Huckabee's talk on life, he's never had to fight for it. He hasn't had to stare down the legislature in fighting to keep gay marriage out of his state. Romney has. Romney led. To be sure, Huckabee is a forceful and engaging personality, but is that all we get? Where's the beef? Where's the substance? I, for one, am not convinced that there is any. Labels: mike huckabee
posted by Aaron Gulbransen | 3:14 PM | permalinkIn an editorial written for the Arkansan newspaper, The Leader, Ernie Dumas writes: " Mike Huckabee raised more taxes in 10 years in office than Bill Clinton did in his 12 years.
Clinton tax increases
- Increased the general sales tax from 3 percent to 4 per- cent (Act 63 of special session of 1983)- Increased sales tax by half of 1 percent and extended the tax to used vehicles (Act 3 of 1991)- Increased the corporate income tax from 6 to 6.5 percent for corporations with net incomes greater than $100,000 (Act 1052 of 1991)- Levied a 16 percent tax on snuff (yes, there are a few people who still dip snuff) (Act 628 of 1987)- Levied a 25-cent tax on each pack of cigarette papers (yes, there are people who still roll their own) (Act 1045 of 1987)- Increased the cigarette tax from 17.75 cents a pack to 21 cents a pack (Act 399 of 1983)- Increased the cigarette tax by a penny a pack (Act 1211 of 1991)- Levied a 2 percent tax on certain tourism items like admission to theme parks (Act 38 of 1989)- Increased excise taxes on mixed drinks sold for on-premises consumption (not wine or beer) (Act 844 of 1983 and Act 908 of 1989)- Increased motor fuel taxes by 1 cent a gallon (1979)- Increased motor fuel taxes by 4 cents a gallon (Act 456 of 1985) (Clinton vetoed the bill but the legislature overrode his veto.)- Increased the tax on motor fuels by 5 cents a gallon- Increased motor vehicle registration fees, 1979 (subsequently repealed)
Huckabee tax increases
- Imposed an income tax surcharge of 3 percent on tax liabilities of individuals and domestic and foreign corporations (Act 38, 1st special session of 2003). (It was temporary until revenues improved. The legislature repealed it in 2005.)- Increased the sales tax by 1/8 of one percent by initiated act (but it was a personal campaign by Huckabee, who campaigned across the state for it and took a celebrated bass boat trip for 4 days down the Arkansas River holding press conferences in each river city to urge passage of the act)- Increased the sales tax by one-half of 1 percent (Act 1492 of 1999)- Increased the sales tax by 7/8ths of 1 percent and expand the sales tax to many services previously exempt from the tax (Act 107, 2nd special session of 2003)- Collected a 2 percent tax on chewing tobacco, cigars, package tobacco, cigarette papers and snuff (Act 434 of 1997)- Levied an additional excise tax of 7 percent on tobacco (Act 38 of 1st special session of 2003)- Increased the tax on cigarette and tobacco permits (Act 1337 of 1997)- Increased the tax on cigarette and tobacco – cigarettes by $1.25 per thousand cigarettes and 2 percent of the manufacturers’ selling price on tobacco products (Act 434 of 1997)- Increased the tax on cigarettes by 25 cents a pack (Act 38, 1st special session of 2003)- Levied a 3 percent excise tax on all retail sales of beer (Act 1841 of 2001 and extended by Act 272 of 2003 and Act 2188 of 2005)- Revived the 4 percent mixed drink tax of 1989 and added a 4 percent tax on private clubs (Act 1274 of 2005)- Increased the tax on gasoline by 3 cents a gallon (Act 1028 of 1999)- Increased the tax on diesel by 4 cents a gallon (Act 1028 of 1999) Note: Contrary to what Huckabee has said repeatedly in debates, speeches and TV shows, the 1999 gasoline and diesel taxes were not submitted to the voters and approved by 80 per cent of them. It was never submitted to a vote. It was the governor’s bill and it became law without a vote of the people. What the voters did approve in 1999 was a bond issue for interstate highway reconstruction but it did not involve a tax increase. Existing taxes and federal receipts were pledged to retire the bonds. - Increased the driver’s license by $6 a person, from $14 to $20 (Act 1500 of 2001)So which raised taxes more? It is hard to quantify. If you measured the increases in the revenue stream, the Huckabee tax cuts far exceeded Clinton’s but that would be unfair because the economy had grown and the same penny of tax would produce far more under Huckabee.But if you look at the major taxes, I see the aggregate Huckabee taxes as greater, especially if you deduct the 4 cent gasoline and diesel taxes that Clinton vetoed in 1985 and that the legislature enacted over his veto. Anyway, the sales tax is the big revenue producer. Both raised it by 1.5 cents on the dollar and both expanded it to cover a myriad of services. Clinton raised motor fuel taxes a little more, Huckabee cigarette taxes a lot more.A further note: Huckabee claims credit for a major tax cut in 1997, saying it was the first tax cut in Arkansas history (there had been many prior to that) and that he forced the Democratic legislature to curtail its impulse to always raise taxes. The facts: The omnibus income tax cut bill of 1997 was proposed by Gov. Jim Guy Tucker in the spring of 1996. It had multiple (7) features, all aimed at relief for middle-class families or the elderly. He asked interim legislative committees to expand on his plan. Tucker then resigned before the legislature convened after his conviction on Whitewater-related charges, and Huckabee took office. At the legislative session that followed, the Democratic caucus of the House (88 of the 100 members) made the Tucker tax cuts its chief program. The bill was introduced with 83 sponsors (all Democrats) and all Democrats voted for it. It was unopposed. Huckabee’s tax cut was to give each taxpayer a check for $25 each fall, saying it would help offset the burden of sales taxes on groceries (the repeal of which he repeatedly opposed). The legislature rejected Huckabee’s plan and passed the Tucker bill. Huckabee signed it into law.The 94 tax cuts that he said he fathered are similarly misleading. The vast majority of those were the usual exemptions and modifications of various taxes and fees that the legislature enacts every time it meets. They were not a part of Huckabee’s program with a few exceptions. Rather, Democratic legislators sponsored them, usually at the behest of whatever special interest benefited, and Huckabee signed them when they hit his desk. If you did a similar summary of Clinton’s years he could claim probably well over 100 tax cuts. Every Arkansas governor since World War II could claim dozens each.If you counted all the tax benefits extended to corporations under the incentives enacted by the legislature under Clinton — and they were part of his programs, especially in 1983, 1985 and 1989 — the tax cuts would dwarf those under Huckabee. posted by THE LEADER..."(Emphasis was added by me.) The bottom line is that despite is pastoral rhetoric, which is what I think is behind the support he is receiving, Huckabee is a wolf in sheep's clothing and we need to get the word out. Huckabee can only serve to play spoiler and give Giuliani the nomination. A win for him in Iowa doesn't help Huckabee, but rather hurts Romney and helps Giuliani.
posted by Jeff Fuller | 1:32 AM | permalinkCheck out the Iowa blog Round up post over at Iowans for RomneyI've re-done the right side blog-roll (AGAIN) to make the key Iowa sites more prominent. The two sub-headings that have "IOWA ACTION CENTER!!" are the most important or well-trafficked blogs. Jeff Fuller Friday, November 30, 2007
posted by SteveT | 9:28 AM | permalinkAlthough, I believe that Mitt will win Iowa, this a very plausible outcome if things go somewhat differently. Here it is .... Huckabee wins Iowa, Romney a close second. Rudy a distant 3rd or fourth. Romney wins Wyoming, which nobody is contesting. This is however, good for bragging rights later. Romney then wins New Hampshire, Rudy a distant 2nd or 3rd. Huckabee finishes not far behind Rudy. Momentum from this win propels Mitt Romney to victory in Michigan, with Rudy 2nd, Huckabee 3rd. Mitt then wins Nevada and Huckabee wins South Carolina. Having gone 0 for 5 Rudy's campaign collapses. Why would Rudy's campaign fall apart after not winning any of the early contests? Think about it. For almost a year now voters have heard that Rudy is the front-runner for the nomination. Week after week of defeats will raise questions about why Rudy is not able to win. Failure to win first in the Midwest (Iowa), then in the Northeast, again in the Midwest and finally in the South and West, will take their toll. This will be extremely difficult to explain away for a candidate who's main argument is that he is electable. Romney and Huck will be hyped to the hilt for their success and commentary about Rudy will only focus on why voters are rejecting him. Ninety percent of the voters who have only paid a limited attention to the race, will be shocked at Rudy's apparent dramatic collapse. Having suffered too many torpedoes to the Steamship Rudy, it will flounder and sink rapidly. With Rudy out of the way, Florida then becomes a battle between Huck and Romney, as does the Feb 5th primary. I really like our chances with this scenario. Although, I like our chances better with an Iowa win, which will lead us to almost certain victory. Fans of Rudy Giuliani will contest the likelihood of this happening. However, the electoral history of both parties is clearly on the side of the above scenario, with no candidate ever having been able to survive such a poor start.
posted by Jeff Fuller | 1:58 AM | permalinkSteven Swint from Dry Fly Politics alerted me to his post about how Romney (with HORRIBLE hair!!) went out early one morning to help a guy clean up his yard in the wake of the San Diego Fires WITHOUT inviting/alerting any press  ( original link here which originally came from a journal entry that someone shared via email with friends)    This is a man who doesn't just talk the talk . . . he walks the walk of hard work, compassion, and Christlike service. Romney for President! Jeff Fuller (Crossposted at -----> Iowans for Romney) Thursday, November 29, 2007
posted by Kyle Hampton | 5:49 PM | permalinkI've argued before that McCain is an ideologue - persisting in ideas regardless of facts. Of course even an ideologue can be right. Such an outcome is more the result of luck than anything else. The more likely result of blind adherence to ideas is failure. It is much more likely that a man like Mitt, through rigorous analysis of facts and arguments, will have the right answer. Such is the case of the exchange between McCain and Romney over "waterboarding" last night. Most pundits praised McCain for his spirited stand on waterboarding, even as he got the facts wrong. From James Taranto at the OpinionJournal's Best of the Web: This column likes and admires John McCain, but an exchange in last night's Republican debate reminds us why we are uneasy with the idea of his becoming president. McCain had an exchange with Mitt Romney on the subject of "waterboarding," an interrogation technique that the CIA is believed to have used to extract life-saving information from a few high-level al Qaeda terrorists. Romney has no clear position on whether waterboarding is "torture," but McCain does. He said: "I am astonished that you would think such a--such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our--who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention. It's in violation of existing law. "And, governor, let me tell you, if we're going to get the high ground in this world and we're going to be the America that we have cherished and loved for more than 200 years. We're not going to torture people. "We're not going to do what Pol Pot did. We're not going to do what's being done to Burmese monks as we speak." Romney persisted in leaving his options open, and McCain replied: "Well, then you would have to advocate that we withdraw from the Geneva Conventions, which were for the treatment of people who were held prisoners, whether they be illegal combatants or regular prisoners of war. Because it's clear the definition of torture." McCain profoundly misunderstands the Geneva Conventions, which were designed to impose basic rules of warfare. Protecting those who ignore the rules is directly contrary to the purpose of the conventions. The conventions did not in fact protect illegal combatants, and to the extent that they now do, it is the result only of activist judges--namely, the five justices who ruled last year, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that enemy combatants are entitled to some protections under the conventions' Common Article 3--which was written to apply to civil wars, not conflicts with international terrorist organizations. (For a full exposition, see our June 26 Wall Street Journal op-ed.) It is true that it would be a violation of international law to torture even an al Qaeda terrorist. The relevant treaty, however, is not the Geneva Conventions but the Convention Against Torture, which imposes an absolute ban. If McCain doesn't know this, why is even Romney eager to credit him as some sort of authority? "Sen. McCain," Romney said, "I appreciate your strong response, and you have the credentials upon which to make that response." McCain, of course, is supposed to have "moral authority" because, as a naval airman decades ago, he was tortured at the hands of his North Vietnamese communist captors. (By the way, were any of them ever tried for war crimes?) Moral authority, however, is not a substitute for accurate information. Furthermore, it is a matter of controversy whether waterboarding constitutes torture. McCain's position is certainly a defensible one, but we find his instinct unsettling. There are going to be gray areas in the war on terror, and we'd rather have the man at the top be someone who, when faced with difficult questions, errs on the side of protecting American women and children from being murdered rather than protecting terrorists from being treated unpleasantly.
Labels: John McCain
posted by Nealie Ride | 5:12 PM | permalink
posted by Justin Hart | 12:52 PM | permalinkThe first "primary" race in Virginia just took place today! And Romney won. At 1:30 today, Mitt Romney filed 15,000 signatures to meet the requirements for Virginia presidential primary. Every campaign in the race will tell you that Virginia has the most difficult process to get on the ballot. You have to submit 10,000 signatures with at least 400 signatures from each 11 congressional districts. Each county or city entity has to have its own petition page for signatures and you need the voter address and in some cases the last four digits of the social security number for it to be valid. People who collect signatures have to be registered voters in Virginia (in other words you can't farm this out to high schoolers). The VA ballot submissions opened up yesterday and as far as we know Romney is the first candidate to file. Other candidates like Huckabee are paying 50 cents per signature. Thompson and Edwards are just getting started. It will be interesting to see on December 14th who the actual candidates will be on the ballot. As background, there are only a handful of paid staffers for Romney in Virginia but dozens (if not hundreds) of volunteers chipped in during the elections in November to help get the signatures required. Whole Saturdays were dedicated to rounding up the needed votes. Unlike other campaign Romney did this with a grassroots flare and did not outsource it. Kudos to Team Romney, Lt. Gov. Bolling, and the VA team for making this happen. This is one more example of why Romney is the best candidate to face the formidable forces of the DEMS in the general election. Labels: grassroots, primaries, primary, Virginia
posted by Justin Hart | 9:51 AM | permalink Fresh off his excellent showing at the debate Wednesday night, Mitt Romney announces the endorsement of American Conservative Union President David Keene. WP Blog has the details: Keene said he became "convinced that Mitt Romney represents our best hope for 2008" and added that in the weeks remaining before the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3, 2008 he would work to persuade "my fellow conservatives that if we are serious about electing a conservative president in 2008, it's time to unite behind his candidacy." Long courted by Romney, Keene agreed to formalize his endorsement of the former governor during a face to face meeting in Florida on Tuesday, according to knowledgeable sources. Of Keene, Romney said he was "proud" to have the endorsement for his "campaign for conservative change."
Keene is a longtime member of the conservative movement, having spent the last quarter-century at the American Conservative Union. Prior to that post, Keene held a number of political positions including Southern regional political director for Ronald Reagan in 1976, national political director for George H. W. Bush in 1980 and senior adviser to Bob Dole in 1988 and 1996. Labels: acu, davide keene, endoresements, Endorse, Endorsement
posted by Myclob | 7:50 AM | permalink
posted by Justin Hart | 2:10 AM | permalinkI just finished watching the debate on the 11:00 replay. I thought is was pretty engaging and I think that Romney won decisively. One thing that gets me excited about Romney is that his message machine is always running full throttle. Everyone of us should hold the Bush administration accountable for their total inability to communicate and get out their message. We need a President who can flood the zone of communications and win the war of words. Talking to a few other bloggers they tell me the first Romney videos were up on YouTube just minutes into the debate. Email endorsements followed. Of course, the " what they're saying" emails were fresh off the presses minutes after debate. Also, notice also the full court press of videos by Romney endorsers in support of their candidate. This is the best of both worlds: win the debate in actuality and then win it again in the press. Is this how Iowa will play out? Labels: debate Wednesday, November 28, 2007
posted by Aaron Gulbransen | 10:42 PM | permalink-Crime, wow that was dreadfully understated, I am surprised that Rudy didn’t try to hammer his crime record home. -Wow, Paul said something coherent. -Thompson made a good point about abortion. -Federal ban question is interesting. Giuliani gave the politically correct answer on Roe v. Wade. Romney had a good -“Death penalty, what would Jesus do?” I hate that argument. Jesus wasn’t all sunshine and fluff. Read the New Testament. -“Jesus was too smart to run for public office.” –Huckabee. As much as I hate to admit it, that line was golden. -“Do you believe every word in the Bible?” -Rudy seemed uncomfortable with the question. -“I believe the Bible is the word of God.” – Romney -Alright, Huckabee, we know you were a minister. -Romney’s videos are always the best. I liked the rolling up the sleeves -Commercial- -“What would you do as President to repair the image of the United States in the Muslim world?” Why is no one asking the Muslim world how they can repair their image in our eyes? -Rudy always gives great answers in relation to terrorism questions, as does John McCain. -Ok, the best line may now go to Duncan Hunter. “I will never apologize for the United States of America.” -Romney always gives great answers when asked about terrorism and methods used. -Oh, McCain just hit him with righteous indignation. Romney’s response was good, though. I doubt this will leave a lasting impression. -The British were the ones that messed up the political boundaries in the Middle East in the first half of last century. -Ron Paul couldn’t even name the Kurds to the North. -Ron Paul is completely wrong. The terrorists hate the west because they do not dominate the west. They want to dominate the west. The Arabs as a people once dominated the world but were stopped. Then they faded and became backwater countries and are angry about it. They believe that they have the right to take over the world. It doesn’t matter what we do, the terrorists will still behave the same way. -Rudy was a great mayor, but a great mayor does not make a great president. -Too much power for the VP? I don’t know, but I’m pretty impressed with a man that shot another man in the face and the guy who he shot wound up apologizing to him for causing him trouble. I love Dick Cheney. -Commercial- -A homosexual General just asked a question about homosexuals in the military. This guy is trying to make one last stand for his homosexuality. This may be controversial, but homosexuality is a choice. If one wants to serve in the military, one must choose which is more important to them. In the military, the needs of the many DEFINITELY outweigh the needs of the few. -National debt question. Fred had a good quip, “I would protect their generation from our generation.” -Again, Romney is the only one I trust in relation to economics and fixing our fiscal problems. -Why don’t African-Americans vote for Republicans? My answer is that unfortunately, as a community, they bought the Democrat lie that Democrats care more about them than Republicans do. Then, over the years the Republicans have written off their vote. Elections are a game of numbers and are often thought of in the short-term. The minority vote has note been cultivated because it is doubted that it can be counted on. -Dicey question, a question about the Confederate flag… Romney’s answer was great. The Confederate flag has no place in the public sphere. -Ron Paul was asked about running as an independent and said that he was not going to because he was a Republican. That didn’t stop him from running for President as a Libertarian in the past. -The last question was a softball and Giuliani handled a laugher. Rudy laughingly pointed out that the Yankees hadn’t won a World Series since he left office. -As a Mets fan, Romney clearly at the best line of the night: “Like most Americans, we love our sports teams, and hate the Yankees.” -Overall this debate has been extremely entertaining. The question is, did we demean the process? I believe we did. I believe that Americans do have the right to question their potential leaders, but the manner in which it was done is ridiculous. The YouTube debate should never happen again. I was for the debate and even joined Patrick Ruffini’s petition to save it, because the Democrats did it and it put the Republicans in the position that they would look like tightwads by refusing to participate. The bottom line is that this debate hurt the dignity of the process. If you were a foreigner or a terrorist watching this debate, what would you think? The format of the debate was horrendous.
posted by Aaron Gulbransen | 10:13 PM | permalinkI wrote down my thoughts as the debate was running. I thought I'd share them with you. These are unedited. Running Thoughts: -Thank God Anderson Cooper is moderating this instead of Wolf Bitzer. -Governor Crist has sure spent a lot of time in the tanning bed. -I sure hope that Duncan Hunter gets a cabinet position. -What is Ron Paul still doing on the stage? -Was it just me or did Mitt get the biggest cheer when he came out? -Gloria Borger just said she expects to see Romney taking a lot of hits “because he really the man to beat.” -The montage at the beginning was hilarious but probably demonstrative of how ridiculous this may become. Hopefully I am proven wrong.
-The first video, the one where the guy played the song was hilarious. -Brooklyn guy asked great question and nailed Rudy on illegal immigration and really nailed him. For all the talk that Romney is a flip-flopper, Rudy is a flip-flopper on illegal immigration. Romney got a great follow-up and explained his opinion very well. Romney got pissed at Rudy’s point, but it was good that he showed his anger. Unfortunately, I think that Rudy won the exchange because of his very basic response that illegal immigrants had worked at Romney’s house. -Wow, there is real animosity between Rudy and Mitt. -Here’s the real story about Romney’s “employment” of illegal immigrants. He hired a landscaping service to work the grounds of his home. How many of us actually check the green cards of people that work for our landscapers? -Is it me or is it impossible to watch Fred Thompson speak without thinking of Arthur Branch? (His role on Law and Order) Thompson just insulted Rudy about Kerik without mentioning his name. I laughed out loud. -Rudy is losing steam on illegal immigration because others, not just Romney refuted his claim that NYC wasn’t a sanctuary city. -Giuliani’s and McCain’s habit of splitting hairs on illegal immigration annoys me. New York was/is a sanctuary city, while McCain’s immigration bill was amnesty. -Tancredo has a good sense of humor. He’s a one issue guy, but I agree with his stance on that issue. “I reject that there are jobs that no American will take.” Good statement. -Duncan Hunter could probably kill a man with one hand tied behind his back. -There is no question that we need to secure our borders. The crowd was behind answers that said as such. -Huckabee just got nailed on illegal immigration by comparing illegal aliens tuition breaks with the children of military members. -This may be the line of the night, “Mike, it’s not your money. It’s the taxpayer’s money.” –Romney -Romney has a Joint MBA/JD from Harvard and he graduated with honors. Does anyone realize how hard that is to achieve? -Ron Paul looks like he is going to keel over. -Republicans did let spending get out of control. -McCain made a great point about the SCHIP. I also think he plays well in the debates. I wish he was as conservative in real life as he is on TV. -Mitt is the only one I really trust in terms of curbing spending. -The out-of-control spending has really hurt the Republican Party. When your base is upset with you, you are not in a good situation. -Ron Paul got owned by McCain. His supporters tried to drown McCain out. I have absolutely no respect for Ron Paul or his supporters. Get Ron Paul off the stage. He has no business being there. -Getting rid of the IRS and the Fair-Tax got Huckabee good applause. -I really don’t think Huckabee would keep to that pledge given this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pLOC4krZI4 and other things he’s done. -Mitt just gave good reasoning why he supports farm subsidies AND tied it in with energy independence. Nice. -Tancredo’s video was cool. -Romney is pro-life. -Commercial Break- -Thompson made me laugh with his comment about not telling anyone where his guns are. I’m surprised that McCain does not own a gun.
posted by Anonymous | 10:12 PM | permalinkThe night finishes out with Giuliani explaining his pandering over the Red Sox after the Yankees lost and Romney sharing his love for the Red Sox. Since Giuliani and Romney entered the race, it has been all Boston. First the Red Sox, now Romney!!! All-in-all a great performance by Mitt tonight amongst difficult questions and multiple attacks on him. Mitt showed his statesmen like demeanor, declining to get petty when others were attacking him on false issues. This chalks up as one of Mitt's best performances and a great debate for contrasts between Mitt and the other candidates.
posted by Anonymous | 10:09 PM | permalinkRon Paul just spouted about the "revolution happening." He has really hijacked the party at this point if he doesn't withdraw after he loses the nomination process.
posted by Anonymous | 10:04 PM | permalinkRomney rightly points out that our country doesn't need the confederate flag. Compares it to the divisiveness of John Edwards saying there are two Americas. There is only one. Stars and Stripes Forever.
posted by Anonymous | 9:53 PM | permalinkRomney uses debt and social security question to pivot to fiscal conservatism. "Stronger America with a Stronger Economy."
posted by Anonymous | 9:42 PM | permalinkDid I miss that? Did Huckabee's ad have the "Christian Leader" tag line edited out in the version just aired? Perhaps he felt the heat I sent his way? I may have just missed it.
posted by Anonymous | 9:32 PM | permalinkMcCain gets a chance to go after Romney. He wants this since no one really takes him seriously anymore. McCain, of course, is misstating what Romney is saying. I know we don't want to torture people, but it doesn't prevent them from cutting our heads off. If we tell our enemies all of the details of what might happen to them, they will be training on how to resist those techniques.
posted by Anonymous | 9:14 PM | permalinkHuckabee claims he read every page of every case that came before him to review for death penalty. They must have sent him an executive summary that he reviewed because there ain't no way that is true.
posted by Anonymous | 9:11 PM | permalinkWhat crime should a woman be charged with if abortion becomes illegal? Thompson and Paul say doctors should be prosecuted, but not the women presenting themselves for the abortion. Hmmm... I can't see how that is consistent. You wouldn't make that distinction on any other crime. Giuliani would veto federal bill outlawing abortion. Romney said he would sign it if that was where the country was.
posted by Anonymous | 9:05 PM | permalinkGovernor Romney uses question on crime to reinforce family values. Talks about children born out of wedlock. Talks about education. Romney realizes that education and families are a necessary precursor to reducing crime. You can't lock them up fast enough as our society deteriorates. Believe me, there are too many criminals to take their place. Romney responds to Giuliani about crime: keeps it clean. I might have slammed Giuliani.
posted by Anonymous | 8:53 PM | permalinkThomspon's candidate video shows Romney when he was "effectively pro-choice." Romney tells how he became pro-life and how his decisions as Governor were for life. He is soundly pro-life. Gets some cheers as well.
posted by Anonymous | 8:52 PM | permalinkHunter says buy American. Do you think we could get "Made in America, By Americans" on clothing soon?
posted by Anonymous | 8:40 PM | permalinkGiulaini gets question about Politico story on his expenses for visiting the Hamptons. Giuliani claims it was for security, but no denial the costs were associated with his extramarital affair, which it sounds like they were. I have a feeling this won't be the end of the story.
posted by Anonymous | 8:38 PM | permalinkWhy won't Fred or anyone just call it like it is: social security is little better than a pyramid scheme. It isn't financially sound. The trillions of dollars in debt is just the beginning if it isn't fixed.
posted by Anonymous | 8:35 PM | permalinkWell, I am going to liveblog the YouTube debate tonight since, I got my third guilty verdict this month today and deserve a break. Huckabee and Romney just had a good spar over giving better benefits to illegals for school than to citizens. Romney is absolutely 100% right on this issue. I hope Iowans realize that Huckabee may very well be worse than Bush on illegal immigration.
posted by Anonymous | 7:03 PM | permalinkRomney has just been handed a major endorsement of his pro-life policies as governor and position as presidential candidate. The Republican Majority for Choice, a pro-abortion group, intends to run ads criticizing Romney. Frankly, they can say whatever they want. For those opposed to abortion, this should be a cannonball across your stern: Romney is Being Attacked for Being Pro-Life because people know he will be Pro-Life as President!!!
posted by Anonymous | 6:41 PM | permalinkSome people call this misappropriation of public funds. Personal life doesn't always steer clear of your public obligations does it? Between Huckabee and Giuliani, we may be in Duke Cunningham territory if we don't go with the Romney.
posted by Kyle Hampton | 4:16 PM | permalinkEven Larry Sabato sees the fallacy of the Huckabee rise: Now comes Mike Huckabee, the 2008 model of McCain 2000. This former Arkansas Governor began as a long-shot, remains under-funded, violates GOP orthodoxy on taxes (he's raised a bunch) and employs class-warfare rhetoric against "the rich" and "big business" (not what one normally hears from Republican candidates), and most of all, chats up every available journalist with homespun humor aplenty. The consequence has been a series of puff pieces that can make one blush. No doubt, Huckabee would produce a fascinating fall campaign, were he the nominee, and he is probably going to get a decent start by doing reasonably well in the low-turnout Iowa caucuses. However, what the press doesn't stress to Republicans are Huckabee's drawbacks: virtually no foreign policy experience--he'll make Hillary Clinton's time as first lady look like the equivalent of serving as secretary of state; alienation of the anti-tax wing of the GOP (opposition to taxes is one of the few issues that unites Republicans these days), and his status as a Baptist minister and Southern state chief executive with strong evangelical support (reminiscent of George W. Bush in a year when even Republicans want somebody very different).
posted by Jeff Fuller | 12:31 AM | permalinkAs an update to my "A vote for Huckabee is a vote for Rudy" post. The New York Sun has a piece called "Giuliani, Huckabee Emerge as Strange Bedfellows"Time's take is noted in the article " Giuliani's Huckabee Strategy" Rich Lowry of the National Review sees this trend in his "The Corner" post "Rudy and Huck sittin in a Tree . . . " (Is that making it to "second base" . . . I always forget that grading system of a physical relationship): These pieces in Time and the New York Sun point out something that's been increasingly evident over the last few days: how nicely Rudy and Huck's strategies mesh. They both are attacking Romney for a lack of authenticity, with Huck blasting the former Massachusetts governor on social issues and Rudy blasting him on everything else. Together, they've got all the ground covered. The division of labor works geographically as well — Huck is threatening Romney in Iowa, which could weaken Romney in New Hampshire, where Rudy is increasingly vested in a strong finish (so much for the old Florida and Feb. 5 strategy). At the end of the day, I'm sure that the Rudy folks would like nothing more than for Huck to win the "conservative primary" within the Republican primary and emerge as the alternative to Rudy. Huck would be the weakest anti-Rudy contender. This seems so obvious that if I were a calculating Rudy donor who had already maxed out for my guy, I'd be tempted to send some money Huck's way. These kind of transparently calculating alliances tend to backfire. Evangelical Christians don't want to be used as a tool to elect a pro-choice nominee and then have to vote 3rd party to protect the pro-life cause. Talk about a "Lose-Lose" situation. Jeff Fuller Tuesday, November 27, 2007
posted by Myclob | 11:20 PM | permalink Below is Mitt Romney's Wikipedia biography. If you Google Mitt Romney, it is the 2nd page that comes up. Below is the first thing you read about Mitt Romney on the site. Lets see if you can count, with me, the number of times his religion, religious practices, and polygamy are mentioned as important facts about Romney in the minds of the people who edit Wikipedia. Biography Born on March 12, 1947 in Detroit, Michigan, Mitt Romney is the son of former Michigan Governor and 1968 presidential candidate George W. Romney and 1970 U.S. Senate candidate Lenore Romney. His name "Willard" was after hotel magnate J. Willard Marriott, his father's best friend. Mitt, his middle name, comes from a relative who played football for the Chicago Bears. Romney married his high school girlfriend Ann Davies in 1968. Both are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1), commonly known as Mormons (2), though Ann was raised Episcopalian (3). They have five married sons (Tagg, Matt, Josh, Ben and Craig) and eleven grandchildren. Romney's great-grandparents were polygamist (4) Mormons (5) who fled to Mexico in 1884 after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld various anti-polygamy (6) laws in 1879. Romney's father, George Romney, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, and the family moved to the United States in 1912 after the outbreak of the Mexican Revolution. Romney is a former bishop (7) and stake president (8) in his church, and he attends a temple (9) regularly. As a devout Mormon, (10) he does not drink (11) or smoke (12). He's also a proponent of family values, saying that he abstained from sex until marriage and has since remained faithful to his wife of 39 years. Do you think democrats are trying to make this all about Romney's unpopular religion? There are 12 mentions of his religious practices, and polygamy in his biography. How many times do you think the articles about Rudy, McCain, HIllary, and Barak mention their religion? Take a wild guess. If you go to the "Talk" page you can complain. I did just that, about the stupid way that it discusses Romney's abstinence from sex until he was married. My experience with user generated content (were no one with a job, or training can be held responsible for a page's content) has kind of scared more for what is going to happen tomorrow, when CNN gets to attack republicans and hide behind the crowd… Anyways, back to Wikipedia, please look around the site and tell me what you think. Are they fair? Do they treat Romney the same as Rudy or Hillary? I say no. No other candidate has their religion mentioned 12 times. No other candidate has scandalous behavior of their grandparent's discussed. And it's not just the fact that these things are mentioned, but that they are mentioned at the top of the page, as the first (and most likely last things that people read about Romney, as most people just want the executive summary) thing in the page, which can, according to the people that edit the wikipedia article, be summed up with one word: MORMON. Not businessman. Not father. Not reformer. Not grandfather. Not Olympic turn-arounder… Not budget balance, not tax cutter, not border enforcer. No… just one word… the only word that matters when you are talking about someone who goes to the Mormon church: nothing else in their life matters, except the fact that they are Mormon.
posted by Kyle Hampton | 6:10 PM | permalink The CNN/Youtube debate is tomorrow. Don't forget to watch it. Make sure to bring friends that can see the Governor debate. Also, the campaign says that they will be offering behind-the-scenes footage from the debate hall in St. Petersburg, Florida and live streaming responses during and after the debate at MittRomney.com. Labels: debate
posted by Anonymous | 2:49 PM | permalinkI was really bothered this morning when I saw the latest Huckabee ad. It took me a while to put my finger on why, but it has something to do with the "Christian Leader" tag line that ran across the screen midway. Somewhere along the line, I got this idea of equality stuck in my head while growing up. I don't really know how it got there. But it runs something like this, you should not judge a person based upon their race, sex, or religion. Our society should look beyond those things and look at a person for who they are. In fact, I considered it a hallmark of religious freedom to not have others judging you for being true to your beliefs because we respected that it is better to live in a society where we don't persecute others for their beliefs. Somewhat related to what Kathryn Jean Lopez had to say at NRO today. Now, I am an attorney, and the misuse of these same categories can subject you to sanction as an ethics violation. People will say that race and sex are different from religion. But to me they aren't. Sure, if someone's religious belief is dangerous, I have a problem with that, but not with the belief itself, with the manifestation and action upon that belief and the harm it will cause to society. The use of religion by Huckabee to promote his political aspirations is extraordinarily opportunistic and despicable. What is Huckabee going to do when he is running against Hillary, run an ad with the tag line in the background, "Male Leader?" Or what about if he runs against Barack Obama, is Huckabee going to have a tag line that says "White Leader?" There are some differences that just should not be contrasted. Huckabee's playing of the religion card is one of those examples. I don't like it and I don't think it is becoming of a presidential candidate. Do we really want candidates stating their religion as the reason they should be elected to office? There is a certain vainness in turning any religious name, especially Christ into a campaign slogan. Something about this just doesn't sit well with me. It is clearly a strategy to win, but I don't think it is one to be proud of. I believe in an America where what denomination you belong to does not determine whether you can be President. I would never vote for Romney because he is a Mormon. I would never vote against him because he is a Mormon. Likewise, I would never vote against Huckabee because he is a Christian and I would never vote for him because he is one. That vote wouldn't be rational, because it would ignore all of the other qualities that might make someone a very good leader, or a very bad one.
posted by Devon Murphy | 2:12 PM | permalinkFrom ABC: Romney also responded to a report in the Politico where he is quoted as saying at a private fundraiser that he could not "see that a cabinet position would be justified" for a Muslim.
Romney claimed the quote was inaccurate, rather that he didn't consider it important to have a Muslim in his Cabinet. "His question was: 'Do I need to have a Muslim in my Cabinet to be able to confront radical jihad and would it be important to have a Muslim in my Cabinet?' And I said no. I don’t think that you have to have a Muslim in the Cabinet to be able to take on radical jihad."
The Romney camp also asserts that Mansoor Ijaz, the gentleman quoted in the Politico report who had the exchange with Romney, is a Democratic fundraiser with a political agenda.
Asked if he would be open to having a Muslim person in his Cabinet, Romney stated he is "open to having people of any faith and ethic group but it would be based upon their capacity and their capabilities and the values and skills that they could bring to the administration.
"But I don’t choose people based on checking off a box," Romney added.
posted by jason | 10:43 AM | permalinkMr. Ijaz, I just read your article claiming that Romney will automatically disqualify any Muslim for top level cabinet positions. But I found several problems with your story and of course some interesting personal circumstances of your own that require some attention. If you could answer these questions, as soon as possible, I would appreciate it.
- You claim Romney made this comment directly to you at a fundraiser. As journalist, how were you able to get into a fundraiser? I am assuming you paid the entrance fee.
- If you did pay the entrance fee, why would you donate money to Romney when according to the FEC records you solely donate to democrats? (Google search, “Ijaz Romney, page 2”)
- Why is Romney’s answer directly quoted yet your question is not?
- How are you able to remember Romney’s answer in such detail when in all probability you had no recording device, since press is not allowed at fundraisers?
- if you did have a recording device, are yo willing to share the whole conversation with the rest of the world?
- Why should I, a conservative who wants a conservative to win the presidency, believe the from-memory-account of a liberal pundit who donates quite regularly to the Clinton campaign?
- Lastly, do you always write articles that make you sound like a disgruntled job applicant? Just curious.
I know you’re a busy man, and keeping stories straight takes time and strategy, but when you are ready you can email me at jasonpbonham@gmail.com. Looking forward to your answers. Sincerely, Jason P. Bonham www.mymanmitt.com www.race42008.com www.illinoisreview.com Romney's Faith and Value Steering Committee
posted by Jeff Fuller | 1:35 AM | permalinkI've updated the "Iowa Blogroll" in the right sidebar at Iowans for Romney and have included a lot more of the best state blogs (including a few lefty sites for fun). I also have a section linking to some blogs or column features of major Iowa news outlets where lots of comments are often generated. Also, I feel a little like a Ronulan (my favorite nickname for Ron Paul supporters . . . and no, I'm not a total Star Trek nerd) doing this, but there are some online polls at a few Iowa based blogsites that Romney could win with a little boost. Polls: The Real Sporer (left sidebar) Cyclone Conservatives (right sidebar) Iowa Collegiate Republicans (right sidebar) Update: My "A vote for Huckabee is a vote for Rudy" post has started to attract some attention. Chris at The Mason Conservative said he agreed with "every word of it." New Romney supporter who is a RedState Contributor Leon Wolfe linked to it in the "RedHot" section at RedState with the lead-in "I agree with this absolutely". Jeff Fuller Monday, November 26, 2007
posted by Myclob | 10:26 PM | permalink HH: Joined now by Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts. Governor, welcome back, hope you had a great Thanksgiving. MR: It was a great Thanksgiving. A little touch football and a lot of turkey. HH: Excellent. Now Governor, a lot of ground to cover. There's a controversy about Judge Tuttman, one of your appointees. Can you tell us how you came to appoint her, and your reaction to her decision to release the man who went out and murdered two young, wonderful people in Washington State? MR: Yeah, as a matter of fact, I've appointed some sixty judges. And in each case, I wanted to find people who would be law and order judges and follow the law. This judge had served 17 years as a prosecutor, putting bad people away, and so I had every reason to believe that the judge would be a law and order judge. And ultimately, I believe she made a very bad decision. This is a person who had been in jail, he'd served his term, but was up for assault, and she let him go on personal recognizance, and he ended up killing someone. And in my view, she made a very bad judgment, and as a result, she should step down from the bench. HH: Was it your choice entirely to put her on the bench? Or are you limited in the candidates brought to you? MR: No, actually, there is a process, a judicial nominating council, which selects people and forwards them to me, and then I interview them. And if I want them, I nominate them, and then there is further a Governor's Council made up of eight Democrats, elected, who decide yes or no on these people. But there's no reason to think that this person would not be a law and order judge. And so I'm not embarrassed about this selection of her. I think she made a very bad choice. HH: Okay, this judge issue, Mitt Romney, is it going to plague you in New Hampshire, is it going to hurt you in Iowa? MR: You know, there'll be an attempt by some to suggest that all of the judges that someone appoints or votes for are somehow, that their decisions are somehow your responsibility. I just don't think that's the case. If you select somebody who is a known liberal, and they do liberal things, why, that's maybe a different matter. But you have people in the United States Senate that voted for Ruth Bader Ginsberg that would certainly not want to be responsible for all of her decisions. And I don't think it rises to that kind of level. And frankly, it was Mayor Giuliani who tried to do that. And of all the people who might have raised a question of judgment on selecting someone, Mayor Giuliani was not the one to do it, given the fact that he nominated someone to be the secretary of Homeland Security, who he knew was under investigation, and who has since pled guilty to crimes, and is under federal indictment on sixteen other potential crimes. HH: Should the Bernie Kerik…or when Rudy urged Bernie Kerik on President Bush, should that a be a concern about his judgment for other people? And will that raise a question about whether or not you'll get Soutered if can't pick judges in Massachusetts? MR: You know, I didn't make any comment about Bernie Kerik's connection to Rudy Giuliani. I made no comment about Rudy Giuliani's judgment in that regard. But when he came out and attacked me for a decision of a judge, that was a very different setting, and I responded that he was the last person I would have expected to make that kind of a statement. And I agree with Senator McCain on this, that it showed very bad judgment on Mayor Giuliani's part to have somebody who had been implicated for political corruption being recommended to the President of the United States as the Secretary of Homeland Security. HH: Here's what Rudy had to say just earlier today on Fox News. RG: I think Mitt has a record, he's got to defend his own record, and I don't think his record is going to be a record that he's going to talk about very much. We talk about our record a lot, and we talk about the things I did in New York, and I want to do them for the rest of the country. And he kind of runs away from it. So there is a difference. HH: Your response, Governor Romney? MR: (laughing) Well, I talk about my record in my stump speech everywhere I go, and I'm very proud of it. I came into the state when we had a $3 billion dollar budget gap, and I worked together with people across the aisle, and we were able to close that gap in the first year. I balanced the budget every single year. And at the end of four years, I left a $2 billion dollar rainy day fund. Now compare that with Mayor Giuliani's. He came in and faced a $1.5 billion dollar budget gap, but at the end of his tenure, he left a $3 billion dollar budget hole which the new mayor, Mayor Bloomberg, said was an economic mess, which he would not pass along to his successor. And by the way, the tax rate in Boston when I left office, was 5.3%. The tax rate in New York when the Mayor left office was over 10%. So I'm happy to talk about my record. I also put in place a health plan that gets every citizen insured. Those that didn't have insurance now get free market insurance, and that's the right course for America. HH: You know, Mara Liasson said on Fox today that your health plan is the same as Hillary's. MR: Who said that? HH: Mara Liasson said that on Fox News, Brit Hume's Special Report today. MR: Oh, you know, I don't know her, but I can tell you this, which is I want to get everybody to get insurance. I don't want people to worry about losing their insurance. But Hillary has a very different plan than mine. Hers cost $110 billion dollars more. Mine costs no more at all. Hers gives people government insurance. I instead help them get private free market insurance. And hers is a one size fits all plan, dictated from Washington. Mine, instead, says let's let each state create their own plan that is consistent with getting people insured. So we have similar objectives, which is helping people to get inside the health care system, but we approach it in a very different way. Mine is a free market way, hers, government. HH: Former Massachusetts GOP Chairman, Jim Rappaport, blasted you today when he endorsed Rudy, and called you untrustworthy, blah, blah, blah. What's Jim Rappaport got against Mitt Romney? MR: Well, Jim Rappaport wanted to be my lieutenant governor, and worked very hard in a campaign to become lieutenant governor, and I endorsed his opponent, and worked hard for his opponent, and that opponent became my lieutenant governor. Her name is Kerry Healey. She served very well, and Jim is obviously very bitter about that choice. HH: The Annapolis Conference gets underway tomorrow, Governor Romney. And a lot of conservatives are skeptical that this is a good idea. What's your assessment of it? MR: Well, you know, I have very limited expectations from this conference. The President originally outlined a roadmap for peace in the Middle East, and in Israel. And the first phase of that was that the Palestinians would have security arrangements and governmental institutions which would allow them to make certain commitments that they could follow through on. And that has not happened. As a matter of fact, it's gotten worse, not better. And so calling this conference at this stage, is of potentially very limited value. Of course, it's fine for people to talk with one another, but because on the Palestinian side you really don't have anybody who can make any commitments for which there could be follow through, you have to be very skeptical about the outcome. HH: And Governor Romney, yesterday, the Times of London published a story about the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, blasting the United States, heaping scorn on "the chosen nation myth of America," meaning that what happens in America is very much at the heart of God's purpose for humanity, and saying that we had lost the moral high ground since September 11 th. One of the jobs of being president is to respond to attacks like this, especially when they come from quarters which are surprising, like the Archbishop of Canterbury. How do you respond to such a broadside from a Church leader like this? MR: You know, it does point out that we're very fortunate in our country not to have a state-sponsored religion… HH: Yes. MR: …because it would be a very difficult thing to have political leaders standing up and saying things of that nature if they were also religious leaders. And you know, I think you have to go through piece by piece, and say with him, he's entitled to his opinion, but he's certainly not speaking for God, and that this is a nation which has sacrificed more than any nation in the history of the Earth to preserve peace, and certainly has saved the bacon of people in Great Britain, and people in Europe generally, and the entire world doesn't speak German today because of the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of Americans. So it's not a great place for him to be making that kind of comment, and today, we are one of the nations that's taking the lead to keep the spread of violent, radical jihad from developing nuclear weaponry, and potentially threatening the existence of great civilizations. HH: Governor Romney, fifteen seconds, the absentees start getting cast in New Hampshire on the 10th of December. Are you feeling good about the Granite State? MR: You know, we're making progress in the Granite State, and in Iowa. I'm pleased. It's going to be a real battle, it's going to be real close before this is finished. HH: Mitt Romney, always a pleasure, catch up with you soon again.  
Hugh Hewitt and Governor Mitt Romney Hugh Hewitt and Governor Mitt Romney Interviews:
posted by Justin Hart | 9:38 PM | permalink At this very moment I am sitting outside a room that holds a $6 million machine conducting some interesting tests using the latest in brain-mapping technologies. I did a bunch of research on the topic and found this interesting piece that ran about two weeks back in the New York Times called " This is Your Brain on Politics". Basically, some brain researchers fed a group of swing voters through a machine while the voters were viewing photos and watching videos of the various candidates. The results? - The words "Democrats" and "Republicans" prompted the "amygdala" part of the brain to go wild. This part of the brain deals with anxiety and disgust. (The word "independent" elicited little or no response in men)
- Pictures of Hillary elicited activity in the anterior cingulate cortex which deals with emotions and conflicting choices.
- Hillary and Rudy represent the gender gap. You can guess which sex went which way.
- Here's the kicker on Romney. In their own words:
Mitt Romney shows potential. Of all the candidates’ speech excerpts, Mr. Romney’s sparked the greatest amount of brain activity, especially among the men we observed. His still photos prompted a significant amount of activity in the amygdala, indicating voter anxiety, but when the subjects saw him and heard his video, their anxiety died down. Perhaps voters will become more comfortable with Mr. Romney as they see more of him. There are some other interesting points made about Thompson, Obama and McCain. Take it for what its worth.... but I 'll reiterate a point I made last week. Voters may have an anxiety about voting for a Mormon, but they're not voting for just a Mormon, they're voting for Mitt Romney. And once people listen to Mitt, they tend to like him. Labels: brain study, mitt romney, science
posted by Anonymous | 8:46 PM | permalinkI always love when Romney reinforces his outstanding record as a governor on immigration. One aspect of the illegal immigration problem that is not often talked about is the relationship of illegal immigration to crime. There are way too many illegal immigrants in our criminal justice system. Only when we get are borders under control will we be able to attempt to ensure that those who are coming here are less likely to commit heinous crimes. In addition, those who do come here and commit crime, will hopefully then be prevented from returning. Mitt understands this.
posted by Kyle Hampton | 3:21 PM | permalinkNovak has a new piece out about Huckabee(titled: Huckabee, the False Conservative), and I don't think Huckabee is going to be all that happy about it: As a presidential candidate, Huckabee has sought to counteract his reputation as a taxer by pressing for replacement of the income tax with a sales tax and has more recently signed the no-tax-increase pledge of Americans for Tax Reform. But Huckabee simply does not fit in normal boundaries of economic conservatism, as when he criticized President Bush's veto of a Democratic expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Calling global warming a "moral issue" mandating "a biblical duty" to prevent climate change, he has endorsed the cap-and-trade system that is anathema to the free market.
Labels: mike huckabee
posted by Justin Hart | 2:14 PM | permalink
posted by Jeff Fuller | 3:19 AM | permalinkSee why at this blog entry at Iowans for Romney. Jeff Fuller Sunday, November 25, 2007
posted by Myclob | 10:07 PM | permalinkGIULIANI'S INCREASINGLY "FUZZY" STATS Giuliani Falsely Claims That "Violent Crime" Went Up In Massachusetts :
Yesterday, Giuliani Falsely Claimed That "Violent Crime" Went Up In Massachusetts. "'Gov. Romney did not have a good record in dealing with violent crime.' Giuliani pulled a sheet of paper out of his pocket that listed FBI crime statistics for Massachusetts while Romney was governor. Murders were up 7.5 percent, robbery was up 12 percent, he said. 'He had an increase in murder and violent crime while he was governor,' Giuliani said. 'So it's not so much the isolated situation which he and the judge will have to explain _ he's kind of thrown her under the bus, so it's hard to know how this is all going to come out. But the reality is, he did not have a record of reducing violent crime.'" (Charles Babington, "Romney Calls On Judge He Appointed To Resign After Washington State Murders," The Associated Press, 11/24/07)
FACT: According To The FBI Statistics, Overall "Violent Crime" Decreased In Massachusetts Under Governor Romney:
Under Governor Romney, the violent crime rate in Massachusetts decreased by over 7%. The violent crime rate was lower than the national average. Prior to Governor Romney, the violent crime rate was increasing.
 FACT: According To FBI Statistics, The Overall Crime Rate Decreased In Massachusetts Under Governor Romney:
Under Governor Romney, The Overall Crime Rate Fell By 8% Over His Four Years In Office. "Car thefts and larcenies also were down, in line with national trends, and helped contribute to an overall 8 percent decline in crime during Romney's four years, according to the FBI stats." (Dave Wedge, "Crime Up During Romney Tenure," The Boston Herald, 9/26/07)
FACT: According To FBI Statistics, Other Crimes Were Down Under Governor Romney (2002-2006):
- Assaults Down 15%. (FBI Crime in the United States Website, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr, Accessed 10/12/07)
- Rape Down 2%. (FBI Crime in the United States Website, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr, Accessed 10/12/07)
- Larceny/Theft Down 6%. (FBI Crime in the United States Website, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr , Accessed 10/12/07)
- Motor Vehicle Theft Down 32%. (FBI Crime in the United States Website, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr, Accessed 10/12/07)
FACT: This Isn't The First Time Giuliani Has Used "Fuzzy ... Math":
ABC News: Giuliani Uses "Fuzzy Healthcare Math" In Radio Ad. "To hear Rudy Giuliani describe it in his new radio ad, the British medical system is a scary place. 'My chance of surviving prostate cancer – and thank God I was cured of it – in the United States: 82 percent,' Giuliani says in a new radio spot airing in New Hampshire. 'My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England: Only 44 percent, under socialized medicine.' But the data Giuliani cites comes from a single study published eight years ago by a not-for-profit group, and is contradicted by official data from the British government. According to the United Kingdom's Office for National Statistics, for men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1999 and 2003, the 'five-year survival rate' – a common measurement in cancer statistics – was 74.4 percent." (Rick Klein, "Rudy's Fuzzy Healthcare Math," ABC News, 10/29/07)
The Annenberg Public Policy Center: Giuliani Wrongly Claims He Left A Budget Surplus. "Giuliani's radio ad also asserts that he 'turned a 2.3 billion deficit into a multibillion-dollar surplus' in New York. Well, not if you're comparing what he inherited with what he left, which would be a logical way to look at it. 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." ("Giuliani's Tax Puffery," FactCheck.org Website, http://www.factcheck.org/, 7/27/07)
The Washington Times: Giuliani Exaggerates Tax Cutting Number. "Mr. Giuliani repeated his claim that he 'cut taxes 23 times when I was mayor of New York.' It turns out that many of those cuts were instigated by Republican Gov. George Pataki and the state legislature. One of several glaring flaws in Mr. Giuliani's record on taxes was, as the Club for Growth says, his 1994 'opposition to Republican [gubernatorial] candidate George Pataki's proposed cut in the state income tax,' whose rates were among the highest in the country." (Editorial, "Romney And Giuliani," The Washington Times, 10/14/07)
posted by Myclob | 9:35 PM | permalinkThis article helped convince me that Romney, not McCain was the best presidential candidate. Now I have tons of great reasons not to vote for Giuliani... This latest article from Newsweek is a must read for anyone who is following the presidential election. It is in the Dec, 03 2007 Issue and is by Evan Thomas and Suzanne Smalley of NEWSWEEK. Here are some of my favorite parts, but you need to read the whole thing. On Sept. 16, 1992, the police in New York City held a rally that spun out of control. The cops wanted a new collective-bargaining agreement, and they were angry at Mayor David Dinkins for proposing a civilian review board and for refusing to issue patrolmen 9mm guns. More than a few of them tipsy or drunk, the cops jumped on cars near city hall and blocked traffic near the Brooklyn Bridge. According to some witnesses, they waved placards crudely mocking Mayor Dinkins, the first black mayor of New York, on racial grounds, while at the same time chanting "Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!" to welcome Rudy Giuliani, the crime-busting former U.S. attorney who had arrived in their midst to shore up his political base. It is not clear Giuliani knew exactly what he was getting himself into—he later denied that he did—but video shows him wildly gesticulating and shouting a profanity-laced diatribe against Dinkins...
Can you see Romney "wildly gesticulating" and "shouting a profanity-laced diatribe against Dinkins". Howard Dean's uncooth scream did him, in. I just can't wait till the republican party nominates this moron, and Hillary lets loose, and good bye Republican party... Can you see Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, or Ronald Reagan, "wildly gesticulating" and "shouting a profanity-laced diatribe against" someone they just beat? What does this story tell you about a guy? Sure drunken mobs love this stuff, but is the republican party a drunken mob? ...The next day the New York newspapers were sharply critical of Giuliani (a Daily News editorial called his behavior "shameful"), and Dinkins, years later, accused him of trying to stir up "white cops to riot." At the time, Giuliani refused to back down or apologize for his remarks, saying only: "I had four uncles who were cops. So maybe I was more emotional than I usually am."
But this is not the only time Rudy acted like a mad-man... Going to page 5 Loyalty has always been the greatest virtue to Giuliani, sometimes trumping all others. By loyalty, Giuliani's critics contend, he means "loyalty to Rudy." Disloyal subordinates learned this the hard way, even if they thought they were serving some higher master, like truth and justice. By the early '80s, Giuliani had risen to claim a top job in the Reagan administration Justice Department. At the time, the department was investigating McDonnell Douglas, the aircraft manufacturer, for making foreign bribes. Without telling career prosecutors who had been working on the case for months, Giuliani met with McDonnell Douglas defense lawyers. The career prosecutors were upset that a top official had gone over their heads, and wrote a letter to Giuliani expressing "shock" and "dismay," and warning that his secret meeting with the defense could undermine the prosecution's case. The letter leaked. Giuliani summoned the prosecutors, Michael Lubin and George Mendelson, to his office—and exploded.
"As far as I'm concerned, we were watching a madman," Lubin told Jim Stewart for his book "The Prosecutors." "I've never heard or seen anything like it, even in the movies . He ranted and raved for a full twenty minutes." Giuliani, who later dropped criminal indictments against four McDonnell Douglas executives as part of a plea agreement in which the company paid $1.2 million in fines, dismissed Lubin and Mendelson as "jerks." With petty vindictiveness, he withdrew a special Justice Department commendation awarded the two prosecutors.
When we have this guy as our Republican nominee, and Hillary kills him, don't say that we didn't warn you. You think Hillary isn't going to contact these people? You don't think Opera won't have them on her show? You think their won't be some Hollywood producer put together a YouTube video of them telling their story in dramatic fashion? "Loyalty to Giuliani means staying out of his limelight. Police Commissioner William Bratton discovered that in January 1996, when he made the mistake of posing for the cover of Time magazine in a trench coat to tout New York's astonishing success at fighting crime. Giuliani was not pleased; he ordered city hall's lawyers to start investigating Bratton's expenses, and the commissioner was gone in a couple of months... In truth, both men deserve credit for New York's turnaround. Bratton was a vocal apostle of the "broken window" theory of crime—that small acts of vandalism can create a lawless climate conducive to bigger crimes."
Rudy's one claim to fame was that he reduced crime, axed the police commissioner who had the most to with the crime reduction in New York. Rudy put his own ego infront of the safety of New York citizens. The next police commissioner was far from as effective... Giuliani never found an equal to Bratton. The next commissioner, Howard Safir, was regarded as a "Yes Rudy" who tried too hard to please his master. ("I am very loyal to Rudy," Safir tells NEWSWEEK. "However, when I disagreed with him … I made sure I did it in private.") The police stepped up their stop-and-frisk campaign in poor, largely minority neighborhoods. A series of ugly police-brutality cases besmirched Giuliani's crimefighting record and alienated blacks and Hispanics. In 2000, when an undercover narcotics detective killed an unarmed security guard named Patrick Dorismond, who was black, Giuliani scoffed that Dorismond was no "altar boy." Actually, he was an altar boy—and had attended Bishop Loughlin high school.
So in order to KEEP YOUR JOB you had to kiss Rudy's butt... and if you are a guy like William Bratton, who is a vocal apostle of the "broken window" theory of crime, and you take any credit for it's success, Rudy axes you... Contrast this to the way that Romny gives Tom Stemberg credit for inspiring him to " get everyone health insurance" even though it was Romney who "assembled a team from business, academia and government and asked them first to find out who was uninsured, and why." I think this is a great example. Rudy gets red of the guy who pushed the "broken window" theory, and takes credit, while Romney gives credit to Tom, and experts from business, academia, and government. Labels: rudy giuliani |
 |
Show/Hide 1 Comments | Post a Comment