|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
     |
 Saturday, December 29, 2007
Something said by Victor Davis Hanson struck a chord with me. In evaluating all the candidates, Hanson said this about McCain: I think I share the same odd impression as millions of other moderates and conservatives whose logical reservations are more than outweighed by McCain’s emotional appeal. I think that Hanson is as astute in this as he is in most other topics. McCain, Huckabee, and Giuliani all benefit from an emotional reaction evoked by one aspect of their personal history. For McCain, it’s his military service. For Huckabee, it’s his religious zeal. For Giuliani, it’s his 9/11 leadership. Each of these events or qualities generally spurs an emotional reaction from the general public, but especially from supporters. Russert: It has been documented in several sources that you were willing to release felons early who have been "Born Again." Would you be willing to release a Muslim convert who professes Allah while in prison or a convict who has converted to Mormonism? If not, would it be fair to describe this as a religious test?
Huckabee: Tim, Look we need to bring hope to this campaign and learn that we are all brothers. I intend to bring Hope to the White House. Russert: So would it be a religious test to release someone from prison based on their faith? Huckabee: Look I hate religious tests. That's why I dropped out of Divinity school! (light hearted laughter.) Besides, I don't think Article 5 of the Constitution forbids me from giving compassion to the destitute. Surely a blow to the Team Huckabee, and a strong message to Iowa Christian Voters:
While a public endorsement of Romney by Hurd was a surprise, I am positive that Mr. Hurd's support of Romney was not to insiders. Calling Jeff Fuller! Any details you want to chime in with are appreciated. :) In explaining my support for Mitt Romney, I find it a little hard to figure out where to begin. My dilemma is highlighted by the fact that the more I find out about Governor Romney, the more I like and respect him. I have decided to make this a three part series: one highlighting his resume, one highlighting his moral character, and the other highlighting his strategic advantage in the general election. Mitt Romney graduated number one in his class at BYU. He then went on to Harvard Business School AND Harvard Law School. He graduated from Harvard Law cum laude. He graduated from Harvard Business School in the top 5 percent of his class and was named a Baker Scholar. Mitt Romney later went on to work at the vaunted consulting firm Bain & Company. With a few partners from Bain, he founded the spin-off venture capital firm, Bain Capital. Wildly successful with Bain Capital, he was called back to save Bain & Company from the malaise it had dropped into, serving as CEO and leading the company to even greater heights. When the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics were in trouble, they turned to Mitt Romney to save them. The Olympics under Romney turned a profit, which is something that is VERY difficult for Olympic to do. Also, the Winter Olympics occurred shortly after 9/11 and played a large part in the healing process. Then Mitt Romney ran for and won the governorship of Massachusetts. His record demonstrates fiscal responsibility, a commitment to the rule of law, a defense of family values, and a value of human life. As Governor, he eliminated the budget deficit without raising taxes in a Democratic state and eliminated large amounts of government waste. He also fought against judicial activism when the Massachusetts State Supreme Court attempted to force same-sex marriage down the throats of the citizens of Massachusetts. He also fought against human cloning and state funding for embryonic stem cell research. Simply put, Mitt Romney has a tremendous record of executive success. He has not spent the majority of his life in politics, in a state legislature, or in the Federal Government. He has spent his life making tough decisions in high-energy, high-impact positions, in the business, non-profit, and government worlds. While others have had the luxury of debating issues to death, Romney had to make tough choices. As a businessman, consultant, and venture capitalist. Mitt Romney demonstrated clear excellence pertaining to business and economic matters. One can clearly say that he possesses a greater understanding of how America's economy works than any of the other candidates as a result of that experience. One fact that can be overlooked if one does not consider it, is the fact that Governor Romney gained relevant foreign policy experience as a businessman and as the CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympics. In both of those worlds he gained significant experience and contacts overseas, meaning that as President of the United States he will not be in over his head, as has happened to past state governors that went on to the Presidency. Romney is clearly an accomplished man. In my opinion, he is far more accomplished than any of the other candidates in either party and by virtue of his experience, among other factors, is uniquely equipped to guide our country into the future. His leadership has been clearly demonstrated and we can feel confident with him as our President economically, socially, and foreign policy-wise. America will be blessed to have him as our President. I would say that it is also more about what they are feeling, at least for the campaign vets on the Democratic side. And that goes doubly for so many of the posts on blogs around the Web. Some of the mindless things said about Mitt are so lacking in substance that is clear that too many people are "feeling" and not "thinking." Reason seems to have disappeared for way too many folks out there!
Susan Estrich, who is often one of the more thoughtful Democrats I have seen, wrote this on RealClearPolitics: Huckabee? We should be so lucky. Romney? A Democratic dream. Rudy? What's happened to him? No, it's McCain who Democrats are watching and worrying about.Yeah, right! It is clear to me that these folks are impressed with the person on the other side for whom only minor adjustments in their thought processes would enable them to vote for that candidate, despite party differences. There is no doubt in my mind that the least adjustment necessary would be with John McCain. In case you have forgotten just how excited the Dems would have been to have had McCain for Kerry's running mate in '04, read this piece from the New York Times! The good news is that McCain had the presence of mind to say no. The bad news is that Kerry and many Dems thought this would have been a great idea. Somehow, I just can't see how a Dem favorite for their choice for VP should be considered a very good option for the presidential nomination of the Republican Party, despite war hero status and vaunted singlemindeness. And for anyone who is worried about Estrich's "feeling" about the less than ideal opponents on the Republican side, please rest easy. Those who remain unconvinced and insist on wondering about how Mitt's resume will compare to Hillary's, please have a look at this cartoon:  Click here to see a larger of the cartoon. See the Powerline link for the full story. From Lucianne via Powerline So that is how it goes for Hillary, and it is hard to believe that folks could think that Obama and Edwards have a whole lot more to offer! Mike B.
WASHINGTON -- While public polls show Mike Huckabee leading Mitt Romney in Iowa, a new survey of an oversized sample shows Huckabee slipping and no longer ahead of Romney. Link Friday, December 28, 2007
Fast forward to 2008. Romney runs a contrast ad, with no hyperbole and nothing untrue, delineating the solid differences between himself and McCain. McCain responds with a personal attack ad calling Romney a phony. No substance on the issues, no answer to any of Romney's points, just a personal attack at the man who has led his entire life with honor, conviction and integrity. It's actually beginning to look like McCain is more concerned with personal attacks and labels than talking substance with the voters. McCain implied in 2000 that attack ads are signs of desperation. Judging his latest commercials with his logic, one could conclude McCain is equally, if not more, desperate. His numbers are still behind Romney despite the MSM working for him and his all-or-nothing New Hampshire gamble. Also, let's not forget that this is certainly his last stand. Should he loose the nomination in 2008, I doubt he will have another chance to run again. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if he retired from the Senate shortly thereafter. McCain is a war hero, but really needs to think through the logic he is using to justify his campaign tactics. You know, it is okay to not have a lot of foreign policy experience heading into the White House. Ronald Reagan is a good example of just that. But what is required is a candidate who can consume information about the world quickly, master that information, and approach the problems with competence. In addition, surrounding yourself with good people is a must. Romney has the ability to advance our nation's security, mostly because he has tremendous problem solving and management skills.
Huckabee Fails International Relations 101. On the other hand, Huckabee fails international relations 101. What is interesting to see is Huckabee is failing mostly because of his own doing. What happens when a President says the kinds of things Huckabee does? When it comes to foreign policy, Mike Huckabee would have flunked out of even an elementary course. Now, I am no foreign policy expert. I do have a degree, with honors, from UCLA in political science, with an emphasis in International Relations, but I have no further education or experience. Having given that disclaimer, I want you to consider a speech Romney gave in Israel back in January. Romney Brings Creative Ideas to International Relations. In this speech, Romney talks about confronting Iran's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. He talks about diplomatic isolation. Indicting Ahmadinejad. De-investing American pension plans of Iranian assets. He talks about creative methods to strengthen economic sanctions and to apply pressure to Iranian leadership. Romney Understands the Risks Involved. In the speech, Romney also approached another subject of many college day discussions for me: Deterrence. "[Some people assume] that it's possible to live with a nuclear Iran. That thinking is based on the theory that Iran, once granted the privilege of joining the nuclear club, will be a responsible actor." "Neither their words nor their records justify that conclusion." "[Other people believe] in the logic of deterrence, which served us through the Cold War, and they think it will apply to Iran. But for all of the Soviets' deep flaws, they were never suicidal. A Soviet commitment to national survival was never in question. This assumption simply cannot be made about an irrational regime that celebrates martyrdom." Here, Romney demonstrates a sound and thorough understanding of the problems with deterrence theory as applied to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Deterrence requires some pre-conditions in order to work. Romney aptly points out that there are serious reasons to be concerned about whether those pre-conditions exist in Iran. Also, consider this exchange between Hugh Hewitt and Mitt Romney some time back: HH: "Now Governor Romney, China's been pretty helpful with North Korea. They've done some good things. But with Iran, they have not been helpful at all, and now Iran announced yesterday 3,000 more centrifuges towards uranium enrichment. They're on a path towards nukes. And the question I hope gets asked of every presidential candidate is if George Bush comes before the people of the United States in the next two years and says absent military action, Iran is going to go critical and acquire nukes, and therefore, I'm going to take that action. If he made that statement, would you support him in that, Governor Romney?" MR: "Well, you know, the challenge with threatening a military strike is that that becomes a headline in and of itself. I think America has to maintain the option of military action, any time its interests are threatened. And certainly, having a nuclear weapon in Iran would threaten not only our interests, but the interests of our friends, and would threaten the entire world. It's a setting which would justify military action. The only time one could ever consider such an action is if every other reasonable option had been exercised to keep from having to use that option, and we're a long way from there at this point. You point out, one of the key ways of influencing and putting pressure Iran, and that is through China. China really is the key, both to the nuclear armament of North Korea, as well as to Iran. They're a huge trading partner with both. And China, of course, wants the oil very badly to keep their economy going, and therefore, they don't want to iritate the Iranians. But we're going to have to build our own type of pressure, to make sure that we get from them the kind of support that we need from someone who we want to become more of a friend in the world, and that is by them putting in place very tough restrictions, and supporting our tough acts against the Iranians, our sanctions against the Iranians, as they develop nuclear weaponry." Romney understands that how we talk about Iran is almost as important as what we do. We want Iran to think we might use military action but we also don't want to be irretractable from that position. You might call this flexible deterrence. Words are important, ladies and gentlemen. They project American values and resolve into the international arena. Without understanding the issues involved, America is weakened. Recently, Mike Huckabee, in response to the brutal assasination of Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto, expressed “our sincere concern and apologies for what has happened in Pakistan.” What? Our apologies? What did we do wrong Mr. Huckabee? I wonder what the supporters of Madame Bhutto, the ones who think Pervez Musharaff is behind the murder, would think if President Bush had said something like that? They might use that to argue America is partly responsible for the assasination. Why give them that chance, when you can have a President who understand foreign affairs enough not to say things like that. Check out more informationa about Romney's foreign policy views on his website. You will see a depth and ability there that is lacking in Huckabee. Frankly, you will see a quality in him that is also missing from McCain. That is, Romney will be Presidential. He won't say, I know more about foreign policy than you and therefore, this is what we are going to do. Romney won't be completely condescending when he has to go before the American people and ask for our support to fight the war on terror. Romney will articulate and explain the best policy options available to America and work hard to implement them the best way possible. In short, Romney aces International relations 101. From National Review Online, a Judge Robert Bork radio ad:
The Judge and the Governor [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Judge Bork makes a Romney radio ad to air in Iowa. Listen here. Text is (here exclusively for a few for NRO readers): ANNOUNCER: "Robert Bork was Ronald Reagan's conservative nominee to the Supreme Court." JUDGE ROBERT BORK: "Hello, this is Judge Robert Bork." "These are very important times, and our next President will be called upon to make decisions on some big issues." "The National Review endorsed Governor Romney, calling him a 'full-spectrum conservative.' I agree. Mitt Romney is the best person to unite the strong Reagan coalition of social, economic, and foreign policy conservatives." "We need strong leadership on the economy, taxes, immigration, and foreign policy." "And our next President may be called upon to make more than one Supreme Court nomination. Governor Romney will appoint judges who interpret the law, not activists who legislate from the bench." "I admire that Governor Romney stood up to the activist court's ruling on legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. His strong leadership served as a model for the nation." "This is Judge Robert Bork. I urge you to join me in supporting Mitt Romney for President." GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: "I'm Mitt Romney, and I approved this message." ANNOUNCER: "To learn more, log onto MittRomney.com. Paid for by Romney for President." http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/
... This is my 2008 slogan: Reasonable Person for President. That is my hope, what I ask Iowa to produce, and I claim here to speak for thousands, millions. We are grown-ups, we know our country needs greatness, but we do not expect it and will settle at the moment for good. We just want a reasonable person. We would like a candidate who does not appear to be obviously insane. We'd like knowledge, judgment, a prudent understanding of the world and of the ways and histories of the men and women in it. ... Mitt Romney? Yes. Characterological cheerfulness, personal stability and a good brain would be handy to have around. He hasn't made himself wealthy by seeing the world through a romantic mist. He has a sophisticated understanding of the challenges we face in the global economy. I personally am not made anxious by his flip-flopping on big issues because everyone in politics gets to change his mind once. That is, you can be pro-life and then pro-choice but you can't go back to pro-life again, because if you do you'll look like a flake. The positions Mr. Romney espouses now are the positions he will stick with. He has no choice. .... Mike Huckabee gets enough demerits to fall into my not-reasonable column. National Review fences with the Union-Leader:
John McCain’s aides complain that Mitt Romney is running a negative campaign. Those same aides have been attacking Romney themselves, but for the most part they can outsource the negativism to their friends in the press — starting with the Union Leader, a prominent conservative newspaper in New Hampshire that has endorsed him. (We have endorsed Romney.)Touché. Read on for more excellent points. ---crossposted at BackyardConservative I received this email from a person who knows Mitt pretty well. To me it epitomizes why he is so ready to lead, way beyond any other candidate in the field.
I have made the case here in the comments section before that no one is truly objective. We all have our paradigms we must work in. Yet, one character trait of Mitt is that he truly strives to approach everything he can in a dispassionate objective manner. I am sure he has his preconceived opinions of things, as we all do, but no one can doubt his ability to put away the passions and see the whole picture, giving equal time all thought and view points. In truth we don't need someone who bases policy on the emotions of populism or the emotional wreckage of past experiences. What we do need is someone who can turn data into the right results. Passions and emotions are good, but as de Groot says, they should be subject to reason. Huckabee blooper--doesn't know East from West in Pakistan. And is his support slipping in Iowa? Dean Barnett digs into the numbers of the LA Times poll. Here's the video on Pakistan.
In the ever expanding list of campaign innovations, Romney adds Personalized Phone Calls and Personalized Voice Mail Messages from the candidate himself.
The personalized phone calls only take a few seconds and are free! Check it out. You simply input the person's name and phone number and they receive a phone call from Romney. You can also personalize what issue matters most to that person and your relationship to the person being called. It also seems to show your phone number as the originating number. It is a lot of fun. In addition, for $25 you can have a personalized voice mail greeting from Mitt Romney for your phone. If anyone has signed up for this, tell us about it in the comments. Since the beginnings of the campaign, my constant observation of McCain and his Internet surrogates is that they have always tried to write an underhanded narrative of Romney. It’s actually been the case since day one. It never has needed a basis in reality, in their minds the narrative just has to be repeated often enough for it to be true.
Today is no exception. There is a narrative coming out of the McCain Campaign against Romney. It’s the “Romney is in a tailspin” narrative. It’s really not surprising. McCain has jumped a few points in New Hampshire, by spinning a comeback story to the press before it happens, then they report it, and then it happens. I am guessing that McCain is hoping to spin the tailspin narrative to the press for Romney before it happens… hoping to make it happen. Yesterday at Powerline we read this: And when Romney blasted McCain's over his support for a comprehensive immigration reform measure in the Senate and for his failure to renounce that support, McCain himself responded: Mirengoff makes a great point, instead of McCain actually defending himself, he decides to try and spin a story to the voters of the condition of Romney’s campaign. This is basically an utterly useless line for the thinking voter, and frail manipulation for the non-thinking voter. McCain knows Romney is not in tailspin. Does anyone really think Team McCain is sitting around, slapping high fives and drinking it up to Romney’s tailspin? Does anyone really think that McCain camp has written off Romney and are now focusing on other competitors? But it doesn’t end here. Last night on Anderson Cooper, we heard a reiteration of the “Tailspin” narrative when John McCain followed Romney on Cooper’s CNN show: Romney first:
Here was McCain’s response when asked. I should note, that prior to this response by McCain I thought he was giving a top-notch interview. He was convincing. But then he brought out the “Tailspin”:
Now a few points:
Let’s focus on number three. Why does John McCain see fit to offer substance on Cooper's show, but when questioned on the Bush Tax Cuts and immigration he avoids substance? The answer is obvious, on foreign policy McCain knows a lot. When it was time to answer questions on foreign policy he had awesome answers. When he had time to talk about his constant thumbing at the conservative base he had nothing to offer so he reverted to feigned indignation. One thing to note is McCain will never attack Romney on substance. I don’t think I have ever seen him do it. I have never heard that Romney’s foreign policy is naïve or not well thought out. The last thing McCain needs is to get in argument where Romney looks head and shoulders above him on anything domestic, or heaven forbid, on a par with him on foreign policy issues. Which Romney comes petty close to doing. So McCain keeps trying to write the narrative. “Romney’s in a tail spin.” “The sky is falling in Boston.” It’s certainly not true, and McCain certainly does not care. Romney’s numbers are amazingly stable while McCain and all the other candidates numbers have been up and down for the past year. It must leave his campaign thinking their only chance is to spin to the media in hopes of a new narrative.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
 I’ve been on a self-imposed blogging blackout for the past few days and so other than dealing with a cowardly commenter, I haven’t had much to say. I’ll be back to my normal News Roundup duties shortly, but I couldn’t let this Huck Whopper slide by without comment. Early this morning reports started coming out of Pakistan about the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. She was a courageous woman who was taking the point in the fight against radical Islamic terrorism in Pakistan. She said what she thought and ended up paying for her political stand with her life. I’m not an expert on Pakistan by any stretch of the imagination, but this woman had a lot of guts to do what she was doing where she was doing it. The issue of terrorism will dominate the upcoming election. Either a candidate has the chops to deal with it or they don’t. It’s that simple. The way each campaign reacted to Bhutto”s murder speaks volumes about each candidates foreign policy chops. Most of the candidates did a decent job with the glaring exception of one – Mike Huckabee. Here’s what Huck originally said to a crowd of 150 supporters at Orlando Executive airport – as told by CBS News’ Nancy Cordes: …Mike Huckabee strode out to the strains of “Right Now” by Van Halen and immediately addressed the Bhutto situation, expressing “our sincere concern and apologies for what has happened in Pakistan.”The Huck campaign has since called Cordes to “revise and extend” his remarks, but the slip is out. Huck is dangerously naïve when it comes to foreign policy in general and terrorism specifically. He’s sending apologies for an action committed by Islamofasicts in a Muslim country. Sorry, Huck. There are no mulligans in politics. Apology is not and cannot be policy. End Memo. Martial Law ended two weeks ago:
I'm sorry, but if you are making a serious run for President there are some things you should just study. This isn't an election for senior class president. Knowing if our sometimes-partner in the war on terror is still in the throes of Martial Law would be a great place to look competent on foreign policy. Romney is getting attacked in Iowa by Huckabee, and McCain in New Hampshire. WaPo on McCain vs. Romney: The Sequel. Consider the WaPo is MSM, and McCain looks to be their media darling again (while largely giving Huckabee for Hire a pass).
McCain's conservative positions are as much a product of coming from a conservative state as Romney's moderate positions were a product of running as a Republican for governor in a liberal state. They are both leaders, but McCain's a maverick, Romney's a manager. Other than national security and pork-busting McCain has no consistent philosophy but service to country. On most issues he has the mindset of the Left--balancing the budget rather than cutting taxes, government regulation and caps on campaign donations rather than free speech and transparency, global warming mandates. Romney has lived his life as a conservative, demonstrated decisive success in the private sector, turned around the Olympics, and when he governed, sought solutions and consensus based on a free-market model. Powerline on Romney's Point, that McCain has flunked Reagan 101: Both responses by McCain have this in common -- they fail entirely to address the substance of Romney's criticism. The reason, of course, is that McCain has no good response. He did oppose tax cuts, support for which does lie at the essence of Reagan conservatism. Similarly, he did support comprehensive immigration reform and his line on that support now is a grudging acknowledgement that the American people (though not necessarily McCain) want border security first.Given the choice, I'm for Romney every time. For latest polling, go here and here. For updates, go here. ---crossposted at BackyardConservative This post over at Iowans for Romney details how unwise GOP voters would be to cast their lots with the media-created "contenderships" of McCain and Huckabee. Essentially, were either of these two candidates to become the GOP nominee, they will learn first hand the proverb: "You live by the sword, you die by the sword"
Romney, on the other hand, has been fighting head on the MSM/DNC for over a year and has remained a contender DESPITE it (and despite being the #1 target for his fellow GOP rivals as well). I'll side with the battle-tested guy anyday. Jeff Fuller Wednesday, December 26, 2007
THE HUCKABEE / NOVO NORDISK STEM CELL STORY doesn't seem to be getting much media traction. It's like they're rooting for him. Some discussion here, though: "Over the weekend, it came out that Huckabee received $35,000 in honoraria in 2006 from a company that does stem cell research, the very same company that social conservatives blasted Mitt Romney over because his blind trust had invested in it. Huckabee's take of $35,000 from the stem cell researchers was but a small sliver of the roughly $378,000 in outside fees that Huckabee raked in during his final year as Arkansas' governor. Too bad he didn't have Hillary Clinton's facility with commodities trading--such a skill probably would have made things easier for Huckabee." UPDATE: Reader Jason Palk emails:
Hmm. But wouldn't these defenses apply equally to Mitt Romney, who got grief from pro-life people for investing in Novo Nordisk? Look, I'm pro stem-cell research. Leaving aside the separate question of whether a sitting governor should earn a lot of money from people who may have interests relating to his day job, I don't have a problem with people taking money from Novo Nordisk. But if you think embryonic stem cell research is so bad that Romney's investment was bad, why isn't it just as bad for Huckabee to take money from Novo Nordisk? ANOTHER UPDATE: Bob Krumm emails:
Yes, it's more than just a contribution. Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 CNBC's "Kudlow & Company"  Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 DOLE TO HUCKABEE: "WHY HAVE YOU JOINED THE BUSH BASHERS?" The No Laughing Matter!: A serious look at Gov. Mike Huckabee's record and policy beyond the one-liners. As in:
"Dole Stings A Bee"
To read the full article, please click here: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 The Concord Monitor Attacked Ronald Reagan, George Bush In 1980 Ranking with Al Sharpton as one of the most opportunistic candidates for President, (it pays the bills and makes me a household name), Mike Huckabee is still for hire. The Politico:
Breaking with tradition for presidential candidates, Mike Huckabee is continuing to accept paid speaking engagements in the thick of his insurgent presidential campaign, although churches get a break from his usual fee of up to $25,000.Background at RedState. It is hard to overstate how infuriated I get when I read assessments of Mitt Romney by people who have no idea of who he is, either personally or professionally. I have known Mitt for almost 42 years, and although we have not been personally close in the interim, every time our paths have crossed, I have been blown-away impressed with the person he is and the things he has accomplished. As the years have passed, I have seen him go from good, to better, to best! Capturing the essence of this man, Ronald Kessler, chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com, has written one of the most balanced and complete views of why Mitt is the best man for the job of President of the United States. In fact, Kessler does an excellent job explaining why, out of the current group of Republicans, Mitt is the ONLY ONE for the job! While each of the Republicans is terrific in one area or another, not a single one of them has Mitt's breadth and depth of talent, character, work ethic, and accomplishment! Kessler explains all of this and more in his clearly stated, outstanding endorsement! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Mike B. ...in Iran.
With this powerful endorsement of Huck and the Concord Monitor coming out for Moderate McCain, there is a lot to think about. It's no surprise a liberal rag is coming out against the leading conservative in the state of New Hampshire. If Romney plays his cards right, the Anti-Endorsement could really be a blessing in disguise.
And it looks like they are. From the Romney Campaign Press Shop:
I am sure the Concord Monitor likes McCain because he is the most conservative candidate in the field. Article published Dec 26, 2007
Huckabee's illegal-alien record hit
By Stephen Dinan - Mike Huckabee is overselling his record of cracking down on illegal aliens as governor, claiming he ordered his state police to arrest illegal aliens when in fact he never signed the agreement with federal authorities that would have allowed it. ... "This is a policy difference, but the facts are the facts — under Governor Huckabee's administration, there was never even any effort to begin negotiating with Homeland Security," said former state Rep. Jeremy Hutchinson, the Republican who sponsored the 2005 law. Mr. Huckabee's campaign acknowledged he didn't follow through, but said it was lack of time, not lack of interest. "The clock ran out. We're glad to hear Governor Beebe picked up the ball and is running with it," said Charmaine Yoest, a senior adviser to Mr. Huckabee. Mr. Huckabee signed the law in March 2005, more than 20 months before he left office (SO THE TIME RAN OUT? LIE LIE LIE!) In less than a year in office, his successor, Gov. Mike Beebe, a Democrat, has already begun negotiations with DHS. Immigration-control groups say they fear Mr. Huckabee could repeat President Bush's track record on immigration, which they say amounted to tough talk but a failure to follow through. "The devil is in the details, and Bush has shown a pattern of deception on immigration enforcement again and again and again, and the Huckster is right in line with that technique," said William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, who said Mr. Huckabee is trying to fool the Republican primary electorate. "He knows he's wrong on immigration; he can't win if he's wrong on immigration — therefore, lie," Mr. Gheen said. He said he will be in Iowa in the run-up to the Jan. 3 caucuses to try to convince voters Mr. Huckabee can't be trusted. Mr. Huckabee makes the enforcement claim on the immigration section of his Web site — one of only two times he talks about his record on the issue in Arkansas: "As governor, I ordered my state troopers to work with the Department of Homeland Security to arrest illegals and enforce federal immigration law." Ironically, Mr. Huckabee calls for better federal-local police cooperation as part of his nine-point immigration plan released earlier this month: "Local authorities must be provided the tools, training and funding they need so local police can turn illegal immigrants over to the federal authorities." Cooperation has become a hot issue for many states and localities, and polls show voters want police to be able to check the immigration status of those they arrest or pull over in traffic stops. The only other former governor in the race, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, signed a cooperation agreement with Homeland Security officials in the waning days of his administration last year, but his Democratic successor rescinded it immediately. In Arkansas, the law Mr. Huckabee signed called for his state police director to negotiate the agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — in this case, Steve Dozier, who Mr. Huckabee appointed after firing his predecessor (you remember that story right?) Mr. Dozier did not return a call seeking comment for this article. He is now an executive with Arkansas-based Wal-Mart. Mr. Hutchinson, the former Arkansas state lawmaker, who supports a rival of Mr. Huckabee's in the presidential race — former Sen. Fred Thompson — said that even though Mr. Huckabee signed his bill, " I don't think he supported the concept." "My frustration with not pursuing it was we never even sought to determine what the federal government would give us and help pay for, and from my perspective, the only reason we shouldn't even initiate conversations is because as a policy reason we didn't want to do it," he said. At a press conference last week called to answer charges about his Arkansas record, several state lawmakers who are supporting Mr. Huckabee said they remembered passing the bill, but couldn't say whether the governor ever followed through. "I was in the state Senate as we pushed that bill through," said Sen. Gilbert Baker. "I believe that became law in the state of Arkansas. Now following on through that as far as agreements, I don't know the details there." ... • Jerry Seper contributed to this article. Washington Times:
Mike Huckabee is overselling his record of cracking down on illegal aliens as governor, claiming he ordered his state police to arrest illegal aliens when in fact he never signed the agreement with federal authorities that would have allowed it. Noted economist and Hoover Fellow, Thomas Sowell, writes about the presidential candidates on both sides:
The only candidate of either party who truly looks presidential is Mitt Romney. It was unfortunate that Mike Huckabee and others have tried to make his religion an issue. Labels: Thomas Sowell Monday, December 24, 2007
Are you just now starting to pay attention to the race? Want to know what's happened over the past year? Here's a 12 minute overview of the Romney campaign, the landmarks, the challenges, and the successes. Seriously, there has to be hundreds. Post your answers in the comments! Sunday, December 23, 2007
Huckabee and his supporters always seem to point out that Romney's attacking him. The already nascent Huck-a-bust will undoubtedly be blamed on Romney by Huck and his supporters. However . . . I don't think that Romney had anything to do with the fact that essentially every conservative with a microphone or blog has been railing against Huckabee for the last few weeks. Need some evidence?:
Rush Limbaugh Condoleezza Rice Michelle Malkin Ann Coulter (new one here) Phyllis Schlafly Bob Novak (others here & here) Peggy Noonan Charles Krauthammer Bob Dole Sean Hannity (not frontal attacks, but plenty of concerns about him being the nominee) Laura Ingraham Fred Barnes Joseph Farah (Founder/CEO/Editor of World Net Daily also expresses concern for homeschoolers who support Huck) Thomas Sowell George Will (these comments too on a TV news show) Michael Reagan Glenn Beck (semi "reconciliation" he's still not too impressed) Donald Lambro David Limbaugh (another here) Michael Barone Mark Steyn Kim Strassell Matt Drudge (it's obvious that he has a bone to pick with Huckabee given his coverage of late) Pat Buchanan Jonah Goldberg John Fund (an interesting video here) Jim Geraghty Kathryn Jean Lopez (another here) Tony Blankley Howie Carr James Taranto (here too, don't miss, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 of "No Truck with Huck") Clarence Page Dean Barnett Rich Karlgaard Rich Lowry (this one too) Mark Hemingway Austin Hill Quin Hillyer Tom Bevan Jack Kelly Deroy Murdock David Frum Jonathan Alder John Hinderaker Bruce Bartlett Victor Davis Hanson Johnathan Tobin Hugh Hewitt (and another) Walter E. Williams David Reinhard Frank Gaffney (who Huck claimed was one of his Foreign Policy advisors) Lori Byrd JC Hawkins Peter Wehner Douglas MacKinnon Paul Mirengoff ( here and here too) Jerome Corsi The Editors of National Review (Oh yeah, this one too . . . and both were written BEFORE the NR endorsed Romney) The Club for Growth The Cato Institute (Huckabee's F grade for fiscal issue . . . 46th out of the 50 governors ranked. Yes, that's worse than the vast majority of Democratic governors!--PDF here) Mitt Romney :) Ron Paul :) Fred Thompson :) Rudy Giuliani :) You can just hear and feel all of these conservative/GOP icons pleading with the voters: "PLEASE DON'T MAKE US TRY TO DEFEND THIS GUY!!!" (should he be the nominee). Conclusion: Huckabee's not a full-spectrum conservative and the GOP would be unwise to give him the nomination. Romney has had to point out the un-conservative spots in Huck's record because the MSM/DNC axis sure hasn't been (they want him as the GOP nominee) and because McCain and Rudy want Huck to win Iowa to stifle Romney's path to the nomination. However, Romney is hardly alone in pointing out Huckabee's worrisome record. Update: Welcome Townhall and Hugh Hewitt readers (he linked to this post and called it "An Impressive List . . . of people you do not want against you") Thanks Hugh!! Please feel free to explore the links above and leave your comments here. Also, Quin Hillyer's recent article "The Republican Party: All Hucked Up" contains a list that is interestingly familiar to mine. Jeff Fuller
A little independent research via Google can apparently get better "fact-checking" than the MSM reporters can.
You've probably heard before that two eyewitnesses have come forward and said that they saw George Romney and MLK march together. Well, now FOUR historical books have confirmed the same thing. Also, Mitt's brother, Scott states that he heard his father say that he had marched with MLK (in that same last link). My scientific background also reminds me that positive evidence (like the two lady eyewitnesses' claims, or the 4 books cited) is always stronger than negative evidence ("I didn't see them together" or "newspaper columns of the time failed to confirm"). It is not out of the realm of possibility that, despite all this evidence to the contrary, they did not march in the same parade. But with historical books and records getting it wrong it's hard to claim that Romney "fabricated this out of whole cloth" like opponents are implying. I think most rational people are willing to not get caught up in the figurative use of the word "saw" when we can all "SEE" that George Romney was truly a champion of civil rights (the silver lining in this whole affair). Regarding the 1978 quote that apparently Romney said that he marched with his dad and MLK through the streets of Detroit . . . well, given the apparent lack of journalistic accuracy in this whole affair I'm afraid that I wouldn't be surprised if it was a complete misquoting of Romney. However, if he did in fact say that, then at least he hasn't propagated or inflated that error in the intervening three decades (something that serial liars/exaggerators cannot help but do . . . the stories usually get better and better with time!!). Update . . . A Harper's Magazine article from 1967 stated that George Romney and MLK marched together. You need a subscription to read the PDF. Here's the search results which gives some of the text and the relevant quote is: "When the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King marched in Detroit three years ago, Romney marched with him. He is proud that he helped write a state constitution that has the most comprehensive civil-rights guarantees in the nation, including open occupancy in housing." Jeff Fuller  A Closer Look At The Long History Behind Politics and Religion In America Dec. 23, 2007 (CBS) "In God We Trust" is right there on all our coins and currency. To find the phrase "Wall of Separation," however, you must go not to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, but to a letter President Thomas Jefferson wrote to Connecticut Baptists in 1802. His words have guided us ever since, but what, in practical terms, do they mean? Our Cover Story is reported now by Martha Teichner: Eleven days and counting before their state nominating caucuses, it's understandable that some Iowa Republicans may be having trouble separating politics and religion. The battle between Mitt Romney, the Mormon, and Mike Huckabee, the Baptist preacher, has defined the race. But even the possibility that a candidate's brand of faith could become a kind of presidential litmus test worries as many, if not more, Americans than it reassures - among them, Jon Meacham, editor of Newsweek. "We are veering very close to violating the article in the Constitution that says, there should be no religious test for federal office," Meacham told Teichner. Meacham is the author of " American Gospel," an attempt to put the tension between God and politics in historical perspective.
"You have 46% of Evangelicals, in a poll that Newsweek did in Iowa, saying that Romney's Mormonism makes them less likely to vote for him," said Meacham. "That, in and of itself, is a very dangerous battle to have because it pushes religious affiliation to the center of debate in a country that has done very well when it has kept that kind of religious debate to the sides, or off the table altogether." The living embodiment of that notion of separation is the neighborhood of Flushing, in the New York City borough of Queens. Here you'll find every nationality imaginable - every religion. Within a few blocks, there are churches, a Quaker meeting house, Buddhist temples, synagogues, a mosque. As a sign of how mixed-up everything is, in front of the Queens public library, the Christmas tree and the Menorah were sponsored by the Chinese Businessmen's Association."  (CBS) All of which makes what's inside that much more remarkable. It's called the Flushing Remonstrance (pictured, left) , on loan from the New York State Archives, signed December 27, 1657 - 350 years ago this week. It is a bold, historic declaration of religious freedom. Professor Kenneth Jackson, who teaches New York history at Columbia University, described the significance of the remonstrance: "This is one of the really great documents of American history that's preserved by the archives. It's the first thing that we have in writing in the United States where a group of citizens attests on paper and over their signature the right of the people to follow their own conscience with regard to God - and the inability of government, or the illegality of government, to interfere with that." In 1657, Flushing was a farm village, and like Manhattan, part of New Netherland, a Dutch colony governed by Peter Stuyvesant. Stuyvesant persecuted followers of religions other than his own Dutch Reformed Church. When he barred Quakers from Flushing, thirty local citizens, none of them Quakers themselves, petitioned Stuyvesant, claiming the ban violated Dutch custom. "It's just elegantly and eloquently written," Jackson said. "They say, 'We desire, therefore, in this case, not to be judged, least we be judged. Neither to condemn, lest we be condemned, but rather let every man stand and fall to his master.'"  Peter Stuyvesant, no man to be trifled with, fined the petitioners and threw them in prison until they recanted - but there's more. An important part of this story is the role played by a man named John Bowne, who lived here. Bowne allowed the Quakers to meet in his home. He was arrested, jailed, and sent to Holland for trial. The outcome was not what Peter Stuyvesant expected - Bowne was exhonerated. And the principles set forth in the Flushing Remonstrance - essentially, freedom of worship and the separation of church and state - became practice. "It didn't just come out of thin air, the First Amendment to the Constitution. We believed this already, in 1791, so it could become the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights," Jackson said. Remember, most of the original 13 colonies had established churches and actually taxed citizens to support them. The end of that led to an explosion of religious fervor. "In other words," Teichner asked Jon Meacham, "the separation of church and state enables the tolerance of someone else's religion?" "Absolutely," Meacham agreed. "The separation of church and state is like oxygen to the fire of religious liberty." So if you thought the tug-of-war between religion and politics is something new, think again. "Religion has always been a weapon in the political arena," Meacham explained. "In 1800, there were advertisements that said you could have Jefferson and no God … or Adams and God." ( Meacham cited another example: "In the Civil War, President Lincoln was presented with a proposed amendment to the Constitution to declare our allegiance to independence and Jesus … and in a brilliant parliamentary move, he referred it to a Congressional committee from whence it never emerged." And another example, "Theodore Roosevelt, in 1908, was defending William Howard Taft, who was a Unitarian being attacked by William Jennings Bryan's supporters who were evangelicals who believed that Unitarians were not Christian." And of course, lately, Teichner observed, we've been reminded of John F. Kennedy's famous speech. On September 12, 1960, Kennedy said, "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. Where no Catholic prelate would tell the President, should he be Catholic, how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote." Kennedy's self-defense to Houston ministers was that year's chapter in a long history ... Mitt Romney's speech was this year's. In his speech , Romney said, "the founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation under God, and in God, we do indeed trust." The two speeches, 47 years apart, show how the conversation about what Jefferson called the "wall of separation" has evolved. "Americans have tested that wall in every possible way," Meacham told Teichner. "We've run trucks up against it, we've thrown firecrackers at it, and the wall has stood pretty strongly. And it requires, I think, constant vigilance." Because, as history and the First Amendment tell us, the relationship between government and religion is as fragile as it is strong. |
    12/31/06 - 1/7/07 1/7/07 - 1/14/07 1/14/07 - 1/21/07 1/21/07 - 1/28/07 1/28/07 - 2/4/07 2/4/07 - 2/11/07 2/11/07 - 2/18/07 2/18/07 - 2/25/07 2/25/07 - 3/4/07 3/4/07 - 3/11/07 3/11/07 - 3/18/07 3/18/07 - 3/25/07 3/25/07 - 4/1/07 4/1/07 - 4/8/07 4/8/07 - 4/15/07 4/15/07 - 4/22/07 4/22/07 - 4/29/07 4/29/07 - 5/6/07 5/6/07 - 5/13/07 5/13/07 - 5/20/07 5/20/07 - 5/27/07 5/27/07 - 6/3/07 6/3/07 - 6/10/07 6/10/07 - 6/17/07 6/17/07 - 6/24/07 6/24/07 - 7/1/07 7/1/07 - 7/8/07 7/8/07 - 7/15/07 7/15/07 - 7/22/07 7/22/07 - 7/29/07 7/29/07 - 8/5/07 8/5/07 - 8/12/07 8/12/07 - 8/19/07 8/19/07 - 8/26/07 8/26/07 - 9/2/07 9/2/07 - 9/9/07 9/9/07 - 9/16/07 9/16/07 - 9/23/07 9/23/07 - 9/30/07 9/30/07 - 10/7/07 10/7/07 - 10/14/07 10/14/07 - 10/21/07 10/21/07 - 10/28/07 10/28/07 - 11/4/07 11/4/07 - 11/11/07 11/11/07 - 11/18/07 11/18/07 - 11/25/07 11/25/07 - 12/2/07 12/2/07 - 12/9/07 12/9/07 - 12/16/07 12/16/07 - 12/23/07 12/23/07 - 12/30/07 12/30/07 - 1/6/08 1/6/08 - 1/13/08 1/13/08 - 1/20/08 1/20/08 - 1/27/08 1/27/08 - 2/3/08 2/3/08 - 2/10/08 2/10/08 - 2/17/08 2/17/08 - 2/24/08 2/24/08 - 3/2/08 3/2/08 - 3/9/08 3/9/08 - 3/16/08 3/16/08 - 3/23/08 3/23/08 - 3/30/08 3/30/08 - 4/6/08 4/6/08 - 4/13/08 4/13/08 - 4/20/08 4/20/08 - 4/27/08 4/27/08 - 5/4/08 5/4/08 - 5/11/08 5/11/08 - 5/18/08 5/18/08 - 5/25/08 5/25/08 - 6/1/08 6/1/08 - 6/8/08 6/8/08 - 6/15/08 6/15/08 - 6/22/08 6/29/08 - 7/6/08 7/6/08 - 7/13/08 7/13/08 - 7/20/08 7/20/08 - 7/27/08 7/27/08 - 8/3/08 8/3/08 - 8/10/08 8/10/08 - 8/17/08 8/17/08 - 8/24/08 8/24/08 - 8/31/08 8/31/08 - 9/7/08 9/7/08 - 9/14/08 9/14/08 - 9/21/08 9/21/08 - 9/28/08 9/28/08 - 10/5/08 10/12/08 - 10/19/08 10/19/08 - 10/26/08 10/26/08 - 11/2/08 11/2/08 - 11/9/08 11/9/08 - 11/16/08 11/16/08 - 11/23/08 11/23/08 - 11/30/08 11/30/08 - 12/7/08 12/7/08 - 12/14/08 12/21/08 - 12/28/08 1/11/09 - 1/18/09 1/18/09 - 1/25/09 1/25/09 - 2/1/09 2/1/09 - 2/8/09 2/22/09 - 3/1/09 4/12/09 - 4/19/09 4/19/09 - 4/26/09 4/26/09 - 5/3/09 5/10/09 - 5/17/09 5/17/09 - 5/24/09 5/24/09 - 5/31/09 5/31/09 - 6/7/09 6/14/09 - 6/21/09 6/21/09 - 6/28/09 6/28/09 - 7/5/09 7/5/09 - 7/12/09 7/26/09 - 8/2/09 8/2/09 - 8/9/09 8/9/09 - 8/16/09 8/30/09 - 9/6/09 9/6/09 - 9/13/09 9/18/11 - 9/25/11 What People are Saying about MyManMitt: "A proactive voice in the wilderness, always on-message and fighting the fight, for Mitt." - David All |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"[The] Monitor endorses the candidacy of John B. Anderson... He has proposed a 50-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline... He favors both the Equal Rights Amendment and the windfall profits tax on the major oil companies." (Editorial, "For The GOP: Anderson," Concord Monitor, 2/21/80) 
The Monitor Attacked Reagan's Ability And Capacity. "Ronald Reagan – The former California governor is simply too old (69), too doctrinaire, too inexperienced in the intricacies of the federal government. We gravely question his capability to withstand the daily physical and emotional battering that the nation's chief executive must endure." (Editorial, "For The GOP: Anderson," Concord Monitor, 2/21/80) 
The Monitor Questioned Bush's Credentials. "Bush's highly-vaunted Washington experience is more noteworthy for its breadth than for its depth. He is a shiny new political phenomenon, following the Iowa caucuses, and we want to hear from him a fuller articulation of his positions on a broad range of national issues. We hope he survives the New Hampshire primary and submits his thinking to more searching examination in the primaries to come." (Editorial, "For The GOP: Anderson," Concord Monitor, 2/21/80)
Show/Hide 1 Comments | Post a Comment