My Man Mitt

Video: Rick Perry Remix

2011-09-23T12:44:00.002-05:00

While my erudite analysis of poll trends and detailed budget charts may impress... those of you who know me may recall that I cut loose at times to do some ridiculous schtick.This is one of those times...Rick Perry tried to attack Mitt Romney on the issue of flip/flops... it didn't quite come out the way he was expecting. I couldn't resist having a little fun with that moment last night. The actual exchange can be found here.[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLxbyd0UgNo[/youtube]Cross-posted at iHartPolitics.com

Obama's Health Care Infomercial

2009-09-10T11:53:00.002-05:00

I've posted my thoughts (as a physician and a concerned citizen) about Obama's speech last night over at Iowan's for Romney.

News Round-up

2009-09-04T18:33:00.002-05:00

A sprinkling of news involving Mitt Romney.

Jonathan Martin at the Politico: "While he remains publicly coy about the possibility of another White House bid, Mitt Romney has a calendar that tells a very different story."

CNN's Politicker: "Meanwhile, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, thought to be another potential White House hopeful, issues a more measured statement to Obama's planned address.
'If the president wants to encourage students to stay in school and study, that's appropriate,' he said. 'However, he should be careful not to cross the line to discuss political issues or policy matters.'"

Boston Globe Editorial: "Mitt Romney isn’t openly running for president yet, but he’s clearly focused like a laser on 2012. And seldom has a noncandidate done so well by doing so little. That’s mostly because an astonishing number of his putative 2012 rivals have obliged Romney by systematically stumbling."

Not that it means much right now. . .

2009-08-15T09:14:00.002-05:00

. . ., but at least it's nice to be recognized. Mitt Romney leads the Republican presidential field in New Hampshire, according to a new poll.

Romney discusses healthcare reform

2009-08-04T06:47:00.002-05:00

The editors of Human Events interviewed Mitt about healthcare reform:

The right approach is one which includes extensive analysis, evaluation of systems that have been implemented in other countries and in other states, a bipartisan effort which includes different perspectives and views, the inputs of physicians, patients, advocacy groups, hospitals, business, and labor. This should be a very inclusive and extensive process, and President Obama, out of an apparent desire to score a victory, is not willing to give health care the deliberative process it deserves.
That which we have learned about his plan has a number of obvious flaws. The first is insistence on establishing a government insurance program. There is simply no reason for doing that other than to open the door to a single-payer system. Which, of course, is what liberals have long pined for and what Barack Obama campaigned for.
The nation already has over a thousand private insurance companies, many of the largest of which are not for profit, so his excuse for forming the public government option --that it’s necessary to give people choices -- is obviously fallacious.
The ongoing problems which a government plan would encompass would be massive subsidies down the road, crowding out of private not-for-profit enterprises and ultimately the imposition of a government-controlled system, or what would be at that point about one-fifth of our economy. It’s a bad idea and should be rejected.

2009-07-30T00:57:00.002-05:00

The MSNBC/Wall Street Journal poll released today has some interesting nuggets . . . and one key finding that his HUGELY positive for Mitt.

First, some background on the poll. It was a survey of 1,011 adults . . . not likely voters (which usually makes polls trend more liberal) and was conducted July 24-27.

Respondents Political Identification:
Independent 41%
Democrat 30%
Republican 22%
Political Views:
Conservative 37%
Moderate 35%
Liberal 23%
Would you like to see Mitt Romney as president some day, or not?
Would like to see 24%
Would not like to see 50%

Sounds Bad, right? I mean 50% don't want to see him as POTUS . . . but look by comparison at Palin's numbers:

Would you like to see Sarah Palin as president some day, or not?
Would like to see 21%
Would not like to see 67%

Mitt obviously has much less of a hill to climb right now that Palin.

But for the real important point, let's start by looking at the approval ratings for political figures AND political parties:

Approval Ratings: Positive / Negative [Net]
Hillary Clinton: 53% / 31% [+22%]
Barack Obama: 55% / 34% [+21%]
Mitt Romney: 28% / 20% [+8%]
Democratic Party: 42% / 37% [+5%]
Sonia Sotomayor: 31% / 27% [+4%]
Joe Biden: 38% / 36% [+2%]
Sarah Palin: 32% / 43% [-11%]
Republican Party: 28% / 41% [-13%]
Nancy Pelosi: 25% / 44% [-19%]

Now let’s look at these numbers in a different way that may take some of the sampling bias out (like if they polled too many Dems/libs . . . which it seems like). By comparing each persons approval rating adusted for their political party. I’ll take their net approval/disapproval rating and subtract their parties net rating (Dem. at +5%, GOP at -13% . . . a whopping 18% gap when most generic 2010 congressional ballots are dead even . . . which is proof this poll oversampled Dems/libs). This was not in the poll, but was my own idea to break down the data.

Difference between politician's net approval rating and the approval rating of their party:

Mitt +21%
Hillary +17%
Barack +16%
Palin +2%
Sotomayor -1%
Biden -3%
Pelosi -24%

In other words, Mitt’s net approval is a full 21% better than his party. This,, while even Pres Obama is only 16% better than his party, and Palin is only 2% better than her party. To have accomplished this, Mitt must be bringing in moderate Dems and indys to like him. That's a good good sign for him as a general election candidate. He's obviously got a lot of work to do to get all those "no opinion" folks to view him favorably, but Mitt's showing an ability to transcend negative opinions of the GOP. Something we desperately need in our next cadidate.

*******And one extra little tidbit and point of good news . . . Mitt' leads in yet another 2012 GOP poll (this one by Fox News):

Who would you like to see as the GOP 2012 Presidential Nominee?
Among Republicans (previous poll results, May 12-13, in parentheses):
Mitt Romney 22% (18%)
Mike Huckabee 21% (20%)
Sarah Palin 17% (13%)
Rudy Giuliani 13% (12%)
Newt Gingrich 9% (14%)
Bobby Jindal 3% (3%)
Jeb Bush 1% (3%)
Tim Pawlenty 1%
Too soon to say 10% (7%)
Among Independents:
Mitt Romney 22% (12%)
Rudy Giuliani 16% (19%)
Mike Huckabee 15% (16%)
Sarah Palin 13% (10%)
Newt Gingrich 3% (5%)
Bobby Jindal 3% (2%)
Jeb Bush 2% (2%)
Tim Pawlenty 2%
Too soon to say 8% (14%)
Among Republicans/Independents (Combined):
Mitt Romney 22.0%
Mike Huckabee 18.8%
Sarah Palin 15.5%
Rudy Giuliani 14.1%
Newt Gingrich 6.8%
Bobby Jindal 3.0%
Jeb Bush 1.4%
Tim Pawlenty 1.4%
Too soon to say 9.3%

And as an extra bonus . . . a funny clip from Jon Stewart's Daily Show (love him or hate him, he IS funny) titled "What are you doing to help Mitt Romney?"

Obama v. Romney?

2009-07-08T09:07:00.003-05:00

That's what David Brody sees. The reason? The increasing likelihood that the stimulus doesn't work. Romney, then, is the perfect foil for economic hard times.

Romney Tops New 2012 GOP Primary Poll

2009-07-08T02:43:00.005-05:00

Rasmussen has the first 2012 GOP primary poll post-Palin's press conference . . . and it's good news for Our Man Mitt!

(Chart courtesy of SeattlePI.com blog)

THIS IS A SAMPLE OF 750 LIKELY GOP PRIMARY VOTERS

The crosstabs show some interesting points as well . . .

Regardless of who you would vote for, which candidate would you least like to see win the Republican nomination in 2012?
Sarah Palin 21%, Haley Barbour 21%, Newt Gingrich 15%, Tim Pawlenty 15%, Mike Huckabee 10%, Mitt Romney 9%

In the 2012 election, how likely is it that a Republican candidate will defeat Barack Obama?
Very likely 41%, Somewhat likely 34%, Not very likely 14%, Not at all likely 4%

Does Sarah Palin’s resignation help or hurt her chances of winning the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012?
Help 24%, Hurt 40%, No impact 28%
(Note the similarity of the 24% Palin get's in the total vote and the 24% here who say her resignation doesn't hurt her . . . her supporters are VERY loyal to her IMO)

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net):
Mike Huckabee 78% / 17% (+61%) , Sarah Palin 76% / 21% (+55%) , Mitt Romney 73% / 19% (+54%) , Newt Gingrich 65% / 29% (+36%) , Dick Cheney 59% / 34% (+25%) , Tim Pawlenty 38% / 33% (+5%) , Haley Barbour 34% / 37% (-3%)

Voters aged of 18-29:
Palin 34% Huckabee 31%, Romney 18%, Newt 3%, Pawlenty 3%, Barbour 0%

Voters 65 and older:
Romney 34%, Huckabee 19%, Palin 18%, Newt 16%, Pawlenty 2%, Barbour 0%

Married:
Romney 26%, Huckabee 25%, Palin 21%, Newt 14%, Pawlenty 1%, Barbour 1%

Not Married:
Palin 33%, Romney 23%, Huckabee 14%, Newt 13%, Barbour 2%, Pawlenty 1%

Evangelical Christians:
Huckabee 35%, Palin 21%, Romney 17%, Newt 15%, Pawlenty 2%, Barbour 1%

Rarely or Never attend church:
Palin 31%, Romney 28%, Huckabee 14%, Newt 13%, Barbour 2%, Pawlenty 0%

Attend church more than once a week:
Huckabee 41%, Palin 20%, Gingrich 13%, Romney 11%, Barbour 2%, Pawlenty 1%

Favorables/Unfavorables Among Evangelical Christians (Very favorable/unfavorable):
Huckabee 89/8 (56/4), Palin 84/15 (56/4), Gingrich 74/22 (40/8), Romney 67/25 (36/5), Cheney 68/26 (32/9), Pawlenty 43/32 (11/9), Barbour 36/37 (8/15)

Favorables/Unfavorables Among Likely Voters who Rarely or Never Attend Church(Very favorable/unfavorable):
Palin 75/24 (41/12), Romney 71/22 (39/10), Huckabee 71/24 (30/9), Newt 62/34 (40/16), Cheney 59/38 (32/21), Pawlenty 41/41 (10/16), Barbour 36/46 (10/22)

SUMMING IT ALL UP:

Romney's sitting in a very good position. He's in a statistical tie for the lead among GOP voters. However, Palin and Huckabee have done VERY poorly among independents/moderates/Democrats in other polling whereas Romney has been very strong in these groups (see recent Pew Research Poll).

This Rasmussen poll, once again, shows that Romney still has trouble with what could be called the more devout Evangelical Christians (those that go to church more than once a week, who apparently view Romney on par with Dick "Vader" Cheney while they think Huckabee walks on water). However, Romney is very strong among more mature and more educated voters . . . and this bodes well for actual GOP turnout (not to mention it being a good sign that older, wiser, and more educated people see that Romney is the best man for the job . . . hopefully that sentiment will flow into other age and educational groups over the coming months/years.

BOTTOM LINE:

IF THE ECONOMY, HEALTHCARE, AND/OR FOREIGN POLICY ARE THE ISSUES OF THE DAY IN 2010/2011, ROMNEY WILL BLOW HIS MAJOR CURRENT COMPETITION AWAY IN THE GOP PRIMARY . . . AND EVEN THE MEDIA BIAS FOR OBAMA WON'T BE A MATCH FOR AN ANGRY NATION WANTING THE REAL, COMPETENT, AND STRONG LEADERSHIP THAT ROMNEY EMBODIES.

A Fond Farewell to Palin (but not Goodbye)

2009-07-04T09:06:00.002-05:00

There are some folks (even among our bloggers here on MyManMitt.com) that would dismiss Palin as a fop and a mistake. I am not among that crowd. The perceived foibles and challenges that Palin is blamed for are largely contrivances of the media and her enemies.

Anyone who watched the amazing speech she gave at the RNC convention last year dismisses her at their own peril. Steve Hayward at the Corner points out the dismissive attitude that many in the media took toward Ronald Reagan in the 1970's, widely anticipated to exit into the sunset by most politicos. Hayward concludes: "Everyone should apply the appropriate discount to the Palin commentary and analysis they read today."

There was one event which I think summarizes the challenges that Palin has faced in a nutshell. Last year, after the election, Palin was interviewed after the traditional Thanksgiving Turkey pardoning that many governors revel in. The cameraman and reporter seem to have colluded together to place a turkey being slaughtered as the backdrop of their interview with the Alaskan Governor. The optics of the scene are humurous to be sure but the intention of the media and those that blasted her insensitivity are equally humurous. In short, the criticism of this moment captured the purposeful collusion of the media, the homey naivite of the governor, and the general lapse in understanding that Palin's star sometimes shine's the brightest in her most unshiny moments.

Truth be told, criticizing Palin can give you quite the headache in some conservative circles. Certain bloggers on the list here have laid heavy into Palin at times and I've been on the receiving end of some strongly worded rebukes in return via email. The lesson here is that Palin has a STRONG following of powerful and excitable constituents and fans that form a large and coherent mass for any candidate.

Bottom line: ask yourself this, if Palin does not run in 2012, how far will the GOP candidates go to court her endorsement? Answer: to the moon and back.

Romney Emerges as Top Issues Play to His Strength

2009-07-03T11:20:00.002-05:00

From the Wall Street Journal:

Most Republicans have just finished what might be called the spring of their discontent. Not much went right in the first half of the year; not much to cheer
about.
But not Mitt Romney. For this unsuccessful 2008 Republican presidential contender, it is hard to imagine how events could be moving more decisively in his favor in 2009. One can almost hear him wondering: Why didn't things break this way last year?

This, in some ways, is one of the more disappointing thoughts I have heard in awhile. Think about it: had Romney been elected, the current crises would have played directly into Romney's strengths. Instead of having a novice deal with the economy, healthcare, and the budget, we could have had someone with experience and savvy helping the nation to navigate these difficult times.

Don't get me wrong; I'm glad that Romney is gaining increased visibility and respect for his talents and insight. But it is a little disappointing that we must deal with someone who has no background or particular talent for dealing with the issues placed before him.

All the more reason to continue to work hard to get Romney elected next time.

Romney's team awaits 2012

2009-06-29T11:21:00.001-05:00

You know who you are.

Romney's Popularity Grows

2009-06-24T11:40:00.001-05:00

From the Washington Wire:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is more popular among the general public now than during 2008’s Republican primary campaign, according to the latest poll from the Pew Research Center on the favorability ratings of leading members of the party.
Some 40% of the general public rates him favorably, while 28% rate him unfavorably. It’s a notable bump from the 30% who gave him high marks in Feb. 2008, and a notable decline from the 44% who viewed him unfavorably last year.
The turnaround is largely fueled by a change of opinion among independents—in February 2008 just 29% of independents had a favorable view while 46% had a negative impression. Now that balance is reversed with 44% viewing him favorable and just 25% unfavorably.

In case you hadn't seen it...

2009-06-17T08:55:00.001-05:00

... Romney is holding an essay contest for the chance to win a trip to Boston to sit with Romney at a Red Sox game.

Letter to Editor - GGW Bar Hopping

2009-06-14T01:14:00.001-05:00

In Tonga, for quite some time before and during the 1960s, there was a "custom", somewhat involuntarily adhered to by the locals, of trading their daughters to British officials for alcohol, money, cigarrettes, or, occasionally, the true necessities of life. Selling the virginity of their young daughters was an abhorrent practice, to be sure, but one some of the more desperate (and ostensibly foolish) Tongans felt to be a necessary evil in order to survive their poverty.

Other times, ships full of European sailors, smugglers, and pirates would come aground and ply local Tongan girls to their boats with promises of riches and adventure far away from the isolation of the Polynesian islands. Tongan girls in the 1950s undoubtedly felt eager to experience the excitement they had heard the outside world offered. All these young women had to do was "get on the boat and go". To their utter and bitter disappointment, the men only used them as sex toys and then tossed them back onto the shore like so much driftwood.

This spirit of moral fuzziness, gluttony, and human trafficking has come to Chicagoland in the form of the 2nd annual "Girls Gone Wild" event at Blarney Island on Petite Lake. A busload of "Girls" arrived during the afternoon of June 13th to begin the ferry voyage to the island. The purpose of the trip? To be photographed for the world's leading so-called "soft porn" video production company by the same name.

You see, the culture today tells women that they can they be firefighters, police officers, doctors, CEOs, and even presidential candidates. The culture also nods approvingly to the idea that young women can have the distinction of becoming potential multi-millionaire sex goddesses for drooling, overweight, balding, married men, all of whom have a conscience score at or below zero.

All our Chicago area girls needed to do was show up, sign away their privacy and dignity, get on the bus, go to Blarney Island, and be photographed wearing nothing (or next to it). Then, they will eagerly wait in anticipation to be judged sexually appealing enough to make the final cut. If they're "lucky", they'll gain fame and fortune the world over and become overnight porn sensations! I'm sure apology notes will be sent to the "losers" of this so-called contest because they weren't buxom or "wild" enough to win. The "bright" side is that runners up will also become "overnight" porn "sensations" of a somewhat different kind. The "losers'" photos will be found, without compensation to them even, all over the Internet, uploaded and downloaded by overweight, balding, hairybacked, married men, all surfing for porn on the Internet at night while their wives and children sleep.

Good luck with those CEO job interviews or political campaigns after the party, Wild Girls.

Doesn't GGW have a right under the First Amendement to be driving a billboard bus filled with and plastered with pictures of mostly naked, barely legal girls through the residential and business districts of our towns and communities? Sadly, the culture exclaims, "Yes!". Though, contrary to the historically revisionist, morally relative presentism of today, the Founding Fathers would have found this sort of thing breathtakingly outrageous and appalling.

Do oversexed men have the absolute right to choose to crowd by the thousands to the boat launches and piers, zip across the lake in gas-guzzling, noisy boats, clamber onto the shore and do at Blarney Island, uh, whatever it is they're thinking might happen in their wildest dreams? I just threw up in my mouth a little at writing that, but, yes, they do.

So what's the problem? Isn't this just manufactured outrage on my part? Aren't I just a Bible-thumping slightly overweight, hairybacked, right-wing nutjob moralist who, given the chance and a good alibi, might just sneak out on my wife and kids and do the exact same thing? To the first part (believing what the New Testament says about adultery, having witnessed its true consequences, and being slightly overweight and hairybacked), I exclaim, "Yes!"

The answer to the second part, my being a nutjob and a closet cheater, is a resounding "No!"

First of all, nutjobs are people like leftist white supremacist assassin John von Brunn, who have lost all control over themselves and don't care about the consequences their actions bring to others. Second, this is going on smack dab in my neighborhood as I write this. My wife is out for the afternoon and most of the evening. If I were a nutjob, I could hire a babysitter to cover my fatherly obligations while I hop on over to Blarney Island. I choose not to, thank goodness, because (unlike the nutjobs down on the lake right now) I'm still master of my own domain.

But, the real point here is not to be lost in the thick of all the issues about America being a free country. No, the real point is this: These young women, however much they're accountable for making their own decisions, are the daughters and sisters of American fathers and brothers. They are beloved daughters and sisters of men who, under different circumstances where unscrupulous males (can't call them "men" in any true sense) might attempt to take advantage of their offsprings' or siblings' naivete, would stomp those scumbags into the ground. Instead, they're beating feet to look at other mens' daughters and sisters, braying as they go, only to leave like the boys who, as in Pinocchio, turned into jackasses upon gorging themselves on Pleasure Island.

It's not hurting anyone? Victimless crime? Tell that to the millions of children and "barely legal" teenage girls worldwide who fall prey to this scam every day, in all its nefarious and disturbing forms, both here and abroad.

We cannot blame the President, who a little over half of America's hapless hopeandchangers have put into office. No, he wouldn't do anything about this anyways, judging by his pick of child porn defense attorney David Ogden for Deputy Attorney General. We also cannot blame Congress, the Senate, the Governor, or our state legislators (need I say more?). Nay, we cannot even blame the Mayor, the sheriff's office, local police authorities, or city councils.

We can only look into the mirror and blame ourselves for permitting this outrageous act of prostitution and depravity in our community. Our timid silence is our resounding consent to the rape of the dignity and self-esteem of our community's daughters and sisters. Next year, stand up and be counted. As but one man, to all men I say: Be real men and demand that "Girls Gone Wild" take its "business" elsewhere.

Giving an alternative

2009-06-01T23:09:00.003-05:00

I'm back after a lengthy break from blogging, and what would you know, there's my man Mitt in the news. The Washington Post had this article about Romney today:

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney roundly condemned the approach President Obama has taken to redefining the nation's relationship with the rest of the world, describing it as a "tour of apology" in a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation yesterday.

At this point Obama has made himself such an easy target for criticism, it's almost like shooting fish in a barrell. Like this one from Mitt in the same article:

"This is the time for strength and confidence, not for apologizing to America's critics," Romney said at one point, adding later that "arrogant, delusional tyrants cannot be stopped by earnest words and furrowed brows."

Like I said, like fish in a barrell.

Live blogging from the RPV Convention

2009-05-30T09:39:00.002-05:00

Mitt Romney spoke last night at the RPV Convention Gala last night. Video from the press conference soon.

Live Stream of the convention:

Update: 10:28 AM :: We're off and running. The McDonnell video is so good I'm almost put back by it. As someone who works in professional political consulting I can't imagine a better looking candidate. We're talking Hollywood casting. Good stuff.

Romney at the RPV Convention

2009-05-28T20:34:00.003-05:00

I'll be attending the convention for the Republican Party of Virginia over the weekend. Romney will be speaking at the Gala tomorrow (Friday) night. I'll provide photos, videos, interviews and more.

Stay tuned...

Obama vs Romney in 2012

2009-05-26T22:58:00.001-05:00

I saw this image, where a soccer mom asks Obama, "I thought you were getting a Hybrid?" Obama is driving a giant SUV that says "Big Gov". I compare what Obama is doing with the government, to what Romney would have done.

Here is a quote:

Romney took more than skills and knowledge away from Bain; he also acquired a way of thinking, a Weltanschauung—call it the Bain world view. He sees waste and inefficiency in almost moral terms; in fact, his crusade against inefficiency is practically a governing philosophy. "Government inefficiency wastes resources and places a burden on citizens and employers that's harmful to our future," he told me. "And anytime I see waste, or patronage, it bothers me."

Now compare that to Obama.

Romney is the best candidate to handle our massive problems.

Reasons to agree

Romney ran businesses (Bain Capital and Bain Consulting) that purchased poorly ran companies and turned them around.
Barack Obama is running the country poorly.
The country will need a massive turnaround in 2012.

The inefficiencies of the internal combustion engine are nothing compared to the waste of energy that big bureaucracies produce.

Barack Obama thinks its cool that he used to use drugs

2009-05-17T21:26:00.001-05:00

(The Obama photo is a photoshop, just in case you are stupid).

Reasons to agree:

Obama said, "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack though" (Dreams from My Father). People who use street names for drugs, are trying to sound cool.
Perhaps he thought he would reach those who had used drugs and convence them to go straight. However he will have reached more straight kids and convinced them to use drugs, by making it sound cool, showing that he was able to beat it, and using their street names, as though he is still trying to have "street cred".
Democrats don't like the goody-goody, never used drugs image. Steve Jobs said about Bill Gates, "I wish him the best, I really do. I just think he and Microsoft are a bit narrow. He'd be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once or gone off to an ashram when he was younger." So according to Steve Jobs, Bill Gates wouldn't be so "narrow" if he had "dropped acid". Was Barack Obama trying to tell people he wasn't "narrow" when he told the world all about his drug use, but he hides, and the media helps him hide his continued cigarette addiction? Did Obama think it was sexy of him to have used drugs in the past, but he is embarrassed of his continued cigarette addiction? If not, why did he tell the world about the former, and no one knows about the latter?

Reasons to disagree:

Obama was trying to reach people by using the street name. He wasn't trying to sound cool. You are reading way too much into this, and wouldn't want people over analyzing everything you say.

Was Obama too self centered with his drug use story? Will heavy drug use go up? Perhaps it will go down. Obama can be a good or bad role model to people in a powerful way. What do you think?

Steele blasts Romney

2009-05-11T18:47:00.001-05:00

One author thinks it's time for Steele to go. I tend to agree.

"On Friday, Michael Steele guest hosted Bill Bennett's radio show - and he got into a conversation with a caller on the subject of Mitt Romney's presidential candidacy. This caller - "Jay" (not me!) - had suggested that Mitt Romney could have won the general election, but that liberals had co-opted the Republican nomination by backing John McCain.

This is how Michael Steele responded (h/t Think Progress):

Yeah, but let me ask you. Ok, Jay, I'm there with you. But remember, it was the base that rejected Mitt because of his switch on pro-life, from pro-choice to pro-life. It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism. It was the base that rejected Mitch, Mitt, because they thought he was back and forth and waffling on those very economic issues you're talking about. So, I mean, I hear what you're saying, but before we even got to a primary vote, the base had made very clear they had issues with Mitt because if they didn't, he would have defeated John McCain in those primaries in which he lost.

2009-04-28T07:53:00.002-05:00

Steve Schmidt, campaign manager for John McCain had this to say on last night's Hugh Hewitt show talking about the 2012 Presidential campaign:

If I had to bet money on it, if I had to bet money on it today, you’d have to say that the people that I think look very good, very strong right now are Governor Romney, Governor Huntsman. I think Newt Gingrich, should he run, is going to be a very formidable, very formidable candidate. But the history of the Republican Party nominating process is that it almost always goes to someone who’s been around the track once before. And in that instance, in this instance, it would be Governor Romney. I thought he was a very scary opponent looking from the other side of the table in that he was almost like a learning organism at the end. He just kept getting better week by week by week, and kept becoming stronger. And I think these national campaigns are very unique, and I think most people learn a great deal with they go through them. And I think one of the reasons that President Bush was able to make it through the process the first time, unlike most people on the Republican side, is because he had been up close and personal through a couple of national races. And I think Mitt Romney is a candidate, is a far stronger candidate, prospectively, for the ’12 race because of his experience in ’08 than he was heading into the ’08 race.

Romney this week in National Review

2009-04-24T12:04:00.001-05:00

Romney this week in National Review

At last week’s Summit of the Americas, President Obama acquiesced to a 50-minute attack on America as terroristic, expansionist, and interventionist from Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega. His response to Ortega’s denunciation of our effort to free Cuba from Castro’s dictatorship was that he shouldn’t be blamed “for things that happened when I was three months old.” Blamed? Hundreds of men, including Americans, bravely fought and died for Cuba’s freedom, heeding the call from newly elected president John F. Kennedy. But last week, even as American soldiers sacrificed blood in Afghanistan and Iraq to defend liberty, President Obama shrank from defending liberty here in the Americas.

Obama passed on stupid urban legends that exaggerated racial problems.

2009-04-16T22:26:00.001-05:00

Reasons to agree:

"I don't want to wake up four years from now and discover that we still have more young black men in prison than in college." ~ Barack Obama, fund-raiser in Harlem, NY, Nov. 29, 2007.
"Simply untrue, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. There may be a case for arguing, as some Obama supporters have done, that the total number of black prisoners is slightly higher than the total number of black students. But I can only fact check the comparison the candidate actually made, which was between young black men in prison and in college. Rather than acknowledge the error, the Obama campaign declined to provide statistical support." Source: GovWatch on 2008 Pinocchio Awards for Biggest Fib of 2007 Jan 1, 2008. As GovWatch points out, there are more black men in prison (age 18 to 100 years old) than there are "young black men" in college. However Obama said there were more young black men in prison than in college, which is far from true.

Obama is right on Merit Pay

2009-04-16T22:21:00.001-05:00

Reasons to agree:

We should reward good behavior and punish bad behavior.
" Teachers are extraordinarily frustrated about how their performance is assessed. And not just their own performance, but the school's performance generally. So they're teaching to the tests all the time. What I have said is that we should be able to get buy-in from teachers in terms of how to measure progress. Every teacher I think wants to succeed. And if we give them a pathway to professional development, where we're creating master teachers, they are helping with apprenticeships for young new teachers, they are involved in a variety of other activities, that are really adding value to the schools, then we should be able to give them more money for it. But we should only do it if the teachers themselves have some buy-in in terms of how they're measured. They can't be judged simply on standardized tests that don't take into account whether children are prepared before they get to school or not." ~ Barack Obama, 2007 Democratic primary debate on "This Week" Aug 19, 2007

Background

Q: As president, can you name a hot-button issue where you would be willing to buck the Democratic Party line & say, "You know what? Republicans have a better idea here?"

A: I think that on issues of education, I've been very clear about the fact--and sometimes I've gotten in trouble with the teachers' union on this--that we should be experimenting with charter schools. We should be experimenting with different ways of compensating teachers.

Q: You mean merit pay?

A: Well, merit pay, the way it's been designed, I think, is based on just a single standardized test--I think is a big mistake, because the way we measure performance may be skewed by whether or not the kids are coming into school already 3 years or 4 years behind. But I think that having assessment tools and then saying, "You know what? Teachers who are on career paths to become better teachers, developing themselves professionally--that we should pay excellence more." I think that's a good idea.

Source: 2008 Fox News interview: presidential series Apr 27, 2008

Romney's Speech at CPAC 2009

2009-02-27T16:56:00.001-05:00

Governor Mitt Romney's remarks at CPAC

Thank you all very much. It’s good to see all of you, and to be among so many friends. Being at CPAC feels a bit like coming home. Your enthusiastic send off three years ago propelled my campaign to the top of the pack. That status turned out to be temporary, of course. And when the journey was over, both Ann and I were filled with gratitude for your friendship and loyalty. It warmed our hearts, and we thank you. A lot of you have been asking how Ann is doing. And I’m happy to say she’s doing great.

There are so many conservative leaders here this weekend. I was looking forward to seeing Governor Palin again. There’s a rumor that she has been offered an 11-million-dollar book contract. My publisher has been talking to me about an 11-millon-dollar deal as well. I’m just not sure I can come up with that kind of money.

It’s an honor to be introduced by David Keene. His commitment to conservative principles has been tested and proven, in many venues and over many years. Some of you were here with Dave for the very first meeting of CPAC in the 1970s. You’ve been involved long enough to know that like every great cause in America, the conservative movement has periods of success and moments of setback. And in 2008, we had more than our share of disappointments. But we haven’t come to CPAC to dwell on battles we’ve lost. We are here to get ready for the battles we’re going to win.

As conservatives, we face this new year with resolve, but without resentment. Our country has a new president, and he has our prayers and best wishes. In the last eight years, we saw how a president’s political adversaries could be consumed by anger, and even hatred. That is not the spirit that brings us together. We want our country to succeed, no matter who’s in power. We want America to be prosperous and secure, regardless of who gets the credit. At our best, that has always been the mark of the conservative movement – in good times and bad, the interests of this great nation come first.

Right now the interests of America will depend in many ways on the decisions of President Obama. Those choices are his to make, whether or not we see eye to eye. We won’t be afraid to disagree with him when we must. And we won’t be afraid to agree with him when we can. One thing the President can know is that when he takes strong action in defense of the United States, we will stand by him. And we will always support the brave men and women of our nation’s military that he now commands.

We make these commitments out of principle, and our principles don’t depend on elections won or lost. Contrary to what you hear from some commentators on the left, the 2008 elections did very little to settle the most serious differences of opinion in American politics. Some of those issues were hardly debated at all in the fall campaign. As conservatives in opposition, we have a duty to press on …a duty to state our case with confidence.

Some critics speak as if we need to redefine conservatism. I think that misses the mark. America’s challenges are different from year to year, but our defining principles remain the same. Conservatives don’t enter each new political era trying to figure out what we believe. Facing new and complex problems, we find the answers in principles that endure. Ronald Reagan used to say that “the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that what they know is wrong. ” Conservatives don’t claim to know everything, but what we know is right.

Conservatives believe in settling great questions the way the Founders intended – especially where the stakes are the highest. Courts that have undermined the fundamental right to life have shown an equal disregard for the rights of property and the rights of religious freedom. We’ve even seen them extend rights to terrorist combatants who have killed Americans and who would like to kill many more.

In the way of judicial nominees, these next four years aren’t likely to be encouraging. But we conservatives stand for causes that are too important to allow unelected judges to force their own biases on an unwilling nation. We may not always win at the polls, but we believe in democracy …we respect the will of the people …and across this country, we will not stand idly by as liberal judges try to re-write the constitution and override democracy.

I’m often asked these days what Republicans and conservatives have to do to recover. And I’ll bet my answer is the same as yours. Our first concern isn’t a political recovery – it’s the recovery of our country.

We‘re at one of those rare moments in history, when the biggest tests come all at once. We don’t have the luxury of taking them on one by one. We have to get a lot of things right, and all at the same time. We’re in the second year of a major recession, and if we don’t make the right choices, things could get worse. Americans have already lost some 12 trillion dollars in net worth. And the pool of our nation’s investment capital has also shrunk by trillions of dollars.

The President has already moved to stop our economy’s downward spiral. Parts of the stimulus will, in fact, do some good. But too much of the bill was short-sighted and wasteful. Every single Republican in Congress voted in favor of a better stimulus plan, one that focused on creating jobs immediately. But Congressional Democrats couldn’t restrain themselves from larding up their bill with tens of billions of dollars for their political friends. Republicans wanted to stimulate the economy, Democrats wanted to stimulate the government. Conservatives in the House and Senate stood their ground and voted no—and they were absolutely right.

So far, the Administration has been unclear on what it will do to address the huge decline in the pool of risk and investment capital. These losses will be felt in businesses that don’t start-up and grow, and in jobs that don’t get created. To grow the pool of investment capital, the last thing you’d do is to raise taxes on investment, as the President has proposed. The surest, most obvious course is to rule out higher taxes on investment. I would propose going one step further. For all middle-class Americans, we ought to abolish the tax on interest, dividends and capital gains.

This economic crisis has proven that government has an urgent obligation to address some awful abuses we’ve seen in the financial sector, particularly in housing finance. Free markets, properly regulated and allowed to work as they should, have propelled America to be the largest economy in the world. For years, Washington politicians did nothing to prevent the abuses at Fannie and Freddie, and in some cases they encouraged those abuses for political gain. Let’s be clear on this point: conservatives favor clear, streamlined and up-to-date regulations and laws that let the economy work, but we will vigorously oppose those politicians who are poised to use their own failures as an excuse to undermine the free enterprise system.

I know we didn’t all agree on TARP. I believe that it was necessary to prevent a cascade of bank collapses. For free markets to work, there has to be a currency and a functioning financial system. But we can agree on this: TARP should not have been used to bail out GM, Chrysler and the UAW. And this is personal for me, I want the U. S. auto industry to succeed. But as some of us pointed out last November, that can only happen if its excessive costs and burdens are restructured. And concessions are going to be few and far between if bondholders and unions already have your money when the negotiating begins. The right answer for Detroit is this: Fix it first.

All of these measures are meant to confront the current economic peril. Properly guided, Washington could in fact speed the recovery. So far, some of the actions it has taken will help, and some will hurt. But we can be certain that the American economy will recover. The invisible hand of the market is more powerful than the lumbering machinery of government. In the final analysis, we know that the private sector – entrepreneurs and businesses large and small – will create the millions of jobs our country needs.

Earlier this week, the President addressed not only the current economy, but also his broader goals. I was pleased that he put healthcare, education, and energy on the agenda. The direction we take on these issues will profoundly shape the future of the nation. I’m afraid I know where the liberal Democrats want to take us. And as they try to pull us in the direction of government-dominated Europe, we’re going to have to fight as never before to make sure that America stays America.

President Obama was awfully vague about some of his plans, but I think I heard him say that government is responsible for educating a child from birth—from birth—to its first job. Universal pre-school and universal college. And there were hints as well of universal healthcare and a universal service corps. It all sounds very appealing, until you realize that these plans mean universal government. That model has never worked anywhere in the world. America is great because our society is free and the power of government is limited by the Constitution.

For the last several years, we’ve heard liberals moaning about the 700 billion dollars that have been spent over six years to win freedom in Iraq. They have now spent more than that in 30 days. And with a government almost 12 trillion dollars in debt, any unnecessary spending puts at risk the creditworthiness of the United States. If the world loses confidence in our currency, that could cause a run on the dollar, or hyperinflation that would wipe out savings and devastate the Middle Class. President Obama says he hopes to cut the deficit in half after four years—does that mean a deficit in 2012 of 600 billion dollars? No president should accept such a staggering deficit, much less hold it up as a national goal. This is the time to pare back government spending. It is not the time to fulfill every liberal dream and spend America into catastrophe.

Congressional Democrats are gearing up to take over the health care system. We need to advance a conservative plan – one based on free choice, personal responsibility, and private medicine; one that doesn’t add massive new federal spending. I like what I proposed in Massachusetts when I was governor. And even though the final bill and its implementation aren’t exactly the way I wanted, the plan is a good model. Today, almost every Massachusetts citizen who had been uninsured now has private, free-market coverage, and we didn’t have to raise taxes or borrow money to make it happen. We may find even better ideas in other states. But let’s make certain that conservative principles are front and center. A big-government takeover of health care is the next thing liberals are going to try, and it’s the last thing America needs.

What America does need is a commitment to reforming entitlements. I believe that Medicaid should be capped and put in the hands of the states; Social Security benefits for high income citizens who are now age 55 or younger, should grow with the consumer price index, not the wage index; and Medicare should be reformed with a dose of free-market reality. These and other reforms are essential, because if we stay on the same road, the next generation could see tax rates 50 percent higher even than ours – and that’s to pay the bills we’ve racked up for ourselves. Passing on that kind of debt to our children is not only fiscally irresponsible, it is morally wrong.

I was glad that the President said he favors charter schools. Did you hear what sound came from the Democratic side of the chamber? Crickets. I hope the President will join all of us to expand school choice, reward better teachers with better pay, raise teacher standards in academic subject-matters like math and science, and enable school districts to remove teachers that don’t make the grade. It is high time to put America’s kids first and leave the union bosses behind.

We and the President agree that America must act to become energy independent. But his cap-and-trade proposal is exactly the wrong way to go about it. It would tax American citizens and employers and send businesses and jobs to high polluting and high emitting nations like China. Any carbon plan has to be worldwide in scope: they don’t call it America-warming, they call it global-warming.

Let’s also be the voice that defends the rights of workers – against coercion and intimidation. The working people of this country should be able to unionize the way their fathers and mothers did – by free choice and secret ballot. The Democrats’ plan to take away those rights is an insult to the dignity and common sense of working people. It would be calamitous for the economy. I know that the Democrats want to pay back the union bosses for all the money they gave them, but they must not do it by selling out the American worker – and democracy.

America voted for change. America did not vote for a boat-load of new government spending programs that would guarantee higher taxes and high deficits as far as the eye can see and that would threaten our currency, our economy, and our future. We must be the alternative course. We can’t be that if all we say is no. Our plans must be clear, compelling, and first to the table. Our plans must have at least one common thread—they must make America stronger. Better education strengthens our kids; better healthcare strengthens our citizens; and bringing our budget into balance strengthens our economy and preserves our future. Today, as much as ever, conservative principles are absolutely essential to keeping America strong and prosperous and free.

With all that is happening here at home, there are some who have forgotten that we are at war, that Iran and its jihadist surrogates are killing our sons and daughters abroad, and hope to do it here. I am pleased that our troops will be coming home from Iraq. But let there be no confusion: it is in spite of Barack Obama’s stance on Iraq, not because of it, that the troops are coming home in victory!

President Obama is barely a month into his term, and, of course, his biggest decisions on national security are still ahead of him. His administration has won the favor of liberal commentators by pledging what it calls reform in the treatment of terrorist detainees. He’s also promised to close down Guantanamo, without giving the slightest indication of the next stop for the killers being held there now. That decision, too, has received the predictable applause from certain law professors and editorial boards.

But here’s the problem. That is the very kind of thinking that left America vulnerable to the attacks of September 11th.

This is not a law enforcement problem. It is the gravest matter of national security, with thousands if not millions of lives in the balance. The jihadists are still at war with America. Our government has no greater duty than a vigilant defense, and no greater cause than victory for America and for freedom.

I had no objection when Barack Obama decided to give his first TV interview to an Arabic broadcaster. But when he said that America in the past has dictated to the world, he was misguided and naïve. And the next time our president speaks to a foreign audience I hope he will remember this basic fact of history: America is not a country that dictates to other nations. We are the country that has freed millions of people from the tyranny of dictators. Never in the history of a world has a single country possessed such great power, and used it for such good purpose across the world, as the United States of America.

I believe President Obama was also mistaken in backing away from our commitment to missile defense. And if he calculated that Russia would respond in kind by showing a little restraint and good will, he quickly learned otherwise. All Russia did to return the favor was bribe Kyrgyzstan to shut down our use of its airports, closing access we needed for our troops serving in Afghanistan. Gestures that communicate a lack of resolve only embolden America’s adversaries. With Iran seeking nuclear weapons, with North Korea already nuclear and selling its technology to the Syrians, it is essential that we construct a missile defense, now.

A lot of you have the memory of coming to CPAC in its early days, when America had challenges so big that many in the world – and even a few in our own government – thought we were in decline. They doubted our ability to compete economically, to face down the dangers of the era, or even to defend our ideals. Today we’re hearing echoes of that era once again, from those who speak of America as if our day has passed.

Some of these critics never cared much for our belief that America occupies a special place …that there is work in the world that only we can do …and that Americans have the heart and the courage to get it done. But we know these things to be true. And to those who question the character of our country, including the new attorney general, let us remind them that America has never been, is not now, and will never be a nation of cowards.

I don’t deny that America’s challenges are great, or that overcoming them will require the best that we have to give. But I know as well that times of difficulty always bring out the essential character of our fellow citizens. When I was a boy, my dad used to say that the pursuit of the difficult makes you strong. Well, the pursuit of the difficult will make America strong. We welcome the challenge. It will call on us, once again, to draw on the incredible resilience, ingenuity, and faith of the free men and women of America.

We don’t get to choose the tests and trials ahead. But we’re entirely free, you and I, to choose how we will meet those tests. We will meet them as conservatives have done before. We will find strength in each other, and answer our opponents with good will and honest words. And we will go forward – confident in our beliefs, and certain of victories to come. Thank you.

Romney live at CPAC at 4:35 EST

2009-02-27T16:16:00.000-05:00

Live video chat by Ustream

Romney's year to shine

2009-02-26T14:31:00.002-05:00

That's the conclusion of Brett Joshpe over at Politico:

Although the 2012 presidential campaign will not begin in earnest for another two years, Romney has several other factors working in his favor. He currently holds no elected office, so in a time when Republicans are rediscovering their voice, Romney does not have to worry about the compromises and horse trading that accompany public office. Instead, he can speak with the voice of a true conservative and hold accountable members of the Republican Party who defect.

He is especially well-poised to speak with authority given that the economy is, and will continue to be for some time, the foremost issue for Americans. Unlike McCain, who never sounded comfortable discussing the intricacies of the economic collapse, Romney is regarded as an expert on financial matters, given his private-sector experience. If the economy is still lagging in a few years, Obama — and Obama alone — will own the recession, and Romney will be well-positioned to convince Americans that he is the man for the job.

School Choice

2009-02-04T02:07:00.001-05:00

For those interested in the subject of school choice, I have started a new blog dedicated to that subject at http://vouchersystem.blogspot.com/. Please join me.

Romney in the News

2009-01-31T01:58:00.003-05:00

Romney hit the home page of Yahoo! tonight with a story about his criticizing of the current "stimulus" package that passed the house. Despite the fact that much of the speech referenced by the article was on the economy and the risk of wasting billions of borrowed money on pork barrel projects, the article focuses on Romney's comments about abortion. I must say, I hope Obama has to pay one day politically for spending tax payer dollars overseas to pay for abortions.

2012 Talk Begins

2009-01-22T14:26:00.003-05:00

Romney as the Frontrunner.

Romney comments on the Obama Inauguration

2009-01-20T17:53:00.001-05:00

Mitt Romney's remarks on the Obama inaugural speech.

" Barack Obama gave a speech from the middle. He once again is communicating that he intends to govern from the middle and not from the wing…It was a speech that could be offered by a leader from either party and that’s good. His themes extended well beyond partisan causes and drew upon American values and dealt with American challenges.

On a day like this, with an inauguration and the commencement of a new presidency, I think Americans come united. We want to see Barack Obama successful in combating terror, in helping strengthen the economy, in diverting Iran from its nuclear ambitions. We just join with common hope.

But down the road of course there will be differences of opinion and that is the blessing of democracy. Our system thrives by having a debate of alternative views. We’ll disagree with Barack Obama as he will with us but hopefully together we will act for the common good.

I think given the challenges we face today, the future of either party pales in comparison with the future of our country. I think partisans are burying their partisanship to take action that will strengthen action at a critical time."

Romney Testifies on Stimulus

2009-01-15T14:50:00.001-05:00

Here is a link to Romney's testimony today on Capitol Hill regarding the stimulus plans. Thanks to Marc Ambinder for pointing out the link.

Merry Christmas

2008-12-26T01:48:00.002-05:00

Hope everyone has a Merry Christmas and a good Boxing Day tomorrow! For those of you unfamiliar with the second holiday, take the opportunity to donate to those less fortunate than you and she'll be right mate!

On Auto Bailout

2008-12-22T15:45:00.003-05:00

In case you missed these recent appearances, here is a transcript from two of them:

"On the Record" with Romney (Romney also comments on Governor Blagojevich in this segment)

"Meet the Press" with Romney

Romney on Stimulus

2008-12-22T15:39:00.001-05:00

Don't miss the great piece by Romney in NRO about action on the economy:

What is Washington waiting for? The inauguration is less than five weeks
away: At the rate we’ve been going, another 500,000 jobs will be lost by then.
The downward spiral is deepening and accelerating: Congress and the president
must act now.

Boston Globe Acting Listless

2008-12-12T15:36:00.002-05:00

There was a funny article this week criticizing Romney's Free and Strong America PAC for not giving more of the money raised to candidates for office:

Paul S. Ryan, associate legal counsel to the non-partisan campaign watchdog
group Campaign Legal Center, says use of a political action committee in such a
manner "is not uncommon and not illegal, but it is unfortunate and deceptive to tell donors their funds are going to help candidates when,
in fact, a big chunk is used to further the career of the political person who
created the PAC." [emphasis added.]

Does anyone really think that people who donate to Romney's PAC intend anything other than that he will use the money to advance his political career? That's exactly what I want him to do with it.

Romney's spokesman, of course, pointed out the obvious, "The main purpose of Mitt Romney's PAC is to enable him to travel around the country on virtually a full-time basis to campaign and raise funds for candidates and to promote policies that will strengthen America."

Doesn't the Globe have better things to do? This reminds me of those "Romney Spent Inordinate Amounts of Time Running for President when he was Governor" articles. I can't remember a single article about Barack Obama neglecting his Senate responsibilities when he was running for President. Keep up the good work Romney!

Twitta-thon

2008-12-08T16:47:00.002-05:00

Twitter is quickly becoming the most familiar vehicle for quick messaging in the conservative movement. Take a look at this movement.

Right now we are having a Twittathon for Chuck DeVore, Assemblyman out of California running for Barbara Boxer's seat. Find out more here: http://tweetforchuck.com

Barbara Boxer's $620 Million Air Freshener for Harry Reid

2008-12-03T16:58:00.004-05:00

AS many of you know I've joined forces with Chuck DeVore in his campaign to defeat Barbara Boxer in the Senate. Here's our first viral video. Help us get the word out to help Chuck: Make a contribution today.

Steve Harris (VP Global Communications at GM) vs. Romney

2008-11-30T21:00:00.001-05:00

Former Governor Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed in the New York times on November 21st (click here).

Romney begins the op-ed with this:

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won't go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit's automakers (read more).

Steve Harris (a VP of Global Communications at GM) responded to Mitt Romney. He said:

I noticed the Boston dateline on Mitt Romney's article advocating bankruptcy for Detroit's auto industry (this is a vast oversimplification). From his New England home (and I thought anti-new England xenophobia was only alive and well in the republican primaries), Mr. Romney may not realize how much the industry has changed since 1969, when his father, George W. Romney, left Michigan (how dare he!) to become housing and urban development secretary.

Translation: Only people who decide to live in Michigan until they die can have an opinion about what the United States FEDERAL GOVERNMENT does with tax payers money, when it comes to giving our money to Ford, or GM. Mr. Harris said "I noticed the Boston dateline on Mitt Romney's article…", and he complained how "George W. Romney, left Michigan to become housing and urban development secretary". I guess George Romney shouldn't have "left Michigan" to become housing and urban development secretary… Perhpas George Romney should have moved Washington DC to Michigan? Mr. Harris in unable to admit that George Romney helped turn around things while he was at AMC… he just spat at him for leaving Detroit.

Besides, the argument is stupid. Mr. Harris said;

Mr. Romney may not realize how much the industry has changed since 1969 (yes, you guys have done a great job since 1969). Nearly every recommendation Mitt Romney makes for United States automakers has already been undertaken by current management in Detroit (and they have done a great job! Just look at their stock! So when Mr. Harris says that "nearly" every recommendation Romney makes… has been taken… this is political speach, that makes an emotional, not a logical argument. Mr. Harris says that they are already "nearly" doing what Romney tells them to. And so in order to argue with him, you have to get into specifics. Most of us are too lazy for specifics, and so we just trust him.) Automakers have been investing in the future on the order of $12 billion a year in research and development — second only to the semiconductor industry.

Mitt Romney did not say, "All you have to do is invest more in R&D". Mr. Harris did not even read Mitt's Op-ed. Does Mr. Harris judge progress by how much money is spent? We are doing a great job… look at all this money we are spending! Mr. Harris would do well in government… don't look at our results, look at how much money we are spending! Besides why not compair how much GM spends on R&D to Toyota?

Then he says:

In addition, General Motors has cut $9 billion in structural costs since 2005 and last year reached a landmark agreement to transfer the delivery of health care to the United Auto Workers union.

Once again, you just have to ask idiots like this: "so, do you think you have followed Mitt Romney's advice and cut enough money?" Lets do some math. They have cut "$9 billion in structural cost since 2005″. That is 3 billion a year (I hope that is GM and not all 3). Maybe it takes someone who got more than just a degree in communication, like Mr. Harris, to realize that that is not enough money when Ford lost 12.7 billion in 2006.

It may seem like I am jumping around here, but I am reprinting Steve Harris' op-ed verbatim, and he jumps around making no coherent argument. Mr. Harris goes from saying what a great job they are doing at cutting cost at GM, to making this strange argument:

Finally, it is inappropriate of Mr. Romney to invoke Walter Reuther's name while advocating using bankruptcy to break union contracts. That reference may be overlooked in Boston but surely not in Detroit.

If you don't know what Mr. Harris is talking about, this is what Romney wrote:

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, "Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street."

Mr. Harris did not respond to what Reuther said; that "getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street." Mr. Harris did not respond to any of Romney's arguments. Mr. Harris just said that it was wrong for someone who lived in Boston to have an opinion what the Federal Government did with the tax payer's money, and that it was somehow wrong for Romney to quote something that someone told his dad. Mr. Harris failed to explain WHY it was wrong for Romney to quote something that someone told his dad, and I can't figure it out. I read his wikipedia article, and it doesn't seem like he is someone that is so evil, that we must assume every sentence he ever spoke was inherently wrong, and offensive to the tender sensibilities of people like Mr. Harris.

I did not cut, or leave out any of Mr. Harris's so called response to Romney. I'm not trying to make him look stupid by leaving out some of his arguments. But it is not just his stupidity that makes me mad. Mitt Romney did not take a salary as the CEO of the 2002 winter Olympics. Mitt Romney did not take a salary as Governor of Massachusetts. Mitt Romney gave millions to the 2002 winter Olympics. Mr. Harris acts like he is angry at former Governor Mitt Romney said about GM. I don't know how much Mr. Harris makes, but he will make more money if GM gets money from the federal government. Here is an idiot, and an ass, who has a conflict of interest, makes a xenophobic incoherent argument against anyone who doesn't live in Michigan, and who dares have an opinion about not sending the current luxury private plane-flying executives (like him) federal money.

Mitt Romney didn't base his insight just on the fact that his dad was a former automobile executive.

Mitt Romney was a business consultant that got paid to tell failing companies what to do, when they were in trouble. Mitt Romney used to get paid to give advice like the advice that he gave our country. Mitt Romney gave us insight for free, that he used to charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for.

Here is the rest of Romney's article:

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota's Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.
The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, "Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street."

You don't have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don't want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don't fire the best dealers, and don't crush them with new financial or performance demands they can't meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don't ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.
The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Hewitt Takes Huckabee Apart

2008-11-26T05:52:00.001-05:00

Hugh Hewitt sat down with Mike Huckabee recently to discuss his new book. In a ranging interview Hewitt confronts Huckabee about his fixation with Romney:

HH: Well Governor, I want to get to all that. We’ve got a lot of time. I want to get to the fair tax, I want to get to a number of things. But obviously, the headlines about the book do concern Romney. And I went through it, line by line, page by page, read the whole thing. There are more mentions of Romney in this book that there are of either John McCain or even of your campaign manager, Chip Saltzman. Do you regret the focus at the end on your opponent?

MH: No, I don’t, because I think a lot of the focus during the campaign was about Mitt Romney. And the reason I didn’t talk more about John McCain, though I talk about him quite a bit, was that the book was put to bed after the primary had completed. I wanted to be careful not to say something that might be harmful to John McCain’s candidacy. And Mitt Romney and I were both out of the race. I talked about Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, but I don’t think I was unfair, and I don’t think I was untrue. Everything in the book, I think I can back up. And there’s not a thing in that book that isn’t verifiable and factual.

HH: Governor, you don’t mention the word Mormon once in this book. Is that…

MH: There’s a reason for that.

Op-Ed By Mitt Romney

2008-11-19T12:50:00.001-05:00

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won't go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit's automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota's Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, "Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street."

You don't have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don't want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don't fire the best dealers, and don't crush them with new financial or performance demands they can't meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don't ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year's Republican presidential nomination.

Mitt Romney on conservative principles

2008-11-18T08:39:00.001-05:00

Ship of fools

2008-11-17T23:26:00.001-05:00

I was listening to a podcast from the economist and came across this article:

Nov 13th 2008

From The Economist print edition

Political parties die from the head down

JOHN STUART MILL once dismissed the British Conservative Party as the stupid party. Today the Conservative Party is run by Oxford-educated high-fliers who have been busy reinventing conservatism for a new era. As Lexington sees it, the title of the "stupid party" now belongs to the Tories' transatlantic cousins, the Republicans.

There are any number of reasons for the Republican Party's defeat on November 4th. But high on the list is the fact that the party lost the battle for brains. Barack Obama won college graduates by two points, a group that George Bush won by six points four years ago. He won voters with postgraduate degrees by 18 points. And he won voters with a household income of more than $200,000—many of whom will get thumped by his tax increases—by six points. John McCain did best among uneducated voters in Appalachia and the South.

The Republicans lost the battle of ideas even more comprehensively than they lost the battle for educated votes, marching into the election armed with nothing more than slogans. Energy? Just drill, baby, drill. Global warming? Crack a joke about Ozone Al. Immigration? Send the bums home. Torture and Guantánamo? Wear a T-shirt saying you would rather be water-boarding. Ha ha. During the primary debates, three out of ten Republican candidates admitted that they did not believe in evolution (Senator Sam Brownback, former Gov. Mike Huckabee and Representative Tom Tancredo said they did not).

(Here is some information from the New York Times).

May 11, 2007, 10:19 AM
Romney Elaborates on Evolution
By MICHAEL LUO

DES MOINES, May 11 — Mitt Romney expanded on his belief in evolution in an interview earlier this week, staking out a position that could put him at odds with some conservative Christians, a key voting bloc he is courting.

Mr. Romney, a devout Mormon, surprised some observers when he was not among those Republican candidates who raised their hands last week when asked at the Republican presidential debate if they did not believe in evolution. (Senator Sam Brownback, former Gov. Mike Huckabee and Representative Tom Tancredo said they did not.)

"I believe that God designed the universe and created the universe," Mr. Romney said in an interview this week. "And I believe evolution is most likely the process he used to create the human body."

He was asked: Is that intelligent design?
"I'm not exactly sure what is meant by intelligent design," he said. "But I believe God is intelligent and I believe he designed the creation. And I believe he used the process of evolution to create the human body."

While governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Romney opposed the teaching of intelligent design in science classes.

"In my opinion, the science class is where to teach evolution, or if there are other scientific thoughts that need to be discussed," he said. "If we're going to talk about more philosophical matters, like why it was created, and was there an intelligent designer behind it, that's for the religion class or philosophy class or social studies
class."
Intelligent design is typically defined as the claim that examination of nature points to the work of an intelligent designer, as opposed to the utterly random, naturalistic processes that are taught as part of evolutionary theory. Critics have called intelligent design a thinly disguised version of creationism, which takes a literal approach to the creation account in Genesis, that the earth was created in six days and is less than 10,000 years old.

Mr. Romney said he was asked about his belief in evolution when he was interviewed by faculty members for highest honors designations before his graduation from Brigham Young University.

He told his interviewers that he did not believe there was a "conflict between true science and true religion," he said.

"True science and true religion are on exactly the same page," he said. "they may come from different angles, but they reach the same conclusion. I've never found a conflict between the science of evolution and the belief that God created the universe. He uses scientific tools to do his work."

The Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints has no definitive position on evolution, and church leaders have disagreed on the issue over the years.

Mr. Romney said his answer was satisfactory to faculty members. "They teach evolution at B.Y.U.," he said.

(Back to the economist)
The Republican Party's divorce from the intelligentsia has been a while in the making. The born-again Mr Bush preferred listening to his "heart" rather than his "head". He also filled the government with incompetent toadies like Michael "heck-of-a-job" Brown, who bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina. Mr McCain, once the chattering classes' favourite Republican, refused to grapple with the intricacies of the financial meltdown, preferring instead to look for cartoonish villains... (I always thought this was a missed rallying cry for Romney... Bush brought us "compassionate conservatism, and I wanted Romney to bring us competent conservatisms"...

Republicanism's anti-intellectual turn is devastating for its future. The party's electoral success from 1980 onwards was driven by its ability to link brains with brawn. The conservative intelligentsia not only helped to craft a message that resonated with working-class Democrats, a message that emphasised entrepreneurialism, law and order, and American pride. It also provided the party with a sweeping policy agenda. The party's loss of brains leaves it rudderless, without a compelling agenda.

This is happening at a time when the American population is becoming more educated. More than a quarter of Americans now have university degrees. Twenty per cent of households earn more than $100,000 a year, up from 16% in 1996. Mark Penn, a Democratic pollster, notes that 69% call themselves "professionals". McKinsey, a management consultancy, argues that the number of jobs requiring "tacit" intellectual skills has increased three times as fast as employment in general. The Republican Party's current "redneck strategy" will leave it appealing to a shrinking and backward-looking portion of the electorate.

Why is this happening? One reason is that conservative brawn has lost patience with brains of all kinds, conservative or liberal. Many conservatives—particularly lower-income ones—are consumed with elemental fury...

Another reason is the degeneracy of the conservative intelligentsia itself, a modern-day version of the 1970s liberals it arose to do battle with: trapped in an ideological cocoon, defined by its outer fringes, ruled by dynasties and incapable of adjusting to a changed world. The movement has little to say about today's pressing problems, such as global warming and the debacle in Iraq, and expends too much of its energy on xenophobia, homophobia and opposing stem-cell research.

Romney on Homophobia:

"This is a subject about which people have tender emotions in part because it touches individual lives. It also has been misused by some as a means to promote intoleranceand prejudice. This is a time when we must fight hate and bigotry, when we must root out prejudice, when we must learn to accept people who are different from one another. Like me, the great majority of Americans wish both to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and to oppose bias and intolerance directed towards gays and lesbians."

Governor Mitt Romney, 06-22-2004 Press Release

"Preserving the definition of marriage should not infringe on the right of individuals to live in the manner of their choosing. One person may choose to live as a single, even to have and raise her own child. Others may choose to live in same sex partnerships or civil arrangements. There is an unshakeable majority of opinion in this country that we should cherish and protect individual rights with tolerance and understanding. "

Governor Mitt Romney, 06-22-2004 Press Release

Romney on Xenophobia:

"Immigration has been an important part of our nation's success. The current system, however, puts up a concrete wall to the best and brightest, yet those without skill or education are able to walk across the border. We must reform the current immigration laws so we can secure our borders, implement a mandatory biometrically enabled, tamper proof documentation and employment verification system, and increase legal immigration into America."

"We need to make America more attractive for legal immigrants -- for citizens -- and less attractive for illegal immigrants. I want to see more immigration in our country, but more legal immigration and less illegal immigration."

Governor Romney, AP, June 23, 2006

Romney on Stem Cells:

"Human cloning for any purpose — whether for research or reproduction — is ethically wrong. Once cloning occurs, a human life is set in motion."

Mitt Romney Source: Letter to the Massachusetts Legislature (May 2005)

Why I vetoed contraception bill
By Mitt Romney | July 26, 2005
YESTERDAY I vetoed a bill that the Legislature forwarded to my desk. Though described by its sponsors as a measure relating to contraception, there is more to it than that. The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception.
Signing such a measure into law would violate the promise I made to the citizens of Massachusetts when I ran for governor. I pledged that I would not change our abortion laws either to restrict abortion or to facilitate it. What's more, this particular bill does not require parental consent even for young teenagers. It disregards not only the seriousness ofabortion but the importance of parental involvement and so would weaken a protection I am committed to uphold.
I have spoken with medical professionals to determine whether the drug contemplated under the bill would simply prevent conception or whether it would also terminate a living embryo after conception. Once it became clear that the latter was the case, my decision was straightforward. I will honor the commitment I made during my campaign: While I do not favor abortion, I will not change the state's abortion laws.
I understand that my views on laws governing abortion set me in the minority in our Commonwealth. I am prolife. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.
Because Massachusetts is decidedly prochoice, I have respected the state's democratically held view. I have not attempted to impose my own views on the prochoice majority.
For all the conflicting views on this issue, it speaks well of our country that we recognize abortion as a problem. The law may call it a right, but no one ever called it a good, and, in the quiet of conscience people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.
You can't be a prolife governor in a prochoice state without understanding that there are heartfelt and thoughtful arguments on both sides of the question. Many women considering abortions face terrible pressures, hurts, and fears; we should come to their aid with all the resourcefulness and empathy we can offer. At the same time, the starting point should be the innocence and vulnerability of the child waiting to be born.
In some respects, these convictions have evolved and deepened during my time as governor. In considering the issue of embryo cloning and embryo farming, I saw where the harsh logic of abortion can lead -- to the view of innocent new life as nothing more than research material or a commodity to be exploited.
I have also observed the bitterness and fierce anger that still linger 32 years after Roe v. Wade. The majority in the US Supreme Court's Casey opinion assured us this would pass away as Americans learned to live with abortion on demand. But this has proved a false hope.
There is much in the abortion controversy that America's founders would not recognize. Above all, those who wrote our Constitution would wonder why the federal courts had peremptorily removed the matter from the authority of the elected branches of government. The federal system left to us by the Constitution allows people of different states to make their own choices on matters of controversy, thus avoiding the bitter battles engendered by ''one size fits all" judicial pronouncements. A federalist approach would allow such disputes to be settled by the citizens and elected representatives of each state, and appropriately defer to democratic governance.
Except on matters of the starkest clarity like the issue of banning partial-birth abortions, there is not now a decisive national consensus on abortion. Some parts of the country have prolife majorities, others have prochoice majorities. People of good faith on both sides of the issue should be able to make and advance their case in democratic forums -- with civility, mutual respect, and confidence that democratic majorities will prevail. We will never have peace on the abortion issue, much less a consensus of conscience, until democracy is allowed to work its way.
Mitt Romney is governor of Massachusetts.

...

Time for reflection

How likely is it that the Republican Party will come to its senses? There are glimmers of hope (MITT ROMNEY!) Business conservatives worry that the party has lost the business vote (MITT ROMNEY 2012!). Moderates complain that the Republicans are becoming the party of "white-trash pride" (MITT ROMNEY 2012). Anonymous McCain aides complain that Mrs Palin was a campaign-destroying "whack job" (MITT ROMNEY 2012!). One of the most encouraging signs is the support for giving the chairmanship of the Republican Party to John Sununu (?), a sensible (?) and clever (?) man who has the added advantage of coming from the north-east (he lost his New Hampshire Senate seat on November 4th). (Just how is John Sununu "Clever"?)

But the odds in favour of an imminent renaissance look long. Many conservatives continue to think they lost because they were not conservative or populist enough—Mr McCain, after all, was an amnesty-loving green who refused to make an issue out of Mr Obama's associations with Jeremiah Wright. Richard Weaver, one of the founders of modern conservatism, once wrote a book entitled "Ideas have Consequences"; unfortunately, too many Republicans are still refusing to acknowledge that idiocy has consequences, too.

Mitt Romney's Education:

Romney graduated from the Cranbrook School in Bloomfield Hills (now Cranbrook Kingswood School).

Received his B.A. with Highest Honors and as valedictorian from Brigham Young University in 1971.

In 1975, Romney was awarded an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School and was named a Baker scholar.

In 1975 he also received his J.D. cum laude from Harvard Law School. Romney graduated at the top of 3 classes. Valedictorian in English, Cum Laude with an MBA from Harvard Law School, and Baker Scholard (at the top of his class) from Harvard business school. Romney is by far the smartest person to run for the white house in a long time (including Obama). Romney would have helped the republican parties image...

Mitt and Legos

2008-11-17T17:35:00.002-05:00

Spent the day at Legoland with the kids on Saturday. And yes, that is a Mitthead on my shirt. I will add that several people commented on the shirt and this is in Southern California where I don't remember ever seeing a commercial for him. How is that for face recognition. C'mon Mitt, how about another election? Of course, only a Mitt supporter would build a skyscraper out of legos.

Jim DeMint Calls if Clearly

2008-11-16T01:41:00.001-05:00

Senator Jim Demint points out the obvious: George Bush, Ted Stevens, and John McCain aren't much of a conservative package.

More Romney in 2012 Thoughts

2008-11-14T16:08:00.002-05:00

Townhall has an article today musing about Romney for 2012 nomination. The article does a good job of quickly weighing such factors as name recognition and party demographics. Here is one example:

The former businessman and one-time Massachusetts governor invested $47 million of his family fortune in this year's failed race, undercut by those wary of his Mormon religion and skeptics who questioned whether Romney's conversion to conservatism was genuine. Both points were highlighted by Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and Southern Baptist preacher who beat Romney in the Iowa caucuses and occupied the same political terrain since overtaken by Palin.

"While (Palin) may not be popular with the winning majority that Barack Obama put together, she's enormously popular with the losing minority that John McCain put together _ and that pretty closely mirrors Republican primary voters," said Rich Bond, former chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Do Something Good Today: Wireless Amber Alerts

2008-11-10T18:51:00.005-05:00

A fellow Deputy DA who prosecutes sex crime cases told me about the national wireless Amber Alert service. This service sends a text message if there is a kidnapped child reported in or near your zip code. It literally takes 30 seconds and only sends you a message for the zip code(s) you enter. On my cell phone carrier, the service is free and I imagine that is true of some of the other providers.

If everyone is registered, it will allow us to instantly spot a kidnapper’s person or vehicle upon an initial report; thus making it almost impossible for a child to be successfully taken; everyone with a cell phone becomes a witness and can give intel to law enforcement when every minute counts. Please register and pass this on to your friends and family. This is the kind of thing where 30 seconds of your time can literally end up saving a child’s life.

To Sign up, go to: Wireless Amber Alerts

Will Romney Run?

2008-11-09T21:16:00.000-05:00

I am kind of wondering...

...sources close to the CEO-turned-politician say he’s very much uncertain about whether he’ll run for elective office again and is keeping a close eye on what direction the party takes in the months ahead, especially with regard to Palin.

Romney is extraordinarily close to members of his family, and most are opposed to another run.

He is, though, likely to stay involved at least at a policy level.

“What I’d say is he’s keeping his options open for now,” said one source close to Romney.

Add to that, this quote from before the elections from his spokesperson,

“Gov. Romney had his shot at the White House, and he lost fair and square,” Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said. “That opportunity is unlikely to come along again. Gov. Romney is pouring all his energy into electing McCain-Palin and other Republicans, and that has been his single focus since leaving the presidential race.”

...and this one from Romney himself...

Romney, who sought the Republican presidential nomination earlier this year, said he will not be on the 2012 ballot.

“I think it’s unlikely that I’ll be running again,” Romney said.

Romney compared a run for the White House to a window opening offering the right timing and the right opportunity.

Of course, these were prior to the election day, and he could have been talking this way simply because he felt John McCain would win, and that would make things unlikely. But then again, at that point who really thought McCain would win?

Romney has some reasons not to win. The big two I can think of are his family vetoing it (more importantly his wife) and the success of Barack Obama. At this point, I think the GOP has more of an opportunity to paint Congress as a bastion of idiots, than paint Obama as a screw up. I could be wrong, but we hear so often that Obama will probably be the next Jimmy Carter, but what if he is not? What if he becomes the Dems Regan? At that point whoever runs in 2012 as the GOP nominee will be a martyr for the cause, and our best bets (including Romney and Jindal) will be better off to wait until 2016.

Obama is wrong to say that we should "slow development of Future Combat Systems."

2008-11-08T11:07:00.001-05:00

Reasons to agree

We live in a world were millions of middle-age minded people would like to destroy America. We could throw away all our weapons, and fight them with bronze spears. However diverse modern populations, with equal rights for minorities, that promote civil rights, a free press, the rule of law, and invests in education, health-care, etcetera... these societies are going to have a technological advantage. Those societies that work hard, educate their public, that work efficiently, and allow their women to be productive members of society... those societies that embrace science, reason, law, and education... these societies are the best care-takers of the future. Human histories are full of war. We live in a time when dictators still build statues to themselves, and enslave their populations. Therefore it is important that modern societies have modern weapons.
Societies that use irrational extremism to motivate their geneses to build weapons for them will never be as stable as multi-party democracies, with the rule of law. Hitler forced a lot of scientist to work for him, and they built some very cutting edge plains. They almost beat the free world to building the nuclear bomb. If they had succeeded, we would all have been speaking German. But in the long run, many of these scientist wore forced to work for Germany. Those that could escape to the west (like Einstein who fled Europe when he saw the Nazis come to power) fled to the free world. In the long run, good modern societies, are going to have smart people want to be a part of them. This is part of why our immigration policy should be used to recruit the brightest people from all over the planet, and try to get them to stay here in America.
Patriotism, love of democracy, and the desire for peace are not the only things that would inspire smart people to build great weapons. Religious fanatism can also motivate smart people to build new weapons. Perceived injustices, nationalism, money, and misinformation perpetuated by a state-ran media, can all be used by power hungry governments to motivate their scientist. But scientist who are stupid enough to be manipulated will never build weapons that are as good as the scientist who are willing to work for the causes of freedom, democracy, equality, and a pursuit of rational justice.
Evil people are going to develop future combat systems. If we enjoy life, and want our children to be free, we have to build better weapons.
Evil people don't build weapons because good people do. But good people have to build weapons because evil people do.

Movies that disagree

Iron Man's main character, Tony Stark, closes his weapons business before he found out how evil that one guy was.
Almost every movie today disagrees. The 2nd Batmat had an evil weapons dealer. Their was that movie "Lord of War", with a guy just like Tony Stark who was a weapons dealer.

Romney Speaking Intellegence and Pragmatism

2008-11-07T11:18:00.000-05:00

Romney gave a great interview to Fortune Magazine/CNN which can be viewed here. I think is one of Romney's best interviews actually, everyone should read it.

Here are a few excerpts:

Any management advice for the next president? How does he rally a depressed nation to meet the challenges we face?

He should forget entirely about reelection and focus solely on helping the nation at a critical time. He should dismiss the people who helped him win the election and bring in people who are above politics and above party. He should surround himself with statesmen and economists, businesspeople and leaders. In some ways it would be beneficial if our presidency consisted of only one term. That way the President would think about his legacy and the future of the country rather than reelection and partisanship.

How likely do you think that's going to happen?

In his second term, President Clinton made an effort to govern more from the center than from the extreme wing of his party, and by doing so, found greater support and greater political success. Perhaps it's a paradox, the less political the agenda, the more political success one enjoys. But now is not the time for partisanship opportunism.

The unions have helped Barack Obama. They will hope to be paid back. I'm particularly concerned that organized labor would call on Barack Obama to pass the card check program. This removes from American workers the right to the secret ballot in deciding whether or not to accept a union. This legislation would do more to harm America's long-term competitiveness than almost anything I can imagine. It would be a partisan payback for organized labor but it would come with devastating consequences for the nation.
...

Given your Michigan roots and what your father accomplished turning around the American Motors Corporation in the 1950s, what do you think is the future of the auto industry?

Right now, the auto industry is on life support, and its prospects look extremely dim. But they don't need to be. The industry could be turned around. There is no inherent reason why America can't build and sell cars to Americans at least as well as the transplants are doing. Any effort to help the auto industry has to be made as part of a comprehensive strategy. Before the government issues loans to the auto industry, as has been authorized by Congress, it should insist on seeing credible and independent strategies that will return the companies to long-term sustainability. Government should not finance ongoing losses and declining market shares.

...

When you talk about making America more competitive, what do you have in mind?

First, America must substantially improve our education system. We've fallen behind, particularly in areas of math and science.

Second, we're going to have to remedy our disproportionate health care cost disadvantage. America spends far more than any other nation as a percent of GDP on health care. This effectively is an enormous tax on the economy and on our businesses.

Third, our national debt is excessive and our entitlement obligations pass a massive burden onto the next generation.

Fourth, tax and regulatory policies weigh down our ability to compete. Specifically, our products carry an embedded tax which makes American goods less competitive abroad and at home.

Fifth, America's apparent retrenchment from the concept of open, free and fair trade could put us further behind other nations that are aggressively seeking trade relations around the world.

Sixth, our lack of an effective energy policy drains our economy by approximately half a trillion dollars a year.

And, finally, the blow that Wall Street has taken may make us less competitive in financing entrepreneurship.

....

Do Americans need to save more and adjust to a lower standard of living? In other words, should be buying houses we can actually afford?

I think a President has to be an educator- in-chief as well as a commander-in-chief. The American people need to understand the challenges we face. And the American people need to understand that they, like the nation, need to live within their means. Both have been spending more than they have been taking in. It puts the nation at risk. And it puts families at risk.

There's a period of adjustment that's occurring right now as American families deleverage and employers deleverage. It's time for the government to finally address our severe debt burden, before it leads to even more severe consequences. I'm referring not only to our annual deficit and national debt but also to our obligations under entitlement programs like Social Security

Direction For 2012

2008-11-05T12:45:00.002-05:00

Marc Ambinder reports on a poll NBC-WSJ that is mentioned on First Read. Unfortunately I couldn't find the exact poll from the NBC website, but it looks pretty good for Mitt:

NBC-WSJ GOP pollster Neil Newhouse did a post-election survey last night, and here's what he found: Just 12% of those surveyed believed Palin should be the GOP's new leader; instead 29% of voters said Romney, followed by 20% who say Huckabee. Among GOPers, it was Romney 33%, Huckabee 20% and Palin 18%. Look for more from this survey later today.

This of course are nearly the same numbers of the MSNBC poll that came out about 2 weeks ago.

Seems people prefer Mitt over the lady from Alaska.

Moving Forward after the Election

2008-11-05T06:54:00.003-05:00

Congratulations to Barack Obama and his supporters. It was a tremendous campaign with innumerable turns and twists that left us hanging right until the end. America should be proud of the journey it has taken (and will take) with President-elect Obama. Many thanks to all of you who engaged me thoughtfully in dialogue in support and in opposition to my chosen candidates. My prayers this day are for President-elect Obama and the country.

Two other personal notes. I will continue blogging on MyManmitt.com and Credo.

Lastly, for those of you who are disappointed this morning I want to call your attention to a new business venture I'm involved in.

Stin Hansen is an extraordinary person. She and I have just launched a website and iPhone application for guided meditations.

You can read more about it at: http://mythoughtcoach.com/

And you can get the iPhone application: Meditate Now! right now:
http://tinyurl.com/meditatenow/

So - don't stress about the election... meditate it away.

Justin

2008-11-04T23:46:00.001-05:00

I have been working on a new logo all day.

The Future

2008-11-04T23:27:00.004-05:00

Okay Justin, as Managing Director, even though you gave me that designation, I am making the executive decision that the website will absolutely continue. We are just getting started.

Now that the McCain speech is done, I have to say there are two realities that we quickly need to grapple with. First, we are in the wilderness folks. Conservatives have been routed. Elections have consequences and a flood of liberal leglistlation is going to quickly deluge upon us. We need to organize quickly to fight off the attempts to nationalize our health care system and raise taxes. We need to rally against the attempts to eliminate the right to vote about whether to unionize. We need to rise up to prevent the Defense of Marriage Act from being repealed. We need to fight to prevent the Freedom of Choice Act from being passed. We need to work to prevent an immigration plan that will reward law breakers and punish the law abiding. We need to make sure the strength of our military is not undercut by the Democrats. There is so much to fight against. But we also need to generate ideas and create a strong theme from which to forge forward with for the future. We need a leader to help us with this fight.

Second, we need to realize that Sarah Palin is not the person to lead this fight right now. She may be in the future. I was an early advocate for her but she is seriously damaged political goods right now. That is the downside to running and losing as VP. Second, it is likely that it will not be possible to reintroduce her to the public within the next year or two. Unfortunately, she is seen negatively by too many right now. I am probably going to get bashed on for saying this, but the quicker we realize it, the better.

Congratulations to President-elect Obama

2008-11-04T22:59:00.001-05:00

Now... what should we do with this site?

I think we'll keep it around for a few. Your thoughts?

I Was A Mormon Missionary

2008-11-04T13:35:00.001-05:00

...and this was exactly what my mission was like. I loved walking into peoples homes and sifting through their belongings and tearing up things. Especially with a sinister laugh.

But I never got the cool "Enforcement Division" badge. That would have have made my job a bit easier.

A couple thoughts:

1. These missionaries were in the wrong, since Missionary rules dictate that elders shouldn't go into homes where they are the only male. I am just thankful the cameras caught this.

2. I actually did teach two good looking lesbians on my mission, one was Mormon and the other wanted to join, but they moved away or something. Needless to say, our first visits had a lot of parallels.

Personal Promotion

2008-11-04T11:09:00.003-05:00

Just thought I would use this election day to do some personal promotion and unveil my new personal blog:

www.MyBigBonham.com

Feel free to check it and make comments whenever.

Audacity

2008-11-04T00:58:00.001-05:00

HamptonRoadsGOP.com

2008-11-03T02:30:00.003-05:00

Those of you may remember that I blogged fairly frequently on here during the primaries. I will be making my return. Stay tuned...

I also wanted to take a second to introduce you to a website I run, HamptonRoadsGOP.com.

It is a Virginia-based site run by Romney supporters. We've been supporting McCain all way in the General Election as you'll be able to see from the content. Governor Romney will feature prominently in our post-election coverage.

HamptonRoadsGOP.com/blog

Here's a Couple Articles of interest: Barack Obama and Martin Luther King, Obama and the Supreme Court, and Is America Ready for Illinois Style Government are a few articles you should check out.

I hope you'll check the site out and give us your support! Also, don't forget to vote on Tuesday and check out MyManMitt.com as often as you can!

What Romney is Doing

2008-11-02T21:26:00.001-05:00

In the spirit of reporting what our favorite candidate is doing these last few days before the election, I thought I would provide links to the several campaign appearances Mitt has made or is making between Halloween and the election for McCain/Palin:

Evansville, IN
Romney on Nevada News 4
Henderson, NV
Eerie, PA
Greenwood Villlage, CO
Reno, NV
Colorado Springs, CO
Carson, NV
Albuquerque, NM
Altoona, PA

Vote Yes on Proposition 8

2008-10-31T12:36:00.001-05:00

Proposition 8: The Inside Scoop!

2008-10-30T08:43:00.001-05:00

Frank Schubert has been involved in over 30 ballot initiatives in his lifetime but he’s never experienced anything like Proposition 8. Yesterday, I was asked to be part of a blogger conference call with Schubert who heads up the Yes on 8 movement.

Bottom line: This race is almost over. Tensions are high. Expectations are tempered but the general feeling is that Proposition 8 will prevail.

Read the whole thing here

Nice Ad

2008-10-29T23:44:00.001-05:00

The Infomercial Live Blog: Barack in Summary

2008-10-29T22:30:00.004-05:00

Ultimately, I think the commercial won't play as well as Barack might have liked. It sort of felt like I lived in Venezuela and the weekly Hugo Chavez TV show was on.

Barack Obama's propaganda piece gave a very limited and unconvincing narrative. It is striking how much is lacking there when it comes to talking about accomplishments. So he was a state senator, so he asked Condoleeza Rice pointed questions. Good for him. I can cross-examine the crud out of anyone but that doesn't make me Presidential material.

I wonder how comfortable the campaign is with the absolute elite position Barack holds. I have known my share of arrogant law review types and the idea of electing one as President is really scary. Not as troubling as the idea of electing a professor though. Having said that, those are real accomplishments. But the campaign wants Barack to be seen as average American. In this piece, they do that by featuring average American people.

But there is a disconnect there. In the end, we all hopefully know we are dealing with the most liberal member of the Senate and a guy who is no average American. He is a guy who is dubiously qualified to be President and has ideas about the economy and government that, rather than being tempered by perhaps business experience, have been radicalized by his education and associations.

The Infomercial: Division

2008-10-29T22:26:00.003-05:00

There will never be a more divise President than Barack Obama. Bill Richardson is wrong about bipartisanship. Most politicians moderate when they get in office, but there is a huge doubt about a leader with this much audacity keeping his aspirations in line.

Barack promises everything. Barack can't pay for anything though without hurting our economy further.

The Infomercial: National Security

2008-10-29T22:24:00.005-05:00

Rebuild Military while Joe Biden is saying military funding will need to be cut? Empty rhetoric. Tougher sanctions to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons? Iran knows that Obama is never going to do anything about it. There is no deterrence there. On a related note, Barack is on record saying he would never use nuclear weapons against Al Qaeda, so, he has already ruined any deterrent value we may have had there.

The Infomercial: Heathcare

2008-10-29T22:18:00.003-05:00

Why is Obama's healthcare plan going to ruin our economy and healthcare system? Because it will charge a fee to businesses who don't give health care. If the cost is low, businesses will dump employees into the government plan rather than pay for private healthcare for their employees. If the cost is too high, it will force employers to provide health insurance for employees whose work is not worth such expense. There is an incentive for businesses to employ as few people as possible to avoid the huge cost associated with each employee. This cost also gets immediately passed along to consumers.

It is a job killer.

The Infomercial: Education

2008-10-29T22:16:00.005-05:00

Bush has led us down the federal takeover of education track. Obama just wants to further it. Early childhood development, more teachers, better pay, etc. with supposed greater accountability. Make no mistake, there will not be greater accountability when the teacher's unions finally get their wish to gut the No Child Left Behind Act.

The Infomercial: The Reformer?

2008-10-29T22:11:00.004-05:00

Barack as government program reformer? Why would anyone think that Barack has any clue how to reign in goverenment spending? Does anyone really think that he will be able to go line by line and be able to succesfully streamline government? Like, the Democrats in Congress and he are going to bring efficiency to Washington. Laugh heartily now at the notion.

Barack as Iraq spending reformer? I have an ideological difference between Obama on Iraq when he attacks our spending there. I think we have a moral duty to try and help them because we trashed their country. Barack wants to ditch them to fight amongst themselves.

The Infomercial: Wal Mart

2008-10-29T22:09:00.004-05:00

A profile with a Wal Mart worker! I guess Democrats don't hate Wal Mart as much as I thought. Too bad Obama is about to start taxing your coorporate profits at a much higher rate.

There goes your job.

The Infomercial: Missing Democrats

2008-10-29T22:08:00.002-05:00

Hey, go figure, Democratic governors are ready to vouch for Obama. Where's Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi? I may be wrong, but I would bet money they don't show up in this propganda piece.

The Infomercial: Big Brother

2008-10-29T22:05:00.004-05:00

I get a weird feeling when my tv station is being taken over by a politician. I keep wondering if there is going to be a big red "V" at the end of this.

The economic plan: Hey Obama! If you are so convinced that you have the solution to the economic problems, why aren't you yelling that all the politicians need to get back to Washington and pass the bill you are going to sponsor! The fact is, you just expect things to get better when you are President and you don't really have solutions.

The Infomercial: Taking Over

2008-10-29T22:03:00.002-05:00

First profile. How can I pay for bills? Maybe you should give up on the football equipment. Sorry, my kids play soccer.

The Infomercial: Live Blog

2008-10-29T22:01:00.002-05:00

Yeah, I am going to live blog about the ridiculous infomercial. What is with the silly pseudo oval office/slash log cabin room.

Flipping bail-out

2008-10-29T15:02:00.002-05:00

Those that are not Californians may not have heard about this story (video included). California cities want to buy up foreclosed homes and flip them. The story, out of Sacramento, says:

Now the federal government is stepping in and sending cash to the hardest hit areas. The Sacramento region is getting one of the biggest bailouts, and receiving $32 million dollars.

"To purchase foreclosed homes in troubled neighborhoods and flip those homes," says a city representative. Mayor Fargo says the homes will be fixed up and then sold or rented out.

Now I'm no genius (which maybe means that I'm qualified to work for the government), but this seems like a terrible idea. I was against the bailout before I heard this. This kind of foolery just solidifies the inevitable conclusion that the bailout was a historically bad idea.

///

Cross-posted at That's Debatable?! (For those that would like to engage in serious debate, join me and other bloggers at That's Debatable?!)

Support Race42012

2008-10-29T10:16:00.002-05:00

A lot of you know I blog at www.race42008.com. Now that the race for 2008 is coming to end, the site is beginning to remake itself for 2012.

Race42008 was a great place for Romney. You see at Race42008, all the candidates were represented through front page posters, and Mitt had 5. No other website really gave Mitt that kind of fairness and coverage. With Redstate becoming "Sarah-state" coupled with some of the other negativity on sites like Human Events and what will surely begin on The Next Right, it s important that we provide a fair balanced look at Mitt should McCain loose and Romney decide to run in 2012 (which I think Mitt will).

During the primaries Race42008 was bringing in an average of 10-20,000 unique hits a day, which was well above sites like The Next Right, Ankle Biting Pundits and even MyManMitt. Race42008 was read by top editors at National Review, Real Clear Politics, Fox News, etc. In other words Race42008 gave a chance for a balanced view of Romney to be heard by the movers and shakers.

So if you can only give $5 that is great but please give something, so Race42012 can enjoy the redesign and continue to provide the content that will be essential to Romney's online success.

National Security

2008-10-28T15:05:00.003-05:00

Does anyone else think that Obama wouldn't be able to pass a background investigation for a sensitive U.S. Government position? Between the dope use and the friends he keeps, I wouldn't give him national security clearance.

When A Soldier Comes Home

2008-10-25T11:32:00.001-05:00

WHEN A SOLDIER COMES HOME ...
This email is being circulated around-the-world – please keep it going

(Please pass this one along, it's worth your time.

When a soldier comes home, he finds it hard....

...to listen to his son whine about being bored.

....to keep a straight face when people complain about potholes.

to be tolerant of people who complain about the hassle of getting ready for work.

...to be understanding when a co-worker complains about a bad night's sleep.

..to be silent when people pray to God for a new car.

...to control his panic when his wife tells him he needs to drive slower.

..to be compassionate when a businessman expresses a fear of flying.

...to keep from laughing when anxious parents say they're afraid to send their kids off to summer camp.

...to keep from ridiculing someone who complains about hot weather.

...to control his frustration when a colleague gripes about his coffee being cold.

...to remain calm when his daughter complains about having to walk the dog.

...to be civil to people who complain about their jobs.

...to just walk away when someone says they only get two weeks of vacation a year.

...to be forgiving when someone says how hard it is to have a new baby in the house.

The only thing harder than being a Soldier.

Is loving one.

McCain for President

2008-10-24T20:04:00.001-05:00

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 24, 2008; A19

Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain. I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.

I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe -- neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) -- yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.

First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.

McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.

Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed that McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.

McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.

Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?

And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.

The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.

Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.

Implications of Same Sex Marriage

2008-10-24T19:19:00.001-05:00

MyClob is Wrong

2008-10-24T08:15:00.003-05:00

MyClob, who has done a great job detailing every minutia of Mitt Romney's primary run, is flat dead wrong on this one. His usual approach to bringing an unbiased articulation to his wiki-like entries has failed him this time.

Mike - if you're gonna lambaste Palin for something at least have the decency to quote her directly. No one knows what you're referring to?

I'll have more later but right now I've gotta slap up MyClob a bit. :)

Is the election here yet?

Sarah Palin is wrong to pit one part of the country against the other.

2008-10-23T22:25:00.001-05:00

Reasons to agree

We don't choose where we are born, so it is kind of silly to be proud of it.
People aren't all that different, in different states.

Their are liberals in Alaska, and conservatives in New York.
Sarah Palin accuses those who live in New York of being "elite", and then when asked what she means by "elite" she says people who think they are better than others. Sarah Palin seems to think she is better than New Yorkers because she is from Alaska.

Mob Disrupts Attendees at Oakland LDS Temple

2008-10-22T10:18:00.002-05:00

Here is the text of a forwarded email that was sent to me. I have crosschecked the names CCed in the email and can verify that indeed the people included are legitimate, so it is not a hoax as far as I have been able to determine. Links to additional eyewitness accounts are below. Besides, you just can't make this nuttery up.

Dear family and friends,

I had a very disturbing experience yesterday that I would like to share with those of you that live outside of California (or outside of the San Francisco Bay Area). This weekend we have stake conference. Our stake conference always begins with a stake temple session on Friday or Thursday night. Early Friday morning I received a call from the second counselor in our bishopric to let me know that there would be numerous protesters outside the temple, and to remind everyone to stay calm and to drive carefully.

The beautiful Oakland Temple is located right across the bay from San Francisco, very close to the city of Berkeley. Apparently the opposition to proposition 8, the amendment that seeks to make marriage in CA between a man and a woman again, has realized the deep involvement of the church and begun to protest right outside of the temple and harass temple patrons. The fastest way to get to the temple from our house is to take the 680 freeway, but the exit is a bit tricky. The off ramp is extremely short and straight uphill. You then make an almost blind left turn, an immediate right and another left into the parking lot. As we approached the off ramp, I realized there would be trouble.

There was a backup onto the freeway from cars stalled on the off ramp. As we moved forward inches at a time, we realized this was due to a large group of loud protesters who were standing on both sides of the street, yelling, screaming and waving signs. When we got to the top of the offramp, ready to make our turn, one protester jumped out right in front of our car. It took my husband all his self control to carefully maneuver around him to the left and proceed to the temple. I tried not to listen to all they were shouting at us, but I was shaking as I got to the temple front door. Several of the sisters, especially the ones driving on their own, were crying (which made me snap out of it and go into RS President mode to comfort them).

Later, as I was sitting in the perfect quiet of the chapel, I couldn't help but think of Lehi's dream, and the people who mocked the Saints from the big spacious building but 'we heeded them not.' It was a truly surreal experience, I'd never thought that I would have to go through an angry crowd to get to the temple. As we left late at night, the protesters had dispersed, temple security (who all looked very large and Tongan) stood by the gates. I never saw a single police man.

Please pray for those of us in California fighting for prop 8--it's getting kind of scary out here!

More eyewitness accounts.

Additional protests are planned

Some atheists who've objected to the strong stance of Mormons and other religious groups in favor of the measure intend to protest in front of the Mormon temple in Oakland, Calif., on Saturday.

Follow and post additional accounts on Twitter by tracking and posting to the hashtag #hateon8

Leftwing website targets Mormons on Prop 8?!

2008-10-21T16:08:00.003-05:00

DailyKos is determined to make the debate around Proposition 8 a personal fight. They have mustered their forces to dig up dirt on people (and particularly Mormons) who have contributed to Protect Marriage. More details here.

Click below to sign my petition:

Death Threats Issued to Proposition 8 Supporters in California

2008-10-21T09:36:00.003-05:00

It's getting ugly in California over Proposition 8.

Here is a death threat letter (NSFW), issued on October 20th, 2008, to two of ten households in a California neighborhood where "Vote Yes on Prop 8" signs were being displayed. Their signs had been stolen by the time they found the letter.

The person who provided me a copy of this letter, who wishes to remain anonymous at this time for obvious reasons, is a head of one of two households to have received identically worded death threats, laced with profanity and insults. The recipient stated that, due to certain phrases and words used in the letter, the writer of the threat likely knows something about the religious background of the two households.

This is the second time that this family has had their signs stolen in only a few days. A police investigation is underway.

Jim Matheson is Playing Games with Utah

2008-10-15T08:32:00.001-05:00

A Few Thoughts on Criticizing Those You Support

2008-10-03T10:47:00.003-05:00

Cross posted with a few minor modifications from race42008.com

In the primaries most of you know I was a huge Romney supporter (still am) who made the mistake of agreeing to be on his Faith and Values Steering Committee. I doubt I would agree to do something like that again. Why? Because it really removed my ability to call things as I saw them. Every time I wrote something that was at all criticizing of Mitt people who hated Mitt would talk as if the tables have turned on Mitt and those who like him immediately supposed my motives where to get some air time or something self-indulging.

It’s pretty silly really. When I wrote the post Romney’s Fork, I had a lot of responses, including the Wall Street Journal using my writing to fill up about two-thirds of one of their articles about Mitt supporters unhinged. Believe me, there was no joy in any of that. I didn’t want it publicized everywhere; I just wanted the people I write to and with to have some different angles to consider. There is always someone wanting to exploit I guess.

I sincerely doubt that most in our party who write negative posts about McCain or Palin do it to become noticed or because they want to throw and anchor to a drowning man. Sometimes criticism of those we support is the best thing they can hear. You disagree? Then why do we a have a first amendment? To allow us to cheer for our party’s leaders louder? No, it’s tell our leaders what we expect, whether we like them or not.

I am going to go out on a limb here, and extrapolate that our Founding Fathers saw criticism as a net positive. Call me crazy. Sometimes good people still are inclined to hand constituents and supporters crap sandwiches, which is apparently what a lot of the party think McCain was doing, both in his handling of Palin and bail out.

There are a lot of things I enjoy about the sport of Politics. But there are a lot of things I don’t. One of them is the constant impugning of peoples motives when they decide to take a popular idea to task within the party. Another would be the idea it’s bad to say our VP did so-so among the people whom we need to win over even though she threw the base more red meat than one could devour in a night. Maybe that’s because I don’t think the world is made solely of black and whites, but instead Black and White with huge amount of grays in between that Human’s will never (at least in this life) be able to authoritatively declare what is black and what is white. It’s a complex world with more angles than our own.

So to those who don’t like negative talk or criticism of our candidates, I say relax. If McCain and Palin are really that fantastic they will hold up and perhaps learn from their folleys…which all candidates have.

The Debate in Different Contexts

2008-10-02T23:27:00.000-05:00

A four ways of considering this debate in different contexts:

1. In a vacuum: Biden wins hands down. Offered very substantive remarks that addreessed questions fully. I don't agree with most of his answers, but he is a good debater, very knowledgable and came off very strong. Palin seems to think voters don't want to hear her answers to what seemed to be fair questions from the moderator. I am guessing SNL will have some fun with that moment. Palin wasn't non-substantive, she had some good moments, but Biden proves more knowledgable and stronger.

2. In context of Palin's recent interviews: Palin wins. Much better performances in this different format. Thumbs up, as Matt Miller has said in the comments, she was under intense pressure and came through. Very outstanding.

3. In context of future career: Mildly helpful. Palin's main constituency, the evangelical working class, was reassured. The problem is in a future GOP primary (20xx- there will be one at some point) she will be running against other people who are stronger competitiors in that arena than Obama (see Huckabee). She won't be the lone conserative in the race, it won't be so clear cut and oppositionless from her home party. I doubt she will ever appeal strongly from the wonk/intellectual end, and she won't be the only pro-life candidate in the field. I am not saying she is a shoe-out for a future primary, but she is no shoe-in. This debate helped her keep a foot in, but will the leg follow?

4. In context of the 2008 election (oh yeah- nearly forgot!)- Biden wins. You see, Palin's answers are great for the base. But everytime Palin is seen arguing against income distribution and what not, Biden and Obama have effectively framed it as arguing against the middle class. And McCain and Palin seem to be suckers for it. Her principles are right without a doubt, but independents are un-idealogical by definition. They aren't interested in why free market principles work- or else biden wouldn't have been knocking it; and actually neither would she have with her Wall Street greed line. It's a bad year and a bad time in the cycle to be put in a position of arguing conservative principles.

Anyway, that's my opinion.

Romney on Boise Idaho TV

2008-10-01T23:33:00.001-05:00

Here (click where it says "video" under the Video)

Count The Parallels

2008-10-01T11:35:00.000-05:00

The symbolism is daunting:

MILWAUKEE — Oprah Winfrey's mother says she shouldn't have to pay a nearly $156,000 debt to a high-end fashion store because store officials shouldn't have extended credit to her.

Valentina Inc. alleges that Vernita Lee of Milwaukee racked up $155,547 in purchases and interest as of July 1. The company sued, saying Lee fell behind in minimum monthly payments of $2,000.

Lee filed a counterclaim Friday contending that Valentina took advantage of her "lack of knowledge, ability, and-or capacity" when creating her credit account.

Court papers say Lee resolved a 2002 case with the company over a $175,000 bill. The resolution prohibited Valentina from extending further credit to her. Link

Bad idea

2008-09-29T20:15:00.003-05:00

Timotheus has got it exactly right. This is the perfect storm of politics and problems - a recipe for wrongheaded government action. Like Timotheus, I have no doubt that the financial problems are real and will hurt the economy. I don't want to diminish the very real hurt that will likely come.

Still, it seems as though conservatives like us - defenders of the free market principles that have built and sustained this country for almost two and half centuries - should not so quickly abandon our principles in the face of adversity. Indeed, it is when the call for government action into markets is so strong that we need to be most resolute. I could cite numerous sources of economists and other market watchers who can place the blame squarely on bad government policy - government incentives to lend to undeserving borrowers. Yet politicians think that more government is the answer, while doing nothing to address the underlying bad government policies.

Unfortunately, many elected officials can only see the expediency of the next election. These are the same people that have allowed the budget to bloat beyond control. They see the vote for the "bail-out" as their ticket to re-election - a way to show constitutents that they were "doing something." That kind of "doing something" is the kind of good intentions that lead to one of those four letter words.

"Financial Crisis"

2008-09-29T19:12:00.003-05:00

A thought about the "Financial Crisis." Don't get me wrong about the Quotes. I do think we are in a financial mess and calling it a crisis is probably appropriate. Unfortunately, a lot of the panic is being fueled by politics. Consider two, probably competing, interests. One: Bush and the Administration wanting to do anything they can do to avoid economic turmoil and the blame that goes with it. Two: The democrats wanting to harp on how bad Bush has ruined the economy. Together, they have convinced everyone that the world as we know it is coming to an end.

Now, the world may very well come to an end tomorrow. This may be the last you hear from me on My Man Mitt or anywhere else. But if it does, a lot of it will be because the "crisis" hit during prime time political season. Consider the stock market for a moment. People the country over who have any kind of money tied up therein are trying to find any other kind of investment vehicle that exists for their money because of the "crisis." Someone with more financial wisdom than me may dispute this, but aren't we talking primarily about financial institutions being in trouble? I was under the impression that many companies that are traded publicly have little to nothing to do with the credit derivatives and other gnarly schemes the JP Morgan types all conspire about at the cocktail parties. Even if there are problems with the insurance companies, do we realy think all of these other companies are going to default on their credit obligations for some reason?

The problem here is that the government lacks credibility and so they have to scream at the top of their lungs "crisis" to get attention and that doesn't reassure us, it just makes us want to pull money out of our banks. Oh yeah, and since the government wants to throw another 700 billion on the credit card to buy stupid loans, we have lingering doubts about the whole FDIC thingy. We're acutely aware that if all goes south as predicted, the FDIC is grossly undercapitalized.

So, where does this leave us? The Republicans are choking, many Democrats are gagging, and the whole country is turning blue as the administration, Pelosi and co. try to shove the package down our throat. If it doesn't pass and all goes bad, its the Republicans fault. If it passes, it is the Republicans fault for getting us into this mess. And if the world doesn't end tomorrow, it will be the Republicans fault we have to live to feel the hangover all of this "crisis" talk is giving me. So, I just want to thank the Democratic controlled Congress for the important work they have done the past two years to keep this from being worse than it could have been. I look forward to many more fine years with their steady hand at the helm.

Romney: McCain Should Let Palin Loose

2008-09-29T14:45:00.000-05:00

"Holding Sarah Palin to just three interviews and microscopically focusing on each interview I think has been a mistake," Romney said. "I think they'd be a lot wiser to let Sarah Palin be Sarah Palin. Let her talk to the media, let her talk to people."

Link

Romney Supporters Most Likely to Support Prop 8

2008-09-27T16:17:00.001-05:00

From LATimes:

People who donated $420,690 to his presidential campaign have given no less than $2.72 million in support of Proposition 8. We could find no donations to Romney for president from people who oppose the initiative.

Romney Talks Economy in 8 Minute Interview-- Compare/Contrast

2008-09-26T11:22:00.002-05:00

Feel free to compare to video's below.

It Gets Worse

2008-09-25T16:32:00.002-05:00

Video

P.S. I want to make sure everyone knows when I knock Palin in these posts these are my opinions, not anyone else here at MMM. So don't worry too much. Also, Palin is better than Biden, but I think in the same way a headache is better than catching Mono.

This is Just Sorry

2008-09-25T00:09:00.003-05:00

And I am not talking about Couric, I am talking about Palin.

Yeah, I get the fact that Couric was asking Gotcha questions and did a bit of a cut and paste job on the interview. But did Palin expect anything less?

I was initially happy with McCain's pick for VP, but I gotta be honest, this isn't anything to be proud of. I mean, are we really trading intelligence and coherence for excellent hunting skills and a good outside shot?

I have read several comments and posts about Palin being the best positioned for 2012. If this is the future of the Republican party, we will certainly long for the days of the academic prowess of George W. Bush.

Romney on the Bailout

2008-09-23T20:39:00.000-05:00

Via Glen Beck.

Romney for Treasury Overseer

2008-09-22T15:03:00.002-05:00

McCain gave a shout out to Romney in remarks about the Wall Street bailout plan. This is the appeal of Romney in many ways. While Democrats like to paint him as corporate raider, when the economy really is tanking, competence in economic matters is more important than silly rhetoric.

Acting like Democrats

2008-09-22T14:44:00.003-05:00

I haven't seen any Romney quotes on the proposed bail-out. McCain has offered Romney's name and Michael Bloomberg's and Warren Buffet's as potential executives to oversee the plan.

That being said, Romney had a saying in the primary that I thought was spot on: "When Republicans act like Democrats, everybody loses." I can't help but think that the bail-out is exactly the kind of thing that Romney was talking about.

President Bush, for all the credit he gets for tax cuts, deserves some serious blame for previously expanding the budget more than LBJ and now proposing the largest socialization this country has seen since FDR. He has turned his back on the free market and the principles of prosperity that underly it. If that is not acting like a Democrat, I don't know what is. The ultimate consequence, as our man Mitt said so succinctly, is that everyone is going to lose.

Businesses will lose by not being punished for their bad behavior (i.e. lending with no prospect of being repaid) and not learning the lessons from their bad behavior. Taxpayers will lose because all we are taking on is debt, with no prospect of a profitable (or likely any) return. The government will lose because the additional debt could (and I think likely will) swamp the solvency of the government itself, destroying the value of the dollar and preventing the government from getting loans (even from such predators as China) to cover its own debts. All this will lead to the problem becoming not just a financial sector and housing problem, but to being a broader crisis of all Americans AND its government, too.

In short, everyone loses, all because Republicans and other defenders of market principles don't have the courage to say that the market can and will correct the problem, which it is doing right now by punishing those institutions and homeowners who were reckless. Republicans should know better than proposing such an anti-market plan. The bail-out will not just lead to socialism, it is socialism. It is government at its worst, fighting against the market to impose its own idea of economics. It's the type of thing we have come to expect from Democrats. Now that Republicans have taken on a similar tactic, we will all lose.