comMITTed to Romney!

Where did Mitt’s Flip-Flop label come from?  Why is he seen as a “new” convert to conservatism?  Those of us who have objectively studied this issue have come to the same conclusion that Darlene Wagner, of Christian News Wire has reached.  In this article she gives an absolutely excellent summary of how these myths evolved, and the truth about Mitt’s record.  She did this by personally contacting the Pro-Life community in Mass., where Mitt was Governor for 4 years.  Here is what she found:

Abortion Issue is Behind the Flip Flop Story of Mitt Romney

Contact: Darlene Wagner 860-456-3165, faceofprolife@sbcglobal.net

MEDIA ADVISORY, Feb. 3 /Christian Newswire/ — Abortion, who would have thought that it would be the secret weapon of John McCain and Mike Huckabee going into the Florida primary and now super Tuesday. Did the election predictors ever envision a struggle that would be fought over the precious pro-life conservative vote? Mitt Romney was noted as a late comer to the pro life scene and undeserving of the title of pro life by both McCain and Huckabee. He was stealing the votes intended for them.

Attack ads on YouTube with links placed in articles by a group called GoneRoe headed by attorney Sharon Blakeney, are featured in an article in Life News.com., a well traveled reliable resource used by the pro life community. Also, Janet Folger, the host of a national talk radio program, wrote in a World Net Daily column that “the ads are welcome for super Tuesday.” The goal is to incite Christian Pro Lifers to vote against Mitt Romney.

Darlene Wagner, a producer for a

Connecticut cable access show called the Face of Pro Life, decided to find out the basis of the McCain, Huckabee and news media charges of flip flopping on issues, she contacted the Mass. Family Institute and Pioneer Mass. Citizen for Life. So what exactly was the relationship of Mitt Romney with the

Mass. pro life community?

Wagner said, “I was astonished to find the real story was quite different. In fact, Governor Mitt Romney was well regarded by the local pro life activists. Respected for having made a difference by providing the leadership to bring about significant change.” His influence was short lived because present Governor Patrick who has anti-life credentials has reversed all those gains.

For a short four years,

Mass. was making inroads into becoming a pro life state in spite of the well know Democrat left leaning legislature.

The online newsletter of Mass. Family Institute writes, “In Defense of Marriage Romney appeared at a press conference in June 2006 and called on the Legislature to vote. He also helped to organize a rally at the Statehouse the following November, attended by 7,000 concerned citizens, and announced a lawsuit to force the Legislature to vote. “Although the SJC dismissed the suit, it also reprimanded the legislators for shirking their duty to vote. The Legislature listened and allowed the amendment process to proceed.” No surprise when Gov. Patrick became governor he had already worked to get 11 votes to have the Defense of Marriage Amendment fail.

The newsletter continued, “Governor Romney championed the sanctity of life during the debate over embryonic stem cell research and cloning. He opposed the loosening of restrictions on research on human embryos and, while unsuccessful, used his executive powers to restrict the creation of human embryos exclusively for use in research.”

In sharp contrast, the present Mass. Gov. Patrick has announced a $1 billion “life science” initiative that will provide funding and tax incentives for companies doing embryonic stem cell research. If John McCain is elected president he will do the same because he is only ½ pro-life. According to the Value Voter’s guide he supports federal funds for embryonic stem research. As recently as yesterday McCain garnered the endorsement of Nancy Reagan who champions this embryo killing procedure.

When Gov. Romney discovered that federal abstinence money was being wasted in the Commonwealth on ineffective media campaigns, he helped redirect the money toward classroom abstinence-only instruction through programs like the Healthy Futures program. $700,000 was used to deliver the abstinence message to hundreds of teenage students. When Gov. Patrick became governor he refused to accept the grant money despite the plea of many inner city teenagers.

What a sharp contrast between the real record and the one that has been hyped by the media, John McCain and Mike Huckabee. To local pro life activists like Dr. Shaw, who said he will be voting for Romney in the primary, “Things have changed for the worse in Mass. Pro Life wise and we would like to have it return to the days when Romney was Governor.”

Sources for this article:

Life News.com

Mass. Family Institute Newsletter

Mass Citizen for Life Web Site

Numerous telephone interviews

Pioneer Mass Citizens for Life

This was not a Romney supporter or campaigner, but a person genuinely interested in finding out the truth.  It is amazing to me that she had to go to such great lengths to bypass the lies the media and McCain and Huckabee have perpetrated about Mitt’s record.  Mitt has always stated in debates and stump speeches that as Governor he came down on the side of life every time.  The facts are there to support this.  Mitt’s record as Governor was strongly conservative, and will be as President as well.

Share on Facebook

Share This

For fellow conservatives considering Mitt for the first time, it’s important to understand Mitt’s staunch support of the pro-life platform.  The media has tried to downplay and negate Mitt’s position on this.  They’ve managed to stick a big old post-it note on Mitt’s forehead labelled “Flip Flopper” in permanent ink.  They’ve asserted that he lacks conviction.  They’re wrong.  As Governor, Mitt consistently stuck to conservative principles.  On abortion, marriage, health care, economy and other important issues, Mitt consistenly made conservative decisions.  For a great summary on Mitt’s real record, see Ann Marie’s post back in November 2007.

On Monday, the 35th anniversay of Roe v. Wade, Mitt once again committed to overturning this decision:

After 35 years of Roe v. Wade, we are again reminded why this decision should be overturned,” Romney said in a statement provided to LifeNews.com.

“We recognize the worth and dignity of every person, a fact that is ingrained in our hearts and etched in our national purpose,” Romney added. “Unelected judges should not be the final arbiters on these important decisions which define who we are as a people.”

Recently, Romney told Nevada voters that he wanted the high court to overturn the infamous decision allowing virtually unlimited abortions.

“I am pro-life, and I would welcome a time when the people of America concluded that abortion was wrong, but that’s not where America is, and that’s why I believe that the next right step for America is for the court to overturn Roe v. Wade,” he said then.

“That would return to the states and to the elected representatives of the people the ability to set their own laws related to abortion,” he said.

“Today, as Americans from across this country participate in the annual March for Life, my thoughts are with all those whose dedication and compassionate concern have done so much to educate and assist others in creating a genuine culture of life,” he said.

The last phrase is a very telling remark.  As he does with so many issues, Mitt is able to look at the broader implications and ramifications of following a certain path.  When he discusses his decision to become politically pro-life, Mitt often states that as Governor he realized that the effects of Roe v. Wade weren’t just limited to abortion.  They extended to issues like embryonic stem cell research and teenage pregnancy, and to the very basic fabric of our culture.  The question, “Are we a culture of life, or of death,” has strong ramifications for our children, their education, their government, their health, their society and their future.  Mitt understood (and has helped me understand) that the issue of abortion isn’t solely about choice or murder or rights - it’s about the kind of culture, society and country we are creating (or destroying) for the next generation.

If you are unsure about Mitt’s conviction on this or other social issues such as marriage, please DO NOT believe the picture the media has painted.  Please take a few minutes to visit Mitt’s site where he discusses his belief in “promoting a culture of life,” or visit the Encyclopedia Mittanica, where you can scroll down and find Mitt’s answers to just about any question, all neatly alphabetized according to issue. 

Warning:  if you take a few minutes to do this - to objectively look at Mitt’s platform and record, you WILL find he is a true Reagan conservative, and you WILL most likely want to join, sign up, contribute, campaign for, blog and in all other ways become a Mitt supporter!  Let us know when you do - we’d love to hear your story!

Share on Facebook

Share This

Consider these points:

• McCain’s the candidate of amnesty for illegal aliens, (more here)
• McCain supports embryonic stem-cell research
• McCain has said “I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade”.
• McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts, (and still does), and refuses to sign the “No New Taxes” pledge, (more here)..
• McCain supports legislation that would increase taxes on energy.
• McCain was the ring-leader of the Senate “Gang of 14″, which kept the then Senate Republican leadership from ending the ability of Democrats to filibuster Bush’s judicial nominees, (more here).
• McCain supports legislation to grant due-process rights to terrorists.
• McCain sponsored the legislation which restricts free-speech rights of those involved in the political process, (the McCain/Feingold bill)

Share on Facebook

Share This

Kenneth Vogel at Politico reports that Gov. Huckabee “last year accepted $52,000 in speaking fees from a bio-tech giant that wants to research human embryonic stem cells, a non-profit working to expand access to the morning after pill and a group pushing to study whether tightening gun control laws will reduce violence.”

Bill Lauderback, vice president of the American Conservative Union, responds in the story:

“It raises questions as to his philosophical positions,” Lauderback asserted, “if he is accepting very lucrative speaking fees from special interest groups who have a markedly different perspective on certain social issues from what he is projecting as a candidate.”

The link and full story follow:

Stem Cell, Contraception Groups Paid Huck
By Kenneth P. Vogel
December 28, 2007
Mike Huckabee last year accepted $52,000 in speaking fees from a bio-tech giant that wants to research human embryonic stem cells, a non-profit working to expand access to the morning after pill and a group pushing to study whether tightening gun control laws will reduce violence.

Huckabee opposes embryonic stem cell research, emergency contraception and stricter gun laws – all of which rank high on the list of deal-breakers for many of the religious conservatives whose support he’s ridden to the top of the Republican presidential field.

The payments – from drug-maker Novo Nordisk, which engages in stem cell research, the Public Health Institute, which works to expand access to “morning after” contraception and Grant Makers in Health, which is seeking to steer funding to studies of gun violence – highlight the delicate line Huckabee has walked on the profitable speaking circuit.
The former Arkansas governor has used appearances before churches, universities and other groups to both expand and capitalize on his reputation as a leader in conservative Christian and public health circles.
But along the way, he’s accepted honoraria from public health interests that sometimes support causes anathema to the GOP right.

Huckabee “isn’t afraid to speak to people who don’t agree with his message or personal philosophy,” said his spokeswoman Kirsten Fedewa.
She added, though, that Huckabee sticks to “limited, focused and non-political” topics such as “preventive health care or similar issues.”

That answer may not satisfy some social conservatives, said Bill Lauderback, executive vice president of the American Conservative Union.
“It raises questions as to his philosophical positions,” Lauderback asserted, “if he is accepting very lucrative speaking fees from special interest groups who have a markedly different perspective on certain social issues from what he is projecting as a candidate.”

The speaking and book circuits helped Huckabee, whose salary during his decade as governor never topped $79,000, make ends meet – both before and after he left the governor’s mansion early this year.
According to state and federal public records, he pulled in more than $405,000 since 2004 in honoraria, books sales, consulting and outside income through 12 Stops, Inc. a company set up that year to manage his private sector business.

It’s not hard to see why his story appeals to groups and companies in the public health arena.
An ordained Baptist minister who dropped more than 100 pounds after being diagnosed with Type II diabetes, Huckabee pushed to expand health care access and incentivize healthy living in Arkansas.

Novo Nordisk, which touts itself as a world leader in diabetes care, in May announced it was giving away 35,000 Spanish-language copies of Huckabee’s book, “Quit Digging Your Grave With A Knife and Fork: A 12-Stop Program to End Bad Habits and Begin a Healthy Lifestyle.”
Two months earlier, Huckabee received a total of $35,000 in two payments from the company, according to a personal financial disclosure statement he filed with the Federal Election Commission.
On its website, the company calls human embryonic stem cell research “essential” to addressing diseases including diabetes and Parkinson’s.
But it adds it will only use human embryonic stem cells “derived from spare embryos from (in vitro fertilization) treatment that are obtained with freely given informed consent” and it says it does not support “the creation of human embryos solely for research purposes.”

Huckabee is “opposed to research on embryonic stem cells,” according to his website.

Asked about the apparent contradiction, Novo Nordisk spokesman Sean Clements said the company and Huckabee “share the same passion for changing diabetes for the nearly 21 million Americans with the disease.”

The company’s connection to the research was too much for Mitt Romney, who also opposes most embryonic stem cell research.
Unbeknownst to him, he had between $100,000 and $250,000 in stock in Novo Nordisk in a blind trust that was made public this summer.
At the time, Romney said the trust manager would “endeavor to make my investments conform to my positions.”
The California-based Public Health Institute, a non-profit that paid Huckabee $13,000 for a January speech, works on a range of public health issues.
They include expanding access to emergency contraception – also known as the morning-after pill – in the U.S. and abroad.

The institute did not return telephone calls and emails. But its website asserts “The best way to make change happen is to bring together people and institutions with common interests and, sometimes, different points of view.”

Huckabee this year received $4,000 from the D.C.-based non-profit group, Grant Makers in Health. It helps foundations write grants in a range of areas, such as expanding healthcare access for immigrants, including illegal immigrants, and studying the impacts of gun-control laws on violence – hardly causes celebre among conservative activists.

Grant Makers did not respond to requests for comment.

Other entities that paid Huckabee seem more closely aligned with his world view.
He reported receiving nearly $11,000 from book sales and honoraria from five churches and from conservative Liberty University (Huckabee says he donated payments from the churches).

Castle Partners, a group that invests in health and fitness companies, paid him $15,000 to speak last year, while the Cooper Institute, an exercise research group on whose board Huckabee once sat, paid him more than $3,000 in honoraria and book sales.

The International Music Products Association, which this year gave the guitar-playing Huckabee its “Music for Life Award” for commitment to music education, also paid him $40,000 in consulting fees for a contract that ran through September.

As for book sales, the McBride Agency paid him nearly $150,000 in book royalties, while a political committee he controlled, Hope for America, paid him nearly $8,000 for books.

Share on Facebook

Share This

As we approach the primary voting season, there are more and more new folks finding their way to our humble blog. The information I found on this blog was extremely helpful to me as I assessed the various candidates in search of “the One.” As such, I thought it would be fitting for me to share why I am a staunch supporter of Governor Mitt Romney in his run for the White House.

In a nutshell, Mitt Romney is the only “full-spectrum” Conservative who can rally the support of all three wings of the Reagan coalition, namely, Social, Economic, and Foreign Policy Conservatives.

For a full treatment of Mitt Romney’s positions, I would refer you to his comprehensive policy book “Vision for a Strong America.” Let me summarize here, however, the highlights across the major issues:

• Foreign Policy
o War against Islamic Fascism: We are engaged in a multi-front war which will require using all of our military, economic, and diplomatic might to win; we must defeat the terrorists and those who aid and abet them as well as help the Muslim people enter the 21st century (click here and here)
o Iraq and Afghanistan: The surge is working and we must do what it takes to help Iraq and Afghanistan become stable democratic allies in the war on Islamic Fascism and support our troops (click here and here)
o Iran: Iran must not be allowed to become a nuclear state; diplomacy and economic sanctions are critical, but may not be enough; the military option must remain on the table (click here)
o Military: Need to increase defense spending to a minimum of 4% of GDP to make sure our armed forces have the equipment they need in the field and the support the need back home; the best ally of peace is a strong America (click here and here)

• Economic Policy
o Taxes: We need to keep the Bush tax cuts permanent, eliminate the Death Tax, and cut taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest to zero for the Middle Class (click here, and here)
o Spending: We need to restrain Federal spending and close the deficit; will veto any budget where non-defense discretionary spending growth exceeds inflation minus 1%; Need to give the President a line-item veto; Strong track record of financial management from Massachusetts where he closed a $3B deficit and turned it into a $1B surplus without raising taxes; carry out a comprehensive review of government spending to increase efficiency and effectiveness (click here and here)
o Entitlements reform: Maintain benefits for current Seniors, but institute fundamental reforms combining slowing the rate of increase for benefits based on income, extending the retirement age, individual retirement accounts, and no tax increases (click here)
o Healthcare: Mitt Romney is the only candidate on either side of the aisle who implemented a universal health care plan; He covered all of the citizens of Massachusetts using market-based insurance without raising taxes; Governor Romney advocates a Federalist state-by-state approach to make health insurance more affordable for everyone (click here)
o Globalization: Continue to trade around the world but make sure we negotiate level playing fields in foreign markets and upgrade American competitiveness through investments in education and innovation (click here and here)

• Culture and Values
o Illegal immigration: Control the border first and turn of the “magnets” that attract illegal immigrants by implementing an employment verification system, no special path for illegal immigrants to become citizens (i.e. no amnesty), no sanctuary cities, increased enforcement by local police agencies (click here, here, and here)
o Traditional marriage: In favor of amending the constitution to keep marriage defined as between a man and a woman; fought the Massachusetts Supreme Court to prevent the state from becoming a destination for same-sex couples looking for marriage licenses (click here and here and here)
o Life: Much has been made of Governor Romney’s switch from being Pro-Abortion to Pro-Life; This is a critical issue for me; I have heard many times why he made this change, and I believe him; I believe that Mitt Romney will fight for the rights of the unborn and be a great leader in supporting Life (click here, here, and here)

The choice of a nominee and President, however, is not strictly a “right-brained” decision based on policy statements and positions. There needs to be something inspirational about a candidate whether it’s the way that they speak to a crowd, interact one on one, or something about their personal story that sets them apart.

Experiencing Mitt through articles and videos really helped seal the deal for me. Below, I have listed some of what I would consider the best of the best articles and videos that helped me come to the decision to support Mitt actively. I’m sure I’m missing some great material, but there is a lot down below. I would encourage you to click through as much of this as you can, and if you have a favorite that wasn’t listed, please leave a link in the comments!

Key videos, speeches, appearances, and articles:
• Articles
o Romney to the Rescue (Newsmax) – Great overview of Mitt Romney
o National Review’s endorsement of Mitt Romney
o The House that Mitt Built (Private Equity International) – Behind the scenes view of how Mitt ran Bain Capital and his leadership style
o The Making of Mitt Romney (Boston Globe) – Reasonably balanced biography of each of the major phases of Mitt’s life starting from his youth through today
o Consultant in Chief (Wall Street Journal) – Interview of Mitt where he talks about how he would fix the Federal Government
o For Romney & Company, Campaign is all Business (NY Times) – How Mitt runs his campaign and what it would mean for his Presidency
o Evangelicals for Mitt statement of support
o Mark DeMoss on why Evangelicals should support Mitt
o Ann Romney Opens Up (People Magazine) – Great interview with Ann; she would be a fantastic First Lady!

• Speeches
o “Faith in America” – Seminal address on the role of religious faith and liberty in our nation
o Address to the Value Voters Summit – Seminal address on culture and value issues
o Iowa Straw Poll victory speech
o Highlights from the Republican debates (click 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th)
o Speech at CPAC 2007 – One of Mitt’s first major addresses to the leading grassroots gathering of Conservatives; one of his best speeches in my opinion
o Presidential Campaign Announcement – Mitt announcing that he’s running and why he’s running

• Campaign videos
o Biographical overview video of Mitt Romney (click part I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII)
o “Path to Victory” webcast – Mitt and Meg Whitman (CEO of eBay) discussing the 2007 campaign and discussing the plan for 2008
o Retrospective of Governor Romney’s campaign in 2007
o Online “Ask Mitt Anything” – For those of us who don’t live in an early primary state, Mitt held an online town hall meeting which provides a really good overview of his key positions
o Christmas 2006 – Behind the scenes look at the Romney family and how they made the decision together that Mitt should run for President; cynics have criticized this video as contrived, but I love the fact that he has held his family together while achieving such exceptional success; you can’t fake this stuff

• Media appearances
o Mitt on Jim Cramer of CNBC’s Mad Money – Great interview by Jim Cramer where he calls Mitt the “Best businessman in America”
o Mitt on ABC News talking about Ann – Great interview of Mitt where he discusses what he loves so much about Ann
o Mitt on Meet the Press – Tim Russert throws everything he’s got plus the kitchen sink at Mitt who proceeds to address each point in a clear, classy, and compelling way

• My favorite TV spots
o “Searched” – Compelling true story of how Mitt Romney shut down Bain Capital and moved all the employees to NYC to search for and find the daughter of one of his partners
o “Choice: Judgment” – Striking contrast ad highlighting Mike Huckabee’s 1,033 pardons and clemencies (more than 2x his three predecessors) vs. zero from Mitt Romney
o “Choice: The Record” – Ad contrasting Mitt’s record on illegal immigration vs. Mike Huckabee’s record of supporting tax payer funded scholarships and in-state tuition for illegal immigrants
o “Not Politically Correct” – Mitt’s record supporting life, English immersion education, and traditional marriage
o “Experience Matters” – Ad highlighting the lack of real world, executive experience on the part of Hillary Clinton (and equally applicable to the other Democrats)
o “Ready for Action” – Summary of Governor Romney’s stump speech in 60 seconds; user-generated ad based on a contest that was run back in September
o “Our Home” – Some precious footage of Mitt playing with his children and grandchildren; focuses on the importance of strengthening our families
o “Leadership” and “Energy” – I just love the images of Mitt jogging through the backwoods and the focus on his track record in business; I think he’s the only politician I’ve seen jogging where it looked like he was actually in shape…not just a photo op
o “Ocean” – Ad lamenting the degradation of our culture and Mitt’s thoughts on how he would like to address it; as a parent this one really resonated with me
o “Tested, Proven” – One of his early ads highlighting his track record in Massachusetts
o “I Like Vetoes” – Ad highlights his track record of vetoing excessive spending; no doubt in my mind that he’ll control spending after seeing this ad and other times when he has addressed this topic

Finally, it is one thing to support Mitt with your vote, but I’d like to ask you to consider supporting Mitt in a more active way. Like many of you, I had always followed politics, but never became active in politics (other than voting) until this year in support of Governor Romney.

This year is different. First, this is arguably the most consequential election in over twenty years. The challenges and issues that will be faced by our next President will have far reaching ramifications for our children and grandchildren.

Additionally, we face a set of candidates on the Republican side who represent vastly different positions and perspectives, some of whom threaten to tear asunder the Reagan coalition that has served us so well. Whether it is the socially liberal and sanctuary city defending Rudy Giuliani, the divisive, theocratic, soft on crime and illegal immigration, and fiscally populist Mike Huckabee, or the McCain Feingold, “Gang of 14”, and pro-Amnesty John McCain, there are clear differences in the way that each of these individuals would take the Republican Party.

If you’ve found this persuasive, please do whatever you can to support Mitt Romney’s candidacy. If you’re from Iowa, please caucus for Mitt (get more information here). Winning Iowa is job one between now and January 3.

If you are not from Iowa, please stay informed by checking in here at Elect Romney in 2008 every day. Make a donation to help Mitt win the media air war. Put on a bumper sticker or put up a yard sign (get them here). And most importantly, talk with your friends, family, co-workers, and neighbors about why you’re supporting Mitt Romney! Personal testimonials from trusted individuals are by far the most effective ways to gain more supporters for Mitt!

If you still have questions or remain unconvinced, leave a comment and we’ll do our best to answer your question. Or better yet, if you are also a Mitt supporter, leave a comment telling us why! Thank you for reading!

Share on Facebook

Share This

As I make my daily journey across the blogosphere, I frequently encounter comments from people who completely dismiss Mitt Romney based on the frequent misconception that he “changes his positions” or has been “on both sides of major issues.” So if someone reading this is considering taking a second look and supporting Governor Romney, let me help set the record straight for you.

There has been one, precisely one, change on any major issue. Anyone who says otherwise is just spouting the talking points of the Democratic National Committee who has been hitting him with this for months. Why? Because he is a supremely qualified candidate, and they know it, and they know he will whip them next November if he gets the Republican nomination. So let’s look at the major issues where is is often accused of “changing.”

The one change he made was regarding abortion. Up until 2004, he was effectively pro-choice from a governance point of view, meaning that he was personally opposed to it, but would not get in the mode of having government enforce his view. But in 2004, the issue of therapeutic cloning came before him as governor, and he was struck with how society was getting ready to create human life just to kill it, and he made a decision, (a costly one politically it would seem) to come down on the side of life. He has taken lots of heat for that decision, many saying that it was political pandering, etc. etc. But those of us familiar with Governor Romney’s character know that this was in fact a heart-felt and weighty decision for him, where he ultimately came down on the side of life. Most pro-life circles accept converts, and many leading pro-life activists have rejoiced in Mitt’s conversion. Those throwing jabs at him are those who are pro-choice anyway (or those bigoted against him for other less politically correct reasons).

As for the other frequent jabs at him regarding gay rights and gay marriage, he has ALWAYS been in favor of gays having equal treatment in the workplace etc., but he has ALWAYS been opposed to so-called gay marriage and civil unions. The first issue, namely gay rights in general, involves rights of people to live and function in society without repercussions regarding their sexual orientation. Mitt has always been in favor of this. The latter issue, however, attempts to redefine a pillar of society that has stood for thousands of years, and Mitt has always opposed any redefinition of marriage and in recent years has fought this battle on the front lines. Mitt’s position is entirely consistent from every angle–he supports gay rights in general, but opposes the redefinition of marriage. But this position drives liberals nuts, so they make groundless attacks against him based on it. But sorry, no changes here.

As for gun rights, he has always supported the basic right to bear arms, but has always opposed high-lethality weapons such as assault rifles. He has always supported reasonable waiting periods for handgun sales, primarily for background check purposes, but supports the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms. He has had the support of the NRA in his three campaigns, despite the fact that by his own admission, he does not line up with them 100%. This has been a consistent position throughout his public life. Again, no changes here.

His position on illegal immigration has always been that he wants to find ways to solve the problem, but has always called for immigrants to follow the law, and has always rejected any special treatment, amnesty, or fast track to citizenship for those who have failed to follow the law. Sorry, no changes here either.

So, gentle readers, I invite you to take a second look at Mitt Romney if you are otherwise simply dismissing him out of hand because of the DNC “flip-flop” talking points. Those talking points are simply without merit.  He has a distinguished record as a turn-around champion in business, in the 2002 Olympics, and the state of Mass. where he balanced the budget by making government more efficient instead of by raising taxes. He is exactly what Washington needs. He is intelligent, well spoken, principled, and a clean living family man with no skeletons in his closet. His religion, which some misguidedly see as a liability, is actually a great strength to him personally, because it informs his moral choices and lifestyle, and gives him a work ethic and commitment to service that is unmatched in the current field of candidates. So if your second look has led you here, then please throw your support behind Mitt Romney!

Share on Facebook

Share This

You know how we often hear the term “the liberal elite” which connotes some ivory tower intellectual superiority? It might only be I who thinks such a term is rather an oxymoron. This great article on discoveries in stem cell research reminds me of the same liberal forces of the last two decades that have argued that ending life in the womb is “a right” while at the same time suing drunk drivers that cause accidents resulting in the death of a fetus.

This entire Wall Street Journal Op/Ed piece is outstanding and is a must-read for any conservative. Link —–> Trading Places — Will the secular left soon attack the religious right for being pro-science? — BY JOSEPH BOTTUM

Or, maybe, the argument is just beginning, for this news turns on its head everything in what the nation’s newspapers have delivered to us as a story of blinkered pro-lifers vs. courageous scientists.

The people who turn out actually to have believed in the power of science are the pro-lifers–the ones who said that a moral roadblock is not, in point of fact, an outrageous hindrance, for scientists will always find another, less-objectionable way to achieve their goals. President Bush’s refusal of federal funding for new embryonic stem cell lines didn’t halt major stem-cell advances, any more than the prohibition against life-threatening research on human subjects, such as the infamous Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male, stopped the advance of medical treatments.

For those who attacked the pro-lifers in the name of science, however, things look a little different. As Maureen L. Condic explained to First Thigns readers this year in her careful survey, “What We Know About Embryonic Stem Cells,” the promises of medical breakthroughs were massively overblown by the media.

But there were reasons for all the hype. I have long suspected that science, in the context of the editorial page of the New York Times, was simply a stalking-horse for something else. In fact, for two something-elses: a chance to discredit America’s religious believers, and an opportunity to put yet another hedge around the legalization of abortion. After all, if our very health depends on the death of embryos, and we live in a culture that routinely destroys early human life in the laboratory, no grounds could exist for objecting to abortion.

With these purposes now severed by the Japanese de-differentiation technique, which way will it break?

The answer is, quite possibly, toward a rejection of science by the mainstream press. Since the 1960s, abortion has skewed American politics in strange and unnatural ways, and the cloning debates are no exception. Recently John Tierney of the New York Times had a long article called “Are Scientists Playing God? It Depends on Your Religion.” It’s a little unfortunately timed, given the news from England about Mr. Wilmut’s change of heart, but the theme is that American Christians and European post-Christians are unlike the Chinese, Koreans and other Easterners with no history of opposition to science.

The whole idea seems more than a little peculiar, when one reflects on the birthplaces of modern science. And yet, Mr. Tierney sees something that is, from his perspective, genuinely hard to explain: The left in America and Europe supports destructive embryonic research, while it increasingly rejects genetically modified “Frankenfoods.”

Shake loose from the narrative of antiscience fundamentalists and pro-science liberals, however, and a different story starts to be visible. Abortion skewed the political discussion of all this, pinning the left to a defense of science it doesn’t actually hold. The more natural line is agitation against Frankenfoods and all genetic modification, particularly given the environmentalism to which the campaign against global warming is tying the left.

Narratives about positions on public policy are like enormous steamships: It takes a long time to turn them around. But if the news of stem-cell breakthroughs prove accurate, we may well see over the next few years a gradual reversal in news stories and editorials. Watch for it, now that abortion is out of the equation: much less hype about all the miracle cures that stem cells will bring us, more suspicion about the cancers and genetic pollution that may result, and just about the same amount of bashing of religious believers–this time for their ignorant support of science.

Oh, the wonder of the fluid logic of the elite liberal mind!

~ Vic

Please Help Mitt Get His Message Out —->MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

“The liar’s punishment is not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else.”

— George Bernard Shaw, Anglo-Irish dramatist and wit (1856-1950)

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

Article by Foon Rhee

BOSTON.COM

When you get press like this from a newspaper that has hammered Mitt Romney like a blacksmith hammers horse shoes, well, you are making headway.

I included the comments on the article as well. I view this as a very important milestone in the fight to re-establish a “culture of life” in this country and to move away from the gruesome practices set in motion by the disastrous Roe vs. Wade decision.

Below is the article from Boston.Com.

“Mitt Romney’s campaign is seeking to capitalize on today’s announcement that scientists have created stem cells without having to make or destroy embryos.

It pointed out that Romney has long called for a less ethically- and morally-charged alternative and highlighted an op-ed piece published today on National Review Online that praises him as the only presidential candidate who has embraced an unambiguous and principled stance on the alternatives, incorporating them into his proposed domestic policy.

Romney’s campaign also circulated an op-ed piece published in June, in which Romney called on Congress to support such research into alternatives.

As Massachusetts governor, Romney imposed in August 2006 a controversial limit on stem cell research, saying that scientists could not use stem cell lines developed in states with less restrictive laws than Massachusetts, which barred the production of embryos for the expressed purpose of scientific exploration.

Public health regulators appointed by Romney’s successor, Deval Patrick, reversed that limit last month.”

7 comments so far…

1.

Yes! Way to go Gov. Romney! He was the only one of all candidates supporting this research and willing to use federal funds for it. It is paying off and shows his deep intelligence and ability to make good decisions. Vote Mitt Romney into the White House in 2008! We need a man with his ability!
Posted by Mark November 20, 07 04:33 PM
Reply | Report this post

2.

Right behind you Mark…..Vote Mitt Romney
Posted by Kay November 20, 07 05:42 PM
Reply | Report this post

3.

Mitt Romney is the man. Do your Homework, leave your misinformed bigotry aside and you will find a guy who is very sharp.

Mitt Romney 2008
Posted by Scott November 20, 07 05:57 PM
Reply | Report this post

4.

I think Gov. Romney stands on alternative stem cell is paying him. He is the only candidate with strong decision on the debate. I admire his honest and steadfast on the issue and wish him success on his presidential bid.
Posted by Vincent Ikechukwu Nnamah November 20, 07 06:19 PM
Reply | Report this post

5.

Big deal! It’s not like Romney invented the new method of stem cell research. Many candidates back alternative methods of stem cell research. When Romney begins to care as much about the secular, gay, moderate, liberal,etc citizens of the United States as he does for the so-called “unborn”, then maybe I’ll give him a second look, but I don’t expect that to ever happen. He is too set in his 1950’s view of the world.
Posted by Michael November 20, 07 06:25 PM
Reply | Report this post

6.

I have not paid a lot of attention to the campaign until recently, as I am a Republican and most of the stories in the new have focused on the Democratic candidates. In the couple weeks, I have been paying attention and am very impressed with Mitt Romney. He is articulate, has the conservative values I share, and treats others — including his adversaries — with respect. I am increasingly of the opinion that he will win the Republican nomination and that when the country really hears him speak, he has a good shot at being elected President. The more I see of him, the more I think he’s what the country needs to bring people together to find real solutions to the problems our country is facing. I think he has the strengths to find solutions and to make us proud to be Americans again.
Posted by Jonathan November 20, 07 08:06 PM
Reply | Report this post

7.

The last thing we ever need is for this do-nothing slick used car salesman to be our President.

Haven’t we had Republican rule for the past 7 years? Enough is enough.
Posted by CJJ November 20, 07 08:47 PM

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

The Right Romney Record

BOSTON – Last week, local radio talk show host Gregg Jackson penned an op-ed on the “real Mitt Romney.” Unfortunately, it failed to note the many conservative accomplishments Mitt Romney had as Governor of Massachusetts. Here is Governor Romney’s real record of leadership in Massachusetts:

THE RECORD #1: Gov. Romney Provided Strong, Pro-Life Leadership In Massachusetts And Massachusetts Pro-Life Organizations Agree.

• Gov. Romney Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Provided For The “Morning After Pill” Without A Prescription. (Gov. Mitt Romney, The Boston Globe, 7/26/05)
• Gov. Romney Promoted Abstinence Education In The Classroom. (Office Of Gov. Mitt Romney, “Romney Announces Award Of Abstinence Education Contract,” Press Release, 4/20/06)
• Gov. Romney Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Changed The Longstanding Definition Of The Beginning Of Human Life From Fertilization To Implantation. (Gov. Mitt Romney, Letter To The Massachusetts State Senate And House Of Representatives, 5/12/05)
• Gov. Romney Supports Parental Notification Laws And Opposed Efforts To Weaken Parental Involvement. (John McElhenny, The Associated Press, 10/29/02)
• Gov. Romney Supports Adult Stem Cell Research But Has Opposed Efforts To Advance Embryo-Destructive Research In Massachusetts. (Theo Emery, The Associated Press, 5/27/05)
• Massachusetts Citizens For Life Executive Director Marie Sturgis: “Having Governor Romney in the corner office for the last four years has been one of the strongest assets the pro-life movement has had in Massachusetts.” (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review, 1/10/07)

THE RECORD #2: Gov. Romney Championed Traditional Marriage In Massachusetts.

• Gov. Romney Called For A Massachusetts Constitutional Amendment Defining Marriage As Between A Man And A Woman. “I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to make that expressly clear.” (Office Of Gov. Mitt Romney, “Statement By Governor Mitt Romney On SJC Decision On Same Sex Marriage,” Press Release, 11/18/03)
• When The Legislature Would Not Vote On The Amendment, Gov. Romney Filed Suit To Force A Vote. “Governor Mitt Romney and a group of Massachusetts residents asked the state’s highest court yesterday to override the Legislature and let voters decide whether to ban same-sex marriage, accusing legislative leaders of violating the state constitution by refusing to act on the proposal.” (Jonathan Saltzman, The Boston Globe, 11/25/06)
• Gov. Romney Enforced A 1913 Law Preventing Out-Of-State Same-Sex Couples From Marrying In Massachusetts. “Same-sex couples who live outside Massachusetts will not be able to marry in Massachusetts when gay marriage becomes legal here next month, Gov. Mitt Romney said.” (Pam Belluck, The New York Times, 4/25/04)
• Massachusetts Family Institute Kris Mineau: “He’s been rock solid on the issue of marriage.” (Steve LeBlanc, The Associated Press, 1/12/07)

THE RECORD #3: Gov. Romney Put Conservative Principles To Work In Health Care.

• The Club For Growth: “Governor Romney Deserves Credit For Proposing A Plan That Encourages Individually-Owned Health Insurance…” “Given these limitations, Governor Romney deserves credit for proposing (and to a lesser extent, enacting) a plan that encourages individually-owned health insurance and circumvents some of the inequities carved into the federal tax code.” (The Club For Growth, 8/21/07)
• Health Care Reform “Has Cut The Number Of Uninsured In The State By Nearly A Third.” (Steve LeBlanc, The Associated Press, 4/11/07)
• The New York Times: “Observers of the state’s progress since the health care law was passed in April 2006 say they are impressed that the varied constituencies – including health insurers, businesses, advocates, medical providers and taxpayers – largely continue to support the law and have worked to resolve differences.” (Pam Belluck, The New York Times, 7/1/07)
• Uninsured Massachusetts Residents Can Obtain Health Care Insurance For As Little As $175 A Month. Steve LeBlanc, The Associated Press, 3/3/07)

THE RECORD #4: Gov. Romney Appoint Judges Who Would Be Tough On Crime And Would Not Legislate From The Bench.

• For The State’s Highest Courts, Governor Romney Said He Would Appoint Judges With “Strict Construction, Judicial Philosophy.” (Raphael Lewis, The Boston Globe, 7/25/05)
• For The State’s Lowest Courts, Governor Romney Focused On Legal Experience And Whether The Nominee Would Be Tough On Crime. “He said he has focused on two factors: their legal experience and whether the nominees would be tough on crime. He said most of the nominees have prosecutorial experience. ‘People on both sides of the aisle want to put the bad guys away,’ Romney said.” (Raphael Lewis, The Boston Globe, 7/25/05)
• The Boston Globe: “Some of Romney’s nominees do have stellar Republican or conservative bona fides. For example, Romney’s pick for Peabody clerk magistrate, Kevin L. Finnegan, is a former two-term Republican state representative. Another choice was Bruce R. Henry, the son-in-law of former SJC Justice Joseph Nolan whom Romney wanted to represent his administration in seeking a stay of the court’s gay marriage ruling.” (Raphael Lewis, The Boston Globe, 7/25/05)

THE RECORD #5: Gov. Romney Took Action When Problems Were Found With The Big Dig. He Removed The Head Of The Turnpike Authority And His Quick Response Was Widely Praised.

Share on Facebook

Share This

I want to point out from the onset that I have posted the following statement from the National Right to Life committee, not to tout Fred Thompson in any way, but for informational purposes only and to express my opinion that, however well-intentioned their actions may be, they have endorsed a candidate that has no chance to win the Republican nomination.

We have all heard the expression that “politics is the art of the possible.” In assessing the Republican field, the only candidate that I see who has the passion, drive, determination, resources, organization, strategy and the core values to build the kind of center-right coalition to win the Presidency is Mitt Romney.

I just think it is unfortunate that an organization like the NRLC has endorsed a candidate who, they believe, best represents their position on the right to life issue. Sadly, they have chosen a man who does not posses the drive that it will take to defeat a well-oiled, well-funded and ruthless Democratic machine.

On a brighter note, the reports of Team Romney’s dominance in the political ad wars are pouring in. At over $10,000,000 in ad buys so far, MR is “a one man band” (to quote one advertising executive) when it comes to his total command of the field thus far. While I would much prefer to have seen MR get the NRLC’s endorsement, the list of endorsements already made and the campaign’s mastery of broadcast advertising bodes very well for the future.

BTW, it was interesting to note that the NRLC has bought into the “Blue State strategy” as well. They point out that FT is second in the national polls. Mmmm, and where is he in the early states? Lagging and fading, that’s where.

~~John Cronin~~

Statement by Wanda Franz, Ph.D., President

National Right to Life November 13, 2007

National Press Club

National Right to Life, the nation’s largest pro-life organization, representing pro-lifers in fifty state affiliates and more than 3,000 local chapters is proud to endorse former Senator Fred Thompson for President of the United States. Our endorsement is a testament to Senator Thompson’s long-standing pro-life record, his commitment to protecting unborn children, and our belief in his ability to win.

Fred Thompson has had a strong, consistent pro-life record throughout his political career. Thompson opposes abortion and believes the 1973, abortion-on-demand, Supreme Court decision was wrongly decided and must be reversed. During his eight years in the United States Senate, he always opposed the use of tax dollars to promote or pay for abortion and supported the many pro-life measures, such as parental notice and consent.
Thompson has also stated his opposition to the kind of stem cell research that requires killing human embryos, while supporting the kind of stem cell research that harms no one and is the only kind producing treatments and cures.

Since announcing his candidacy in September, Fred Thompson has run second only to pro-abortion candidate Rudy Giuliani for the Republican nomination in the overwhelming majority of national polls. As pro-lifers throughout the nation begin to unite behind his candidacy, he will be well positioned to win the nomination and the presidency.

Unlike endorsements by individuals, this endorsement was made by the representatives of state pro-life organizations from across America which are themselves comprised of local community chapters and grassroots activists.

Share on Facebook

Share This

…to undermine Life and Values issues should we be unfortunate enough to elect him President.

Matthew Franck over at National Review Online has a great article making the case against Rudy’s attempts to dismantle the Social Conservative leg of the Reagan Coalition.

Read the whole thing after the jump…

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

The following is a Collaborative Effort between Ann Marie Curling and Vic Lundquist

In the history of America, the Republican Party has never nominated a pro-abortion candidate for President. Will 2008 be the first year to set such a stunning precedent?

Are we as a party going to ignore our platform? Are we going to alter the platform to suit Rudy Giuliani’s opinions on the subject? Is the issue of human life going to be relegated to a marginal, inconsequential issue? Have we decided that the issue of abortion is now unimportant? Are we effectively conceding victory to all pro-abortion forces in America?

I’m speaking to all Republicans here: Do you really want a candidate who is pro-choice for the Republican nomination for President? Think about this long and hard. Do you reallysee Rudy Giuliani nominating a justice to the Supreme Court that will be of the same cloth as Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Antonin Scalia, or Clarance Thomas? Do you really want to take that chance with someone who professes to be pro-choice?

When mayor of NYC, the vast majority of judges nominated by RG were Democrats. Today, RG tells America, if elected President, he will nominate to the Supreme Court the most conservative of constructionist judges in the mold of an Alito or Roberts. And we are to believe that he will based on what experience or reference? We really do not know what a President will do until the President actually nominates a person to the Court and we have been surprised many times in the past. Based on the fact that RG is pro-choice and the fact that his history shows us that he favors nominating “progressive” judges to the bench, why are we now to believe that he will take a totally different path? What is the probability that RG will do a 180 now? I suggest that the probability is almost nil. Do we want to take that chance with a court tilting vacancy likely during the next administration?

Look at this section from the Republican Party Platform of 2004:

As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that
right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services, and we commend Congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption. We join the President in supporting crisis pregnancy programs and parental notification laws. And we applaud President Bush for allowing states to extend health care coverage to unborn children.
We praise the President for his bold leadership in defense of life. We praise him for signing the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. This important legislation ensures that every infant born alive – including an infant who survives an abortion procedure – is considered a person under federal law.
We praise Republicans in Congress for passing, with strong bipartisan support, a ban on the inhumane procedure known as partial birth abortion. And we applaud President Bush for signing legislation outlawing partial birth abortion and for vigorously defending it in the courts.
In signing the partial birth abortion ban, President Bush reminded us that “the most basic duty of government is to defend the life of the innocent. Every person, however frail or vulnerable, has a place and a purpose in this world.” We affirm the inherent dignity and worth of all people. We oppose the non-consensual withholding of are or treatment because of disability, age, or infirmity, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, which especially endanger the poor and those on the margins of society.
We support President Bush’s decision to restore the Drug Enforcement Administration’s policy that controlled substances shall not be used for assisted suicide. We applaud Congressional Republicans for their leadership against those abuses and their pioneering legislation to focus research and treatment resources on the alleviation of pain and the care of terminally ill patients.

Can we as Republicans nominate for the highest office in the land who goes against one of the fundamental cores of our platform? We say no.

We need Mitt Romney. He’s staunchly pro-life, he’s analyzed this in greater detail than any candidate out there. He saw up close and personal with the stem cell matter, and is absolutely and categorically pro-life. Have full confidence that Governor Romney will appoint justices like Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. We are at a critical point right now, if there is even one retirement or death Rowe V Wade will be cemented even further. Do we want to take chances with Guiliani, or do we want Pro-Life Romney? We believe the choice in clear.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Readers will recall that James Bopp Jr. is a prominent and influential figure in the national life circles. His orginal endorsement of Governor Romney for President carried with it very important clout among conservatives generally and evangelical Christians specifically.

This is the entire text from this article:

James Bopp Jr. is a key advisor to Mitt Romney on family and life issues. We talked to him about his decision to support Romney and the open fight that broke out among religious conservatives. Bopp is a named partner in the law firm of Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom, Bopp’s practice focuses on non-profit corporate and tax law, on campaign finance and election law, on life issues including abortion, and on U.S. Supreme Court practice. He has argued numerous campaign finance cases in defense of pro-life, pro-family, conservative and Republican party groups, including four cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. He also serves as General Counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech and is a member of the Republican National Committee.

How did he come to support Romney?

Bopp says: “I didn’t know him personally but obviously I watched his career and was particularly interested because of his strong support for marriage which was seriously under assault in Massachusetts.” Bopp says he had been impressed with his record of “tremendous leadership skills” in running the Olympics and as a businessman and executive but had to assure himself that Romney’s conversion to the pro-life cause was “sincere.” He met with Romney and came away satisfied by Romney’s words but also by his actual record as Gov. Bopp says: “Unfortunately there are some people in the pro-life movement who are not willing to accept converts. Our whole thrust is to gain converts. If you are not willing to accept them we are doomed to defeat.”

What does he think of the public argument between James Dobson (who he has represented) and other Christian leaders?

He says that the discussion reflects that the movement is “very large” and the vigorous debate is “very healthy.” He says that “we are just going to have people with different ways of looking at it.”

Is Romney’s Mormonism a barrier to acceptance by Christian conservative leaders?

Bopp says: “Over the last 40 years we have seen each religious movement be looked at in terms of whether a person is acceptable to be president. We saw JFK as a Catholic. We saw George H.W. Bush as an Evangelical Christian. We saw Joe Lieberman as a Jew and now we have Mitt Romney as a Mormon. In each case some people paused and had to think and each time we have come down on the side that it is acceptable.” He continues that: “We are not looking for a Pastor in Chief.” He acknowledges that Romney’s Mormon faith may have “slowed his rise” but is confident it ultimately will not be a barrier to his election.

How important is the issue of marriage?

Bopp says that it is “extremely important,” emphasizing that Romney is the only top tier candidate who supports a constitutional amendment explicitly requiring that all marriage be between a man and a woman. He explains: “If we don’t settle the issue and don’t protect marriage consistently as between a man and a woman, the opposite [legalized gay marriage] will be the result.” He is blunt about Fred Thompson’s objection that such an amendment would contravene principles of federalism by supplanting the states’ role in family and marriage. He says: “It is a cop out to say we’re not for a national definition. It is the states — ¾ must agree — which ratify a constitutional amendment so it is a decision by the states.” He continues: “We have a choice on a very fundamental question. Free speech, freedom of religion — we don’t leave to the states. Marriage is so fundamental that it is properly one [issue] to reside in the Constitution.”

Why is McCain Feingold issue voters should care about?

Bopp says this “goes to the heart of citizens’ involvement in our democracy. To talk about ‘corruption’ is a smokescreen. There is nothing — not a word — in McCain-Feingold about corrupt politicians. It is all about limiting citizens. And it was directed at advocacy groups and political parties.” He is particularly critical of the statute’s issue ad ban black out period which he views as an effort by “incumbent politicians to immunize themselves from criticism.”

What are Romney’s views on judicial activism?

Bopp argues that Romney “more than anyone understands it because he lived through it” as governor of Massachusetts in the battle against judicial imposition of gay marriage. Bopp says that the public has begun to understand that liberals are seeking to appoint judges “to apply their own personal views.” He notes that liberals have tried to redefine “judicial activism” and blur the difference between activist judges and those who adhere to the proper role of judging by contending that any time a judge strikes down a federal or state law it is “judicial activism.” He explains that this is fallacious since “it is the obligation of a judge to strike down a law when it violates the Constitution.” Judicial activism according to Bopp is when judges ignore the plain meaning and intent of the Constitution and “treats the Constitution as an empty vessel” for their own policy preferences.

What should voters consider in picking a president?

Bopp says that he would not support a candidate who is not a conservative but that voters should put more stock in who will be “viable” and who has the skills to be in charge of “managing the largest enterprise in the world.” As a Romney supporter he contends that Romney can “get the job done” both in organizing a campaign and as president. Bopp argues that debates, for example, are given far too much attention since they “have absolutely nothing to do with fundraising skills, organizational skills or management skills” although he acknowledges communication skills are important as well. In short, he says that a candidate who lacks organizational skills will be “an utter failure” both in the campaign and as president.

Are GOP voters looking for a “fantasy” candidate?

Bopp says that there “is an obsession with a fantasy candidate” which is promoted by “mainstream media to denigrate conservative candidates.” Bopp says that the media has “idealized Ronald Reagan and measure all candidates by him. Ronald Reagan could not meet the idealized version of Ronald Reagan. He signed the most liberalized abortion law in the country, he raised taxes.” Bopp contends that my holding up an impossible model of conservative virtue, media pundits then “use that to undermine current conservative candidates.” The media then, Bopp says, encourages voters to “fantasize about current, non-candidates” like Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson who when they enter the race don’t measure up either.

What will the GOP nominee need to do to beat Hillary or another Democrat?

Bopp jokes that if he knew that he’d “be a billionaire” but says that it will depend on the “competency, communication skills and hard work of our nominee. We will have to get through the media filter.”

by Jennifer Rubin

~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Share This

Check out this post…Romney Hates His Wife.

You just can’t get more absurd than this.

I left a comment, but since it’s “awaiting moderation” I doubt it gets a chance to see the light of day.

Addendum:

Taking that website’s thought to it’s logical conclusion…what if Ann needed a heart transplant? Would Gov. Romney then be required to bump off hobos in back alleys for their spare parts to prove his love?

~~~Thomas

Update:

Peace Fairs has responded to Ann Marie’s post with the following:

Maybe I do not understand stem cell research as much as I thought I did previously. From what I understood the research was being done from fetuses that were aborted or could not live because they were somehow removed from the womb. So for the ignorance there I am sorry, but the fact remains that I love my husband so much, there is nothing I would not do to make sure that he did not have to suffer from any disease. It is like the story where the guy stole the medicine for his wife when the pharmacist wanted too much for it, was it right to steal? Probably not.. but he did what he felt was right because he wanted his wife to be healthy.

~~~Thomas

Share on Facebook

Share This