comMITTed to Romney!

I just checked out the reaction to Huckabee’s unbelievably irresponsible crack about Obama
delivered at the NRA meeting. THE LAST THING any politician needs to be talking about is this kind of stuff. It’s not as if the unstable people in our country (and judging from the headlines, we don’t seem to be experiencing any shortage) need any encouragement.

It’s hard to put into words the revulsion that I feel toward Huckabee at this moment. To put that thought into people’s heads to try to get a cheap laugh and pander to a constituent group at the same time is regrettable.

The NYT Caucus site had almost 400 comments when I went on the site late this morning. Absolutely played right into the hands of the lefties that comment on that site. Mike Huckabee is in over his head and he needs to get out of national politics before he brings anymore embarrassment to the Republican Party.

I have spent some time around gun owners, sport shooters and hunters. My experience with them is that they are very responsible people. The NRA, as you know, stresses gun safety, training and good citizenship. For that hack to deliver this kind of appalling remark before a NRA audience, adds insult to injury.

Huckabee owes an apology to: 1. Barack Obama 2. Michele Obama 3. The Obama children 4. The American people 5. The National Rifle Association 6. Real comedians

~~John Cronin~~

[ Editor's Note ] I just came across this comment at TOWNHALL.COM.

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/37e039d2-2e5b-4637-b152-2258a46c3975

WHAT Was He Thinking? Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 5:05 PM Speaking on behalf of John McCain, Mike Huckabee actually made a joking off-hand comment about someone aiming a gun at Barack Obama.

Yes, it was a joke. Yes, it seemed unscripted. But one never, ever, ever jokes about the possibility of a rival (or anyone, for that matter) being assassinated. Especially when many genuinely fear for that candidate’s safety because of his race.

Such a remark isn’t just wrong and graceless. It’s downright dumb. Huckabee owes Barack, his supporters — and, for that matter — John McCain an apology.

Geez. With friends like Huckabee, neither Republicans nor gun owners need adversaries.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Robert Evans has some interesting gossip that he is dishing tonight.

~~John Cronin~~

http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/917712,CST-EDT-novak27.article

April 27, 2008

ROBERT NOVAK novakevans@aol.com

Big-time Republican contributors are complaining that prospective presidential nominee John McCain is poorly organized for the campaign and off to a bad start in raising money.
McCain begins well behind Democrat Barack Obama in the 2008 money derby, and longtime Republican givers say there is no coherent plan for catching up and getting ahead.

The bright spot for McCain in the opinion of the GOP money men is the presence in his campaign of New York investment banker Lew Eisenberg, an experienced Republican fund-raiser. Eisenberg, a pro-choice social liberal who has often contributed to Democrats, was attacked by conservatives when he came on board with McCain in 2007. When McCain clinched the nomination, Eisenberg was sent to the Republican National Committee as victory finance chairman.

In another article further down on the same page some Mitt Romney news.

McCain for guns

Sen. John McCain, continuing to mend his right-wing fences, will do something next month that George W. Bush never has done during 7½ years as president: attend a National Rifle Association event.

McCain plans to be in Louisville, Ky., on May 16 for the NRA’s ”Celebration of American Values.” Also on hand will be two of McCain’s defeated rivals for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.

The NRA gave McCain a mediocre C-plus rating in 2004, but since then his pro-gun voting record as a senator has been 100 percent. While some activists in the gun-ownership movement are still suspicious of McCain, his voting is vastly better than that of his two Democratic opponents, Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton. Each is graded F by the NRA.

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

Remembering that a vote for Mike, Fred, John, or Rudy…is a vote for Rudy, here is a glimpse of what we are setting ourselves up for with a Rudy candidacy (and ultimately Presidency).

First, here is a sobering story of Giuliani’s history of cronyism, elevating corrupt and incompetent loyalists to positions of power over his time as NYC mayor.

Second, here is an eye opening account of how Giuliani exploited the court system and activist judges to attack the 2nd amendment, defend sanctuary cities, keep taxes in place, and fight the line item veto.

Finally, here is the link to a couple videos which detail the sordid story of Alan Placa. Alan is a former priest and known child molester who also happens to be one of Giuliani’s best friends. Giuliani has protected Alan along the way and has even employed him at his firm Giuliani Partners.

If you are a Romney supporter, now is the time to act! there are only about two weeks before the first absentee ballots are potentially cast in New Hampshire, and the Iowa Caucuses will be upon us in less than six weeks! Donate, volunteer, talk with your family, friends, and co-workers. If we all get involved and work toward Mitt’s election it will definitely happen! (If you would like to help out but don’t know how to get involved, leave a comment and we’ll try to point you in the right direction).

If you are supporting anyone beside Romney, recognize that is de-facto support for Rudy. This primary is going to be won by either Rudy or Romney. If you have problems with Rudy’s liberal views on abortion, marriage, immigration, 2nd amendment, and taxation, please take another look at Mitt Romney and consider giving him your support. Any questions? Leave a comment and we’ll do our best to address it!

Articles and videos after the jump.

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

Republicans got good news on two fronts today as the Supreme Court took the D.C. handgun case and scientists developed yet another promising method for creating stem cells without destroying embryos.

It’s about time the Supreme Court got around to clarifying whether the 2nd Amendment means anything. Judge Silberman (who, in a sane universe, should have gotten Justice Kennedy’s seat on the Supreme Court when Judge Bork fell) wrote a masterful opinion that will be very difficult for the Supreme Court to dispute. This should give Republicans a victory, reminding us of the importance of the Supreme Court, going into the 2008 election and put gun control back near the top of the list of important issues. An aversion to gun control has always helped the GOP in the past and could do nothing but help in this instance.

The stem cell development is important in that it makes the pro-life stance on the issue more tenable on political grounds. There has been a rush to call anyone who opposes the destruction of embryos on ethical grounds as “anti-science” (which is rubbish since scientists regularly must jump through numerous ethical hoops before they are allowed to start experimenting). Those calls can now be muted as yet another promising alternative has been discovered that doesn’t include the thorny issues of life and cloning.

~~~Thomas

Addendum:

From the comments, Ross shares this article from NRO:

In the highly contentious political battle over federal funding for stem-cell research, one cannot help but note that of all the current presidential candidates, only Governor Mitt Romney embraced an unambiguous and principled stance on the alternatives, incorporating them into his proposed domestic policy.

Who can forget. Aside from Chris Matthews’ shenanigans, it was perhaps the most memorable moment from that first debate.

~~~Thomas

Share on Facebook

Share This

Visit CBS News to watch the entire video.

He goes further in depth about his faith than he has before…

I’m happy about it, I have felt that it’s been a shame that he’s had to be so careful (understandably so) about talking about his faith. Every other candidate (like Mike’s post from earlier from the Boston Globe piece) can talk openly and freely about their faith. They can meet with religious leaders of their faith whenever they want (press in hand even). But, Governor Romney has to fight against such utter bigotry on this issue that he is shackled. I’m sure that privately he speaks to leaders of the church, etc., but it’s just not the same as the other candidates can do.

I am hoping that it becomes less and less of an issue, but at least for now that looks almost impossible. So, he has to take what he can get and hope that it turns out for the positive. It’s so nice to see some evangelicals coming out and endorsing him for President. It was absolutely awesome to see him win the FRC straw poll vote, it’s just so unfortunate that the faith issue has to dog him so badly all the time. But, because Governor Romney is who he is, and he’s faced this sort of rejection his entire life if anyone can overcome it he can.

Here’s Bob Schieffer’s written commentary after the interview:

(CBS) Weekly commentary by CBS Evening News chief Washington correspondent and Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer.
When former Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2000, he said he believed in God and would say no more about it than that. He said the rest was his business.

That’s a good answer as far as I am concerned. That’s why - when I interviewed former Governor Romney - I asked how much of his faith he felt obligated to share with voters.

I brought it up because polls show many Americans say they just won’t vote for a Mormon. For a Mormon politician, that’s not a religious problem, it’s a political problem.

So when Romney said he was happy to be asked, I asked.

I found his answers interesting. He outlined how he saw the relationship of his religion to the duties of the presidency in much the way that John Kennedy explained his faith in that 1960 speech after people questioned his Catholicism.

Romney didn’t go as far as Kennedy but I came away feeling I knew more about who he was and that helps to make a political, not a religious judgment.

Had he said his religion was none of my business, I would have taken that as a legitimate answer. In America, what we choose to tell others about our faith is nobody’s business but our own.

Kennedy said he hoped no one would vote for or against him because he was Catholic. Romney said the same.

I think they got that part exactly right.

CBS News Face the Nation Transcript

Update:
YouTube now has Bob Schieffer’s Commentary…

Share on Facebook

Share This