Jeff Toobin, CNN: “He’s Lying”January 27th, 2008 | 16 Comments | Posted in 2008, CNN, Florida, John McCain, Kathryn Jean Lopez, McCain, McCain Lie, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, National Review, National Review Online
|
H/T: K-Lo at National Review’s “The Corner”
Joining Time Magazine and the NYTimes, even the MSM cannot cover up and carry water for McCandidate on this one.
NRO: Romney’s got the “Winning Combination” |
Hat Tip to www.mymanmitt.com
Has anyone noticed the hit pieces on Mitt today? Let’s see - there’s a debate tonight - must be the media’s version of debate prep.
Read the whole thing. Here are some choice quotes:
In 2000, running against George W. Bush and the entire Carroll Campbell machine in South Carolina, John McCain got 42% of the vote, and 240,000 votes out of 573,000 or so cast.
Tonight, he got 33% of the vote in a field where his top challengers—Romney and Giuliani—aren’t even running, and 135,000 actual votes. If just the same people who voted for McCain in 2000 had voted for him today, he would have won 50+% of the South Carolina vote. That would have been truly impressive.
Instead, John McCain LOST the support of 100,000 people—and he’s the winner?
McCain had the same “success” in New Hampshire (McCain, 2000: 48%, 116,000 votes; McCain 2008: 37%, 89,000 votes) and Michigan (2000: 50%, 600,000 votes; 2008: 30%, 257,000 votes).
This excellent article speaks for itself.
It is important for us to remember McCain’s track record of sticking it to Conservatives.
The Real McCain Record
Obstacles in the way of conservative support.By Mark R. Levin
There’s a reason some of John McCain’s conservative supporters avoid discussing his record. They want to talk about his personal story, his position on the surge, his supposed electability. But whenever the rest of his career comes up, the knee-jerk reply is to characterize the inquiries as attacks.
The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. For starters, consider:
McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.
McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.
McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.
McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.
McCain-Reimportation of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).
And McCain’s stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric — tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class. The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts.
As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.
McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.
And then there’s the McCain defense record.
His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain’s early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus’s strategy. Where’s the evidence to support such a claim?
Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11. How does McCain fare in that regard?
McCain-ACLU — the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).
McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons — despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population.
While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war — when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain’s friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.
My fingers are crossed that at the next debate, either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will find a way to address McCain’s record. (Mike Huckabee won’t, as he is apparently in the tank for him.)
— Mark R. Levin served as chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese in the Reagan administration, and he is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host.
McCain’s Attack Mailer
More than just the same old personal attacks, McCain has now launched a mailer exaggerating increases in fees in Massachusetts while Mitt was governor and criticizing Mitt for other things. See the Politico for the story.
Astute readers will recognize the hypocrisy here. McCain cried “foul” when Mitt presented McCain’s record on the Bush tax cuts and amnesty for illegals. While McCain didn’t agree with Mitt’s definition of amnesty (though Fred Thompson did agree with Mitt in a subsequent debate), McCain’s only responses were to cast aspersions on Mitt’s character, effectively calling Mitt a liar. He also criticized the ads as “negative.” Well, here’s McCain doing what he so roundly criticized. Here’s his campaign’s response:
Asked how they reconcile running a positive campaign with such a mailer, McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said: “We’ve been attacked enough times by Mitt Romney to justify getting out front to set the record straight.”
Sound like any two year old you know? “He did it first!”
JMart Points out McCain Flaws (Quoting Mark Lavin)
Jonathan Martin of the Politico recently posted a blog wondering aloud why no GOP candidate is hitting McCain on his “obvious” flaws in his not-so-conservative Senate voting record. He provides a link to a National Review Online article written by Mark Lavin on this subject. The obvious answer to me is that McCain and Huckabee have a marriage of convenience. It’s in both’s interest to take Mitt down, and McCain is gambling he may never have to get negative on Huckabee as Huck is likely to fade on his own. Huckabee knows he’s helped as well and is willing to take his chances against McCain later one on one after a more conservative rival is gone. But for you wondering why everyone considers McCain a liberal (and why he continues to garner more support among liberals than among people classifying themselves as “Republican”) see the following:
There’s a reason some of John McCain’s conservative supporters avoid discussing his record. They want to talk about his personal story, his position on the surge, his supposed electability. But whenever the rest of his career comes up, the knee-jerk reply is to characterize the inquiries as attacks.
The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. For starters, consider:
McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.
McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.
McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.
McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.
McCain-Reimportantion of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).
And McCain’s stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric — tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class. The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts.
As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.
McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.
And then there’s the McCain defense record.
His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain’s early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus’s strategy. Where’s the evidence to support such a claim?
Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11. How does McCain fare in that regard?
McCain-ACLU — the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).
McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons — despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population.
While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war — when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain’s friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.
My fingers are crossed that at the next debate, either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will find a way to address McCain’s record. (Mike Huckabee won’t, as he is apparently in the tank for him.)
Conservatives need to wake up to the fact that McCain is not one of us and is a better candidate for a third party, or even the democrats, than for the Republicans. Most Republicans have recognized that (remember his no-show in Iowa and losing among actual Republican voters in NH to Mitt). We need to spread the word so we don’t inherit McCain as our candidate through dirty pool.
Fox News’ commentary said Mitt had “hit a home run.”
Fox’s Frank Luntz said “With just two days to go, Mitt Romney hit a home run tonight.” Other key quotes about responses from Luntz’s focus group: “Mitt Romney consistently got the best responses throughout the evening…incredibly favorable.” “When Mitt Romney talked about where he stood on immigration, the dials shot through the roof.”
The overwhelming response in blogs is positive. Mitt really helped himself tonight.
From the National Review:
Kathryn Jean Lopez says:
“The fighter is out in him tonight. No one is going to call him a wimp tonight, that’s for sure. He’s taken initiative, from minute one. And he’s turned the tone of his campaign around. He’s letting Romney be Romney — the confident, forward-looking candidate with a conservative temperament he is — it was those qualities that first made me pay attention to him when he was in the statehouse. I think he’s being himself tonight. We saw him be himself during the religion speech. And we’re seeing it tonight. This Mitt is the Mitt we have to see everyday from hereon out. It took a while for him to be unleashed but I don’t think it’s too late by any stretch. Let Mitt be Mitt and Mitt might win.”
From Rich Lowry:
“Politics is a game of adjustments, and Romney adjusted to the debate from last night, realizing that he’d be under constant attack tonight and he’d better gird himself and go on offense. He spoke forcefully and put the case for himself as the reformist businessman in the best possible light. I think he basically dominated the first hour, and fell off a tab after that, but otherwise was truly excellent. His best performance yet, in very high pressure circumstances. His answers on taxes, job creation, and immigration were top notch … [I]f he somehow wins NH, tonight will be a big reason why.”
McCan’ts “Experience” Question; I.e., Why Not McCain?
McCain wants us to believe with 20+ years in Washington, and over the age of 80 at the end of a 2d term, he’d change his stripes and try to improve the system he’s helped construct and has benefited from for 2 1/2 decades. Sorry, but if he was serious about fixing something before he would have done it by now. And because of his age he’s a lame duck president on day 1. A nearly 80 year old with a history of a temper with his finger on the button? Quack quack. Others also noticed the McCain slam on Bush (the remark about governors). This is why McCain is NOT a republican candidate. I’ve heard one Senator say that if a secret poll were taken on the Senate floor, they’d nearly unanimously support Mitt over McCain, which McCain seems to acknowledge in his comment he hasn’t won any congeniality contests in the Senate. And he’s supposed to suddenly “change” and work with these people to get things done? GOP: IT’S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. MCCAIN WILL CONTINUE TO DO WHAT HE’S DONE FOR THE PAST 24 YEARS.
Here’s another quote from Mark Levin tonight at the National Review in that regard:
“[C]ome on John McCain. You’re known in Washington as, well, very temperamental and holding grudges. Let’s not pretend you are Mr. Positive when, in fact, you are not.”
Expect mainstream republicans to reject this man, starting tomorrow in the AM radio shows when they call out his school-yard tactics with cohort Huckabee.
After Wyoming’s sweep by Mitt, McCain’s undignified attacks last night and Mitt’s performance tonight, expect Mitt’s poll numbers in NH to take a bounce upward. With the race being as tight as it is, Mitt’s performance tonight was big.
Campaign Chairman Says Reagan Legacy “Doesn’t Mean A Whole Lot”
“All along, Mitt Romney has wisely run as the only candidate who represents all three legs of the ‘three legged stool’ that is the Republican coalition. For those of us who believe it is imperative to preserve the Reagan coalition, Rollins’ pronouncement is almost an argument to vote for Mitt Romney.” – Townhall’s Matt Lewis (Matt Lewis, “Rollins: Reagan Coalition Is Done,” Townhall, Posted 12/29/07)
Gov. Huckabee’s Campaign Chairman Declared The Reagan Coalition Dead:
Gov. Huckabee’s Campaign Chair Ed Rollins: The Reagan Coalition Of Social, Fiscal, And Defense Conservatives “Doesn’t Mean A Whole Lot To People Anymore.” Huckabee Campaign Chairman Ed Rollins: “The breakup of what was the Reagan coalition — social conservatives, defense conservatives, anti-tax conservatives — it doesn’t mean a whole lot to people anymore.” (David Kirkpatrick, “Shake, Rattle And Roil The Grand Ol’ Coalition,” The New York Times, 12/30/07)
Rollins On The Reagan Coalition:
“It’s Gone.” “[Huckabee's] success is setting off a debate in his party over whether his success marks the fading of the old Reaganite conservative coalition — social conservatives, anti-tax activists and advocates of a muscular defense — or, rather, offers a chance for its rejuvenation. ‘It’s gone,’ said Ed Rollins, who once worked as President Reagan’s political director and recently became Mr. Huckabee’s national campaign chairman.” (David Kirkpatrick, “Shake, Rattle And Roil The Grand Ol’ Coalition,” The New York Times, 12/30/07)
Rollins:
Some Parts Of Reagan Coalition May “Go By The Wayside.” “‘It is a time for a whole new coalition — that is the key,’ he said, adding that some part of the original triad might ‘go by the wayside.’” (David Kirkpatrick, “Shake, Rattle And Roil The Grand Ol’ Coalition,” The New York Times, 12/30/07)
Gov. Romney Aims To Keep The Reagan Coalition United:
Townhall’s Matt Lewis: “Rollins’ Pronouncement Is Almost An Argument To Vote For Mitt Romney.” “All along, Mitt Romney has wisely run as the only candidate who represents all three legs of the ‘three legged stool’ that is the Republican coalition. For those of us who believe it is imperative to preserve the Reagan coalition, Rollins’ pronouncement is almost an argument to vote for Mitt Romney.” (Matt Lewis, “Rollins: Reagan Coalition Is Done,” Townhall, Posted 12/29/07)
National Review:
“Romney Is A Full-Spectrum Conservative.” “Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest.” (Editorial, “Romney For President,” National Review, 12/11/07)
Gov. Mitt Romney:
We Need To Unite “Social Conservatives, Economic Conservatives And Defense Conservatives.”
GOV. ROMNEY: “I believe that to win the White House that our candidate has to be somebody who can represent and speak for all three legs of the conservative stool or conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan put together – social conservatives, economic conservatives and defense conservatives.” (Gov. Mitt Romney, Press Availability, Grand Rapids, MI, 10/13/07)
Gov. Huckabee Alienates Fiscal And Foreign Policy Conservatives:
National Review:
Gov. Huckabee Would Pull Apart The Conservative Coalition By Alienating Economic And Foreign Policy Conservatives. “Uniting the conservative coalition is not enough to win a presidential election, but it is a prerequisite for building on that coalition. Rudolph Giuliani did extraordinary work as mayor of New York and was inspirational on 9/11. But he and Mike Huckabee would pull apart the coalition from opposite ends: Giuliani alienating the social conservatives, and Huckabee the economic (and foreign-policy) conservatives. A Republican party that abandoned either limited government or moral standards would be much diminished in the service it could give the country.” (Editorial, “Romney For President,” National Review, 12/11/07)
Club For Growth’s Pat Toomey:
Gov. Huckabee Is “A Big-Government Liberal.” “In order to earn back the public’s trust on economic issues, not to mention offer a compelling contrast with a Hillary Clinton-led Democratic ticket, Republicans must present a consistent message. A big-government liberal like Mike Huckabee, who takes pleasure in attacking the Republican party as the ‘party of Wall Street,’ will only reinforce the image of Republicans as ‘the big spenders that they used to oppose.’ A Huckabee nomination, even as vice president, will make it impossible for the Republican party to reclaim its brand of fiscal conservatism and limited government, without which it cannot be a majority party again.” (Pat Toomey, “Dump The Huck,” National Review, 10/26/07)
Columnist Robert Novak:
Gov. Huckabee “Is A High-Tax, Protectionist Advocate Of Big Government.” “Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist advocate of big government and a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans.” (Robert Novak, “The False Conservative,” The Washington Post, 11/26/07)
CNBC’s Larry Kudlow:
Gov. Huckabee Naïve “On Dealing In International Affairs With Iran And Others.” CNBC’s LARRY KUDLOW: ” Condi Rice came out of the State Department … and attacked him because of his naïveté on dealing in international affairs with Iran and others. He doesn’t seem to understand power politics, and that we are in a jihadist global war.” (Hugh Hewitt Radio show, YouTube, 12/21/07)
Columnist Charles Krauthammer Said Gov. Huckabee’s “Naïve And Unconvincing” Views On Foreign Policy Are Disqualifications To Be President. “Huckabee is funny, well spoken and gave a preacher’s stemwinder that wowed the religious right gathering in Washington last Saturday. But whatever foreign policy he has is naive and unconvincing. In wartime, that is a disqualification for commander in chief.” (Charles Krauthammer, Op-Ed, “A Fine Field Of 4½,” The Washington Post, 10/26/07)
McCain Has a History of Using Scare TacticsDecember 29th, 2007 | 4 Comments | Posted in Campaign Ads, George W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, National Review Online, Powerline Blog, The Caucus - New York Times, The Union Leader, The Washington Post
|
McCain and Hillary share a “love-in” moment.
Sen. McCain Cannot Explain His Positions, And So He Launches Negative Personal Attacks:
Launching Negative Personal Attacks Is The McCain Way – As Seen In The 2000 Campaign:
To watch the 2000 campaign ad, click here:
These, On The Other Hand, Are Substantive Facts – Not Negative Personal Attacks:
National Review on John McCainDecember 28th, 2007 | 4 Comments | Posted in 2007, 2008, Analysis, Commentary, and Editorials, Concord Monitor, Conservatism, Conservative, Endorsements, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, John McCain, Mitt Romney, National Review, National Review Online, New Hampshire, Op/Ed, Republicans, Taxes
|
The National Review has added its estimable voice in opposition to the attacks that have been hurled at Romney in NH by the Union Leader and the Concord Monitor.
Misled in New Hampshire
By the Editors
John McCain’s aides complain that Mitt Romney is running a negative campaign. Those same aides have been attacking Romney themselves, but for the most part they can outsource the negativism to their friends in the press — starting with the Union Leader, a prominent conservative newspaper in New Hampshire that has endorsed him. (We have endorsed Romney.)
The Union Leader’s advocacy of John McCain has become so fierce and lopsided that it has practically transformed itself into a pro-McCain 527 organization. It has not formalized the arrangement, which is lucky for it: If it had, McCain would, on his campaign-finance principles, have to try to shut it down.
There is a lot to like about Senator McCain, and we do not fault the Union Leader for endorsing him. We do fault its double standards. The newspaper counts it as a damnable “flip-flop” every time Romney has changed his position or even his emphasis. McCain can switch his views on the very same issues without a disparaging word from the Union Leader.
Take taxes. Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, stayed neutral in the battle over President Bush’s 2003 tax cuts. We wish he had spoken up in their favor. Senator McCain, alas, was not silent: He voted against the tax cuts, as he had voted against the 2001 tax cuts. He flip-flopped on estate taxes, defending them after having voted to get rid of them. As he geared up to run for president this time around, however, McCain became a born-again supply-sider. Now he wants to keep the tax cuts he originally opposed.
The Union Leader has blasted Romney for changing his mind on immigration. It accused him of lying, too, for saying that McCain wanted to let illegal immigrants earn Social Security benefits while working here illegally. But Romney was right. McCain has voted to let illegal immigrants who meet certain conditions become citizens and then receive benefits for their prior illegal work. Few Senate Republicans joined him.
We won’t throw around the word “lie” quite as recklessly as the Union Leader, but its candidate first argued for an “amnesty” and then spent months claiming that his immigration bill did not amount to one. And if flip-flopping on immigration is a crime, McCain can be charged with it, too. He himself says that he has changed his position on the issue. One of the principal points at issue in the debate over his bill was whether we should try “enforcement first.” Since the bill’s collapse, McCain has said that he now understands that we should. If that is not a flip-flop, it is only because his claims of a change of heart are insincere. (The liberal newspapers that have endorsed him seem to think so.)
Some of Romney’s critics allow that all politicians change their positions over time, but say that Romney stands out for changing his very political identity. Supposedly he ran as a moderate technocrat in Massachusetts, but is running as a culture warrior in the Republican primaries. We think both halves of this characterization are overstated, but in any case it is not a critique that John McCain’s supporters can credibly make. McCain was a reliably conservative legislator for 15 years. Then he moved left for three years, so much so that liberals began urging him to change parties. Then he zigged back to the right.
For us, the most important question about a flip-flop is whether the movement is in the right direction. We are glad that Romney has changed his mind about abortion and McCain has changed his about taxes, although we prefer Romney’s open admission that he was wrong in the past to McCain’s evasiveness. We hope McCain comes around some more on immigration, and campaign-finance reform, and a lot of other issues — and we will not attack him as a flip-flopper if he does. Voters who hold flip-flops against politicians, however, should be warned: McCain is every bit as much of one as Romney is, and all the bile of New Hampshire’s editorialists cannot change the fact.
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!
CNN Grows A Garden…Several Plants ExposedNovember 29th, 2007 | 4 Comments | Posted in Anderson Cooper, CNN, Disappointment, Disgust, Michelle Malkin, National Review Online, New Media, Stephen Spruiell
|
Click —–>Michelle Malkin exposes the many plants from last nights CNN/YouTube Debate…
Click —–>The Politico’s Story on the Gay General
Click —–>Plants and Nuts from The Corner on National Review Online
Here’s Anderson Cooper’s “I’m so sorry”…an absolute J_O_K_E_!_!_!
Look for more updates as they develop…
See why at this blog entry at Iowans for Romney.
Jeff Fuller
I know that we usually leave the religion-oriented posts to our colleagues at Evangelicals for Mitt, but here are a couple really great columns by Kathryn Jean Lopez (of National Review Online but via Townhall.com) and Steven Stark (of the Boston Phoenix, of whom I was not previously familiar, but a quick peruse of his blog suggests that he should be on our bookmarks).
First, K-Lo’s column is entitled “A Mormon Can Be President.” Full text after the jump, but here are some key excerpts:
Commentators suggest he give a speech on his religion, comparing it to John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. However, Romney’s not likely to pull a Kennedy by defensively distancing himself from his religion. As Romney said to a colleague of mine in November, “I know there are some people hoping that I will simply declare in some way that my church is all well and good, but that I don’t really believe it and I don’t try to follow it. That’s not going to happen. I’m proud of my faith. I love my faith. It is the faith of my fathers and mothers. I do my best to live by its teachings. And it in every way would teach me to follow the Constitution and follow the rule of law and recognize that my duty is to my country.”
That is the American answer to the question about whether one’s religion indicates one’s fitness to lead this nation. We have no established religion, and we have no religious tests in our constitutional system. Romney’s religion is a topic for religious conferences, not for talk shows. And it certainly should not keep a man from the White House.
If you are not going to support Republican Mitt Romney for president because you don’t think he is the guy to win the war on terror, that is your call. If you are pro-life and you do not buy his abortion conversion story, it’s a free country. But if you are not going to support Mitt Romney for president because he is Mormon, or because you think he will not be elected president because he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, say your prayers for America.
Next Steve Stark provides a really perceptive and poignant perspective on what all of the controversy over Mitt’s Mormonism says about the rest of the candidates. Again, full text after the jump, but some key excerpts:
But the real question is why another candidate hasn’t stepped forward to defend Romney against the religious bigotry he’s facing – not with an offhand comment or two – but with a major Mormon speech of his own. True, doing so might seem like a risky political maneuver, since it would aid a fellow contender. But it’s the right thing to do — and could even help the campaign of the candidate who rises to Romney’s defense.
It’s understandable why Romney has hesitated to give the speech up to this point. It’s odious that in 21st-century America a candidate has to defend his religion. And Romney’s faced with the difficult task of writing and delivering such a speech without sounding self-pitying. Then there’s the question of timing: should he give the speech now or wait for later in the campaign, when more voters will be paying attention? (For the record, JFK gave his Houston Ministers speech in September of the election year, after he had been nominated.) Of course, Romney will inevitably be compared with Kennedy, and that’s a comparison that’s hard to measure up to.
But none of the other candidates have these excuses — which makes one wonder exactly what kind of people we have seeking the nation’s highest office this year. As potential leaders of the nation, don’t they think religious prejudice is something they ought to confront, especially since the issues of religion and politics are currently so intertwined?
What’s most discouraging, of course, is that we don’t seem to have anyone in the field who views attacking religious prejudice as the proper — or, for that matter, a politically sensible — thing to do. An unfortunate consequence of this lengthy campaign — and its intensive press coverage — is that it’s turned most of the candidates into risk-averse robots, afraid of doing anything unconvention
