comMITTed to Romney!

The following comment came from the “Live Chat 24/7″ section, and I felt it was worthy of a blog post. Please read it, and comment in the comments section. Have a blessed Sunday all. Mine’s not starting out too well, I’m not feeling well and my oldest child has a high fever and is feeling bad too. Keep some happy thoughts, won’t you? Thanks. Now onto the comment:

Ann, you need to start a blog about how to change this horrific primary system. I’ll throw out some thoughts, but there are plenty of smart people on these blogs that can improve my thoughts significantly.

1) The order of the primary states in re-chosen every 4 years by random lottery one year in advance of the actual election. This will keep anomalous states from an inordinate influence of nominees. It will also prevent primary leapfrogging and compression.

2) The primaries go two weeks apart in waves of 5 states every two weeks. This might mitigate the “momentum” factor.

3) No “open” primaries. Your party gets to decide your parties’ candidate. Republicans can only vote in the republican primary, independents in the independent primary only, and democrats the same, green the same, etc. That will prohibit the other parties from gaming the system with crossover voting. If your party does not have a legitimate candidate, then maybe you need to think very hard about why that is.

4) Party voter registration is finalized 3 months in advance. No voting day registration nonsense to also game the system.

5) Delegates are divided up by the same formula in each state. Something like the Founding Fathers’ legislative concepts of a Senate and a House or Representatives. So maybe 50% (or so) of each states delegates are “winner take all,” and the remainder are strictly proportional to the actual vote.

6) Caucusing is out. This is voting by the people. Working people voting at polls, without the caucus day shenanigans (think WV).

Thoughts? Something has to be done, because what we currently have is….”broken.”

Share on Facebook

Share This

David Keene of the American Conservative Union (ACU) has a great article entitled “Double-Talk Jeopardy” discussing McCain’s dishonesty in the days leading up to the Floriday Primary. David has endorsed Mitt Romney. Read the whole thing, but here are a couple choice quotes below:

Most politicians who identify their interests with the national interest eventually conclude that whatever they have to do to advance those interests is justifiable; that in their case, the end almost always justifies the means. Such politicians can be dangerous and John McCain is just such a politician. In McCain’s world everything is personal: to disagree with him marks one not just as wrong, but as almost definitionally evil.

Stories of McCain’s intolerance abound in Washington. He’s attacked his fellow senators personally when they have had the temerity to actually disagree with him. Indeed, one Republican senator told me several years ago that he was confronted by an enraged McCain after voting against a minor amendment in committee and dressed down in “language that would be inappropriate in a barroom, let alone in the Senate.”

It is these qualities that concern many who know McCain best. Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran (R) is universally liked and admired by his colleagues. He’s known McCain for decades, and while he’s no camera hog, his colleagues listen when he speaks. In endorsing Romney over McCain in what many now view as a two-man race, Cochran said of McCain, “The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Help Mitt Romney win the nomination. Make a donation today and ask your family and friends to turn out for Mitt on Super Tuesday!

Share on Facebook

Share This

This article in today’s The Wall Street Journal is by Vin Weber, Policy Chairman of Governor Romney’s campaign.

COMMENTARY — A Call to Conservative Action — By VIN WEBER — February 1, 2008; Page A15

On each of the major challenges confronting our country, Washington has failed to act. Mr. Romney will not. Throughout his career in business and public service, he has never failed to meet a challenge. That is leadership we need today.

For far too long, Americans have watched as our borders remain unsecure, our tax burden grows, and long-term challenges are left unfixed. This is a call to action that Mr. Romney has spoken to throughout this campaign. He will build a stronger America and has laid out the conservative strategy to do so.

Mr. Weber, a former Republican congressman from Minnesota, is policy chairman of the Romney for President campaign.

~ Vic

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

Though I provide analysis below, I do not suggest I have answers to the questions I raise. But I do raise questions that I think are of critical importance and consideration; not just to this current presidential contest, but more importantly to America. These are questions I think nobody wants to discuss (see photo below).

Tonight (1/29), I have heard the term “lick their wounds” several times. That is not at all how I feel about the loss in Florida. It is fair to say, I believe, that America as a nation, has matured in its history to a point in which a woman or a black man can be elected President by a majority of both sexes and a majority of those of the white or black races. I believe that America has come of age to the point that the bigotry we call sexism and racism, though still engrained in some people, has been marginalized.

What about the bigotry of religious intolerance? In an enlightened age, it is known by all that bigotry of any kind is not acceptable. In this modern day, we don’t generally hear statements of bigotry in common language in ways that were pervasive as recent as the 1950s and 1960s. Religious bigotry was even out in the open at that time as evidenced by evangelical ministers that routinely and publicly denounced the idea that Americans might vote for a Catholic. Today, bigotry of any kind, as a matter of common discussion in mixed company, is simply unacceptable in today’s diverse age. As a result, we do not hear public discussion about religious bigotry. Does that mean that this form of bigotry has also been marginalized to the point America can elect a Mormon? I do not believe it has. In fact, I think it is still pervasive, if now private.

In the states in which GMR won the Silver, by how much did he miss the Gold? Usually around 5%, maybe 10%. Today, he missed the Gold by 6% in a very large state. Since I began to seriously pay attention to presidential politics for 2008 back in 2006, I have seen poll results showing that a fair number of Americans are unwilling to ever vote for a Mormon; anywhere from about 20% of those surveyed to 40% recently. Since I have always concluded that America has matured to the point at which religious intolerance has been effectively marginalized, I more or less dismissed those poll numbers as based on simple ignorance, not bigotry.

Then, as the early state caucuses and primaries became history, I started to see a trend that I saw repeated today in Florida. It is fair to say that a majority of Americans do not find McCain acceptable as President as evidenced by his votes of 35% compared to 65% to all others. But to understand whether bigotry is at work against MR specifically, we need to drill down into the numbers. Is it not also fair to say that the most conservative voters of all would not be generally attracted to McCain, who is a well-known liberal Republican, or at least a Republican that cannot be trusted?

[In order to keep this commentary from becoming longer than it is, I use only the initials of candidates’ first and last names and any time there is a number, it represents a percentage]

In Florida, among evangelicals, the votes were JM(30), MR(29), MH(29). We can conclude that the 29 who voted for MR are not bigots. My presumption is that the reason MH’s 29 did not go to JM is because they consider him way too liberal to represent their values and principles. But if MH were not in the race, would all 29 go to MR? As you think about that answer, if they would not all go to MR, why would any significant portion of them go to JM? Incidentally, as MH keeps smiling and telling the world he can be the nominee, he knows he cannot. He won exactly 4 of all non-evangelical votes; that is par for the course for him. Since day one in Iowa, there has never been broad support for MH. Why does he stay in the race?

White evangelicals voted this way: MH(31), MR(31), JM(28). I think it is fair to say that those who voted for JM would be the more moderate or less orthodox evangelicals, simply because they could have chosen an orthodox evangelical in MH, and they did not. If true, and MH were not in the race, would MH’s 31 go to JM or MR and why? Why would an orthodox evangelical vote for the more liberal, twice married, untrustworthy Republican when they have MR, whose values and principles are much closer to theirs by comparison?

Of voters who think abortion should be illegal, the votes were MR(35), JM(29), MH (21). These are very conservative voters. We know 35 are not bigots and since MR won the majority here, we know that a very high percentage of voters know him to be strong pro-life. If MH were not in the race, would most of his 21 go to MR or JM and why? Of voters who think abortion should always be illegal, the votes were MH(32), MR(30), and JM(26). These voters are even more conservative overall. If MH were not in the race, would most of his 32 go to the more conservative candidate MR? If they would not, why not? Why would more than a handful go to JM instead of MR? Could bigotry influence their decision to go to JM?

Voters that identified themselves as very conservative were MR(44), JM(21), MH(20). It is well known by now that MR is the most conservative of both JM and MH. That being the case, if MH were not in the race, would his ‘very conservative’ voters go to the known, more conservative MR or to the less conservative, more liberal JM? And why? Could bigotry influence their decision to go to JM?

Over at Evangelicals for Mitt, both Steven Muscatello and Nancy French think MH should do “the honorable thing” and drop out. Read their excellent arguments here and here. But think of the context of my rhetorical questions above and consider this. If RG could so easily see the vanity of continuing the race, knowing he could never win, why can MH not see it? Or is it that he sees it and has ulterior motives? Think of the irony. RG, the person many have derided as ethically challenged, drops out seeing the reality; there are no ulterior motives really. MH, whose supporters consider the most ethical and upstanding man in the race, who would consider himself the most humble among them all, plans to “win the nomination” to quote him. Right. And pigs will fly for the first time in February. We now have resounding proof that MH cannot garner more than 10% of all non-evangelical votes and he has only nearly received 40% of all evangelical votes in one state. Clearly, he has no broad support, unlike GWB did as an evangelical. So, his decision to stay in the race is based on what? Ego? Vanity? Love of the sport? Is he lying to us when he says he is not running for Pastor in Chief? Or does he want to influence his voters away from MR and if so, why?

As many at this site have shown, MH revealed his stripes when he let slip his rhetorical Jesus/brother question in an interview. He also ardently campaigned in Salt Lake City to save the Mormons there from hell at the evangelical convention.

My opinion is that the frequent citing of 20 to 40 percent of all Americans unwilling to vote for a Mormon for President, the bigots are at the low end of the range. I may be naïve, but I do not believe that 40% of all Americans are religious bigots. Now, we know that when MR loses the Gold, the margin of loss is only 5% to 10%. That margin of difference is well below the 20% conservative estimate. Where are those 20% or so aligned? Are they divided among RG, MH, and JM? Are they mostly with MH or JM?

My conclusion is that the margin of victory that JM has enjoyed in any state, is a direct correlation to the reported bigotry still pervasive in America. If so, how does MR overcome this obvious bigotry, to win? These less than 20% “unwilling voters” are currently aligned with RG, JM, and MH, in some unknown mix. But knowing this does not help, does it? By definition, if they are bigots, MR will never be their choice. It cannot be argued that all 20% of these “unwilling” voters are in JM’s camp. Yet, it is he that is the beneficiary of their unwillingness to ever vote for MR. And clearly not all of the supporters left in RG’s and MH’s camp are bigots; but some are. So it is fair to say that if both RG and MH were not in the race, a fair number of their non-bigoted supporters would back the most conservative candidate in the race — MR. And why are the voters not following Rush Limbaugh’s advice to not vote for JM and MH?

So again, what is the motivation of MH to remain in a race he knows he cannot and will not win? Is his primary motivation to steer as many evangelicals to the Protestant JM, away from MR? If so, is that reason enough to not drop out of the race?

I think this issue is the 900-pound gorilla in the room with which nobody wants to make eye contact.

~ Vic

[Source of exit poll information above: CNN Politics]
.
.
.
NOTE: Any comment left at this post that is primarily religious based or which contains vitriol, is antagonistic, or generally obnoxious, will be deleted without notice. Please set a standard of discussion that is productive and illuminating. If you have religious opinions, please leave them out of the discussion at this post.

.

Share on Facebook

Share This

This rather sarcastic and ironic commentary comes to us from Leland Bruce of Orange County, California
_______________________________________________________________________

by Leland Bruce

Okay, I give up. Is anybody watching what is happening to the GOP? The media is well aware of the situation but is constrained to reveal the truth otherwise their implicit endorsement rises to the surface and thus it becomes imperative that the main stream media stifle in the most proper manner any momentum for the best qualified presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.

Sure, they do it on the Democratic side and even the conservative voices raise the banner, “Isn’t this just an anti-Hillary vote?” thus adding credibility to her candidacy, raising eyebrows that indeed her campaign is larger, deeper, founded, funded and more sustainable than any other candidacy under scrutiny. But please, do not allow any of the media outlets to breathe the same thing about Mitt Romney!

By insinuating that Mitt’s second place finish in IA to our media darling Mike Huckabee or his second place finish to the amnesty advisor McCain in NH is nothing more than an anti-Romney vote by the GOP and Independents would catapult him as the frontrunner and turn every GOP head that indeed the smartest, most articulate, most visionary, most principled candidate is actually the guy to beat! Heaven help us! We must do all that we can to submerge such a thought! But we are doing it for Hillary right? Of course we are! Her second place finishes are a result of the anti-Hillary victim vote, mere stepping stones and time of reflection as we persuade the public to vote for our candidates. So what should we call Romney’s 2nd place finishes so as to not cast him in the same light as our victim Hillary? Hey, let’s call it “devastating”, “unsustainable” and that his campaign is in “dire straits”! Can we do that? Of course we can, we’re on the home team and we’re playing at home!

We can’t have a ground swell of support for the candidate that is most qualified and most needed by a recession weary economy, out of control trade deficits, unstable valuation of the dollar, and poor public opinion in foreign countries. Hey, we can’t get behind this guy because he could beat our candidate if the people of the United States actually voted based upon their own opinion rather than the slurp sloshing from us. No, we can’t have that! We won’t have that! Hey, we couldn’t impeach Bush, what’s wrong with us? [click Continue Reading just below for Leland's entire commentary]

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

In the last few days, I have been reading most of the comments that many of you been leaving in this blog. First of, I wish to thank all of you who have done so; even those who presently disagree with the authors of this site or with Governor Romney himself. Those of us who strive to bring truth to the surface as we attempt to enlighten, are grateful.

Many of the comments are by new visitors. I have read comments by those who have served Fred Thompson well. Many are from Ron Paul supporters. Others, though they may not state their allegiance, may presently support Governor Huckabee, Mayor Giuliani, or Senator McCain. Many of you are contemplating support of Governor Romney. My concern is that many are stating they are afraid that if he is elected President, he will “revert to his liberal past” or words to that effect.

With complete respect, I offer some information. First, many comments mention that Gov. Romney is a privileged man with a privileged upbringing; the inference being that he is out of touch with the average man and woman. Those who struggle day to day to provide for their families. I will save what I would like to write here for another future post. Suffice to say that Governor Romney has spent thousands of hours in silent service (one-on-one) of children, women, and men with struggles many of us will never know (crying with them; praying with them; helping them).   That, as a lay leader in his church over many years.   If you want to get a glimpse of the real man, click here —-> MESSED UP HAIR
(keep in mind that Governor Romney has never mentioned this, nor has he ever mentioned personal service rendered to others; unlike Mike Huckabee who has done so many times).

It is simply false that GMR has ever been liberal in any way. Even the label “pro-choice”, to which GMR admitted, is misleading because his actions, his behavior, his decisions have always been on the side of life. Why am I writing this to you at 2:00 in the morning instead of sleeping? Because too many good, strong conservatives have bitten into the hook of the liberal MSM (hook, line, and sinker) to simply accept the flip/flop label altogether without doing any primary research. I must admit I did too in 2006 before I conducted my own primary research. Don’t make a fatal mistake. Conduct your own, personal, primary research on the man and you will find what I did. That he has always been a consistent conservative.

Proof? Look at this simple flyer to contrast GMR’s positions to that of Senator Kennedy as GMR ran against him in the 90s. Click here ——-> THE REAL ROMNEY (remember, this campaign flyer showing Governor Romney’s positions, is from 1994)

But don’t take my word for it or even the content of this flyer that has been around for years. Please conduct your own research. It takes time, but you will discover, as I did, that the truth about the man is altogether different than what the MSM and Governor Romney’s competitors want you to swallow without thinking.

One good place to start is the following site. Click here —–> Encyclopedia Mittanica maintained by our own Mike Laub.

Lastly, for those of you who are just now discovering Governor Romney and wish to get different perspectives from those who have conducted extensive research into the man, the statesman, the husband/father, the volunteer, click here ——> WHY ROMNEY? (be sure to scroll down; there are dozens of entries)

~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Share This

Introductory Comment: Writing this is Vic Lundquist. I took the liberty of moving this outstanding post by David Kim to the top of the site again. I also took the liberty of removing the page break so that no reader would miss the eight reasons listed by Ms. Goldstein. Rarely has there been a blog post at this site with over 30 comments. The comments alone are worth reading. This is one of the finest articles I have read about Governor Romney. In light of the New York Times article stating why the other Republican candidates hate Governor Romney, I thought it would be best to provide a more accurate editorial. Please forgive me David for taking this liberty without first consulting you.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Original Post by David Kim:

H/T to ERI2008 reader Ranzel (thanks!)

Great article that sums up why the other guys seem to dislike Mitt so much from the American Thinker. Full article after the jump…

January 23, 2008
Why they Hate Mitt Romney
By Amy D. Goldstein

Have you noticed how all of the Republican candidates can barely conceal their contempt for Governor Mitt Romney? It goes way beyond the typical good-natured competition that usually is the hallmark of Republican contests. Senator McCain has snarled at Governor Romney in debates and Gov. Huckabee has tried to paint Romney as cold and uncaring, while Sen. Fred Thompson attacked Governor Romney right out of the box. This display of hatred usually is the hallmark of the Democrats.

So, why do the other candidates hate Mitt Romney? Several reasons:

1. He can win. Governor Romney appeals to economic conservatives and could appeal to foreign policy conservatives based upon his understanding of the issues. Most non-partisan foreign policy wonks who have briefed the major candidates tell me that Romney “gets it” better than any other candidate — even better than those who have held high profile office for decades. Moreover, he is the candidate that the Democrats most fear.

2. Jealousy — from his hair to his appearance to his family to his money - these are all reasons for deep seeded, if unseemly, jealousy. This green-eyed monster makes its appearance in almost every speech or presentation, in the form of a joke, a jab or a veiled reference.

3. He isn’t beholden to interest groups. Governor Romney’s wealth frees him from any influence that interest groups could apply to others - especially those who lack funds or who are Washington insiders. He doesn’t need them, and that scares the interest groups and their allies. He is not of the game and wants to change it - and his personal wealth allows him to do so. He really can change Washington.

4. His brains - not only is he one of the smartest people ever to seek the presidency (having earned a Harvard MBA and JD simultaneously), but he understands the complexities of the issues that America faces and is able to devise workable solutions. Just look at his proposal for an economic stimulus and compare it to what the other candidates are proposing. Romney clearly can lead this country through economic challenges.

5. His wealth — again. While he has raised more than any other candidate, Governor Romney doesn’t need to raise the money in order to continue. Nevertheless, he understands that successful candidates must have people invested in their candidacy in order to succeed. He has learned the lessons of past wealthy businessmen who make vanity runs for the White House. The other candidates have to constantly raise money in order to continue their campaigns.

6. His experience. The rest of the Republican field has been in politics in one form or another for most of their adult lives. Governor Romney came to public service after having a successful career in which he directly created jobs, saved jobs, invested in new companies and turned around failed businesses. He even fixed both the Olympics and the failing state of Massachusetts. More than any other candidate, Governor Romney’s experience is most directly applicable to the average American’s situation.

7. He believes that America’s best days are ahead of it, and not a memory. Governor Romney is a man of the future, not of the past. He sees America as a beacon of freedom for the entire world, and not a country limping toward its last days. His infectious optimism is informed by his business experience, his love of country and his family values. His can-do spirit is the antidote to defeatism masked as “straight talk” or “reality.”

8. His beliefs. When all else fails, Governor Romney’s opponents attack his religion in the hopes of sowing fear and loathing. Not only is this unseemly, but it is dangerous. We have seen this type of rhetoric before - in the 1920’s and 1930’s - from the likes of Henry Ford and Father Caughlin and others who sought to disenfranchise whole segments of the American population. Governor Romney believes in the common American faith of democracy and religious freedom, as he so eloquently stated in his speech “Faith in America.” These are the values our Founding Fathers codified in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Why do the Republican candidates hate him? Because they don’t have any answers to his challenges. They seek to undermine him by using personal attacks more worthy of a middle school playground than a presidential contest. This is politics and Washington as usual, and choosing any candidate that employs these tactics will only get us more of the same. One would hope that Americans could see beyond these base attacks and choose the candidate who is best for the country - Governor Mitt Romney.

Amy D. Goldstein is an occasional contributor to American Thinker.

Share on Facebook

Share This

The following excerpts of the transcripts from the Hugh Hewitt show were taken from here. Hugh Hewitt interviewed Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House.

Several people in this blog have asked about who Governor Romney should choose for Vice President, should he be the Republican nominee. I have said many times that very few first term Presidents in the last 75 years did not include either the Prez or VP from a southern state (maybe one).    Gingrich is definitely very bright and though he has baggage, his conservative credentials are outstanding. Here is his answer as to whether he would consider the Veep job:

HH: Mr. Speaker, a lot of people would love to see you in the number two slot on the ticket. Are you open to that?

NG: Well, Ronald Reagan once said that he was hoping that Gerald Ford would not ask him in 1976, because a citizen would have a very hard time turning it down as part of their duty. And I always thought that was a wise admonition. And so I can’t quite imagine a nominee foolish enough to offer it, but I would have to consider it seriously if somebody did.

And what is Gingrich’s opinion about Governor Romney, Mayor Giuliani, and John McCain? Their chances?

NG: John McCain is John McCain. He’s a very stubborn, very self-righteous, very indignant guy who really believes what he believes, and frankly, if you don’t like him, that’s your problem. And yet he’s also courageous and hard working and has great integrity, and is a true patriot. And so, he’s…and it really helped him in New Hampshire, because that was exactly the kind of cantankerous personality that kind of fits the New Hampshire tradition.

HH: But you know, Mr. Speaker, in your book, Real Change, one of the things that really resonated with me on Page 89, you call for cheerful persistence for change. And you cite FDR. And you know, that’s so crucial to governing, and I don’t think Senator McCain has any cheerful persistence for change in him, does he?

NG: I didn’t…listen, you asked me what I would advise each of those three guys, and I told you what I’d advise them. Look, I’m not defending any of the three. Each of them has great strengths, each of them has great weaknesses. That’s why no one has broken loose yet. And Florida become really important in part because either McCain or Giuliani has to win Florida to keep the nomination open. If Romney wins Florida, I think he’s on the way to becoming the nominee.

So, Florida. What do you think about Florida? Is Governor Romney going to win Florida? Those are big delegates down there! Remember this: No Republican has been elected President without winning Florida.

I say win!

~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Share This

In the last month, traffic to this blog site has doubled, more or less. To all of you who have visited this site, THANK YOU! And to all those who contribute as writers, THANK YOU.

For a couple of weeks now, I have been thinking of all the new visitors coming to the site to learn about Governor Romney. Many of us have been studying him for well over a year and we know all about him, his life, his career, his family.

But many of you are new to Gov. Romney and know nothing about him. His speech last month in College Station, Texas was a turning point in his campaign for the presidency, much as a similar speech was for JFK in 1960. Arguably, this speech by Gov. Romney will go down in history as one of the great statesman speeches of all time in this great nation of America. Indeed, many political experts and pundits, including Chris Matthews opined that this speech was the single best political speech they had heard in decades.

I still run into supporters of Governor Romney who still have never heard this speech. This speech is worth the time it takes to watch it. Please do if you have not seen it yet.

I was fortunate to attend this speech. It was an event I will never forget. It was a deeply emotional speech; emotions I observed among many not of the faith of Gov. Romney.
.
.

.
.
~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Share This

Some pictures are worth more than a thousand words!

Is it not true that, as Americans, just about every person alive who can vote would not hesitate one second (so they say) to vote for a black man or a woman for President? That this country has progressed over the decades to the point where racial bigotry and gender discrimination are considered relics of the past? We know that both forms of bigotry still exist, but to a much smaller degree than in years past. And yet, religious intolerance, one of the great evils that drove people to found this nation, is still the most conspicuous, insidious, and unspeakable forms of bigotry that pervades this nation!

If you don’t believe me, get a copy of ARTICLE VI — The Movie and tell me I am wrong.

There are still millions in this great nation who are religious bigots beyond comprehension — sorry to say.
.
.

Artwork by Michael Ramirez — Courtesy of IBD Editorials

Share on Facebook

Share This

THANK YOU to my good friend Curtis for the tip to this great article by George Will.

There are reasons John McCain is struggling to garner 1/3 of all Republican votes in the primary states. Is it not true that John McCain is effectively a moderate Democrat clothed in the label we call “Republican”? Is John McCain the perfect example of what we call the Republican in name only (RINO)? I think so. Surely George Will thinks that is the case.

Today, nationwide, George Will published the following editorial. I have only included excerpts of an outstanding opinion of John McCain. I recommend you read the entire Op/Ed piece by Will by clicking this link just below (if for some reason the link does not work, go to the bottom of this post and click on “Continue Reading” for the full text):

Monday, January 21, 2008 — George Will: Straight talk on McCain — He makes a maverick Republican, or a mainstream Democrat — By GEORGE F. WILL — Syndicated Columnist

by George Will [emphasis is mine]:

WASHINGTON In 2004, one of John McCain’s closest associates, John Weaver, spoke to John Kerry about the possibility of McCain running as Kerry’s vice presidential running mate. In “No Excuses,” Bob Shrum’s memoir of his role in numerous presidential campaigns, including Kerry’s, Shrum writes that Weaver assured Kerry that “McCain was serious about the possibility of teaming up with him,” and Kerry approached McCain. He, however, was more serious about seeking the 2008 Republican nomination.

But was it unreasonable for Kerry to think McCain might be comfortable on a Democratic ticket? Not really.

Clearly John McCain would be comfortable on a Democratic ticket; I believe he would do anything to become the most powerful man in the world.

There are decent, intelligent people who believe that equity or efficiency or both are often served by government setting prices. In America, such people are called Democrats.

Because McCain is a “maverick” – the media encomium reserved for Republicans who reject important Republican principles – he would be a conciliatory president. He has indeed worked with Ted Kennedy on immigration reform, with Russ Feingold on restricting political speech (McCain-Feingold) and with Kennedy and John Edwards – a trial lawyer drawn to an enlargement of opportunities for litigation – on the “patients’ bill of rights.”

McCain is, however, an unlikely conciliator because he is quick to denigrate the motives, and hence the characters, of those who oppose him. He promiscuously accuses others of “corruption,” the ubiquity of which he says justifies McCain-Feingold’s expansive government regulation of the quantity, timing and content of campaign speech.

McCain says he would nominate Supreme Court justices similar to Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Sam Alito. But how likely is he to nominate jurists who resemble those four: They consider his signature achievement (McCain-Feingold) constitutionally dubious.

When the Supreme Court upheld McCain-Feingold, 5-4, Scalia and Thomas were in the minority. That was before Alito replaced Sandra Day O’Connor, who was in the majority. Two years later, McCain filed his own brief supporting federal suppression of a right-to-life group’s issue advertisement in Wisconsin because it mentioned a candidate for federal office during the McCain-Feingold blackout period prior to an election. The court ruled 5-4 against McCain’s position, with Alito in the majority.

In the New Hampshire debate, McCain asserted that corruption is the reason drugs currently cannot be reimported from Canada. The reason is “the power of the pharmaceutical companies.” When Mitt Romney interjected, “Don’t turn the pharmaceutical companies into the big bad guys,” McCain replied, “Well, they are.”

There is a place in American politics for moralizers who think in such Manichaean simplicities. That place is in the Democratic Party, where people who talk like McCain are considered not mavericks but mainstream.

Republicans are supposed to eschew demagogic aspersions concerning complicated economic matters.

As usual, George Will sums it up best. John McCain is effectively a Democrat. At the very least, he would definitely not be the kind of President we need to fix a broken Washington. He is an insider, and a Democrat insider at that!

~ Vic

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

Today, we received a great opinion (among many) from dana marylaon providing perspective on Governor Romney’s race. I commend it to all. To read her comment, either click the link just below to go to the original post and scroll down to the comments, or just go to the bottom of this post and click on “Continue Reading.” To read the entire post with all comments, click here:

THIS POST

Thanks dana marylaon!

~ Vic

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

This is a great coup for Governor Romney! The head of a Christian home-schoolers organization endorsed him today. Let’s hope this endorsement will get many of the evangelicals in Michigan to vote for Governor Romney, or at least think twice before voting for the person who should be their fifth choice.

ROMNEY’S MICHIGAN SUPPORT — Domenico Montanaro

You may recall that it was believed the large number of home-schoolers in Iowa had a big impact for Huckabee. Well, I think this is outstanding news for Governor Romney in Michigan!

[emphasis below is mine]

Romney’s scooping up some support in Michigan heading into the home stretch before Tuesday’s primary. One intriguing get is the support of Dennis Smith, who heads up the Information Network for Christian Homes, which has supported home-schoolers in the Wolverine State since 1984.

Smith yesterday circulated a letter in the state supporting Romney and denouncing many of the Republican candidates, including McCain, and explained in detail the rationale for his thinking. Of McCain, Smith writes: “McCain has been wrong on issues like campaign finance reform and immigration, has an un-presidential nasty temper, and I just don’t like him.”

While Romney’s chief rival here is McCain, Smith’s support of the Michigan native is a bigger blow to Huckabee, who is making a play for the state and is certain to try and turn his success with Christians and home-schooling families in Iowa into similar gains here. According to Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis, “That could have a great negative impact on Hucakabee’s ability to organize under the table sort of speak and help Romney pull in unexpected support.”

Smith writes that Huckabee “says he supports home-schoolers and that they should be left alone, yet he signed into law a bill that imposed new restrictions on homeschoolers in AR.”

He added that he investigated Huckabee’s record in the past few weeks and through a series of e-mails and issues that were drawn to his attention, Smith said the confluence of factors “really point out some deficiencies in Gov. Huckabee,” especially when it comes to education. “I’m not pleased with what I saw about what Gov. Huckabee did in Arkansas.” He went on that Huckabee’s “rhetoric today doesn’t match his” past.

The Michigan team believes the campaign is bound to do well in the state because the level of attention has not been what it was in Iowa or New Hampshire, and so the level of turnout will not be comparable. For those who do turn out and haven’t been following closely, “The default will be for a guy named Romney in this state,” one strategist said this morning, adding that the size of McCain’s lead in some polling isn’t consistent with what they’re seeing.

~ Vic

We Need to Build the Coffers for Mitt — PLEASE CONTRIBUTE HERE

Share on Facebook

Share This

I’ve been wanting to post to this article for a few days now. When I read it in my print edition of The Wall Street Journal, I cut it out to post. However, when I got home, it was in the subscription part of the online version. I have not had the time to type it manually. Today, somehow it was freed up in the online version so, here it is.

After reading this, I seriously do not understand why any person would trust Mike Huckabee with the reigns of power to control America’s domestic policy, let alone our foreign policy. How can anybody actually believe that Mike Huckabee would be the best President to run America’s economy? Or even our third, fourth, or fifth choice?

Here is the link [if the link does not work, click on CONTINUE READING at the bottom of the post where I pasted the entire article]:

COMMENTARY — FairTax Flaws — By JERRY BOWYER — January 8, 2008; Page A20

The entire article is worth the time to read it.

Bowyer starts off this Op/Ed piece by giving examples of ideology that, if all worked like Huckabee portends, we would now be living in Utopia. He then points out the flaws of the so-called “Fair Tax”.

And look at this guy’s credentials: Mr. Bowyer is chief economist of BenchMark Financial Network and a CNBC contributor. Do you think he knows what he is talking about?

[emphasis below is mine]

The problem is that none of this would happen. People would simply switch from cheating on income taxes to cheating on sales taxes.

Small vendors often fail to withhold sales taxes. Buyers cheat on sales taxes now. They often fail to pay taxes on interstate catalogue sales. They buy some goods in black markets.

This doesn’t happen much because sales taxes are much lower than income taxes, but if that were reversed, consumers would cheat more. Look at cigarettes. Organized crime sells smokes on the black market in jurisdictions that impose high cigarette taxes.

There is a large category of economic activity designed to avoid sales taxes — it’s called smuggling. We don’t hear that word much anymore, because we’re not a sales-tax or tariff-based system anymore. Increase sales taxes to a combined state and federal 30%, up from a state-based 6% now, and watch the dodging begin.

The immigrant stuff is nonsense on stilts. Let me ask you this: If they’re here illegally, why won’t they also buy and sell goods on the black market?

Then there’s the complexity argument. You don’t think the lobbyists and lawyers will get involved in this, looking for exemptions on houses, medical services and education? You’re going to put a 30% tax on my home purchase, and my doctor visits and my kids’ tuition? Yeah, great idea.

And what about business transactions? If you tax business-to-business transactions, then you’ll set off a wave of corporate consolidation. Instead of buying from a supplier at a 30% markup, I’ll just buy my supplier and be tax free. And what about financial firms like Goldman Sachs, which spend most of their money on payroll and investments, and very little on goods and services? Goldman will pay taxes on what? Paper clips?

If, on the other hand, we institute the most widely supported version of the national sales tax, then business transactions are to be exempted. In addition to the colossal job of selling America on a zero tax rate for business, a rigorous definition of the term “business transaction” would have to be provided. What is a business transaction, exactly? I write articles for publication. I consider it a hobby. Sometimes I get paid. Should I pay sales taxes on money I earn for writing this article?

What about the Internet connection I used to send it? Should readers pay taxes on the connection they use to read my article? What if a reader uses it for his job? If he is a financial adviser, then no, but otherwise it’s yes? Will I pay taxes on gas I used to drive to the studio to talk about this article? What if I stop to buy my son Jack a birthday present on the way home?

I’m a recovering tax accountant (and not a good one at that) and I’ve got 50 ways to avoid this tax swimming around in my head. What about the really smart guys?

And what about transition rules? There are millions of transactions that are, at any given moment, occurring over an extended time. The most obvious example is retirement. I defer taxes now, for retirement later. So I make a decision based on an income-tax regime that doesn’t make any sense in a sales-tax regime. Do I get my money back? What about Roth IRAs? I pay income taxes on the money now, and then pay again later when I spend it during retirement? Double taxation isn’t really a “fair” tax, is it?

These are the easy-to-see cases, but what about the incredible variety of tax questions raised by installment sales? Inventory accounting? Wholesale purchases? Ebay?

None of this matters anyway. We will never make this change. The 16th Amendment will not be repealed in favor of a tax vigorously opposed by an army of restaurants, pubs and retail stores. It’s hard to get good ideas through the ratification process; imagine how hard it would be to push this stinker. In point of fact, the FairTax serves one main purpose right now: It gives Mr. Huckabee the chance to sum up his economic plan in one line. And that just doesn’t seem, well, fair.

Any of you who are Huckabee supporters out there who want to give it a stab to explain to us less knowledgeable Romniacs why you think it is a good idea to hand over power to Mr. Huckabee, please leave your comments. I am very curious why you think this plan of Huckabee’s is not the perfect sign of his complete naivete.

~ Vic

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

Hugh Hewitt is the Executive Producer of a new documentary, the trailer of which you may have seen a few weeks ago. The first time I saw the trailer was December 6th. Well, it is finally premiering nationwide (see other locations by clicking CONTINUE READING at the bottom of this post)

Want to attend the premiere? For free? This post is intended promote the film in the Los Angeles, San Diego, and Riverside metropolitan areas. See details and RSVP information below the poster of the film.

The date of the California premiere is Monday, January 14, 2008 — Newport Beach, CA

Check-in Begins at 6:00 p.m. — Show Time is 7:00 p.m.

— See trailer and RSVP details below —

Hugh Hewitt will be at this showing next Monday. I plan to attend with my wife (she knows I like a cheap date!). This afternoon (1/10), I was told the theater hold about 500 people and they have received 200 RSVPs.

Southern California Premiere:

Regency Lido Theatre
3459 Via Lido
Newport Beach, CA 92651

RSVP Required by telephone (M-F, 8-5): 949-296-1520 or via email: rsvpoc@outsideeyes.com

Information: Click here —–> ABOUT THE MOVIE

Watch the Trailer: Click here ——-> TRAILER

This one time viewing in California, next Monday, is free of charge (in fact, all premiere locations are free).

OTHER PREMIERE LOCATIONS: The film is also being shown in these cities on various dates: New York, Atlanta, Washington, DC, Shreveport, and Salt Lake City. For more information for these cities, click CONTINUE READING just below.

~ Vic

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This