comMITTed to Romney!

Young people should support Mitt Romney over Barack Obama

Mike Laub — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 03:44:39 +0000

1. Obama is spending money so he can be popular, but leaving young people with the bill.
2. Youth unemployment under Obama has skyrocketed.
3. 1/2 of new college graduates are unemployed or unemployed.
4. The youth unemployment rate is 16.4%.
5. In high school, it is OK to vote for the “coolest” kid for class president, but once you have the right to vote you have an obligation to pick the person who is most likely to balance the budget, and avoid financial ruin for the country. If American youth pick the wrong president, they are the ones who will have to live with the country as it falls apart.

~ Mike: Twitter, Personal Blog

Romney is more likely than Obama to Protect the secret ballot

Mike Laub — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 03:36:25 +0000

Background and Context

We should protect the secret ballot. Union bosses want to remove the secret ballot so they can intimidate and threaten those who don’t vote to support the union. Removing the secret ballot is un-american. We all have the right to vote how we want without fear of intimidation. Even Russia has the secret ballet. Even Iraq has the secret ballot. It would be sad if we send our solders over seas to start democracy in the desert, and we let Obama remove the secret ballot here at home.

President Obama Supports The Employee Free Choice Act, Which Would Eliminate Secret-Ballot Elections That Shield Workers From Privacy Concerns And Intimidation. “President Barack Obama told AFL-CIO union leaders Tuesday in a videotaped address that the controversial Employee Free Choice Act will pass, signaling his full backing for legislation that makes union organizing easier. … The bill would make it easier for unions to recruit workers because it would let them join unions simply by signing cards rather than through secret-ballot elections in which companies can campaign against the union.” (Kris Maher, “President Tells Unions Organizing Act Will Pass,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/4/09)
“I will protect the right of American workers to vote by secret ballot. And I will fight to stop union bosses from using the dues of their union members to support those bosses’ favorite campaigns.” (Mitt Romney Delivers Remarks at Values Voter Summit, October 8, 2011)

R2A(+): 1 R2AA(+): 0 R2DA(-): 0

Images that agree

~ Mike: Twitter, Personal Blog

We need to balance our budget before debt destroys our country.

Romney is more likely to balance the budget than Obama

Mike Laub — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 03:32:41 +0000

Background, context, and assumptions:

2. Obama has done a very bad job with balancing the budget

1. Romney has never had an unbalanced budget as Governor. Obama has never had a balanced budget as president.

3. Romney has seriously addressed entitlement spending. Obama hasn’t. Romney has a plan that balances the budget. Obama doesn’t. Romney balanced the budget in 2003, as Governor Massachusetts.

4. Romney balanced the budget in 2004, as Governor Massachusetts.

5. Romney balanced the budget in 2005, as Governor Massachusetts.

6. Romney balanced the budget in 2006, as Governor Massachusetts.

7. Romney was able to leave money in the rainy day fund, even though he faced a 3 billion dollar budget deficit when he came into office.

8. Romney turned around budget problems at the Winter Olympics, which was $239 million dollars short (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Winter_Olympic_bid_scandal)

9. Romney has promised to only spend money on things that we can justify borrowing money from China for to pay for.

10. Romney balanced the budget for many companies. Romney was willing to make tough choices in his business life that resulted in balanced budgets for the organizations that he ran, including Bain consulting, Bain Capital, and the many companies that he bought, and ran.

11. Obama has done a very bad job with balancing the budget

12. Romney supports the line item veto which would reduce federal spending.

13. We should only select presidential candidates who have previously balanced their states budget as Governor. Romney balanced the budget all 4 years in office, without raising taxes.

Romney will help the economy more than Obama

Mike Laub — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 03:11:38 +0000

1. Romney is more likely than Obama to keep our trade laws from being burdensome +1

2. Unlike Obama, Romney understands that countries shouldn’t subsidize their private businesses. +1

3. Romney is more likely than Obama to help our economy by decreasing debt, stabilizing our currency and preventing inflation.

4. Obama would tax the economy to death.

5. Romney is more experienced at cutting inefficiencies than Obama.

6. Romney is more experienced at balancing budgets than Obama.

7. Romney is more experienced promoting international business than Obama.

8. Obama only worked in the real economy once. In his book “Dreams From My Father” he said that working in the private private sector made him feel like ”a spy behind enemy lines“. This is not a pro-business person… this is an extremest.

Videos That Agree

Images that agree:

~ Mike: Twitter, Personal Blog

- Balance the budget
- Improve the economy
- Balance our economic interests with environmental interests
- Protect the secret ballot
- Support 1 person 1 vote by fighting voter fraud
- Properly balance environmental and business needs

Romney is more likely than Obama to do the following important things:

Mike Laub — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 01:08:47 +0000

- Run the federal government like a business (holding them accountable to accomplish their goals in the most efficientmanner).
- Help the republican party be about issues, instead of identity politics
- Support legal immigration, while opposing illegal immigration
- Unite the country
- Shrink the size of the federal government
- Return power to the states
- Spend the appropriate amount of money fighting global warming

Unlike Obama, Romney won’t:
- Make backroom deals with Russia
- Punish success
- Apologize to our enemies
- Show weakness to our enemies
- Interject himself into racially charged local issues
- Take a back seat and let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Read run this country
- Spend most of his time playing golf (”I must admit, I scratch my head at the capacity of the president to take four hours off on such a regular basis to go golfing,” Mitt Romney said on Bill Cunningham’s radio program on WLW-AM. I would think you could kind of suck it up for four years particularly when the American people are out of work,” he added).
- Send his family on extravagant tax-payer funded vacations
- Reward failure
Please help me increase brainstorm more items for this list. Also, I want to create a link to a post with specific examples, quotes, videos, etc for each item.

~ Mike: Twitter, Personal Blog

2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 2012 Press Releases

Romney and his Dog Seamus

Mike Laub — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 02:19:58 +0000

This is a photo I took in Yellowstone last summer. As you can see it is a Christian sticker Bedazzled motorcycle. The owner of the bike also owns a dog. Instead of leaving the dog he purchased a trailer for his bike, to which he secured a dog carrier with awesome bull horns, and additional decorations.

This man took a lot of time to make sure his dog was happy. The dog obviously looks very happy. He is not trying to get away. He loves his owner, and obviously his owner loves him.

Here is a picture of Mitt with his dog when he was about the age that Obama was eating dog:

Do you think the press will ask Obama if it tasted like Chicken? Do you think they will spend near the amount of time that they have spent pestering Romney? We’ll see.

~ Mike: Twitter, Personal Blog

Romney Personally Pledged To Break “Glass Ceiling”

Mike Laub — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 02:17:07 +0000

~ Mike: Twitter, Personal Blog

Senior Positions held by Women

Mike Laub — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 02:15:29 +0000

“You may have noted, well you probably didn’t see the little Boston Globe article. They didn’t make a big deal out of it in the Boston Globe, but in the University of Albany they looked at all the states in the country and looked at all the senior positions to see how many were filled by men and women and it turned out that our state was ranked number one in the number of women in senior positions. Just over 50 percent. I’m most proud of that.” - Governor Mitt Romney, NH Federation of Republican Women’s Lilac Dinner

~ Mike: Twitter, Personal Blog

http://illinoisans-4-mitt-romney.blogspot.com/

IL 4 Mitt Romney!

Mike Laub — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 22:24:26 +0000

When I created this website, I had no idea that Illinois would be so important. The hits are really increasing. Please help by linking to this site!

~ Mike: Twitter, Personal Blog

Would the Keystone XL pipeline cross and jeopardizes sensitive environments?

Mike Laub — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 04:49:17 +0000

We have to balance environmental needs with business needs
The oil came from the ground. It was in contact with moisture. If it spilled back on the ground or in the water it could be cleaned up. We are not creating something that is evil and never existed before, we are extracting it and moving it from one place to another. The dirt that it was in is no less sacred than the dirt that it crosses. We are just cleaning up the dirt that it came from! Think of extraction just as a large clean up and transportation project.
We already have roads, cities, houses, gas stations, factories in Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas. We can’t just wall of these states, and declare them national wildlife preserves.
We already have gas trucks driving across the same rivers that the XL pipeline would cross. They pose just as much a threat as the XL pipeline would.
Pipelines are safe. They are inspected, have standards, codes, inspectors, regulations, etc. They have been operating safely for many years and many miles. Pressure is monitored. Metal thickness is inspected.

~ Mike: Twitter, Personal Blog

re: “Iran is more concerned about self-defense than aggression”

Mike Laub — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 16:41:32 +0000

The relative concern for offensive military force versus defensive military may be interesting, but it holds very little reliant information for decision makers. Before Hitler came along, perhaps all of their tanks were meant to be used in a defensive war. Once Hitler came along he could use the tanks for offence or defense. Nuclear weapons are a tool and can be used in defense or offence. The problem in Iran isn’t just one or two people who want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. The problem is a country who’s leading export is hatred. It is not good for these type of countries to get nuclear weapons.

To learn more, please visit and share my Iran website.

~ Mike: Twitter, Personal Blog

We can not assume the leaders in Iran can be motivated by rational secular self interest

Mike Laub — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 16:06:15 +0000

The leaders in Iran gain power by a game of one upmanship in which power is gained by expressing increasingly outrageous belief that God is testing your faith, and that you have to put your faith in him, and that he will save you. This will cause Iran to pursue their violent anti-israili dogma without fear that they will be punished by the USA because their power is gained and maintained by expressing absolute faith in Allah. Am I wrong?

To learn more, please visit and share my Iran website.

Iran is seeking nuclear weapons

Mike Laub — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 03:52:08 +0000

Iran’s history of defiance, secrecy, and deception surrounding its nuclear program undermine its claim that its nuclear pursuits are peaceful and legitimate. Additional factors such as the low need for nuclear energy in Iran due to abundant fossil fuel energy as well as Iran’s rejection of international deals that would provide external sources of uranium fuel undermine Iran’s claim to a peaceful nuclear energy program.
Iran has a virtually inexhaustible supply of clean natural gas for energy, but yet the French and Russians are building nuclear reactors for them. I wonder why?
Iran has refused offers from us to supply nuclear fuel for their power. I wonder why?
Senior Fellow for Middle East Studies Ray Takeyh writes in the 12/21/05 edition of the Financial times that, “After nearly three decades of acrimony and tension, Iran’s reactionaries perceive that conflict with the US is inevitable and that the only manner of preserving the regime’s security and Iran’s territorial integrity is through possession of the “strategic weapon”. Although, today, the US may seem entangled in an Iraqi quagmire that tempers its ambitions, for Iran’s rulers, it is still an aggressive state whose power cannot be discounted and whose intentions must not be trusted.”
The AIPAC presents the following points (2/9/07):
1. Using nuclear power for electricity is far more expensive than oil and gas for Iran, which has 90 years of oil and 220 years of gas reserves at current production rates, according to a 2006 Department of Energy (DOE) report.
2. It does not make economic sense to invest billions of dollars in uranium enrichment and heavy water facilities, as Iran is doing, when nuclear reactor fuel can be purchased much more inexpensively on the international market.
3. Iran’s claims that it is developing civilian nuclear power production capabilities to become energyindependent are undermined by the fact that the regime only has enough domestic uraniumreserves to support the county’s proposed nuclear program for 10-20 years. However, these resources are more than enough to supply material for an arsenal of atomic bombs.

To learn more, please visit and share my Iran website.

~ Mike: Twitter, Personal Blog

Mike Laub — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 03:55:18 +0000

~ Mike: Twitter, Personal Blog

gimmicky proposals

Mike Laub — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 01:24:43 +0000

“My plan is conservative in a way that stands out not only from President Obama’s failed approach of higher taxes and runaway deficit spending, but also from the say-anything-to-get-elected fiscal recklessness of some of my Republican rivals. Offering gimmicky proposals that rely on implausible levels of economic growth and blow huge holes in the budget is easy. Fixing our very serious problems is not.”

~ Mike: Twitter, Personal Blog

Mike Laub — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 18:22:39 +0000

The office of Senator Jeff Sessions, ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, sends along this chart, showing that ‘America’s Per Capita Government Debt Worse Than Greece,’ as well as Ireland, Italy, France, Portugal, and Spain:

Isn’t this, and shouldn’t this be the most important and almost only issue? Who is most qualified to remove our debt?

~ Mike: Twitter, Personal Blog

Newt

Mike Laub — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 04:02:22 +0000

Newt did a great job when he spoke about media bias. He is a great politician, and I would vote for him if all a president did was go around and argue with the media… That is important, but I still believe after all these years that Romney will do a better job once in office…

Mitt Romney Dog

Mike Laub — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 14:36:47 +0000

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/transcript

Labor unions often encourage inefficiency

Mike Laub — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:34:08 +0000

A former running back from the University of Arkansas named Bruce Lee ran the western region for the United Auto Workers, and was in charge of the Fremont Union Local 1364. Now normally, somebody like Bruce Lee is supposed to defend his union members no matter what. But even he says they were awful.

Bruce Lee

It was considered the worst workforce in the automobile industry in the United States. And it was a reputation that was well earned. Everything was a fight. They spent more time on grievances and on things like that than they did on producing cars. They had strikes all the time. It was just chaos constantly.

Jeffrey Liker

The Fremont, California plant for General Motors was bad by GM standards, and GM’s average was bad by Toyota standards, so this is the worst among the bad mediocre plants in GM.

Frank Langfitt

Again, that’s Jeffrey Liker, who’s interviewed workers and management at Fremont for his research.

Jeffrey Liker

One of the expressions was, you can buy anything you want in the GM plant in Fremont. If you want sex, if you want drugs, if you want alcohol, it’s there. During breaks, during lunch time, if you want to gamble illegally– any illegal activity was available for the asking within that plant.

Frank Langfitt

Sounds like prison.

Jeffrey Liker

Actually the analogy to prison is a good analogy. Because the workers were stuck there, because they could not find anything close to that level of job, and pay, and benefits, at their level of education and skill. So they were trapped there. And they also felt like, we have a job for life, and the union will always protect us. So we’re stuck here, and it’s long term, and then all these illegal things crop up so we can entertain ourselves while we’re stuck here.

Rick Madrid

A lot of booze on the line. I mean, it was just amazing– and as long as you did your job, they really didn’t care.

Frank Langfitt

What kind of booze, what were people drinking?

Rick Madrid

Whiskey, gin.

Frank Langfitt

That’s Rick Madrid. He began working at the plant in 1955. He mounted tires on Chevy trucks.

Rick Madrid

When I was mounting tires, we’d drink. You know, I’d bring a thermos of screwdrivers with me. But I never was into drugs.

Frank Langfitt

Sex?

Rick Madrid

Love it.

Frank Langfitt

Did you ever have sex at the plant?

Rick Madrid

Yeah.

Frank Langfitt

Frequently?

Rick Madrid

I wasn’t that fortunate.

Peter Ross

There was a guy in there, he would be selling the pot.

Frank Langfitt

Peter Ross repaired machinery on the assembly line at GM.

Peter Ross

I’d be walking through the plant with my tools and my radio. You see a big cloud of smoke, you don’t want to inhale it, you’d get a contact high.

Frank Langfitt

If you’re wondering how people kept their jobs, well, back then the UAW was still quite powerful. Under the union contract, it was almost impossible to fire anybody, and if management ticked off the union, workers could just shut the plant down in minutes.

With that sort of leverage, absenteeism became absurd. On a normal day, one out of five workers just didn’t show up. It was even worse on Mondays. Billy Haggerty worked in hood and fender assembly. He says so few workers showed up some mornings, management couldn’t start the line.

Billy Haggerty

They brought a lot of people off the street to fill in when they didn’t have enough people.

Frank Langfitt

Who would they find?

Billy Haggerty

Right across the street to the bar and grab people out of there and bring them in.

Frank Langfitt

Workers filed grievances– formal complaints against management– over all kinds of things. Someone who isn’t your boss asks you to clean something up? Hit him with a grievance. A manager steps in to do a job that isn’t his? Grievance. The strategy was simple. Pile up grievances real or imagined by the thousands, then use them to squeeze money or concessions out of management.

And Fremont workers struck back at their bosses in other ways. They’d intentionally screw up the vehicles. Put coke bottles or loose bolts inside the door panels so they’d rattle and annoy the customer. They’d scratch cars. Richard Aguilar inspected vehicles at the plant. He saw one guy do something even worse.

Richard Aguilar

He left some loose bolts on the front suspension. That was dangerous. I went and told the system manager right away. They went out there and they checked, and there was like 400 cars he had done that to. He was mad because they had suspended him for drinking.

~ Mike: Twitter, Personal Blog

We should prohibit unions from using dues automatically deducted from paychecks for political purposes

Mike Laub — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:15:07 +0000

Explanation:

Prohibits Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Prohibitions on Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute. Restricts union political fundraising by prohibiting use of payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. Same use restriction would apply to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations or government contractors. Permits voluntary employee contributions to employer or union committees if authorized yearly, in writing. Prohibits unions and corporations from contributing directly or indirectly to candidates and candidate-controlled committees. Other political expenditures remain unrestricted, including corporate expenditures from available resources not limited by payroll deduction prohibition. Limits government contractor contributions to elected officers or officer-controlled committees. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increased state implementation and enforcement costs of up to hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, potentially offset in part by revenues from fines.

Money in politics should be freely given. The current system is not fair, because unions have access to money they can steal from their workers paychecks. It is bad enough that government takes taxes from your paycheck. It is OK for the government to take money from dead-beat-dads, but unions shouldn’t be able to just steal a portion of worker’s paychecks. “Paycheck protection” is a good thing.

We should require all union elections to use the secret ballot

Mike Laub — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:01:20 +0000

Secret ballots are good because people can’t threaten you to vote a certain way. A non secret ballot means nothing, but that thugs are running things. A non secret ballot is an affront to freedom.

The US does not currently have enough money to set up a permanent moon base by 2020

Mike Laub — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:34:14 +0000

As of February 12, 2012 our debt per taxpayer is $135,000.

It would be too expensive to build a moon base by 2020

Reasons to agree:

John Logsdon, professor emeritus at George Washington University and founder of the school’s Space Policy Institute says a moon base today could cost somewhere between $250 billion to $500 billion. However he does not show us any of his math, and his moon base was not as ambitious as Newt’s plan. Newt’s plan calls for a moon colony of 13,000.
John Derbyshire says the following: “The cost of the Apollo program, which put twelve men on the Moon for a few days each, was 170 billion in 2005 dollars, according to NASA. Allowing for seven years’ worth of inflation, let’s round to $200 billion, say $16 billion per astronaut. Newt’s plan calls for a moon colony of 13,000, so we’re looking at a price tag of $200 trillion or so.That’s very rough and ready, of course. There would be economies of scale. On the other hand, there’d be huge things to be done — building living quarters, supplying colony-scale food and air, and so on — that Apollo didn’t have to think about. Still, let’s be optimistic and suppose the project could come in at 100 trillion dollars, say eight billion per colonist.” It would be great to go to the moon, if we had the money. We don’t. We shouldn’t.

We don’t have enough money to make our current obligations

Reasons to agree:

As of February 12, 2012 we have a national debt of 15 trillion and 343 billion dollars.
As of February 12, 2012 our debt per taxpayer is $135,000.

We don’t have the money to build a safe moon base by 2020

Reasons to agree

We don’t have enough money to make our current obligations. (Idea score: +2)
It would be too expensive to build a moon base by 2020. (Idea score: +2)
We have to prioritize things we would like to spend our money on.
We really have to prioritize things we are willing to go into more debt to pay for. Money is not infinite. Money does not grow on trees. When you borrow money, you have to pay interest.
There are many things that we should fund before we build a permanent space colony on the moon.
A moon colony would be nice, but we should wait until technology

An assignment to a moon colony built by 2020 would be a death sentence

There are many technological problems we need to figure out before we commit to building a self sustainable moon colony

Reasons to agree:

Power
1. The long lunar night would impede reliance on solar power. A moon day is 708 hours, or 59 days. This means you each moon night would last 29 days. We don’t have batteries that could last 29 days.
2. A nuclear reactor on the surface of the moon would be prone to damage.
3. It would be very difficult to bury a nuclear reactor under the surface of the moon, as there are currently no backhoes on the moon, no gas to run a backhoe, and no dealerships to repair a broken backhoes. Any other heavy equipment necessary to build living quarters, dig into the moon’s crust, extract, or refine metals, would be to heavy to transport into space.
4. Sure, launching rockets from the moon is easier than earth, because its gravity is 1/6th that of earth, but there are no spare rockets just sitting around on the moon. It would take way more energy to send a rocket from here, slow it down and land it on the moon, and then shoot it off to the mars again. Until we have industrialized the moon so much that we are capable of building a rocket on the moon, it doesn’t make any to talk about the advantage of shooting rockets from the moon, because it would obviously be easier to go straight to mars, instead of going to the moon, landing, and then building up the momentum needed to get to Mars.
Temperature
1. A Newt moon colony would have to withstand large temperature extremes. The lack of a substantial atmosphere for insulation results in temperature extremes and makes the Moon’s surface conditions somewhat like a deep space vacuum. During the day (about 354 hours) the moon has an average temperature of about 107 °C (225 °F). However it can rise as high as 123 °C (253 °F). The night period (also 354 hours) has an average temperature of about −153 °C (−243 °F).
2. Because robots can deal better with cold temperate, why not send more of them to the moon before we send people?
Gravity
1. Low (one-sixth g) gravity on the Moon is not strong enough to prevent detrimental effects to human health in the long term. Muscles and bones weaken if they are not used. Exposure to weightlessness over month-long periods has been demonstrated to cause deterioration of physiological systems, such as loss of bone and muscle mass and a depressed immune system.
2. Because robots can deal better with low gravity, why not send more of them to the moon before we send people?
Radiation
1. It also leaves the Lunar surface exposed to radiation raising the issues of the health threat from cosmic rays and the risk of proton exposure from the solar wind. Shielding against solar flares during expeditions would be problematic.
2. Because robots can deal better with readiation, why not send more of them to the moon before we send people?
Plasma Sheets
1. When the moon passes through the magnetotail of the earth, the plasma sheet whips across its surface. Electrons crash into the moon and are released again by UV photons on the day side but build up voltages on the dark side. This causes a negative charge build up from −200 V to −1,000 V. 1,000 volts is more than enough to kill you. 120V, and 240V in your house can kill you. 1kV would be much worse. Not to speak of what this would do to electronics…
Meteors
1. The lack of an atmosphere increases the chances of the colonial site being hit by meteors, which would impact upon the surface directly, as they have done throughout the Moon’s history. Even small pebbles and dust (micrometeoroids) have the potential to damage or destroy insufficiently protected structures.
Moon Dust
1. Moon dust is an extremely abrasive glassy substance formed by micrometeorites and unrounded due to the lack of weathering. It sticks to everything and can damage equipment, and it may be toxic. (Lunar explorers face moon dust dilemma”. msnbc.com. Retrieved 2008-02-16, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15607792/))
2. Because robots can deal better with toxic moon dust, why not send more of them to the moon before we send people?
Food
1. Growing crops on the Moon faces many difficult challenges due to the long lunar night (354 hours), extreme variation in surface temperature, exposure to solar flares, nitrogen-poor soil, and lack of insects for pollination. Due to the lack of any atmosphere on the Moon, plants would need to be grown in sealed chambers. The use of electric lighting to compensate for the 354-hour night might be difficult: a single acre of plants on Earth enjoys a peak 4 megawatts of sunlight power at noon.
2. Because robots don’t need food, why not send more of them to the moon before we send people?
One of the less obvious difficulties lies not with the Moon itself but rather with the political and national interests of the nations engaged in colonization. Assuming that colonization efforts were able to overcome the difficulties outlined above - there would likely be issues regarding the rights of nations and their colonies to exploit resources on the lunar surface, to stake territorial claims and other issues of sovereignty which would have to be agreed upon before one or more nations established a permanent presence on the moon. The ongoing negotiations and debate regarding the Antarctic is a good case study for prospective lunar colonization efforts in that it highlights the numerous pitfalls of developing/inhabiting a location that is subject to the claims of more than one sovereign nation.
Carbon, Nitrogen, and Hydrogen
1. The Moon is highly depleted in important light elements (volatiles), such as carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen. No sufficient means exists for recovering these volatiles on the Moon. These elements would need to be imported from some other source to support life and industrial processes. Also, volatiles would need to be stringently recycled. This would limit the colony’s rate of growth and keep it dependent on Earth. Also the technology does not currently exist for importing volatiles from other parts of the solar system.

We should wait to go to the moon for technology to advance

Reasons to agree:

Solar panel technology, which you would need on the moon, continues to advance.
Battery technology, which you would need on the moon, continues to advance.
Lightweight computer technology, which you would need on the moon, continues to advance.
Material Science technology continues to advance.
Low cost rocket technology, which you would need to get to the moon, continues to advance.
There are many things that we should fund before we build a permanent space colony on the moon
It would be too expensive to build a moon base by 2020. We don’t have enough money to make our current obligations
We don’t have the money to build a safe moon base by 2020
An assignment to a moon colony built by 2020 would be a death sentence
There are many technological problems we need to figure out before we commit to building a self sustainable moon colony
Fuel sell technology, which would be needed on the moon, continues to advance.
Proton Exchange Membrane cells have not yet been tested in space.
Algae-based gas exchanger technology is still advancing, which would be needed for life support.

There are many things that we should fund before we build a permanent space colony on the moon

Reasons to agree:

We should pay off our debt before we go to the moon.
We should fix poverty before we build a colony on the moon.
We should fix global warming before we build a colony on the moon.
We should ensure freedom of the press everyone on the planet before we colonize the moon.
We should colonize the ocean before we colonize the moon.
We should colonize death valley before we colonize the moon.
We should re-colonize Detroit before we colonize the moon.
A moon colony would inspire our kids kids to daydream a little bit. Interest in further exploration of the Moon was beginning to wane among the American public in the 1970s, but it would go up a bit if we said we were going to build a permanent moon base. But kids would all be daydreaming from a bleak world of poverty. The reality of trying to build a permanent colony of 13,000 people before 2020 would bankrupt our kids future.

The media is liberal

Mike Laub — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:12:23 +0000

75% to 85% of reporters self identify themselves as democrats. Some say “Democrats are not liberal”, but they are more liberal than the general public. The point is, obviously, that the media is more liberal than an impartial observer, which they pretend to be.
People who go into journalism are different than people that go into more practical careers. We need all kinds. We need journalist. I’m just pointing out that people are different. People who go into journalism are choosing a less practical career choice. Again I am not making a value judgment as which choice is better, I’m just saying they are different. People who choose journalism are choosing a more touchy feely idealistic career. Liberalism tends to be more idealistic, and Conservatism tends to be more practical. We all like the idea of socialism, conservatives are just more practical and realize that socialism has unintended consequences. We all like the idea of reforming criminals, but conservatives are less idealistic, or optimistic about our chances for success. We all would like to live in a world where government can be big and efficient, just because it is the right thing to do, but conservatives are pessimistic about human motivation, and governments capacity to do good with their big power. Again journalist and liberals are more idealistic, and have more trust in human nature. Liberals because of their political philosophy, journalist because of their idealistic and less practical career choice. These artsy types don’t want to be constrained with putting food on the table. They want the government to take care of all of these so they can sit around and talk about how smart they are.
“Indeed, the media elites covering national politics would be indistinguishable from the Democratic Party except the Democratic Party isn’t liberal enough. A higher percentage of the Washington press corps voted for Clinton in 1992 than did his demographic category: ‘Registered Democrats.’” — Ann Coulter, P. 56. For all of you Ann Coulter haters, don’t tell me that just because she said it, that it is false… You have to argue with what she said, not with the fact that someone you don’t like said something. No one is wrong 100% of the time, and this talking past each other is the cause of our problems. When ever you give a quote from someone, people who disagree with you will always try to change the subject from the actual words that the person said, and if what they said is true or not, and try to change the subject to talking about the person talking. This is stupid, counterproductive, and one of the reasons it is painful to try to have a meaningful conversation with anyone.
Public media (NPR PBS) is liberal.
1. NPR gets its money from the Government. They pay check requires them to believe that government should be involved in the arts. Conservatives believe in limited government, and so, of course, people who get their money from the government, are not going to support policies that would remove their job. What’s funny is NPR and PBS often tells its listeners that they are less biased than media that gets its funding by advertisements, but they are, of course, more biased. Even if you could try to not be biased, subconsciously you would assume the government should be doing all sorts of stuff, because, after all, you wouldn’t believe that your life work is meaningless, or not valuable.
The people who “moderate” the debates are all democratic hacks.
1. George Stephanopoulos was the Bill Clinton press secretary
2. Chris Matthews was a presidential speechwriter during the Carter administration
“It was revealed that the Democratic Party received a total donation of $1,020,816, given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks (NBC, CBS, ABC), while the Republican Party received only $142,863 via 193 donations.” That is 7 times the amount that republicans got. Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters.” Wikipedia http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-democrats-got-88-percent-2008-contributions-tv-network-execs-writers
“A study cited frequently by critics of a “liberal media bias” in American journalism is The Media Elite, a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter. They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists’ attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s. The authors concluded that journalists’ coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes, and the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms therefore pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. They presented this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality.”~ Wikipedia, R. Lichter, S. Rothman, and L. Lichter, The Media Elite. New York: Hastings House, 1991.
In a survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters stated that they were members of or shared the beliefs of the Democratic Party. Only 15% say their beliefs were best represented by the Republican Party. This leaves 24% undecided or Independent. ASNE report”. Retrieved 2007-03-28, http://www.asne.org/kiosk/reports/97reports/journalists90s/journalists.html
A 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers of Dartmouth College, Press Bias and Politics, investigated the issue of media bias. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers, including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, Kuypers stated that the mainstream press in America tends to favor liberal viewpoints. They claimed that reporters who they thought were expressing moderate or conservative points of view were often labeled as holding a minority point of view. Kuypers said he found liberal bias in reporting a variety of issues including race, welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control. Professor’s Study Shows Liberal Bias in News Media – 09/17/2002, http://web.archive.org/web/20080205062048/http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200209/CUL20020917b.html
Financial reporters are never allowed to write about companies in which they have an interest, while political reporters routinely refuse to answer questions that might reveal their own political positions and thus allow the reader to adjust for any bias, whether conscious or subconscious, that their reporting might contain. If financial reporters have to regulate their self interest, so should political reporters.
During a 2006 exchange with Hewitt, longtime Washington Post reporter and columnist Thomas Edsall said that Democrats outnumbered Republicans 15-25 to 1 among members of the mainstream media (”The Hugh Hewitt Show”. Hughhewitt.townhall.com. 2011-12-06. Retrieved 2011-12-10., http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=2a63c078-2e33-46d8-b85a-a91a5257fca2)

“Today we borrow almost forty cents of every dollar we spend. That is unconscionable. It’s unsustainable. It’s reckless. It’s immoral. And, if I am President, it will end.” Mitt Romney

Mike Laub — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:50:40 +0000

If you want to put it on twitter, you have to shorten it a bit: “We borrow almost $0.40 of every $1 we spend. This is unconscionable, unsustainable, reckless, immoral & if I am President, it will end”~MR

Tell me something about yourself that only people who know you well know

Mike Laub — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 22:32:23 +0000

Tom Bevan: Switching gears to a lighter subject, for our readers to get a better sense of who you are as a person, tell me something about yourself that only people who know you well know.

Governor Mitt Romney: I love practical jokes and humor. That there’s frankly no joke that I don’t think is funny. I love practical jokes, but I don’t like being scared. My sons will tell you that when they have jumped out of the tree when I’m coming from work in the middle of the night and said “boo” to me, that there is swift and severe retribution.

I have five boys in the family, and it’s constant competition, sport, humor, and practical jokes. For instance, when we gathered for my big - was it the announcement day, no I guess it was the big fund raising thing, we were going to have a January national call day - all my sons came back to gather for that. We were there at the dinner table and someone said, “hey, should we go have a 440 race at the high school?” Sure enough, we all went upstairs and found our respective jogging shorts, put on tennis shoes or running shoes, went over to the high school and had a 440 competition at the track.

Tom Bevan: Who won?

Governor Mitt Romney: I came in last. I was thinking I could beat my son Ben but, boy, even though he’s in medical school and has gotta be out of shape, he still beat me, darn it!

http://myclob.pbworks.com/

Mike Laub’s advice to Mitt Romney

Mike Laub — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:21:22 +0000

I run this site:

because I am interested in politics, and I wanted to create Mitt’s beliefs as a starting off point for arguments. I would love it if Mitt created a site, that allowed people to submit reasons to agree and disagree with his beliefs, similar to what I’m trying to do. In brief, this would allow him to lead a cause, and for us to get involved. It shouldn’t be about one person, but about leading a cause.

To this end, I would love for Romney to create a website like this:

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/

or this:

http://www.createdebate.com/

I have similar goals to those websites, but want to do things a bit differently. I figured if I built the site, it would become popular, and people would want to join and help me make it better… I wanted to create a grass roots movement… It hasn’t worked so well… I mean I have hundreds of pages, all of Romney’s press releases, speeches, and I feel it is pretty organized, and has a lot of good content… but no one cares. Let me give you some stats about the site. Here are the stats over the last month for the number of visits that the different pages get:

1. http://myclob.pbworks.com/w/page/21956775/Ann%20Romney 15,240 visits last month

2. http://myclob.pbworks.com/w/page/21957741/George%20Romney 4,619 visits last month

3. http://myclob.pbworks.com/w/page/21959098/Photography 4,276 visits last month

4. Why did your father not give you any of his inheritance 2,362 visits last month

It is sort of depressing, but it seems that people care about Ann Romney, George Romney, want to see photos from Mitts life, and want to know about how Romney got his wealth. None of my other pages gets more than 1,000 visits a month. Its depressing to me on a couple of accounts: it seems like Romney supporters are not engaged in trying to help him win specific arguments, they are just curious about his biography. And it seems I was able to build a better Ann Romney page than Romney’s web guys.

If you google “Ann Romney” many of the top ranked images come from my site, but none of the top ranked images come from a Mitt Romney official website. How is it that his website sucks so bad? I suck at making website… I was just ticked off that all the Ann Romney photos were photo-shopped to show her in her underwear. I work full time as a Sr. Electrical engineer, have 3 kids, have no formal website design training, but I was able to build a better Ann Romney website than Mitt’s guys. What gives?

Romney’s website has 3 issues: Jobs, Healthcare, and Foreign Policy. I know Obama tried to do too many things, never focused on Jobs, and was spread to thin. It is important to focus, but on every issue someone else is going to define Mitt Romney, unless he defines himself.

I think Romney needs to read this article:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.04/wired40_ceo.html

change course, invite us all to help him, and lead our causes.

Romney has made many arguments over his career. These arguments need to be better organized than just dumped under 3 headings. Couldn’t he try to harness people power to do something like Wikipedia for his arguments? Couldn’t he be a little more transparent?

Am I wrong? Is it a problem that none of Ann Romney’s photos come from MittRomney.com? Should Romney be a major content provider? Should he his site be better organized? Should he follow the advice of the Wired article? Would it help people get to know him more? And should he do some sort of wiki or online project as as a way of getting people involved? I guess he is winning, so why criticize? Is he waiting for the general election to become more specific? Let me know what you think.

1st hand* memories of Mitt by those who worked with him

Mike Laub — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 20:29:48 +0000

* Not necessarily important or “positive”. In their own words. Preferable long quotes, so they are not “taken out of context”. Please help me find the rest of the quote, or new ones. If you know him or worked with him, please contact me, give me proof of who you are, and I’ll add your comments to the list.

School
- Stuart White, Cranbrook classmate of Romney’s
  - Mitt’s father, George, was the governor of Michigan all the years that I knew Mitt at the Cranbrook school. This meant that a Michigan state police detail was at their home all the time. Mitt befriended some of the officers and they left police gifts with him: a shirt, a faux badge, a light, a police belt. Mitt had an innate wackiness, and he, our friend Butch McDonald and I hatched a plot to use some of those gifts to frighten our unsuspecting dates from Kingswood, Cranbrook’s sister school. The school policy was that the girls could sign out until 11 p.m. on weekends. Earlier in the afternoon of our date, we planted empty beer bottles in Butch’s trunk. We agreed that at 10:45 p.m., our car would slowly approach a secluded section of dirt road near the school, and that we would pull over and turn out the lights. Mitt, driving a dark ‘65 American Motors vehicle (his father had revived that ailing car company before running for governor) topped with a revolving red light, and dressed in his goofy police uniform with a U.S. Air Force hat and dark glasses, came up behind us and approached the driver’s window. In a gravelly voice, he asked the two of us to exit the vehicle and open the trunk. The bottles were discovered and rattled for effect. “Step back into the car, boys,” the “officer” said, and returned to his vehicle. We expressed mock alarm, peeled out on the dirt road and rushed the girls into the school parking lot just in time. Minutes later, at the local drive-in, we three perpetrators reveled in our success.
- Gregg Dearth, Cranbrook classmate
  - Mitt Romney and I were members of the Cranbrook pep squad, also called cheerleaders. We were un-coached and only barely organized. Someone gave me a domesticated duck and suggested I bring it to one of our football games as the unofficial school mascot. We were the Cranbrook Cranes, and the school mascot, an elegant, regal, long-legged crane, is emblazoned in many places around campus. So I thought it was quite the joke for the pep squad to show up with a squat, fat pseudo-crane mascot to cheer on the football players. The problem came after the game. We had no place to keep the duck. Giving it to a restaurant was all I could think of. Then Mitt stepped forward and volunteered to take charge of our little mascot. He’d put it at his parents’ house, where there was a small pond and it could live in a natural, duck-friendly setting until the next game. ¶ But Mitt showed up at the next game sans duck. It seems that when he went to get the duck to bring it to the game, all he could find was a small patch of feathers. A fox had gotten there first. Mitt could have laughed this off, as probably the rest of us would have. But he didn’t. It was quite obvious that he not only felt sorry for the duck, he also felt sorry that he had let us down. We tried to let him off the hook as best as we could, but I suspect that to this day, he still feels bad about that duck. In fact, as the years went by, it was one of those things you knew not to bring up.
His “mission”
- Dane Mcbride, served as a missionary in France with Romney
  - Mitt Romney had about the same success as a Mormon missionary in France as most people had: not much. I served with him in Bordeaux and Paris off and on for 18 months. A common way of making contacts is by knocking door to door. We would introduce ourselves as missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and could we have a moment of their time. Usually the answer was: “Non, merci.” It was an exercise in humility. But Mitt always knew how to encourage us to keep going. Primarily, he led by example. During our service, some missionaries had begun to feel that in keeping with their ministerial calling, it was inappropriate to laugh out loud very much. Mitt always had a strong laugh and at the time of the proposed laughing ban, he was the top leader in the mission, assistant to the mission president. So he really dispelled the anti-laughing crowd, mostly with his humor. During his service in France, he was the driver in an automobile accident in which a woman who was very dear to us was killed. He could have been much more morose, but he led us through that difficult time and returned to his cheery self. While we were there, we read the book Think and Grow Rich!’ by Napoleon Hill. Some of our church leaders recommended we use those concepts of positive thinking to overcome doubt and discouragement so we could perform at a higher level. They meant it as applied to our missionary work, but of course it could be applied to business as well. I’ve often said that Mitt and I read that book at the same time but he read it better than I did.
Work
- Tom Stemberg, founder and former president and chief executive of Staples Inc.
  - “Mitt was just really nice, humble, listened, asked questions…” “And he talked about how at Bain, unlike other venture capitalists, they would actually help you run the business.”
- Coleman Andrews, co-founded Bain Capital with Romney in 1983
  - Mitt had hired me as a young associate at Bain & Co. in 1978, and we worked together occasionally between then and 1983, when we laid the foundations for the creation of Bain Capital. For six months, we traipsed around the United States, Europe and Latin America, seeking investors to back our plan, getting plenty of “no, thank yous” along the way. One potential investor was concerned that we would spend lavishly on fancy offices and needless expenses. I could tell that this bothered Mitt, because he is very careful about spending. Finally, I told the gentleman: “You need to understand how frugal Mitt is. When he and Ann go to the movies, they pop their own popcorn in advance. Mitt figures the home-popped Orville Redenbacher costs him only 62 cents, which is a whole lot cheaper than $4.50 for the big tub at the movie counter.” Coleman Andrews, co-founded Bain Capital with Romney in 1983
- William Weld, Republican former governor of Massachusetts
  - When Mitt was at Bain Capital, I referred a couple of deals to him. In that business, you have to be a vacuum cleaner and amass more facts about the investment than anyone else in the world. That’s a skill set that serves him well. Romney was so successful as a private equity investor that he was able to command a 30 percent share of the profits for Bain as general partner. That figure normally would be 20 percent. He was the most successful private equity investor in the country and with his track record, people were happy to give a 30 percent share to Bain. If you pay sufficient attention to detail you have less risk. And with him, nothing is left to chance unless it has to be. He is running his campaign that way - marvelous planning at all levels.
Bishop
- Bryce Clark, a filmmaker in Utah
  - “He told me that, as human beings, our work isn’t measured by taking the sum of our good deeds and the sum of our bad deeds and seeing how things even out… He said…. The only thing you need to think about is: Are you trying to improve, are you trying to do better? And if you are, then you’re a saint.’ ” “He talked a lot about the Savior, and what the atonement means,” Mr. Clark said. “He said, ‘I just want you to know you are not alone.’ ” In the months and years that followed, Mr. Romney wrote the young man notes of encouragement, frequently reminding him of what he had said that summer night, about always “trying to improve.” Mr. Clark says he still has them.
    - As quoted in, “For Romney, a Role of Faith and Authority” By SHERYL GAY STOLBERGPublished: October 15, 2011 in the New York Times
- Philip Barlow
  - He was highly motivated and “hands-on,” said Philip Barlow, a professor at Utah State University, who as a graduate student was one of Mr. Romney’s top aides as bishop. If somebody’s roof leaked, Mr. Romney would show up with a ladder to fix it. Mr. Barlow remembers Mr. Romney picking butternut squash and yanking weeds on the church’s communal farm.
    - For Romney, a Role of Faith and Authority” By SHERYL GAY STOLBERGPublished: October 15, 2011 in the New York Times
- Clayton Christensen, a Harvard business professor
  - “He said, ‘I was just driving home from work, and I had a feeling that I needed to stop by and tell you that God loves you.’ ” Mr. Christensen was so moved, he recalled, that he wept.
    - As quoted in, “For Romney, a Role of Faith and Authority” By SHERYL GAY STOLBERGPublished: October 15, 2011 in the New York Times
Olympics
- Fraser Bullock, chief operating officer and chief financial officer of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee
  - When Mitt assumed leadership as president and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, the Justice Department was considering indicting us as an organizing committee, finances were troubling and we simply didn’t have the money to put on the Games. Mitt immediately worked on raising revenue and on cutting costs. Before he arrived, the organizing board used to have elaborate lunches accented with elegant decorations. I wasn’t there, but that high-end catering was the stuff of rumors. For Mitt’s first meeting, he served pizza and charged a dollar a slice. The message was clear: Be responsible about how you spend money.However, the budget challenge was nothing compared with the obligation to keep people from 83 nations safe at the Olympics just five months after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.I will never forget the opening ceremonies and watching Mitt, President Bush and Jacques Rogge, president of the International Olympic Committee, standing at attention as the flag from the World Trade Center was brought in to the stadium. A hushed, reverent crowd, more than 50,000 strong, listened as our national anthem was played.- Fraser Bullock, chief operating officer and chief financial officer of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee
- Tom Stemberg, founder and former president and chief executive of Staples Inc.
  - I will never forget Mitt calmly rattling off and quantifying the different financial problems of the Salt Lake City Olympics. He had been running the operation for a few weeks, and the magnitude of the issues was coming into focus. Tens of millions here, tens of millions there, and the media and sponsors riveting their attention on the scandals he had inherited. I asked how I could help. Because his Bain Capital had been my first institutional investor at Staples and he had been a member of our board for 15 years, he said he knew full well that I was too cheap to buy an Olympic sponsorship for $10 million or so. A few months later he called with a different opportunity. He had personally solicited Office Depot and Office Max to be Olympic sponsors. Both had turned him down, so he could now offer me an opportunity to become an official Olympic “supplier.” Much less money, but the ability to use the rings and tickets. I jumped at it. However, for weeks his normally crackerjack staff did not follow through. Then Mitt called. “Tom, I am terribly sorry. Right around the time of our meeting, IMG persuaded the brand new Office Depot CEO to take a major sponsorship. You are out. I feel terrible given my history with you and Staples, but I have to respect what is best for the Games versus my personal relationships. I will get you guys some tickets, but unfortunately they will not be great.” I wasn’t happy, but I knew it was how Mitt operated: He did the right thing, whether his friends liked it or not.- Tom Stemberg, founder and former president and chief executive of Staples Inc.
Governor
- Judith Dushku, associate professor of government at Suffolk University in Boston
  - I had known Mitt Romney for more than 20 years when I went to speak to him in his campaign office in early 1994. We attended the same church and I know a couple of his children quite well and they’re all lovely people. But there’s a difference between being a lovely family and being a knowledgeable leader. When I went to see him, he had recently announced that he was running against Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and I thought it would be important for him to hear from someone who’d been active in women’s politics in Massachusetts.I congratulated him on taking a pro-choice position, one reason I had been open to working with him. I remember his response was something like: “Well, this is Massachusetts. I realized I had to take this position,” which was the first indication to me that what I had understood to be his personal view was a stance he was actually taking pragmatically. He went on that day to talk about an aunt of his who had died during a botched abortion and how he thought legalized abortion was important. But those around him, and people who knew him closely in the ward, knew that it was a position he had taken because he thought he had to in order to win.- Judith Dushku, associate professor of government at Suffolk University in Boston
- Kerry Healey, lieutenant governor of Massachusetts during Romney’s term as governor
  - After we were sworn in as governor and lieutenant governor in Massachusetts, Mitt and I received some very sobering news: The true budget gap was more than $3 billion (out of a $23 billion budget), up from the projected $1 billion gap. We had campaigned during the fiscal crisis of 2002-03, when many states, including Massachusetts, saw their tax revenue collapse and vowed to close the gap without raising taxes. Mitt asked his managers to accomplish the same work, with fewer resources, by developing new approaches. So instead of inspecting wetlands from the ground, the new leaner environmental affairs office increased enforcement actions by taking regular aerial photos of endangered wetlands. A plane could cover more ground more cheaply and effectively than a bureaucrat in a car. Two parks departments, one a legendary haven for no-show patronage positions, were merged despite the howls from legislators who counted on securing well-paid summer jobs by the public pool for kids of their friends and relatives. Mitt provided leadership in tough times, spurred innovation, honored the work behind each tax dollar and respected families.- Kerry Healey, lieutenant governor of Massachusetts during Romney’s term as governor

Raising taxes hurts working people and scares away jobs

Mike Laub — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:14:12 +0000

“I said no to a tax hike; raising taxes hurts working people and scares away jobs. I also said no to more borrowing; borrowing just shifts our problems to the backs of our kids . . . Instead, I went after waste, inefficiency, duplication, and patronage.”

Governor Mitt Romney, Boston Globe, October 24, 2005

Do you agree with Romney that “raising taxes hurts working people and scares away jobs”? I want to use his candidacy to advance his cause. This means arguments. This means debate. Thomas Jefferson said we should list pros and cons. Here is my list of reasons to agree, please help me advance the argument:

Raising taxes hurts working people and scares away jobs
Reasons to agree

Ireland lowered taxes, and brought all sorts of jobs there.
We can’t get red of all taxes, but relatively speaking, the higher taxes, the less money companies have to hire people. You say, yes, but taxes can be given to working people. The question is who gives money to working people more efficiently: businesses through jobs or government through handouts. Handouts usually go to the very poor, discourage work, not working people, and they often reward laziness instead of rewarding work.
If New York has a lot higher taxes, people will move their worldwide headquarters to Houston or London.

Jan 10th 2003 ROMNEY SEEKS EXPANDED AUTHORITY TO BALANCE BUDGET Calls for shared sacrifice in order to avoid disproportionate cuts to poor and needy

Mike Laub — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 22:22:28 +0000

Saying the choice is between disproportionate cuts to programs serving the most needy citizens of Massachusetts or shared reductions in spending, Governor Mitt Romney today filed legislation to broaden his authority to bring the state budget into balance in the current fiscal 2003 year.

“A true partnership means sharing in good times and bad. In good times, the Commonwealth shared its prosperity with cities and towns,” said Romney in an address to the Massachusetts Municipal Association.

“Now that the state has hit hard times, we need cities and towns to join us in tightening their belts,” Romney said.

Romney said he anticipates a significant shortfall for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2003, which was not foreseen a few short months ago. Most of the focus had been on a looming budget gap in the 2004 fiscal year.

“Our problem is simple: spending is high and cash is low. When we began our transition two months ago, every indication was that the current budget was balanced. That is not the case, and immediate, hard action is required to achieve fiscal balance,” said Romney.

The proposed legislation would permit the Governor to review local aid and higher education accounts in addressing deficiencies in revenue for the current fiscal year. Those accounts are currently beyond the reach of Romney’s so-called “9C authority” to reduce spending.

According to Romney, his current “9C authority” would force disproportionate cuts on the elderly, poor and disabled.

“If we are forced to balance this budget on the backs of our seniors and the poor, we will expose the core services of government to disproportionate cuts,” said Romney. “That is not fair. The best solution is to spread the burden.”

Romney tasked Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey with the job of acting as liaison to cities and towns during the fiscal emergency. She will work with mayors and local officials to devise a package of changes designed to give them the flexibility to manage their local budgets.

Healey will collect information in direct meetings with mayors and electronically via the Internet.

“Over the next few weeks, I will be traveling the state meeting with mayors and local officials to solicit their advice on how we can make the coming months less challenging for local communities,” Healey said.

“We view this moment of economic crisis as an opportunity to remove some of the financial and bureaucratic burdens the state has saddled local government with over the years,” she added.

Healey said she has already heard from local officials seeking relief with transportation issues, purchasing requirements, unfunded mandates and onerous construction regulations.

Due to balance of power issues, Romney’s proposed legislation does not affect the Judiciary or the Legislature, although each will be asked to make voluntary reductions in their own spending.

“I do not believe the best way to find solutions to our fiscal problems is to sit on Beacon Hill and simply issue directives and orders to our cities and towns. Instead, I believe we must come together to find the least painful path through this crisis,” said Romney.

“We must have the cities and towns at the table as we craft our answer to the budgetary challenges that confront us so that the solutions we propose do not unfairly target health and human service programs,” he said.

July 8, 2005 ROMNEY FILES LEGISLATION TO LIFT FAMILIES FROM POVERTY

Mike Laub — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 22:21:01 +0000

Proposes to expand work requirements in line with federal standards

Governor Mitt Romney today filed legislation to help welfare recipients escape the poverty trap. His legislation mirrors a plan he filed as part of his budget submission in January to bring Massachusetts in line with stricter federal standards that are followed in 48 other states.

Romney said he is filing the bill as stand-alone legislation because of the Legislature’s desire to deal with the issue apart from the annual budget, which was signed last week.

“Fundamentally, this is a debate about the best way to help someone lead a fulfilling life. We know that the best welfare system isn’t a handout but a hand up,” Romney said.

Massachusetts currently imposes a limited work requirement for its welfare system under a 1995 waiver from the federal government that expires at the end of September, 2005. When that happens, Massachusetts will be required to conform to stricter federal standards signed into law by President Clinton in 1996.

Following the introduction of work, welfare rolls in Massachusetts have plummeted from nearly 103,000 in 1995 to about 47,000 today. But with all the exemptions to the work requirement in this state, only 28 percent of today’s welfare population has to work. Romney’s plan would raise that to about 55 percent.

“It’s our responsibility to not only provide the opportunity for people to get themselves out of poverty, but also to give them critical support services to help them make their dreams come true,” said Lt. Governor Kerry Healey.

Investments related to this proposal include $8 million for education and training and $6 million for child care. Those funds, requested by Romney in his January budget submission, have already been approved by the Legislature. Romney will seek an additional $600,000 for DTA caseworkers to assist families in their efforts to become self-sufficient.

To bring the state work requirement in line with federal standards, Romney’s plan requires 20 hours of work by adult welfare recipients with children who are between the ages of one and five. Recipients who have children age six or older will be required to work at least 30 hours a week.

Currently, recipients with children between the ages of two and five are required to work 20 hours per week; those with children between the ages of six and eight are required to work 24 hours per week; and those with children nine or older must work 30 hours per week. Recipients with children under two are currently exempt from any work requirement.

To illustrate the positive effect that work can have on a person’s life, Romney highlighted two former welfare recipients, Annette Jackson of Boston and Tasha Williams of Somerville. Jackson, the mother of a teenage daughter, is now employed at the Department of Transitional Assistance. Williams, who had not been employed for more than two years before enrolling in a supported work program, is now an administrative assistant at Shelter, Inc., a Boston group that works to fight homelessness.

“I am grateful to have had the support to be able to move on and move forward in my life,” said Williams.

Said Jackson: “After being laid off, I used the services of the Department of Transitional Assistance and ended up with a good job. I am glad to be back where I belong, and that’s being employed.”

Adults with severe disabilities that meet federal standards would continue to be exempt from work under Romney’s plan. However, for parents with less serious impairments there will be individualized employment plans developed based on an assessment of their capacity to work.

“Over the past decade there has been a growing recognition that persons with disabilities can and, in fact, are working in competitive jobs,” said William E. Kiernan, Ph.D, Director of the Institute for Community Inclusion, a Boston organization that works to support the rights of children and adults with disabilities. “With effective job matching, comprehensive support and a coordinated effort, employment in a competitive job can be a reality for many persons with disabilities”

Massachusetts is one of only five states without a lifetime time limit for recipients to collect cash assistance. Romney’s legislation calls for continuation of the current time limit of two years in a five-year period, but would also have Massachusetts adopt the federal government’s five-year lifetime limit.

Romney’s plan also rewards work by allowing welfare recipients to keep at least one half of their earned income before their monthly welfare benefits are reduced. Most welfare recipients can currently keep only one third of earned income.

“Relying solely on a welfare check traps people below the poverty line, but working even a minimum wage job for only 20 hours a week raises that same family well above the poverty level,” said Department of Transitional Assistance Commissioner John Wagner. “We’re grateful for the cooperative spirit demonstrated by the Administration and the Legislature in endorsing funding for these critical support services.”

From the 1st debate of 2008:

Is it worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars to get Osama?

Mike Laub — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:47:45 +0000

Governor Romney: “Of course we get Osama bin Laden and track him wherever he has to go and make sure he pays for the outrage he exacted on America. … We’ll move everything to get him. But I don’t want to buy into the Democratic pitch, that this is all about one person, Osama bin Laden. Because after we get him, there’s going to be another and another. … This is a global effort we’re going to have to lead to overcome this jihadist effort. It’s more than Osama bin Laden. But he is going to pay, and he will die.” (MSNBC, Republican Presidential Candidate Debate, Simi Valley, CA, 5/3/07)

Is it worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars to get Osama?

Governor Gilmore of Virginia, when speaking about Osama bin Laden last week, Governor Romney said, quote, “It’s not worth moving heaven and Earth, spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.”

Senator McCain called that naive.

Who’s right?

Gilmore: You know, I think — well, I think we do have to do everything that we can do to get this guy, and the reason is because he is a symbol to the people who believe, as a matter of faith, that they have a right and a duty to destroy Americans and Western civilization.

The bigger, however, issue, is this: The Americans have to lead against the sea of hostility that was referred to earlier.

This is a serious challenge.

We can’t allow a situation where everyone, all the way from Morocco, all the way through the Middle East, all the way to the Philippines, believes that the United States does not have their best interests at heart.

During the Cold War — and I served as…

Moderator: If I would, is President Bush partly responsible for that, in your view?

Gilmore: This is what I think we have to do: What I think we have to do is to use all of our abilities, diplomatic and economic and military, above all things, put ourselves on the moral high ground, and let people across the world know that we are in the same shoes that we were in during the Cold War.

During the Cold War, we represented the aspirations of people everywhere in the world in good faith. And that now must be our policy, so that we in fact do deny those kinds of people and resources to the people who we can’t deal with diplomatically. And that, of course, is the Al Qaida type of fundamentalists.

Moderator: Governor Romney , respond to the mentioned reference to you…

Romney : Well, of course, we get…

(Laughter)

Moderator: … by Senator McCain.

(Laughter)

Romney : Thank you. Of course we get Osama bin Laden and track him wherever he has to go, and make sure he pays for the outrage he exacted upon America.

Moderator: Can we move heaven and earth to do it?

Romney **: We’ll move everything to get him. But I don’t want to buy into the Democratic pitch that this is all about one person — Osama bin Laden — because after we get him, there’s going to be another and another.

This is about Shia and Sunni. This is about Hezbollah and Hamas and Al Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a worldwide jihadist effort to try and cause the collapse of all moderate Islamic governments and replace them with a caliphate.

They ultimately want to bring down the United States of America.

This is a global effort we’re going to have to lead to overcome this jihadist effort. It’s more than Osama bin Laden.

But he is going to pay, and he will die.

Death Penalty Testimony of Governor Mitt Romney

Mike Laub — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:51:10 +0000

AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY

Thank you, Representative O’Flaherty and Senator Creedon.

And thanks to all of the committee members for providing me with an opportunity to testify this morning.

Like each of you, I recognize the strong emotions generated by the debate over capital punishment. I want to express my respect for the principled stands taken by those on both sides of this issue.

This is a subject that I know most people come to with their minds already made up. I don’t pretend that there is going to be some seismic shift in the debate. But I am responding to the concerns of legislators from both parties who have said they could support a death penalty bill if it had the appropriate safeguards.

This is not a new issue for me. Back in the 2002 campaign, I indicated that I would push for passage of the death penalty if elected Governor.

Right now, Massachusetts is one of only twelve states that do not allow a capital punishment sentencing option. Yet, day after day, headlines in the morning papers bring news of senseless killings and murderers who act without remorse. It’s time for [Massachusetts to join the other 38 states, and allow juries to at least consider applying the death penalty in the most extreme circumstances.

From my perspective, there are two main camps when it comes to the death penalty.

On one side, there are some people who believe there are certain crimes that are so offensive.… so reprehensible…. so far beyond the bounds of civilized society that they demand the ultimate punishment.

In the other camp are well-meaning people who believe that it is immoral for government to ever take a life.

In the middle, I believe, are others who could support the death penalty if it is narrowly applied and contains the appropriate safeguards. It is with that group in mind that we have brought forward the death penalty bill before you today.

Last week, we were reminded yet again of the kind of the type of crime that ought to warrant capital punishment. The terrorist bombings in London left at least 52 innocent people dead and another 700 wounded.

Even more unsettling is the fact that those attacks were just the latest in a string of mass murders in cities around the globe —Madrid, New York,Washington, Jakarta, Jerusalem, Riyadh, Mombasa, Istanbul, Baghdad, Bali, and elsewhere.

The appropriate response of society to terrorism carried out around the world or within the Commonwealth’s borders is to apply the death penalty.

That is why the legislation I filed in April accounts for terrorism, along with a small number of other crimes, including the assassination of a law enforcement officer, judge, juror or prosecutor, for the purpose of obstructing an ongoing criminal proceeding.

My legislation would also allow juries to consider the death penalty in cases that involve prolonged torture or multiple murders, as well as cases in which the defendant has already been convicted of first-degree murder or is serving a life sentence without parole.

The Lieutenant Governor will address the issue of deterrence in more detail. I would note, however, that dangerous criminals already serving life sentences need to know that there are further consequences to the taking of innocent human life.

When a convicted killer knows he has nothing to lose, the results can be horrifying. We saw that in the murder last year of John Geoghan, a state prisoner slain by another inmate serving a life sentence. Only the death penalty can provide the extra measure of protection from people who have killed before and will kill again.

Now, I’d like to address some of the arguments raised by opponents of this bill, and deal with them point by point.

The first one relates to cost. Opponents of capital punishment frequently raise the question of financial cost. Personally, I believe this argument misses the point. We can’t quantify the value of deterring a potential murder.

But in some cases, having a death penalty on the books allows for the avoidance of the costs associated with long, drawn-out trials. In Idaho recently, a registered sex offender was accused of kidnapping and abusing a young girl, and killing her family. In that case, there is a chance the defendant will plead guilty in order to avoid the death penalty. Obviously, we don’t know what will happen because the authorities may decide to seek the death penalty because of the heinous nature of the crime.

But we do know for certain that if Idaho didn’t have the death penalty, you remove one of the strongest incentives for a defendant to admit guilt and save public time and expense.

I would also point out that in my view the number of cases prosecuted every year would be minimal. We’d be talking, most likely, about one to two cases annually. This is not an overly burdensome imposition on our court system.

A second criticism relates to the concern that we’d sentence an innocent person to death.

I share that concern. And that’s why I convened a panel of scientists and legal experts to draft this bill, and they have given us over 20 different safeguards, including nine separate layers of review. Among other things, the legislation requires a first-in-the-nation “no doubt” standard for juries. If only one juror has any doubt whatsoever, the sentence is life in prison.

It also requires conclusive scientific evidence linking the defendant to the crime. There have been tremendous strides made in forensic science in recent years. Just as science can free the innocent, it can also identify the guilty.

In order to ensure that is indeed the case, however, we would require an independent scientific review of all physical evidence before any capital sentence is carried out. This review will ensure that evidence is handled and evaluated according to the highest standards of the medical and scientific community.

In addition:

Under the terms of the bill, prosecutors have to prove that defendants acted with premeditated malice, were at least eighteen years of age at the time of the crime, and were not mentally impaired.

The bill also calls for two separate trials and juries — one for determining guilt and another for sentencing.

And there’s a mandatory review by the SJC; a commission to examine any potential complaints or trial errors; and a provision to ensure the best possible defense representation.

A third criticism revolves around the capacity of the State Police Crime Lab.

Some people have indicated that they can’t support a death penalty bill because of the backlog in DNA evidence processing at the Crime Lab.

Every day, the state’s criminal justice system relies on work done at the lab to prosecute hardened criminals for everything from armed robbery to assault and battery to first-degree murder. Nobody has suggested the state should stop prosecuting these crimes simply because there’s a backlog. The penalty we choose to impose in certain cases is irrelevant.

When an agency or an office has problems, we fix the problems. We shouldn’t use them as an excuse to dodge an honest debate on the merits of capital punishment.

Having said that, we’re making dramatic improvements to the Crime Lab. We’ve tripled the number of DNA chemists, from four to twelve, with another twelve currently in training. We’re also going to hire another seventeen DNA chemists in Fiscal Year 2006. That will bring us to a total of 41 chemists… ten times the number at the start of my administration.

We’ve also increased the funding for the Crime Lab from $3.9 million back in 2003 to $12.2 million in Fiscal Year 2006. And we’re planning to expand the total amount of lab space available for DNA analysis to 100,000 square feet. That’s roughly six times the current amount of available space.

There should be no doubt: Massachusetts will have the facilities and personnel to meet the demands of this legislation. We can meet the most stringent evidentiary demands of capital punishment cases.

Finally, some opponents of this bill have raised concerns that the death penalty is both arbitrary and irresponsibly administered.

To address this concern, our bill specifically requires that potential capital cases be reviewed by a set of uniform protocols developed by the District Attorneys and the Attorney General to ensure the proper exercise of discretion and the consistent application of the death penalty across the Commonwealth.

The bill also provides for specific jury instructions relating to problems associated with eye witness testimony, cross-racial identification, and statements by defendants while in police custody.

I know that, in the past, efforts to reinstate the death penalty in Massachusetts have failed in part due to concerns that it would be too broadly applied, that evidentiary standards weren’t high enough, or proper safeguards weren’t in place.

This bill answers all of those concerns.

I would have complete confidence in any judgment resulting from a judicial process that followed the guidelines of this legislation.

I would also note that, according to Indiana Law Professor Joseph Hoffman, who co-chaired our Death Penalty Commission, several aspects of theMassachusetts proposal have either been adopted, or are now under consideration, in several other states.

The provision relating to broad appellate review of the merits of a jury’s decision has already been adopted in Illinois. Ohio has a similar provision on the books.

The provision imposing high standards for the quality and experience of capital defense counsel has been adopted in several states, including New York and Indiana.

The provision creating a Death Penalty Review Commission has recently been adopted, and is currently in the process of being developed and implemented, in North Carolina.

And a variation of the provision restricting jury reliance on so-called “jailhouse snitch testimony,” eyewitness testimony, and custodial interrogation testimony has been adopted in Illinois.

Our citizens deserve the protection that a death penalty statute affords them, and a carefully constructed, properly administered capital punishment law is the appropriate and just response to terrorism and other unthinkable crimes. Let’s give our judges and juries the tools to ensure that justice is done.

Thank you again for the opportunity to address the committee this morning.

Strengthening Latin American Allies and Confronting Tyrants

Mike Laub — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 21:15:56 +0000

It is time for the United States to adopt a Latin American strategy that will strengthen human rights and freedom, stand by our friends and allies, advance our own interests, and weaken the threat of the Castro regime, Chavez, and any other dictator with the intent of taking away the freedom of people.

CHALLENGE: In two years, we will note a sobering occasion – a half century will have passed since darkness descended 90 miles to our south, and a despotic reign fell over the proud people of Cuba.

The Castros have a new tyrant to work with and he has great wealth, from oil. We must stand just as firm against tyrants like Hugo Chavez, tutored by Fidel Castro. His methodical assault on democratic institutions and his people’s freedom is an insult to democracy itself. We should all be particularly troubled by the government’s hostility towards a free press and actions to take Radio Caracas Television off the air. In addition, developments in Bolivia and elsewhere show the potential of Chavez’s malignant form of tyranny to spread to other countries.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: “There are two spheres of influence in the Western Hemisphere. One is dark, bellicose and spreads misery by denying people basic freedoms; the other shines like a powerful light, is peaceful and wants only for its people to live in liberty and prosper.” (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The Miami-Dade Lincoln Day Dinner, 3/9/2007)

The Romney Plan: It is time for the United States to adopt a Latin American strategy that will strengthen human rights and freedom, that will stand by our friends and allies, that will advance our own interests, and that will weaken the threat of the Castro regime, Chavez, and any other dictator with the intent of taking away the freedom of people.

Continue To Isolate Castro With Economic And Diplomatic Sanctions. America will never back down to the Castro brothers. There will be no accommodation, no appeasement. There will be no end to our insistence that political prisoners are set free, and that Cubans themselves are finally given the privileges that today are enjoyed only by Castro’s cronies, and by foreign tourists. After 50 years, with so much suffering, so much sacrifice, we will not relent until the day when the Castro brothers meet their ignominious end and their history is written among the world’s most reviled despots, tyrants and frauds.

Help Our Friends. Foreign aid and foreign investments must be focused on those who stand alongside us. In spite of great progress over the last few decades, tens of millions in the Western Hemisphere still live in poverty. United States aid and investment programs promote transparency and the economic and political reforms needed to spur development.

Act To Inform Public Opinion In Latin America. We should use our world renowned media and communications savvy to spread the truth about American freedom, and Castro tyranny. New strong-men (’caudillos’) must not reverse the Hemisphere’s hard fought economic and political freedoms. The United States and our partners in the region must continue to reject the policies of leaders such as Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez that move to consolidate power, limit dissent and revert to failed socialist policies.

Improve Our Economic Ties. The President has negotiated vital free trade agreements with Latin American neighbors like Peru, Colombia and Panama, but some Democrats in Congress are so beholden to their labor bosses, that they have refused to pass them. It is time to put the interests of humanity and of the nation first.

Rebuild Relationships Of Respect And Trust And Friendship. Our Latin American friends must always feel welcome in the White House.

Solve The Problem Of Illegal Immigration By Securing The Border And Reaffirm Our Appreciation Of Legal Immigration. We are a nation of immigrants, and they have contributed a great deal to our culture of hard work, entrepreneurship, faith in God, love of family, and respect for human life.

Never Ignore Latin America. It is a great deal easier to prevent a crisis than to solve one. Since the end of the Cold War and since the terror of 9/11, America has become so preoccupied with other regions that we have forgotten our friends in our own Hemisphere. We need robust cooperation to expand opportunities in the Hemisphere and address common threats such as drug trafficking and terrorism.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: “Through the Internet, TV, Radio Marti and other Miami radio stations that broadcast into Cuba we know that word of news and events here in the U.S. gets back to Cuba. To this daily flow of truth I would like to add my message to your own. America will never back down to the Castro brothers. There will be no accommodation, no appeasement. There will be no end to our insistence that political prisoners are set free, and that Cubans themselves are finally given the privileges that today are enjoyed only by Castro’s cronies, and by foreign tourists.” (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The Miami-Dade Lincoln Day Dinner, 3/9/2007)

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: “These are troubling times in Venezuela, as Hugo Chavez continues his methodical assault on democratic institutions and his people’s freedom. I am particularly troubled by the government’s hostility towards a free press and recent actions to take Radio Caracas Television off the air. There should be no doubt that the United States stands with those men and women of good will who step up to secure their God-given liberty – in Venezuela and throughout the Americas. The future of freedom anddemocracy in our Hemisphere also requires the friends of freedom in Latin America to speak clearly and forcefully to defend liberty, democracy and human rights.” (Governor Mitt Romney, Statement On Venezuela’s Independence Day, 7/05/2007)

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: “It is time for the United States to adopt a Latin American strategy that will strengthen human rights and freedom, that will advance our own interests, and that will weaken the threat of the Castros and Chavez.” (Governor Mitt Romney, Statement On Venezuela’s Independence Day, 7/05/2007)

Strengthening Latin American Allies and Confronting Tyrants

Sep 15, 2007; Governor Romney on Central America’s Independence Days

Also See:

Jul 27, 2007; Governor Mitt Romney On Peru’s Independence Day
Jul 20, 2007; Governor Mitt Romney On Colombia’s Independence Day
Jul 05, 2007; Governor Mitt Romney On Venezuela’s Independence Day
May 18, 2007; Governor Mitt Romney On Cuban Independence Day

MARIANNE GINGRICH INTERVIEW TO AIR TOMORROW ON ABC NIGHTLINE

Marianne Gingrich Interview to air TOMORROW, prior to vote in SC Primary!

Ann Marie Blodgett — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 02:04:45 +0000

Presidential Romney

Ann Marie Blodgett — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:23:38 +0000

David Gergen hit the nail on the head with this one. I thought it was great that he went ahead and gave his speech early instead of waiting until the later hours of the night when he wouldn’t have captured as much of an audience. Romney stood on point, didn’t allow the past three days of attacks to bother him, and turned those instances into his own strengths. It was brilliant of him to lump the attackers in with President Obama. I believe that this type of confidence and not losing his cool will resonate with voters along the line after this in South Carolina, Michigan, Nevada and beyond.

People don’t realize that Mitt Romney has worked with people from all walks of life throughout his life. He’s not some business CEO that sits at his desk all day long barking orders. He’s a genuine individual, who cares deeply about this country as well as it’s citizenry. He wants us to be happy and successful and not be shackled to the government to make it happen. He believes not only in US as citizens but in American greatness itself.

Romney will now head into South Carolina and despite all the naysayers, he’s going to win there and win big. The more people come into contact with him, the more they’re going to see how much he cares about them and this country and the attacks from those who wish to destroy this country will fall by the way side. They didn’t stick in Iowa, they most certainly didn’t stick in New Hampshire, and they won’t stick in South Carolina and beyond either.

The power to fire people.

Ann Marie Blodgett — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:33:06 +0000

Mitt Romney is catching a lot of flack for a comment that he made.

I’ll go ahead and quote it here (courtesy of The Los Angeles Times:

While discussing his plans to improve health insurance coverage before members of the Nashua Chamber of Commerce this morning, Romney argued that health insurance companies have few incentives to offer better care because most Americans get healthcare from their employers and have little choice in their providers. Allowing individuals to choose their own insurance companies, he said, would give them the flexibility to fire them if they don’t perform.

“I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn’t give me the good service I need, I want to say, you know, I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me,” Romney went on to say.

I have a little story to share in regards to the kind of “firing” that Mitt spoke about. Almost ten years ago I was living in Jacksonville Florida, and I was pregnant with my fourth and final child Austin. At the beginning of the pregnancy I was given a guarantee that I would be able to give birth at the hospital in which I gave birth to my third child Erin almost three years prior. Well, at around the seven month point in the pregnancy my obstetrician informed me that no, he had given up his privileges at that hospital and that I would need to deliver at the beach almost fifteen miles away from my home. I reminded him of his promise and he basically (with the aid of his nurse) told me that I was going to deliver at the beach and that was that. That plain and simple, right? Well, NO. After being demeaned after I informed him that I’d have to think about that, I FIRED him. Yes, at SEVEN months pregnant I fired my OB. After doing this, his nurse and him went on to tell me how big of a mistake I was making because people drove from a hundred miles away to see him as their OB. I replied with the as much confidence as I could and said, well, I’m not going to be one of them.

Was I scared at the idea of having to find a new OB at a point in my pregnancy in which I normally had major problems (as I had high risk pregnancies each time)? Yes, but I also knew that the last time I stood up to him and went with my gut instinct instead of his “orders” that I came away victorious that time too.

So, after a few days of asking friends that I had locally on a Yahoo discussion board about natural pregnancy and holistic pediatrics I found a midwife/OB team that were willing to take me on so late in the pregnancy, and you know what? It was the best delivery I’d had thusfar. I was able to go without drugs completely, it was a much more laid back experience. And for the first time in four pregnancies I went to TERM. Yes, just barely as I was thirty-seven weeks, but that was a milestone that I’ve cherished ever since.

I FIRED my doctor, because he was not meeting my needs as a patient. He wasn’t doing as I wanted. Is there anything wrong with that? I think NOT, nor was what Mitt said wrong either.

We should promote the individual ownership of health insurance

Mike Laub — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 17:58:42 +0000

Reasons to agree:

You shouldn’t loose your health insurance just because you loose your job.
There is no logical reason to provide health insurance through your employer. It was just done as a loophole to get around rules during WWII that stooped increases in salary.
Healthcare as an employment benefit keeps you from comparing apples to apples when you compare jobs. Some companies don’t make you pay very much for health insurance. Other make you pay a lot.
Health insurance as an employment benefit keeps people from going into different jobs because they are afraid of loosing insurance.
When healthcare is connected to employment, employers only want to employ young healthy employees, because they end up footing the bill of the health insurance. If you had insurance as an individual, and tax incentives were restructured so it was just as cheap to get it as an individual, you would already have your insurance, and their would be one less reason to not hire an older individual.
It encourages employers to push their married employees onto their spouse’s heal insurance. Workers in low paying jobs have no health insurance.
Workers in high paying jobs of super expensive health insurance. So most of the pre-tax benefit goes to the wealthy. This could be restructured in a way so that instead of benefiting people proportionally to how expensive the insurance is, and tying it to your income, the insurance benefit could come to individuals separate from their employer.

We should focus tax breaks on the middle class

Mike Laub — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 17:47:49 +0000

The wealthy are doing just fine (+8)
The poor have a sufficient safety net.

Dodd-Frank is bad

Mike Laub — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 17:47:15 +0000

Reasons to agree:

Dodd-Frank created the the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Romney is right that the CFPB has too much power (+6). Romney has spent his life organizing complex systems, and making sure that they work the way they are intended. He could have designed a financial reform program that wouldn’t have gone overboard. Romney is also right that the (CFPB) will be one of the least accountable entities in the U.S. government (+2). Again, Romney’s experience in finance and business would have resulted in a system that has better incentives.
Romney complains that Dodd Frank creates an economic environment for businesses that is less predictable (+1).
Dodd-Frank did a lot of things that democrats like, that had nothing to do with preventing banks from being too big to fail (+1).
Dodd-Frank provides incentives to promote banking among low- and medium-income residents. This is one of the causes of the economic crisis. You can’t force people with no money to be able to take out loans that they can’t afford. Just because democrats with that poor people had lots of money, doesn’t mean that they should force banks to give it to them. Until they get a bigger income, they should not get bigger loans.
Romney points out that Dodd-Frank did not address bank or housing over-leveraging.
Dodd-Frank is too confusing. Senator Christopher Dodd, remarked: “No one will know until this is actually in place how it works.”
Dodd Frank rules are unclear, and open to interpretation. Romney would have ensured that it was more clear. Romney should be more specific about the exact changes he would make to Dodd-Frank (Reasons to disagree: it is thousands of pages… He doesn’t have enough time to summarize other people’s criticisms).

We should eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains

Mike Laub — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 17:43:33 +0000

We should focus tax breaks on the middle class (+10).
As with the marginal income tax rates, Mitt Romney will seek to makepermanent the lower tax rates for investment income put in place by President Bush. Another step in the right direction would be a Middle-Class Tax SavingsPlan that would enable most Americans to save more for retirement. As president, Romney will seek to eliminate taxation on capital gains, dividends, and interestfor any taxpayer with an adjusted gross income of under $200,000, helpingAmericans to prepare for retirement and enjoy the freedom that accompaniesfinancial security. This would encourage more Americans to save and to invest forthe long-term, which would in turn free up capital for investment flowing backinto the economy and helping to facilitate economic growth.
We we remove taxes from money that people save, then they will save more. We need people to save more. Not enough people have enough money in savings, to even make it a few months if they were to get laid off.

We should reform legal liability system to prevent spurious litigation

Mike Laub — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 17:42:56 +0000

Excess litigation increases the cost of doing business.
Excess litigation increases business uncertainty.
Excess litigation decreases business investment.
We should ensure that the loosing party has to pay for legal expenses. +1
We should use a no-fault insurance scheme for accident victims, similar to New Zealand. +3
The costs of litigation and compensation payouts raise the cost of insurance. For instance, the cost of malpractice insurance increases the cost of health care, by excessively taking money from doctors that didn’t mean to do harm. If rewards weren’t so obscene, no one would care, but people shouldn’t view becoming a victim the same way they view winning a lottary.
It is estimated that in Britain 85% of the cost of litigation goes to the process and that only 15% goes to the victims ( GAO Study, Medical Malpractice, Implications of Raising Premiums on Access to Medical Care, 2003). Whatever the numbers are, anything less than 95% going to the victims is totally inefficient, unacceptable, and needing of reform. Only lawyers would see the current system as good for our future.
Because most tort claims will be paid from insurance companies, sane payouts will benefit everyone who pays for insurance. It will often victim the victim. Their is such thing as obscene amounts of spending. No one needs to spend more than a few million dollars on themselves, and their family.
Even in England, which restricts claims, the costs of litigation to the health system are steadily growing.
Saying that malpractice lawsuits don’t amount to more than 2.3% of the money we spend on healthcare isn’t the only measurement. Money spent on healthcare includes R&D, building hospitals. Looking at the actual dollars it cost doctors, and patients would be more important in determining if it is need of reform.
Medical malpractice isn’t the only area of legal liability that should be reformed.

Reasons to disagree:

“Texas enacted some of the most extensive malpractice reforms in the nation in 2003. The number of lawsuits in the state has fallen by half since then, and malpractice premiums are down 30%. But health-care costs in Texas are still among the highest in the nation and are growing at a faster rate than in most other states.”

Conclusion!

According to Bloomberg Businessweek, “Study after study shows that costs associated with malpractice lawsuits make up 1% to 2% of the nation’s $2.5 trillion annual health-care bill and that tort reform would barely make a dent in the total.” (Catherine Arnst (2009-09-16). “The Truth About Malpractice Lawsuits“. Business Week.) I find this very hard to believe. I hear of countless doctors here in Illinois that can’t afford the liability insurance… I need help!

The worldwide tax code that we currently have is bad

Mike Laub — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 17:42:18 +0000

Background:

I know some people would rather talk about who is up this week, and who is down this week. Or how someone did on David Letterman, and all the other mindless horse-and pony show that is politics these days. But if we make this about important issues, we shouldn’t hate ourselves at the end of the day, and if our candidate doesn’t win, then our time won’t have been wasted, because we were fighting for issues, not just one candidate.

The United States currently operates under what is known as a “worldwide” tax system, meaning that business income is taxed at the U.S. rate regardless of whether the income is earned within American borders or overseas.

Under this collection method, American companies pay the corporate tax in the host country, and when proﬁts are repatriated back to the United States, the company pays the diﬀerence between what was paid to the host country and what would have been owed under the U.S. rate.

Mitt Romney’s website says: A Romney administration will begin work on the transition to a territorial system on day one”.

Romney’s advocacy for this issue is a reason to vote for him.

The worldwide tax code encourage American multinational companies to park their proﬁts permanently overseas.
The United States should transition to a “territorial” tax system.
The United States requires its corporations to pay a higher percentage of their earnings than all other countries except Japan. The combination of our high tax rates and the worldwide tax code penalizes those U.S. corporations that bring their foreign proﬁts home to invest in the United States.
It is a deeply irrational system that beneﬁts the rest of the world at our expense.
Other nations have noted the competitive disadvantage inherent in a worldwide tax system, resulting in a gradual movement of countries converting from a worldwide to a “territorial” system, in which income is taxed only in the country where it is earned.
Of the 34 OECD member nations, 26 have either a full territorial system or something very close to it.
Alone at the top, the United States is now the only country in the OECD that adheres to the worldwide system while imposing a corporate tax rate above 30 percent
The Bowles-Simpson Commission recommended that we switch to a territorial system. The Bowles-Simpson Commission was bi-partial, and represents common sense reforms that can be supported by both sides.
This would enhance the ability of our corporations to compete around the world and would end the perverse incentives that keep companies from repatriating proﬁts to the United States.
Domestic companies that can compete vigorously abroad are in a better position to grow and create jobs at home.
With proper draftsmanship, these potential hazards can be overcome. Romney can be trusted to get this delicate procedure crafted. Other presidential candidates who have jumped on the Romney band wagon, can not be trusted to do a good job at this.
A territorial system must be designed to encourage the creation of jobs in the United States, not to outsource them.
As much as $1 trillion, that could be invested in the United States, is at stake.
It is past time to eliminate tax laws that place American ﬁrms at a competitive disadvantage, decrease revenue, and diminish corporate investment in America.
Notwithstanding President Obama’s counterproductive meddling in the tax code, there are some short-term measures that—far from increasing uncertainty and discouraging job creators—can serve as powerful incentives for investment and hiring. These short-term measures are very much the subject of current discussion and debate in Washington. Some of them may even be proposed by President Obama in the coming days.
Government should move from an adversarial posture to one that fosters an environment in which the private sector can ﬂourish.
Fixing the tax code is an important ﬁrst step, but much more is required.

We should ensure that environmental laws properly account for cost in regulatory process

Mike Laub — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 17:41:06 +0000

Reasons to agree:

We don’t have to spend a lot of money or force businesses to spend lots of money to help the environment, .+22
Some environmental regulations are not worth the cost that we pay for them. +1
Some ideas might help the environment only just a little bit, but hurt our economy a lot. Poverty is bad for the environment. American bankruptcy would be bad for the environment.
If we don’t care about how much our environmental programs cost, we will go bankrupt.
We should first focus our money on environmental solutions that don’t cost very much for the amount of benefit they produce. We should do a cost-benefit analysis for expensive government programs. Each large government program should receive a score for how cost efficient it is. We could then sort the programs, and prioritize which ones we should proceed with. There is a very algorithm, wiki based way of running a government. We could use online debate forums that generate arguments in a structured way that allows algorithms to promote better ideas
There are actual laws that forbid cost assessment with respect to environmental laws. This is anti science, ant-logic, and insanity. Cost should always be considered. Nothing is free. We could spend billions of dollars saving one peanut plant, sounds good if it is a great plant, but even Homer Simpson realizes that money can buy more peanut plants. The clean air and clean water act should be modified so that each stage of the regulatory process involves cost accounting, to see if we can help the environment in better ways.

We should balance environmental needs with business needs

Mike Laub — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 17:30:02 +0000

Reasons to agree:

Some ideas might help the environment only just a little bit, but hurt our economy a lot.
American bankruptcy would be bad for the environment. +4
If we don’t care about how much our environmental programs cost, we will go bankrupt. +2
We should first focus our money on environmental solutions that don’t cost very much. +23
We should do a cost-benefit analysis for all expensive government programs. +2
Each large government program should receive a score for how cost efficient it is. We could then sort the programs, and prioritize which ones we should proceed with. There is a very algorithm, wiki based way of running a government. We could use online debate forums that generate arguments in a structured way that allows algorithms to promote better ideas
One EPA ozone regulation has been estimated to cost over 90 billion in new cost, and the loss of 7 million jobs.
There are actual laws that forbid cost assessment with respect to environmental laws. This is anti science, ant-logic, and insanity. Cost should always be considered. Nothing is free. We could spend billions of dollars saving one peanut plant, sounds good if it is a great plant, but even Homer Simpson realizes that money can buy more peanut plants. The clean air and clean water act should be modified so that each stage of the regulatory process involves cost accounting, to see if we can help the environment in better ways.
A strong America can prevent wars. Wars are bad for the environment. If American businesses are unsuccessful, american power will diminish, and the world will be less stable, and more likely to go to war.
We should care more about the environment when our economy is healthy. Because the sun will burn out destroying all life on earth, we should ensure that the long term survival of our species is more important than the long term survival of plants or other animals, as we are the only life form that can take other life forms off the planet. We should seek for environmental balance, but not before we have vanquished those who would deny human rights. We can’t spend 100% of our money on the environment, and 100% of our money on other priorities. We have to choose.

ROMNEY IS RIGHT THAT:

Mike Laub — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 23:59:13 +0000

I know some people would rather talk about who is up this week, and who is down this week. Or how someone did on David Letterman, and all the other mindless horse-and pony show that is politics these days. But if we make this about important issues, we shouldn’t hate ourselves at the end of the day. These are some the arguments that Mitt Romney is trying to make, that I support.

Click on the link of the issue you care about, and help me make the argument by suggesting any videos, webpages, or arguments that help advance our beliefs.

ROMNEY IS RIGHT THAT:

- That we should de-couple health insurance from employment.

- We have moral responsibility to not spend more money than we earn.

- China favors and subsidizes domestic producers over foreign competitors

- That we must ask ourselves if each program is worth the money that we borrow from China.

E-Verify ought to be made mandatory to get a job, to get welfare and to vote

As a senator, Rick Santorum voted against even the voluntary use of E-Verify.

Numbers USA, one of the leading groups opposed to our current insane immigration policies, gives Republican presidential candidates the following grades on immigration: Paul, F; Gingrich, D-minus; Huntsman, D-minus; Santorum, D-minus; Perry, D; Romney, C-minus; and Bachmann, B-minus.

“In a second Obama administration he will be operating without any of the constraints that limited his actions in the first. He will never have to face the voters again. Obama unbound, with interest groups to reward. America, you don’t want to go there.

Romney can re-structural the federal government so that it runs efficiently better than Obama.

Governor Mitt Romney and South Carolina

Mike Laub — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 01:05:44 +0000

“Our country will need real leadership to undo President Obama’s failed policies, and replace them with the conservative principles Mitt Romney learned turning around businesses and a failing Olympics and successfully, conservatively governing a Democratic state. I am proud to endorse him and will work my hardest to ensure he is elected so we can turn around our country.” - Nikki Haley

Romney South Carolina Videos

Mitt Romney Addresses the South Carolina Republican Convention

Romney SC Endorsements - A SC Hotline Production

US Senate Jim DeMint and other State house members endorse Mitt Romney for President.

www.schotline.com. ‘Insider politics from across the State of South Carolina’

Mitt Romney in South Carolina 02-23-06 - Part 1: Jokes

Mitt Romney spoke in South Carolina on February 23, 2006. These are the opening jokes from that speech

-”Free Speech”

-Johnny Damon

-Ann’s wildest dreams

-Front page of the sports section

Mitt Romney in South Carolina 02-23-06 Part 2

Mitt Romney spoke in South Carolina on February 23, 2006. This section of his speech discusses:

-Working with Democrats in MA

-Reducing the size of government

-Changing the homeless program

Mitt Romney in South Carolina 02-23-06 - Part 3:Education

Mitt Romney spoke in South Carolina on February 23, 2006. This section of his speech addressed Education.

-Bi-Lingual Education

-Merit-based scholarships

Mitt Romney in South Carolina 02-23-06 - Part 4

Mitt Romney spoke in South Carolina on February 23, 2006. This section of his speech discusses:

-Some Education

-Terrorism

-Praises President Bush and Republican Congress’ handling of the threat of terrorism

Mitt Romney in South Carolina 02-23-06 Part 5: Economics

Mitt Romney spoke in South Carolina on February 23, 2006. This section of his speech discusses:

-Fiscal Responsibility

-Outsourcing

-Maintaining America’s Superpower status

Gov. Mitt Romney visits Columbia, South Carolina - Intro Sen

Gov. Mitt Romney visits Columbia, South Carolina Part Two SC State Senator Ronnie W. Cromer R introduces the former Governor of MA to Lizards Thicket patrons

Mitt Romney on Government

Mitt Romney on Government Speaking at Richland County Republican Convention in Columbia, South Carolina.

Mitt Romney in Columbia, SC

Mitt Romney announces for president in Columbia, SC on 2.14.07

Mitt Romney in Columbia, SC | Part 2

Mitt Romney announces for president in Columbia, SC on 2.14.07.

Mitt Romney in Columbia, SC | Part 3

Mitt Romney announces for president in Columbia, SC on 2.14.07

Romney Takes On Religion Heckler

Selling Access

Mike Laub — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:06:44 +0000

Newt called on Obama to refund the money Obama got from Fannie and Freddie. Newt should give his money back.

Newt Gingrich, October 11th: “If you want to put people in jail, I want to second what Michele said: You ought to start with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. And let’s look at the politicians who created the environment, the politicians who profited from the environment, and the politicians who put this country in trouble.

MR. ROSE: Clearly, you’re not saying they should go to jail.

Newt: Well, in Chris Dodd’s case, go back and look at the Countryside deals. In Barney Frank’s case, go back and look at the lobbyists he was close to at — at the — at Freddie Mac.”

Newt: All I’m saying is, everybody –MS. TUMULTY: So if you were in the White –Newt: — everybody — everybody in the media who wants to go after the business community ought to start by going after the politicians who have been at the heart of the sickness which is weakening this country, and ought to start with (me, I mean) Bernanke, who has still not been exposed.”

Newt actually called on Obama to return the money that he received from Freddie Mac. How could he do that, and then keep the money that he made.

Newt Gingrich made more than $1.6 million while “consulting” (as a lobbyists) for government-backed mortgage company Freddie Mac. The hypocracy is asstounding. nominating Gingrich (Get Rich) would be one of the most profoundly stupid things a political party has ever done.

1 hour long interview with Romney

Mike Laub — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 15:35:25 +0000

It gets off to a slow start. Around 6:40: “He continues to complain about the problems in Congress. Look that’s Government, we need a leader.”

31:44: Cuts in military spending

34:58: Same sex marriage. Defend DOMA. National amendment. Not planning on changing gays in military.

36:27: What are the differences between you and Newt?

#1: Leadership: Tell me about the person’s capacity to lead. How did they do? What do the people around him think about his leadership. What made Ronald Reagan a great president? They were great leaders. Not necessarily that they had the best answers, but that they were great leaders. They faced our problems with sobriety, wisdom, and character.

#2: Spending time in the private sector. The battles we are facing are not militarily, but economic.

#3: Issues. Medicare, Wall Street Journal says the Romney plan is better than the Newt plan. Eliminate child labor laws so kids can clean schools. Permanent colony on the moon. We have other priorities. Series of mirrors to light our highways at night. I have some better ideas for our resources.

42:30 Why should conservatives trust you?

45:00 Gay rights

47:49: Romneycare

49:06: Individual Mandate

53:51: Are you taking shots at Newt because of his 3 marriages?

55:14: Islamic Jihad. What would you do differently than Obama? Nuclear Iran. The president has taken too long to take sanctions against Iran. It was wrong to remove our missile defense without getting Russia and China to sanction Iran. It was wrong for Obama to remain silent when little squinty stole the Iranian election. Should have put pressure similar to South Africa. Credible military actions. Provide advisers similar to Philippines in Nigeria. Send advisers to avoid conflicts. America’s and civilized world interest.

1:03:44 Closing. Person of judgment, care, and caution. Propose solutions that are well thought through, vetted, and will make America better. Leader, trust, loyalty, vision. Has the capacity to create success where failure was a real option. Had I led and failed, I wouldn’t be doing this.

An outline Ramesh’s arguments, with some of my wording and ideas thrown in

Mike Laub — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 06:33:03 +0000

Romney is conservative enough.
1. Robert Bork is a top adviser.
2. Romney was conservative enough in 2008 for Rush Limbaugh.
3. Romney was conservative enough in 2008 for Mark Levin.
4. Romney has not gone left on any issue from 2008.
5. Romney is more electable than any of the other candidates and electability will be important for the republicans to consider in 2012.
  1. Rick Perry is too poor a communicator to get elected.
  2. Michelle Bachman has not accomplished anything in office, and has no management experience to compare with being a Governor, CEO, or CEO of the Winter Olympics. It would be too easy for Obama to paint her as an extremest. Her shrill hatred of Obama is unbecoming, and is not always policy focused.
  3. John Hunstman is too arrogant and self righteous to ever do anything but kiss up to New Hampshire residents enough to harm Romney.
  4. Obama’s approval numbers are weak but not disastrous.
  5. The Republican party remains unpopular.
  6. Incumbency almost always carries advantages.
  7. The composition of the electorate is likely to be much more Democratic than it was in 2010.
6. On a few issues he has moved right: He now favors a market-oriented reform to Medicare, for example.
7. If you want to say that Romney got more conservative when he ran for president, fine. Your probably too lazy to look at the facts, and it has been repeated so often that you will never believe. Fine. So what. He has never flipped back. Romney has not to the left sense 2008 when Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, among other conservative notables supported him.
8. Romney is more conservative than George W. Bush.
  1. Bush never came out for the Medicare reform Romney has endorsed.
  2. Bush never said that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, Romney has.
  3. Romney’s long list of policy advisers includes people who are, within their fields, roughly in sync with the politics of the Bush administration or to its right; almost nobody is significantly to its left.
9. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell will keep our next president conservative.
  1. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are the most conservative congressional leaders Republicans have had in modern times.
10. Any republican would be more conservative than Obama
  1. If at some other point in his presidency a liberal-run Congress sends him tax increases, he will veto them where Obama would sign.
  2. Republicans would do more to protect the defense budget.
  3. If John Boehner and Mitch McConnell send the next president legislation to repeal Obamacare, cut taxes, or reform entitlements, he/she will sign it where Obama would veto it.
  4. Republican judicial nominees would be superior to President Obama’s simply because he would not be trying to stack the bench with liberal activists. But they are likely to far exceed that low bar.
  5. Each Republican president since the Nixon-Ford era has nominated a higher percentage of conservatives as justices to the Supreme Court than his predecessor. That’s mostly a testament to the growth and development of the conservative legal network.
  6. All the republican presidential candidates in 2011 want lower corporate income taxes.
  7. All the republican presidential candidates in 2011 want to convert Medicaid into block grants.
11. The candidates who have issues that are more conservative than Romney, would never get those issues through congress.
  1. Representative Bachmann may, unlike some of the others, wish to abolish the EPA, but no conceivable Congress within the next eight years will grant her wish.
12. Romney is a cautious conservative, which is good enough.
  1. Immature conservatives (who don’t have a real life) want to see their representatives going down in a noble blaze of glory, fighting for their causes in a noble war.
  2. Grown up conservatives want to live their own life and don’t live vicariously through the fights that their elected officials have. They just want government to do the right thing, and leave them alone.
  3. Romney will prioritize his battles, and do the most important things first, that will save our country from financial collapse, while Newt Gingrich would re-arrange chairs on the Titanic while he teaches a history class from the white house, and tries to fire janitors and get kids to do janitorial work. (Actual proposals from Newt. No I’m not making this up).
  4. In politics, it is often better not to try than to fail, and so politicians should gauge their chance for success before they attempt somethings.
    1. Failure gives the media an your opponent the opportunity to embarrassed you, and make you look like you suck.
    2. We all begin a battle with confidence that we are going to win. It can feel good to nominate a candidate who says they want to do something like eliminate 3 federal agencies. However it can sometimes be better to elect a politician who determines what is likely to happen first. Sure, maybe if you elect a supper communicator he will convince a percentage of people to change their minds, but you want to at least consider what the likelihood is of success.
    3. Christians should support politicians who are practical, and calculate their chances of success before going off to war.
      1. Luke 14:27-33, Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple. 28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? 29 Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, `This man began to build, and was not able to finish.’ 31 Or what king, going to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and take counsel whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends an embassy and asks terms of peace.
  5. There is a limit to how much political risk conservatives should want a president allied to them to take.
    1. Most of the time conservative activists should be trying to reduce the risks of advancing conservative initiatives rather than to goad elected officials to political recklessness.
    2. Conservatives should point the way for ambitious politicians to advance good ideas that can command the support of a national center-right majority.
13. Conservatives shouldn’t focus on symbolism over substance.
  1. Conservatives shouldn’t support people just because they show anger towards the media.
  2. Conservatives shouldn’t support candidates just because they are mad at liberals.
14. They want a president who shares their convictions and instincts, who will actively seek occasions to advance their views, and who will take political risks for them. They are right to want these things, for the most part, and there is no guarantee Romney will deliver them.
15. It is good to be a cautious conservative.
  1. Conservative beliefs are not valid, unless than can successfully be proven with facts and sound logic to be valid.
16. Voters are often immature.
  1. Voters often care more about looks and height.
  2. Voters often vote for people based on how cool they are, if they are likable, and can see having a beer with them.
  3. Voters often support candidates who are mad, or angry, just because they are angry.
17. Conservatives are immature to want more than someone who agrees with them on the issues.