The Candidates
Featured Archives
The National Review Online’s White House Correspondent, Byron York, details some of the big problems Mitt Romney is having in South Carolina, not just for being pro-choice at one time, but for flip-flopping on the issue and then having his South Carolina spokesman try to say he’s been pro-life the whole time.? Romney’s past statements about Ronald Reagan are also coming back to haunt him.
Some social conservatives in the important primary state of South Carolina are expressing skepticism about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney after reports of statements from the Massachusetts governor that were pro-choice, in favor of expansive gay rights, and dismissive of Ronald Reagan.
[In the '94 Senate race, Ted] Kennedy attempted to link Romney several times during [a] debate to conservatives such as Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and accused him of trying to return the country to the policies of the Reagan-Bush administrations.
Romney objected to the characterizations, saying: #quot;I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.#quot;
#quot;You cannot slam Ronald Reagan or disrespect Ronald Reagan in a state like South Carolina,#quot; says Ed McMullen, head of the economically-oriented South Carolina Policy Council. #quot;This man is the true ideological backbone of what Republicans in South Carolina believe.#quot;
Romney says he changed his mind on abortion in late 2004 after meeting with experts on the issue of stem cell research. #quot;At one point the experts pointed out that embryonic-stem-cell research should not be a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days,#quot; Romney told National Review Online last week. #quot;After the meeting I looked over at Beth Myers, my chief of staff, and we both had exactly the same reaction ‘ it just hit us hard just how much the sanctity of life had been cheapened by virtue of the Roe v. Wade mentality. And from that point forward, I said to the people of Massachusetts, ??I will continue to honor what I pledged to you, but I prefer to call myself pro-life.’#quot;
Romney’s description of his conversion strikes some activists on both sides of the abortion issue as unusual. #quot;People do change their minds,#quot; says the pro-choice Kogut. #quot;I’ve seen it. But this is different. It seems completely timed with his presidential ambitions.#quot;
December 18th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Woops! When you come up with a story to explain why you flipped 180 degrees on a key issue like abortion it helps if everyone agrees with your account of the “conversion” and if it makes sense. Not here. He is toast and Brownback or Huckabee get the religiosu conservatives vote. You gotta be a truth believer to think this guy is sincere.
December 18th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
I used to be a Romney supporter, but now I am losing confidence in him. I think he’s trying to do the standard fare of running hard to the right for the Republican primaries…
December 18th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
“I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.â€
How is this statement from 1994 a “slam” to Reagan? People are trying to make mountains out of molehills.
December 18th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
Nusrat,
How is Romney doing anything differently now than he was doing back when you were a more confident Romney supporter? Granted, Young stumbled, but Romney has been crystal clear on his positions.
December 18th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
Murphy,
I think people feel Romney is implying that he didn’t like the Party of Reagan back in the 80’s (hence Romney makes clear he was not a member of that party back then) and didn’t agree with a lot of Reagan’s policies (hence Romney makes clear that he doesn’t want to return to that era). I guess some see it as a “slam” to Reagan, because they think Romney is basically saying to Reagan: “Your policies were wrong, I didn’t like the direction you led the GOP, and that’s what I shunned you back then.”
December 18th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Woodrow is right. This is the third strike I think. He was a conservative, ran left in Mass and is now running right. You can’t have this many flips that required a detailed explanation. After awhile people give up.
December 18th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
No way on the Reagan stuff. Romney was an independent, forward-looking businessperson in the 1980s.
He just meant in 1994 that he would look forward to help solve the country’s and Massachusetts’ problems, not backwards to another era.
People say all sorts of things as candidates. It’s how they govern that matters. Heck, “W” said he wanted a humble foreign policy or some such thing and that he didn’t believe in nation building. He also claimed to believe in limited government.
All of us know that McCain is a media-loving demogogue willing to stab his party in the back on so many major issues, even the War on Terror and judges. And Rudy, G-d bless him, admits to this day that he is pro-abortion. He also is clearly pro a huge expansion of gay rights, though he is more circumspect in how he admits this.
These are the three big candidates, folks: McCain, Rudy and Romney. At least Romney has governed from the rigfht on social issues and claims to be a social conservative. Unless you are a libertarian, isn’t voting for someone who is likely to govern from the right better than voting for someone you know will govern socially from the left?
December 18th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Woodrow, I think that’s taking the extrapolation of what Romney meant by his comments quite far. If I read Romney’s comments (instead of simply puting words in his mouth), it sounds like he’s merely pointing to a party affiliation and voting intentions as MA senator…12 years ago.
Virginian, from your posts I’ve seen so far, I don’t think Romney ever had your serious consideration. Who’s your horse?
December 18th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
Also, am I the only person here who remembers that Rudy endorsed Mario Cuomo in 1994.
Am I the only person who remembers that Rudy supports government funding for abortion? Is that where you want your tax dollars going?
December 18th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
My horse is someone who can win. If you count the number of threads in the last few days dealing with Romney’s problems it’s obvious he won’t be it. I actually did favor him when NRO started hyping him but in fairness to them they didn’t know all this and it is frankly just too much to deal with.
December 18th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
Murphy,
Please note that that’s not necessarily my personal view of Romney’s statements. Hence why I said “some people feel” and “some see it as” and “they think Romney is saying” instead of “this is how it is” or “this is what I believe.” I was just trying to play devil’s advocate and try to understand where they’re coming from.
Marksal,
First of all, separating yourself from George Pataki is a lot different from separating yourself from Ronald Reagan. Plus, Cuomo was running against Pataki… I mean… Could you really blame Rudy?
j/k. Besides, Rudy soon after recognized he endorsed the wrong guy and got behind Pataki afterward, but Rudy’s always been a staunch Reaganite.
December 18th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
Virginian: My horse is someone who can win.
Can you be more specific? I’d like to see the guy who doesn’t have a single flaw to his name. So far the only knocks on Romney are that despite his stellar record, he’s got several quotes from the early 1990’s that make people uncomfortable. If you were this critical of every candidate, you’d have nobody left but yourself to vote for.
December 18th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
Woodrow, I didn’t catch your devil’s advocating, thanks for the clarification. For what it’s worth, the devil you were advocating doesn’t have all his demons in a row.
The people getting all worked up over this were just digging for excuses anyway.
December 18th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
No one is perfect but you can’t have someone who has flipped on issue after issue. Especially issues which are usually deemed matters of conscience. You know who cares if he had said he was against a flat tax but now sees problems and is against it. But to change on pro-life and Reagan and the gay agenda, each time just in time to fit the campaign he was running isn’t going to work. A craven candidate won’t fly so I will choose from McCain or Rudy who are both superb on national defense but have positions on other issues which I disagree with. What we can’t have is an unprincipled candidate whose vulnerabliites will be so easily exploited.
December 18th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
McCain or Rudy would be fine, maybe Huckabee. I just can’t stand the telling everyone what they want to hear bit. That was Clinton’s game.
December 18th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
Ravens Fan:…you can’t have someone who has flipped on issue after issue…
Let’s get more specific, you guys are running a little light on the facts today.
Abortion: Used to be neutral, advocating the status-quo. Now is solidly pro-life, with a record to prove it.
Gay Rights Agenda: Has gone from supporting ENDA to calling it unnecessary. On every other issue of the gay rights agenda, Romney has been uniform. He has always been against gay marriage in any form, and always been against discrimination against gays.
The abortion issue has been long hashed out, but it’s well established that a candidate can go from signing pro-abortion legislation (which Romney never did by the way) to being a hero of the pro-life movement. The ENDA issue is so rediculously minor compared to the current gay marriage debate. What exactly is left to your “issue after issue” theory?
December 18th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
Murphy,
What is different now is that people have begun to look past Romney’s appearance and self-proclaimed conservatism to what he has actually said and done. He’s a poser and a panderer. He can’t hide it and his candidacy is going down the tubes just like I told you it would. The only thing that surprises is that it is happening sooner than I thought it would.
Sorry, dude. I know it hurts but you hitched your wagon to a bad candidate. Your choice is to ride him to oblivion or lend your talent and obvious intellect to a candidate who deserves it.
Paul S
December 18th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Virginian,
Your complete intollerance for Romney’s warts doesn’t make sense to me with your support of McCain or Rudy or Huck. What is important to you in a president? How well do you know all the candidates?
December 18th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
Heavily Baptist South Carolina is going to go to just one guy: Gov. Mike Huckabee. He’s a former Baptist minister, a successful Governor with a decade in office, a solid social conservative, a compassionate fiscal conservative, and an absolutely fabulous campaigner.
Come March, when South Carolina hosts the first presidential debate in the nation, everyone will see. The Huckabee train is about to leave the station!
http://www.mikehuckabeepresident2008.blogspot.com
December 18th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
Paul S,
Sorry dude, I stopped taking you seriously months ago during your theological tirades against Romney.
December 18th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
You are in denial. Let’s just go through the abortion trail since it is so clear. He described himself as pro choice not neutral. He said he respected a woman’s right to choose. OK. But not for long.Then he saw the light, but not when the partial birth fight was raging for years. Changed when told about “killing” embryos in a meeting with stem cell scientists, but woops that didn’t come up in the conversation according to the scientists present. His changes of heart come just in time for each election. I don’t really care which way a candidate comes out on this stuff(as long as they pick judges in the Alito mold) cause it doesn’t matter when the islamofascits kill us all but Romney’s convictions apparently last only one election cycle.
December 18th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
See #15. It’s the hypocrisy. Can’t stand it. Rather just disagree with you than have you try to have it every which way.
December 18th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Yeah, Romney is in trouble even without taking his Mormonism into consideration (I just saw yet another new poll showing that 53% of Americans say they would never vote for a Mormon for president). You have to admire the guy for giving it a shot. He has to know that not only does he have to thread the worlds smallest needle with spin about his flip-flops, but he also has to hope those Mormon missionaries get really busy and convert about 75 million Baptists and Catholics in less than 24 months.
I admire your loyalty, too, Murphy.
December 18th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
Ravens fan,
If you’re going to contest Romney’s account of the embryonic stem cell meeting, would you care to cite your reference? I’m surely not going to trust your word alone against the governor and his chief of staff.
All you’re left standing on is that you’re against Romney because he became pro-life three years before the next presidential election. Anything else? How well do you know his record?
December 18th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
Virginian,
If this is what you call hypocracy, you would really do yourself a favor to try an equal amount of dirt-digging on all the candidates. Jesus is not running, every candidate has their warts. Romney’s warts are in ambiguous campaign statements 12 years ago. I’ll take that over warts in a candidate’s record.
Paul S,
Oops, looks like those dastardly Mormon missionaries converted the president of the Southern Baptist Convention! http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/correction/frank_page.php Get real, give religious conservatives a little bit of credit.
December 18th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Reading this thread makes my head hurt.
Look, murphy and marksal, the reason this hurts Romney is because it has shaken the fundamental core of his entire candidacy. He has been lurching to the far right on abortion and gay rights (now supports the complete overturning of Roe and a total FMA on gay marriage and civil unions despite pledging to uphold Roe and back civil unions in Massachusetts), because he wanted to be the single viable social conservative candidate that primary voters would rally around. These quotes from the past decade severely undermine his credibility in that regard, as the NRO article points out over and over. I’m all for politicians “evolving” and “getting religion” but the thing is, he didn’t. He changed his positions at the exact time that he was deciding to run for President of the United States. How is that not just rank opportunism on his part? Everyone knows where McCain and Rudy stand, you may not like their specific positions, but no one ever excuses them of insincerity.
The media has gotten a hold of thisRomney business and will not let go. Remember, we are in December of 2006. If this drip-drip of quotes keep coming over the next year, Romney will be severely weakened by time the primaries come around. The so-cons will likely splinter amongst Romney, Brownback, Gingrich, and Huckabee.
December 18th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
So the president of Southern Baptist Convention has “converted” to Mormonism and supports Romney for President, huh? Let’s take a real look at the quote you so proudly point to: “I have a deep disagreement with Romney’s theology, but I won’t rule him out. Among the presidential candidates who have surfaced, he’s the closest to the Southern Baptists in his social and moral beliefs.”
Wow. What a ringing endorsement. I’ll remind you that Mike Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist minister, has not entered the race yet. Read that quote again. Where do you think this man’s support is really going to go?
I say back to you. Get real.
December 18th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
markdal, I _am_ a libertarian, so I can’t have someone who used to be a states rights guy and now isn’t; I now fully support Rudy Giuliani for 2008.
December 18th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
Go, Mitt, Go!
December 18th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
murphy,
The quote that Paul S points out is important because Frank Page says that Romney’s “the closest to the Southern Baptists in his social and moral beliefs.” Well, what do you suppose will happen now that that has proven to be untrue? This is where Brownback and Huckabee come in. Don’t doubt for a second that they won’t exploit this for their own gain, because they stand to gain much more standing by Romney’s downfall and it could even lead them to a pristine veep slot under McCain or Giuliani.
December 18th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/candidates/articles/2006/12/17/romneys_journey_to_the_right/
Here is the account of the stem cell meeting for the kool aid drinkers who think this story was sincere. LJ, you stated the positon very well. Romney is caught in the endless cyle of explaining his reversals because he ran left ot get elected and is now running right.
December 18th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
LJ,
You don’t think McCain is insincere when he talks about abortion, gay rights, tax cuts and judges? McCain said a few years back that he didn’t want Roe v. Wade overturned! He voted against curtailing gay marriage federally. He voted against the Bush tax cuts and now says, with the most convenient timing, that he doesn’t want to reverse the tax cuts. As for Rudy, when had anyone here heard him support Supreme Court originalists before the past 12 months or so, when he began contemplating a run for the Presidency?
December 18th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
What happens to people who don’t research candidates before jumping on board:
On the same day that social conservative Tony Perkins expressed concern about Mitt Romney’s 12-year-old support for homosexual rights, a letter containing Perkins’ signature was sent to the Massachusetts governor praising his opposition to single-sex marriages.
Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, was listed on the Dec. 8 letter to Romney thanking him for ”passionate and continued support of traditional marriage.”
When he signed that, Perkins was not aware of an Oct. 6, 1994, letter by Romney that would be published in the New York Times the next day.
On Dec. 8, Perkins responded to a request for comment on the 1994 letter from Senate candidate Romney to gay Republicans (the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts). Romney promised to be ”more effective” than his opponent, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, in achieving ”full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens.” Perkins’ comment the next day in the Times: ”This is quite disturbing.”
Think Perkins is a little embarrassed? Think he’s a little ticked off?
December 18th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
Marskal you are not correcton several items. McCain said he did not envision Roe being overturned( a position shared by McConnell– and perhaps even Alito and Roberts if you read their responses to Senators in the confirmation hearings– and other lumminaries in the conservative judicial pantheon who see a more logical road of trimming back on Roe) but I know of no speech and indeed none exists where he stated he wished Roe v. Wade to continue on in perpetuity. On this topic let me suggest you check our confirmthem.com which is superb on things judicial. His position against a federal amendment on gay marriage is unchanged(wrong I think but unchanged so you don’t get him there). As for Rudy, he in fact continually made strict contructionist arguments as a US attorney. He supported Alito, Roberts and before that the Reagan and Bush 41 picks for the Supreme Court. I think Romeny does win hands down in the flip flop department which is why this is now his biggest problem and not a problem for any other candidate(save Hillary).
December 18th, 2006 at 9:40 pm
marksal,
But you miss my entire point. Neither McCain or Giuliani are holding themselves up to be the specific standard bearer of a certain segment of Republicanism. Romney entire candidacy is based on appealing to social conservatives, so that they will vote for him in a monolithic bloc to propel him to the nomination. If so-cons begin to question Romney’s genuine stances and cracks start to form within his base, then it’s only a matter of time before it all comes crashing down.
December 18th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
LJ, I agree but there isn’t much to come crumbling down. His campaign just does not get lift off. If I were Huckabee or Brownback I’d be on the phone and in private meetings with some of these people saying “I have been your side and you don’t have to be concerned that I don’t mean it.” Marksal, being pro-life is simply a disqualifying position in Massachusetts politics so he had to be pro-life. I do not think for a minute he actually felt that way and he has now come up with this contrived story to explain his flop. It shows an utter lack of character.
December 18th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Ravens Fan,
Thanks. Also, the link is fascinating. I swear the Globe is turning up something new on Romney about every other day. The thing the strikes me most is that the Globe finally gives us the date that the Romney Transformation happened, November 9th, 2004. That’s a mere week after Bush was re-elected and when Bush style conservatism was still en vogue (how times have changed!). It’s obvious that Romney began to plan to somehow capture the mantle as Bush’s successor. Perhaps I’m reading more into this then necessary, but the exact point of his conversion is mighty coincidental.
December 18th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
LJ,
Romney is NOT basing his entire campaign on appeal to social conservatives. In fact, he is much more of reform-minded business-interested Republican than a socially conservative one. His #1 issue is fighting the Jihadists; his other big issues are reforming entitlements, competing with Asia, the provision of healthcare, and keeping down the size of government. He’s also the only potential candidate so far who has a sensible position on immigration reform: limit low-skilled immigration, and raise skilled immigration. As far as helping grow the U.S. economy and improving America’s competitive position versus emerging Asia, Romney is the only guy who has a clue from among all those likely to run, including even Newt. Whatever Romney’s past statements on social issues, he is clearly more conservative than Rudy there, and he knows much more about economics than Rudy does. As for McCain, well, he’s a demogogic populist without a clue on economics. He doesn’t even have any serious economic advisers!
December 18th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
Virginian,
Definitely. I should’ve mentioned this in my post above, but Romney, despite relentlessly campaigning and building a national organization, has not surpassed 10% on any of the 2008 polls I’ve seen. Not to mention he’s gained a mere 3-5% in the past year. This whole fracas is the most media exposure he’s ever gotten and it’s not the good kind. I’d look very closely at the polls in the next month or two to see if Romney can hold onto what support he has.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:05 pm
Marksal you are not at your best today. McCain has among others Phil Graham on his team. Also you didn’t answer any of #34 or acknowledge your factual errors. What you describe in #38 is the campaign Romney should/would have had had he not tied himself in knots on the social stuff. He clearly went out to the Christian right early to get their support, doing events in the fall with them before any other groups, and now the chickens have come home to roost.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Hi, Virginian. It’s “Gramm,” actually, who was a good fiscal conservative in the 1990s but isn’t considered all that strong on anything other than limiting government spending. As for non-politician conservative economists, I don’t think McCain has any on board.
McCain on abortion, from the San Francisco Chronicle: “I’d love to see a point where it [Roe vs. Wade] is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”
December 18th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
And that used to be Romney’s position, too.
So now that we’ve seen that neither of them are totally consistent, we can see that Rudy has been the most consistent one on abortion.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
Yes, Nusrat, Rudy is as consistent on abortion as Lenin was on Communism. I don’t see consistency to a wrong position (pro-partial birth abortion and government funding of abortion) as a virtue.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
marksal,
Romney is NOT basing his entire campaign on appeal to social conservatives.
Umm….is that why he is specifically targeting social conservatives in the key primary states? This is really a bizarre claim because if he has any chance in the primaries, it’s by filling the void to the right of McCain and Giuliani, as, you guessed it, a social conservative. Romney won’t get the reform minded votes because they’ll go to Giuliani and McCain. It’s also very interesting that whenever i watch Romney give speeches, he is at pains to emphasis his so-con cred to everyone watching. I can’t say that I’ve ever heard him mention the War on Terror, except in passing. What’s Romney’s position on the Iraq Study Group report again?
As for McCain, well, he’s a demogogic populist without a clue on economics. He doesn’t even have any serious economic advisers!
Haha! You’ll have to warn me next time, I just spit Pepsi all over my monitor.
John McCain doesn’t have any serious economic advisers? Well let’s see here. He has:
That’s just the surface, I could go on if you’d like…
December 18th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Gramm(I do apologize for my lousy spelling and typing and appreciate you all put up with it) is actually a PhD in econ, father of Gramm Rudman, proponent of the flat tax and was the main driving force in the Senate for the Reagan tax cuts. But his main contribution to the public lexicon is of course “Dickey Flat”(I probably spelled that wrong too.)
I honestly think the Chronicle quote is bunk. McCain has run on a pro-life position since he was a nobody in Arizona politics.
Your post on #38 kind of proves the point several of us are making. Romney could have gone another way in his campaign but didn’t and now he has a heck of a problem. All of us here I think are pretty die hard GOP types so if many us us have a big problem with him he is going to get sliced and diced. He really should have gone the “reformer with results”(ok, ok well not call it what Bush 43 did but same point) route.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Please go on, LJ. I myself am in the financial industry. None of those guys you mentioned is a foremost economic thinker.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
marksal,
Rudy is as consistent on abortion as Lenin was on Communism
HA! That’s one for the R4′08 Hall of Fame!
December 18th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Marksal, There are no “foremost”(huh?) economic thinkers, as opposed to policy people, out of academia. Glenn Hubbard, Romney’s guy, is no more a thinker than any of the guys mentioned above. You were in essence saying McCain doesn’t care about economics and doesn’t have top flight advisors. That is wrong and you should acknowledge as such.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Hi, Virginian. It isn’t wrong.
Also, on judges: McCain voted YES on Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the Supreme Court. That vote alone should disqualify him for the nomination.
(I noticed that Don Nickles was one of three senators to vote against Ginsburg. Nickles was great. I wish he were still around.)
December 18th, 2006 at 10:36 pm
I’m just trying to understand how having the former US Trade Representative, two former directors of the CBO and the Chairman and CEO of the NYSE as economic advisers isn’t considered adequate enough. Perhaps McCain should just hire the corpse of Milton Friedman…
December 18th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Not Uncle Miltie, but some other Chicago-school economists might help!
December 18th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
Marksal that is the silliest argument(#49) of the night. Those were the days when everyone voted to confirm qualified nominees. Gramm,Hatch, Dominici, Stevens, Thurmond(yikes!) etc. all voted yes. On the quote I don’t doubt you quoted the Chron correctly but having subscribed for 10 years I just don’t think they got it right.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Marksal writes, about Romney, who supposedly has
“a sensible position on immigration reform: limit low-skilled immigration, and raise skilled immigration.”
Hello? Sensible? That is nothing but pandering.
The existence of so many millions of illegals testifies to the fact that there are an enormous amount of low skilled jobs available. But there is no constituency for increasing LEGAL immigration of low skilled workers. Everyone only wants the engineers and scientists to immigrate. So we get plenty of legal immigration of high skilled people, and illegal immigration of low skilled ones.
A sensible policy would, among other things, increase the avenues for legal low-skilled immigration. Then no one could claim that the illegals are necessary to the economy and are doing jobs no one else wants.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
We don’t have the amount of immigration of high-skilled people that we should. In fact, with China and India booming, we are beginning to lose many high-skilled people of Chinese and Indian nationality back to their home countries. The visas for high-tech, high-skilled folks are filled very early in the year, I believe.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
marksal,
Not Uncle Miltie, but some other Chicago-school economists might help!
Are Romney advisers Greg Mankiw (the guy who advised Bush to implement the disastrous 2002 steel tariffs) and Glenn Hubbard from the Chicago School? This is all so funny, because McCain is probably the most pro-free trade candidate out of anyone in either party.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
LJ, I think you have me on schools with which Mankiw and Hubbard are associated! I was wondering if somebody would catch me on that one!
December 18th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
Actually from the point of view of governing(which I think is the point rather than just to collect PhD’s to sit around on your campaign bus)Rudy has the best tax cut record. Between tax cuts and the war on crime he really did revive the NYC economy. Like Romney he also slashed spending. On trade I really don’t think there is any difference between he and McCain.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:04 am
I love that the conversation just died instantly. I think everyone just went to bed =)
December 19th, 2006 at 12:26 am
Just snuck downstairs again after trying to get my baby boy to sleep for an hour:
Rudy said the following in 2005, during the John Roberts confirmation hearings:
GIULIANI: That [whether somebody is pro or anti-Roe] is not the critical factor. And what’s important to me is to have a very intelligent, very honest, very good lawyer on the court. And he fits that category, in the same way Justice Ginsburg fit that category.
I mean, she was — she maybe came at it from a very different political background, very qualified lawyer, very smart person.”
Question: After so many years of Ginsburg’s liberal ACLU-loving crud on the court, how can we support as our first choice a candidate who doesn’t think Ginsburg’s confirmation was a mistake even today?
December 19th, 2006 at 12:52 am
What is implicit in Rudy’s statement on Ginsburg, is that elections have consequences. Bill Clinton won an election, and is therefore entitled to nominate a well-qualified judge to fill a SCOTUS seat. Ideology should not be a factor in the Senate from either The Left or The Right.
Dubya won an election in 2004. Therefore, he is entitled to fill that SCOTUS seat with a qualified candidate regardless of ideology as well.
I don’t see were this statement is that controversial when it is considered in the context in which it was made; which was the Roberts confirmation hearing when the nation was debating whether or not judicial philosophy should be considered when confirming a new SCJ.
December 19th, 2006 at 4:09 am
Mitt Romney supporters are going to the negative branch of the GOP in this race…. mark my word.
December 19th, 2006 at 10:08 am
…Just clearing room for someone else to take his place.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:12 am
Kris, what do you mean “the negative branch of the GOP?” I’m a Romney supporter, and if he’s out, I’m going to Giuliani…is that negative to you?
December 19th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Methepeople,
If Romney is out you’re going with Guiliani? Wow. Jumping from one candidate who can’t win to another. Boggles the mind, it does.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
How dare people change their mind or have a change of heart. We don’t want people like that around.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
I too have Rudy as my second choice. And all I’ve been doing is trying to fight fire with fire. If supporters of other candidates dredge up statements Romney made 12 years ago as a Senatorial candidate, it sure seems fair for Romney supporters to bring up statements these other candidates have made that seem to me to be at least as onerous.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
marksal,
The most effective way to fight a fire is usually with a hose. Only in extremely rare occasions does fighting fire with fire work. Even then, it is the most destructive way to extinguish a blaze.
To continue the analogy, if Romney’s opponents insist upon using up all their fuel now, they will have little left to burn once the campaign begins in earnest. So let them howl. Let them storm. It will be old news by next month.
December 20th, 2006 at 7:36 am
Rudy is the Republican candidate most likely to win the general election. Look at the polls.
December 20th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
[...] Original post by Woodrow Eisenhower and software by Elliott Back [...]