GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
There’s a great piece in the American Spectator today by Jennifer Rubin (occasional contributor to R4′08) regarding Wendy Long, the chief counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network. Wendy Long endorsed Mitt Romney last week and became his senior legal advisor and vice chair of his National Faith and Values Steering Committee, a move that Rubin calls “a political coup” because the conventional wisdom was that she would endorse and work for Fred Thompson. She explains why she chose Mitt instead:
She candidly acknowledges that she always liked Fred Thompson, in part because his support of causes like Scooter Libby “warmed her heart,” but ultimately concluded that Thompson could “not hold a candle to the Governor on intellect or leadership.” She contends that Romney is “the constitutionalist” in the race, meaning he best understands and supports concepts of federalism and the commitment to originalism in interpreting the Constitution.
Long also explains that leadership “matters tremendously” in selecting a president. For her this includes “the ability to direct the many and far flung team” that a president needs to confirm judges and lead the Justice Department. She cites Romney’s experience in business and running the Olympics and as Governor as proof he can “lead a large organization and then delegate” to competent managers.
Long argues that Romney “is the only one I’m absolutely sure” will give us more nominees like Justices Alito and Roberts.
Long is an articulate spokesperson both to bolster Romney’s conservative credentials and to take aim at Thompson, the opponent who clearly will pose a threat to his efforts to woo social conservatives.
July 30th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
meaning he best understands and supports concepts of federalism and the commitment to originalism in interpreting the Constitution.
Really? Which is why he wants to ban gay marriage federally, for instance.
July 30th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
maybe going forward we can refrain from posting endorsements unless the person in question is important enough to have your own wiki. I’m having a tough time finding out who Wendy Long is even by googleing her.
sound like a plan?
July 30th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Nusrat,
What part of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage violates principles of federalism or originalism? We’re not talking about passing a federal law or finding a ban of gay marriage hidden in the Constitution.
July 30th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
eric, WOW.
July 30th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Excellent read MattC. Thanks for posting.
July 30th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
eric,
Perhaps your server isn’t working. I found Wendy Long on Google, in the very first link. She is legal counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network. Pretty important if you ask me.
July 30th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
sure, all you need to be president is to be a successful businessman. just look at Ken Lay or Jeffrey Skilling or Joseph Nacchio or Scott Sullivan or Dennis Kozlowski.
July 30th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Ben you almost had me going until I realized the Judicial Confirmation Network didnt even have its own wiki.
July 30th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
eric makes a great point. All the MItt heads are raving about he Olympics or his business success?
So what?
Did anyone ever consider Peter Ueberroth for President? The 84 games in LA were great. SInce when did being in charge of a Winter Olympics qualify one for the Presidency?
What about Steve Jobs or Jack Welch or Mark Cuban or Larry Ellison or Bill Gates? All those guys have way more successful business record than Romney.
I mean, it’s not exactly the greatest pitch: “I saved the bobsled, curling and the biathlon. Bin Laden and Khameini beware!”
July 30th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Ueberoth did run for Governor in the recall election and I guess the others don’t care for running.
I’ve been wondering how the Mitt-haters would go on the attack in this thread. The Answer: Weakly!
July 30th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
What part of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage violates principles of federalism or originalism?
Where on earth do you get the justification to do so?
July 30th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Jim, I’ll answer that:
“”What about Steve Jobs or Jack Welch or Mark Cuban or Larry Ellison or Bill Gates?”"
I’d rather have any one of these guys as President of the United States rather than Fred Thompson (or any DemocRAT for that matter).
jds
July 30th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
But, of course, I’m a Mitt Romney supporter, so I must be biased in favor of strong leadership credentials (as if that is properly termed a “bias” - hint - it’s not).
July 30th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Success at school
Success in business
Saved the Olympics
Success as Governor
Known as a turnaround specialist
That’s a pretty awesome record
Arguing that there are better businessmen out there is weak. Especially since it opens Rudy up to the idea that there are better Mayors, and Governors (Mitt Romney) than him, and surely there have been better senators than Fred (what has he ever done) Thompson.
July 30th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Nusrat,
The justification comes from the very real possibility that one state exporting gay marriage could force all states to recognize those unions. It’s not a stretch to see how the DOMA from Congress could be ruled unconstitutional on the basis of Congress lacking the power to make a categorical exemption from the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
So, that’s the justification. And I don’t see how the amendment process itself violates the principles of federalism or originalism.
July 30th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
i like how crisis management talks take us far away from Massachusetts to a state two time zones away–Utah–a state he was never elected in.
how about the big dig disaster…. criminal investigations, a wrongful death, unprecedented-out-of-control spending, earmarks, and finally Romney’s passing of the buck to blame his transportation secretary.
It’s blindingly easy to dismantle pro-romney arguments.
DEFEND THAT RANDY!
July 30th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Nusrat, you are missing the point. The antithesis of federalism is Congress making laws in areas that were left up to the states by the tenth amendment to the constitution. The antithesis of originalism is judges making up law that is clearly not in the constitution. Amending the very document that left such laws to the states (i.e., the constitution) or that is being interpreted by the judges using the very process for amending such document that is set forth in such document is not violating the principles of federalism or originalism! In fact, it is exactly the opposite. The anti-federalist position would be to enact a federal law that bans gay marriage. The anti-originalism position would be for the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution to ban gay marriage.
The mertis of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is really irrelevant to federalism or originalism - it is the method of enacting the ban that is in question. Mitt is proposing the one method that absolutely and clearly does not violate federalism or originalism.
July 30th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
eric: It’s blindingly easy to dismantle pro-romney arguments.
Sure, if you don’t let a pesky understanding of facts get in your way.
Btw, please tell me you’re joking in #2 and #8 w/r/t wikipedia being the deciding factor of what is important.
July 30th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
very well said, dblagent007
July 30th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
not quite “leadership in action”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-D0CmrORew
July 30th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Eric - Wendy Long disagrees with you.
July 30th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
wait! one more:
The self described Mitt the “progressive-on-social-issues governor of Massachusetts” Romney.
http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/07/romney-a.html
the “progressive” with great “concepts of federalism”…
This stuff just keeps on going.
July 30th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
The Big Dig was originally conceived in the 70s was going through approvals in the 80s and broke ground in ‘91 with 95% of the Big Dig completed by the end of December 2004. The final ramp downtown—exit 20B from I-93 south to Albany Street—opened January 13, 2006
Mitt was Governor from 2003 - 2007.
Laying blame for the Big Dig fiasco on Mitt is like blaming Bush for Bin Laden being alive after 8 years of Clinton.
July 30th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
As I understand it, a State must recognize marriages performed in other States, including gay marriages. This means that if a gay couple moves from Mass to Utah (lets use the extremes here), Utah must recognize the marriage. This is the argument I’ve been hearing from amendment supporters. They say a federal amendment is needed to ensure some States are not forced into this position (I believe Romney has stated something to this effect). If this is the case, it seems to me that a federal solution is the only solution. We either allow gay marriage as a nation, or we don’t. Is this true? A federalist alternative would be an amendment that allowed States the right to reject marriages performed in other states. Would this be viable? Is this already how it works?
On originalism, I’m confident the framers did not intend to allow gay marriage (though if there is evidence to the contrary, I’m always open to it). An amendment would simply clarify and strengthen the original intent. It would be nice though if judges didn’t need to be babysat on this issue.
July 30th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
sami,
obviously i prefer to hold those running for president to a higher standard than you. if you think romney did all he could or should have, more power to you. i disagree.
July 30th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Eric, are you a Thompson supporter?
July 30th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Richard P, agreed. Were the DOMA constitutionally sound, there would be far less of a need for a constitutional amendment.
eric, can you give a specific example of something Romney could have done better w/r/t the Big Dig?
July 30th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
hmm. let me think… what would i do… here’s a start.
1) not lie.
2) not stand by liars
(see youtube video above)
3) follow thu on promises
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/10/29/mitt_caught_in_the_act/
July 30th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
[...] her powerful endorsement included in Jennifer Rubin’s article written today. (HT to EFM and Race42008.com for the [...]
July 30th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
[...] her powerful endorsement included in Jennifer Rubin’s article written today. (HT to EFM and Race42008.com for the [...]
July 30th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
how about the big dig disaster…. criminal investigations, a wrongful death, unprecedented-out-of-control spending, earmarks, and finally Romney’s passing of the buck to blame his transportation secretary.
Gov. Romney had been attempting to get rid of that guy and increase his role in the Big Dig for years. Try again.
July 30th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
First of all, a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage is a silly idea because it uses the Constitution as a policy tool. The Constitution establishes the framework under which our representative democracy will operate. It is not, unlike the proposed EU “constitution” a piece of legislation to define how we protect the environment, who can marry whom and how health care services will be provided.
The only reason Romney came out in support of this proposal is that it is popular with a constituency with which he wishes to gain favor.
And moreover, it’s a sad commentary on the modern conservative movement when some of its members use an adjective such as “leadership” to describe Mitt Romney. Would one of the Romney supporters care to remind me how blatant pandering is a form of leadership?
July 30th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Dan, government, including yes you guessed it - the constitution, is all a policy tool. The constitution implements policy just like every other law (e.g., prohibition, right to vote, everyone gets treated equally, unlawful search and seizure, quartering soldiers - they are all policy decisions).
July 30th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Well, if we did not have courts forcing liberal policy on an unwilling public, then we would not need a Constitutional Amendment on marriage, unfortunately, you have courts like those in MASS. that think everyone should have to recognize homosexual marriage. And, since the state legislature refuses to allow a referendum vote, you have to take it to the national level.
July 30th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Thomas Alan,
Nah, John Cogliano was hand picked by Romney and Romney stood by his lies.
But if you’re not convinced, how bout this one: Romney campaigned for Rocky Anderson. Ouch.
Or (As already mentioned) describing himself as a “progressive-on-social-issues governor of Massachusetts”
July 30th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
It was Turnpike Authority chairman Matthew Amorello I was talking about (who was most in charge of the Big Dig). He was appointed by Gov. Swift and Gov. Romney had long trimed to remove him from his post.
July 30th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
keep thomas alan, what’s the justification for campaigning for rocky anderson?
July 30th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
#37
Anderson was running against another Democrat.
July 30th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
sampo,
I think you’ve really hit on something here. Romney describing himself as a progressive-on-social-issues in 2002 is simply astounding considering he was only in favor of legalized abortion, THE social issue of all social issues.
Does anyone know Romney has changed his views on abortion? I think this is big news!
July 30th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
so…….. of the two democrats, romney chose the one who would later go on a chrusade to impeach bush and just about everyone else in the bush administration… GOOD CALL MITT!
July 30th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
murphy, lets not forget Romney said he’d be to the left of TED KENNEDY on gay rights and afirmative action.
perhaps you’d care to explain why rudy giuliani who is very pro-choice does not care to call himself a progressive-on-social-issues…. there’s a littler more to being socially progressive than that.
July 30th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
sampo: lets not forget Romney said he’d be to the left of TED KENNEDY on gay rights and afirmative action.
Nope. You’re wrong. Romney said he would be more effective on gay rights, because everyone expects that from Kennedy, whereas a Republican could turn heads.
As for why Rudy doesn’t call himself a progressive-on-social-issues, it couldn’t possibly be because he’s trying very hard to calm nervous pro-lifers, could it?
July 30th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
and universally required healthcare.. a plan that factcheck.org said was virtually identical to obama’s plan.
July 30th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
sampo,
Is there no end to the facts you get wrong? And do you admit it when you’re shown to be pushing false info?
Some conservatives may not like Romney’s state level healthcare reforms in MA, but calling it virtually identical to Obama’s plan is either ignorant or deceptive.
July 30th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
murphy,
now explain why you are more credible than the non-partial, non-partison factcheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/third_time_round_for_gop_hopefuls.html
and more informed than Kenneth E. Thorpe, a professor of health policy at Emory University.
July 30th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
We first took a look at the Romney-backed health insurance plan after the May 3 Republican presidential debate, when the candidate said it was not a government takeover and juxtaposed his plan with “HillaryCare.” We pointed out that while the plan is not government-administered health insurance, it includes government mandates and subsidies, minimum coverage requirements and fines for noncompliance. The Massachusetts plan is clearly not a complete government takeover; it builds on the private insurance industry – as do the proposals of Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards, and the health care initiative spearheaded by Hillary Clinton in the early ’90s.
Kenneth E. Thorpe, a professor of health policy at Emory University, has analyzed the costs of the Edwards and Obama plans. In reading those and the Massachusetts plans, the similarities are clear, and Thorpe says the Obama and Romney plans are “virtually identical.� Both call for an insurance exchange (an entity that would offer various private insurance plans to the public), and they offer financial assistance to low-income people. Edwards’ proposal differs in that he uses health care plans in the federal employee program, rather than a national exchange. “That’s an implementation difference,� says Thorpe. “The real important part of it, they’re both building on the private insurance industry.�
Sen. Clinton has not released a formal proposal, but when she does, it’s highly unlikely to be a wholly government funded proposal.
Politicians will debate how much government involvement in health insurance regulation is acceptable and how much is stepping on the toes of private insurance companies. But in our view, the term “government takeover� could only be applied to Rep. Kucinich’s proposal. Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel calls for a federal voucher program, but Kucinich, in fact, brags on his Web site that he’s the only candidate advocating a universal not-for-profit health care system.
July 30th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
I just went to factcheck.org and there is no such article.
July 30th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Just wondering… Is there, or has there ever been, anyone in the republican race that is or has been perfect in all things their entire life on all issues, and can meet the requirments of ALL the conservitives out there in the USA? No, of course not. Sooooo, we have to get over the fact that each candidate has adjusted their thinking, changed their ways, and moved forward with the issues of the day. I am not saying that it is necessary to “settle” either. In my view, there is no settling when it comes to Mitt Romney for my choice. His strengths greatly out weight any weaknesses (or percived weaknesses) compared to other candidates and I am hoping with all my heart he has a chance to help our nation with his talents.
July 30th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Jeez, one similar aspect and they’re identical?
July 30th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
i cut-and-paste the link guys!
July 30th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
sampo,
For one thing, Romney’s healthcare plan is not a federal program. He has clearly stated that the details of the healthcare reforms that worked in MA would not work nationally…nor has he proposed attempting a national health care version of his state reforms. He encourages states to continue experimenting with health care solutions, and the majority of states in the union are right now testing healthcare reforms based on elements of the MA plan.
Secondly, I recall ALL the democrats promising to raise taxes to pay for their plans…something Romney’s state level plan never did.
Want to attack Romney on something else from your cut-and-paste list?
July 30th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
yeah, factcheck.org doesn’t have a lot of good things to say about his claims. in all 3 debates he stretched the truth the most.
even mitt’s tv ads are called to attention by factcheck.
http://www.factcheck.org/more_mitt_missteps.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/dont_veto_the_truth.html
July 31st, 2007 at 12:19 am
I find it wonderfully refreshing when Romney critics try to engage Romney on substantive policy positions. Since, my fellow “Rom-bots” beat them to smithereens. Whereas, it’s difficult to rebut the generic “well gosh, Romney’s an evil flip-flopper with a serious deficiency of character”. Generally, the only response to histrionic arguments, devoid of substantive critique, is mild bewilderment.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:38 am
Awwww Crap!!! I get called out after I left my place so now it looks like I was ducking.
But someone mentioned the big dig timeline already. The Big Dig got DONE on Mitt Romney’s watch. If The Big Dig were an issue, it would have been brought up long ago. Mitt’s the one who cleaned up the hackerama that existed there. What problems did Fred Thompson inherit and solve in his executive experiences? Oh, thats right!
July 31st, 2007 at 7:05 am
Randy,
you really need read up on the big dig. heck, watch the video if you’re too lazy. people ARE talking about it. Sure it was completed, but then a huge chunk of it came off and killed someone who was driving thru it. then it sprung HUNDREDS of leaks. romney couldn’t have passed the buck fast enough.
i guess i’d hope for more from my elected official.