Wow, the best news in a longtime.
Joining Romney for President, Judge Bork said, “Throughout my career, I have had the honor of serving under several Presidents and am proud to make today’s endorsement. No other candidate will do more to advance the conservative judicial movement than Governor Mitt Romney. He knows firsthand how the judicial branch can profoundly affect the future course of a state and a nation. I greatly admired his leadership in Massachusetts in the way that he responded to the activist court’s ruling legalizing same-sex ‘marriage.’ His leadership on the issue has served as a model to the nation on how to respect all of our citizens while respecting the rule of law at the same time.”
Judge Bork continued, “Our next President may be called upon to make more than one Supreme Court nomination, and Governor Romney is committed to nominating judges who take their oath of office seriously and respect the rule of law in our nation. I also support Governor Romney because of his character, his integrity and his stands on the major issues facing the United States.”
I am not sure what the effect of this will be, but it does make the case that Romney is the conservative choice for those who want to avoid Huckacide. It’s time to get over your misgivings of his flip flops and get on the train folks.
December 15th, 2007 at 9:47 am
I’ll take the founders of the Federalist Society, Ted Olson, Miguel Estrada, etc, over Robert Bork.
December 15th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Wow, that is great news!! This really is becoming a Romney-Huckabee race after all. Who else will the Rudy McThompson Huntcredo supporters turn to when their candidates drop out and need to stop the populist preacher?
December 15th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Bork should have been on the Supreme Court, but I can’t pretend that he’s my ideal justice. With books like “Slocuhing Towards Gommorah” he seems just a little too invested in the culture wars. I think, ideally, you wamt a judge who’s personal preferences never come out, and I’m not convinced Bork’s that sort of judge. That said, he’s an absolutely brilliant and accomplished man, and this is a huge get for Romney.
December 15th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Why turn to Romney when you can turn to McCain, who can actually win the general?
December 15th, 2007 at 9:54 am
#3, that’s why he’s brothers-in-arms with Mitt Romney, while true objective legal scholars are with Rudy.
December 15th, 2007 at 9:55 am
“Why turn to Romney when you can turn to McCain, who can actually win the general?”
Because the only evidence you have of that is polls 11 months away from the general, and because McCain has some extremely questionable positions (I still think he would sign amnesty if it got to his desk).
December 15th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Metro,
Trying to Bork, Bork eh?
December 15th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Metro,
As far as actual scholarly ability goes, I’ll match Bork up with anyone, including Stephen Calibresi, Olson, or Estrada. It’s probably no exaggeration to say that Bork is the finest legal mind of his generation. I wasn’t refering to his scholarly ability, but rather temperment and possible judicial decision-making process. As far as I know, many people considered Bork to be a very “objective” journalist. I’m just not convinced that someone who routinely references the culture wars, will be able to totally separate their preferences from their decisions. I could be wrong though. I was about 9 months old during Bork’s confirmation.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:00 am
*jurist.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Also, why the bad timing? Why release this hours before Rudy’s big speech?
December 15th, 2007 at 10:03 am
How does Romney feel after spending $10 million in Iowa in order to be crushed like a tin can by a candidate who’s spent not even one tenth of that? LOL. Bork endorsement, indeed.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Cliff, LOL. At least it’s taken about a 1/3 of the hubris off the Rombots, making them more tolerable.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Robert Bork, John Mark Reynolds, Michael Novak, William F. Buckley, Jr…..All intellectuals of the highest order and all have come out for Mitt recently. Superior minds are attracted to the candidate with a superior mind. Great get.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Metro,
How do you like #13 for hubris, huh??
December 15th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Dave,
I didn’t see the Buckley endorsement. Are you sure of that? I’d of thought that’d be much bigger news. Bill Buckley is a huge historical figure in conservatism. Now I did hear Rich Lowry say that NR had consulted Buckley on the Romney endorsement, and he was fine with it. I believe the terms Rich used were “he signed off on it”. But, I’m not sure you can call that an endorsement.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Mathew,
I don’t think he officially endorsed Romney, but he did write a pretty strong article in his favor a while back, and then with the NR endorsement, that might be were Dave is getting it.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Big wow. Is an angry ex-judge going to influence the home-schooling mom in Cedar Rapids?
The who neo-con establishment is turning to Romney in desperation, but it’s just too little too late.
They tried to stay in their little ivory towers and steer clear of actual leadership, being that they could never agree on a single candidate and their ego in refusing to challenge the establishment has proved to be their downfall.
The base, meanwhile, did their homework and chose Huckabee. Too late neo-cons!
The people have spoken and the social conservatives will have their revenge after years of being led around by the same ruling class that is trying to prop up Romney.
The disconnect is just too much. The so-called “leaders” are too egomaniacal too lead, so the people just took over.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Great endorsement for Mitt
December 15th, 2007 at 10:23 am
The base, meanwhile, did their homework and chose Huckabee.
Ha! I wouldn’t exactly phrase it that way…
December 15th, 2007 at 10:24 am
This is a great endorsement. What high intellectual has endorsed Huckabee? None, right? It’s more like his supporters are a bunch of ‘children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of (Huckabee) doctrine, bye the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive’….Yes, other than the (Huckabee insert, this is a quote from the good book. Basically, I’m saying they are a bunch of sheep following a wolf in sheeps clothing.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:24 am
In conservative circles Bork is well respected, but he has sometimes gone over the deep end because of his bitterness related to his confirmation hearings.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Jason,
That just proves you’re an elitist, close-minded snob that can’t see past your own guy…
Do I make fun of other people’s supporters like you make fun of people who like Huckabee?
You aren’t going to be able to wish Huckabee away by making fun of him…
December 15th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Peter,
How is it that everyone you disagree with is a “neo-con”? Do you actually know what this term means? I’ll give you a hint: it has to do with foreign policy. Robert Bork is a judge. That’s, in case you’re in doubt, a position in the judiciary. Foreign affairs=neo-con. Judge= not so much.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Peter – the last thing this country needs is a guy who raises taxes on hardworking Americans so he can send illegal aliens to college for free, or who sets convicted murderer after convicted murderer loose on the population while telling capitalists to go to hell, or who uses questionable ethics to load his own pockets with donated campaign money.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:27 am
This bodes very well for Governor Romney. Judge Bork has been a stalwart and pioneer of the conservative justice movement and is a champion of broad sweeping tort reform.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:28 am
My goodness, Robert Bork isn’t able to have foreign policy opinions because he’s a judge?
Is there some kind of mind-restrictor that he has to wear?
December 15th, 2007 at 10:28 am
“This is a great endorsement. What high intellectual has endorsed Huckabee? None, right?”
You mean Chuck Norris doesn’t count?
December 15th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Peter,
I just don’t see how anyone who has done their homework can see Huckabee as the right choice. There is a reason why people who have degrees don’t prefer Huckabee. If you find education to be elitism, then so be it.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:31 am
This is close to an endorsement from Mona Charen
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20071214/cm_uc_crmchx/op_54666
December 15th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Wow, I AM an elitist and find #27 offensive. I forget the exact statistics, but the majority of americans do not have college degrees.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Even though I can hardly imagine any scenario in which I’d vote for Mitt (perhaps a Romney/Edwards match-up), this is a pretty respectable endorsement for those amongst the GOP elites.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Peter,
Absolutely he can have foreign policy views. I am, however, unaware of them. He doesn’t appear to be radically outspoken on the topic so I’m going to do something rather odd; I’m going to assume he’s endorsing Romney based on Romney’s feelings in Bork’s area of expertise, instead of attributing to him nefarious designs towards Global rapacious war-mongering. I’m strange that way. And you make yourself sound a tick less sane then a Paulbot when you decry judges as neo-cons, with no plausible rationale.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Cliff,
Its interesting; on Fox Romney called Obama “a good talker.” I thought it was a curious phrase, but apparently he likes it.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Matt,
You’re right that there was no official endorsement by Buckley. But the whole point of Hewitt’s question to Lowry was whether Buckley approved of National Review’s endorsement of Romney, and Lowry made it fairly clear that he did. Lowry would know.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:38 am
The fact is that in politics a candidate who can hit the emotional buttons better will whip the more ‘educated’ candiddate every single time.Politics is almost a 100% emotional enterprise. Romney himself seems to be dimly aware of this in this remark from today’s Politic interview with Jonathan Martin:
Romney’s rhetoric can partially be chalked up to expectation-lowering. But he also plainly recognizes the difficulties posed by Huckabee, a candidate who has risen largely on the strength of his dazzling and down-home communications skills. Natural gifts, Romney admitted, he lacks.
“If people are looking for somebody who’s a good talker, I’m not your man,†Romney said, knocking his chief rival but also alluding to his challenge. “If they’re looking for somebody who has demonstrated a record of solving difficult problems and making difficult situations into successful outcomes then I am your man.â€
December 15th, 2007 at 10:42 am
And I agree with Mitt on that, Cliff. I’m tired of talking, tired of folksy, and tired of the pizza and beer test. Lets get a serious professional executive in the White House.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:52 am
So, he has the Swedish Chef endorsement now.
Bork! Bork!
December 15th, 2007 at 10:53 am
I just don’t see how anyone who has done their homework can see Huckabee as the right choice. There is a reason why people who have degrees don’t prefer Huckabee. If you find education to be elitism, then so be it.
Hm. I can turn this around: there’s a reason that people with PhD’s are least likely to believe in God.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Wow, that is great news!! This really is becoming a Romney-Huckabee race after all. Who else will the Rudy McThompson Huntcredo supporters turn to when their candidates drop out and need to stop the populist preacher?
No one. I’ll support Huckabee in order to help destroy the party if it gets that far. The “Religion = Freedom” candidate versus “God’s Candidate”? No. I can’t do it. The party must die if it gets that far. Huckabee presents the GOP’s best chance of losing and a 3rd party’s best chance of winning in 2008. So I’d rather have him than Mitt if it gets that far.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:57 am
So then by definition anyone at all who has a JD or MBA from any Ivy League school is automatically more qualified to be President than someone who has a BA in economics from Eureka college, correct?
Giuliani has a JD from NYU Law…who’s more educated than that in this race??????
December 15th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Cliff,
Romney has a JD from Harvard Law. He also has an MBA from Harvard Law. NYU Law is a wonderful school, but Harvard it aint.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:02 am
An MBA from Harvard Business rather.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:05 am
I could see Judge Bork providing a very influential role in a Romney Presidency and could see him being appointed as a sort of morality and ethics czar that could oversee Federal judicial appointments and issues related to the culture divide. Romney can also use this endorsement to highlight his stance on tort reform and frivolous lawsuits.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Governor Romney received his B.A., with Highest Honors, from Brigham Young University in 1971. In 1975, he was awarded an MBA from Harvard Business School, where he was named a Baker Scholar, and a J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law School.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:07 am
That said, I don’t think sheer credentials are everything. I went to the number 1 liberal arts school in the country until 8 months ago, and a ton of people their were surprisingly unintelligent. I’m all for electing smart candidates, but I agree that there’s a certain elitism to those who say “Going to Harvard automatically makes you smarter then going to Oachita Baptist University”. And that’s a problem. I think Romney’s smarter then Huckabee for a whole host of reasons that have nothing to do with the name on his degrees. And my favorite candidate for the Supreme Court is Diane Sykes, a graduate of a fairly average midwestern law school. It takes all types.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:07 am
“Cliff, Romney has a JD from Harvard Law. He also has an MBA from Harvard Law. NYU Law is a wonderful school, but Harvard it aint.”
When you get up into ‘top-tier’ schools, it really becomes more about prestige than actual differences in the quality of education available. I’m really not convinced that an Ivy League school provides a better education than NYU. It’s about a brand name.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:09 am
That’s almost funny, was it yesterday that someone was lauding Huck’s 11 years as governor as the most executive exp of any candidate… well unless you count 25 years as corporate CEO, 3 as Olympic CEO and 4 as Governor. Not a person in this race that has the resume and success as Mitt.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:10 am
That said, I don’t think sheer credentials are everything. I went to the number 1 liberal arts school in the country until 8 months ago, and a ton of people their were surprisingly unintelligent. I’m all for electing smart candidates, but I agree that there’s a certain elitism to those who say “Going to Harvard automatically makes you smarter then going to Oachita Baptist Universityâ€. And that’s a problem. I think Romney’s smarter then Huckabee for a whole host of reasons that have nothing to do with the name on his degrees. And my favorite candidate for the Supreme Court is Diane Sykes, a graduate of a fairly average midwestern law school. It takes all types.
Getting into a good college is a reflection of your discipline, not your intelligence. Of course there were a bunch of dumb people there: they’re more committed to getting a brand name attached to them than actual intellectual fulfillment. Someone devoted to intellectual fulfillment can outwit any Ivy League graduate that just got there through discipline; someone who did his schoolwork but never anything more.
Of course, going to Oachita Baptist University doesn’t exactly scream “intellectual fulfillment” or “discipline” to me.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:13 am
I’m not even bringing up degrees, Cliff. Huckabee uses all those stupid jokes to hide his lack of depth. Romney is showing that he knows the most about the most.
TLG, I see where you’re coming from. Can’t say that I blame you.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:16 am
#21 Peter – you said:
Jason,
That just proves you’re an elitist, close-minded snob that can’t see past your own guy…
Do I make fun of other people’s supporters like you make fun of people who like Huckabee?
You aren’t going to be able to wish Huckabee away by making fun of him…
**********************************
Peter, check your own website – you call Matt Drudge Mitt’s “chief smear goon” (a bold-faced lie) and you call other supporters the neo-cons establishment (that’s something I only hear come out of the mouths of liberals) PLUS in the above comment – you call Jason an elitist! (another liberal label)
I think your passion for Huckabee is truly blinding you to your own hypocrisy.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Well, it seems to me that in terms of political intelligence Huckabee runs circles around Romney.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:20 am
People, let’s establish some definitions for:
elitist
neo-con
“There’s nothing that keeps an argument going like two people who don’t know what they’re arguing about.”
December 15th, 2007 at 11:24 am
The idea that one’s level of education is indicative of how they will perform in politics is absolutely absurd. As I said, Reagan had a degree from Eureka College.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:25 am
bethtopaz, neither terms are meant to identify. They’re pejoratives.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:26 am
The idea that one’s level of education is indicative of how they will perform in politics is absolutely absurd. As I said, Reagan had a degree from Eureka College.
Exactly. I’d rather have a truly intelligent man with moral clarity that got his degree from a “second-rate” institution than a guy with 8 degrees from Ivy League institutions.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:29 am
A lot of people wear their elitism as a badge of honor, especially in Washington.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Metro,
Your posts sound more bitter than usual. Is it the fact that Rudy is feeling the tightening of the noose that bothers you, or the fact that Romney is garnering much of the conservative backing that is out there? Just curious.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Bjork endorsed Romney? Does this mean she will be singing on the trail with him? I always pegged her for a liberal.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:30 am
For those people from Rio Linda —
pe·jor·a·tive (p-jôr-tv, -jr-, pj-rtv, pj-) KEY
ADJECTIVE:
Tending to make or become worse.
Disparaging; belittling.
NOUN:
A disparaging or belittling word or expression.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:32 am
#56 – first of all it’s Bork, not Bjork,
secondly, Bork is a man, not a woman.
If this was meant to be some kind of joke, it was not funny.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:33 am
#57 LOL
December 15th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Romney could beat the other candidates intellectually, as Rush would say, “with half [his] brain tied behind his back”. There is (or shouldn’t be) any question that Romney is the smartest guy in the race on both sides.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:35 am
beth,
Bjork is a singer, and Erik was being funny. It was funny, or so I thought.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:36 am
#59 Lighten up you prude. Do you see the smile after the comment? I bet when you stand up the chair comes with you.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:36 am
#62…thanks
December 15th, 2007 at 11:41 am
50 – your opinion – oh, and do we want to elect a president that’s all talk, and where the actions count has convenient excuses for everything,
or…
Do we want to elect a proven leader with a long track record of successful accomplishments that will get things done?
My vote is for the guy who will bring a team together, force a lively argument of the issues, analyze the data, make decisions and make a difference. Romney has proven his leadership in the private sector, the NGO sector, and in government. He’s a brilliant individual and will make a very fine POTUS. He’s not weary of the task at hand and doesn’t turn away from the challenges that we face. He doesn’t flich when questioned about fixing social security, government spending, healthcare, tax reform. He knows he can do it – sheer confidence born out of a long string of success. Keep in mind that we’re basically interviewing who we want to hire as POTUS. Out of all of the candidates (GOP and DEM), Romney has the resume, bar none, best equipped to face head on the most important challenges facing us over the next 8 years.
In some respects the ’sky is falling’ argument about Huckabee is a smoke screen. The reality is that Huckabee would not be much different than the rest of the career politicians – bantering back and forth and talking, not accomplishing ANYTHING of note, and making his living off of the taxpayer dime. He’s all talk right now about the FairTax and the like, but does anything really think that Huckabee has the ability to bully legislation like that through congress? Give me a break. He’d be a sorry empty suit keeping the oval office warm for only four years before getting tossed to the curb. Sure, he’d have great radio addresses on saturday and would reach out and ‘inspire’ the nation through his sermons (which are quite good – seriously, the guy is very talented in this regard), but I just don’t see Huckabee as being a transformational leader or POTUS. His past record is void of accomplishments and riddled with questionable activities and circumstances during his time in public life. His recent changing of positions on issue after issue points to the fact that he’s not ready, not firm in his views, and willing to sway with the wind. He’s also a very gifted orator and is able to make you feel good about whatever he proposes, yet knowing inside that these are not issues or ideas that you really want championed on a national stage.
Do we want to select a nominee that makes us feel good for a few minutes now with his great story telling ability, or do we want a nominee who can engage the DEMs on the issues, leave this nation better after having served, and position this country on a sound economic footing? It’s really shaping up to be a ‘business-as-usual’, or ‘let’s get things’ done argument.
My vote is to get things done.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Romney fails the simplest tests of a candidate. First, he is not honest. Second, he is not consistent. Third, he is not credible on immigration (sanctuary mansion), national security (check with lawyers before defend country), taxes (raised them as gov), or abortion ($50 drive-thru abortions).
December 15th, 2007 at 11:50 am
“that’s something I only hear come out of the mouths of liberals”
-tax raiser
-pro-amnesty
-supports class-warfare
-soft on crime
-against the “go-it-alone mentality” of the Bush Administration
“Huckabee” and “liberal” are not mutually exclusive terms.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:53 am
#62 – I know that Bjork is a female singer — but I still don’t see the humor in it.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Huckabee fails the simplest tests of a candidate. First, he is not honest (he has a degree, he doesn’t have a degree, he supports the embargo/vouchers/etc., he doesnsn’t support the embargo/vouchers/etc. Second, he is not consistent (see answer to #1 & he didn’t release ALL of the ’saved’ prisoners – just handpicked the ones that mowed his lawn and that were recommended by his pastor friends). Third, he is not credible on immigration (scholarships for illegal immigrants, $1 rent for the Mexican consulate, comparing the US treatment of illegal immigrants to slavery – give me a break), national security (consists of staying at a Holiday Inn and writing an OpEd that was borrowered from others, just like his ‘immigration’ plan), taxes (do we really need to talk about taxes with Tax Hike Mike), or abortion (round up all them bad little girls and put them in jail).
December 15th, 2007 at 11:54 am
#63 Whoa – Erik – you’re getting pretty nasty there. Who do you support? If it’s the Baptist minister, that wasn’t very Christian of you. And you have no idea who I am in my personal life – I think you should keep the personal insults to yourself. They’re not welcome at this site.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Romney fails the simplest tests of a candidate. First, he is not honest. Second, he is not consistent. Third, he is not credible on immigration (sanctuary mansion), national security (check with lawyers before defend country), taxes (raised them as gov), or abortion ($50 drive-thru abortions).
The Rombots are going to think that this is an attack on them. They have problems with jokes, as evidenced above with the Bjork thing. -rolls eyes-
December 15th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Flether, you are blinded to the facts by your own politcal anti-romney agenda.
–
“First, he is not honest”
about what?
–
“Second, he is not consistent.”
on what? He has changed positions, yes, but he has been completely open about it.
–
“Third, he is not credible on immigration (sanctuary mansion)”
He gave the company a second chance, they blew it, he fired them. How is that not being credible?
–
“national security (check with lawyers before defend country)”
are you suggesting a President should just act without regard for the Constitution?
–
“taxes (raised them as gov)”
ex…? And fees don’t count, and neither to closing loopholes in tax laws.
–
“or abortion ($50 drive-thru abortions)”
the Supreme Court of MASS. mandated that – once again, are suggesting Romney should break the law?
December 15th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
HAHAHA #70 I am a huge Romney supporter. If you spent any time paying attention to the postings on this site you would know that. Where did everybodys sense of humor go? Is it wrong to still have fun on a political website? Bethtopaz your inability to laugh at something funny even if you perceive it to be a joke at your candidates expenses is what gives us Rombots a bad name. Lighten up and have a little fun for crying out loud!
December 15th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
…and TLG your points are bogus, except the part about some Rombots having thin skin.
December 15th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Erik…I don’t recall making any big points about Romney in this thread?
December 15th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Erik – I guess I don’t see you post enough to recognize that you’re a hugh Romney supporter. I don’t keep score.
And I still don’t think your joke was funny. It’s not a big deal to make a joke that not everyone thinks is funny. If you can’t handle that, that’s not my problem.
December 15th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Are these your words or someone elses?
Romney fails the simplest tests of a candidate. First, he is not honest. Second, he is not consistent. Third, he is not credible on immigration (sanctuary mansion), national security (check with lawyers before defend country), taxes (raised them as gov), or abortion ($50 drive-thru abortions).
If you were quoting someone else then I take back the first part of my statement.
December 15th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
#76 I don’t care if you don’t think it isn’t funny. The funniest thing was that you didn’t know it was a joke even after the
BTW it was funny!
December 15th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
With all this.. It is getting harder & more difficult to doubt Romney’s conservative credentials..
December 15th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Erik — Someone else’s. Anything in italics are.
December 15th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Erik:
You’ve got to get real with your #77. Do you think real conservatives like Bork would be endorsing Romney if any of your #77 DNC talking points were remotely true?
It makes no sense. Those talking points have been thoroughly rebutted time & time again. They are well vetted and mute.
December 15th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Erik,
Sorry – use quotes or italics when referring to statements that are not yours.. If indeed they are not yours..
December 15th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Feltcher,
#81 goes to you..
December 15th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
No problem cwpete, I messed up too!
December 15th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
TLG #37:”Hm. I can turn this around: there’s a reason that people with PhD’s are least likely to believe in God.”
Well in actual point of fact, there is an exception to that rule, The the Mormons.
Mormons, as a group, tend to increase their faith in God the higher they go up the education scale.
December 15th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Robert Bork: one of my heroes. I am very happy to see that one of the most conservative and influential men in Law and culture have endorsed Mitt.
December 15th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
You people who trash Bork are in good company. Ronald Reagan nominated him for the Supreme Court. His qualifications were impeccable. He was a distinguished federal judge, well-respected by all sides. But he was a strict constructionist. That was anathema to the Liberals. Senator Kennedy led the charge. He dump upon Judge Bork the most vicious, hateful, spiteful smears people had ever seen. As a result, Bork lost the nomination.
This episode has since entered our language as “To Bork”, and “Borking a nominee”.
So a good, worthy man’s reputation was unjustifiably ruined to serve the political goals of Kennedy and his fellow liberals.
No, the man does not walk on water. But I would think that a man who has given and suffered so much for the cause deserves a little more respect from those of us in the Party of Reagan.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
[...] Jason Bonham: I am not sure what the effect of this will be, but it does make the case that Romney is the conservative choice for those who want to avoid Huckacide. It’s time to get over your misgivings of his flip flops and get on the train folks. [...]
December 15th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Metro, #1. Bork is like king of the federalists. Calabresi and those guys probably learned what they know from him on federalism.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
i am telling you. romney will arise out of new hampshire as the only conservative alternative to mike huckabee.
the race used to be defined around rudy, who is the anti rudy or the conservative alternative to rudy. The good news for Romney is that the dynamics from his stand point have not changed. huck took rudy out, which as official with rudy’s fall in florida, and now romney remains the ‘conservative alternative.’
fred faltered and disapeared basically. He can’t even get on ballots. h e didn’t get on dc and he didn’t get on delaware either and those are the only two that i know about.
the conservatives are rallying around Romney and they will continue to look to him as someon ewho can stop huck. it sure ain’t giuliani is is going to. his only shot was ‘national frontrunner’ and his firewall in florida which just vanished. rudy is also not a all around ‘conservative.’
so romney is the last one left standing, assumign hickabee can be stopped.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Actually Mike Bloomberg’s resume in business makes Romney look like a hot dog stand propreitor.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
I am and admirer or Robert Bork and a supporter of Mitt Romney, but it must be admitted that Bork went a little nuts 6 months ago and filed a totally frivolous slip-and-fall lawsuit against Yale:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/06/07/robert-bork-files-slip-and-fall-lawsuit-against-yale-club/?mod=fpa_blogs
December 15th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Wow I never thought I would see the day where a man with the intellect of Judge Bork could be fooled by Romney’s BS.
December 15th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Cliff, have you seen the popst on this site from 2 or 3 days ago, calling something like “the house romney left behind”? We all were surprised that Mitt was worth only 250 millions, making him look pale comparing with Bloomberg. This was not so, according to that post. Mitt actually was worth 10 billions, at least, but he walked away from a Bain company with fraction of his share — volunteerily . 10 billions would put him in top 50 richest men of the world. He did not want that much!
December 15th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Cliff,
Just to enlarge a bit on SGS point. If the scorecard is $’s, we might have a close race, given what Romney walked away from. Is Bloomberg smart? No question about it. However, his resume is the definitive picture of being in the right place at the right time. An equity trader that developed a software program and rode the .com bubble. Compare that to taking under performing companies (no exact count, but more than just a couple), an Olympics mired in scandal and debt which he turned into both a financial and moral (as in no scandals) success and finally taking a state sunk in its worst financial crisis in its history and turning it around, leaving it with a substantial surplus.
Hot dog stand proprietor? Give me one with the works, please.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Cliff how is that?
Romney was worth billions at one point and gave his company back to the employees.
December 15th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Hey Erik, I thought your joke was funny. Sorry Beth, but your reaction to made it even more so.
I little fun never hurt anybody.
December 16th, 2007 at 1:44 am
[...] http://race42008.com/2007/12/15/judge-robert-bork-endorses-mitt-romney/ Jason Bonham 12-15-2007 [...]
December 16th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Give me a break! This is like saying that Bill Gates makes Romney’s experience look like a mom-and-pop busness owner. Bloomberg invented a machine and wrote software that allowed better stock market information processing.
And I second Irish Right and SGS. Romney could have cashed out his business, but decided to leave that to the people who helped build it with him. He doesn’t care about the money or the titles. You can’t deny that even many of the business pundits have said that Romney is probably the smartest guy in the room when it comes to business.
May 4th, 2008 at 7:36 am
[...] ???Judge robert Bork Endorses Mitt Romney … e didn??t get on dc and he didn??t get on delaware …http://race42008.com/2007/12/15/judge-robert-bork-endorses-mitt-romney/Delaware State vs South Carolina State Oct 29, 2005Linesman: robert Thompson Line judge: Ralph [...]