One of the things that infuriates me most about Mitt Romney is that he will launch attacks on his rivals for holding the same positions that he himself held a few years ago. Case in pint: his attack on John McCain while at a campaign stop in New Hampshire. Here’s what Romney said:
“He voted against the Bush tax cuts – twice … That’s failing Reagan 101,” said the former Massachusetts governor. “Reagan taught almost all of us in the Republican party that lowering taxes would grow the economy, and was good for the economy, and good for individuals. I believe the Republicans are going to nominate a tax cutter to become President.”
Romney knows quite well that John McCain voted against those tax cuts because they were not accompanied by cuts in spending and that he has never voted for a tax increase in his entire career. Romney, of course, also opposed the 2003 Bush tax cuts at the time too. It came as such a surprise to Barney Frank that the Boston Globe quoted him as saying:
“I was very pleased. Here you have a freshman governor refusing to endorse a tax cut presented by a Republican president at the height of his wartime popularity.”
In addition, as Governor of Massachusetts, Romney announced that he was open to imposing new taxes on gasoline and SUVs, pushed through an additional $300 tax increase on small businesses, not to mention that his signature achievement while Governor, MassHealth, has turned into a massive boondoggle. It has not only to failed to cover all of the uninsured in Massachusetts (despite including an individual mandate that strips away consumer choice), but it’s also cost $150 million more than Romney said it would.
Not only that, but Romney isn’t necessarily the best spokesman to discuss the virtues of “Reagan 101″ given that he explicitly repudiated Reagan’s leadership during his 1994 Senate run.
“Look, I was an independent during Reagan-Bush. I don’t want to return to Reagan-Bush.”
December 22nd, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Well, I guess it’s a very slow time for news….. Wake me up after in a month.
December 22nd, 2007 at 7:33 pm
This is a rather annoying and glaring habit of Romney’s. As with taxes Romney spoke favorably of proposed immigration reform legislation that he now attacks.
In other news, a 527 is running an ad attacking Romney for flip-flopping on immigration. Its a poorly done ad, but it goes as far as saying Romney is “lying.” As Carl Cameron of Foxnews said tonight about that ad, “calling someone a liar is as tough as an ad can get.”
December 22nd, 2007 at 7:35 pm
something is wrong with the site, because my comments are not showing up with my normal user name, but lets look at the differences:
Romney: has admitted his past positions were wrong, now supports Conservative policies on issues he didn’t in the past.
McCain: has never admitted that he is not a down-the-line Conservative, and continues to support his failed policies, and refuses to appologize for opposing the tax cuts (which turned into a huge boost for the economy, and which increased government income.)
December 22nd, 2007 at 7:40 pm
are we really surprised? Romney attacks everyone he sees as a threat.
December 22nd, 2007 at 7:40 pm
ROFLMAO
December 22nd, 2007 at 7:43 pm
There must be something wrong with the site. I swear I read this exact same hit piece on Romney last month. But it seems reposted here under today’s date.
December 22nd, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Just a heads up… New Hampshire papers have apparently unleashed an all out war on Mitt Romney. The Concord Monitor Sunday edition unleashes a scathing article…
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071222/OPINION/712230301
December 22nd, 2007 at 7:47 pm
its good politicking. he is smart!
December 22nd, 2007 at 7:49 pm
The beauty of being an EXECUTIVE rather than a LAWMAKER is that you dont have a history of senate voting to defend. This is why governors are elected presidents, it’s an executive office. McCain has zero executive experience. If romney said something sounded good or not it’s not a vote, it’s an opinion at the given point in time. Think about this when it gets to the general election.
December 22nd, 2007 at 7:52 pm
joe c – I’m curious to know why it’s good politicking – and are you talking about Romney being smart or John McCain.
All I see is that liberal newspapers are endorsing McCain and a good, although socially liberal democrat-turned-independent, Lieberman, is endorsing McCain.
Now the liberal media is attacking Mitt Romney. Hmmm.
December 22nd, 2007 at 7:54 pm
I don’t think anything Mitt Romney does is impetuous or off-the-cuff or reactionary.
I am sure that everything he’s doing is with the thought of the probably outcome.
One of the main reasons I really like this guy.
“Hindsight is better than foresight.” But have some foresight sure doesn’t hurt!
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Of course, the liberal media hates Romney, for three reasons:
1) He is too clean
2) He can win
3) If he does win, the liberals won’t get a single thing.
The media loves scandal, and Romeny is far too clean for their liking. They have resorted to attacking him on some statement that, at worst, was a case of a bad memory, but now appears to be true (at least according to several people who attended the rally). Recent polls show he can win just as much as Giuliani, even though he is less known, and that scares the crap out of the liberals. Finally, if Giuliani wins, at least the liberals get an abortion supporter, if McCain wins they get an Amnesty supporter, if Huckabee wins, they get too many things to list, and if Romney wins, they get…nothing.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:00 pm
#7 That is the toughest newspaper editorial I have ever read about a candidate for president. Indeed, I have never read an editorial that said a candidate “must be stopped.” I wonder whether its too harsh and that says a lot coming from me since I agree with everything it says about Romney.
Here’s hoping they have another one for Clinton.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:05 pm
LJ,
Here are McCain’s quotes from the time:
“[W]hen you look at the percentage of the tax cuts that, as the previous tax cuts, that go to the wealthiest Americans, you will find that the bulk of it, again, goes to wealthiest Americans. I would like to see some of that redistributed more heavily to middle-income and low-income Americans.”
It seems like McCain’s refusal to supprt Bush Tax cuts had some other facets than the ones you describe.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:06 pm
“Romney: has admitted his past positions were wrong,”
Why not nominate a guy whose past positions were RIGHT?
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Tommy,
Wow. That’s a harsh, but entirely on the money portrayal of Romney’s campaign.
bethtopaz,
I didn’t know that the Boston Herald, Union Leader, Portsmouth Herald and Keene Sentinel were liberal papers. That might be news to the editors. It’s especially interesting considering Romney, Alex Gage and Beth Myers actively lobbied for the paper’s endorsements as well. If they had gone to Romney, you’d be shouting it from the rooftops.
ACT,
Romney can win? Really? Rasmussen shows that he has the same percentage of core opposition to him as Hillary Clinton. Not to mention, he ties Hillary in Alabama and Texas, while turning VA, KY, TN, and MO solidly blue. He’d be a disastrous nominee.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Jason,
So now it’s a bad thing to care about the well being of the middle class in this country?
Also, Romney attacked Steve Forbes in 1996 and said that his plan amounted to “tax cuts for fat cats.”
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:09 pm
“and if Romney wins, (liberals) get…nothing.
Given that Act admitted that Romney’s past positions were wrong, who really knows what we’re getting with Romney? What if the guy wakes up one morning and decides he wants to be the UN General Secretary? Then all these heart felt conversions are out the window- like his previous heartfelt conversions.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:11 pm
LJ,
Don’t you know you’re not allowed to discuss Romney’s past?
He converted.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:11 pm
MWS,
I guess we know we won’t be getting a charlatan who could any day me indicted for tax fraud and taking campaign contributions in return for pardons.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Wow, you mean there will actually be a R42008 thread without a Huck attack in the comment thread? Vewwy Intewesting.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Really, there is something wrong with the site tonight, all my posts keep going missing.
–
two stories to post about:
Romney gets a newspaper endorsement: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071222/ap_po/on_the2008_trail_1
…and some good news out of NH: http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2007-12-20-nhpoll.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Romney maintains a respectable lead with McCain at the top of a bump, and the more in-depth questions look even better for Romney.
–
“Why not nominate a guy whose past positions were RIGHT?”
Because, to be honest, I can’t find one. McCain supported Ammnesty (and still may), Giuliani supported abortion (and still does), Thompson was ok with abortion on the state level (and still is), and Huckabee supported tuition breaks for illegals (and was defending that stance less than a month ago).
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Jason,
Yeah, any day now. Whatever…..
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:14 pm
LJ,
Hey, you’re the one that claimed McCain’s reasoning for his opposition is something other than these quotes. McCain was an echo chamber for the liberal talking points at the time.
McCain’s a loose cannon. We just don’t need it. He constantly finds himself on the wrong side of conservatism, for real noble reasons. That’s fine, just don’t act like the guy is a conservative.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:14 pm
#21 – they are going to switch from attacking Huckabee to McCain, since McCain is a bigger threat now.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:16 pm
MWS,
I have never seen a Huck supporter actually explain why Huck didn’t need to report his 60,000. I have never seen a huck supporter explain all the mysteriously timed contributions from a lady who Huck pardoned.
All we get is the brush off. How about an explanation?
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:17 pm
The only part of Romney’s past that is allowed to be discussed here at Romney42008.com are the Salt Lake Olympics, and his sledding trips with his family.
Discussion of Romney’s past views on Reagan, taxes, abortion, immigration, and sodomy are strictly forbidden.
He converted on all those issues (and more!) way back in ‘06, when most of you were a full year younger than you are now. Romney practically INVENTED modern conservatism. His past statements are non-issues now. If you feel the urge to question any of Romney’s conversions, or doubt his sincerity, you are an anti-Mormon bigot.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Should say, “A lady who’s husband Huck pardoned.”
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Jason,
I honestly haven’t cared enough to look into the issue. Have you reviewed the tapes of all of Romney’s pre-’08 positions?
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:19 pm
When did people say Romney’s past can’t be discussed? Please discuss. We have plenty of strong rebutals, something Huck supporters and McCain supporters seem to be missing.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:19 pm
I’ve never heard a good explanation for all of Romney’s flips – BTW how many are there now???
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:19 pm
“We have plenty of strong rebutals”
Yeah, I know.
He converted.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:20 pm
UA,
Good is subjective. I am just asking for any explanation. How about it?
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:21 pm
I go after Romney when I feel it is warranted, but don’t spend my time bashing him at every turn. This is not romney42008.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:21 pm
UA,
“I’ve never heard a good explanation for all of Romney’s flips – BTW how many are there now???”
It depends on if you only count each issue once, or if you count every flip on every issue.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:22 pm
MWS,
you apparently have no real ability to defend you’re guy. How about some explaining for Governer Graft?
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:23 pm
“The only part of Romney’s past that is allowed to be discussed here at Romney42008.com are the Salt Lake Olympics, and his sledding trips with his family.
Discussion of Romney’s past views on Reagan, taxes, abortion, immigration, and sodomy are strictly forbidden.
He converted on all those issues (and more!) way back in ‘06, when most of you were a full year younger than you are now. Romney practically INVENTED modern conservatism. His past statements are non-issues now. If you feel the urge to question any of Romney’s conversions, or doubt his sincerity, you are an anti-Mormon bigot.”
That is complete bull, and you know it. This is the site where we had an “open letter to Fred Thompson” asking him to destroy Romney, this is the site where the likes of TLG and Metro have been calling for Romney and Social Conservatives to be thrown out of the party, this is the site where the essential reads once contained only negative info about Romney, this is the site where Romney is currently ranked BELOW Huckabee and McCain, this is the site where (if I have read correctly), there was a large banning of Romney supporters early on. This site may be many things, but being a pro-Romney site is deffinately not one of them.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:23 pm
At A 2002 Fundraiser, President Bush Advocated Making The Tax Cuts Permanent Saying “I Know Romney Feels The Same Way.” PRESIDENT BUSH: “They also need to make sure the tax cuts are permanent. Let me tell you my thoughts about tax relief. When your economy is kind of ooching along, it’s important to let people have more of their own money. Here’s the page out of the textbook that I believe is important. I know Romney feels the same way. If you let somebody keep more of their own money, they’re likely to demand a good or a service. And when they demand a good or a service in this system, somebody is likely to produce that good or a service. And when somebody produces that good or a service, somebody is more likely to be able to find work.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks At A Massachusetts Victory 2002 Reception, Boston, MA, 10/4/02)
· Mitt Romney: President Bush Knows How To Stop Those Who Want To Raise Taxes. MITT ROMNEY: “We have to make sure that we have that battle cry here today as well because there are some people who would get the bus going back to ‘Taxachusetts’ and this man [President Bush] knows how to stop that kind of stuff.” (Mitt Romney, Remarks At A Massachusetts Victory 2002 Reception, Boston, MA, 10/4/02)
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:23 pm
#32 – I don’t have an explanation. I will do some research though. Do you have any links handy?
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:24 pm
MWS,
I will make you an offer:
If you want to make a defense that explains all of Huckabee’s seemingly corrupt past, I will gladly post it here on the front page, with no commentary. my email is jasonpbonham at gmail dot com.
When ever you are ready, I will post it.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:25 pm
I am not a Huck defender, but on the pardon, a donation is completely appropriate unless there is evidence of a quid pro quo (in which case it would be illegal). For example, Scooter Libby contributed to Pres. Bush’s campaign but no one thinks it was a payoff.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:26 pm
UA #38,
Then me offer in number 39 is for you as well.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:26 pm
I am glad everyone is seeing his true colors and the only thing left is for everyone to see that other professed man of God’s true colors.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:28 pm
People around here need to appreciate that most people don’t start forming their beliefs about the world until they are 60. Romney only turned 60 this year. The fact that he started thinking about his REAL positions on Reagan, taxes, immigration, abortion, and sodomy at the tender age of 59 shows remarkable wisdom and introspection. The guy is a visionary to have solidified his most deeply held beliefs at such a young age.
I mean really, do YOU guys know anyone younger than 58 that has ever considered the implications of abortion? Nobody can really know that unborn children are living human beings until he has a relative (not his wife) who has children.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:28 pm
“I’ve never heard a good explanation for all of Romney’s flips”
Abortion – Romney has been moving right at least since 1994, and he became pro-life after a meeting with a ESCR proponent who said “it wasn’t wrong, because we killed the embryo after only three days”
Reagan – Romney has said his opposition to Reagan was based on the deficit spending under his term, and that concerned him (which makes sense, since he is used to working within a budget), but the more time passed, the more he saw just how imporant what Reagan did was.
Other than that, I can’t think of “flip-flops” (even on those issues, you should notice the lack of the “flop” part)
here, see for yourself, its a Romney campaign ad from 1994: http://www.politico.com/pdf/wmr_1994_senate_flier_side_1.pdf / http://www.politico.com/pdf/wmr_1994_senate_flier_side_2.pdf
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:33 pm
MWS,
Romney has been consistent on his positions of Gun Control, Gay marriage, Civil Unions taxes, etc. Your guy has been consistent in graft.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:36 pm
“Romney has been consistent on his positions of Gun Control, Gay marriage, Civil Unions taxes, etc. ”
what is the etc?
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Don’t forget: Ron Paul’s turn on MTP tomorrow. I wonder what “gotchas” Russert has on Paul. Maybe he voted for a tax once. We know he will be asked about accepting money from racists, which is a non-issue. Only stolen money should ever be returned.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Regarding Romney’s “I’m not publicly endorsing nor rejecting Bush’s Tax cuts:
Romney was a brand new Governor and had state tax cuts he was hoping for. To try to take on a public endorsement of a Federal issue and strongly lobby the liberal people of MA to convince their liberal Congressmen and/or Senators to vote for the Bush Tax Cuts would have cut into any “goodwill”‘ that he was building to get other important things done. He had “other fish to fry” or he was “picking his battles” are nice catchphrases to help explain this.
But you can see from Bush’s quote above that Romney was definitely for the Bush tax cuts. This is not a “position shift” folks.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Jason,
“Mr. Romney explained to the group that his perspective on gay rights had been largely shaped by his experience in the private sector, where, he said, discrimination was frowned upon. When the discussion turned to a court case on same-sex marriage that was then wending its way through the state’s judicial system, he said he believed that marriage should be limited to the union of a man and a woman. But, according to several people present, he promised to obey the courts’ ultimate ruling and not champion a fight on either side of the issue.
“I’ll keep my head low,†he said, making a bobbing motion with his head like a boxer, one participant recalled.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/us/politics/08romney.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Jason,
On gun control, here is what Mitt! had to say about Massachusetts’ liberal anti-gun laws. In fairness, this is before his epiphany.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzYTdM9b5F4
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:44 pm
A freshman governor of a liberal state’s refusal to endorse a federal tax scheme does not equal opposition to said scheme.
Saying a handful of elements of a federal immigration bill still being revised seemed reasonable, while specifically declining to support the package, also does not equal endorsement of said bill.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:45 pm
In addition to #47 . . . It shows that Romney is a pragmatist and realist. He wasn’t going to be effective in getting all of the MA Reps and Senators to support the Bush Tax cuts . . . they were gonna pass in a GOP dominated congress. Why get into a needless fight in your home state over a federal issue which you have no control over?
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Maybe Romney had a family member who bought a gun and went hunting. That would be a good explanation for his sincere conversion on gun control.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:47 pm
PnGrata,
“A freshman governor of a liberal state’s refusal to endorse a federal tax scheme does not equal opposition to said scheme”
Well, it sure as hell doesn’t eqaul the leadership qualities that Mitt! is always bragging about.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:49 pm
I don’t think one side is going to convince the other on Romney’s changed positions. The real issue is whether as nominee Romney could do damage down ballot. Obviously, winning solves everything as Tiger says, but a big loss could topple other GOP candidates.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:50 pm
PnGrata,
“A freshman governor of a liberal state’s refusal to endorse a federal tax scheme does not equal opposition to said scheme”
And in fairness to Mitt!, he was still years away from announcing for President. It was impossible to know if the tax cuts would still be popular with national Republicans years later. Besides, Romney probably didn’t even know if he was running for President, or reelection.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Jeff Fuller,
“In addition to #47 . . . It shows that Romney is a pragmatist and realist. He wasn’t going to be effective in getting all of the MA Reps and Senators to support the Bush Tax cuts . . . they were gonna pass in a GOP dominated congress. Why get into a needless fight in your home state over a federal issue which you have no control over?”
Indeed. Why stand up for the unborn, the 2nd Amendment, traditional marriage, and Ronald Reagan until he had an audience worthy of his leadership? I fully agree that Romney was right to keep his real positions on these issues hidden from the voters who elected him. That’s what real leaders do.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:58 pm
“It shows that Romney is a pragmatist and realist. ”
There is actually a lot of insight here. Romney knows what side his bread is buttered on. As a pragmatist, he knows that he can’t change anybody’s mind, and so a smart leader adopts the policy positions of his target constituency. As a realist, he knows that his commanding leadership is more important than abstract principles like the right to life, traditional marriage, and the 2nd Amendment. Real leaders know how to reflect their constituents beliefs back at them. Real leaders know that they could never risk a pardon that might damage their future ambitions, and so they refuse to consider them. Real leaders are willing to sacrifice principle for the greater good.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:59 pm
#57 That could describe Clinton perfectly.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Yawn…we have been over this before…there is no quote from Romney that he denounced the tax cuts…he himself said that he has no authority over it as a governor, and no vote on it…by refusing to comment on the issue, that doesn’t make him a John McCain who voted against it TWICE in a two year period.
But wait this is what Romney did say during that period…”Mitt Romney: President Bush Knows How To Stop Those Who Want To Raise Taxes. MITT ROMNEY: “We have to make sure that we have that battle cry here today as well because there are some people who would get the bus going back to ‘Taxachusetts’ and this man [President Bush] knows how to stop that kind of stuff.†(Mitt Romney, Remarks At A Massachusetts Victory 2002 Reception, Boston, MA, 10/4/02)”…hearsay from a reporter has never, and will never be the gospel truth…quotes work for me.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:20 pm
jaaron,
You frame the issue beautifully. Real leaders know that standing up for what’s right is pointless when one isn’t responsible for the outcome. Real leaders first ask, “Is this MY job?” And if the answer is no, they don’t make waves.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Romney perfectly exemplifies the old quote:
“There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader.”
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:32 pm
MWS (#52),
Here’s what I’ve gathered about the Romney/Gun situation.
Romney had guns for a while. They were kept in their home in Utah where he’d apparently shoot guns . . . occasionally taking aim at “varmint” from time to time (home in Deer Valley . . . originally built as a vacation home, but they moved into it when called upon to take over the Olympics). When Romney moved back to MA the guns were apparently gifted to his son Josh who lives in Utah.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:35 pm
how about MWS and UA just shut the hell up until they can defend their candidate. I am looking forward to that front page post Jason has promised you both. Stop slandering and start defending. Your “contributions” on this site are ridiculous (that’s how you spell the word, btw).
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:40 pm
“how about MWS and UA just shut the hell up”
that is real adult of you.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:40 pm
MWS (56 & 57 & 60),
Please come down off your high horse. You’re embarrassing yourself.
You have no sense of what effective leadership is (outside of a religious sense) and you’re proving it more and more with each “holier than thou” comment.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:43 pm
A Real Leader doesn’t consider pardons, even thought it’s his job, because a Real Leader knows that it’s better that everyone rot in jail or be unable to reincorporate into society, than to risk having a pardon damage his future ambitions. A Real Leader refuses to wrangle with such life altering decisions, because he knows there is no personal benefit. A Real Leader does not ask, “Is this justice?” but rather, “might this be used in an attack ad against me in the future?” And thus, a Real Leader knows when to ignore the demands of justice, for the sake of “pragmatism” and “realism.”
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:46 pm
A Real Leader considers not what the people need, but what the people will vote for. This requires a keen sense of the people’s desires, and a good pollster. Nobody can be a Real Leader if he cannot afford a good pollster.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:48 pm
MWS,
Re: Gay Marriage,
Romney said in a Boston Globe article in 94 he opposed gay marriages. We also have Romney on record arguing for the FMA to congress in 95. Yet, you have one person who claims he heard Romney saying he would keep his head low. What a great amount of evidence.
But what is real funny and hypocritical is your ability to worry about a guy becoming pro-life, when your guy is a crook. You really have no credibility.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Jeff,
A Real Leader will own guns in a state where guns are popular. But a Real Leader knows to give those guns away before he runs for office in an anti-gun state. Then a Real Leader will support his state’s anti-gun laws.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzYTdM9b5F4
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:49 pm
MWS,
A real leader won’t take bribes and will honestly report all of his income.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:49 pm
A Real Leader asks his pastor friends if the murderers and the rapists have been saved and then frees them because Jesus said so.
#66 – Romney received over 300 pardon and/or commutation requests during his time as Governor but unlike your guy he believes the judicial system and the work of juries. Your guy just believes in salvation, graft, and pay offs.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Mitt Romney likes to tell people what they want to hear, he is a flip-flopping, FRAUD…. I’ve been saying this for months!!!
WAKE UP REPUBLICANS!!
Giuliani and McCain are the right men for the job… I hope Rudy wins and Mac becomes VP… we will win in 08 with that ticket.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Instead of taunting “SCOREBOARD!” . . . I’ll just reply to MWS with “EL RUSHBO!”
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2007/12/rush-limbaughs-undorsement-of-mike.html
No one survives that thrashing.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Keep hoping Iowa.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Some highlights of what Rush said yesterday:
“Who is this campaign to be defining who is or who is not a conservative? I never heard of Huckabee in an important ideological way before this campaign got going, and believe me, I know who the conservatives are out there.â€
. . .
“the Huckabee campaign is apparently very thin-skinned.â€
. . .
“Again, when I raise questions about public reports regarding any candidate’s record or position, what I am doing is comparing the record and position with our founding conservative principles. I am a conservative first. I am not a Republican first. It matters. When I raise questions about, say, about Governor Huckabee’s positions on illegal aliens, tax increases, the release of hundreds of criminals via pardon and his rhetoric about our war effort, sorry, I’m trying to develop an understanding of the guy so I can determine for myself whether he is in fact the kind of conservative you and me want as our president.â€
. . .
“I mean, individuals who have fought immigration for years are not happy with his open borders positions as governor. They’re just not. Anti-tax groups are unhappy with his tax increases when he was governor. Conservatives who helped defeat the Soviet Union under Ronaldus Magnus are troubled by his statements about our war effort and his desire to negotiate with Iran, for instance — and it raised eyebrows among longtime school-choice advocates when the New Hampshire NEA endorsed Huckabee. They endorsed Hillary on the Democrat side; Huckabee on the right. The NEA is not interested in conservatives getting any kind of power anywhere. So it seems to me that it is Huckabee’s record that is well suited for the axis of liberalism that he decries.â€
. . .
“I’m getting the sense that Mike Huckabee doesn’t want to debate the issues, and he’s relying on other things as a firewall to keep the issues from coming up. Folks, we have to force a debate on the issues, our issues. That has to happen. Conservatism is what unites a lot of us together, you and me in this audienceâ€
. . .
“You know, McCain’s starting to look better to me than this guy — and that’s saying something! More I see what Huckster’s — Huckabee’s (laughs) record was in Arkansas, there’s a lot of liberalism in there. There certainly isn’t a lot of Reaganism in there, and I think that the Huckabee campaign is trying to dumb down conservatism to comport with his record,â€
. . .
“What we have going on here is identity politics, I think, in a large swath of support for Governor Huckabee. Identity politics is what the left does. . . . Identity politics is: You vote for the Christian. You vote for the black. You vote for the woman. This is traditionally how the left looks at people. We, as conservatives, don’t. . . . That’s identity politics, or a little strain of it, and that’s what’s happening in the Huckabee race. The identity of Huckabee is: “Christian, Southern Baptist minister,†and that identity is covering and is being translated by supporters as meaning whatever they want it to mean, as opposed to actually looking at how he’s governed. Like the pastor who just called and said Huckabee is a light at the end of the tunnel. Pastor, the light at the end of the tunnel is the oncoming train, and you can’t get off the track! That’s the light at the end of the tunnel, and I think identity politics was a fundamental feature of the Perot campaign as well. . . .If you look at Huckabee in an identity sense and yet at the same time you really think illegal immigration is destroying this country, then your identity association with Huckabee as a Christian likely will make you overlook the fact that he’s opposite your belief on illegal immigration. Jimmy Carter was a Southern Baptist and he ran on that and he tried to capitalize on that. He ran on the religious identity, too.â€
. . .
“If we can choose a candidate who is pro-life and anti-same-sex marriage and good on national security, illegal immigration, taxes, and spending, why shouldn’t we choose that candidate?”
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Jason,
“New information, however, emerging from Romney’s 1994 bid for U.S. Senate may deflate those chances. A letter that Romney sent to the Log Cabin Club of Massachussetts, a gay Republican organization, has led some to call into question his “conservative credentials.” In the letter, Romney pledges to be a bigger supporter of homosexuals than the incumbent Sen. Edward Kennedy and expresses his approval of policies associated with gay advocacy. ”
http://www.rojo.com/story/a8RJAFcH8H1CMlUR
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:59 pm
76. How about you come up with something that actually shows a changed position.
Romney still agrees for equal rights for gays. And actually, I would say he was much more effective on gay rights than Kennedy was.
Now are you ready to fess up with a defense for your candidate? Or am I right when I call him a crook?
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:01 pm
A Real Leader will claim to oppose same sex marriage, but will force city clerks to carry them out, under penalty of losing their jobs. That way, not matter how history judges the issue, he will be on the winning side.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:02 pm
UA – once again I invite you to defend your candidate instead of just attacking Gov. Romney.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Anybody who reads mccain’s rhetoric when opposing the tax cuts knows it was not becuase there were no offsets. seriously.
if that is the case, he doesn’t believe in reaganomics, that is, cut taxes and revenues will go up.
i agree, i really don’t think mccain agrees with reagan and this type of tax policy. he supports keeping the death tax around which is just ridiculous.
mccain is surging because everybody has forgetten why republicans don’t like him.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:04 pm
MWS is about 2 straight-out-of-his-backside comments away from joining the ranks of Sampo as “just keep scrolling; nothing intelligent coming from this commenter.”
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:05 pm
MWS, 78
Once again MWS you appear to favor breaking the law.
I have no idea why there is no Huckabee poster here when
A. They favor lawlessness in a candidate and in a policy
b. They refuse to defend their guy.
Hmmm…
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Are there any liberals left to endorse Hill or Obama or have Huck and JMac wrapped all those endorsements up by now?
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Ray,
“A Real Leader asks his pastor friends if the murderers and the rapists have been saved and then frees them because Jesus said so.’
No, you’re wrong. A Real Leader does not talk to clergy. A Real Leader will not consider clemency requests, because a Real Leader knows that this can hurt his future ambitions. A Real Leader will not carry out his Constitutional job of considering these requests, and if he did, he sure as hell wouldn’t talk to any Christian clergy about it. In fact, he would not interview anybody about the person in question, because whether or not the person is reformed is not the issue. Whether or not juries gave arbitrary and outlandish sentences is not the issue. Whether or not men were wrongly sentenced is not the issue. Future office is the issue, and a Real Leader knows that investigating pardon and clemency requests can’t help him, but can only cause him trouble.
So you are wrong on two counts. Real leaders don’t consider the mandates of justice when it is politically dangerous, and a Real Leader refuses to keep Christian counsel, but when necessary, will prattle on about how important “faith” is- depending on his audience.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Once again, MWS, – you continue to slander and refuse to defend. I reiterate my comments in #63. Start contributing to the discussion instead of just attacking Gov Romney. Your entire post in $84 is completely flawed. Do you suggest we completely throw out the entire judicial system? Well, if you follow your man’s lead then you probably do.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:15 pm
76 MWS,
(I can’t believe I’m reviewing the same arguments I had with Rudy/McCain/Thompson supportes several months ago with Huck supporters now . . . I guess it’s all new to them though).
Romney said he’d be “more effective” than Kennedy about the gay-rights issues of the day which were all about discrimination. Romney stands where he stood then (with the exception of “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” which loads of people on both sides have changed their tune on because it’s been working so much better than expected). The Gay Rights agenda has changed, but Romney stands where he stood then . . . against discrimination of Gays (You know, I heard even prominent politicians were recommending quarantining HIV carries and AIDS patients around the same time . . . so somebody had to stand up against such unfounded and mean-spirited discrimination).
Here’s my post from over a year ago
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2006/12/romney-never-saidimplied-that-he-was.html
Both Thompson and McCain lied in a debate a few months back and said that Romney “ran to the left of Ted Kennedy” with is blatantly false and showed their willingness to say or do anything to obtain the candidacy by smearing (errantly) an opponent.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Ray,
Perhaps if we would just throw out the judicial system, Huckabe could have made more money while Governor?
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:19 pm
But Jason – Huck needed the judicial system. Otherwise, where would all his pay-offs come from if nobody went to jail then got saved?
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:20 pm
#79 – how was I attacking Romney?
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Frankly, I’d have no problem supporting JMac’s position back in ‘02. Under Bush and a Republican majority, Bush — using the CEO argument, mind you — delegated everything to the Congress under Republican (Delay) management, including invasive education reform, expanded Medicaid entitlements, and earmarks without end. JMac was right to stand up against tax cuts offered in combination with expanded government!
And I say that as a person who regularly defends Dubya against hard-line liberals, Europeans, and other typical BDS-afflicted parties. Bush’s permissive attitude towards larger government is one of the reasons I lodged a protest vote for Badnarik (LP) in ‘04.
The position offered by Romney in the past — I was not a Reagan/Bush conservative — gives him no right to dish dirt on anyone else, no matter how well he could show gratitude for Dubya backing his governorship back in ‘02, when GOPers could not lose!
Had the economy tanked after the Bush tax cuts, Romney would most definitely been bashing McCain for having said he could have signed them now.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Ray,
That’s true. I guess Huckabee had to find a way to turn lemons into lemonade.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Jason,
“Once again MWS you appear to favor breaking the law.”
No, a Real Leader knows that it is the responsibility of the Judiciary to make laws. A Real Leader knows that the Constitution gives the Judiciary the authority to nullify any laws that they do not like, and to write new laws at their leisure. A Real Leader knows that Judges are the oracles of God, and have the authority to command the legislature to write new laws more to their liking. Real Leaders impose the legislative will of the Judiciary, and know that the Founding Fathers created a government of judges, not representatives.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Oh, and Rombots, I’m only around 40 to 60 percent in agreement with Huck as his positions stand right now, but I think MWS’s criticisms of Mitt are absolutely on target. It was irresponsible of Mitt to abdicate his responsibility to review clemencies!
The laws of AR made it necessary for Huck to do so. And, as many in the media have pointed out, he learned from his mistakes. Mitt, in contrast, had a single term and appears to have learned nothing other than how to be an actively cynical politician.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:25 pm
MWS – a Real Leader knows he is God’s chosen one and all those who don’t fall in line and vote for him are heading to hades.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:26 pm
MWS,
A real leader, blah blah, blah. The idea that Romney should stand down the judiciaries role in interpreting the law is really humurous. Would you argue for the Supreme court hiring a militia?
How about you take the time to explain Huckabee ethical (or unethical) record.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:29 pm
MarkG – AR law required Huck to review the clemencies not grant them just because they got saved and his pastor friends told him so.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Jason,
So you agree with Mitt! that the Judiciary has the right to make laws, and the governor must meekly accept whatever they say?
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:33 pm
NH Ray: So if Huck had employed Mitt’s method of review (“ignorance is bliss” seems to be the main theme), it would have been great for Mitt to execute all comers: review and clemency denied, judgment stated in the name of the people…
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Oh, and Rombots, the title of this thread is “Romney’s distortions.”
You are the one’s who are supposed to be on defense. I know, I know, here at Romney42008.com, the rule the last three weeks is only Huckabee gets attacked on the front page, while Romney gets family videos, but this one is different.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Jason,
Even if Romney had never read the Constitution and thought that the Judiciary had the authority to write new laws, do you think he had to be so cavalier in enforcing them?
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:41 pm
MWS,
Actually if the judiciary decides how the law is interpreted, then yeah you have to follow it. It’s basically how things were set up. It’s why there are multiple justices and not one supreme judge. And it’s the basis of our government. I know following the law is a new concept to you, and by virtue of you presidential choice, appear to loathe it, but most celebrate it.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:41 pm
MWS,
I guess for a Huck supporter anytime the law is followed it’s “cavalier.”
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Jason,
“Actually if the judiciary decides how the law is interpreted, then yeah you have to follow it. It’s basically how things were set up. It’s why there are multiple justices and not one supreme judge.”
Oh, that was prescient of the founding fathers to disperse absolute power among “multiple judges,” instead of just one! “Interpreting the law” does not mean “making new law” or “REinterpreting the law.” It means applying the law to specific cases. It does not mean COMMANDING the legislature to pass laws that the court wants.
Recognizing the overreach of the Imperial Judiciary is kinda Conservatism 101.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:47 pm
A certain candidate is staying above the fray here and will arrive untainted by all of these attacks to voters on February 5th after he wins a primary on January 29th…
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Jason,
“I guess for a Huck supporter anytime the law is followed it’s “cavalier.—
I guess to a Romney supporter, the Judiciary IS “the law,” and our elected branches of government are only there to impose the court’s will.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Woah. My 104 says it was posted like, five minutes earlier than it actually was. Weird.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Jason,
Do you believe that a conflict in the separation of powers is best decided by elected representatives, or unelected lawyers who serve for life?
How you answer will reveal much about your philosophy of government.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:50 pm
MarkG – it’s late and I really don’t understand the point you are trying to make.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Jason, the constitutions of most states allow for the ultimate appeal of jury verdicts to the governor, especially once other appeals have been exhausted and new, potentially exculpatory, facts may come to light. Huck actually saw this review as his sworn gubernatorial duty. Mitt ignored his.
This is a separate matter, and it is distinct from general judicial review as a checks-and-balances issue.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:52 pm
MWS – what does your question posed in #105 have to do with letting murderers and rapists to go free and re-commit?
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:53 pm
What the hell? Everything I post ends up being like, four posts higher than it actually is. I’m posting this at 10:53. Let’s see how it winds up on the board. Probably 10:48?
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Grr. This board is ridiculous. My 104 and 106 had screwy times, but the post in which I point it out, it goes back to normal?
Damn you, Race42008!
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:55 pm
TLG: You’re simply ahead of your time. =)
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:01 pm
MarkG — This thread should make you feel a lot better about Rudy’s Florida strategy.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:01 pm
MWs,
The problem with your argument, is that while I feel it’s true that the Justices went beyond their roles in Goodrich, it’s bad president to start ignoring the judiciary everytime that you disagree with it.
You need something beyond “I don’t like the ruling.” The justices where in fact correct when they stated the Mass constitution does not provide a specific gender arrangement for marriages. They were incorrect to say that the goodrich’s were being discriminated against.
What youalso ignore, is the the cheif litigator against the goodrich’s is now an integral part of Romney’s campaign. He too, saw that Romney did everything that was constitutionally sound.
Unfortunately, you do a disservice to the cause of fighting gay marriage, and those who like Romney worked very hard to fight it, when you throw out bunk tin foil hat ideas like this.
Now are you ever, going to defend your candidate? I am guesing you do not have the ability.
Mark G,
Your point totally ignores the fact that the governor is not required to grant a pardon, he has the option. Mitt heard the requests, he just felt nothing warranted over ruling the juries. Huck heard the requests, and the bribes, and plucked the fruit when it was ripe.
Do you really think Campaign donations is acceptable cause for a pardon? do you really think murderers should be released based on being “born again?”
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Ray,
I agree that Huck would be in a stronger position right now if he had taken Mitt’s path of least resistance. That is what Mitt! always seems to do, especially regarding his “most deeply held convictions.” But Huck is different. Huck took his job seriously, considering all clemency requests. When a guy actually does his job and makes 8000 decisions on the matter, he is bound to get a few wrong. If he had simply ignored the harder aspects of his job, like Mitt!, and cast off anyone who might interfere with his future ambitions, then you would have nothing to say on the matter. The fact is, REAL LEADERS DO THEIR JOB DESPITE THE PERSONAL RISKS, and sometimes make mistakes.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Jason,
So where is your evidence that Huck took bribes?
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Rombots,
How can you swoon over Mitt! when he talks about the importance of faith, but mock Huck for talking to Christian clergy?
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:07 pm
MWS,
Here you go:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWFjYjFmOWMwYThjYzcwM2FiYmE5MDcyMmM4NzlkMGQ=
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Jason,
So it is better to let the judiciary run roughshod over the Constitution than to risk having their rulings ignored? Are you suggesting that no matter how unlawful their rulings are, elected representatives should NEVER stand up to them? Is that your way of answering this question I posed to you:
Do you believe that a conflict in the separation of powers is best decided by elected representatives, or unelected lawyers who serve for life?
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:10 pm
This is brilliant. During the time when “everybody’s paying attention” RUDY IS NOT BEING SCRUTINIZED. He will not be attacked for the next month! And by the time he wins a primary, it will be too late to taint him!
In your faces, you stupid Rombots and Hucksters!
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:20 pm
TLG – thanks for the sledding movie. That’s about all you’ve become worth recently. I like the fact Rudy isn’t being talked about – but out of respect for Metro I won’t go any further about my reasons why.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:21 pm
MWS,
The problem is the majority of the people in MAss didn’t see it as you. They saw them as interpretting within the bounds of the constitution. The lawyers who fought the case agreed with Romney’s actions as well.
You just aren’t on sound ground here. It’s a loosing game for you. Kind of like defending your candidates slew of unethical lapses.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Jason,
Nothing in your article ties Fields directly to Huckabee. The worst that could be said is that Huck probably gave the benefit of the doubt to a “friend of a friend,” if that. If that is true, it would be an err in judgement, but it is certainly NOT the bribery you alleged. The contributions the guy made were to the state GOP, not even Huckabee’s campaign (much less Huckabee himself). So your accusation of bribery is WAY out of line.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Jason,
“The problem is the majority of the people in MAss didn’t see it as you.”
“There go the people! I must follow them, for I am their leader!”
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:32 pm
MWS,
How do you explain the contributions that came right after Fields first rejection and right before his eventual pardon? Why one last contribtion after he got out?
Why wouldn’t Huck even make an explanation to the people for this when asked?
Keep defending Governor Graft.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Jason,
“How do you explain the contributions that came right after Fields first rejection and right before his eventual pardon? ”
I would reiterate would I wrote in 124. Maybe Fields was trying to buy influence. I don’t know. But as I said, nothing in your article ties him directly to Huck. The parole board already voted 5-0 in Fields favor. Perhaps someone with knowledge of the contributions convinced Huck to grant clemency under other auspices. I don’t know, and the article doesn’t know. But to you it’s automatic bribery.
Now maybe you can answer one or two of my questions? After all the title of this thread in “Romney’s Distortions” and there are always PLENTY of hit pieces devoted to taking out Huck on this site.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Jason,
For the third time, do you believe that a conflict in the separation of powers is best decided by elected representatives, or unelected lawyers who serve for life?
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:47 pm
A Real Leader criticizes others for taking his former positions!
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Jason Bonham,
What you are saying makes absolutely no sense.
At BEST, you have (a) contributions; and (b) pardons.
It is, at best, pure speculation and, at worst, slander, to say that the contributions CAUSED pardons.
Amazing that you are accusing Governor Huckabee of FELONIES when you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED.
This is trash.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:53 pm
The Romney campaign is absolutely desperate and apparently has gone into full slander mode.
Today they are saying: “Huckabee has committed felonies and will be thrown in jail any day.”
Tomorrow they will be saying the same thing about Romney.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:53 pm
I meant to say:
Tomorrow they will be saying the same thing about McCain.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:55 pm
“Amazing that you are accusing Governor Huckabee of FELONIES when you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED.
This is trash.”
Indeed. But this trash, can, and will make it to the front page here.
But I still can’t get any questions answered, including how Rombots can swoon over Mitt! talking about how important faith is, and mock Huckabee for taking the counsel of Christian clergy.
I can’t get an explanation.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:57 pm
mnm,
The Romney campaign will try to destroy anyone he gets in the way of his ambitions. The fact that he refused to grant pardons, even to deserving people, demonstrates this.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:58 pm
……but hey, the guy sleds with his kids, so he can’t be THAT bad, right?
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:00 am
I wasn’t aware that anyone deserved a pardon.
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:01 am
MWS,
Keep up the great posts.
The Huckabee-haters are long on rhetoric. But they cannot cope when we come after them with the FACTS.
And, at the end of the day, I’d rather been on the side of the facts and the truth, win or lose.
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:04 am
The Huckabee-haters are long on rhetoric. But they cannot cope when we come after them with the FACTS.
Truely precious, truely.
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:05 am
truly, I mean.
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:16 am
Jason,
You have no intention of answering my question on the separation of powers, do you?
You have slandered Huck as a bribe taker without evidence, accused me of supporting lawlessness, and can’t even answer a philosophical question? What, are you afraid that the right answer is the course that Mitt! took?
For the fourth time, do you believe that a conflict in the separation of powers is best decided by elected representatives, or unelected lawyers who serve for life?
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:18 am
Jason,
And for the third time, how can Romney supporters swoon over Mitt! talking about the importance of faith, and then mock Huck for consulting Christian clergy?
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:25 am
Jason,
Are you saying that the Constitution and the law cannot withstand a governor ignored an unlawful decision, but that the Constitution can withstand the Judiciary’s usurpation of power?
Can you think of any other branch of government that gets to determine the limits of its own power?
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:32 am
Well folks,
I notice no posts by Husky today.
He labled those of us who doubt Romney’s sincerity on issues a bunch of “fools” and “idiots”.
It’s becoming clear that we have two electable and “genuine” candidates,McCain and Rudy.
Neither is perfect and both carry some baggage. But overall, both have respectable records and experience that hold up well against Clinton ,Obama,or Edwards, and both have appeal outside the GOP.
As we near the primaries,I hope reason prevails and GOP voters coalese around one or the other and aviod a brokered convention which would only play to the advantage of the Dems.
WE need to play our two aces.
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:35 am
Thomas,
“I wasn’t aware that anyone deserved a pardon.”
Well, my friend you are aware now.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/18/fact_check_romney_no_pardons_boast_doesnt_mention_denial_of_vet/
From the article:
“Left out of the spot is perhaps Romney’s most noteworthy pardon denial: his rejection of the request of an Iraq war veteran who was trying to become a police officer after his National Guard service.
Anthony Circosta’s offense? Shooting a friend in the arm with a BB gun as 13-year-old. The impact didn’t break the skin.”
That Iraq war veteran was a Bronze Star recipient.
Like I said, Romney will destroy anyone who gets in the way of his political ambition. Even a Bronze Star veteran of the Iraq War.
December 23rd, 2007 at 1:02 am
This is a bogus post and is dispicable…
There is a difference between a personal view and ACTION!!!
Are you all idiots!
McCain’s actions have not been conservatuve and the few issues (pro-life), he has not been active in pursuing those goals.
Lets bash Mitt for personally held views, yet what were his acts? Give me one act that Romney did that was contrary to Bush tax cuts? How was his tax record as governor?
December 23rd, 2007 at 1:11 am
The problem is, I have answered your questions in other sections where you haven’t bothered to reply, so it gets a little old, and I am working on several things tonight.
But for the sake of argument:
Conflicts over interpretaion of the constitution are solved quite easily by the public outrage calling for better judicial appointments. I believe those on the Mass supreme court are limited to a term of several years. It’s not a hard problem to solve.
Above all, the respect for the rule of law is quite necessary.
And yes, The Mrs. Fields giving donations for the short period leading up to her husbands parole is pretty damning. So is the fact that Huck also didn’t report his taxes, so is the fact that Huckabee destroyed 300,000 worth of computers, so is the fact he received 70,000 from consulting one of the largest embryonic stem cell research companies, so is Huckabee covering up his son killing a dog, so is the fact that Huckabee let people out of prison for claiming they believed in Jesus.
I don’t think I ever complained about Huck talking to clergy people. You will have to find the quote of me doing so. I will complain if it looks like he coordinated with them.
December 23rd, 2007 at 1:17 am
MWS,
I’m a big time Federalist Society type. The last three years I’ve regularly attended speeches, conferences, debates and so forth where the brightest and most strident conservative legal minds have set forth their views on a host of topics, with and overreaching judiciary always on the front of their minds. Not once did I hear any of them suggest simply ignoring a judicial decision. The one time I heard the idea seriously addressed, it was Bill Pryor attacking Judge Roy Moore down in Alabama for ignoring the order to remove the Ten Commandments from the courthouse. Pryor helped Moore argue that case, but knew that once the decision is made, the rule of law demands that it be complied with.
December 23rd, 2007 at 1:22 am
Jason,
“The problem is, I have answered your questions in other sections where you haven’t bothered to reply ”
???
“Conflicts over interpretaion of the constitution are solved quite easily by the public outrage calling for better judicial appointments. ”
Better appointments. That’s it? So when it comes to SCOTUS, we sit around and wait for them to die?
So you are quite comfortable with the Judiciary setting the limits to their own power?
And you have answered my question by saying it is better for the unelected lawyers to decide any conflicts over the separation of powers, instead of elected representatives.
Unbelievable.
December 23rd, 2007 at 1:23 am
PnGrata,
And that is why we no longer have a Republic, but rule by judges.
December 23rd, 2007 at 1:27 am
Jason,
What do you think of Romney giving the big middle finger to the Bronze Star veteran in Iraq, as linked in #144? Maybe if the guy was TRULY serving the country by being in Mitt’s! campaign……..
December 23rd, 2007 at 1:30 am
Good night, guys. I’ll check in tomorrow.
As much as we disagree politically, I truly hope that God blesses each and every one of you.
Sincerely.
December 23rd, 2007 at 1:37 am
MWS,
did the guy do the crime? Was it the one the state set?
Maybe he should move to Ark, kill someone then claim he was saved?
Your problem with Activism, is that it is clearly subjective. You think it is activism, others don’t. I think it was, and I think that Mass got what it wanted by electing officials who appoint the judges on the bench. These judges can also be impeached by the legislature. Both of those are the check on their power. Obviously no one in the legislature saw fit to do that, so the people did have their say in this matter to that extent.
BY the way SCOTUS judges can be impeached, and yes, if you havn’t noticed, we do sit around and wait for them to die to appoint new judges. I really don’t think you have any idea about what you are talking about.
December 23rd, 2007 at 1:43 am
MWS- what do you think about Huck giving the Big Middle finger to those 1033 juries that judged people guilty? Maybe we should just commute 25% of the people in prison right now. heck I bet we could find that many to profess belief and be released within a day.
I find it the height of idiocy that Huck people actually are criticizing Romney for NOT commuting or pardoning anyone. What the hell happened to the GOP I grew up with? That used to be the law abiding and three strikes you’re out crowd.
You huck guys sound more like the liberals of the 70’s/80’s than you do any GOP candidate. Face it if Huck was pro choice he would be the frontrunner in the DEM primary with his record.
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:03 am
[...] also: Last night, LJ over at Race 4 2008 documented some more Mittisms in Romney’s Distortions, none of which include those documented here in the last couple of days. A man could make a career [...]
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:31 am
MWS – your pro-Huck biases are so clear in all that write. No one DESERVES a pardon! People deserve to face the consequences for their actions. I respect the young man who joined the military and has served his country in Iraq and also respect his desire to become a police officer. However, I also respect the the fact that he committed a crime (regardless of how insignificant the crime might seem in our eyes) and I am sure he respects the fact that he has to deal with the consequences of his poor choices early in his life.
The activism you support is even more dangerous than the activism of the judiciary. You support the idea that elected people should be allowed to simply throw out the rule of law. Here in NH when we had an “activist” judge the people came together and gathered enough signatures to recall the judge in question. There are legal, logical ways to combat against “activist” judges. But, this has nothing to do with Huck as he wasn’t combating activist judges; rather, he was over-ruling juries.
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:02 pm
“Some highlights of what Rush said yesterday:”
Does anyone still care what that druggie has to say? I’ve watched Rush a couple of times (before his pill popping)and never saw the appeal. He and Carville are two of a kind.
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:25 pm
MWS #144,
The most precious part of that article was the end where Romney is cited as believing Scooter Libby is worthy of consideration for a pardon. Rather a vivid contrast to Anthony Circosta.