Romney talks up McCain, talks down Obama

With all the economic ideas from so called know how during the campaign from both Party it is good to hear from someody like Mitt Romney who really knows it better.

Is Romney calling Obama inexperienced in running anything? What a strange twist of laughable irony? The venture capitalist who could not run a political campaign and dropped out of the race on his own thinks he knows better than Obama whose campaign has raised $250 million and is on his way to his party's nomination. Romney, you borrowed your campaign $42 million but you bolted out of the race on your own.

Romney that is why we need real change at the White House with a new kind of politics!!!

Would you give the keys to your house to a total stranger you didnt know?
A vote for Barack Hussein Osama would be that.

A drop-out versus authentic.

Romney is the only candidate from either party who has successfully run large enterprise, and his were private, public, and private-public (Bain Capital and numerous companies, Gov. of Mass., and the 2004 Olympics). Nobody else, and certainly no Democrat, has anything like that experience. End of story.

BTW, if I were hugely wealthy, I too would spend my own money in a front-loaded primary season rather than waste my precious time on fundraising.

Romney isn't slick like Obama. Slick is needed when running for president. Think back to Ross. I'm sure he would have better outcomes for the US economy than Obama, but he wasn't taken seriously.

People want somebody who panders and tells them what they want to hear. Obama is the answer. Then, it will be another cluster-F for another 4 years under Democrats who already failed when voted into Congress.

FYI: I don't believe in pro-war sentiments even on 9/12. I actually think Americans are now suffering from their anti-Muslim views. I guess that what happens when dumb Americans jump the gun. Everybody blames Bush, but everybody backed him and bails on him and makes him the scapegoat. He is just an excuse for the lack of brains in this country.

In his TV performance, Romney didn't omit the tidbit that the Republicans will need to win in Michigan to win the election. Who do you suppose he was recommending to McCain as a worthy VP choice? But McCain doesn't like people who are big spenders. Nope. He likes men who can win many more delegates spending about 15% of what the big spenders spend. They can be entrusted to put America's fiscal house back in order.

I really don't think that Obama reads prompters.
I will be great fun for Obama to show the American people the amazing projects he mobilized for the disadvantaged in Chicago before running for Illinois Senate.
I hope that Romney keeps speaking out for his candidate ---- he will provide better fodder than Bill Clinton did as a surrogate.

Romney is coming from the financial industry. In the financial industry almost every trader would tell Romney the following: “You cannot forecast the future based on the historical price action.” In other words the candidate’s previous experience is no guarantee for success. Everybody will find himself in uncharted territory as the new president. No experience in the world can guarantee a good presidency.
Romney hasn’t changed. He is the same old talking head.

Joe, Romney (and his campaign people) did know how to run a good campaign. The conservatives in Iowa just had a better feel for Huckabee toward the end, and his victory in that state opened up the way for Johnnie Mack to get the nomination. Plain and simple. Iowa and New Hampshire are two small states, but they have a lot of power (voting as early as they do), and they can be quirky. But it's all well and good. I believe John McCain is probably the best GOP candidate to match up with Obama. And Mitt would be a wise choice for the ticket (he can bring in Michigan and possibly neighboring Pa & Ohio, & an outside chance of liberal Mass). Also, he can help shore up the southwest by attracting the mormon vote.

I guess Romney forgot how he and McCain mixed it up before his pathetic dropping out of the race 42 million in the red. Still flip flopping eh Mitt? Why don't you fall back to your compound with your eight wives you Mormon freak!!! Obama writes his own speeches, you can't even wipe your own butt without a strategist. The thing is Hillary has now aired out all the dirty laundry and still lost. Does anyone really think thay John "100 years" McBush has any chance of winning? Just look at what happened in Louisiana!!! Get used to saying it now "President Obama"

I think you are confused DEM DEM DEM, Romney has one wife, and not all Mormons are freaks, (at least the ones i know)

billy brigg
It's silly to make this xenophobic statement...Would you give the keys to your house to a total stranger you didn't know? A vote for Barack Hussein Osama would be that.

On the other hand, Barack knows people like you. Why, because you're an American? Why don't you do your research on reliable websites; then you'll find out why he is the front runner! Listing to Hannity's Amerrican only becomes more infectious; and breeds mis-perceptions and lies.
BTW: Hannity can't even sell snake oil; that how dumb he is! I hope you're not dumb

.

it is time for a BIG change....we are indebt to ourselves, to most of the rest of the world, spend more money killing others than nourishing our own.....now treat the rest of the world the way we treated Native Americans....

it is time for change....can Senator Obama be the one to save us? maybe? maybe not? the others, admirable in their own rights, but not a scent of change from either...

we don't even know if there will be fuel to buy at any price to put in our vehicles before we pay them off or their leases expire.....

it is time for change....big change....God Bless us all

Mitt pandering to the presumtive GOP nominee reflects his true colors. If he gets picked for VP and the GOP wins, then he is in the "game" again and can collect back his 42 million loss. What a nice return of investment. I question his trusthworthiness. I don't believe he can ever relate to the average and poor citizens with his "filthy rich" persona like Joh Kerry wearing his Hermes designer neckties. And I can't comprehend why anybody with some brain could join the Mormons. At least he is not a Muslim - yet. JG

Great bonus of these letters from readers is it always shows just a amazing divide between the intellegence levels of each party's supporters. "Nuff said!

If DEM DEM DEM 08 is any indication of the type of people supporting Obama for President, then America is in big trouble. This rude talk has no place anywhere.

Dem, DEM, DEM, you are pathetic! You are so full of hate, b.s. and lies, that anyone who takes the time to read your stupid post will realize how retarded you are, and as an individual lack any brains whatsoever.

Wow. DEM DEM DEM 08 you may need to do a little more reading (if you do any at all). The Mormons abandoned polygamy in 1890 and Mitt Romney has been married to one woman since 1969. Such hate. If you don't like a candidate or ex-candidate (as in this case) that is fine. But try to keep your hate speech and ignorant statements out of this discussion. Obama seems like a nice person but I would never vote for someone that believes in socialism and big(ger) government. Same with Hillary. I like her personality less than Obama but her policy is just as bad. Neither would make a good president. Just like Kerry and Gore would not have. Hopefully the GOP will prevail again.

Dem, DEM, DEM, you are pathetic! You are so full of hate, b.s. and lies, that anyone who takes the time to read your stupid post will realize how retarded you are, and as an individual lack any brains whatsoever.

DEM DEM DEM,
You sad little person. You obviously can't communicate your thoughts without throwing in religious bigotry into the mix. Nobody has to speak for Mitt Romney, his record and character speak for themselves. Trying to explain to someone like you, why he dropped out is useless because you've got your head so far up Obama's hind quarters that you can't tell day from night. I think it's sad that people like you are being conned into believing the bull that Obama spills. He is flawed. It's communist rhetoric and it's dangerous to America. Even if he does get elected, the people will use the power of checks and balances and replace congress with republicans. Hallelujah, it the leftists get in the white house we can at least stop their checkbooks

Regarding the McCain camp's assertion that Senator Obama will be "easier prey" than Senator Clinton, me think ye doth protest too loudly.

It's amusing watching the Obama cultists bash Romney.

At least Romney's wife isn't a bitter, angry, anti-AMerican hag.

Whne it's all said and done Barry Hussein Obama will be nothing but a footnote in American history and Mccain will be the new president.

In all honestly I believe that a majority of people in America are turning their thoughts towards a socialist type of government for the United States of America.
They have found a leader for that train of thought in Obama. This election isn't really about the candidates, it about the hearts of the American people. We are evolving into a society of people who want to be cared for by the State and/or others. Many are willing to give up their rights in the hopes of having their basic needs met. People are losing confidence in their own abilities and want a "big brother" to take care of them. The voices of the people in America are shouting out their way of thinking and doing it in the name of the candidates running for office. There are many in America who are frustrated that their is NOT a
candidate on the ballot that they are comfortable with. Majority rules and who we get for President represents who the majority in America are.

I think Dem, Dem, Dem has heard enough.( I hope he gets the message). I'm not a Romney supporter but I agree with him on this one. 'The Presidency is not an internship'. However I fail to see why people act like Mitt turned Mass economy around. Last I checked it was doing worse under him, but he did turn the Olympics around. I don't think he'd be good for the ticket either. Mitt didn't win big in any state except where their were fellow Mormons, and all those states are red anyway. So I really don't think he can help carry any states.

(IQ of Obama + IQ of Hillary) = 1/10(IQ of Romney)

(Experience of Obama + Experience of Hillary) = 1/10(Experience of McCain)

Now, who should we elect to lead the free world?

McCain/Romney 2008

Huckabee belongs in the national government somewhere too, but we need Romney to bring economic stability to this country right now...

To Susan - No one on my side wants to be cared for by the state. A government of the people, by the people and for the people provides a greater good than we can as individuals. Our Social programs - AFDC, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC etc - are paid for by hard working people - including immigrant workers. These are the things a society governed by just and fair individuals can accomplish.

It amazes me that conservatives rail against "socialism" except when it comes to corporations and the real elite (See Bear Stearns, Bernanke opening the discount window etc). Our taxes and government make business possible. Our taxes pay for the courts, banking system, financial regulatory bodies, infrastructure like roads, bridges canals and ports that make commerce possible. Government programs like the Small Business Innovation Research grants seed and support start-ups by funding basic research. As Warren Buffet observed, he likely couldn't have achieved his financial success had he been born in Bangladesh instead of the United States, because Bangladesh had no banking system and no stock market. We do, thanks to our government.

The big lie of the neo-cons is that government is the problem. Wrong. Good government is the expression and practical application of the greater good for all of us. Neo-con policies lead to human suffering and misery. They hate government, so it's no surprise that they're really bad at it.

We stand together or die alone.
As far as a Romney-McCain ticket - I doubt we could as a society absorb the level of flip-flopping and pandering that would result. Neither stands for anything.

Romney did well in Massachuetts considering all the vetos he signed for policies the democrates wanted. Can you imagine the obstacles a Republican Governor faces in the bluest of States. I personally think Romney's record in MA was commendable.

Romney's record in MA is irrelevant, because it's clear he never governed with the best interest of MA citizens in mind. It was nothing but a 4-year opportunity to build a national profile while redefining his platforms and preparing himself for the presidential run. I'm convinced that all of his decisions were made with that singular goal in mind, and MA residents should resent him for it.

Between Romney and McCain, the two can pretty much claim to have stood on both sides of every issue you can think of if you go back only about 12 years. They would crash and burn on a national ticket.

That said, I'm all in favor of the McCain/Romney ticket!

Joe, You prove my point! Susan

DEM, DEM, DEM How can you call Mitt Romney a freak? Because he went to Harvard and got an MBA and J.D. degree at the same time and has gone on to become extremily succeful in business as a venture capitalist? Or is it because he saved the U.S. Olympics from financial ruin when they were 300 Million in the hole? Or is it that Mitt turned the 02' Olympics around, making it one of the most financially successful? Or maybe you don't like the fact that the democrats voted to have Mitt the Republican, be their governor of Massachusettes to fix their states budget and economy because the democratic governor couldn't? MA's State Government was several billion in the hole. In 4 years, Mitt turned them around without raising taxes and when he left office, the State of MA had a billion dollar surplus. Or could it be that Mitt has never had an a scandilous private life like so many other politicians? In fact, Mitt has been married his entire life to his one and only high school sweetheart, contrary to your lying statement about his 8 wives. What has Hussein OBama done? Run a business, run a state, run what? He's done nothing! Oh yeah, he has done something ,he's been a pot smoker and snorter of cocaine. Great choice for President of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.

oh my im listing to this and you people are idiots obma hates the US his wife said shes just likeing the US around the time obama started running and he called blue collers people who cling to their guns and religion when thing go sour thats crazy

Steve,

Romney's record is irrelevent?! He did a great job while in office. He was voted into office for a term. He fullfilled is obligation with honor. I think it presumptive of you to think he did not care about the residents in his state.

Emily

Jeff from Missouri: I'm afraid you are wrong. There were three Republican governors of Mass before Mitt Romney, probably because the people whated the Republicans to help the economy. Mitt was the four Republican governor in that line, but becuase of his poor job. They now have a Democrate as governor. You are also wrong when you say he did raise taxes. He did more than just that, he raised taxes and Fees by an estimated amount of 700 million the first year in office.( I'm not sure what he raised the other 3 years, but he did raise) Some say that he raised 700 million every years as governor. Regardless, Mitt lied when he said that he balanced the budget without raising taxes. One more correction, Massachusett deficiet wasn't 3 billion like Mitt would like you to believe. That was the projected amount. They were way of on their numbers and it turned out to be only a 1.2 billion deficiet. You can check about these facts anywhere. Massachusett also had one of the worst job growth rates in the nation. 3 rd worst.

For economy's sake, rein in government regulations

So the nation has thus far escaped recession, according to last week's report of miniscule economic growth. Of course, we're still shedding jobs, consumer confidence remains down, and discretionary spending shrinks as gas and grocery prices rise.

"It could be worse," lacks something as a political rallying cry. Even sunny optimists struggle with the audacity of hope. May's promise of spring has yet to lighten the spirits of working people and the somber solons who represent us.

Yet economic insecurity provides a welcome wedge for populists peddling income redistribution, class envy, and corporate antipathy. In prosperous times, such divisive appeals fall on deaf ears.

As JFK famously observed, a rising tide lifts all boats. Now, however, the tide has gone out. And those left behind by the receding waters of recession are eagerly courted.

Here's one example. Our state legislature recently passed something called the Working Family Credit, essentially a way to get cash to lower-income people. Despite being billed as a sales tax rebate, the legislation requires no evidence of sales taxes paid. What looks like a gift, though, is just a gaudily-wrapped empty package. There's no money for it in the budget and legislative leaders haven't promised to fund it next year.

While the credit may be worth only a couple hundred dollars to qualifying families, it could cost the treasury more than $100 million -- not small change in a budget facing a $2.5 billion shortfall. Still, lawmakers showed their compassion with a feel-good symbolic vote, as they did with the still-unfunded paid family leave program.

The Washington State Budget and Policy Center, a liberal think tank in Seattle, proposed the credit last winter. Recently, they publicized research showing a widening income gap, both here and nationally. The divide has clear political implications.

Although the candidate who most loudly decried "two Americas," John Edwards, faded rapidly, his mantle will surely be borne by the national Democratic presidential nominee and a host of like-minded state and local politicians.

They should temper their rhetoric. A Rasmussen Reports survey in January found that 40 percent of Americans see the economy as the most important voting issue this year. Significantly, though, we disagree on what that means, with 53 percent of us saying it's most important to create economic growth, while 40 percent want to reduce the income gap between rich and poor. Republicans favor growth, Democrats favor reducing the gap, and Independents favor growth.

More importantly, 50 percent of those polled believe the best thing government can do is to "get out of the way by reducing taxes and regulation." The results parallel other polling I've seen, nationally and here.

A recent piece in National Review magazine by Kevin A. Hassett takes a look at why the U.S. has not developed a European-style large welfare state, the ideal of some American populists. Boiling down some recent academic research, Hassett suggests that the determining factor is that, in America, people believe wealth is the result of hard work. In Europe, wealth is seen as a matter of luck.

The research, he writes, shows that "large welfare states emerge in countries where citizens generally believe that luck determines income." When wealth is earned -- and seen as earned -- people resist statist redistribution. If they believe individual effort has nothing to do with it, the resistance wanes.

We know that life isn't always fair. But it's important that we believe that it is fair most of the time. Clear connections between cause and effect, between behavior and consequence, make sense of the world. We cling, as the candidate of hope might say, to the ideal of an America of opportunity and merit.

As Hassett suggests, that ideal becomes harder to sustain when we see politicians channel billions of dollars in earmarks to their business cronies. Or when wealthy CEOs continue to pull down large bonuses as shareholder value plummets.

High profile abuses notwithstanding, our economy justly rewards risk-taking and hard work. These are tough times. Controlling taxes and regulation will help. Most Washingtonians understand that. Instead, we got new paid leave programs, the spurious working family credit, sweeping new climate change regulations, and a deep budget hole.

We deserve better.

Richard S. Davis, vice president-communications of the Association of Washington Business, writes every other Wednesday. His columns do not necessarily reflect the views of AWB. His e-mail address is richardsdavis@gmail.com.

My fellow Americans I write this comments with much concern for the economic future of this country if we put hatred and Party differences before the right thing we as a nation should do, and that is electing the right person with the right knowledge and experience of the economy which in my view and honest opinion is Governor Mitt Romney.Many years I studied Economics and Accounting two main and important things I discovered myself one(1)How to maintain the steady growth of the economy by closely monitoring our data/graph.second(2)Balancing the budget is the key to growth and success without these elements and without the right knowledge and expertise we will drag our lives towards the edge of the cliff and soon downwards.As a nation and as other economic powers around the world are rising we cannot afford to rely on meaningless speeches without substance like some candidates would like to do.I know exactly what Obama is going to do the same people now giving him money from their purse and many of them are living from pay check to pay check the same one including all Americans will pay more to taxes.He will not think of any other way because he doesn't have the right knowledge and experience on FIXING the economy.He's not use to dealing with the core/roots of economic problems,like a Dentist performing a heart surgery.

To Jim Malone: Unfortunately, while your praise of socialist ideals sounds good in theory, it rarely works in practice. Every socialist experiment eventually fails because it goes against human nature. Have you ever heard of the "tragedy of the commons"? Why do you think France is trying to become more like the U.S.? France is one of the more socialist countries but is frought with problems and has a standard of living significantly lower than the U.S. Lets learn the lessons of the past and not have to relearn the failures of socialism again and again and again.

Mitt Romney would make an excellent VP, he gave turned around the Olympics, turned a billion dollar MA deficit into billions of dollars of surplus, without raising taxes.

He understands the economy and is a man of great character! I pray to God that he has the opportunity to run for office and turn around Washington! McCain/Romney 08!

Dem, Dem, Dem: enough posters have already explained to you how wrong you are about the Mormon crack. So I won't touch that again. But that wasn't the only thing you were wrong about in your post. "Obama writes his own speeches, you can't even wipe your own butt without a strategist. " Wrong! Obama actually has the largest speech writing staff in the history of running for the presidency. 20 people! Count it 20! Most speech writing staffs are around 4. Which makes his five times larger than the average. By the way, Romney's speech at the CPAC convention when he dropped out of the race, which should be required reading for anyone who considers themselves a conservative, was written by himself the night before. He didn't even have anyone look it over to edit it. Check your facts next time before you prove your ignorance.

Socialism does make us all equal- equally poor.

Mitt is such a good guy. In my book, the greatest measurement of a man is by his most intimate relationships as a husband and father. I was blown away by the quality of children he has managed to raise, in spite of his wealth. Very impressive!

Mitt is a perfect candidate, but sadly, Americans don't want perfect. They want someone who perpetuates their bitter feelings that life has wronged them. They certainly don't want someone who will challenge them to be greater.

T

America DOES NOT need leaders who make us DEPENDENT on the government. There are some situations when the government should give aid, BUT we are out of control with what we EXPECT the government to do for us. NO government can afford it. And we, people, are doing ourselves, each other and our posterity NO FAVOR in expecting and demanding the government to be responsible for US!! We need more SELF RELIANCE and work ethic! We need the government to not regulate so much and have their hands in EVERYTHING. We NEED to WAKE UP. Let's not vote for someone who ultimately makes America more dependent on the government!

Hey you can not say Obama has not done any thing. He is leading in fund raising when it comes to the presidenial bid. So he is successful at recieving handouts. When it comes to managing or governing I don't know, but when it comes to fund raising, so far he is number one. I think Obama has got things figured out. He may take this handout philosophy to a whole new level. So don't say he is not good at what he does, he is just coming from a different direction. He is the agent of change. I just hope we all have a little change left in our pockets when he gets finished. God help Amerieca.

Bill B, Ignorance is amongst you when you divide people by race and religion. Why? Because if you make someone look bad, you (think) that you look better, but you don't. You look angry, and racists. Mitt Romney can't help himself. People do not beleive the "slip" of Osama instead of Obama, because we have already seen the Republican spin with WMD and Iraq. RACISTS UNITE!

Mackenzie Ware: I absolutely loved your post. You are SPOT ON! Your post was insightful about why Americans support who they do. Thanks for the education.

Those of you drinking the Romney Kool-Aid need to take a step back and examine the guy. First of all, this isn't the first time he's made the "he hasn't run anything claim," as he made it during the primaries about...yep, John McCain. See, Mitt's definition of leadership is that you have to have owned a large business or been a governor, which is a definition that made him the only qualified leader in the Republican Primary. He neglects the simple fact that some of the best presidents in American history (Washington, Lincoln, FDR) never fit his absurd criteria, and neither does the man he's desperately sucking up to so he can become the VP candidate. Secondly, for all of his supposed economic acumen, he had no idea how to run a successful presidential campaign despite having a huge financial advantage, and he refused in this interview to give his honest opinion on the gas tax holiday because he knows that it is a stupid idea but won't criticize McCain anymore. Third, Mitt's economic experience will mean absolutely nothing in the VP slot. His experience comes in buying businesses, firing their workers, and selling them for profit. That experience has nothing to do with the job of running a country. Fourth, Mitt needs to shut up and find something productive to do.

And, by the way, I'm Mormon, so don't accuse me of bigotry.

Emily,

What did Romney do that was great again? I find it rather Bill Clinton-esque to simply take credit for strong economic times that happened to coincide with your time in office. Other than that, I struggle to recall Romney's contribution to the well-being of MA citizens. The one exception might be the healthcare bill, which as a newly-minted right wing extremist, he would almost certainly not want to take credit for now, considering what it's costing the state.

And I don't think it's presumptuous at all to say Mitt Romney had loftier ideas when he was governor. You'll recall he spent nearly a third of his last year in office outside of MA. Hard to govern a state you're not even in.

Hey Brian,
Harry Reed is Mormon as well, so what is your point.

Steve, I copied what other's who personal know Romney have written about his record anc character. You will probably take more credence in their words than in mine. Now you still may not like what is written for you might not see eye to eye with social conservatives. This is long, but it you want more ask.

An Open Letter Regarding Governor Mitt Romney
January 11, 2007
Dear conservative friends:
We hail from a broad spectrum of organizations dedicated to fighting for the pro-family agenda
in Massachusetts. As you know, Mitt Romney became the governor of our state in 2003. Since
that time, we have worked closely with him and his excellent staff on that agenda.
Some press accounts and bloggers have described Governor Romney in terms we neither have
observed nor can we accept. To the contrary, we, who have been fighting here for the values you
also hold, are indebted to him and his responsive staff in demonstrating solid social conservative
credentials by undertaking the following actions here in Massachusetts:
• Staunchly defended traditional marriage. Governor Romney immediately and strongly
condemned the 2003 court decision that legalized “same-sex marriage” in our state. More
importantly, he followed up on that denunciation with action – action that saved our nation
from a constitutional crisis over the definition of marriage. He and his staff identified and
enforced a little-known 1913 law that allowed them to order local clerks not to issue
marriage licenses to out-of-state couples. Absent this action, homosexual couples would
surely have flooded into Massachusetts from other states to get “married” and then demanded
that their home states recognize the “marriages,” putting the nation only one court decision
away from nationalizing “same-sex marriage.”
• Worked hard to overturn “same-sex marriage” in the Commonwealth with considerable
progress to date. In 2004 he lobbied hard, before a very hostile legislature, for a
constitutional amendment protecting marriage – an amendment later changed by the
legislature to include civil unions, which the Governor and many marriage amendment
supporters opposed. Working with the Governor, we were successful in defeating this
amendment.
• Provided active support for a successful citizen petition drive in 2005 to advance a clean
constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
• Rallied thousands of citizens to focus public and media attention on the failure of
legislators, through repeated delays, to perform their constitutional obligation and vote on the
marriage amendment.
• Filed suit before the Supreme Judicial Court. The Governor’s suit asked the court to
clarify the legislators’ duty to vote and failing that, to place the amendment on the 2008
ballot. That lawsuit, perhaps more than any other single action, was by all accounts
instrumental in bringing pressure on the legislators to vote. The vote ultimately was taken on
January 2, 2007 and won legislative support – clearing a major hurdle in the three year effort
to restore traditional marriage in the Commonwealth.
2
• Fought for abstinence education. In 2006, under Governor Romney’s leadership,
Massachusetts’ public schools began to offer a classroom program on abstinence from the
faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students. Promoting the
program, Governor Romney stated, “I’ve never had anyone complain to me that their kids are
not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it
is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventative health practice.”
• Affirmed the culture of life. Governor Romney has vetoed bills to provide access to the socalled
“morning-after pill,” which is an abortifacient, as well as a bill providing for
expansive, embryo-destroying stem cell research. He vetoed the latter bill in 2005 because
he could not “in good conscience allow this bill to become law.”
• Stood for religious freedom. Last year, Governor Romney was stalwart in defense of the
right of Catholic Charities of Boston to refuse to allow homosexual couples to adopt children
in its care. Catholic Charities was loudly accused of “discrimination,” but Governor Romney
correctly pointed out that it is unjust to force a religious agency to violate the tenets of its
faith in order to placate a special-interest group.
• Filed “An Act Protecting Religious Freedom” in the Massachusetts legislature to save
Catholic Charities of Boston and other religious groups from being forced to violate their
moral principles or stop doing important charitable work.
All of this may explain why John J. Miller, the national political reporter of National Review, has
written that “a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives
than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting
political environment.”
We are aware of the 1994 comments of Senate candidate Romney, which have been the subject
of much recent discussion. While they are, taken by themselves, obviously worrisome to social
conservatives including ourselves, they do not dovetail with the actions of Governor Romney
from 2003 until now – and those actions have positively and demonstrably impacted the social
climate of Massachusetts.
Since well before 2003, we have been laboring in the trenches of Massachusetts, fighting for the
family values you and we share. It is difficult work indeed – not for the faint of heart. In this
challenging environment, Governor Romney has proven that he shares our values, as well as our
determination to protect them.
For four years, Governor Romney has been right there beside us, providing leadership on key
issues – whether it was politically expedient to do so or not. He has stood on principle, and we
have benefited greatly from having him with us.
3
It is clear that Governor Romney has learned much since 1994 – to the benefit of our movement
and our Commonwealth. In fact, the entire nation has benefited from his socially conservative,
pro-family actions in office. As we explained earlier, his leadership on the marriage issue helped
prevent our nation from being plunged into even worse legal turmoil following the court decision
that forced “gay marriage” upon our Commonwealth.
For that our country ought to be thankful. We certainly are.
Sincerely,
Rita Covelle
President, Morality in Media Massachusetts
Richard Guerriero
Immediate Past State Deputy, Massachusetts State Council, Knights of Columbus
Mary Ann Glendon
Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Kristian Mineau
President, Massachusetts Family Institute
Dr. Roberto Miranda
President, COPAHNI Fellowship of Hispanic Pastors of New England
James Morgan
President, Institute for Family Development
Joseph Reilly
President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life
Thomas A. Shields
Chairman, Coalition for Family and Marriage

Thursday, December 21, 2006
Romney a Social Conservative? Yes!
Posted by: Dean Barnett at 11:34 AM

Good news for me! A day after I wrote that campaign ’06 can’t begin soon enough, I notice that National Review has run a cover of Mitt Romney and John McCain duking it out for the Republican nomination. Call it a double dose of good news. Not only has the campaign begun, but my preferred candidate, Mitt Romney, has been elevated to the semi-finals by the NR folks.

I know there are a lot of people who are wondering why this semi-obscure one-term governor of our nation’s bluest state has so knocked the conservative media on its collective tush. Indeed, it is a phenomenon. A long-standing Senator of impeccable conservative credentials like Sam Brownback throws his hat in the ring, and the conservative media yawns. And yet Mitt Romney has K-Lo and others panting in anticipation of a Romney administration.

How could it be? Even if you’re inclined to take a cynical approach, there’s no easy explanation for how this happens. Instead, I urge you to take the Occam’s Razor approach. Mitt Romney has dazzled conservative opinion-makers because he is indeed special.

I was well ahead of the curve in having this realization. I knew Romney was special a decade before my brethren in the conservative punditocracy came to the same conclusion. But it is worth noting that I came about the conclusion the same way they have – from first-hand exposure to the guy.

As every reader of this site knows, I don’t find our political class to be particularly impressive. I find them intellectually incurious, pathologically ambitious and morally unmoored. The Democrats are worse than the Republicans, but it’s not a runaway.

But Romney is different. First of all, he’s brilliant. When you spend even a little time with him, you see how his mind attacks a problem from every conceivable angle. This requires an intellectual curiosity and an intellectual industriousness that is foreign to nearly all of our politicians.

Second, he’s a profoundly decent man. All that stuff about what a perfect family he has and how committed he is to it isn’t a crock. And he’s really nice – his affability is no Clintonian act.

When I was his occasional driver in his 1994 Senate campaign, we would often access Boston’s Expressway via the Mass. Ave exit. As the locals know, the traffic light leading to the ramp is a notorious hangout for Boston’s beggars who will approach the cars as they wait to get on the Expressway. Romney would not only give everyone who approached the car a few bucks (by handing it to me – the recipients had no idea that the money was coming from a Senate candidate), he would make me swerve across traffic to make sure every panhandler on the road got a few bucks. It drove me nuts, but it should tell you something about the guy.

I’VE RECEIVED A FEW LETTERS asking me to square Romney’s 1994 statements with his present-day stands. First, let me outline a few Romney characteristics. He is, personally, a deeply conservative man. He is a traditionalist to his core. Second, as I said above, he is a profoundly decent man.

On the issue of gays, I think there’s little inconsistency if any between his 1994 positions and his current ones. Romney has never been a hater – it’s simply not his style. One of his most prominent local critics, my one-time friend who later turned into a notorious crank, Brian Camenker, has complained on the dignified airs of The Daily Show that Romney was not only pro-gay in 1994, as governor his administration hired numerous homosexuals. The horror!

The controversy over this is that some can’t figure how Romney could treat gays as equals and still be against gay marriage. I don’t find that to be a particularly difficult brain-teaser unless you subscribe to the Andrew Sullivan theory that anyone who’s not eager to overturn millennia of marital traditions is by definition a latter day Bull Connor. Romney is against gay marriage but also for treating gays with dignity and respect; the two are not mutually exclusive.

The only reason this “scandal” is receiving the extended treatment that it is from mainstream media outlets like the Boston Globe and the New York Times is because they think that Republicans want their candidates to be hostile to homosexuals. This is flat-out wrong, and completely misses the genuineness in the frequent formulation, “Hate the sin but love the sinner.”

There is a little more meat on the bone regarding Romney’s “evolving” views on abortion. Personally, I would have been shocked if Romney in 1994 didn’t consider abortion the taking of an innocent life. When I drove him, we once had a debate regarding pre-marital sex. I was for it, he was against it. Although it never came up, I lived the values I espoused (as a single 27 year-old, virtually every chance I could get), and I bet he did, too. It would surprise me if someone who was so deeply personally conservative took a casual approach to the moral stakes involved in abortion.

And yet he was pro-choice. It’s fair to ask, why? To get a good answer, you have to look at the times.

Romney in 1994 was running against Ted Kennedy. In 1994, Ted Kennedy was vulnerable. The Palm Beach non-rape scandal was still fresh in voters’ minds, and Kennedy’s brand of big government politics had fallen into disrepute. 1994 was a dreadful year for Democrats, so dreadful that even Ted Kennedy was in trouble. As late as September of that campaign year, Romney held a slight lead over Kennedy in the polls.

If Romney had run as pro-life, his campaign would have been a non-starter. He never would have had a chance. So, in my opinion, as a concession to reality, he ran with a “commitment to preserving a woman’s right to choose.” That’s the euphemism pro-life politicians used when they ran as pro-choice. While he defended the need for access to abortion services to assuage the jitters of Commonwealth voters, he never took up the morality of abortion during that election season.

The putative abortion betrayal isn’t all that Romney did in ’94 that might rankle present-day conservatives. I haven’t seen it anywhere else in print yet this campaign season, but he also declined to sign what has since become the much-revered Contract With America. The reason for this was simple – embracing the national Republican Party would have been political suicide in a race against Kennedy.

How can a defender of Romney justify such things? Speaking just for myself, I theorize that Romney as both a politician and a man does not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. As mature and thoughtful people, we pursue victories that may actually be achieved. We necessarily work in the realm of the possible as opposed to the ideal.

It would have been impossible for a politician who was adamantly pro-life and embracing Newt Gingrich to have defeated Ted Kennedy in 1994. But Mitt Romney, with the campaign he ran, had a real chance and almost pulled it off. Were he not outmaneuvered and caught flatfooted by the far more experienced Kennedy campaign in the election’s last weeks, Romney would have beaten Ted Kennedy. And that would have been very good indeed.

So has Mitt Romney had an evolution on abortion since 1994? Regarding his personal feelings towards abortion, I highly doubt it. I don’t for a second think that he found abortion morally acceptable a dozen years ago. I’ll also point out that he never said at the time that he did.

I do, however, think that he has had an evolution as to what’s politically possible regarding abortion since he ran against Kennedy. As Massachusetts’ governor, he understood that for many pro-choice voters, Harvard’s plan to create and destroy embryos in the name of science would be beyond the pale. And he also understood that the Harvard plan could put the entire abortion debate into a different light. Harvard’s program had the potential to reframe the conversation in a way that made voters see abortion in a different light. And Romney seized the opportunity to do just that.

SO, WHAT SHOULD A REPULICAN VOTER take away from all of this? Well, first of all, if you want a candidate to tilt at windmills, Mitt Romney’s not your guy. He is an idealist, and he has lived his life as one, but Pyrrhic victories and noble failures aren’t his cup of tea. He plays to win, or he doesn’t play at all.

Next, if you want a candidate who’s reliably hostile to homosexuals, Mitt Romney is again not your guy. The good news is if that’s your hot-button issue, Sam Brownback is in the race. Brownback recently put a hold on a judicial nomination for her attendance at a same-sex union ceremony and demanded that she recuse herself from all cases regarding gender-neutral marriage issues. If you consider that to be true leadership, you can join 2% of your fellow Republicans and hop aboard the Brownback juggernaut.

Romney is someone who at his core and in his politics shares the aims of socially conservative Republicans. (As I intimated regarding our debate over pre-marital sex, he’s to my right on many of these matters.) He’ll pursue the socially conservative agenda whenever there’s a chance to do so. And unlike some of our more Elmer Gantry-like Republican figures, when he makes a stand he’ll do it not just for show but to get results.

BEVERLY....

>Why don't you do your research on reliable websites; then you'll find out why he is >the front runner!

I guess you're referring to thehuffingtonpost.com, msnbc.com (who is in the bag for osama), cnn.com well you get the hint, the far left wing media..

Can you name one piece of legislation osama passed in the senate muchless the house?

Voted #1 most liberal senator... now to take that title away from Ted Kennedy takes some doing..

Can you explain why was against removing the federal gas tax but yet he voted for it for removing it when he was in the house in 2002 ?

OMG, now thats a flip flop.

His propsal for a healthcare plan WILL include, just like hillarys, healthcare for 12 million illegals.. and guess what... WE PAY FOR THAT!

Which means bigger goverment... The last thing USA needs is healthcare being ran by the federal goverment.

>Listing to Hannity's Amerrican only becomes more infectious; and breeds mis->perceptions and lies.

See Paragraph #1 for the real truth.

America would do very well with Mitt Romney as our Vice President.