Republicans

Posted on Democrats, Editorials, Republicans

you can’t blame newt for these republicans

read the first part of the contract that started the gingrich revolution:

As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives.

That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.

This year’s election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public’s money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.

Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act “with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right.” To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.

On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:

it then goes on to list specific policy initiatives, designed to check spending, restore accountability to congress, and to reduce big government. that’s what the american people voted for then, and this is what they still want to see. this is what republicans said they stood for in 1994, and they put it in writing in the contract with america(full text here).

i suppose it’s easy to forget something that was written over ten years ago. we can argue about the effectiveness of the policy proposals here, but the contract for america set an agenda and made specific suggestions to address problems. it took the republicans quite some time to figure out what changes to suggest, and how to sell it to the voters. like the british labour party, they needed to re-package themselves and make their agenda marketable to the average person. the contract was part of the marketing strategy, and it worked pretty well.

what does the republican party stand for now? what can they point to as achievements during their time in power? do they even deserve to hold on to their majority? you know that the party is in trouble when the criticism leveled at them by the former leader of the revolution is quoted by democrats. i was flipping past c-span and i saw a virtually empty room with democrats talking to themselves, holding up clever posterboards with gingrich quotes and the ugly deficit numbers, and generally preaching to the very small choir that was assembled there. i’m not sure exactly what the purpose of the meeting was, but it sure was entertaining to watch. in any case, newt was right then, and he is right now. the republicans have fallen off the wagon. maybe it’s time for some tough love for them administered by the voters of this country.

i don’t really want to see the republicans lose congress. i still think they are a better alternative than the democrats. i will do all i can to help defeat the current democrat in my congressional district, because we need a change there. i’m just saying that a good hard slap in the face and defeat in ’06 wouldn’t be the worst thing to happen to the republican party. it might even produce the radical reforms needed to bring the party back to its small-government roots.

i guess i should say something about tom delay here. he did the right thing. the political fallout or non-fallout i will leave for pundits to determine.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

2 Comments Posted on Republicans

political opportunists

reasonable people can disagree on what would result from the UAE managing (not controlling) some of our ports, and post 9/11, it makes sense to ask questions and give all deals like this a complete and thorough review. mccain was right when he advocated this approach, as I noted in an earlier post. the process of review was short-circuited for political advantage. it was to everyone’s advantage that we have an honest debate based on factual information, not on speculation. i was for the deal. i’m not going to re-argue it here, because it doesn’t matter now.

we were not wrong to ask questions about the deal, but the republicans didn’t really want to hear the answers. they couldn’t get past their overwhelming need for self-preservation to find out whether the president was actually right this time.

congratulations to the republicans. they effectively killed the ports deal. so what will they gain from this politically? will it guarantee re-election? that’s still to be determined. they still have some other issues to work out before we can support them in ’06. this party has stopped being principled. they have forgotten why we elected them to serve us. limited government? checks on spending? not for these republicans. when people like coburn and pence make the attempt to deal with spending, they are brutally rebuffed by their republican colleagues. it really makes one question whether the republicans are committed to small government. the clear answer to that question based on the evidence we have seen is that they are not.

related (UAE ports deal):

Choosing friends wisely–california conservative
We’re less safe thanks to furor over port deal –townhall.com
The Dangers of Ports (and Politicians)–washingtonpost.com
Technorati Tags: ,

5 Comments Posted on Democrats, Liberals, Republicans

principles DO matter

“The Clinton era did not produce a stronger Democratic Party. To the contrary, it’s legacy is the philosophy that principles don’t matter, that what counts is reading the mood of the electorate and being nimble enough to adjust to changing voter preferences. This counsel probably cost Al Gore the Presidency. The former Vice-President, who’s a person of deep personal morality, got tragically bad advice. He ran a campaign based upon issues, rather than on principles. Surrounded by Clintonistas, Gore attempted to win with a Clinton-style campaign, forgetting that he lacked Bill’s charisma. Gore hid his true character from the electorate. Forgot that he is a values-based Democrat.”

bob burnett– “busting the clinton ghost“

in today’s political arena, i don’t think that the politics of expediency are exclusive to the democrats, although they seem to have perfected it. the truth is that it doesn’t work for anybody except for bill clinton. i can understand how the democrats (at least their current leadership anyway) are tempted by the idea that they should say and do anything they have to do to regain power in washington. it’s a flawed idea. principles do matter. the average voter wants a representative who will stand up and fight for their values. we want someone who navigates by beliefs, not by polls. we want someone who says what he or she will do, and keeps those promises to us. am i promoting some kind of idealistic alternative universe? i don’t think so…as long as we, the unelected, stay engaged in the process of accountability that is required of citizens taking part in this great democracy.

so, how are the democrats doing with reading the mood of the electorate? the polls suggest that many americans have an unfavorable view of president bush and specifically of the UAE ports deal, which is currently in danger of being ditched completely. everyone wants to be re-elected, and they are scared to death of any fallout from bush’s unpopularity. bush-bashing is politically popular, and as long as that continues to be true, they will continue to engage in it. the republicans are also complicit in helping the democrats torpedo the president. it doesn’t matter to any of them that the president may be absolutely right on some of the things he’s doing…all that matters is saving their own skin. this is deplorable.

the question is: what do the democrats believe in? what principles can they stand on? although their far-left fans may cheer as random drive-by attacks on the president are leveled at him, that’s no way to win elections. despite what the average moonbat may have you believe, bush won in 2004. he beat john kerry despite his unpopularity and despite the american people’s uncertainty about iraq. if the democrats think they can win back congress with a message of “i’m not bush”, they are sadly mistaken.

bill press is a smart guy, even though i disagree with him politically. that’s why i’m surprised that this is his advice to the democrats. just run as the anti-bush…and that will be enough to win, says press. press writes about some issues where he feels that the democrats can capitalize on perceived bush weaknesses, and then suggests that all they need to do is run against bush, instead of using some of those issues to promote better ideas. i disagree with bob burnett when he says that gore lost because he focused on issues, rather than principles. i think that issues and principles are not that far divorced from each other. what you believe determines what you will do and what you will say.

it’s not enough for republicans to say, “america is less screwed up with us in charge”. it’s not enough for democrats to invoke the scary spectre of how much they believe george w. bush has ruined this great country. it’s judgment time for both houses. the first party to have a platform other than saying “we are better than the other guys are” will be the party that wins in ’06 and ’08.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

11 Comments Posted on Democrats, George W. Bush, Liberals, Moonbats, Republicans

the politicians: good, bad, and ugly

this is where we are now. republicans have become fat and lazy with incumbency. democrats have pandered to the unhinged. so…whose party has more hope of a quick recovery? my vote goes to the republicans. it’s easier to recover from what ails the republicans than it is for the democrats to extricate themselves from their love affair with their passionate left-wing contingent.both sides are out of touch with what their average members believe.

the democrats are not accurately represented by codepink, daily kos and DU, and the average moonbat hippie socialist. i’m guessing that the average democrat probably isn’t happy about the fact that howard dean is in charge and speaking for their party. none of the democrats who want to be president in ’08 have shown the ability to lead their party back to becoming a legitimate alternative to the republicans. take this to the bank: they will never achieve that goal until they get rid of howard dean and appeal to their non-moonbat base.

now to the republicans. they are a deeply flawed party at this point. they have become comfortable with the status quo and they need a wake-up call. hopefully this can take place without a massive voter revolt against them in the ’06 primaries. these are some of the issues the republicans need to address and make central to their campaigns. spending must be cut as well as taxes. border security must be dealt with. if they took any money from abramoff, they must take responsibility for that decision, and return any unethical donations. being accountable to the voters who elected them is something both parties need to work on if they want to keep their jobs.

i think it’s more likely that the republicans can get past their current struggles as long as they don’t take the democrats for granted. as for the democrats, i wish them a whole lot of luck. they have to replace howard dean, gag hillary, reid and kennedy, and stop pandering to kos and his ideological twins. i almost forgot something important: get a plan that doesn’t just consist of opposing the president’s policies that would also present a positive view of america. that’s a tall order.

Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

mitt romney: conveniently pro-life?

those of you who have been reading this blog for a few months know that i have supported the idea of governor mitt romney running for president in ’08 from the beginning. i like the fact that he has reduced the size of government in massachusetts. his message also appeals to me. i think that a message that speaks to issues of concern to many americans, including education, health care, and the necessary reform of social services, is the right one for republicans to adopt. i’m glad romney is talking about these things, and i hope that the message will be copied by other republicans who want to be our next president.

i like romney. have i been clear enough about that? however, i think his conflicting views on abortion are going to end up being a stumbling block for him on the road to the republican nomination.

the following exchange took place between governor romney and chris wallace on fox news sunday.

WALLACE: You have come under fire for allegedly flip-flopping on the issue of abortion. You’ve faced questions about that, so let’s talk about that today. When you were running for governor of Massachusetts back in 2002, you said — and let’s put it up on the screen — “I believe women should have the right to make their own choice.”

But now that you’re considering a race for president, you say you’re a pro-life governor who wishes the laws of the nation could reflect that view. Governor, why the change?

ROMNEY: Well, we had a major issue in Massachusetts, and it surrounded stem cell research. I spent a lot of time talking with people scientific in background as well as religious and spent a lot of time understanding when it was that as a society we needed to respect human life and came to the conclusion that it’s time to be very clear on that, that when conception occurs that human life has begun.

I’m not talking about religious definitions, but scientific definitions — and that to respect human life, we have to do so from conception. And therefore, I indicated I am pro-life and will respect the rights of human life.

WALLACE: But I don’t understand, Governor. I mean, the stem cell question, which often deals with the question of harvesting of eggs or fetuses to be used for stem cell — that isn’t why most women get abortions. I mean, there’s a division there, isn’t there?

ROMNEY: Well, there is a division there, and I’m happy to talk about stem cell research.

WALLACE: Well, no, but I’m asking about abortion. I mean, the vast majority of women aren’t getting an abortion so that they can sell their fetus.

ROMNEY: No, this is about when respect for life begins and when we as a society — and I believe fundamentally in a society there has to be respect for human life.

And when I ran for governor, I said very clearly I do not support abortion, I do not favor abortion, but I will maintain a moratorium on any change in the laws of Massachusetts relating to abortion.

One of the big issues in our race was whether there was going to be a reduction in the age of parental involvement in abortion from 18 to 16. I said no, no change in abortion laws. But I didn’t call myself pro-life or pro-choice. But after…

WALLACE: But you did say, as I said in the quote, women should have the right to make their own choice. I guess the question I have is are you saying that you only came to the conclusion about when life begins — this has been an issue for 30 years, 40 years — in the last three years?

ROMNEY: Chris, what I’m saying is that my position has evolved and it changed from where it was before. And I said — and the time of the change came as we were involved in the discussion of stem cell research, and I said at that point I am pro-life.

I’ve never used either title, pro-life or pro-choice, in the past. I said I don’t favor abortion. I wouldn’t change the laws as governor because I believe each state should have the right to make their own choice. But I’m very firmly pro-life.

i don’t think romney had a very strong answer to chris wallace’s questions about abortion. there are some things in his record that he can’t gloss over by talking about his views on stem cell research. romney has the inconvenient problem of trying to survive politically in a hard-core democratic (some might even say a liberal) state. i guess i could see the necessity of occasional compromises, but an issue like abortion is something that a governor who wants to be president should have decided one way or the other. the theory that the next republican nominee will most likely be pro-life seems logical to me, and it makes sense that romney would want to position himself that way.

there’s some contradictory evidence that romney may not be “firmly pro-life” as he says. it’s hard to distance yourself from supporting the legalization of RU-486, the abortion-inducing drug. he also has made past statements, in which he says that he is personally opposed to abortion, but that he would not attempt to change the laws of massachusetts to reflect that belief. that might be a hard sell to many in the pro-life community.
romney’s position that the states should decide on whether abortion should be legal or not sounds reasonable to me, but i’m not sure it will satisfy his critics on this issue. it’s possible to change your mind on abortion. i just hope that romney’s “firmly pro-life” position is genuine, and not a position taken for political advantage. i would like to believe that it is genuine. we will see what other pro-lifers think closer to the ’08 election.

related:

Romney reaches out to party’s evangelical base–the state (SC)
Romney Touts Conservative Credentials in S.C.–chris cillizza’s politics blog (washingtonpost.com)

9 Comments Posted on Conservatives, George W. Bush, Republicans

the great communicator and the big spender

George W. Bush is increasingly being compared to Ronald Reagan. Democrats accost him for being like Reagan while Republicans praise him for it. It is a fact that like Bush, Reagan came to Washington with an ambitious plan to cut taxes across the board and increase defense spending while containing federal spending. President Reagan successfully lightened the tax burden on the American people, and oversaw a massive defense spending build-up. Given President Bush’s recent push for more pro-growth tax cuts combined with increased defense spending for the war on terrorism, the analogy is tempting. However, at this stage in his presidency, Mr. Bush’s dismal record on spending when measured against Mr. Reagan’s nullifies this temptation. Better yet, in light of President Bush’s spending it looks like it would be more accurate to compare him to Jimmy Carter than Reagan.

Let’s look at the facts. If we compare the three-year percentage change in real spending during Reagan and Bush’s first terms, President Bush comes out as a profligate spender on his own and as compared to Reagan. Under President Bush, real total outlays are estimated to increase by 13.5 percent as opposed to 6.8 percent under Reagan. More importantly, total real discretionary outlays are set to increase by 19.5 percent under the Bush administration while they increased by only 2.8 percent under Reagan.

it’s a rather cruel cut to imply that dubya is similar to jimmy carter in anything that he does….there’s not much (if anything) jimmy carter did right as president. more numbers and artwork here (from the cato institute) to support this claim. bush 43 just can’t say no to new spending. it’s not just defense spending either, where significant increases in the amount allocated to that part of the budget are to be expected post 9-11. the numbers here represent president bush’s unwillingness to stop his own party from wasting our money. this is not to say that there is no economic benefit to tax cuts, because this can be easily proven. however, we can’t continue on this current spending spree. we must cut up the government credit cards, before our country suffers the economic decline of the majority of european countries.

reagan and bush have a few things in common, but their economic policies were vastly different, in theory and in practice. reagan used the veto on occasion, but bush doesn’t seem to believe in using his. bipartisanship doesn’t always produce good policy. neither does proposing legislation that ted kennedy will support.

we can blame the republicans and the democrats as well as our president. everyone should share the blame and the consequences of their reckless behavior on spending. i hope that the ’06 election will bring some accountability to the “leadership” in DC. big government has returned, and it must be destroyed before it causes further damage.

related:

(pdf)on spending, bush is no reagan — cato institute
Bush vs. the Deficit Hawks — opinionjournal.com
Reagan vs. Bush: Federal Spending and Budget Deficits–real clear politics

Posted on Democrats, Republicans

soak the rich — and we all suffer.

liberals and conservatives love to argue about many things, but one issue that produces violent disagreement most often is the question of the redistribution of wealth by government largesse. who decides where the money goes? do we trust them to make smart decisions? judging from what we have seen so far, we are not getting much benefit from the taxes we are paying. at least in some socialist systems, you get healthcare or vacation benefits out of the 30-50+% you pay into that system. this is not to suggest that those socialist countries have discovered something worth copying here in the united states. not at all.

an excerpt from this post on voice potential makes a strong case:

Today, our highest income bracket is truthfully around 40%, a rate that has increased steadily since that time. It’s often been said that the wealthiest 20% in the country bear almost 70% of the tax burden. Think about that. Think about all that money that could be reinvested in industry, used to start companies and create more jobs. Then, look at the alternative: a government that parasitically wastes money takes some, skims a little of the top, pays several bloated salaries and distributes a fraction of it back to the poor. Instead of believing in the power of Capitalism, which consistently has proven itself, liberals choose to follow the path that gives the government more and gives the poor less. The economic impact of an unruly tax burden is not only obvious, it’s crippling.

And sadly, Americans are blind to the real tax burden we face. When we tax industry, who do you think actually pays those costs? It’s definitely not CEO’s and boards of directors of these mega-corporations. No. It’s you and me. They roll the taxes into the price of goods and services, passing them along to consumers. So, when you buy that hammer from Home Depot, you’re paying for the taxes on steel, the taxes on the lumber company who purchased the wood, the property taxes for the land to grow the timber, the environmental taxes levied on the steel mill and the lumber mill, the gas taxes on the trucks, the sales tax on the sale of the hammer to Home Depot and the sales tax when you buy the hammer. And if you don’t think that adds up, you’re not paying attention. Bloated, ridiculous taxes like that don’t just negatively affect the wealthiest 10%, they affect all Americans, even the poor.

the fact is that we end up paying for those high corporate taxes, not the businesses, who conveniently include the cost of these taxes in the prices of hammers, cheeseburgers, and so on. dan mitchell at townhall.com agrees.

chris demuth has an excellent piece at the american enterprise online called unlimited government. i recommend reading all of it, even though it is longer than the average blog post. i will quote a few paragraphs from it here.

Second, the principle of limited government is not a bit less urgent today than it was two centuries ago. It has now been 25 years since Ronald Reagan arrived in Washington announcing his intention to “check and reverse the growth of government.” That quarter century has been governed mainly by Republican Presidents, and increasingly by Republican legislatures, and even the one Democratic President declared that “the era of big government is over.” Yet the federal government’s annual domestic spending doubled during the period, from about $900 billion to about $1.8 trillion (in 2000 dollars). Today the federal government’s fiscal imbalance—the excess of projected future expenditures over projected future revenues—is close to $70 trillion. About $20 trillion of this enormous sum was tacked on just in 2003, with the addition of a massive, unfunded Medicare entitlement to prescription drug benefits. Increasing taxes to pay for our standing policy commitments would move U.S. rates to the levels prevailing in today’s socialist European nations.

YIKES. many socialist european nations are seeing the negative effects of that policy on their country’s economy. if we don’t do something about spending now, we will see the same negative consequences on our economy that europeans, specifically france and germany, are experiencing. we can learn from our european friends an important lesson– what not to do with tax policy.

In recent years, with the Republicans in charge of both houses of Congress, domestic expenditures (even excluding post–9/11 “homeland security” spending) have been growing faster than during the previous two decades of divided government, and the incidence of pork-barrel projects has reached an all-time high. The 2001-2005 period marks the transformation of the Republican Party from its traditional role as a win-or-lose guardian of limited government to that of a majority governing party just as comfortable with big government as the Democrats, only with different spending priorities.

exactly. the republicans have lost their way and forgotten their small-government roots. this could be one way to attack them in ’06, if the democrats could make coherent arguments about this, and about illegal immigration. these will be key issues. the first party with a plan to tackle some of these things, and with a positive vision for the country, will be the party that will be successful in ’06 and ’08. (it would also help if potential presidential candidates divorced themselves from Kos and democratic underground, but i won’t hold my breath on that…)

if the government didn’t waste our money, it wouldn’t need so much of it. we have to look at all spending to see where we can make cuts, and insist that those changes become permanent. i have heard the argument for increases in social program spending by the government, and what cold-hearted person could be against such a thing? if you really care about the poor, the unemployed, and the homeless, wouldn’t you want them to receive the most money possible to help them get back on their feet? of course you would. the question is: which group would be able to provide the most resources, private charities or the government? while i will grant that non-profits are not always the most frugal with the money we give, our money still goes much further toward meeting our social obligations with them than with the government.

ok…i’m stepping off of the soapbox now. 🙂 your thoughts?

related:
Unlimited Government — chris demuth
America’s capitalist system is creating more wealth and higher incomes— dan mitchell
inherent faith of liberalism — mark ervin of voice potential

Posted on Conservatives, Republicans

a blast from the conservative past

If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before.

Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on earth. The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay that price.

It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of Government.

It is time for us to realize that we are too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams. We’re not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline. I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing.

So with all the creative energy at our command, let us begin an era of national renewal. Let us renew our determination, our courage, and our strength. And let us renew our faith and our hope. We have every right to dream heroic dreams.

–ronald wilson reagan
( excerpt from 1st inaugural address, full text here and audio here.)

january 20th, 2006 was the 25th anniversary of reagan’s inauguration as our 40th president. many posts have been made about reagan’s impact on government and on this country. i will link to some of those at the end of this post. we don’t have to go that far back to see the results of forgetting what reagan said about limiting the growth of government. republicans have forgotten where they came from. they have forgotten about what happened in 1994, when gingrich and his band of merry reformers came to washington with a plan to make positive changes (otherwise known as the contract with america). we can disagree about the impact of the ’94 revolution, but voters seemed to agree with what the contract had to say.

so where are we today? neither party is interested in limiting the US government’s “unnecessary and excessive growth”. the main difference, as i previously wrote here, is that democrats and republicans disagree on what government should waste money on. it’s time that the republicans remembered what reagan said, and what gingrich did, because the american people are starting to understand that government programs are not the cure…they are the disease. this is not to say that we should dismantle every single government program, but we should examine the effectiveness of each to determine whether it is accomplishing the goal for which it was created. i’m not optimistic that this will happen under any collection of elected officials.

the message of positivity about this country that president reagan gave us is something we rarely hear these days. the common wisdom is that america is going in a bad direction and that this will not change any time soon. everything is wrong with america and, what’s more…THE WORLD HATES US! our government has set us on a destructive path, and we can never recover from the leadership of the bush 43 administration. EVER. this is what we are hearing today, and this is a deeply flawed message.

i believe in this country. i believe in its promise. i believe in the people of this country. people of courage, convictions, and strong family values. people whose views are no longer acceptable to the tolerant. people who will never end up on the evening news because they are authors of good stories. this is who we are. we can achieve so much if we all work together. this message has been lost somewhere in all the heated rhetoric and political point-scoring.

the people who represent us should reflect our beliefs and our values. it is now time to question authority. it is now time to ask ourselves whether those elected to serve us are doing the job we sent them to washington to do. if not, we must hold them accountable for their action/inaction and vote them out of office.

related:

a tribute to ronald reagan — cao’s blog
Reagan Revolution Weekend Trackbacks–courtesy of jay at stop the aclu
(this has all the links you will ever need)

somewhat related:
my favorite fictional political speech (from the american president)

Posted on Republicans

foxes + henhouse = scandal

color me confused. i thought that campaign finance reform was supposed to keep the money out of politics. oops…guess it doesn’t cover lobbyist scum like jack abramoff (via breitbart.com/AP). i am not going to join anyone who wishes to defend republicans for taking this guy’s money. just because the guy is a sleazeball and a con artist, that still doesn’t excuse those who benefited from his scams. it’s possible that some innocent people will be caught in the crossfire when all the facts come out in this case, and that’s a shame. we still need to examine the whole system, and demand some accountability from both sides, because we have a serious problem here that cannot be solved by simply changing more campaign finance rules.

the pointing of fingers has already begun. some democrats are guilty of taking abramoff’s money as well. both sides of the political aisle need to put integrity above party loyalty. losing control of Congress in ’06 might actually be the best thing that could happen to the republicans. maybe it would wake them up. they are depending upon the weakness of the democrats right now to save them in ’06. once all the details in this case are known, this may not be enough to keep the republicans in power. it would be wise for the guilty parties to come clean now and to return the money they received or donate it to charity. it may help to restore their reputations, although it may not save their jobs. we shall see what happens with this story. the important thing is that we permanently fix what’s broken in this system.

related:
Don’t Delay, DeLay–NRO editorial
Money, Mobsters, Murder –the weekly standard
Abramoff Pleads Guilty, Will Cooperate–breitbart.com/AP
THE “A-BOMB” DETONATES —michelle malkin

Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

a (dark) horse of a different color in ’08

ladies and gentlemen, massachusetts governor mitt romney.

from the atlantic monthly’s the holy cow candidate:

“I believe people who are in a position of visibility and leadership affect the character of young people and individuals who look to them as leaders. And in some respects just as important as their policies and positions is their character and their substance. What for me makes people like Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt and John Adams and George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan such extraordinary leaders is that they had integrity through and through. What they were on the inside and what they said on the outside was harmonious. There are a lot of people like that. I think that if people try to live a very different personal life not consistent with the role they’ve assumed as a governor or a senator or a president, we lose something as a nation.”

mitt romney

i like governor romney’s statement here. he’s got all the right words…character, integrity, substance. music to the ears of red state republicans. romney is definitely running for president, and i like the idea of his candidacy for several reasons. the republicans have ceded the issues of education, healthcare and concern for the poor to the democrats. they have fought elections on tax cuts and strong foreign policy, which has been a winning formula the past two elections. i’m not opposed to tax cuts. i think that we need to have continued vigilance in our approach to foreign policy concerns. that was an effective tack against john kerry, but for the republicans to win the white house in ’08, they need to address other issues in addition to foreign policy and tax cuts.

governor romney understands this, which is why he speaks about these other issues. he made education, healthcare, and government reform top priorities in massachusetts, and he has had some success in all three areas. he stresses the importance of education and technology advancements in a december 12th speech to new hampshire republicans (which i would quote here if i had the transcript). massachusetts is not a friendly state for conservatives. after all, this is the state that continues to elect john kerry and ted kennedy. some conservatives may question how genuine romney’s position on abortion is and whether he takes the convenient position politically depending on the audience. some on the religious right may take issue with his position on using unused embryos from fertility clinics for stem-cell research(wikipedia). there is also the question of how the religious right will react to romney being a mormon, which shouldn’t be something that disqualifies him to be president.

from the james taranto article at opinionjournal.com:

Yet on the issues, Mr. Romney is largely in tune with the Christian right. “I am pro-life,” he says, though he’s not an absolutist. He favors a return to the status quo ante Roe v. Wade, when states decided abortion policy. In 2002, recognizing that Massachusetts is an “overwhelmingly pro-choice state,” he campaigned only on a promise to veto any legislation changing the state’s abortion laws, including a proposal, which Ms. O’Brien [romney’s democratic opponent] endorsed, to reduce the age of parental consent to 16 from 18. The Legislature never passed that measure.

Some question whether he is antiabortion enough to satisfy his party’s base. But George W. Bush has made similar nods to political reality–“I’m a realistic enough person to know that America is not ready to ban abortions,” he said in 1999–and few dispute the president’s pro-life credentials.

this makes sense to me, even as someone who is somewhat in tune with the Christian right myself. romney’s position is a reasonable one, and i wouldn’t disqualify him from the republican nomination in ’08 just for this reason. i’m ok with states deciding issues like abortion. i don’t believe that abortion will ever be banned across the board as a practical matter. that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t want abortions to happen less often than they do now. i am concerned that he supported the legalization of ru-486 (at least he did back in 1994), but it’s possible that his position could have changed on this from 10+ years ago.

as for the question of whether romney’s mormon faith will keep him from getting necessary support from the religious right…from the weekly standard:

Someone willing to go on the record was Charles Colson of Prison Fellowship. Notwithstanding his “fundamental” theological differences with Mormonism, Colson said, “I could in very good conscience support Romney,” calling him “a first-rate guy in every respect” and “a social conservative on most of the issues we care about.” Colson obviously wasn’t declaring for Romney, but simply indicating that he would not in religious principle, so to speak, be opposed to Romney and indeed could find political reasons to support him. Whether he would actually do so, of course, would “all depend on what the lineup is” and “where each person stands.” The other evangelical leaders I contacted took the same view. Colson offered the likely correct forecast: Romney’s appeal to evangelicals might slacken if a competent evangelical or Catholic with social views similar to Romney’s were in the race; on the other hand, Romney’s stock with evangelicals might go up if he were pitted against candidates holding more liberal social views, regardless of their religion.

the bad news right now for a romney candidacy is the not-so-small matter of name recognition. nobody knows who the guy is, especially compared to more popular potential ’08 contenders like giuliani, mccain, allen, etc. the democrats are even trying to find skeletons in romney’s closet. good luck with that attempt.

don’t count romney out. he’s been preparing for this since the ’04 republican national convention. he’s got a better shot at the nomination than mccain, who hasn’t convinced me that he can win over the religious right or that he can run an effective campaign against more socially conservative republican opponents. whether romney gets my support or not depends on who the opposition is. i like his views on government reform, education, foreign policy, and healthcare. republicans need to talk about all these issues, and not just surrender the discussion of them to the democrats. the other contenders should adopt romney’s message, because it’s a winning one for republicans.

related:

Matinee Mitt–NRO
Mitt Romney-Wikipedia
The Holy Cow Candidate–the atlantic monthly
In 2008, Will It Be Mormon in America?–the weekly standard
Mass. Gov. Romney Wants Nation to Improve Education–FNC