The National Review has endorsed Mitt Romney for President.
Some conservatives question his sincerity. It is true that he has reversed some of his positions. But we should be careful not to overstate how much he has changed. In 1994, when he tried to unseat Ted Kennedy, he ran against higher taxes and government-run health care, and for school choice, a balanced budget amendment, welfare reform, and “tougher measures to stop illegal immigration.” He was no Rockefeller Republican even then.
We believe that Romney is a natural ally of social conservatives. He speaks often about the toll of fatherlessness in this country. He may not have thought deeply about the political dimensions of social issues until, as governor, he was confronted with the cutting edge of social liberalism. No other Republican governor had to deal with both human cloning and court-imposed same-sex marriage. He was on the right side of both issues, and those battles seem to have made him see the stakes of a broad range of public-policy issues more clearly. He will work to put abortion on a path to extinction. Whatever the process by which he got to where he is on marriage, judges, and life, we’re glad he is now on our side — and we trust him to stay there.
Let's just say that they have more faith than I do in the sincerity and staying power of his latest "convictions." That, and I think he's an easy mark for Dem opposition researchers and admakers, and he'll be on the defensive for the entire General election.
I just posted a blog entry, before seeing yours, IP - my bad. I quickly deleted the duplicate.
I pulled different quotes though - I particularly thought this was important:
The NRO is pretty well-respected in my book - I will give this endorsement a lot of weight.
IP, you are being very credulous to your campaign press releases here, you honestly believe Romney will be an "easy" target for researchers? At least they will have to research. Giuliani's background is so tainted that the Democrats can save money researching and just google instead. Hillary can practically run on a high moral ground against Rudy. She would even win culturally conservative Southern and Midwestern States weary of thrice married Giuliani who treated his mistress like a matter of national security, not even to mention his Bonnie and Clyde relationship with the thug Kerik. Would evangelical Christians vote for Rudy? Iowa and South Carolina polls are saying “NO.” With poll after poll showing the economy becoming more important than Iraq and terrorism, Giuliani is a has-been. Terrorism now ranks 5 out of 5. The Economy, most important to voters, is Romney’s stand out issue. His squeaky clean background is not an “easy mark.” His background is probably one of the cleaniest of any presidential candidate in the modern political era. He is more accomplished than Hillary, especially in Health Care reform. What is so “easy?” Romney can win in Massachusetts, he can win anywhere. Romney ain't easy.
Please, stop being a foot solider for Rudy and think in the real world. Rudy backers are so paranoid about winning that they sacrifice half of what being a Republican is for perceived “elect-ability.” I am a Republican because I believe in something more than attaining power. That is why Republicans lost in 2006, because they got power hungry and they sacrifaced their principles for power. Romney wants to bring Republican principles to the White House. Giuliani wants just to get to the White House. There is no perfect candidate, but it sure ain’t Rudy. I trust The National Review over a Rudy press release.
Here is the CNN/Opion Research Corporation poll, Terrorism ranks last in the mind of voters, and is dropping like a rock. Health Care is also a huge strength for Romney.
29% Economy
23% Iraq
20% Health Care
14% Immigration
10% Terrorism
I don't agree with them that Rudy or Fred or any of the other candidates would be unable to unite the conservative coalition. It's very early - at this point in the process in 1992, conservatives loathed George H.W. Bush, and he united conservatives very well by the time of the conventions.
But by the NR and others saying that this candidate or than candidate would be unable to win the support of conservatives, they're trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. When the non-approved candidate loses to the Democrat, the NR and others can cluck disapprovingly and take "credit" for the loss, as if electing a liberal Democrat somehow advances a conservative agenda.
Let me ask you this - could you support a Giuliani ticket with a leading "NR-approved conservative" as VP? Someone like Santorum or Brownback or even Huckabee or Thompson?
Such a ticket would make you think, at least. And yet the NR wants everyone to think that certain candidates absolutely, under no circumstances can win conservative support. It's ludicrous.
IP, I think this article is on point, and it makes me nervous, no matter who Rudy would select as VP:
Frank,
Are you under the impression that I'm working for some particular candidate? I'm not - I prefer Rudy at the moment, but I'm not working for anyone.
That said, you wrote that entire post attacking Rudy, and didn't give me one positive reason to vote for Romney, or give me any reason to trust that Romney is really sincere in his current positions.
in fact, telling me "to think in the real world" isn't very persuasive - it's just insulting. Especially when you won't give me anything to think about regarding the candidate you're touting.
"I am a Republican because I believe in something more than attaining power."
And you yet have 100 percent faith in Romney's latest positions? The irony is rich - a Romney volunteer lecturing me on principles. :-)
"IP, I think this article is on point, and it makes me nervous, no matter who Rudy would select as VP:"
And there were people saying the same thing about GHWB in 1991.
The self-fulfilling prophecies continue.
The inconsistency of the absoluteness of your pro-Life demands trouble me, though. You won't trust Rudy, even if he promises you all the right things and picks a 100 percent Pro-Life running mate, but you'll trust Romney because - well, I guess it's because he says you should trust him, and the National Review agrees.
I don't care, of course - it just seems strange to have one threshold of "Pro-Life-ness" for one candidate and a different threshold for another.
If Rudy would win, would he not be the first self-identified pro-choice Republican ever elected President since Roe?
Answer:
Huckabee
A Giuliani-Huckabee ticket would be awkward. Giulaini lives for the Wall Street crowd while Huckabee preaches that Wall Street is the devil.
Santorum
Santorum already lost big in a swing state and is too Bushie for an "outsider" ticket. A gift for Hillary running as anti-Bush.
Brownback
Brownback is uninspiring and wants to be Governor of Kansas, where he should stay. He is not ready for prime time and puts two Catholics on a ticket, may be a problem in the South depending on the Democract ticket
Thompson
Fred Thompson has proved to be this election cycle's biggest disappointment so far. Pundits would never forgive Rudy for picking Fred.
Best VP Pick
Giuliani's best possible pick, in my opinion, could be Bobby Jindal, but that won't happen. That ticket would win even in France. He is Southern, pro-life, and has a fairy tale-like story. The media would love it, an Ivy League Indian immigrant who became the Governor of a Deep South state.
"If Rudy would win, would he not be the first self-identified pro-choice Republican ever elected President since Roe?"
Self-identified? As in - wouldn't sign a federal law banning abortion, but would appoint Pro-Life judges and work in any number of other ways to reduce the number of abortions in America? ;-)
Again, why the absolute trust for pro-choice Romney but absolute distrust for Giuliani? Is it simply because Rudy won't promise to sign a Federal law banning abortion, even though such a law will never reach his desk?
From Rudy's web site:
He doesn't say Pro-life judges (although that is a reasonable inference), and he only supports "reasonable" restrictions on abortion.
And I don't mistrust Rudy - I believe him when he says he only supports "reasonable" restrictions. I don't think he would spend any energy at all on restricting international funding of abortion, and other issues on the fringes of the debate.
Calling Romney an easy target for Democrats is just not true. If I didn’t have a final in a few hours I would go on, but I did talk about why Romney is the one: Economy, Health Care, and his beliefs match those of the Republican base. Rudy's silver bullet, terrorism, will be copper at best by 2008. Rudy is the real easy target, I like him personally and would vote for him in a general election, but saying Romney is an easy target while fawning over the easiest of easies is a little irresponsible. Rudy is not as elect-able as everyone believes, I practically grew up in NYC because most of my family lives there; Rudy is not liked there now for good reasons. People forget he was polling behind Hillary in New York for the 2000 Senate race before he dropped out. When people look at him closely at the national scale, his hero status of 9-11 will fade and people will see just another big city mayor.
"Calling Romney an easy target for Democrats is just not true."
I think he's an easy target because he's held so many different positions on so many issues that are fundamental principles. If I'm a Dem admaker, it's not hard to craft a series of ads, using Romney's own words, that make him look like an insincere panderer. I don't think any of the other GOP candidates have had such noticable flip-flops on so many major issue (although McCain on illegal immigration is a huge flip-flop, and Rudy on guns was obvious, too).
Of course, maybe the Republican Party wants an insincere panderer, to run against the Democrats' insincere panderer. That's not my cup of tea, but... [shrugs]
I do think it's funny that you think the only reason I'm supporting Rudy is "electability," yet your only arguments for Romney are that he's more electable because his issues are polling well right now. ;-)
Well I know you like Rudy for cutting taxes too. I guess I can only take a certain amount of Romney bashing/Rudy loving on this website before I explode. How about at least give Romney his due for the NR endorsement?
"Well I know you like Rudy for cutting taxes too."
That, but mostly for national security reasons. Despite what the polling says, that will be my most important issue in 2008.
"I guess I can only take a certain amount of Romney bashing/Rudy loving on this website before I explode."
Well, go ahead and write how much you love Romney as much as you want. You don't need my permission - that's the nice thing about this blog format.
"How about at least give Romney his due for the NR endorsement?"
I did - I posted it, and posted that the NR folks must really believe in him, although I don't. RSW expected me to ignore it. :-)
Romney has flipped and then back on some of the issue's, The difference between him and Rudy is that generally Romney has at least believed in the issues and returned to them now, which makes him more credible. Rudy has only come to his new found support for guns or judges (who do what they want after their elected) after he became a candidate. Rudy has been predatory when it comes to guns and suing private companies to support his attack on the 2nd amendment. Rudy is still pro-choice and will be after he is elected.
I think it's a little funny to have a Rudy supporter write.
"Of course, maybe the Republican Party wants an insincere panderer, to run against the Democrats' insincere panderer. That's not my cup of tea, but... [shrugs]"
I know we are supposed to ignore reality when it comes to Rudy because we are just Rudy hater's but give me a break. Rudy has flipped flopped on guns, abortion and immigration to list a few.
"Rudy has flipped flopped on guns, abortion and immigration to list a few."
Guns, yes. But if you think Rudy has flipped on abortion and immigration, please let RSW know about it, because I suspect that he'd disagree with you.
IP, if you didn't read in full that article I linked, please check it out. It speaks well about the quandary that I think a lot of folks are in.
From your article:
That's disturbing. In their view, it's better to lose everything, and have a Dem President, Congress and courts, than support someone who isn't pure enough for them. Only absolute victory is acceptable, and absolute defeat is preferable to partial victory.
Of course they also say this:
And this:
I'm boggled by the inconsistency of expectations for absolute purity that leads Pro-Lifers to support Romney. I really am.
IP, I am sure you missed this great piece of news - George P. Bush is in the Fred camp - Young Professionals for Fred!
:-)
Rudy supported Partial birth abortion he has moderated his stance and now says that we will support judge's who will be "Strict Constitutionalists" does that mean he hopes the court will over turn Roe? Is his statement another form of waffling, he doesn't want to commit to either side so he says the judges will take care of it, which is it?
On the immigration issue he now says the Illegal Immigrants that at one time lived in his "Sanctuary City" are here illegally and he is all for stopping Illegal immigration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boTZVP0ZywQ
I don't agree Rudy is the only candidate that can beat Hillary, but it's great campaign spin backed by polling, who knows until Election Day. Rudy is having real problems with Huckabee let alone Hillary; recent polls have shown many of the leading candidates could beat Hillary, who is also having problems with Obama. I think we are always better off running a candidate based on their stance on issues which can attract voters rather then just someone we think might beat the Dem. Don’t forget Hillary campaign will stop at nothing to win and will not be afraid to bring up every bit of dirt on Rudy.
That's disturbing. In their view, it's better to lose everything, and have a Dem President, Congress and courts, than support someone who isn't pure enough for them. Only absolute victory is acceptable, and absolute defeat is preferable to partial victory.
No, that is not the point. The point is that a separation of the link between the GOP and the pro-life cause will make absolute victory impossible. A partial victory with Rudy could be the beginning of the end for the movement. And a Hillary victory would not be an absolute defeat - it would be a setback in what has already been a long struggle, but the mechanism for ultimate victory would still be in place, a pro-life party - the GOP. It is a long range view.
You will also note that even the writer would have great reservations in voting for Hillary, as he states in conclusion:
Meh - I no longer consider Fred much of a factor. I've been writing for a while that only Romney and Giuliani have realistic paths to the nomination, and I still think that's true. Huckabee may be a factor, but I need to see some fundraising numbers for him. Winning IA won't do him any good if he only has $2 million to spend on combined campaigns in NH, SC, MI and February 5.
"A partial victory with Rudy could be the beginning of the end for the movement."
Could be. Again, the self-fulfilling prophecies - if the Pro-Life movement dedicates itself to eradicating Rudy from the GOP even after he gets the nomination, then Rudy will owe nothing to the Pro-Life movement. If, on the other hand, he picks a very Pro-Life VP and AG, and the Pro-Lifers are crucial to his election, then it could be the strongest Administration in history on Life issues.
Are Pro-Lifers willing to pursue that opportunity? From what I'm hearing: No. They'd rather have Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama than be seen as supporting Rudy.
Maybe.
Or Rudy holds himself out as the only alternative for pro-lifers, but doesn't really care about the issues. He creates a new coalition of voters for the GOP, which doesn't specifically include pro-lifers, and the pro-life party is gone.
I doubt that anyone, at this point, can shift the electorate enough to win by creating a new coalition. There's too much entrenched animosity, too much "the other side is evil" coming from both sides for major shifts in the national political composition. One side or the other may win or lose close elections by increasing or decreasing excitement among the members of its coalition, but barring any major national events, I don't see the coalitions shifting much in the next decade or so.
But, as self-fulfilling prophesies go, yours fits nicely with the one being pushed by the NR. ;-)
From Fox news coverage of the GOP debate today:
Another reason to like Fred.
Giuliani completely lost any chance of gaining my support with that idiotic response.
Giuliani completely lost any chance of gaining my support with that idiotic response.
Huh?
McCain's answer reminded me of my own rant on the subject earlier this year: Global Hysteria
Basically a rational approach to dealing with pollution and resource management is a good thing whether you buy into the doomsday scenario stuff or not. Given our massive environmental problems at the turn of the 20th century and what China is facing now and in the last couple decades... there are some pragmatic reasons to support at least some environmental improvement. The extent of the federal government's place in this issue merits plenty of debate versus State/local responsibilities. The other candidates seemed to be afraid to address the issue at all.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
At least George P. "Little Brown One" Bush is coming to grips with the fact he wont have the automatic support (amnesty generation 2.0) for his own presidency come twenty years from now. Or maybe he's made that deal with Fred.....arrgh!
Good to see Rick Santorum's name still shining through....he more than Rudy would unify Italian-American households out East and not scare the southerners away (Godfather music please).
All this talk about abortion misses the point. There's very little that any president can really do about this except for appoint conservative judges. Neither Reagan nor GHWB were all that motivated by abortion, but they appointed conservative judges, David Souter notwithstanding (he seemed conservative at the time), which has chipped away at Roe bit by bit. This came about because of a Supreme Court ruling, and it will be overturned the same way - there's not going to be an anti-abortion amendment to the constitution. So when Giuliani holds to his pro-choice position, but says that he'll appoint "strict constructionist" judges, I think that this should be enough for the pro-lifers. They could elect a true believer like Huckabee that will disagree with Giuliani, and then do exactly the same thing (appoint conservative judges). Or they could go for the phony-baloney candidate, Romney, who would also do the same thing, unless he changes his mind again. I mean, the guy became pro-life because of the stem cell research debate - how can I even take that seriously? He could watch an after-school special about teen pregnancy and decide that he's pro-choice again.
As for Huckabee, don't discount the win in Iowa, Gordy. Once he does that, he's on the cover of all the weekly news magazines, the lead story on the national news for a few days, and the main topic of conversation for the talking heads for a week. I would take that over a big war chest any day - it's easy to tune out political ads, but not a big early win.
"As for Huckabee, don't discount the win in Iowa, Gordy. Once he does that, he's on the cover of all the weekly news magazines, the lead story on the national news for a few days, and the main topic of conversation for the talking heads for a week. I would take that over a big war chest any day - it's easy to tune out political ads, but not a big early win."
Normally, I would agree with you, but for two factors. First, the time frame is so compressed this year that there will be hardly any time to capitalize on an Iowa win in terms of using it to generate field resources in the Feb. 5 states. Unless Huckabee is turning some of his recent polling success into dollars, I don't know how much a win in Iowa will get him, especially as he's not really seeing the same surge in New Hampshire. If he wins IA, he's going to have a week of stories, and then lose NH (to Romney, as a "comeback kid?") and then who knows where the narrative goes.
Second, this is a Republican Primary - getting slobbered over by the media only does so much, because many Republican Primary voters have learned to be so cynical about the media and news.
Romney is so full of crap. He has changed his positions on everything once he realized he wanted to run for president. He's the John Kerry of Republicans. Taxes- changed his mind. Abortion- changed his mind. Gay Marriage- changed his mind. I have no problem with people discovering "the truth." But Romney's conversion is too convenient.
Let me tell you who's been consistent.
Rudolph W. Giuliani.
I am so happy to be done with whales and nursing home debate and to have a frank discussion of the primary. Frank Calabrese and myself sat with Jason Barickman, the Republican Chairman, and the Rudi coordinator and pledged full support from both campus and town should either candidate prevail. Romney's delegate (Jimmy John) through his CEO, was so impressed with our show of party unity that he convinced Jimmy John to give the maximum contribution to Rudi . So believe me, when I say that both Romney and Rudi would be far better than Hillary or Obama.
After Frank and I agreed to co-chair Romney's effort in this county, I read two books about Romney. The first was called Turn Around which was actually written by Romney about what he did at the 2002 Olympics. He was a multi-millionaire having made a personal fortune, not inherited, as founder of Bain Capital. This company specialized in just that, turning around major companies. Because he was Mormon, I presume, they asked him to come out because the Olympic Committee in Utah had been accused of getting the bid through bribery, was projecting a 200 million dollar or so deficit, and was in danger of cancelling out. It was just after 9/11 to make matters worse. He turned them down the first time they asked. They came back to him and asked him to find them someone else. He went back to Massacusetts and thought: "If not me who?"
When George Hurbert Walker Bush introduced Romney for his speech at the Presidential Library in Texas, he remarked that Mitt's father, George, was the father of volunteerism. Mitt finally accepted the Utah invitation and turned the whole situatiion around. When he was done they had a 76 million dollar surpus, and he did it without taking a salary. He also did not take a salary as Governor of Massacusetts.
The other book, A Moron in the White House. Page 107- "Romney opponents hope to use the pro-life issue against Romney because his public views on abortion have changed since his first campaign for the Senate against Ted Kennedy in 1994. "
While he was Governor he consistenty voted pro life even though he proclaimed-(page 108) "I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dicated by judicial mandate." (See my blog for full quote)
The book lays out Romney's views as to how Romney believes people should look at a candidate. I think it is an excellent way to think about it. I would use the term i.c.e.--
Issues- Romney believes in a balanced budget, better schools, lower taxes, high paying jobs, affordable (non government run) health care, and traditional family values.
Character-In order to achieve the position that Romney has with his Mormon faith (administratively in charge of a large portion of Boston Mormons) he is required to give 10% of what he earns to his Church. He is reputed to have a personal fortune between 250m to 1b- and gives a lot more than this 10% to charity. His wife is very active with at risk inner city children- (I am trying to get her interested in Lincoln Challenge Academy which Blago screwed over) Mormons do not smoke, use alcohol, drink coffee or tea.
Experience-He did not get elected in Mass. for his liberal views-he got elected because the State was bankrutpt. He totally turned the whole place around. Neither Hillary or Obama have run a kool-aide stand,
Romney, in my opinion, has the best combination of I.C.E. -
I am so happy to be done with whales and nursing home debate and to have a frank discussion of the primary.
Many think that a discussion of the primary is speculative and of little interest. Whales and nursing homes are more poignant topics
The problem with whales is that after you have their blubber there is not much to talk about. The problem with the nursing home is that after we collect the insurance from the contractors mistake, there will also not be much to talk about.