The Case Against Romney

Politics — By on February 1, 2008 at 12:51 am

[Note: I did not want to write this post. I'm tired of discussing politics and politicians and was looking forward to discussing something--anything--else. But many people have chastised me lately for basing my political view on emotion rather than reason (Dude, I don't do that. I'm not Rush Limbaugh.). So this is a partial defense of my position. I hope that even where we disagree that we can remember that our differences in political opinions are ultimately trivial and should not be treated as more important than is necessary. As Dennis Miller used to say, "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."]
Many people have harshly criticized me for my harsh criticisms of Mitt Romney. They believe that my attitude is merely a matter of “sour grapes” over my preferred candidate fairing so poorly. While this claim is untrue, I have to take some responsibility for giving that impression. My experience working on the Huckabee campaign did leave me with a less-than-favorable impression of Romney and his staff.
In this respect, Romney is unique. I didn’t like Rudy Giuliani either yet had warm feeling toward his staffers. I did like Fred Thompson, but maintained a strong dislike for his team (except for my friend Jon Henke). And I respected both the staff and candidate of Team McCain. So it wasn’t just a matter of campaign rivalry.
No, what really turned me off of Romney was closely examining his positions and character–and finding both lacking. Unlike many of the people who chastise me for not jumping on the Romney bandwagon, I have done my due diligence in examining the candidate.
Listed below are just some of the reasons why I think he is an unacceptable choice to be President. The list is lengthy but not exhaustive. I could have made the post twice as long and still not covered all the concerns I have about Romney.
But before we jump in, let me say that this is not meant to change anyone’s mind. I’m not trying to put Romney supporters on the defensive. They surely have thoughtful reasons for supporting him just as I believe I have thoughtful reasons for withholding my support.


Lack of Integrity — The main reason I can’t support Mitt Romney is because of John Kerry. I spent much of the 2004 election bashing Kerry for his political expediency. How then can I defend a candidate that is a bigger flip-flopper than Kerry? If he were a Democrat Mitt Romney would be excoriated for his lack of integrity. But because he is a Republican many conservatives are willing to overlook the fact that he has changed positions on:
Abortion
1994: Believed abortion should be safe and legal
2002: Personally against abortion but pro-abortion rights as governor, endorsed legalization of RU-486 (morning-after pill)
2007: Firmly anti-abortion
Stem Cell Research
2002: Endorsed embryonic stem cell research
2005: Vetoed stem cell research bill
Gun Control
1994: Supported assault weapons ban and Brady bill, rebuffed the NRA
2002: Supported assault weapons ban and Massachusetts’ tough laws on gun control
2006: Joined NRA as a life member and said that states should ease licensing requirements; claimed he was a gun owner but later admitted that he’s didn’t in fact own a firearm
Minimum Wage
1994: Opposed increase as an “anti-business” position but told David Brinkley in October that he supported tying an increase to rate of inflation
2002: Supported increase in line with inflation
2006: Vetoed minimum wage increase
Gay Marriage
1994: Opposed federal marriage amendment, vowed to help establish “full equality for America’s gays and lesbians”
2002: Provided legal protection to same-sex couples in Massachusetts
2007: Supported federal marriage amendment, worked to block same-sex couples from adopting
Gays in the Military
1994: Supported “don’t ask, don’t tell,” saying it was a step toward “gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military”
2007: Didn’t want to change “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy
Capital Gains Tax Cut
1994: Opposed capital gains tax cut
2002: Refused to sign “no new taxes” pledge
2007: Supported capital gains tax cut as part of his pledge to make President Bush’s tax cuts permanent; signed “no new taxes” pledge
All of these changes occurred in a span of 13 years, from the ages of 47 to 60. If the “evolution” had occurred in his 20s or even his 30s it might have been acceptable. But for a politician to change on such a divergent lists of issues in his late 50s is simply unbelievable. I truly don’t believe that he was sold on better arguments and reasoned his way into conservatism. Indeed, I believe that Romney is a man who believes in only one thing–getting elected–and all his other political beliefs flow from that single, unshakable conviction.
Healthcare — As Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute says, “Romney has been able to claim the Reagan mantle despite his support for…A health care plan virtually indistinguishable for the one proposed by Hillary Clinton.”
And before he received the endorsement of NRO (and the daily effusive praise that came with it), the magazine had the audacity to point out that he governed like a liberal:

In a nutshell, then, the Republican presidential hopeful is pouring political capital into creating a new state health-care bureaucracy, further regulating health insurance, forcing individuals to spend their money on a government designed product, and increasing spending by $200 million. It’s not hard to see why liberals such as Kennedy are excited about his bravery. They recall what such acts of courage did for another Massachusetts governor with presidential ambition, Michael Dukakis.

Yet that is what he wants to bring to the rest of the U.S. In the debate in Iowa, Romney expressed his fondness for government mandates for healthcare :

GIBSON: But Government Romney’s system has mandates in Massachusetts, although you backed away from mandates on a national basis.
ROMNEY: No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.

Homosexual rights — One of the few issues on which Romney has been semi-consistent is his support of gay rights. He did snub gay Republicans, though, by flip-flopping on ENDA and “Don’t Ask, Don’ Tell.” As he told National Review:

Lopez: And what about the 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans where you indicated you would support the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and seemed open to changing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military? Are those your positions today?
Gov. Romney: No. I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges.
As for military policy and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, I trust the counsel of those in uniform who have set these policies over a dozen years ago. I agree with President Bush’s decision to maintain this policy and I would do the same.

He can’t be accused, though, of merely pandering to gay voters for he supported homosexuality even for children. In 2004, Romney issued an official state proclamation celebrating “Gay Youth Pride Day” which boasted of supporting “the Commonwealth’s gay and lesbian youth through school-based and educational programs.”
Same-Sex Marriage — Along with a lengthy record of flip-flops, Romney has a history of avoiding political fights that might hurt his career. A prime example is the same-sex marriage issue. After the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts struck down the traditional laws of marriage in that state, law professor Hadley Arkes wrote an op-ed for National Review Online (The Missing Governor):

The deeper failure must go to the man who stood as governor, holding the levers of the executive. And if it is countdown for marriage in Massachusetts, it is countdown also for Mitt Romney, whose political demise may be measured along the scale of moves he could have taken and the record of his receding, step by step, until he finally talked himself into doing nothing, or nothing much.
Against a plural body like a legislature, a single executive could act as force to impart focus and energy. But as the legislators splintered along several lines, Romney preserved a decorous silence in public, while he sought counsel, and mulled over schemes, in private. The range of things he could do in combination with the legislature was considerable—if there was a will to do them.

After laying out all the ways that Romney could have prevented the usurpation by the courts, Arkes delivers a stirring condemnation of the Governor who lacked the political courage to defend marriage in his state:

If [Romney] were going to open himself to controversy and litigation, why not finally take his stand on the constitution itself, where his own authority on matters of marriage is clearly spelled out? And in taking his stand on the constitutional question, he would move to higher ground, with the burden of challenge shifted to the courts. As the arguments and recriminations fly freely about, he can in effect blow the whistle, invoke his authority, shift the focus dramatically, and make it clear—to the relief of the public—that a grownup is finally in charge.
It might have been a striking appeal to the south and west in the Republican party, that there was a northern governor, aligned with them in their moral perspectives, and with the resolution to act. If Romney recedes yet again, he confirms a rather different sense of his party: that the Republicans are ever more comfortable in talking about taxes but lose their confidence to speak when it comes to addressing the questions of deepest moral consequence, the questions that establish the terms of principle on which we live.

2nd Amendment — This one isn’t much of a secret. Romney has always given lip service to supporting the 2nd Amendment while supporting initiatives such as the Brady bill and the so-called “assault weapons” ban that undermine it. Yet anyone wondering why Romney polls so poorly in the South should remember that the people down there still take that issue seriously.
Judges — According to the Boston Herald, Romney has a history of picking Democrats and independents over Republicans when selecting judges:

Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents — including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights, a Globe review of the nominations has found

If Romney would not even support Republican judges when he was Governor, how can we be sure he’ll select conservative judges if he is President? Because he says he will and he’s always been so trustworthy?
Abortion — This one has been harped on many, many times yet it is still worth discussing. I’m always in favor of politicians moving toward a pro-life position–at least as long as the shift is sincere. A close examination shows that Romney’s flip-flop on abortion rights raises concerns that it was just another matter of political expediency.
During a 1994 debate with Sen. Ted Kennedy, Romney revealed that a close relative died of an illegal abortion years ago and said, ”Since that time, my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter, and you will not see my wavering on that.”
In 2002, when running for Governor, he made it explicitly clear that he would protect the “pro-choice” laws in the state. When asked if he would support a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion could be obtained he reiterated that he would not allow the pro-choice laws to be restricted in any way. Watch the video for yourself and see how adamant he is in claiming that he will support abortion on demand.


What is interesting is that his opponent raises two significant points. First, when he was running for Senate in 1994, he accepted the endorsement of Mass. Citizen for Life (he claims not to have accepted it). Second, she notes that when Romney was considering running for Governor of Utah he wrote a letter to the editor of one of the state’s newspapers saying that he was “not pro-choice.” Yet when he came back to Massachusetts he suddenly became a “passionate supporter of a woman’s right to choose.” Romney gets irritated and points out to Tim Russert that he never used the language that he was “pro-life.” He goes on to add: “I do not take the position of a pro-life candidate.”
This was a mere five years ago that Romney was vehemently pro-choice. What made him change his mind on such a significant issue? According to Romney it was… “cloning?”

Q: You were effectively pro-choice as governor?
A: About two years ago, when we were studying cloning in our state, I said, look, we have gone too far. It’s a “brave new world” mentality that Roe v. Wade has given us, and I changed my mind. I took the same course that Ronald Reagan took, and I said I was wrong and changed my mind and said I’m pro-life. And I’m proud of that, and I won’t apologize to anybody for becoming pro-life.
Q: Some people are going to see those changes of mind as awfully politically convenient.
A: When I ran for the first time, I said I was personally pro-life but that I would protect a woman’s right to choose as the law existed. Two years ago, as a result of the debate we had, the conclusion I reached was that cloning and creating new embryos was wrong, and that we should, therefore, allow our state to become a pro-life state. I believe states should have the right to make this decision, and that’s a position I indicated in an op-ed in the Boston Globe 2 years ago. (Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007)

So if Romney become convinced that cloned embryos deserve protection then he must be opposed to embryo-destructive research, right? Well….no. During the same debate he made it clear that it was perfectly acceptable to destroy “spare” embryos for the purpose of research. Let me make it clear for anyone who hasn’t connected the dots: If you are in favor of destroying humans at the embryonic stage of life then you are not consistently pro-life.
Romney’s position on life issues is not only inconsistent but incoherent. You would think that someone so practiced at political pandering would be a bit less clumsy.
Business Ethics — There are few aspects of Romney’s life that are more misunderstood than his business experience. Early in the campaign Romney cited his credentials and urged voters to reject “lifetime politicians” who “have never run a corner store, let alone the largest enterprise in the world.” But as the New York Times points out, neither did Mitt Romney.

Mr. Romney, though, never ran a corner store or a traditional business. Instead, he excelled as a deal maker, a buyer and seller of companies, a master at the art of persuasion that he demonstrated in the talks that led to the forming of Bain Capital.
“Mitt ran a private equity firm, not a cement company,” said Eric A. Kriss, a former Bain Capital partner. “He was not a businessman in the sense of running a company,” Mr. Kriss said, adding, “He was a great presenter, a great spokesman and a great salesman.”

Still, his achievements at Bain were impressive. In 1984 the company was worth $36 million and when he left in 1998 it was valued at $1.2 billion. Along the way he was able use his business acumen to acquire a $350 million fortune.
All of this is a laudable testament to Romney’s ability to use our system of free market enterprise to grow the economy and increase wealth. But I have concerns about some of his business dealings that, while perfectly legal, are morally problematic. A prime example is his dealings with the Damon Corporation :

Perhaps the most legally thorny was Bain Capital’s 1989 purchase of Damon Corp., a Needham medical testing firm that later pleaded guilty to defrauding the federal government of $25 million and paid a record $119 million fine.
Romney sat on Damon’s board. During Romney’s tenure, Damon executives submitted bills to the government for millions of unnecessary blood tests. Romney and other board members were never implicated.
More than a decade later, when Romney was in pursuit of the Massachusetts governorship, his Democratic opponent Shannon O’Brien accused him of lax oversight at Damon and failing to report the fraud. Romney replied that he had helped uncover the illegal activity at Damon, asking the board’s lawyers to investigate. As a result, he said, the board took ”corrective action” before selling the company in 1993 to Corning Inc.
But court records suggest that the Damon executives’ scheme continued throughout Bain’s ownership, and prosecutors credited Corning, not Romney, with cleaning up the situation. Bain, meanwhile, tripled its investment.
Romney personally reaped $473,000.

For Romney to outright lie about blowing the whistle on the company when in truth he was profiting nearly half-million off the deal raises serious questions about his honesty.
However, the most troubling situation at Bain was the plundering of Ampad:

In 1992, Bain Capital acquired American Pad & Paper, or Ampad, from Mead Corp., embarking on a ”roll-up strategy” in which a firm buys up similar companies in the same industry in order to expand revenues and cut costs.
Through Ampad, Bain bought several other office supply makers, borrowing heavily each time. By 1999, Ampad’s debt reached nearly $400 million, up from $11 million in 1993, according to government filings.
Sales grew, too – for a while. But by the late 1990s, foreign competition and increased buying power by superstores like Bain-funded Staples sliced Ampad’s revenues.
The result: Ampad couldn’t pay its debts and plunged into bankruptcy. Workers lost jobs and stockholders were left with worthless shares.
Bain Capital, however, made money – and lots of it. The firm put just $5 million into the deal, but realized big returns in short order. In 1995, several months after shuttering a plant in Indiana and firing roughly 200 workers, Bain Capital borrowed more money to have Ampad buy yet another company, and pay Bain and its investors more than $60 million – in addition to fees for arranging the deal.
Bain Capital took millions more out of Ampad by charging it $2 million a year in management fees, plus additional fees for each Ampad acquisition. In 1995 alone, Ampad paid Bain at least $7 million. The next year, when Ampad began selling shares on public stock exchanges, Bain Capital grabbed another $2 million fee for arranging the initial public offering – on top of the $45 million to $50 million Bain reaped by selling some of its shares.
Bain Capital didn’t escape Ampad’s eventual bankruptcy unscathed. It held about one-third of Ampad’s shares, which became worthless. But while as many as 185 workers near Buffalo lost jobs in a 1999 plant closing, Bain Capital and its investors ultimately made more than $100 million on the deal.

Such blatant corporate raiding is disgusting and would rightfully be condemned by any honest businessperson. For Romney and his cohorts to raid a company’s coffers and then leave the shareholders and creditors (not to mention the workers) to pick over the scraps is simply unconscionable. Driving a company into bankruptcy because of greed is antithetical to the spirit of entrepreneurship and free enterprise. How can so many people respect a man whose could resort to such unethical business tactics?
Summary — In October, John Hawkins of Right Wing News provided a useful summary of why Romney can’t be trusted:

He used to be pro-gun control and wanted nothing to do with the NRA, but now he’s against gun grabbers and thinks the NRA is peachy. He came across as a member of the open borders and amnesty crowd whose position wasn’t much different than that of John McCain on illegal immigration — until it became a hot political issue — and now he’s running ads that make him sound like Tom Tancredo on the subject. Then there are the Bush tax cuts, embryonic stem cell research, and the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. There have been so many flips that the flops are still running about two blocks behind, trying to catch up.
Are these shifts genuine? Are they purely for politics’ sake? Is Mitt Romney a conservative or is he a squish telling us what we want to hear while planning to take 3 or 4 steps back towards the middle once he feels less pressure to pander to the base? Probably the former, but there’s no way to really know the truth. Do we really want a nominee in 2008 that we have this sort of questions about?

I certainly don’t.
I’m not expecting anyone to agree with my assessment. I’m also not trying to change anyone’s mind about the suitability of Mitt Romney. In fact, if Romney is the GOP nominee, I will grit my teeth and cast a ballot for him as he loses in a crushing landslide.
But I do ask that people respect the fact that I have given it much thought and that I believe I have reasons why I cannot support him as a candidate.



  • http://markbyron.typepad.com/main/ Mark Byron

    There was the comic attack ad that mined some of those liberal MA quotes and closed the segment with “Catch the guy on the right day and he’s Che frickin’ Guevara.”
    Or Tom Tancredo or the head of MITI; during his Michigan campaign, he sounded like he was singing from the Japanese industrial policy songbook. Or announcing a stimulus package just before the Florida primary that included tax breaks for working seniors.
    As they use to say on To Tell the Truth, “will the real Mitt Romney please stand up.”

  • http://gunny93.blogspot.com/ GUNNY HARTMAN

    Wow! What a lucid and informative post.
    The main bullet in my gun was “He’s a Mormon” and you didn’t even use that once!

  • http://www.brokenmasterpieces.com Tim Rogers

    Joe,
    Amazing research. Despite all the hype I just never considered Romney a conservative and you’ve laid out all the evidence. I believe both McCain and Romney are moderates but will vote for McCain because I believe he’s the only one who has a chance to beat the Democrats (a small chance but better than Romney or Huck) and he’s been the only one right on Iraq.
    Thanks,
    Tim @ Broken Masterpieces

  • http://thebronxblogger.blogspot.com Matthew Goggins

    Joe,
    A very strong post. You raise very interesting questions about Governor Romney, and place those questions into a compelling, overarching critical perspective.
    You impress me with your writing, sir. You have made great strides over the past year, if you don’t mind my saying so.
    If I were a Romney supporter, I would quite possibly be reconsidering my support. However, I am still solidly behind Senator Thompson. I do realize his prospects for winning don’t look very good right now :)
    I like Romney better than McCain, but he does strike me as being something of a Republican version of President Clinton. Or rather, Romney and McCain put together would be a Republican version of Clinton: Romney, the very slick panderer, and McCain the hardball, arrogant street-fighter.
    It looks more and more that I will vote Democratic for a president for the first time in my life. For if Senator Obama wins the nomination, I will feel strongly tempted to reward his slaying of the Hildabeast and his purging of the Clintons from the head of the Dem party. But only if he can learn to talk sensibly about Iraq.

  • Baggi

    Wow. As Ronald Reagan used to say, “Here we go again.”
    Let’s see how your false accusations against Romney stand up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny, Joe.
    Abortion
    1994: Believed abortion should be safe and legal
    2002: Personally against abortion but pro-abortion rights as governor, endorsed legalization of RU-486 (morning-after pill)
    2007: Firmly anti-abortion

    Romney governed as pro-life. I’d like to see evidence that Romney endorsed legalization of the RU-486 (morning-after pill) as Governor. This looks more like twisting the record.
    Finally, where’s the flip flop? If a whore comes into your Church tomorrow and asks for forgiveness, is she a flip-flopper, or a repenter?

    Stem Cell Research
    2002: Endorsed embryonic stem cell research
    2005: Vetoed stem cell research bill

    Perhaps you’ve decided to define flip flop as just a flip? Where’s the flip-flop here?
    Also, please link to your sources. Specifically, where, how and when did Mitt Romney endorse embryonic stem cell research and then what did he have to say in 2005 that lead him to veto a stem cell research bill?
    I have a feeling, if I remember all the stuff ive read accurately, that he vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill. Which is interesting, why didn’t you say that instead of “stem cell research”?

    Gun Control
    1994: Supported assault weapons ban and Brady bill, rebuffed the NRA
    2002: Supported assault weapons ban and Massachusetts’ tough laws on gun control
    2006: Joined NRA as a life member and said that states should ease licensing requirements; claimed he was a gun owner but later admitted that he’s didn’t in fact own a firearm

    Even the most ardent Romney hater should admit after your first three that you havn’t yet demonstrated a single flip-flop.
    Also, i’ve really lost all trust in you Joe, so please place links supporting your claims against Romney. Again, if my memory serves correctly Romney said he had guns in his home and later said that they belonged to his son. Of course, this isn’t a flip-flop, but perhaps you’re trying to address the character issue here?
    Also, Romney continues to support a ban on what he calls “Weapons of unusual lethality” which I think most of us would agree with. Even my father, who is a lifetime member of the NRA, wouldn’t want folks walking around with Nuclear weapons.

    Minimum Wage
    1994: Opposed increase as an “anti-business” position but told David Brinkley in October that he supported tying an increase to rate of inflation
    2002: Supported increase in line with inflation
    2006: Vetoed minimum wage increase

    This would be his first flip-flop if its true. Until you demonstrate that it is though, and as you’ve lost all trust with me, i’m not going to take your word for it, Joe. Feel free to provide evidence of your assertions.

    Gay Marriage
    1994: Opposed federal marriage amendment, vowed to help establish “full equality for America’s gays and lesbians”
    2002: Provided legal protection to same-sex couples in Massachusetts
    2007: Supported federal marriage amendment, worked to block same-sex couples from adopting

    This appears to be a case of mixing apples and oranges. There are lot’s of folks who oppose same sex marriage but support some alternative. Certainly you’re aware of that and just trying to write as much as possible here to make things look worse than they are. So far you’re only 1 for 5, and that assumes you’ll be able to provide evidence.

    Gays in the Military
    1994: Supported “don’t ask, don’t tell,” saying it was a step toward “gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military”
    2007: Didn’t want to change “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy

    This is getting to be pretty weak sauce, Joe. How does this even remotely resemble a flip-flop?
    Perhaps you really have decided to change the definition of a flip-flop to someone who changes their mind on something? Otherwise, your charges are making absolutely no sense.

    Capital Gains Tax Cut
    1994: Opposed capital gains tax cut
    2002: Refused to sign “no new taxes” pledge
    2007: Supported capital gains tax cut as part of his pledge to make President Bush’s tax cuts permanent; signed “no new taxes” pledge

    This clinches it. You’ve given way too many examples here of a man who has changed his position a single time and then labelled that a flip flop.
    The number of people who have done that in the United States (And in the Church) are legion. Are we all flip-floppers, or just those of us who change our minds, then change them back again?
    And yet, you’ve only given one possible example of that with Mitt Romney.
    Joe, its very difficult to stomach the things you write about Mitt Romney when you say things like this:
    If Romney would not even support Republican judges when he was Governor, how can we be sure he’ll select conservative judges if he is President? Because he says he will and he’s always been so trustworthy?
    The first misrepresentation in the above is that he would not even support Republican judges. He did.
    But the even worse part of that is the confusion between picking criminal judges who happen to be Democrat, Independent or Republican with Judges who interpret the Constitution.
    Alright, i’m getting distracted from my point. You called him untrustworthy. You’ve directly or indirectly called him so many names that its vile.
    Here’s a guy who has his whole family working for him. Who has been married to the same woman, the only woman. How much more trustworthy could a man be?
    Having read through all the slander you’ve posted about Romney I come away thinking you’ve merely cut and paste opposition research which would take anyone thousands of words to refute.
    Joe, you wrote;
    But I do ask that people respect the fact that I have given it much thought and that I believe I have reasons why I cannot support him as a candidate.
    Ive read your blog for too long to continue to respect your opinion on this matter Joe. For whatever reason you’ve become emotionally involved with Huckabee and decided to believe the opposition research on Romney and the spin that comes with it. You’ve chosen to swallow every negative attack on Romney whole heartedly and not take even the slightest charitable view.
    I’m not intimately familiar with every point you’ve made in order to refute them point by point in this response. However, i’m familiar enough with the beginning of your post to know that you didn’t provide a single flip flop (possibly one but without enough supporting evidence for me to trust you on it) with which to sustain your charge of flip flopping.
    I am familiar, however, with this one particular charge which is laughably easy to refute:
    If Romney would not even support Republican judges when he was Governor, how can we be sure he’ll select conservative judges if he is President?
    Romney did support Republican judges. Romney appointed 36 judges, 9 were Republicans.
    Romney’s position on Judges is what most of us conservaties believe. He picks what a lot of us call “strict constructionists” and not “republicans” or “democrats” but people who will follow the law of the land. In Massachussettes, that law is pro-choice.
    So you make it seem as though, to be Conservative, we should support Romney putting “conservative” judges on the bench in Massachussettes that would re-interpret the Massachussettes laws to appeal to Conservative values.
    Seriously? And this means he won’t appoint judges like Alito and Roberts on the supreme court?
    You’re argument here is so incredibly weak as to be laughable.
    1) The Republicans and Conservatives I know do not support legislating from the bench.
    2) The sort of Judges Romney picked weren’t due to party affiliation, but to philosophy on the rule of law, which is a conservative position.
    3) While that philosophy would work against conservative positions in Massachussettes (until the laws were changed anyway) it isn’t necessarily the case on a Federal level.
    So the one assertion you made against Romney with which i’m familiar is bunk. Probably like all the rest.
    But the really sad part is, Joe, that you are like a teacher in some ways. Folks will come here and read your slander and believe it. That’s not the sad part though. The sad part is that the Lord will hold you accountable for your position of authority and trust you’ve earned among some folk and your misleading them with posts like the above.

  • http://thesidos.blogspot.com/ Arthur sez…

    Baggi,
    Egad. “The sad part is that the Lord will hold you accountable for your position of authority and trust you’ve earned among some folk and your misleading them with posts like the above.”. So now you are elevating a political disagreement to blasphemy? I think you may be taking James 3:1 a bit too far.
    And the argument that the truly conservative position is to appoint pro-abortion judges because that is the law of the land in Mass in silly. A confiscatory tax policy is also the law of the land in Mass, so does a conservative then have to support high taxes? You seem a touch confused as to what makes one conservative.
    Joe, great post on Romney. I support Huckabee, but he clearly isn’t likely to win. I don’t like some things about McCain but at least I know where he stands. I don’t trust Mitt “The Political Weathervane” Romney as far as I could throw his collection of hair gel.

  • ucfengr

    I did not want to write this post. I’m tired of discussing politics and politicians and was looking forward to discussing something–anything–else.
    You should have gone with your first instinct, Joe. I don’t have time right now to tackle this whole piece (HT to Baggi for a good start), but when the first third is a cut and paste of a cut and paste of an ABC News hit piece posted at Free Republic, it is hard to take your criticism seriously.

  • Joseph

    Joe is too nice of a guy to really criticize Romney or anyone else. But I ain’t.
    ROMNEY IS A LIAR. Plain and simple. If he is not lying, he is stretching the truth at every turn, for the sole purpose of making himself appear more important than he really is. I mean really, perverting the the word “SAW” as if he were Clinton doing the same thing to the word “IS” is remarkable.
    You can say he was honest in his conversions, all of them, all you want but that still won’t make it right. Is there any way to prove that they are legit conversions vs political expedience, probably not. However, to suggest a 56 year old man suddenly change almost all of his core beliefs and principles to the totally opposite view is stretchy it just a bit. And then to suggest that all of those conversions are not directly related somehow to having already won a term as Governor of the most Liberal state and now has turned his attention to running for President, is just dishonest or extremely naive.
    Any person can see that Romney did exactly what he had to do in order to win Massachusetts, he was more Liberal than Ted Kennedy. Then, once he won the job, it was time to remake himself as the Conservative poster boy.
    FLIP-FLOP – 2. North America: change of mind: a change of opinion, especially by a politician ( informal )
    http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861690511/flip-flop.html

  • Chris M

    Baggi– OK, so maybe flip-flop is the wrong phrase. It’s just flips. But… you can’t deny that all of these “flips” occur at very convenient times for Romney. All of these flips occurred *after* he was elected in liberal Massachusetts and *before* or *during* his run for the Republican nomination.
    Maybe I missed it, but I don’t even think Joe brought up all of the first-time donations he made to conservative organizations right before he started running.
    From what I can tell, Mitt Romney is just a slick business man who will say whatever it takes to get the deal done.

  • Chris M

    And did anyone see that Romney loaned himself $18M in Q4? His campaign has spent millions upon millions, it is $35+M in debt, and he’s still being beaten by a liberal in the Republican nomination. There’s clearly something wrong here. And I think it’s Romney himself.
    If Huck had the money Romney has, I think he would be the frontrunner by far.

  • Jeff Blogworthy

    All the Romney bashing is fine. Much of it well deserved. But where is the McCain bashing? The litany of McCain negatives is as bad or worse. You don’t get to evaluate Romney in a vacuum. The question is not whether Romney is conservative, but whether he is more or less conservative than McCain. It is a pretty pathetic choice. I get the feeling that Romney might keep his word to conservatives. Not so for the “maverick.”

  • DLE

    I commented on another post here that Mitt Romney is Bill Clinton if Bill were a CEO and Mormon. This post only amplifies the Clinton-like duplicity.
    As an arch-conservative myself, I find Mitt Romney to be the worst sort of of Republican Party Reptile. His only ties to being a conservative are his affiliation with his moralistic, GOP-loving Mormon fellows and his “I’m one of you, boys” gladhanding with big business. It’s all puffery.
    I’m no fan of McCain. I wish we conservatives had some genuine option for 2008. But at least I can say this about McCain: he’s not fake. Romney, on the other hand, is about as genuine as a $3 bill. I’m utterly astonished that anyone would support him since he’s so easy to see through.

  • DLE

    @ #11, Jeff Blogworthy
    When you start talking about keeping promises to conservatives, which type of conservative do you mean? Certainly not the tried and true definition or else we would have to admit that the candidate most allied with the historical definition of conservative is Ron Paul, and he’s certainly not burning up the charts poll-wise.
    Fact is, what passes for conservative today is actually nothing more than a drift left into old school liberalism. The only reason we fail to identify this shift is because genuine liberalism has itself shifted–into socialism. This, of course, mitigates the changing fortunes/definitions of conservatism.
    I consider myself a genuine conservative. But as I look around, I don’t see too many like me. Rod Dreher’s book Crunchy Cons contains a look at genuine conservativism that is actually concerned with conserving a way of life that best mirrors what God intends for His children.
    Genuine conservatives don’t think in terms of passing legislation that hurts the little guy, because the little guy is the bedrock of the country. So-called “conservatives” who support legislation that ruins the little guy’s ability to live a life free from crippling laws (laws intended solely to line the pockets of Mitt Romney types) are not conservatives. So-called conservatives who rape and pillage the land just to make a buck are not conservatives. So-called conservatives who readily put Americans out of work and favor a globalized economy at the expense of doing what is best for one’s neighbor are not conservatives. They are liberals of the old school variety. Let’s recognize them as such and stop with this mislabeling.
    So just what kind of conservative are you talking about here?

  • http://thirstfordiscipline.blogspot.com JJH

    Jeff,
    But with McCain, WE KNOW WHAT WE’RE GETTING! That’s the point. With Romney, the only thing we can be certain of is that he’ll do whatever it takes to get elected. Given that McCain is at least consistent, if often wrong and aggravatingly so, I don’t think the choice is so hard between him and Romney.
    The choice that is hard, however (barring an unbelievably miraculous comeback by Huckabee, of course), is between voting for either of these deeply flawed candidates in a year where the GOP is likely to lose anyways, or just sitting this one out. Or writing in Jesus. That’s something I’ve been grappling with and will probably continue to throughout the summer.

  • Joseph

    I don’t bash McCain for the simple reason that the Conservative Elites are doing such a good job already. Heck, Ann Coulter said last night that she would actually campaign for Hillary if McCain was the nominee. That should tell you something right there. Sean Hannity bashes McCain about 2 hours solid every single day. Rush Limbaugh bashes McCain about 3 hours every single day.
    My personal thoughts on McCain are that he may be more moderate to liberal in his views but at least he sticks with them for the most part. He doesn’t pander as much as Willard does. He is not as beholding to lobbyists as Romney is, which brings me to another prime example of Romney sleaze. At the debate on Tuesday, Romney claimed that he did not have lobbyists at each elbow like McCain but the fact is, he does have at least 2 registered lobbyists, one for each elbow. They are some of his senior advisers. This is just another example of the Romney lies.

  • http://beyondourreach.blogspot.com Jake Hunt

    I have to go with Jeff on this one. The question isn’t whether Romney is a rosy guy (or the next Reagan, which is getting really old on all sides). Conservatives have to choose between Romney and McCain, or some symbolic third possibility that would hand the election to the Dems. With Romney you definitely have a shift to a more conservative take on things. Having read a bunch of his quotes, I’m convinced on the pro-life front. But maybe you’re right– maybe he just made a deliberate choice to go right and appeal to conservatives. If that’s true, he could either continue that way or turn on us once he’s elected. If the latter happened it would be really disappointing.
    But the difference between Romney and McCain (and remember, we have to pick one) is that Romney at least appears to be moving in our direction. McCain, as I said yesterday, has made a career of throwing conservative causes under the bus. He delights in being the maverick, and we’re on the losing end of it every time. For the life of me I cannot understand why conservatives are seriously considering him in the first place. Romney was right: if the NYT endorses you, it’s a red flag.

  • aaron

    Why isn’t Ron Paul mentioned here by anyone. Clearly he’s the only real conservative/republican in this race. He’s raised more money from regular folks than any of these candidates and he’s never flipped on any position. Look at his voting record. And he’s the only candidate on either side that would actually cut spending! Doesn’t anyone vote they’re conscience anymore rather than for “the lesser of two evils.”

  • http://blog.wondershots.com Jim

    But McCain? Come on….
    McCain-Fiengold
    McCain-Kennedy
    NY Time endorsement
    He’s NOT conservative and works actively against conservatism.
    His exchange with Senator John Cornyn alone shows that he’s an unfit Republican and unfit to be president.
    “”[Expletive] you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room,” shouted McCain at Cornyn. McCain helped craft a bill in 2006 that passed the Senate but couldn’t be compromised with a House bill that was much tougher on illegal immigrants.”
    If he’s nominated there will be no difference between him and whoever the Dems put up.

  • poosilanimoose

    aaron: welcome to the wonderful world of conservative Republican/Christian (the two shall become one flesh!)politics. Politics has co-opted the faith in so many ways that conscience has very little to do with it.

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    Looks like Baggi is in need of an English lesson,

    Also, Romney continues to support a ban on what he calls “Weapons of unusual lethality” which I think most of us would agree with. Even my father, who is a lifetime member of the NRA, wouldn’t want folks walking around with Nuclear weapons.

    Arms: Usually, arms. weapons, esp. firearms. (dictionary.com
    Ordnance: cannon or artillery.
    Which do you think a nuclear weapon is more likely to fit into? The category of powerful explosive devices (ordnance) or personal weapons (arms)?
    The term nuclear arms is nonsensical, since the military does not equip its soldiers with assault rifles that fire nuclear incendiary rounds.

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    The 2nd amendment was written to protect your legal right to own firearms and similar weapons. You have a legal right to own a full auto assault rifle, but not a missile launcher, under the 2nd amendment. Our founding fathers were no more enthusiastic about the idea of allowing the rich to raise their own fully equipped armies (a la Rome) than they were of a powerful, fully equipped standing army run by the central government.

  • Daniel

    Joe,
    You had me, right till the last paragraph. “[I]f Romney is the GOP nominee, I will grit my teeth and cast a ballot for him as he loses in a crushing landslide.”
    WHY?! If memory serves, I recall you stating that you are a Christian first and a conservative second. And you dedicate your blog to your reflections from an evangelical worldview. So, how can you say that you will grit your teeth and vote for him and then say (in the next sentence) that you cannot support him as a candidate? That makes no sense. You strongly, powerfully show us all the reasons to NOT vote for him but then you say you’ll support him if you have to??
    Note: I view a vote as indicative of support for a candidate. Call me naive, but that’s the way I see it. I would rather write in a candidate (read: Huckabee) who will fail miserably than support–through my vote–a candidate whose character I cannot countenance.

  • Randy

    Powerful post. Clearly Romney will say and do anything to get elected. What does this say about how he would govern in his first term as President? His overriding goal would be re-election to a second term. That would be disastrous in many ways, especially when it came to the tough, unpopular decisions that have to be made in executing the GWOT.
    Imagine if Romney looked and sounded like Dennis Kucinich. How far do you think he would get?

  • Jeff Blogworthy

    JJH:
    But with McCain, WE KNOW WHAT WE’RE GETTING! That’s the point.
    That is the point indeed. A backstabbing weasel. A man who enjoys defying conservatives. A man who doesn’t like one of the finest judges appointed to the Supreme Court (Alito) because he “wears his conservatism on his sleeve.” A man who “crosses the aisle” to craft unconstitutional legislation limiting political speech. A man who doesn’t mind lying about his opponent to score political points. A man who attacked conservative Christians as right-wing ‘agents of intolerance’ and President Bush specifically as the puppet of said agents.
    With Romney, the only thing we can be certain of is that he’ll do whatever it takes to get elected.
    That is utterly false, it is simply your characterization – a characterization that fits McCain just as easily.
    I don’t blame people for choosing McCain, but he is not for me. As I vote, my message to McCain is “maverick this.”

  • Mr G

    He is Bill Clinton all over again:
    “It’s a figure of speech,” Romney said this week of the claim he’d witnessed his father and King together, like saying “You know, I speak in the sense of ‘I saw my dad become president of American Motors.’ I wasn’t actually there when he became president of American Motors, but I saw him in the figurative sense of he marched with Martin Luther King.”
    http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/21/romney.details/index.html?eref=rss_latest
    I’m glad Romney has become pro-life. I’d urge him to become pro-truth.

  • Dave

    This information on Romney is not likely to get much circulation in the primaries, but you can be sure that the Democrats will hammer it home in the general election if Romney is the nominee.
    Thank you, Joe.

  • aaron

    poosilanimoose: I agree and find it very sad. It is so strange that a people who would claim to believe in a God who is in control of all things would become so cowardly when confronted with the kingdoms of this world. Why is it that evangelical Christians so often resort to pragmatism rather than acting according to conscience and leaving the outcome to God?

  • http://thirstfordiscipline.blogspot.com JJH

    Jeff,
    While it doesn’t solve my dilemma one bit, I can go ahead and concede the point. There probably isn’t much merit to prefering an out-and-out weasel (McCain) to a more covert one (Romney). So I understand your choice, and believe me I’ve thrown plenty of mental middle fingers at McCain for the reasons you cite. For my part though, I’m not sure the better choice isn’t to say “conservatize this” to the entire GOP and sit out/write in Jesus/Huckabee/myself/Jack Bauer/whoever. :)

  • Jeff Blogworthy

    Aaron (and poos):
    Why isn’t Ron Paul mentioned here by anyone?
    1. He hasn’t got a chance. It is a two-man race, like it or not.
    2. He sounds like a 60′s radical anti-war zealot.
    3. There is more to leadership than legalizing dope.
    4. 9/11 troothers. Enough said.
    Moreover, your sanctimonious condescension is as offensive as any comment posted here – and I mean that in the nicest way. Presumably, Ron Paul supporters “believe in a God who is in control of all things” while his detractors (or ignorers) are “cowardly when confronted with the kingdoms of this world.” Sheesh.

  • JohnW

    Actually, the 1994 Romney doesn’t sound half bad. I’d consider voting republican if that was the Romney running.
    Question: don’t you think it would have been very difficult for far-right Romney to be elected governor in Massachusetts? It’s a godless librul northern state.

  • http://www.dailyduck.blogspot.com Robert Duquette

    You’ve made a strong case against Romney, Joe. I’m not a Romney admirer, but I would support him if I thought he had a chance to win the election.
    To me, flip-flopping is not a mortal sin. If you want a government that is responsive to the will of the people, then you have to tolerate politicians that will change course. I also think that too many conservatives confuse core principles with policy positions. Limited government is a core principle. Never raising taxes is a policy position. Republicans have become too rigid with policy litmus tests, rather than focusing on core principles and looking for new and better policy positions to realize those principles.
    The question isn’t whether any conservative principles will be compromised by the next administration, but how many. If conservatives would think realistically rather than ideologically, they would realize that McCain is the only Republican candidate to beat Clinton/Obama. Democrats will maintain control of Congress. Do you want president Clinton/Obama to have carte blanche to reshape America over the next four years?
    Romney’s biggest political sin is that he’s a stiff. He can’t win the general election. McCain can.

  • fodder

    Two quotes:
    “…many people have chastised me lately for basing my political view on emotion rather than reason…:
    and
    “How then can I defend a candidate that is a bigger flip-flopper than Kerry?”
    It seems the content of the first is clearly supported by the second.
    As several individuals have already mentioned, a flip-flopper is one who has an opinion, changes it, and returns to the original opinion when it appears to be politically expedient. None of your examples (not even the minimum wage because the 2006 wage increase was probably not in line with inflation) indicate that Romney returned to his original opinion.
    Joe, your research is interesting and we all need to see as many facts as possible before we make our decision. But saying that Romney is a bigger flip-flopper than Kerry is entirely indefensible and indicates that you have, indeed, been influenced by emotion when writing this list.
    You have every right to post whatever you want and be as emotional about your opinions as you would like. But you began by saying that this is all about facts and you are not swayed by emotion. Yet just about any person who payed even the slightest attention to the 2004 race could give you an insanely longer list of actual flip-flops by Kerry (many flips and subsequent flops even made during a single conversation!)
    Personally, my vote would have gone to Thompson – despite the fact that I have a couple friends who worked on Huck’s campaign for Arkansas governor and love him. :-) There is no doubt in my mind that Fred is more conservative than Romney.
    But at this point I am thinking more like Jake Hunt (@16). McCain’s political actions over the last 15 years make my conservative bones shake; his temper is legendary – which implies a lot about self-control; he has had some very disturbing bed-fellows (Feingold, Kennedy, etc.); and his ability to be elected having offended so much of the base is in serious question.
    Romney, on the other hand, has moved consistently conservative over the last 15 years. (Similar to many of my friends and family as they have matured.) He displays strong self-control and thoughtfulness, even in the face of blatant lies (like McCain on timetables in the last debate.) As for bed-fellows, he was just endorsed by Rick Santorum – a conservative who I greatly respect.
    The truth is, even if everything that Joe listed is absolutely true, McCain’s “list” is far more disturbing to me.

  • Yancy

    Your info on his support of a 2002 assault weapons ban and gun control laws is flat out wrong. Romney supported an NRA endorsed bill which RELAXED Mass’ assault weapons ban. The assault weapons ban was already law in Mass prior to 2002, as were very strict gun control laws.
    The bill Romney supported (which BTW was crafted by the NRA) relaxed many of those restrictions. Sure it didn’t eliminate them, but come on, you have to pick your battles here people. The Mass. legislature would NEVER have supported a complete elimination of these policies.
    Yancy

  • Brian

    As for me and my house we will vote for the candidate who has doesn’t flip flop on his positions, has always been a conservative, and who has show real integrity!
    His name is…..um?
    Hucka-huh?
    so…wait he piously proclaimed he could not punish the children of illegals for their parent mistakes.
    Then, in the SC primary he decided he’d pledge to deport every stinking one of them.
    He like to elbow Romney for making millions in the private sector but he’s very much OK with preaching the word of God for $0,000.00 a pop. That’s a virtue right?
    McCain? Wait…he voted against the tax cuts, but wants to make them permanent, but would vote against them again if he had a do over.
    He was for the z visa amnesty bill, but now says he’s wouldn’t sign it?
    He was against dirty campaign tricks before he decided he couldn’t afford to lose FL and then dirty was just fine–he worked over his good friend Rudy, snatched the Gov’s endorsement and lied to our faces about Romney’s record.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Baggi has a point, some links would be nice to specific charges.
    Also
    Gays in the Military
    1994: Supported “don’t ask, don’t tell,” saying it was a step toward “gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military”
    2007: Didn’t want to change “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy

    Isn’t this basically saying he didn’t flip-flop? He supported the same policy in 2007 that he supported in 1994?

  • Yancy

    Good points fodder…
    Hmmm, Romney moving more and more conservative as he gets older. Kind of reminds me of another Governor who was a Democrat until 62, and was pro-abortion until 67′ when he signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act. He realized this was a mistake. He went on to become one of the leading voices of the Pro-Life movement. I am of course speaking of Ronald Reagan.
    Man it’s 1976 all over again…
    Yancy

  • WakeWashington

    Huckabee has praised every Republican candidate but Romney for the tone they have taken in their campaigns.
    But, you can bet that if Huckabee has anything to do with any GOP presidential campaign after Super Tuesday, the Democrats are going to make it look like Romney was taking it pretty easy on him.
    They will use the politics of personal destruction to do as much damage to the party and the evangelical movement as possible when they take him down. They’ll do it like a sniper, wounding him before the kill, in order to get notable names to come to his defense, so they can be smeared by association.
    A lot of the weaponry that will be used already is public knowledge, but his supporters have been ignoring it.
    This summer when the moment seems just right, they’ll start off with his sellout to the tobacco industry and all of his ethics violations and his misuse of public office for personal greed.
    The “wedding” gift registry he used to shake people down after leaving the governor’s office won’t seem like a big deal at first.
    But Democrats will expand on the picture of greed, bringing up the Jonesboro school shooting and how Huckabee promised survivors no one would profit from it, only to cut a book deal a few days later and reject pleas to share the proceeds in the form of scholarships.
    Use of another Huckabee book will start establishing his dishonesty along with his greed, when Democrats start having fun with what they’ll portray as his pretense that dieting took 110 pounds off him, rather than bariatric surgery or some similar procedure.
    At this point some fringe blog desperate for attention will use public doubt about Huckabee’s character to seek traction for an ethics-type charge that can’t be proven but will tend to attract heavy web site traffic when played correctly: the dog torture incident.
    Everyone knows there is something seriously wrong in a family when a teen old enough to be a Boy Scout counselor tortures or helps torture a dog: It was hung by a wire, stoned and had its throat slit.
    Democrats will say it is especially wrong when the crime is minimized and the father steps between the son and a state police investigation, then fires the guy who would not immediately back off. The guy who says he suffered the injustice loves an audience and the liberal mainstream media will be only too happy to provide him one at the perfect time. Juicy!
    Then it will be time for the Willie Horton-type stuff, taking Huckabee to task for granting convicted criminals 1,033 pardons and commutations of sentence – about twice as many acts of amnesty as his three predecessors in the governors office combined.
    After Huckabee pressured a parole board to release a sex offender early, the rapist went on to murder a mother in Missouri. And people who don’t have a special loyalty to Huckabee are going to be outraged by this as it gets more and more attention.
    He pardoned or commuted the sentences of 669 criminals, including 11 murderers. And this time instead of media playing down the evangelical connection, it is going to be played up.
    The way Democrats will portray it, criminals who said they were saved will have used pastors to get special consideration from Huckabee. And you know they’ll ask if the pastors and Huckabee got anything in return, and they’ll ask in a way that implies corruption. (Remember all the ethics violations and gift demands?)
    If the race is tight at all, you know this question will not be beneath them. And it won’t be beneath them to ask Huckabee about accepting contributions from televangalists under Congressional investigation.
    Liberal mainstream media may wait for fringe blogs to raise these subjects, but then they’ll report on what the blogs have been saying with glee and they’ll amplify that with what they’re able to dig up through their own muckraking. It won’t be pretty.
    And no one will be able to say any of this came without warning.
    If this unfolds, when the party is looking for someone to blame, Republicans will know a lot of their elected officials and other leaders saw it coming and did nothing to stop Huckabee, and practically invited the bus to run over everyone.

  • aaron

    Jeff: My apologies for coming off with a “better than thou” tone. I really didn’t intend to though I see that it could easily be taken that way. And of course politics often gets people’s emotions going. However, I disagree with your assement of Paul’s positions.
    1. Even if it is a two-man race, why does it have to be and who cares if it is? My intention was simply that if you think that Romney or McCain or Huckabee are good candidates then fine, vote for them. But if you don’t then vote for someone you agree with. So many people have posted here saying something to the effect of, “This guy isn’t as bad as that guy and neither of them is as bad as that other guy(or woman), but I don’t really like any of them.” And, this is primary season, we have even more opportunity now to vote not just for who we think might win but who we actually happen to agree with.
    2. If it’s not a just war then we don’t have any business being involved. It’s that simple to me.
    3. A consistent voting record for 10 terms in congress seems like a good place to start in looking at leadership qualifications.
    4. Just because nutters who hate THE government like a candidate who hates BIG government doesn’t make the candidate nutty.
    Again, I apologize for my tone. I hope this post is better. And if you don’t like Ron Paul’s stand on issues that’s fine too, but address the actual issues.
    One last thing, my frustration at evangelicals in the political process has nothing to do with my support of RP. As Christians I don’t believe we have any business playing the political game. We have an obligation to do what we think is right based on our understanding of Scripture. What does that tell us about who to vote for in this election? Not a lot in my opinion. None of the candidates are God’s candidate in this or any election and Christians are free to vote for whomever they think best. If that means I “waste” my vote then so be it. At the end of the day, I think that it is more important to follow one’s conscience. I just wish more Christians would vote not just for the “lesser of two evils” which we so often do but for who we really believe is best.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Voting for Huckabee in the GOP Primary.
    If Romney wins the GOP nomination, I’ll vote for him in the presidential election. Still marginally better than either Barack or Hillary.
    Great analysis Mr. Carter! Keep up the great blog journaling!

  • ex-preacher

    The thing that surprises me most, Joe, is how quickly and thoroughly you have abandoned the campaign you worked for. I think Huckabee’s still running. Last week, two national polls showed him ahead of Romney. The NY Times said he clearly won the last debate. The last time I checked, Huck is polling in first place in four Super Tuesday states and running a decent second in another three.
    Granted, he is way behind in the big states like California and New York, but he’s certainly not done for yet. If conservatives after Super Tuesday want to mount an “anybody but McCain” or “anybody but Romney,” Huckabee seems to be the logical candidate. At one point, you said Huckabee had the best chance of beating Hillary. I never bought that, but do you still buy it?

  • http://www.billdozier.net/drupal/ drbill

    Joe,
    all of this may well be true, but it doesn’t mean Romney’s not the best of a mediocre bunch. A similar case can be made against all of the other GOP candidates this time around. As John Madden says, “If you’ve got 2 starting quarterbacks, you haven’t got one.” I don’t know if our bench was so thin that no strong candidate existed or if this is seen as such a bad year to run that all the strong candidates decided to sit it out.
    I would not support your candidate in the primaries, not because of the CFG-style attacks on his record in Arkansas, but because of his economic populism (“the guy that works beside you instead of the guy that laid you off”), naive foreign policy (the appalling bad Foreign Affairs article and his “imaginary friend” advisors) and blatant identity politics appeal.
    I look forward to better choices in 2012 (Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal, maybe?) and dread the interim.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com Mumon

    Indeed, I believe that Romney is a man who believes in only one thing–getting elected–and all his other political beliefs flow from that single, unshakable conviction.
    I actually agree 100% with Joe Carter.
    Wow.
    Imagine that.
    But I’d go further, and say I also don’t like Romney’s reuluctance to speak about his religion.
    But ya know something?
    It’s the same for McCain: he really humiliated himself with his support for George W. Bush after the scurrilous treatment he received in the South Carolina primary in 2000.

  • poosilanimoose

    wakewashington spokes thusly: “They will use the politics of personal destruction to do as much damage to the party and the evangelical movement as possible when they take him down.”
    Who are the “they” that want to do as much damage to the evangelical movement as possible? Being a Democrat and a Christian, I didn’t know Democrats were determined to destroy the evangelical movement. If anything, I’d think we’d want to get more evangelicals working in both parties to help the poor, those in prison, the needy, etc. as Jesus commanded us.

  • http://aarons.cc/ Aaron’s cc:

    If you had a coin that FLIPPED that frequently, without FLOPPING, always in the correct direction, I’d gladly buy it off you for 1000% face value.
    Arkansan Huckster Huckabee is a flipper-come-lately and will be the Perot of the GOP that gets us McCain (to the left of Hubert Humphrey) as the GOP nominee without even 50% GOP support.
    The next election is less about POTUS than SCOTUS, who will nominate the replacements for Stevens and Ginsberg. Do Evangelicals really believe that McCain will pick justices more like Roberts or like Souter?
    Stupid Evangelicals are going to cause more of the abortions they oppose by ensuring that a liberal Dem or GOP wins this November and that POTUS will appoint 2 justices who will each be around for 20 years.
    Of course, my secular co-religionists who call themselves Jewish by ethnicity… don’t get me started.

  • hodgepodge

    While I am mystified by the vitriol directed toward John McCain, I’m even more astonished how some conservative luminaries are so enthralled with Romney. He’s rich and polished. Not sure how that makes him a conservative. Yet each day National Review, Hewitt, and Limbaugh grow even more hysterical. Hewitt has virtually turned his show into the communications arm for Romney’s campaign. Not only is it off-putting, it’s also quite sad.
    I admit when Romney first announced his candidacy, I was intrigued. After all, he was elected Governor in Massachusetts. Yet the more I saw, the more there was to distrust.
    Frankly, the entire argument over whether or not Romney, Mccain, or Huckabee are conservative (or conservative enough, whatever that means) is tedious. Who gets to determine who’s a conservative? Andrew Sullivan? Pat Buchanan? Rush? McCain (who’s not necessarily my first choice) has certainly made decisions with which I disagreed, but it’s absurd to suggest that he’s some sort of liberal. Why? Because he joshes with reporters?
    Back to Romney. To me, it doesn’t matter if he’s a conservative or not, because I don’t think that it matters to him. His focus is on winning, regardless of what principles he needs to espouse or veer away from. Now he’s traveling from spot to spot, yelling “Change”, as the new fashion of this campaign.
    Romney’s candidacy, and this Joe’s post, Romney is lacking in both character, and, at the most basic political level, electability. Not only is the Ampad story troubling from a character issue, it’s also his glass jaw when it comes to competing against the Democrats.
    I’m not a “disparage-the-rich” guy, the Republicans have a disquieting tendency to turn a blind eye to wretched excess. His conduct in the Ampad deal was disgraceful. Paraphrasing the Wilford Brimley character in “Absence of Malice”, it might not be illegal, but it sure don’t make it right”. Why these kind of characters get celebrated by some in the GOP is particularly troubling. That’s not a class warfare argument. Nobody should denigrate Romney’s wealth, should it have been obtained in the enterprise of actually building something. It doesn’t take any special talent to buy a company, strip out the cash, fire all the employees, and sell the carcass to an unwitting buyer.
    Perhaps this is part of the tension between the Wall Street and Main Street aspects of the party. Some might argue that this is simply class warfare. I disagree. The simple fact is that when Republicans tilt too far in the direction of the money class (not to sound too much like a populist), they eventually pay a price at the ballot box. Governor Tim Pawlenty, more than most, has grasped that. He’s certainly a Republican, certainly a conservative, with a laudable track record. And in a year where the GOP was obliterated, he was re-elected against a formidable Attorney General in a state that still tilts Democrat, Oh, he was also the only statewide Republican that was elected in 2006.
    If the Republicans somehow nominate Romney, he will garner a total that would make Alf Landon blanch. Let’s face it: the Republicans (and the administration) haven’t exactly bathed themselves in glory the past few years. In fact, perhaps the best reason to vote GOP is that the alternative is worse.
    As mentioned, John McCain wasn’t my first choice. He is, however, a patriot who, along with General Petraeus, is a key reason why the troops haven’t been pulled out. When support for the war was at his nadir (as was his campaign), he was steadfast. For people to dismiss him as some lefty is both insulting and absurd. The fact is that McCain is much closer to the vast core of the nation. He may not be able to beat either Clinton or Obama. He would, however, be much more competitive against them than Romney would.

  • http://www.farmeruminations@blogspot.com farmer Tom

    While I already knew how badly flawed a candidate Mr. Romney was, it was rather impressive to see it laid out in one piece.
    I on the other hand had just completed listing reasons not to vote for John McCain.
    I’ll leave that for those who come to my blog.
    I will not vote for either of them.
    As a Christian, I do not want to have to stand before the Lord someday and give account for having supported men such as these two.

  • Marie

    “As a Christian, I do not want to have to stand before the Lord someday and give account for having supported men such as these two.”
    I could stand thus with a clear conscience if I vote for the man I believe will lead us to victory in the Middle East. I want the war won. To leave at this point would, I believe, create human destruction and suffering of unparalleled dimensions for an unthinkable amount of time.
    Now, I just have to figure out which man that is.

  • http://www.farmeruminations@blogspot.com farmer Tom

    Warning this comment is going to appear to be snarky.
    I’m just struck by the cognitive dissonance this quote contains.
    I could stand thus with a clear conscience if I vote for the man I believe will lead us to victory in the Middle East.
    I assume your saying that God is in favor of killing as many people in the middle east as necessary to make peace?
    Or are we to believe that in todays kinder, gentler war, nobody’s going to get killed?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Hewitt has virtually turned his show into the communications arm for Romney’s campaign. Not only is it off-putting, it’s also quite sad.
    I hate to agree because I like Hugh Hewitt a lot. And I like his show and I like his guests. But he came up lame in calling the 2006 elections. And he’s coming up lame in becoming a shill for Romney.
    I hope he gets his conservative Christian mojo back.

  • matt

    So here you write:
    “But many people have chastised me lately for basing my political view on emotion rather than reason (Dude, I don’t do that. I’m not Rush Limbaugh.).”
    And on Jan. 30 you wrote:
    “Also, having McCain as the nominee really ticks off all the people that unfairly trashed Huckabee (Rush, Mark Levin, et. al.). It may not be enough to ease my discomfort over McCain, but it nevertheless brings me great pleasure.”
    And to boot the link from the first quote doesn’t even link to anything Limbaugh said?!?
    (Sigh) Doesn’t really matter, all seems rather moot now i guess.

  • JOhnw

    Marie,
    I think we have won the war in Iraq. It’s just the post-war occupation is not going so well.
    I’m from the south. If say China defeated us militarily and occupied America and set up laws to control our resources, I know for a fact southerners would be taking potshots and resisting the chinese for the next 100 years.

  • Jack

    Farmer Tom,
    We are in an epic struggle between Good and Evil. The Lord is a Man of War. Our soldiers are doing God’s work-read Romans Chapter 13. Jesus is no peacenik. God gave us President Bush to help our nation deal with these troubled times. If we don’t stand up against evil, the next thing you know the islamofascist are doing control most of the world.
    JohnW just doesn’t get it.

  • Tea, A

    A miracle is exactly what we’re expecting. It isn’t about who Romney is or who Huckabee is. It’s about Who God is. He is the only God, Creator, Whose Son, Jesus Christ, is the only Salvation. Huckabee understands and lives his life according to God’s grace. McCain and Romney, through their lack of commitment to speaking truth and standing for truth, do not match up. Huckabee can win, because it is God Who raises up “Kings” – not media, man, or money.

  • ucfengr

    If say China defeated us militarily and occupied America and set up laws to control our resources, I know for a fact southerners would be taking potshots and resisting the chinese for the next 100 years.
    This might be an appropriate analogy if by southerners you mean Mexicans and Nicaraguans. It isn’t Iraqis that are shooting at us and resisting the occupation, for the most part it is foreigners (like Saudis and Yemenis) that are “resisting” the “occupation”.
    Huckabee can win, because it is God Who raises up “Kings” – not media, man, or money.
    So, did God raise up Clinton, too? What about Stalin or Mao Tse Tung? Why didn’t God raise up Pat Robertson in 1988? My point is that God raises up kings for his purposes, and his purposes may not agree with yours.

  • http://parableman.net Jeremy Pierce

    So you’re still on the bandwagon of considering a change of position in the right direction to be a lack of integrity. I just don’t understand that view, Joe. I don’t see any difference between Romney and Reagan on this, and no one says Reagan lacked integrity for changing his mind to become more conservative after his gubernatorial term was over in order to run for president. If you were to say that, at least you’d be consistent, even if your premise is false that changing your mind to the right position constitutes a lack of integrity.

  • Susan

    But the really sad part is, Joe, that you are like a teacher in some ways. Folks will come here and read your slander and believe it. That’s not the sad part though. The sad part is that the Lord will hold you accountable for your position of authority and trust you’ve earned among some folk and your misleading them with posts like the above… Baggi
    There was a post in early January when Joe posted a gossipy innuendo of something “big” coming out concerning Romney. Nothing happened. This was also a strange moment. Is it the Mormonism? If so, it would be honest to come out with it, and there’s nothing wrong with that being a factor.

  • http://kansasbob.blogspot.com/ Kansas Bob

    Congrats my fellow splintered conservatives.. we are about to nominate a moderate Republican.. and a very old one at that.. too bad we splintered conservatives couldn’t get our act together this time.. sigh.. there’s always 2016.. maybe by then we will have our act together.. maybe the country will be ready for a conservative leader by then.

  • Rob

    “We are in an epic struggle between Good and Evil.”
    It doesn’t seem quite that black and white to me–or to most of the world.
    “The Lord is a Man of War. Our soldiers are doing God’s work-read Romans Chapter 13.”
    This comment sounds a lot like the “Islamofascists” you fear so much.
    Jesus is no peacenik.
    So that “Turn the other cheek” stuff was just a weak moment? It seems that mant modern conservative Christians like the kick-butt-in-the-temple Jesus but not the peacelover Jesus.
    “God gave us President Bush to help our nation deal with these troubled times.”
    Thanks, God, but next time pour water on the fire, not gasoline.
    “If we don’t stand up against evil, the next thing you know the islamofascist are doing control most of the world.”
    Maybe in your bizarro world, but few of us in the reality-based community think this will happen. All they have are terrorists. They can annoy us, but they can’t take us over. They can take over a poor, backward nation like Afghanistan, but they can’t hold it.

  • http://www.gryphmon.com Patrick Gryph

    “But I do ask that people respect the fact that I have given it much thought and that I believe I have reasons why I cannot support him as a candidate.”
    In other words Joe says: “Please Hugh Hewitt don’t pick on me! I might cry… sniff”

  • Joseph

    Below is a video which demonstrates Mitt Romney’s new tactic for winning the White House. I would say it was dishonest but that would be an understatement. What he has done is to tell a bold face lie. I wonder just how “Fair and Balanced” FoxNews will be in reporting this story, or if they even will report it? Romney does not deserve to even be in the race for President, let alone to actually win it. America deserves better than to elect a LIAR for President.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk6IJS3QN34
    Joseph Parks
    Leitchfield, KY

  • Andy

    Joe,
    I have a question,
    How do you support John McCain who nominated Juan Fernandez as his Hispanic Outreach? (I would assume you know who he is – if not just google his name).

  • http://ktcatspost.blogspot.com/ K T Cat

    Great post. I had no idea about his business shennanigans. You didn’t even mention his offshore tax evasion stuff.
    I threw you a link on this one, but Haloscan wouldn’t do the trackback. Also, the boston.com link for the AmPad story is no longer any good.
    Again, thanks for the info. Wow.

  • http://www.RationalChristianity.org Shaun Connell

    Wow, that was … incredible. Great job. Took the words right out of my mouth. :)

  • AmericanMan

    Actually, you are way off on a great many issues of Romney’s. My family has known the Romney family for nearly 40 years, a long enough amount of time to see Mitt in a non-political environment.
    I have never known Mitt Romney to do anything out or character. As a student of the law, Mitt was in support of the “rule of law” as it pertains to issues that have already been established. The support of existing laws is everyones responsibility even if we disagree with them.
    It was not until he was placed in a position to change laws and see the error of those laws that contradicted his values that he made changes in his positions on those issues. This is not called “flip-flopping” it is called “open-mindedness.” Mitt is a person who only changes positions when it is against his values. It is his values that are constant. He has never been known to pander to people in all the years I have known him. If he finds additional data that changes his perspective from “the rule of law” to an alternative that matches his core values, he makes the change. Yes, it is enlightening to see a 50 to 60 year old man find errors in their beleifs and change their position. I certainly find it refreshing that they don’t become “hard-liners” on issues that are wrong just to be consistant. What kind of a value would that provide to leadership of our nation? In case you don’t know, core values are those values that are maintained even if they become a disadvantage.
    You also have to consider that politics by definition is the science and art of compromise for issue priorities. Working with a Democrat controlled legislature would certainly give plenty of opportunity to compromise in order to meet priorities that would work for both sides. It is called give and take. Benjamin Franklin once commented about our Constitution when he said “I have some serious concerns about this constitution, but I am not sure that it is not the best we can do.” Just because Mitt Romney passed legislation on different issues, does not mean he agrees with everything in it.
    Compromise is at the heart and soul of every political relationship. It does not matter whether the relationship is all with Republicans or with Democrats only, or whether the relationship is against opposing forces. Every single politician has their own personal agendas with priorities to accomplish the higher needs for themselves, their party, and their constituents.
    Unfortunately, compromise is not available. In the case of McCain, there are a great many who will not compromise to support him or Huckabee in this election even if they do win the nomination. What do we have to gain? We feel about as excited about a McCain-Huckabee ticket as the American prisoners in Vietnam do about having Jane Fonda come through and be a traitor against them. To many of us, Huckabee is just as bad as Jane Fonda is in siding with our sworn enemy.
    To many of the conservatives, Romney is the only choice to hold the Reagan conservative leadership together. Unfortunately, we took to much time being “undecided” and not paying attention to the risks of other candidates to do anything about it. Now, we are all wishing we could have about a month and a half back to make some changes.

  • http://nofishleftbehind.com John Balliet

    Thank you for the research! The Harpers article did it for me.
    http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/11/0081773
    SDG, John

  • Lara

    Kudos to posts #34, 36, 37 and 64.
    This article was written as if the author was a plagiarizing 6th grader. I agree that there needs to be proper documentation and it fails to do so on each account.
    Being a born-again Christian I am sickened by those of you who think you are such wonderful believers that you would vote for Huckabee basically just because you think he is more Christian. LOOK AT HIS RECORD people. Have you ever raed the Bible? Remember the part about ACTIONS speaking louder than words. Unfortunately from the way that he speaks I can tell I would not care for him both as a preacher or as a President (or vice president EITHER!!).
    Also to you who use Christianity to say you’d sit the vote out rather than vote for McCain- are you crazy?! I think Jesus might poke you in the forhead for saying that. Render unto Caesar- remember that verse? So basically by your SIN of omission in NOT picking a president- AND lets say because of that Billary was elected- then guess what- you are commanded by YOUR God (and mine) to render unto Billary. Good luck with that, partner!
    Is anyone else not happy with the speeches that Huckabee gives? I feel like after I listen to it- all he has done is made bad analogies, poor jokes, and really said nothing all in a roundabout way.
    My vote goes to Mitt Romney. For many reasons. But prior to that it would have gone to Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson. Personally I would have LOVED to have seen a Mitt/Fred ticket.

  • Lara

    p.s. please forgive my spelling/grammatical errors as I have typed in haste…

  • KC Turner

    I can’t understand so-called conservatives support of Mitt Romney, the guy is a two-faced liar! He has a different answer for every group he talks to, he outright lied about the so-called hidden cameras in the WHO radio studios when he was a guest at their station for a morning talk show, the cameras were on tripods in plain sight and had been for the previous guests.
    I’m wondering if these so-called conservatives who are defending Romney here supported John Kerry? The two are the same the only difference is Romney is smarter and more charismatic and unfortunately able to pull the wool over supposedly intelligent Americans eyes. Where is the flop from the flip? My god man you’re not seeing the forest through the trees, you’re straining at gnats and swallowing a camel!
    If you really are a God-fearing conservative like myself the last thing you want is another say one thing now when you’re asking for my vote and do another thing after they are elected politician. I would never vote for Romney because the evidence has shown me he’s a phony and I will never vote for John McCain because I’ve been following his record for years and a leopard can’t change its spots so I guess I’ll be leaving the top line blank because I’m through bending over the hitching post for two-faced lying politicians.

  • Mcraw

    I bet you could find a lot of crap in anyone’s life, it that’s all your looking for. For anyone to believe you’re unbiased, you need to present both sides fully (not just the one convenient to your hypothesis) and then make a conclusion. Until then, you ARE biased, and your conclusions ARE worthless.

  • red fred

    YES, Romney changed his positions a lot. And probably for political reasons.
    You missed a couple of important points, though… McCain and Huckabee have changed more often and more recently.
    This is where the problem lies. They are all flawed politicians. Romney is simply less flawed than anyone else left.
    Anyone who doesn’t know that is either biased, bigoted, or blind.

  • Rob

    I know you were trying hard to appear to be objective but your bias is apparently so strong against Mitt Romney you overlooked your own thread of contradictions in what you were writing. It’s probably no use arguing the point with you since you have your blinders on, so I will just make one little point for you to try and put your mind around.
    A “flip-flopper” by simple definition is someone who changes from one firm political position to another firm political position and then back to the original political position. Assuming that what you allege are facts, are really facts, then you have only demonstrated that Romney has changed his positions once from liberal to conservative.
    Now a real honest and objective commentator would have pointed out that someone like John Kerry clearly changed positions back and forth, multiple times, all while in the middle of running for President. Obviously there is no comparison to Romney because he not only has been consistent during his campaign, but his change to conservative stances were taken years before the campaigning ever began while he was still in a position where his change of positions would have hurt his present political opportunities.
    Thus I ask myself why would you be so unfair in your analysis, especially when you seem like the kind of person who would generally be willing to believe someone who takes the time to explain why they have changed positions instead of denying they ever changed positions like John Kerry did? Yes, it seems you have a deeper issue you are wrestling with, such as you simply don’t want to believe Romney could actually be a decent human being because that some how threaten you personally. The fact is Romney has an extremely good record for doing exactly what he says he will do, but you have chosen to focus your efforts on writing what appears to be a well reasoned personal attack, not objective journalism.
    Even though Romney probably won’t win the republican nomination, at least he walks away from this presidential race having won the reputation for being willing to take the most hits for the conservative cause, and he has been a great contributor to raising awareness of conservative ideals. Now if you really are a conservative, and I have my doubts that you are, you will agree nobody is fighting harder and spending more of their personal wealth to advance the conservative platform than Mitt Romney in this presidential election.

  • xubio

    Romney is a truly intriguing figure. I hate his guts but I do find this man’s path to the nominating race a fascinating study in Sisyphian struggle of a man for redemption of his family name.
    I believe that he truly absolutely adored his father and when he saw his father’s race for republican nomination ruined because of a single remark about Vietnam war, he probably came to the conviction that getting the prize was more important than speaking the truth. Thus began his willingness to mollify his image to suit the political realities. He may be an absolutely straight arrow kind of a guy in his private life but he probably can’t stop himself from being mollified/ transmogrified by any suitably political situations.
    It’s such a waste of talent. Even as a guy who wholeheartedly hates his guts, I can’t help but find some of his political talents attractive. Perhaps not quite as natural in front of a TV camera as Huckabee, he still does a pretty darn good job in front of TV’s to project his vision (whatever that happens to be at that particular moment). He has uncanny managerial skills. He obviously is a very smart guy. To me his Mormon religion is actually a plus. All the Mormons I’ve ran into in my short life have been stand-up kind of people. I have no qualms about voting a Mormon for a public office. I attend Baptist church so don’t flame me about his Mormon belief and all that. I’m just stating my opinion.
    What I find absolutely troubling is that he has no plans to speak his mind until he gets his prize. (Oh sure, he’ll say any variation of flufferies for the standard Reagan Conservative’s three leg speeches over and over again to mind-numbing shrill cries of his base.) All he probably wants is to get the prize that his father should have gotten all those years ago. A son carrying the burden of his father all these years. What will he do once he gets it? If he’d learned a different lesson all those years ago, would he be a different person (one that is at ease in speaking his mind and able to state his visions without thinking about how his remarks would play in certain demographics – perhaps)?
    Alas, he is as he is. A political animal made by crushing disappointment all those years ago. What a waste.
    As for why I hate his guts in his current iteration, it’s his schizophrenic logic. I’ll simply use his voice (of his handlers’ voice for this purpose) in a typical summary sentence of the Romney campaign style. “If I gouge your eyes it’s OK because I’m right but if you or any of you homo’s do it to me I’ll go crying to the principal’s office because you ain’t right.”
    It’s OK for Romney to go negative on Huckabee or McCain or any other candidates who has any decent chance of winning the primaries but if they dare to go negative on Romney, oh the freakin’ hell’s rain will pour upon them. The polical rule is simple. You take as good as you give. If you’re unwilling to take, don’t freakin start the fight.
    All candidates are flawed. All have imperfect records. Don’t pretend to be a freakin perfect conservative. You know you ain’t.
    That in short (in as many words) is why I hate Romney and Romney’s campaign style and his handlers. All the other candidates probably feel the same about him. Just because he is the richest candidate doesn’t mean that he gets a carte blanche to poke his fingers in other candidates eyes without getting blood on his fingers. It simply doesn’t happen.
    If I can advise Romney, I would say this. Mitt, find your own fight. Don’t fight the war of your father in your head over and over again. Find your core. Show it to the world. Be humble. Learn to accept a defeat. Without learning to accept a defeat and learning from the defeat, you cannot even begin to learn to win.

  • mapleleaf

    Xebio – you truly are a presumptuous asshole. Where do you get off psychoanalyzing a presidential candidate that Im sure you’ve never met. Stop the moralizing its turning my stomach.
    Romney is probably the best suited to help the passage of pragmatic reforms in Washington that will help America’s economy start to have a chance to compete against the rising east. However, for the thouasands of hit jobs done on his record by blogs like this and the MSM, his own strange descriptions of his policy stances on many issues (there are flips if not flip-flops), and a bunch of unlucky factors (the rise of huck, him being a mormon, huck and macs defacto alliance, the mistakes of guiliani and the christ endorsement) have all led to being dead in the water.
    McCains got it, but he’s unlikely to win. You all better pray Hillary beats Obama because I can’t stomach the drubbing the GOP is going to take in decemember when you put up a 72 year old geriatric maverick without the support of at least 10% of the base against Obamamania with its army of internet fundraising and college students……and independents. Those very same indep. that are helping McCain get through the nomination without ever carrying more than 45% of the vote or conservative voters. Its a laugh, just watch how fast the MSM turns on Mccain, only this time talk radios just not going to be there to bail him out.
    Thats the problem with Mavericks they insist on standing alone.

  • Lara

    “It’s OK for Romney to go negative on Huckabee or McCain or any other candidates who has any decent chance of winning the primaries but if they dare to go negative on Romney, oh the freakin’ hell’s rain will pour upon them. The polical rule is simple. You take as good as you give. If you’re unwilling to take, don’t freakin start the fight.”
    Dear Post 72. Your comments are laughable. As a matter of fact, Romney is actually the only one who almost never got mad or upset or personal during a debate. He always brings up facts and records of the other candidates. And we cannot say the same for the others. I guess the real truth of the matter is people are not looking for a true conservative this election time, and that is a very scary thing.
    As for saying Huckabee is a natural in front of the camera…I beg to differ. I think everything he says appears to me as fake or acting. Now- this is my opinion (I’m not afraid to clarify that because I won’t present opinion as FACT like some others of you). But I think his speeches appear forced and as if he is just a jokey jokerson. But it’s not a big deal because there is no way Huck will every win an election in his life time- be it pres or vp. Mitt will be back to run in 4 years after we see what happens with the next pres (be it Hill, Obama, or McCain). I truly hope that McCain pulls a “flop” and surprises us all and votes conservatively if he does get in. I guess we’ll leave it in God’s hands now as it appears that the true conservatives have already been or could soon be out of the race (Hunter, Thompson and Romney).

  • James

    I fail to see why somebody who was liberal and is no conservative is supposed to be a worse thing than somebody who was liberal and is still liberal.
    And both McCain and Huckabee fall into the latter category. It would be nice if we had a consistent conservative in the race, but you guys did not vote for Tancredo or Hunter. Too late to cry about it now.

  • James

    “If you really are a God-fearing conservative like myself ”
    Too funny! If you either fear God OR are conservative, my name is Peter Pan.
    And the same goes double for whoever set up this website.

  • aaron

    So now that Romney has dropped out, are any of the Romney fans ready to join the Ron Paul rEVOLution? We’re certainly better than McCain and Huck is broke and won’t last much longer. Oh and by the way, RP is the only one that has the internet support to challenge Obama.

  • Lara

    hahah -Aaron, thanks but no thanks. Simply because a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama or Clinton. #s don’t lie…
    I’m praying that McCain steps up and chooses and sweet VP and let’s go from there. P.S. Mitt did the right and honorable thing (let’s face it he could have kept going indefinitely)! Wonder if we’ll see him in 4 years?!

  • Chuck Kramer

    While all this hypocritial bloviating is being keyed – how many of you attended a religious service today??, or instead – visited your local Lowe’s or Wal Mart. Better look in your own back yard – mercantile/money changing on the Sabath! How’s that for embracing the evangelical way!

  • darrell

    Encourage Mike to stay in the race! On Facebook, join “Stay in the Race Huckabee”
    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10230921681

  • http://ad-comfort.com/1775705__6 ISHMAel back

    MESSAGE

  • http://ad-comfort.com/1775705__6 ISHMAel back

    MESSAGE

  • http://ad-comfort.com/1775705__6 ISHMAel back

    MESSAGE

  • http://ad-comfort.com/1775705__6 ISHMAel back

    MESSAGE

  • http://m06d.net/_nu ISHMAel back

    MESSAGE

  • http://m01f.com/kd ISHMAel back

    MESSAGE

  • http://ad-comfort.com/1775705__6 ISHMAel back

    MESSAGE

  • http://ad-comfort.com/1775705__6 ISHMAel back

    MESSAGE

  • http://ad-comfort.com/1775705__6 ISHMAel back

    MESSAGE

  • http://ad-comfort.com/1775705__6 ISHMAel back

    MESSAGE

  • http://ad-comfort.com/1775705__6 ISHMAel back

    MESSAGE

  • http://ad-comfort.com/1775705__6 ISHMAel back

    MESSAGE

  • None

    This is a very interesting post. I think Baggi kicked everyone’s @@@ in his first reply and saved me a lot of work. I will say this one thing though – Mitt Romney has very little “political” experience; four years as a Governor.
    Certainly many of us have ideas and opinions and can imagine how we would act in such a position, but not realizing that once in that position, your perception of reality can change.
    I think that Mitt Romney was pro-choice before coming Governor. And I don’t really blame him so much for that, after losing a close family member due to an unsafe abortion. But Mitt Romney is a classic example of an open-minded individual. His record is clear – he opposes abortion. I think once the weight of the people was on his shoulders, it had an effect on him. Same can be said for his position on Stem Cell Research.
    Romney is not a flip-flopper, but just a flipper. And that’s ok with me, because he’s flipped in the right direction every time.
    One last note:
    Many evangelicals who oppose Romney, oppose him because he’s Mormon. You’re no different, Joe, but some of you are very good at lying to yourselves to avoid feeling guilt. I know without a shadow of a doubt, if Romney were a Baptist Minister, you’d be promoting the hell out of this guy.
    And you know it, too.

  • http://www.understandingskydiving.info/ tandem skydiving in ohil
  • http://www.FIELD_HOMEPAGE.com/ FIELD_NICKNAME

    FIELD_MESSAGE_bascnaric

  • http://www.FIELD_HOMEPAGE.com/ FIELD_NICKNAME

    FIELD_MESSAGE_bascnaric

  • http://www.FIELD_HOMEPAGE.com/ FIELD_NICKNAME

    FIELD_MESSAGE_bascnaric

  • http://www.field_homepage.com nick_trcdro