Friday, January 11, 2008

The best man for the job – Mitt Romney




Expect Mitt Romney's coffers to start overflowing with money since I am endorsing him.

 

This election cycle has been somewhat frustrating to say the least. Who is the best man for the job? On the one hand we need someone who can beat Hillary or God forbid Obama, and on the other hand we need someone who will hold to traditional conservative values. We constantly hear from both the right and left that Reagan conservatism is dead, but I disagree. When Reagan left the Democratic Party, he was quoted as saying, "I did not leave the Democratic Party, they left me." I see the same thing happening to traditional conservatism. What wins elections is traditional conservatism. The Democrats are winning because we are abandoning the conservative principles Reagan embodied.

What happened to our conservative values? In Bush's first term, he did some great things. He avoided a recession by enacting the Bush tax cuts. The pundits projected a recession. Kennedy, Reagan, Guliani, Bush and others have all enacted tax cuts that stimulated the economy and filled government tax coffers of the Federal government even though the left continues to say supply side economics do not work. Bush has always come down on the side of life. After 9/11, he aggressively went after the terrorists, and he successfully rooted out the Taliban and Al-Queda terrorists camps in Afghanistan. He then turned his efforts to Iraq. This was a good thing because every intelligence agency believed Sadaam Hussein had WMDs. I still believe he had them because he had eight months to get rid of them and there was circumstantial evidence he had them. His mantra, "If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists," proved to be short-lived. Bush became soft on dealing with terrorist nations succumbing to pressures by the far-left. For the first seven years of his presidency he didn't veto a single bill, he refused to close the borders, he refused to fire incompetent personnel like Mineta and Rumsfield, He was about to nominate the neophyte Harriet Miers to the Supreme court until there was an uproar by Bush's own conservative party, he refused to change his strategy in Iraq until after the blood bath in the house and senate and Rumsfield finally stepped down, he has fallen for the leftist agenda of global warming. He also is following Hillary's lead by bailing out the subprime mortgages even though it was the mortgagee's irresponsible behavior that caused the quandary in which they currently find themselves.

And now it's legacy time. Spending is out of control? The dollar has fallen 40% against major currencies – In that Ron Paul has it right. And, we are on the verge of another recession. So, where is Bush? He is in the Middle East trying for another peace process and trying to give away more Israeli land. Why is it every time a president wants to create a legacy, he heads straight for the Middle East to try and create another peace that will never happen? The perfidy of the Palestinians is proven as soon as they receive their goodies. There will never be peace. They don't want peace. The Palestinians only feign friendship to achieve their goal of destroying Israel and the West. If Bush were so sure of this peace process, why did he show up in Ramallah with 1500 secret service agents backed up by the IDF and Shaback from Israel?

Why is it likely the Democrats will regain the White House? Bush derangement syndrome has taken over. Liberals and Democrats still believe the election was stolen from them. Democrats are highly motivated to vote this election cycle, and they can feel the taste of power on their lips. Reagan conservatism the hallmark of what makes us strong and what makes this economy grow is rapidly dissipating. Bush and many Republican senators (Rinos or Republican in name only) have become as progressive as the liberals making in many respects the two parties indistinguishable. I am tired of hearing the term "compassionate conservatism." Republicans are disenchanted with the candidates, and are feeling apathetic about the process. They better wake up! I want to return to the traditions that made the Republican Party great.

So on to the candidates -

Fred Thompson – In Fox's January 10th debate, Fred seemed to awake from his slumber. Out of all the candidates, he performed the best. His one liners like, "You know the war in Iraq is going well since it's no longer on the cover of the New York Times" struck a chord with conservatives. I like his positions. I like what he believes in. He is a true Reagan conservative, but he is barely scraping the single digits in the primaries and polls. One is forced to ask – Does Fred really want the job? I am not sure if an avuncular, laid-back, staid character can beat a Democrat in this general election.

Ron Paul – He does keep the debates lively, but he is a terrorist's best friend. He doesn't believe we should be anywhere except at home. I just wish Fox would have granted him the same courtesy ABC did, and not allow him in the debates. You know there is a problem when his followers are the neo-Nazis, the 9/11 truthers, and every other fringe group on the planet.

John McCain – This is a guy who still doesn't get it. He is too old, but that is not even half the problem with McCain. McCain does not have a conservative base. Independents are voting for him, not conservatives. Any time he was battling on the Senate floor, it was against his fellow conservatives, never against the liberals.

What do conservatives like about McCain? He is prolife. he is pro nuclear power, he believes in cutting spending, and he is a great advocate against pork barrel spending. He would be good in the war on terror for the most part, but it stops there.

McCain is a thorn in the conservative's side on most issues. He wants to close Gitmo, and he is against interrogation techniques like water boarding which have proved to be very effective in finding terrorists - he calls it torture. He is against opening up Anwar for drilling for oil. He was against the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. To be fair, he does say now, he wants to make these tax cuts permanent. These tax cuts have been credited with avoiding a recession after the dot-com crash and 9/11. He was the sponsor of the McCain-Feingold bill. This bill was funded in large part by the left-wing Magnate George Soros. This turned out to be a very detrimental bill against the Republican Party. McCain has also fallen for the global warming scam, and wants to enact a carbon tax. John McCain engineered the gang of 14. This was an attempt to appease the left in the appointment of our judicial nominees. This riled his conservative base.

What put the nail in McCain's coffin, however, was his shamensty bill that he tried to shove down America's throat with his cohort Ted Kennedy. He went so far as to call those conservatives who disagreed with him xenophobes and on the wrong side of history. This was an immigration bill three times as thick as the Bible. January 10th's debate still showed how clueless he was on the whole process. McCain now says he believes in a virtual fence, but doesn't mention a real fence. It doesn't help to have an open border's president who was in bed with the former president Fox from day one. Instead of importing Mexico's poverty, we should have been encouraging Mexico to foster free markets and to purge the country of its corruption. The American people do not trust the government, and until a fence is built across the border, the American people will continue to distrust the government. The laws on the books need to be enforced. The notion that you have to pick up 12 million illegals and deport them is a non-starter. By enforcing the laws already on the books, illegal immigration will begin to reverse itself. Illegals will continue to come and make the dangerous trek across the border if we continue to be a magnet. We build the fence, we enforce the laws, and then we can have a reasonable work program for those jobs Americans don't want. But each step has to be done independently and effectively before the next step can take place. I understand there are individuals who have been here their entire lives with illegal status through no fault of their own. These should be looked at on an individual basis. You can not solve the chaotic immigration mess by introducing more chaos.

McCain made a stunning admission last week saying he really doesn't understand the economy, but he was reading Alan Greenspan's book, The Age of Turbulence." I don't really want a president who doesn't understand the economy. Do you? McCain is a maverick who will have conservatives pulling their hair out in exasperation by the end of a McCain administration.

Mike Huckabee – Some evangelicals still have this suicide pact with Mike. It doesn't matter how disingenuous Mike is. As long as he says he is prolife and Christian, they will jump off the golden gate bridge with him. I have written extensively on the naïveté of Mike Huckabee from the economy to foreign policy. In one instance he stated, "I may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Express last night." And to that I say Huh? On immigration, in his state he granted in-state tuition to illegals, but now on his website he has a nine point hard-line plan against illegals that he lifted from the pages of National Review. He saw the polls that he needed to be hard on immigration so he found a plan fast. So, one must question his authenticity. He recently came out and said we need a constitutional amendment against anchor babies. Illegals come here for the purpose of having their babies in the United States. This gives the baby citizenship, and allows the baby to petition his/her parents at the age of majority for immediate residency, and then grants the parents to petition their kids for immediate residency. This begins an unstoppable chain migration. I am for a constitutional amendment of this sort. But, make no mistake Huckabee is no conservative.

Rudy Guliani – I like Rudy Guliani, but his personal life is a weight around his neck that might cause him trouble. He is trying a dangerous strategy by ignoring the political process until Florida. If it works, it will be a work of genius. Ron Paul even beat him in New Hampshire. The beginning states do give candidates momentum; it allows them to raise money if they come in the top tier. Rudy is good on the war on terror. He is even good on the economy, supply-side economics, but he is prochoice and liberal on other social issues. He is better than most, and New York is a good example. He turned that city around. But, in California, conservatives voted for Arnold Schwarznegger instead of Tom McClintock believing Arnold was the only one who could beat the Democrat governor Gray Davis, and now Arnold has turned out to be a nightmare. What we have in California is just another Democrat in office. I do not believe Rudy will be anything like Arnold, but I am no longer convinced Rudy is the only one who can beat Hillary.

Mitt Romney – He does need to win Michigan to continue to be a contender but, he may be the best choice with the most experience up against a Democrat. The more I listen to him the more I like. I am not too concerned about his Mormonism for this reason. I have known a lot of people who are Mormons, and they are good people. When one is brought up in a faith their entire life, it is very difficult to leave that faith unless there are some extraordinary circumstances. You bring up your children in that faith. By leaving the faith, you are basically saying that what you lived was a lie, not something easy to do. I also believe that if one were to study Mormonism, there would be no other conclusion one would come to except that Mormonism was based on a lie. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology stated, "If you want to become rich beyond your imagination, create your own religion." But, unless one actually made the effort to study his own religion outside of what his religion teaches, why would he leave? We know this - Mitt Romney does stand for both the social, foreign and economic values that conservative Christians stand for.

There was huge controversy with President Kennedy and his Catholicism. Catholicism isn't considered a cult, but Kennedy was sleeping with every woman he encountered, so as John Stossel would say, "Give me a break!"

Romney was at one time prochoice, but he now states his is prolife. I take him at his word. With Huckabee it's different, because Huckabee changes his mind on a dime.

As governor in 2005, Romney wrote the following:

I am prolife. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate."



Romney has the most experience of all the candidates. As CEO of Bain & Company, he successfully turned the company around. In 2002, he took the helm of the troubled Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, and cleaned it up turning the financial problems into a profit. As governor of liberal Massachusetts, he addressed the immediate problems of Massachusetts failed health care policy.

He also understands the true threat of Islamic terrorism.

In 2007, Romney stated at a conference held in Sea Island Georgia:

Now, I wasn't always a Ronald Reagan conservative. Neither was Ronald Reagan, by the way. And perhaps some in this room have had the opportunity to listen, learn, and benefit from life's experience - and to grow in wisdom, as I have. My life experience convinced me that Ronald Reagan was right. I'm a conservative that gets the job done. And you don't just have to take my word for it; you can just look at my record."



If we want to win elections, we need to embrace Reagan conservatism not abandon them. When Obama speaks of change, he speaks of socialism and raising taxes. I for one don't want that kind of change. When he speaks of unity, he speaks of agreement with the Democratic Party. We have a two party system because we do not have unity – isn't that the point?

Anyone of the Republican candidates will be 100 times better than any of the Democratic candidates except maybe Ron Paul.

Conservatives need to rally around whoever the nominee is and vote this election season, because the worst of all worlds would be to have a Democrat in power. With a Democrat, we would be defenseless in the war on terror, and we would head towards the socialism of Europe and the populism of Latin America.


 


 


 


 

4 comments:

Rybu said...

Of course THIS is where I meant to post...

I'm proud to say that my vote in the Michigan primary made his margin of victory here that much greater.

Thoughts of a genius mind said...

rybu,

You asked what I thought of Bloomberg. Remember your SAT analogies in the old SAT tests. Bloomberg is to New York as Schwraznegger is to California. In other words, they are both cloaked in Republican clothing, but they are Democrats. I would think a Bloomberg entry might actually help the Republicans, because I think he would take more votes from the Democrats than the Republicans so in that vein I welcome his entry into the presidential race.

Rybu said...

I hear ya. But with what, a BILLION dollars to spend on a last minute campaign, do you think there is no chance of him being as the GOP nominee?

Thoughts of a genius mind said...

Rybu,

Even with his money I don't think he would be the GOP nominee. Conservatives would see right through his facade.

Mark

 
Republican Party Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory DeeperLeft member