« The Waterboard-go-round | Main | The Case for Pimps » Democrats for Romney14 Jan 2008 09:15 am The bandwagon grows: The context, recall, is that Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are allowed to vote in tomorrow's Michigan Primary and since there's no Democratic primary, Kos and others are urging Democrats to pull the lever for Mitt Romney. I do want to continue to make the point that, cynicism aside, it really does seem to me that Romney would be a less dangerous president than Mike Huckabee or John McCain or Rudy Giuliani. Voting for Romney in a primary is win-win. Comments (50)
Bear in mind that if you vote for Romney, you're actually voting for Romney delegates at the Republican convention. And-- if the convention is brokered, and Romney is out of contention-- who will these delegates tend to favor? Not Huckabee, and probably not McCain either. 
I disagree, larry. As a thought experiment, if your choices on the ballot were Hitler, Stalin, or some guy you'd never heard of, I'd urge you to vote for the third guy. Giuliani, McCain, and Huckabee are not like hitler and Stalin. But you get the point. That said, I'm not sure I agree that Huckabee is as dangerous as the war-and-torture-loving Giuliani and McCain.
Can I vote instead for videos and trailers to stop using that stupid record scratching sound ?
Elvis: "Giuliani, McCain, and Huckabee are not like hitler and Stalin" Exactly. With them, you know what your getting. With Romney, you do not. You’re taking a leap of faith that he will not be the secret Stalin. His comments on Presidential power are among the worst. His lack of charater is also extreme. So based on what little facts we have, the rational least worst choice is Mccain.
So based on what little facts we have, the rational least worst choice is Mccain. I strongly disagree. I see no reason to think that McCain would be notably stronger on domestic issues than Romney or Huckabee, and McCain is a pure imperialist internationally. While obviously a Giuliani presidency would be worse abroad, after that I think McCain is the obvious next-worst. This is the man whom Bill Kristol endorsed in 2000. This is the man who wants to see US troops in Iraq forever. To me, the choice of best-republican comes down to Huckabee and Romney, and Huckabee is so much worse on social issues, and too incoherent on economics to make up the ground. Let's also note that it's not that we have no evidence as to Romney's character. We have a long career in which he's demonstrated that he has no character. As long as he's faced with a solidly Democratic congress, I'm quite confident he'd be a (comparably) moderate technocrat in office.
it really does seem to me that Romney would be a less dangerous president than Mike Huckabee or John McCain or Rudy Giuliani And what exactly is that based on? To me it seems that Romney is utterly devoid on any principles. He has courted anyone and everyone. There is no position that this man will not embrace in his cynical ploy for power. The CW is that Romney is a corporate efficient-manager type, and so he won't do anything crazy. Aren't people (especially progressives) really pissed off with corporations and CEOs? So why endorse the ultimate CEO-type guy for President? I prefer a known devil to an unknown one. Not sure about the 9-11 man but at least McCain has some principles. My humble opinion is that Democrats should stick to Democratic primaries and not try to get too cute.
“Let's also note that it's not that we have no evidence as to Romney's character” You have got to be kidding? It is not unusual for politicians to develop nuanced positions and move to the right, left or center based on political considerations. However, Romney seems extraordinary in that he not only alters his position, but easily adopts and becomes the standard barer of opposite view points without any regard for his prior views, prior elections won on those views, and the people he was elected to serve. In Mass, his election persona was carefully crafted to address explicit questions about how his Mormon religion would not impact his policies, particularly around abortion and gay civil rights. He was careful, clear and emphatic: he would be a moderate Republican, focused on fiscal restraint and progressive on social issues. He not only went through a convenient political conversion on key social issues, his conversion included throwing the people he was elected to serve under the bus for his national aspirations. Who would trust a guy who, after whoring, lying and acting like a reasonable, civil libertarian moderate to get elected Gov of Mass, would go on the stump in front of social conservative republicans and mock Mass and its citizens? So much for dance with the one who brought you. Romney’s ethic is “fuck over anyone”-- he has no centered grounding. He maybe more frightening than the Fascist Guiliani-- at least with Guiliani, you know what your getting. This man does not pass the smell test regarding character or integrity. He is not someone you would want your daughter or sister to go out on a date with.
Ironically, Romney is the candidate whose rhetoric most favors Michigan residents. He argues to end the "one state recession" that has plagued Michigan since about 2002. Of course that will be difficult since we are about to enter a 50 state recession.
hilarious: check out sullivan before he corrects the typo he makes in reference to mccain: "At this point, I hope the old war4-horse wins." I believe he meant to write "old 4war-horse"...
Since, according to some recent polls McCain, is surging to the front of the Republican nomination race, a vote for Romney in Michigan and for Huckabee in South Carolina is a good way to derail the McCain express as a loss by him in both states would certainly slow him down.
That said, I'm not sure I agree that Huckabee is as dangerous as the war-and-torture-loving Giuliani and McCain. Huckabee is an ill-informed Christian Zionist to the worst Pastor Hagee sort. In an interview with the Jerusalem Post last October, he said the so-called Palestinians were interlopers from other Aran lands that only moved to Israel because Jews created jobs, and that the proper thing to do with them was maybe the solution of "Transfer" if other efforts at peace are rejected by the Palestinians. By force if necessary, off onto the "abundant land" Egypt and Syria have. (He departs from the Ultra Right-Wings cleansing plan with has all the Palestinians dead or marched at gunpoint into Jordan.) In addition, he wants the US to accept and recognize that Jerusalem is the true capital of Zion, not Tel Avive. And he wants the US military to fight side by side with our Israeli allies to eliminate the terrorist Hamas and Hezbollah. So he departs from the neocons manipulating McCain and Giuliani to be Likud catpaws and attack Iran with yet another significant war - to basically benefit only Israel. That is a good thing. But he does want the Palestinian issue to end in the most extremist of Christian Zionist, Likudnik fashion. In a way, far worse than just attacking Iran because it would guarantee another 60 years of Islamic rage against America. If he was a frontrunner last fall, the media would have been all over his interview. **************************** Your post makes as much sense as arguing that because we are in an unpopular for taking military action, the LAST person we would want as President is anyone who is military, paricularly an ultimate war-hero type. IMO opinion, I want Romney because he has spent a lifetime fixing organizations or making organizations better - rather than breaking them. Others just talk about fixing our failing government. Romney might actually GET some major stuff fixed rather than just talk about it in soaring Senate speeches or White House photo ops. And his focus would appear to be on domestic problems. On education, competing with China, on the economy, the budget, repairing our neglected infrastructure, and other domestic matters - not new foreign entaglements. He called Iraq a mess that we have to focus on along with radical global Jihad - not on invading Iran or doing major humanitarian interventions with the troops we dont have. No one thinks it likely he would start a 3rd large war by hitting Iran. He would come into office with a serious recognition he would have to go slowly on foreign matters, rebuild bridges to other nations peoples, and not attack anyone unless we are attacked or our vital national interests are affected by Iran seizing other's oil fields or blockading the Straight of Hormuz. Unlike McCain and Giuliani, who assert they already know "Iran must be stopped" and they know best, no need to consult anyone.
I totally agree with you, but will add that Romney is the best of choices, not just the most practicle. McCain and Huckabee are too liberal and have their own agendas ... besides, Huckabee needs to stop politicking and go back to preaching his sermons from the correct pulpit.
Would a Democrat want to vote for a man who for a good fifteen years of late adolescence and adulthood consented with the Mormon view that black people are cursed , but fair skinned people are "white and delightsome" see Book of Mormon 2Nephi30v6 pre 1980 Editions ? A view that Romney or for that matter the Mormon leadership has never publicly or on a formal basis repudiated . I guess if Democrats in Michigan want to be machiavellian and vote in a tactical way for Romney because he of all the Republican candidates is the least likely to defeat the Democrat nominee whoever he/she is then there is a cleverness about that although totally lacking in principle . Let us all sincerely hope that Republican and Democrat voters alike will reject the "phony" Mitt Romney .
I can't believe McCain is so popular. He has a quick temper and throws the "F" bomb frequently to those he opposes. He is definitely not the leader I want in the White House. It is also hard to believe that Huckabee is so popular. Most conservatives are not impressed by his fiscal record. As for Rudy and Fred, they have gone no where. That leaves Mitt Romney. He is a great communicator and can unite a fractured party. He has great organizational skills and has brought positive change to everything he has done. He is also leading in the delegate count.
Better president?! Until and unless we get the presidency back under reasonable Congressional control, I think that the very worst sort of president, the greatest danger in the office, would be precisely someone like Romney. He's got the intelligence and energy to use the tools of dictatorship that we have thoughtlessly left at the president's disposal, and which have not been used only because of the incumbent's admirably dull intelligence and abominable work ethic. But Romney has those centrist tendencies, and that ideological flexibility that will allow him to govern as a technocrat from the center, right? Unfortunately, what the practical realities of governing Massachusetts led him to, are very different from the way that power relations at the federal level work. A President Romney would owe his election to the national Republican Party, and the conservative movement of which it is but one tool, in ways that are practically the reverse of the situtation in Massachusetts, where a pragmatist candidate is a godsend to a they-could-all-fit-in-a-phonebooth party that can only get anyone elected by pretending that the national party doesn't exist. A President Romney would be able to apply that incredible organizational skill of his to solving the nation's practical problems, only insofar as he was first able to both co-opt the conservative machine, and to organize the continued manipulation of the electorate to following the conservative machine. The second set of needs would not let him get anything at all done on the first set. Worse, that need to control the machine, and through it the electorate, would force Romney to do things that positively harm the national interest. To take but one example -- is there any prospect at all that a President Romney, no matter what the situation in Massachusetts pushed him to, would allow any change in health care financing not written by the industry? Would any change that would further profit the industry do anything but harm? Dubya does evil, not because that hapless nonentity is inclined towards evil, but because he is the figurehead on a machine that runs off of evil. Romney would be forced to do evil if elected by that machine, and there is every prospect that he would be much better at doing evil.
This whole idea of Dems voting for Romney to undercut McCain/Huckabee is misguided. I for one, loathe the idea of a Romney presidency because of his chameleon soul in politics and his adherence to corporate rule. And we can't forget that if Romney wins it will not be due to the moderate elements in the Republican Party. He is a product of the conservative establishment, their golden boy. The supply-side, war for everyone, torture is great, Supreme Court politicizing, corporations rule the world Republicans. It's these boys and girls that are hammering McCain and Huckabee. Why? Because they are the least establishment of the 3. Dems should want to win back the WH. McCain would be tough to beat. But I think he will look like a tired old part of the establishment against Obama in particular. If the country votes on fear, it doesn't matter. Any Republican will win. Huckabee, engaging as he seems won't make it to the general and wouldn't win. When he is the sole face of the party his ideas will be seen as extreme. Romney? Rich, tall, good-looking, competent speaking,square jaw lilly white businessman standing up against a woman or a black man with a name that sounds like Osama? Sorry, I'm cynical enough to not trust that the American electorate can get past that...
Glen Tomkins - A President Romney would be able to apply that incredible organizational skill of his to solving the nation's practical problems, only insofar as he was first able to both co-opt the conservative machine, and to organize the continued manipulation of the electorate to following the conservative machine. The second set of needs would not let him get anything at all done on the first set. You ignore that Romney would be President in a divided government as Reagan was for most of his years. To get anything done, he has to deal and compromise with a Democrat Congress as he tries to rebuild the 3-legs of the Republican Party and add blacks and legal Hispanics. In the 1st 2-3 years of a Romney administration the "conservative machine" would only have the threat of a Filibuster as their power and that would have to be used sparingly to avoid further Rep losses for being obstructionist. If the voter message is Government is broken we want it fixed, Romney easily peels off moderate Republican votes in the Senate to get a 60 vote override of anyone or conservative lobby that blocks a Centrist compromise. Reagan and Clinton made this work pretty well in divided Gov't - and the big losers were the extremist conservatives who were too reactionary for even Reagan to put up with, and the anti-American hard Left, which Clinton marginalized for the sake of his own survival and relevancy. If Hillary, Obama are elected Prez, there is a risk that the Dems with full control of all Congress and the Presidency would revert to the corrupt whores they once were, the pork-happy whores and sellouts the Republicans became after their Revolution.
Let me get this straight. Some of you think Rudy is the best choice because you'd know what you are getting? WTF?? With this ineffectual Congress? All of them are insane. As Atrios said, vote for Romney if you are in Michigan. It prolongs the Republican nomination and it further drains Tagg's inheritance.
chris ford:
Of course all the talk of Romney may be moot if he doesn't figure out how to again become the authentic, respected man of his word the business community and the Olympics liked so well. He tried tooooo hard to be the ultra-conservative, polished CEO when he is really a very smart moderate of no real scandal in his life and living a mostly modest personal lifestyle without all the toys of wealth the likes of John Kerry, John McCain, and Hollywood types take so much pleasure in. Or moot if simply the preening old psychopath McCain beats him in Michigan and gives Romney the fatal wound McCain wants to give - so his right to be the nominee because he suffered 40 years ago and is entitled, is assured...
MY:
Mr. Yglesias, you are insane to believe Romney is better than McCain or Huckabee from a liberals' perspective. Both of those men have shown some hints of actual character (their treatment of illegal immigrants and McCain's stand against torture come to mind first) while Romney is the sleaziest of all Wall Street Republicans. Lose/lose situation describes it better, Dems waste their time and help the worst candidate outside of Guiliani. We don't need a billionaire businessman to preside overa recession, President Romney would make Bush "Let them eat cake" the Elder look compassionate.
"I do want to continue to make the point that, cynicism aside, it really does seem to me that Romney would be a less dangerous president than Mike Huckabee or John McCain or Rudy Giuliani. Voting for Romney in a primary is win-win" But totaly intellectually dishonest!! What Kos crude tactics. Honor is for republicans?
First, stipulate that they will all appoint basically the same (bad, ultra-right wing) judges. That's really the only issue when it comes to the social conservative/religious right voters. Second, I think McCain will have a worse foreign policy than Huckabee. With Romney, it's entirely unclear, but given his rhetoric he may well also be worse. However, I can see the argument that like Bush Huckabee will be dependent on his advisors, so if he chooses neo-cons, we could be in trouble. But given what he has said about Bush and foreign policy, I don't see that happening. I think he will restore GOP realism. Third, Huckabee will almost certainly be better on economic issues and working with the Dems in Congress.
A power that controls, and is not controlled Chris Ford, Theoretically, a President Romney could work the center as you outline. Clinton worked the presidency generally in that fashion, with his famous triangulation strategy. But the Democrats are not an organized party. Our candidates make their own fortunes, and don't have to use the party to succeed, therefore are not usable by the party. Not that the party, on our side, amounts to anything much you could use or be used by. Dubya would have governed from the center, too, if that were possible for a Republican president. Nothing suggests that this nonentity had any sort of pre-existing ideological agenda that made him do any of the radical things he's done out of anything but opportunism. The structure of the party that put him in power and maintains him there dictated that the Compassionate Conservative thing be pure eyewash, and that the real agenda would be anything that could get 51% from a terrorized electorate. This year, the wreckage from the past application of this 51% strategy is so great, that no Republican could possibly win without a truly outstanding repeat performance by their machine with the same fear-mongering that got them their recent victories. Maybe they could have broken very publicly and clearly with their recent past, and gone for a 180deg turnaround party reform. Maybe they will next time, or some day when the disastrous consequences of their 51% strategy finally become undeniable. But this is not that day. It's too late this year for them to run as anything but the same old, same old. And a machine able to deliver a victory this year, against all the evidence of the consequences their own behavior has wrought, will be that much more powerful, its will impossible for the beneficiary of this magic, President Romney, to defy or evade. Practically speaking, they would have to change the environment radically to succeed this year on fear. Expect contrived constitutional hardball fights, and manufactured foreign and terrorist "threats" between now and November, at whatever scale they think is necessary to scare the electorate into voting Republican. And this year, that would require fear on a massive scale to overcome their record. A President Romney, if such there be after January 20, 2009, is not going to enter office with any sort of clean slate on which he can write the agenda of his own heart, however centrist that heart may be (not that anyone knows what he really believes in). He would march into smoking ruins at the head of a barbarian army that could not be denied its plunder, its pillage, or its rapine.
Mr. Yglesias, you are insane to believe Romney is better than McCain or Huckabee from a liberals' perspective. Both of those men have shown some hints of actual character (their treatment of illegal immigrants and McCain's stand against torture come to mind first) while Romney is the sleaziest of all Wall Street Republicans.
PaulE - Thank you for your perceptive blog , just to let you know Romney has already played the "Osama" card - absurdly playing on the similarity between the two names . In so far as I have an opinion on your elections being British , Christian and a Conservative I would like either Mike Huckabee or John McCain to win , but what I am certain would be catastrophic for your great country and indeed for the world would be a Romney Presidency .If the Republicans were so foolish as to nominate Romney then many evangelical Christians would not vote . A Mormon friend asked me recently surely you would prefer Romney to Hilary . I replied if the choice was between the Devil and the deep blue sea , I would choose the deep blue sea any day . What ever the huge problems concerning Hilary at least she does not believe that blacks are cursed because of the colour of their skin or that Jesus is the Devil's brother .
Romney's style of management Mitt Romney is facing new questions about his past financial dealings revealed during his tight 1994 Senate race. During that election it was discovered Bain Capital, a Boston-based private equity group Mr. Romney led from 1984 to 1999, had acquired a company called Ampad for $5 million in 1992. Ampad, in turn, had bought an Indiana office supply store called SCM. Then the axe fell. "We were just fired," Randy Johnson, a former worker at the Marion SCM plant, told the Los Angeles Times. "They came in and said, 'You're all fired. If you want to work for us, here's an application.' We had insurance until the end of the week. That was it. It was brutal." All 350 SCM workers were laid off and then offered their jobs back at reduced wages.
it really does seem to me that Romney would be a less dangerous president than Mike Huckabee or John McCain or Rudy Giuliani. You really need to make this case. It seems to me that (if we ignore Ron Paul) the Republicans are of a single voice on issues of the war, taxes, and social policy. McCain has the advantage of thinking torture is obscene. Huckabee has the advantage of thinking poor people should occasionally get a hand up. He's also a little iffy on the whole war of civilizations thing. Romney is running a Bush-squared. You don't believe he's serious. I do. I'll give you Giuliani as the worst of the worst. But double-Guantanamo, waterboarding is my middle name, Romney is pretty damn bad.
And I'll second Glen Tompkins post above. We currently have an incompetent trying to be a autocrat. His every screwup simply reminds us why we have a balance of powers in this country. It's supposed to be idiot-proof. Romney is smarter than Bush. He'll use every power Bush has asserted to aid his own political ambitions. We don't need someone who really knows how to tap that power. If you think it's going to get you a sane foreign policy or even universal health care, you're nuts.
It seems to me that McCain would be the most dangerous of all the GOP candidates. This guy is a loose cannon and will probably usher in WW3. No one should take any chances. Vote for Romney and get McCain out of the running. If he loses a couple, maybe his money will begin to run out.
If you don't like Romney's politics that is fine, but anti-mormon bigotry is not. Give it a rest.
As a Michigan Democrat, but registered Independednt I can tell you that a lot of Dems plan on voting for Willard Mitt Romney simply because he'll be the easiest to beat in the General. He's got a glass jaw and only reminds people what a say-anything, flip-flopping, plastic Ken Doll in funny underpants he really is. The guy makes Dick Morris look absolutely principled. Go Mitt, go! lol.
It's so surprising how misguided people really are about what kind of man Romney truly is. He is a man of integrity, believe it or not. He would be a great leader of this country! If people could get into his life, and see things as they really are, they would see that he is a man of good and strong character - he has deep convictions, is a true patriot, and cares about the future of this country. There is so much deception, so much twisting things around, so much focus on the negative while overlooking the positive, so much inability to weigh and balance things - I find this very disturbing. I know a more revealing side of Romney since my cousin is married to someone in his family....let me just tell you all right now that though he is not a perfect person, he is very intelligent, very capable, is a natural born leader and a good man. I would trust him in the whitehouse more than any of the other candidates. People need to open their minds a little more. He would make a great president. I think people overlook how difficult of a job it is to be president. People don't realize what that really entails, they just don't. This country DESPERATELY needs competence and beyond in the whitehouse. Romney is the perfect man for the job - he was born for this. People look at him and think he is such a phony. They mock his family. I can't believe some of the things people write about him, and how wrong people really have it when it comes to this man. All I ask is that you open your minds and stop being so pessimistic. There are some very good things within this man, and he deserves serious consideration.
Mitt Romney: There are some things within this man, you are right. If elected, I hope we don't see our country's total destruction. He wants POWER. is it not obvious?
Partisanship aside, I am voting for a true leader with character. The only true leaders in the pack are Obama and Romney. I went to a Romney/McCain rally in Michigan on Saturday. Romney was electric, McCain was a snoozer. Romney walks into the room and he is in command. True, this is what many of you are scared of, the fact that he is a leader means people will follow. For me, a moderate conservative, Romney is too far right, just as Obama is too far left. But policy is about compromise and no president, not even W., gets it his own way. As an amateur presidential historian, I can tell you what made Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and PM Churchill great was NOT their policies -- it was their leadership and character. This country is desperate for a true leader with character. Obama seems to have it, and I can tell you, you all are very wrong on Romney's character. The Romney you know is the Romney the media have sought to bring down since day one (the fact that he has survived their savage campaign is amazing). Why is the media anti-Romney? Partially because it's a great story-line (money and looks loses election) and partially because they are afraid of him the same way you are afraid of him. Some people radiate goodness and character without saying a word, as Romney did on Saturday. Some people seem shifty just from a glance--this was McCain on Saturday (I actually went into Saturday undecided between the two). I won't vote Clinton because she is neither a leader nor has character. I won't vote for McCain because he is not a leader, and I am not certain on his character. Giuliani is an okay leader, but seriously lacks character. Huckabee has no leadership ability. I can tell you this, the difference between the Media's Romney and the real Romney is like the difference between night and day. Vote however you will, but choose whether to vote for Romney based off the real Romney, not based on the media's Romney.
McCain is the only who actually believes that global warming is human-induced, and says he wants to do something about it. He has gone against the Republican machine his whole life, so it is reasonable to think he wouldn't be their puppet. And he knows Washington is corrupt. And yes, he's a neocon.
RON Paul check him out. Youtube Ron Paul... www.youtube.com Then search Ron Paul! While your at it - check out Frank Luntz (Pollster from FOX News)
McCain is the only who actually believes that global warming is human-induced, and says he wants to do something about it. 1. I'm sorry, but Global Warming is a problem that is off in the future that we need to craft a national energy policy for and begin to honestly talk about the main driver of man-generated CO2 - which is exploding human population growth where most people are gaining access to modern technology that requires energy usage beyond animal and human muscle energy. We have far more acute problems in the near-term that 25-years inside the Beltway McCain had no leadership or involvement in trying to fix. His embrace of Global Warming is new and trendy...most of his life, McCain was all about SUV Freedom & Liberty, more Arizona coal & more coal-fired plants. 2. The idea of McCain as "rebel" against the Republican machine is belied by his high conservative rating. He gives his little rebel speech, then cuts a deal in most cases - except where he makes a big deal of his treachery on certain issues where he thinks it will gain him further media adulation. You are right, loose cannons with an arrogant fighter jock "my way or the highway and I'm always right" Dubya Bush mentality don't listen to anyone. They are no one's puppet. But everyone's fool. Plus McCain is infected with as bad as a sense of entitlement mentality as anyone since Ted Kennedy in 1980. That he has suffered, and is OWED the Presidency. 3. Yes, he is a neocon and surrounded by the same neocon syncophants that told Dubya what a great man and formidable thinker he was to stake his Presidency on war with Iraq to help keep Israel and it's Likud policies safe in "recreating the ME as democratic and free". Bomb bomb bomb, bomb Iran!
Some good analyses here but too often straying from the point: Who should a Dem or non-GOP-leaning independent vote for in Michigan's GOP test? I see no lack of principle in participating, within the rules, wherever one is allowed to participate. If they want to bar non-Republicans, let them do so. They haven't. End of that story. As for who to vote for (or against), I agree that McCain trumps the others in "character" -- though not nearly so much as the media would have us believe -- and electability, which is the real point. ANY GOP president will have a powerful negative long-term effect on the USA, mostly through Supreme Court appointments. So pulling down the most electable (IMHO, "Moderate" [ha!] War Hero [Monger] McCain by a large margin, followed by Slick Willard Romney) makes sense. The rapist-murderer-freeing, delusional Huckabee would be a sitting duck in the general election (he'll never make it there), yet he retains a steady evangelical base that will keep him pulling in third-places. Perhaps he is the one to support in Michigan, then? I fear it will make little difference: McCain will be tough to beat either way, but if he is beat, it will be by Romney. I must admit I am not even allowing myself to think about corrupt corporatician Rude E. Ghouliani; heaven help us if that has to be revised. I certainly couldn't bear throwing him a vote under any circumstances. You could always write one in for Love22, now the longest-standing quadrennial candidate, "waiting to see who the opponents will be." No less chance of winning than Huckabee, and a good spirit. Are protest votes a "waste" of a vote? No less than not voting! Curious to see other' tactical views on this issue since it is truly an opportunity to make a difference, however small. Happy New Year!
MICHIGAN ROMNEY BACKER AND STATE SENATOR SWITCHES TO HUCKABEE As most polls of likely primary voters in Michigan now show a near-tie between Republicans Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and John McCain, the Romney camp got a jolt Saturday as a key backer announced he was switching his support to Huckabee. With three days to go before the primary, State Rep. Fulton J. Sheen of Allegan County, introduced Huckabee at the Amway Grand Hotel and announced he was changing to the former Arkansas governor from native Michigander Romney. In an exclusive interview the evening before his announcement, stalwart conservative Sheen -- namesake-nephew of the legendary Roman Catholic bishop in the 1940’s and 50’s -- said that Romney’s attacks on Huckabee’s Fair Tax proposal convinced him to switch to the Arkansas man. source I am jumping up and down!!!!!!!!! Huckabee all the way!!!!!!!!!!
For those who don't know much about the Mormon Faith, I can't be silent any longer while the strangest and most incorrect slander pours out about the LDS faith on these blogs. It is so strange to me the unfounded criticism the church receives by people who have no idea what the church is or what it teaches. We teach and follow the plan of salvation, the plan of happiness that God has prepared and repeatedly taught prophets of God from the beginning of mankind. That process continues today. God spoke to Abraham and Moses. He speaks to his prophets who have been called again. We generally don't talk about these things, but the miracles of Bible are back. The priesthood authority to perform these miracles has been restored to the earth through prophets of God. I can only speak from my experience, that there has been the greatest of happiness, depth and truth found in my life through learning about the teachings of the prophets, and the Book of Mormon. I have tried to apply these principles in my life and the result has been nothing short of incredible. I have never felt closer to Christ in all my life. It is Chistianity in its purity, and it is a faith that collectively has brought about real change for me and hundreds of those I know in the church. It has helped me develop great character, more compassion, integrity, more clear vision of who I am, stronger faith in Christ, and a clear understanding of the gospel as it was intended. In short I truly and honestly can say I feel I am living for the very first time. I love my faith, and it is the most precious thing in my life. I now see life from the perspective of the love of God I have felt, and the miraculous experiences I have seen, been the recipient of and participated in. Members of the church strive to follow Jesus in word and in deed, believe in really keeping the commandments, and they do. I have never seen life so clearly, or experienced such peace and happiness as I have following the prophets of God, who God has again called in our day. There is so much more to be had out of life. I encourage anyone with the desire to have more out of life, and have their lives changed and a desire to be closer to God and know of his reality to find out for themselves. Obtain a copy of the Book of Mormon and start seeing for yourself. Start experiencing life for the first time. See the links below -
His policies are good for our country. While immigration reform is billed as ‘bigoted’ I believe the opposite. Illegal immigrants are paid poorly, suffer abuse, and are generally exploited. The result is a group of people enslaved in a broken system with no power to vote against it. Romney welcomes legal immigration and punishing companies who exploit illegal immigrants. While some would have wealth redistributed to combat the loss of the middle class I prefer to retain jobs allowing people to gain wealth. Romney’s solution is to even the global field, reduce taxes and regulations, and invest in infrastructure, science, and technology to keep America competitive. While some ask for government health care, I prefer a system of choice that allows individuals to define their own health needs. Romney proposes a market base health care that reduces prices for all and mandates government pay for those who cannot afford care. While some believe raising taxes is necessary to pay for the increasing costs of government services, I believe in streamlining the system so they pay for themselves. Romney is a proven ‘broken system’ rejuvenator. While some prefer talk, I prefer action. Mr. Romney is a man of action. If his party fails to recognize his abilities I will vote for the next best--Obama.
FYI, The Andrew Price post above, the one filled with contempt for Romney based upon misinformed beliefs about his religion, is written by a man who actually had to have a restraining order against him for harassing Mormons. Apparently he would seek them out and pound on their doors for HOURS (!) telling them they were going to hell... Although he would seem to be a Huckabee supporter, he's actually British.
The moral thing to do would be to vote for the best person for the country IF the Democratic candidate should happen to lose. In my opinion, that person would be Romney. If he has flip-flopped on an issue or two it might be because he has actually devoted some thought to them. Cast the caricatures aside for a moment. He is known for working very well with people of differing viewpoints and has a reputation for seeking out dissenting views so that he can get it right. He's not beyond changing his mind if the data tells him he is in error. I for one like the idea of someone who does not have to be right, even if he is wrong.
Mitt Romney is not the man many of you portray. He is not a man seeking personal glory or attention to himself. He didn't try to micro-manage the olympics but had an uncanny knack to select subordinates who could get the job done with integrity. He is a true patriot who will make decisions for the good of the country. He is above all else a good family man with very high values. Don't believe the media, they can't stand him because they will have no influence on him.
Stalin? War and Torture loving? You people are the reason there is no hope for bi-partisanship. Your extremist hate filled secular Liberalism must be defeated, not negotiated with.
I am amazed at the lack of understanding so many have of the political process. It is called "the art of compromise." We all want it. We find representation for the minorities when the majority in bias hold on principal that often can't be expected or legitimately upheld. Our leaders should not be set in stone. Your eventual representation in the event you are found in a minority can only be satisfied by articulate compromisers in the majority. Do your best and elect with statesmanship.
Comments closed January 28, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Matt, since you don’t know what you’ll really get with the gummy doll, it is reckless to encourage votes for him.
You are acting on pure hunch. A hunch may be appropriate for you to act on, but should not be the basis for an endorsement.
Posted by larry | January 14, 2008 9:26 AM