news…

Columnist Mona Charen explains “Why Fred Thompson Should Run”: The current Republican field is like a smorgasbord at Denny’s — lots of OK choices, but nothing to get the heart racing. That’s why the potential candidacy of former Sen. Fred Thompson…

Well I hope you’re right, because I think Romney would make an excellent President.
But it brings back my original question: Why isn’t his campaign getting any traction?

I was floored to learn to that many of my friends and acquaintances have never heard of Mitt Romney. I guess Josephine Average, who doesn’t spend her life on political blogs, would not necessarily be aware of his campaign yet. Actually, I don’t have to guess, it appears to be true.

Gregor on March 24, 2007 at 2:36 PM

It’s good to know you’re not planning to bail with Buzzy if Rudy wins the nomination. I wasn’t sure. I assume you meant mayor above not gov? I agree with your immigration stance. (Not bringing up Reagan again.)

I think Rudy would make a better president than you do. It’s still early in the game. We’ll see.

Buck Turgidson on March 24, 2007 at 11:55 AM

Yes, my mind is made up as far as hoping we are given a better choice than Rudy. Obviously, if Rudy wins the nomination … I’ll be voting for him over anyone the libs would throw on the table. But I feel that many of the issues I believe to be important would be lost.

I understand there are some who feel he would make a good President, but I’m guessing you have a different opinion on what the most important issues of our time would be. I feel illegal immigration and border security is the most important issue of our time, even topping the war on terror. If we’re able to secure our borders and control who we let into our country, terrorism will be kept to a small threat. If we do not take care of our border and fail to stop illegal immigration, it really doesn’t matter what we do in Iraq. There will ALWAYS be those who hate us, and the priority should be making sure they don’t get into this country. Not only is it a threat from a security standpoint, but economical as well. There’s absolutely no way we can just continue to allow millions upon millions to pour in and somehow think our taxes will continue to cover the costs.

Giuliani is on the complete opposite side on this issue.

I also feel that the 2nd Amendment is extremely important, both for our personal defense, and for our national defense.

Giuliani feels he can ignore the Constitution if it benefits him. And that makes his comments in the article you linked even more ironic …

“On the Federal judiciary I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am. I’m a lawyer. I’ve argued cases in the Supreme Court. I’ve argued cases in the Court of Appeals in different parts of the country. I have a very, very strong view that for this country to work, for our freedoms to be protected, judges have to interpret not invent the Constitution.“

So, if Rudy feels that as Governor, he can ignore or rewrite the constitution in certain situations, why would we even begin to believe that he feels a Judge should not? And why should we believe his statements now, when his actions as Governor clearly showed a desire to appoint liberal judges?

And here’s one final thought. Why would any of you insist on taking this man’s word that he’s not the person his actions have shown him to be, when you have other options who are clearly the real deal? And for those who like Rudy simply because of his stance on Iraq and the war on terror … are you saying that Thompson is not every bit as tough as Rudy on this issue? I don’t believe there’s any question as to Thompson’s toughness on the war or on terror, so it simply doesn’t make sense to me to purposely choose a man who has so many flaws in other conservative areas.

Did I say that? I stated that I could not find anything relating to this comment by spmat …

Google helps.

President Bush has the great model because I think as the President he did appointed some really good ones and both of them are former colleagues of mine – Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Justice Scalia is a former colleague of mine. Somebody that … I think Chief Justice Roberts is a great chief justice and he’s young and he can have a long career and that’s probably the reason the President and Vice President chose him. I think those are the kinds of justices I would appoint – Scalia, Alito and Roberts. If you can find anybody as good as that, you are very, very fortunate.

if you saw nothing in that article to suggest Rudy is not the pinko you’re convinced he is …

Buck Turgidson on March 24, 2007 at 2:27 AM

Did I say that? I stated that I could not find anything relating to this comment by spmat …

Rudy has promised judges on the order of Thomas and Scalia.

spmat on March 23, 2007 at 10:32 PM

My request would be found here …

Gregor on March 23, 2007 at 10:47 PM

I put up the link earlier but in case you missed it: here

billy on March 23, 2007 at 11:00 PM

Billy, I’ve read that article twice now and I can’t find anything relating to your claim regarding future judicial nominations. Maybe I’m just tired, but I don’t think there’s anything there supporting your claim.

but my vote will never go to a candidate that supports illegal immigration even a little bit.
Buzzy on March 24, 2007 at 12:12 AM

I’m afraid we’ve lost this issue on the national level. Thompson may come around, but I think our (those of us who care) best hope is in focusing on the House and gubernatorial races.
Even Democrats, in the right regions, are open to persuasion on this.

Can you please give a link or some form of reference for this? Not saying he never said it, but if he did … I sure missed it. And his record in appointing judges does not back this up.

Gregor on March 23, 2007 at 10:47 PM

I put up the link earlier but in case you missed it: here
This article, and the endorsement of Ted Olson helped bring me around to Rudy.
Not completely mind you, just closer.

I would go further and mention that the Christian right, at least some of them, are not so averse to political pragmatism as some might think. They aren’t the wild-eyed zealots demanding ideological purity that most on the left and many on the right make them out to be. I’ve had a number of highly productive discussions with folks about Rudy.

My experience is the Christian right understands, as we do, that this is a fight for America, as we know it. In that sense, they are pragmatic, just as we’re pragmatic. Each of us might prefer a look-alike candidate, but all of us support the one who stands for traditional American values, when the contest is against a secular progressive ideologue.

I know I need not remind you the portrait the left would paint of ‘wild-eyed zealots’ and religious purists is no more than Gramscian BS.

Rudy has promised judges on the order of Thomas and Scalia.

spmat on March 23, 2007 at 10:32 PM

Can you please give a link or some form of reference for this? Not saying he never said it, but if he did … I sure missed it. And his record in appointing judges does not back this up.

But if the contest is between competing values or competing world views, they’ll side with similar values and world views every time.

Exactly. This is overlooked to the peril of any party that wishes to court them. I would go further and mention that the Christian right, at least some of them, are not so averse to political pragmatism as some might think. They aren’t the wild-eyed zealots demanding ideological purity that most on the left and many on the right make them out to be. I’ve had a number of highly productive discussions with folks about Rudy.

For example, on the abortion issue, Rudy is really no different from Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter, given that Rudy has promised judges on the order of Thomas and Scalia. Replacing JPS or Ginsburg with another Thomas or Alito is enough to walk back from Roe in 10 years. That he does not share a deep personal aversion for the practice of abortion isn’t really relevant.

Once you explain it in those terms, and show that he’s a de facto pro-lifer, they no longer have a problem with him.

…At least they did last time I attended one in the south and in the west…

so with that said I can see a point to whats been said.

-Wastelan Man.

In the end, it is non-religious people that will have a greater problem with Mitt’s Mormonism than evangelicals.

Exactly.

Take, for example, the Christian right’s steadfast support of Israel.

Mitt was able to get talk radio involved and got the Dhimmy’s to add teeth to a number of bills which were important to him, primarily being Melanie’s Law which put teeth in drunk driving cases.

He was wimpy with not firing Matt Amorello, head of the Mass Turnpike Authority. He asked the SJC for an opinion and we all heard crickets. He should have fired Fat Matt and then taken out to the mattress and fight it out.

I voted for Mitt in 2002 only because the alternative was too scary. He will not get my vote for President. I’m leaning towards Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo.

Mooseman

Now you’re saying that your vote would be effected by someone being Mormon, but not by being Muslim.

Perhaps I’m not being clear. My problem with Ellison is not his religion. It is his expression of his religion through his association with disreputable organizations. If Romney were associated with Warren Jeffs, I would have the same kind of problem with him.

I do agree, however, that on a sliding scale of religious legitimacy, Islam is certainly straining credibility at times. The Muslim I linked above is an example of one whose religion would play a minor role in a political decision of mine, but site-unseen, I would look more closely at a Muslim candidate on account of his religion than, say, a Methodist.

I would say that most folks’ problems with Mormons come not from substantive disagreements over religious doctrine or practices, but the Mormon church’s history of insularity. In the end, it is non-religious people that will have a greater problem with Mitt’s Mormonism than evangelicals.

Does it surprise you that there are entities that monitor the political blogs to gauge the sentiment of the readership? I’m certain there are a lot of folks being paid to do what I do, inside the government and outside it as well.
cmdrsubfleet on March 23, 2007 at 9:10 PM

It doesn’t surprise me in the least. Everyone knows it takes place. I suppose you “entities” have as much right to register as anyone else, though not necessary to monitor our “sentiments”. You can be rather harsh at times for an entity. With that said, more power to ya.

You’ve already said yourself that Romney’s faith WILL effect your vote. So I’m not sure why we’re even having this debate.

Because I never once said it wouldn’t. This whole conversation started because someone said Mitt’s problem in the south were the Baptists, in that Baptists have some special problem with Mitt’s Mormonism. My whole bloody point was that his Mormonism would not be a decisive factor among social conservatives, Baptist or otherwise. There exists no proof (i.e. polling data) that Baptists or evangelicals have a special problem with his Mormonism, and I think it would be better to err on the side of thinking better of them.

The comparison to Rudy is interesting. When Rudy address the right, it sounds like clarification. What’s the diff? I’m not sure. But whatever it is, the perception is that Rudy is forthright, tough, and reasonably consistent, but Mitt is weaseling. I would expect that pattern of perceptions to persist into a presidential campaign, much to Rudy’s advantage.

Ding! We have a winner. That is why Mitt has a problem in the South, and Rudy doesn’t.

As for Mitt, I’m not sure I trust him to be the conservative he says he’s become. When he transitions himself toward the right, it smacks of pandering.

The comparison to Rudy is interesting. When Rudy address the right, it sounds like clarification. What’s the diff? I’m not sure. But whatever it is, the perception is that Rudy is forthright, tough, and reasonably consistent, but Mitt is weaseling. I would expect that pattern of perceptions to persist into a presidential campaign, much to Rudy’s advantage.

An earlier poster commented that Mitt’s softening on his Mormonism diminished his stature. I couldn’t agree more. He would stand taller had he stood more proudly for his faith.

Most of my community is religious right. Believe me, while the religious right may have issues with Mormonism, they’d choose Mitt in a heartbeat to any secular progressive the left might offer up! That much, at least, is a no-brainer.