The Romney Paradox

posted at 5:10 pm on February 1, 2008 by Bryan

I have come around to trust Mitt Romney more than John McCain or any of the other presidential candidates, and I think he is a smart and decent man who would be a fine president. He’s a leader who has shown that he knows how to fix things, and by associating himself with real conservatives from the very beginning of his campaign, he shows what kind of leader he’ll ultimately be. I’ll happily cast my vote for him when the time comes.

But I didn’t get to this point overnight, and it’s not just a rebound effect from discontent with John McCain. It’s an affirmative vote for Mitt Romney because I respect his resume, one of the finest we’ve had in a presidential contender in a long, long time. He is the most qualified candidate to take on the world’s most difficult job, by far.

As things stand right now, Romney has a tough hill to climb just to become the GOP nominee. He’s done what he could to get there, spending millions of dollars of his own money that could have been spent on yachts or small countries or whatever it is that the super-rich buy, and making the difficult but absolutely necessary transition from business to politics. But the path he took to make himself a viable candidate is also his chief weakness as a candidate. It’s the Romney Paradox, in this case the counterintuitive outcome of two very successful careers that ought to help reinforce each other, but don’t.

As a rule, Americans don’t elect business leaders straight to the presidency no matter how successful they have been. We just don’t. We elect governors, we elect generals, we elect former vice presidents and very occasionally we elect senators. We didn’t elect billionaire Ross Perot, though he did help elect Bill Clinton. We didn’t even nominate Steve Forbes, though his economic conservatism probably made a lot of sense to most Republicans when he ran and he was certainly one of the more intellectually interesting candidates available at the time. We also don’t elect congressmen, which is one of the major reasons that Duncan Hunter’s effort never took off. He had all the right ideas but none of the resume.

The reliable routes to the presidency run through governor’s mansions and the upper echelons of the Pentagon. That’s the way it is and nothing is likely to change it, because we tend to see politics and business and entirely separate spheres, and our government’s best executives either run states or win wars. That’s not an unreasonable way to see the world, since government spends much of its time regulating business, but it does produce an inherent difficulty for business leaders to make the crossover from enterprise to politics. On the left, the inherent distrust of private enterprise crosses over into unreasonableness, whether it’s John Edwards’ faux and thankfully failed populism or bashing Hillary Clinton for serving on the Wal-Mart directors board. Of all the many things that could be held against the Clintons, Wal-Mart must be the least important by several orders of magnitude. But even on the right there’s distrust of business, among some social conservatives and border security hawks. And Maverick John McCain, at least if you take his “led for patriotism, not profit” line at face value.

What does this have to do with Mitt Romney? I’m getting to that.

It should be obvious to most Americans that some amount of business acumen would be helpful to have around the White House. After last night’s Democrat debate, it’s obvious that there’s no real business sense among their contenders. Business experience would help an administration understand the role of business success and economic freedom in America’s global influence. It’s clear that many politicians, especially on the left, spend their entire lives in government and do not understand business at all. See the clip linked above. They don’t seem to grasp that you can’t be a military superpower without strong economic fundamentals, at least not for very long, and you can’t keep your military at the cutting edge without robust R&D on the business side (government-backed or not), and you can’t spread freedom by prying open markets if you don’t have healthy markets of your own. But because we don’t elect business leaders directly to the White House, we seldom have strong business sense at the top of any ticket in either party. Good presidents bring that knowledge into the cabinet with them, bad presidents don’t. Some presidents get lucky and inheret a strong economy that they get to ride while they’re in office.

This year, we do have the chance to put a serious business leader with political experience in the White House, in Mitt Romney. He is one of America’s most successful businessmen. Having been a governor, he has also taken one of the most reliable routes to the White House. Having won as a Republican in deep blue Massachusetts, on paper Romney would seem to be a very very strong candidate for the presidency. Add some national security credentials and he’s the man to beat.

But he isn’t the man to beat right now, and therein lies the Romney Paradox, the reason many conservatives haven’t embraced him. He is a Mormon, which some unreasonably hold against him (we’re electing a president, not choosing a pastor, a difference that I wish many of my fellow evangelicals understood), but which also says that he is probably a natural and instinctive social conservative. Most Mormons are, if anything, on the right end of social conservatism. That also ought to endear him to the GOP base, but because he ran for the governorship in Massachusetts he had to tack far to the left of the party to become a viable candidate there. If he had run in, say, Tennessee or Texas, he would have run a very different race on a very different set of issues than he ran and won on in Massachusetts. That’s not a knock on him, so much as it’s a reflection of the different politics at play in different states. Romney didn’t live in Texas or Tennessee.

Because he ran far to the left of the party in Massachusetts, he has had to spend the last two years or so tacking back to the right to get back into the GOP mainstream. I happen to think that that’s where he started out (including, unfortunately, his iffy stance on the 2nd Amendment), which means two things. First, that his current conservative stances represent who he really is. Second, that he is indeed a flip-flopper, having flipped toward liberalism to win Massachusetts but now flopping back to the right to win elsewhere. Being a businessman before a politician, he probably didn’t foresee how much mistrust that all of this would create among the conservative base. He’s a pragmatic fixer, not an ideologue. That mistrust plus anti-Mormon animus among my fellow evangelicals explains both the rise of Huckabee and the stasis of Romney. Add in Fred’s gravitational pull to the Reaganite right and you have yet one more drag on Romney’s campaign. He has been stuck wearing a pair of cement shoes, one named Fred and one named Mike.

Romney’s win in Massachusetts is probably the single greatest bullet point for and against his candidacy in many conservatives’ minds. If Romney hadn’t won in Massachusetts and governed well, he would not be a viable presidential candidate. Period, full stop. It wouldn’t matter if he had saved ten Olympics. It wouldn’t matter if he had turned two dozen companies around from bankruptcy to profit. We elect governors and generals, not businessmen. Romney ran in Massachusetts because that’s where he lived, and he ran to the left because that’s what the state’s conditions demanded. He is, at least, not a carpetbagger.

But the Romney Paradox is a real and lingering problem: His victory in Massachusetts helped him cross over from business to government and made him a viable presidential candidate, but at a price that keeps conservatives from getting behind him and supporting him with full throat because many of us aren’t sure we can trust him. There’s no getting around that. It is what it is.

I’ve gotten past the Romney Paradox. I hope a majority of my fellow conservatives will do the same on Super Tuesday.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

IF McCain-Feingold was so bad why is it that Citizen United can run ads?

I have been watching them constantly..

I don’t see anyone’s “free speech” gone.

Chakra Hammer on February 1, 2008 at 8:40 PM

If it was issue specific, right before the election it would not be allowed to air. That is the problem! That is the stifling of the 1st Amendment!
Clueless!

JDH on February 1, 2008 at 8:44 PM

Is health care a problem? I thought the problem was people by the millions don’t have health insurance? That is the problem and he came up with a solution for that with a liberal legislature.

The merits are up for debate. We do not have a health care problem. We have the best health care in the world.

P.S. Sorry to answer my own question.

JDH on February 1, 2008 at 8:36 PM

Doesn’t matter if it’s a problem or not- people percieve it to be so. And yes, there is a problem- costs keep skyrocketing, and there are things that can be done to alieviate that. However it’s a problem that needs a flyswatter, not a sledgehammer.

Hollowpoint on February 1, 2008 at 8:46 PM

Bryan,

Well said. I think you make a good point about the dichotomy of opinions that keep, potentially, many from giving Romney a more serious look and consideration. I believe I have gotten over what you describe as a paradox. I actually feel better having made a decision than sitting a bit in the shadows, so to speak, waiting for more information to develop before I decide.

I support Romney for president.

Weebork on February 1, 2008 at 8:46 PM

McCain-Feingold

Anybody should be able to run an ad with any money at any time. Freedom of political speech it’s called.

Tzetzes on February 1, 2008 at 8:47 PM

If it was issue specific, right before the election it would not be allowed to air. That is the problem! That is the stifling of the 1st Amendment!
Clueless!

JDH on February 1, 2008 at 8:44 PM

I think they make their point, very well know in the ad did you not see it?

Chakra Hammer on February 1, 2008 at 8:48 PM

And as a completely off-topic tangent, I am currently trying to beat Halo 3 on Legendary.

You know, the only thing I found about playing on harder levels is that more of the enemy go straight at you, even if you’re alllllll the way in the back. Fun.

Weebork on February 1, 2008 at 8:48 PM

Doesn’t matter if it’s a problem or not- people percieve it to be so. And yes, there is a problem- costs keep skyrocketing, and there are things that can be done to alieviate that. However it’s a problem that needs a flyswatter, not a sledgehammer.

Hollowpoint on February 1, 2008 at 8:46 PM

You are right, that is the perception. The fact that it is the perception is the Republican Party’s fault. We have not owned that issue. I don’t think John McCain will own it. What is his experience with this issue? What is his plan? Can he sell it without mentioning the surge. The Dems own it and it will be a major topic in the general
election.

He will lose on this issue alone in my opinion.

JDH on February 1, 2008 at 8:51 PM

BTW, I’m defending McCain-Feingold.

I think it’s a bad law that didn’t do what they tought it would when that first drafted it.

However, to say that it kills free speech, is another slash and burn thing that just isn’t true.

You have to craft you message differently, etc. everything has to follow the same rules…

However Romney has a loop-hole, he can spend his entire fortune on his campaign.

Chakra Hammer on February 1, 2008 at 8:51 PM

BTW, the people attacking McCain-Feingold need to Remember that Fred Thompson was a Co-Sponsor.

S.25
Title: A bill to reform the financing of Federal elections.
Sponsor: Sen McCain, John [AZ] (introduced 1/21/1997) Cosponsors (31)

COSPONSORS(31), ALPHABETICAL

(D)Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] – 1/21/1997
(D)Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] – 1/29/1997
(D)Sen Bryan, Richard H. [NV] – 2/13/1997
(D)Sen Byrd, Robert C. [WV] – 5/9/1997
(D)Sen Cleland, Max [GA] – 1/21/1997
(D)Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] – 1/21/1997
(D)Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] – 9/4/1997
(D)Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] – 1/21/1997
(D)Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI] – 1/21/1997
(D)Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] – 3/17/1997
(D)Sen Ford, Wendell H. [KY] – 1/21/1997
(D)Sen Glenn, John H., Jr. [OH] – 1/21/1997
(D)Sen Graham, Bob [FL] – 1/21/1997
(D)Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] – 2/6/1997
(D)Sen Johnson, Tim [SD] – 1/21/1997(He didn’t waste no time)
(D)Sen Kerrey, J. Robert [NE] – 1/21/1997
(D)Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] – 1/21/1997
(D)Sen Kohl, Herb [WI] – 1/21/1997
(D)Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] – 1/21/1997
(D)Sen Levin, Carl [MI] – 2/4/1997
(D)Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] – 3/10/1997
(D)Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] – 3/12/1997
(D)Sen Moseley-Braun, Carol [IL] – 1/21/1997
(D)Sen Moynihan, Daniel Patrick [NY] – 2/24/1997
(D)Sen Murray, Patty [WA] – 1/21/1997
(D)Sen Reid, Harry [NV] – 1/21/1997
(D)Sen Robb, Charles S. [VA] – 7/16/1997
(D)Sen Sarbanes, Paul S. [MD] – 4/15/1997
(R)Sen Thompson, Fred [TN] – 1/21/1997
(D)Sen Wellstone, Paul D. [MN] – 1/21/1997
(D)Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] – 1/21/1997

Chakra Hammer on February 1, 2008 at 8:53 PM

BTW, I’m NOT* defending McCain-Feingold.

Chakra Hammer on February 1, 2008 at 8:53 PM

We have a health insurance problem that stems mostly from the fact that government lesiglation over the years killed the private market.

People change jobs too often now for an employee-based system to be most effective. Health Insurance needs to be portable and therefore, privately owned (like it was before Roosevelt). A few legislative changes should fix the problem — simplify the regulations to help drive down costs, make it tax deductable, promote policies that can be customized instead of one-sized-fits all, etc.

Spolitics on February 1, 2008 at 8:55 PM

I think they make their point, very well know in the ad did you not see it?

Chakra Hammer on February 1, 2008 at 8:48 PM

Yes. I have seen it. The point is before McCain-Feingold you would not be able to have a 527 running this ad. Remember, Soros, and the like can put as much money as they like behind these enitities. Before he would be limited in his contribution to the candidate or party. The idea was to get the money out of the parties hands so as to limit influence.

How do you think that has worked? MoveOn.org/Soros owns the Democratic Party. This has only been possible since this legislation.

JDH on February 1, 2008 at 8:56 PM

[T]o say that [McCain-Feingold] kills free speech, is another slash and burn thing that just isn’t true.

Chakra Hammer on February 1, 2008 at 8:51 PM

Telling people (such as private groups or political parties) that they can’t buy ads at certain times is, if not a complete killing of free speech, an unjust limiting of it.

Any person, any ad, any amount of money, any time.

Tzetzes on February 1, 2008 at 8:57 PM

BTW, I’m NOT* defending McCain-Feingold.

Chakra Hammer on February 1, 2008 at 8:53 PM

The opposition to McCain is mainly based on what he did about Amnesty and his refusal to fess up to his true position on it. McCain-Feingold is usually added when all of his “sins” are listed.

Igor R. on February 1, 2008 at 8:57 PM

Has he got ANY chance of winning the nomination? Goofy McCain has just run a new ad saying what a true conservative he is. Are people going to believe it? Many voters don’t vote in primaries because of committal to the party, hence, constant mail and solicitations. Many people don’t even pay attention until the election is upon them. Are they going to realize what a sham and fake and democrap McCain is? Romney REALLY has to pore it n NOW before Super Tuesday to impress voters. I would say an ‘all or nothing, take no prisoners’ type retoric against McCain, just like McCain is doing to win voters hearts and minds. Otherwise, if McCain does real good tuesday we’re gonna have a democrap President no matter which way it goes. God help us and —- Romney!

countywolf on February 1, 2008 at 8:59 PM

McCain-Feingold = MoveOn.org = DNC = John McCain

Pal2Pal on February 1, 2008 at 8:59 PM

BTW, I’m NOT* defending McCain-Feingold.

Chakra Hammer on February 1, 2008 at 8:53 PM

Good.

JDH on February 1, 2008 at 8:59 PM

Goofy McCain has just run a new ad saying what a true conservative he is.

countywolf on February 1, 2008 at 8:59 PM

Yeah, an ad which says that “while a prisoner of war, John McCain was inspired by the Reagan revolution”, as though that were what was on his mind…

Tzetzes on February 1, 2008 at 9:03 PM

My real prediction: McCain will win. Even if McCain doesn’t run for a second term in 2012, or if McCain somehow loses in 2008, Petraeus will step up in 2012.

Romney might be done as a presidential candidate.

indythinker on February 1, 2008 at 9:03 PM

My real prediction: McCain will win. Even if McCain doesn’t run for a second term in 2012, or if McCain somehow loses in 2008, Petraeus will step up in 2012.

Romney might be done as a presidential candidate.

indythinker on February 1, 2008 at 9:03 PM

Well in that case this is what will happen: six months into his first term, McCain will legalize the illegals. In about seven years most of them will become citizens. In about seven more years 20 million of their family members will become citizens. At that point no Republican will ever be elected again and the country will enter a slow decline consisting of more promises to the new (and old) “underclass” and more taxation by the Democrats to fulfill those promises.

Igor R. on February 1, 2008 at 9:07 PM

Yes, so while we can let’s remember that Juan “it’s not Amnesty” McCain and Juan “we don’t need to stinking borders” Hernandez will destroy the United States faster that the entire Shiite/Sunni Caliphate league.

Igor R. on February 1, 2008 at 8:27 PM

Exactly! McCain’s Z visa, with his devious change of 90 days in 2006 to one business day in 2007, was a slap in the face to all American citizens. It would, in a single day, add 10% to our “legal” population, with another 30 million right behind.

Thank goodness the states have some common sense and are in a self-preservation mode. A shame Mitt didn’t pound on McCain and ask him why states were scrambling to counter McCain’s policies. And it’s working!

As of November 16, 2007, no fewer than 1562 pieces of legislation related to immigrants and immigration had been introduced among the 50 state legislatures. Of these bills, 244 became law in 46 states. 11 bills have been vetoed by governors. Two measures are pending governors’ review.

State legislators have introduced almost three times more bills in 2007 than in 2006. The number of enactments from 2006 (84) has nearly tripled to 244 in 2007. Several states are still in session so there could be additional legislation related to immigrants as the year draws to a close.

In the continued absence of a comprehensive federal reform of the United States’ challenged immigration system, states have displayed an unprecedented level of activity – and have developed a variety of their own approaches and solutions.

Immigration-related legislation covers almost every policy arena. Many states have focused on employment, health, identification, driver’s and other licenses, law enforcement, public benefits, and human trafficking.

fred5678 on February 1, 2008 at 9:13 PM

Id rather elect McCain and let him betray conservatism then stay at home and betray conservatism myself.

In one instance McCain is guilty. In the other Im the guilty one.

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 9:16 PM

If McCain is made President, I’ll weep harder than I will if it’s Clinton or Obama.

Tzetzes on February 1, 2008 at 9:16 PM

“…and it’s not just a rebound effect from discontent with John McCain.”

LOL! We know. We always have.

Al-Ozarka on February 1, 2008 at 9:20 PM

Bryan, you didn’t mention the plethora of liberal ideas Romney adopted for a run at a liberal state’s governor’s mansion, & the abandonment of all those ideas just in time for a run at a conservative party’s presidential nomination.

jgapinoy on February 1, 2008 at 9:21 PM

fred5678 on February 1, 2008 at 9:13 PM

Of course once Juan and his DemonRat friends get their way you can kiss all the state efforts goodbye. But that evidently isn’t apparent to the adoring fans of this pathetic creature who are attracted to his larger-than-life (as in “a pile of manure”) personality.

Igor R. on February 1, 2008 at 9:23 PM

Good post IgorR.! I alawys thought the illegals were the new Epsilons from ‘Brave New World’,a permanent ‘underclass’ of workers kept down because of lack of education, or no desire to get one, permanently here to do all the menial tasks needed, never rising in class. If you talk with them now they’ll tell you they are NOT Americans, don’t want to be Americans, and will never ever be Americans. That’s what separates them from past immigrants who WANTED to be Americans. Lettin’ ‘em vote like Billary wants is a big mistake I would say. It seems employers really want them, and want them to stay just like they are, non-English speaking, uneducated, union-less, non-voting, and letting the ‘G’ pay for their health care. Plus an unending supply from Mexico!

countywolf on February 1, 2008 at 9:26 PM

Great analysis, Bryan. Mitt’s a good guy and has bought into the conservative movement. I think he’ll stick around. He is certainly the most well-qualified to be President and
deserves a fair appraisal from all Americans.

But I suspect most Americans just won’t give Mitt the benefit of the doubt – He’s a Mormon, and they believe in “crazy” things, just like Catholics believe in transubstantiation and Presbyterians believe in predestination. In fact, most Americans probably have no idea the Senate is run by a Mormon – and a fair number may not even know who Harry Reid is.

You’re right – Mitt needs a few years to build a positive repuation, and then maybe he’ll have some Reaganesque inevitability about him.

Of course, if he goes goofball lefty in the meantime, you can forget it (although the NYT will like him).

fiatboomer on February 1, 2008 at 9:28 PM

Uh oh. I think Hannity just kinda sorta endorsed Mac.

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 1, 2008 at 9:29 PM

jgapinoy on February 1, 2008 at 9:21 PM

See Reagan, Ronald W: Governor of California, Liberal Republican.

fiatboomer on February 1, 2008 at 9:30 PM

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 1, 2008 at 9:29 PM

Do you endorse Mac?

fiatboomer on February 1, 2008 at 9:31 PM

John McCain was inspired by the Reagan revolution”, as though that were what was on his mind…

Gee, he used to say it was Nixon’s resuming the bombing that inspired him, because POW conditions improved so much after the bombing began again. And Reagan was Governor of Calif. while McCain was a prisoner, I don’t recall any “Reagan Revolution” going on. McCain is full of crap.

Pal2Pal on February 1, 2008 at 9:31 PM

I know that some people will scoff at this but I think that this year’s primary does have some similarities to the ’76 primary. It appears (unless there is huge change in the polls) that a moderate will gain the Republican nomination over a conservative. This is exactly what happened in 1976 with Ford taking the nomination over Reagan. I will never forget the disappointment of that primary. However, this did set up Reagan for his successful run in 1980 and all of the great successes of his presidency. I am not in any way saying that Romney is the next Reagan but thinking about this is one way that I keep the depression of possibly having to make a choice between McCain and Clinton at bay.

dawgyear on February 1, 2008 at 9:31 PM

Good post IgorR.! I alawys thought the illegals were the new Epsilons from ‘Brave New World’,a permanent ‘underclass’ of workers kept down because of lack of education, or no desire to get one, permanently here to do all the menial tasks needed, never rising in class. If you talk with them now they’ll tell you they are NOT Americans, don’t want to be Americans, and will never ever be Americans. That’s what separates them from past immigrants who WANTED to be Americans. Lettin’ ‘em vote like Billary wants is a big mistake I would say. It seems employers really want them, and want them to stay just like they are, non-English speaking, uneducated, union-less, non-voting, and letting the ‘G’ pay for their health care. Plus an unending supply from Mexico!

countywolf on February 1, 2008 at 9:26 PM

Thanks. Of course the large employers are the reason why all of this is happening! Do you think that the Navy pilot John McCain, bred to become an admiral, like his father and grandfather before him, suddenly learned to love the illegals more than his first wife? No, he made a deal with his masters and now they kept his candidacy from dying. Oh, he will secure the border “first”. From what I understand his plan is to train ground squirrels in martial arts which will be certified by those highly effective border state governors as sufficient to give the Z visas to anyone who can write or say “Zorro”.

Igor R. on February 1, 2008 at 9:32 PM

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 9:16 PM

It depends on whether or not you believe McCain will further conservative issues. If not, and you vote for him anyway, that would be the betrayal. Vote for what you believe in.

Spolitics on February 1, 2008 at 9:33 PM

Ground squiirrels are to smart for goofy McCain. The’ll never cooperate. It’s more likely he’ll hire illegals as border guards, they’re cheaper, no health care costs and will definitely do his bidding by letting EVERYONE across without a problem. Did you know the ‘G’ hires illegals to fight forest fires on the west coast for the above reasons, no kidding!

countywolf on February 1, 2008 at 9:38 PM

It depends on whether or not you believe McCain will further conservative issues. If not, and you vote for him anyway, that would be the betrayal. Vote for what you believe in.

Spolitics on February 1, 2008 at 9:33 PM

I kjnow for certain Hillary or Obama would not further conservative issues. So am I not remiss to not stand up to them ?

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 9:41 PM

Ground squirrels are too smart for goofy McCain.

countywolf on February 1, 2008 at 9:38 PM

Yes, but Hucklebee is smarter, or at least faster than squirrels, which he apparently deep-fries in a popcorn-popper.

Tzetzes on February 1, 2008 at 9:43 PM

You’re right – Mitt needs a few years to build a positive repuation, and then maybe he’ll have some Reaganesque inevitability about him.

Of course, if he goes goofball lefty in the meantime, you can forget it (although the NYT will like him).

fiatboomer on February 1, 2008 at 9:28 PM

He will have 4 years to make all the necessary amends unless a miracle occurs. It looks as though McCain is picking up all of Rudy’s support.

He will be better for it. Everyone will be more comfortable with him, he can add to his foreign policy credentials and hone his message. I think he will be a candidate we will all rally around.

JDH on February 1, 2008 at 7:25 PM

I don’t think he will go left. He is conservative at his core. He will be the man to beat in 2012. He will campaign for Republicans in 2010. He will be heard on the radio, on television. He will be the first one to contradict Dem policy. Unless a miracle occurs, as I said, this will be a great learning experience and we will all be the better for it.

JDH on February 1, 2008 at 9:43 PM

Ground squiirrels are to smart for goofy McCain. The’ll never cooperate. It’s more likely he’ll hire illegals as border guards, they’re cheaper, no health care costs and will definitely do his bidding by letting EVERYONE across without a problem. Did you know the ‘G’ hires illegals to fight forest fires on the west coast for the above reasons, no kidding!

countywolf on February 1, 2008 at 9:38 PM

I have no doubts about that. Unfortunately for the large employers the second generation of the illegals is more interested in fighting for control of South Central LA with rival gangs than fighting forest fires. But when all you care about it this year’s P&L statement that’s too far into the future.

Igor R. on February 1, 2008 at 9:43 PM

Yes, but Hucklebee is smarter, or at least faster than squirrels, which he apparently deep-fries in a popcorn-popper.

Tzetzes on February 1, 2008 at 9:43 PM

Well his son evidently likes doing that to dogs, but since it’s hard to stick them into the popcorn-popper he just sadistically tortures them to death. These are the social conservative values that would make Bubba proud!

Igor R. on February 1, 2008 at 9:47 PM

Most of you have probably already read it, but I picked this out of a NYT article on Powerline. The bottom paragraph says it all.

Meanwhile, conservatives are growing increasingly “resigned” to the idea of a McCain nomination, said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, adding that among Washington activists, many of whom, like him, double as lobbyists, self-interest may also be a factor.

“There are people who don’t like the idea of a being off a campaign or being on the bad list if the guy gets into the White House,” Mr. Keene said. “This is a town in which 90 percent of the people balance their access and income on the one hand versus their principles on the other.”

Explains a lot of the endorsements, I think. Maybe those conservative principles are for sale.

a capella on February 1, 2008 at 9:48 PM

If only the Super Obama Girl were Conservative! Check out AP’s post!

Sorry, off topic, but goodness gracious!

JDH on February 1, 2008 at 9:48 PM

You’re right about P&L, that’s very important. What the hell’s going to happen when the chollos wise up, if ever, stop rippin’ and runnin’ and killin’ each other, and us occasionally, and want more of the apple and there’s 30 or 40 million or more with more coming all the time?

countywolf on February 1, 2008 at 9:51 PM

Meanwhile, conservatives are growing increasingly “resigned” to the idea of a McCain nomination, said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, adding that among Washington activists, many of whom, like him, double as lobbyists, self-interest may also be a factor.

“There are people who don’t like the idea of a being off a campaign or being on the bad list if the guy gets into the White House,” Mr. Keene said. “This is a town in which 90 percent of the people balance their access and income on the one hand versus their principles on the other.”

Explains a lot of the endorsements, I think. Maybe those conservative principles are for sale.

a capella on February 1, 2008 at 9:48 PM

Yes, I remember replying to Mr. Keen’s blog on “The Hill” after he chose who to support at that time. He calmly evaluated who is likely to win, and supported him. Those are the proud Conservative values that will soon let us define Obama’s Kenyan cousin as a “machete conservative”.

Igor R. on February 1, 2008 at 9:52 PM

There absolutely has to be collusion between Team McCain and the Democrats. I just saw an ad of his and he’s using Hillary’s line of “Ready on Day 1.” At the last debate, he used a line from Sibilus(sp?)’s Dem Response when he said, “tomorrow, we get to work”.

p0s3r on February 1, 2008 at 9:53 PM

Tammy Bruce endorsed Romney today. That’s it, McCain is toast.

Buy Danish on February 1, 2008 at 9:54 PM

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 9:41 PM

Agreed, but their policies would face a Republican backlash like in 1993. The problem with McCain is if he promotes their agenda (which he has a history of doing), Republicans will get the credit for it.

You also have to consider what his priorities will be. According to his rhetoric he’ll focus on the Iraq War, GW, Immigration. Two out of those 3 will be losers for conservatives. He’s a deficit hawk, but will he fight the deficit by cutting spending or raising taxes. I know what he says now, but when push came to shove he voted against the tax cuts. I feel confident if he’s elected he’ll compromise, the tax cuts will expire and he’ll pass a Dem-friendly version.

Conservatives turned against Bush I in 1992 and Clinton won the Presidency. In 1994 conservatives took over congress for the first time in decades.

I guess the issue is… do you support your party unconditinally? Or do you try and force your party to represent you?

Spolitics on February 1, 2008 at 10:01 PM

I guess the issue is… do you support your party unconditinally? Or do you try and force your party to represent you?

Spolitics on February 1, 2008 at 10:01 PM

For those in uniform I say yes, a resounding YES! (to the first question)

JDH on February 1, 2008 at 10:12 PM

JDH on February 1, 2008 at 10:12 PM

Fair enough.

Spolitics on February 1, 2008 at 10:14 PM

I’ve been witt Mitt for months now, and experience no Romney paradox. Bryan, I appreciate your insight on this, but I see nothing to fear; if the country is as ‘red state’ as we believe,then no Dem has a chance, no matter how they whirl like dervishes.
Conversely: if most of the country is ‘blue state’, then Romney doesn’t stand a chance. This is a debate of political ideologies, personified in a handful of politicians.
I have faith in the American people to get it right; if they fall for the trash talking of the left, then they (we) get the President we deserve.
Our part? Beat the drum, proclaim our conservatism, and expose every lie, no matter who tells it. Hot Air does a superlative job at this; keep up the great work.

Doug on February 1, 2008 at 10:14 PM

I’m sure others have said, but well stated Bryan. I will be voting for Romney in California on the 5th. As I dont trust McCain.

jpsc1 on February 1, 2008 at 10:15 PM

Good post Bryan. McAmnesty is licking his chops to take revenge on us, the little people for sinking his amnesty sh%t.
Romney is our only and last hope. I already voted for him by mail for Tuesday (AZ).

SIJ6141 on February 1, 2008 at 10:21 PM

Tzetzes on February 1, 2008 at 7:46 PM

It’s the elephant in the room.

Buy Danish on February 1, 2008 at 8:15 PM

Finally something worthwhile. That was posted the other week by me (in response to you and others) and Professor Blather also picked that as one of his favorite quotes.
Glad you do pick up on some of the things I post. I knew you were learning from me.

right2bright on February 1, 2008 at 10:24 PM

Mitt Romney was on the LA KNX 640 one million viewership popular John & Ken show, for 20 minutes. I heard only the last 10 but he sounded very good.

J & K were tough but polite and let Mr. Romney make his case. Most here would have been happy with what he said on immigration, taxes, credits for savings accounts, and a series of other conservative-hot issues.

Entelechy on February 1, 2008 at 10:27 PM

He is a Mormon, which some unreasonably hold against him (we’re electing a president, not choosing a pastor, a difference that I wish many of my fellow evangelicals understood)

I don’t hold his being a Moron against him. That would be
muy estupido. What I hold against that nativist Gringo Romney is that he is trying to stop mi hombre Juan from becoming el Presidente de America del Norte!

By the way all you nativist Gringos, remember to aprender Espanol!

Your time is running out and Juan can be very vengeful you know … … …

VinyFoxy on February 1, 2008 at 10:28 PM

Post-mortem. Why Mitt Romney lost
-
- Jealousy and Envy. Romney comes from a rich family. He is very successful on his own merits in business, family, and politics. He is handsome and a terrific public speaker. He is in great physical shape. He comes off as perfect. Some have mocked him as a “Ken doll.” In truth, other men want to be Mitt Romney, and their jealousy and envy of Mitt Romney and his accomplishments prevent them from supporting him. This isn’t fair, but it’s real.
-
- Mormonism. If Romney won the presidential election, that would be like a referendum of America saying, “I am not deeply skeptical of Mormonism. Joseph Smith could really have talked to God. Mormonism doesn’t have many out-there beliefs.” America is not ready to say that. I don’t think America ever will be. If Mormonism wants to be taken seriously in America, they are going to have to make everything public. We want to know about the planets and the underwear and everything else. Is polygamy as a doctrine only temporarily abolished or is it really abolished for good? What’s with all the polygamist heretic LDS branches? Why are there so many? Come clean. Otherwise, we don’t consider your religion to be as legitimate as our own, no offense personally to all you fine Mormon folks. Secondly, we have to factor that in to who we’re voting in for President. I’m never voting for a Muslim for President, not after 9/11. I’m never voting for a Scientologist either. Currently, because I have too many unanswered questions, I have great hestiancy about voting for a Mormon. That said, I might vote for a Mormon if I got my questions answered. Maybe this is fair or not fair, but it is definitely real.
-
- No overriding campaign theme. Every successful presidential campaign in the information age needs a very simple, deeply resonant theme. George H.W. Bush had “Read my lips. No new taxes.” Bill Clinton had “It’s the economy, stupid.” George W. Bush had “Compassionate conservative.” McCain has one, “Straight Talk Express.” Romney’s 2008 campaign does not have a theme.
-
- Reason candidate running. I never heard a good explanation from Romney as to why he wants to be President. “Washington is broken” may be true, but it is only a criticism. It’s not a promise of what he’s going to do. McCain’s reason for running is to make sure we win in Iraq and in the global struggle against terrorism. I think one of the biggest reasons, and an unspoken one, for Mitt Romney to run is to fulfill his father’s campaign. In ’68, his father’s campaign was treated unfairly when George Romney badly gaffed with a joke on brainwashing. It was an unfortunate end of the political career of a man who deserved to be treated much better. Maybe Mitt Romney just wanted to run a good, competitive campaign for his dad. If so, Mitt Romney has acquitted himself very well. If he really does want to be elected President, he could run again. He just needs to search deeply in his soul and find that single biggest reason.
-
There’s no doubt that Romney would make an excellent President. He has the management skills. He has most of the qualities of a good leader. He can develop the rest (such as humility and as outlined above) before 2011, when the next campaign starts. If Romney pulls off a miracle and wins big on Super Tuesday, and goes on to become President in 2008, that would just fine with me. I would be surprised, however, for the reasons stated above.

indythinker on February 1, 2008 at 10:40 PM

Speaking of people not liking Romney, Glen is up to his old tricks at the AP since he got 0wn3d by Mitt at that Staples. Expect more of these hit pieces soon. (I noticed the HA headline on that…)

SkinnerVic on February 1, 2008 at 10:43 PM

Mormonism. If Romney won the presidential election, that would be like a referendum of America saying, “I am not deeply skeptical of Mormonism. Joseph Smith could really have talked to God. Mormonism doesn’t have many out-there beliefs.” America is not ready to say that. I don’t think America ever will be. If Mormonism wants to be taken seriously in America, they are going to have to make everything public. We want to know about the planets and the underwear and everything else. Is polygamy as a doctrine only temporarily abolished or is it really abolished for good? What’s with all the polygamist heretic LDS branches? Why are there so many? Come clean. Otherwise, we don’t consider your religion to be as legitimate as our own, no offense personally to all you fine Mormon folks. Secondly, we have to factor that in to who we’re voting in for President. I’m never voting for a Muslim for President, not after 9/11. I’m never voting for a Scientologist either. Currently, because I have too many unanswered questions, I have great hestiancy about voting for a Mormon. That said, I might vote for a Mormon if I got my questions answered. Maybe this is fair or not fair, but it is definitely real.

It is your responsibility as a voter to get these answers. It is not the candidates responsibility. Otherwise I would have heard about every politicians faith ad nauseum. Strangely, that is not the case.

Go find out for yourself, or eliminate that as a litmus test to receive your vote.

FYI. “Washington Is Broken” is the theme of his campaign. Have you listened to any of his speeches?

JDH on February 1, 2008 at 10:49 PM

Your time is running out and Juan can be very vengeful you know … … …

VinyFoxy on February 1, 2008 at 10:28 PM

Hey Viny, why don’t you take Juan to Mexico with you, on a one way trip. Happy retirement there!

Entelechy on February 1, 2008 at 10:51 PM

Bryan,

Excellent post!

thuja on February 1, 2008 at 10:53 PM

I won’t be voting for the Republican nominee no matter who he is. It’s third party or write-in for me, I’m afraid.

2Brave2Bscared on February 1, 2008 at 10:57 PM

McCain’s reason for running is to make sure we win in Iraq and in the global struggle against terrorism.

indythinker on February 1, 2008 at 10:40 PM

No, no, no!!!

When asked if it would be OK if American troops stayed in Iraq for fifty years, McVain said, “Make it a hundred!!!.

That is not “win in Iraq”, whatever the hell that means any more, it is an irrational Iraqi-centic view of the world and one to get America very diverted from the “global struggle against terrorism” and to get America so bogged down in Iraq for so looooong as to make Vietnam look like a rip roaring success.

His reason for running is to make himself President, which he considers to be his “due”, and to open up the United States of America to even more poor from Mexico to work cheap for his campaign donating plantation owner contributors and create even more depressed wages and even more overcrowded schools and even more closed hospitals and even more crime.

MB4 on February 1, 2008 at 10:58 PM

I won’t be voting for the Republican nominee no matter who he is. It’s third party or write-in for me, I’m afraid.

2Brave2Bscared on February 1, 2008 at 10:57 PM

I guess the issue is… do you support your party unconditinally? Or do you try and force your party to represent you?

Spolitics on February 1, 2008 at 10:01 PM

For those in uniform I say yes, a resounding YES! (to the first question)

JDH on February 1, 2008 at 10:12 PM

Does this give your reason to pause?

JDH on February 1, 2008 at 11:02 PM

His reason for running is to make himself President, which he considers to be his “due”,

MB4 on February 1, 2008 at 10:58 PM

This is the only reason McCain is running. His EGO was hurt in 2000. This is retribution. He is vindictive. He will set the conservative movement back a dozen years if elected in the general. Thank goodness I don’t think he can win.

JDH on February 1, 2008 at 11:06 PM

Well if you want to see Mormons in action, I suggest you watch the worldwide broadcast of President Hinckley’s funeral tomorrow. It will be broadcast in 69 languages, available on many local channels and the BYU channel. Romney will be there and so will the national media. I think you will see that it is a very traditional, one might say Christian, funeral.

Pal2Pal on February 1, 2008 at 11:09 PM

Hey Viny, why don’t you take Juan to Mexico with you, on a one way trip. Happy retirement there!

Entelechy on February 1, 2008 at 10:51 PM

Don’t you worry un poco, after a decent interval I will take over all of America del Norte and I will know what to do with Juan after he has served his purpose.

Maybe I will appoint him as el Alcalde de Tijuana.

VinyFoxy on February 1, 2008 at 11:11 PM

Thank goodness I don’t think he can win.

JDH on February 1, 2008 at 11:06 PM

I will vote for him though for reasons above if he wins nomination. SOL!

JDH on February 1, 2008 at 11:11 PM

I don’t know how you all feel about David Frum, but this is what he said to Tucker today, as reported by Newsbusters:

FRUM: John McCain has made it very clear over the last half-dozen years: he does not love the Republican party. He’ll put up with it. He’ll tolerate it. If they will follow him he will consent to lead them. But he does not love this party, and the party knows it. Plus there are the substantive issues, of which immigration is far and away the most important; it is a hugely important issue.

And a bit later . . .

FRUM: McCain doesn’t just try to explain to the party why he disagrees. His method is to explain to the party why not only does he disagree, but they are racist and wrong and stupid for thinking the way they do, and people never like that.

And yet a bit later . . .

FRUM: He’s not interested in the project of saving conservatism in the Republican party. He is really trying to build a personal movement with the Republican party as its vehicle.

Pal2Pal on February 1, 2008 at 11:12 PM

This is the only reason McCain is running.

JDH on February 1, 2008 at 11:06 PM

What you and MB4 said, plus he wants to prove to his father and grandfather that he could beat them. It comes from his complex of not having lived up to them.

Entelechy on February 1, 2008 at 11:17 PM

JDH: Mormonism questions: It is your responsibility as a voter to get these answers.
Actually, just because something is a “religion” does not mean it is beyond question. Some religions are more legitimate than others. The answers I would like are kept secret in Salt Lake City. I want to know if polygamy is temporarily abolished or permanently abolished. There is no straight answer from the LDS church in public. I want to know why the underwear rituals are secret. What’s the secret? What’s the deal with the planets? The LDS church could just post a FAQ on their web site that fully explains all of this. They have never come clean on any of it. They have significantly edited the Book of Mormon something like nine times. Then they try to not explain what the reasoning was. The list goes on.
JDH – Washington is broken = campaign theme
That’s not a promise of what he’s going to do. It’s only a criticism. It’s not a theme, as I stated above.
-
MB4: Iraq: That is not “win in Iraq”, whatever the hell that means any more, it is an irrational Iraqi-centic view of the world
What McCain means is he is going to stay on course until victory is achieved in Iraq. That means standing up a government and putting in place security for that country. In the long run, Iraq has deep societal changes to make. In the short run, political stability is achievable. Iraq has always been a central front in this war. We have fought Al Qaeda in Iraq every day since 2003. We have had great success in this effort. By saying “We’re staying in Iraq for 100 years,” McCain is repudiating Vietnam Syndrome by using an exaggeration. He is not really going to live another 100 years. None of us will. The point is that McCain is 100% committed to victory. No war was ever won by a different kind of leader.

indythinker on February 1, 2008 at 11:18 PM

Bryan,

That was an intelligent and well thought out argument and I for one agree. I am now with Mitt!

azcop on February 1, 2008 at 11:18 PM

What you and MB4 said, plus he wants to prove to his father and grandfather that he could beat them. It comes from his complex of not having lived up to them.

Entelechy on February 1, 2008 at 11:17 PM

Same could be said of Mitt.

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 11:19 PM

Same could be said of Mitt.

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 11:19 PM

True William, true what I added. But not all the other points JDH and MB4 made are true for Mitt/John running.

Entelechy on February 1, 2008 at 11:24 PM

Same could be said of Mitt.

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 11:19 PM

The same could be said, and you just said it, but unlike with McVain, it is untrue.

MB4 on February 1, 2008 at 11:24 PM

He is not really going to live another 100 years. None of us will. The point is that McCain is 100% committed to victory. No war was ever won by a different kind of leader.

indythinker on February 1, 2008 at 11:18 PM

I plan to, and you might also, live to be 100.

I agree on the “kind of leader” for running a war.

Entelechy on February 1, 2008 at 11:25 PM

Glad you do pick up on some of the things I post. I knew you were learning from me.

right2bright on February 1, 2008 at 10:24 PM

WTH are you talking about?

Buy Danish on February 1, 2008 at 11:31 PM

Entelechy on February 1, 2008 at 11:25 PM

Is the only reason McCain is running for Victory in your estimation?

JDH on February 1, 2008 at 11:35 PM

VinyFoxy, are you Juan Hernandez in disguise? He is on Juan’s roll.

Entelechy on February 1, 2008 at 11:35 PM

JDH, did you maybe pick up my date/time stamp from another than intended comment?

Entelechy on February 1, 2008 at 11:37 PM

Good analisis Bryan, and I happen to agree. Rommney is a business man, he had to run left of center in Mass. And now he must tack back to the right. But after his election in Mass he promoted right leaning ideas and got a lot of them across. Net gain for Mass. Buiness grew there, in a vastly liberal state. That does not usually happen, but he made it work.

Perhaps it is time we finally elected someone with the knowhow to make business work to the white house for a change.

conservnut on February 1, 2008 at 11:39 PM

I hope all these facts about McLiarliarpantsonfire aren’t just on HA. The public needs to hear it too.

My mom was going to vote for McCain until I showed her what Juan Hernandez says and then what McShanmnesty said about not knowing what the guys positions are.

She will now vote Romney.

csdeven on February 1, 2008 at 11:40 PM

indythinker on February 1, 2008 at 11:18 PM

I didn’t say it was beyond question. I said it is your responsibility to find the answers if his religion/faith is important, not the other way around.

Washington is Broken: They promised to fix “xyz” and haven’t! His promise is he will deliver. Do you think he was just going around claiming Washington is broken without a plan to fix it? You haven’t been to or watched any of his stump speeches have you?

JDH on February 1, 2008 at 11:43 PM

Indy, there is a big difference between secret and sacred. How can something be secret that millions of people know about. And polygamy has been outlawed for over 100 years, drop that stupidness. Besides, there was a good reason for it. Women had no rights in the courts or property rights thruout the U.S. and when they lost the protection of their fathers or husbands, they had no one to protect them. There were far more women than men. Even when polygamy was practiced, a man had to demonstrate that he was capable of supporting his family before he was given permission to marry again. And why the heck do you care what kind of underwear someone wears? Mormon garments are nothing more than boxers and vee tee shirts for men and chemises for women. Pretty much no different from what you could go to any store and buy only they are always white. No big mystery there. My girlfriend, a Mormon, used to undress in front of others at the gym and no one paid any attention. Same with sailors on ships, according to my husband.

Pal2Pal on February 1, 2008 at 11:45 PM

Entelechy on February 1, 2008 at 11:37 PM

Actually, the comment below your stamp is my question to you.

JDH on February 1, 2008 at 11:45 PM

What McCain means is he is going to stay on course until victory is achieved in Iraq. That means standing up a government and putting in place security for that country. In the long run, Iraq has deep societal changes to make.

Yes they need to reputiate Isalm. That is the “deep societal changes” (Treat the disease, not the symptoms) they need to make. Do you think that they are going to do that, even in the next hundred years?

In the short run, political stability is achievable. Iraq has always been a central front in this war.

No one place is the “central front”. That is an Iraqi-centric view of the world. Iraq is sucking up attention and resources that could better be used elsewhere or given a rest and held in reserve.

We have fought Al Qaeda in Iraq every day since 2003. We have had great success in this effort.

Yes, al Qaeda in Iraq, aka AQI, not the real al Qaeda.

By saying “We’re staying in Iraq for 100 years,” McCain is repudiating Vietnam Syndrome by using an exaggeration. He is not really going to live another 100 years. None of us will. The point is that McCain is 100% committed to victory. No war was ever won by a different kind of leader.

indythinker on February 1, 2008 at 11:18 PM

No, the point is he is embracing the “Vietnam and then some Syndrome” and also that he is an Iraq obsessive nut. This sis, boom, bah mantra, more like a canard, of “Victory!!!” is getting old. Doesn’t seem to make any difference what America gets from this would be “Victory”, just that “we” (not really we, as it’s just the same relative hand full of guys going over and over again) get, sis, boom, bah, go team VICTORY!!!

MB4 on February 1, 2008 at 11:45 PM

VinyFoxy, are you Juan Hernandez in disguise? He is on Juan’s roll.

Entelechy on February 1, 2008 at 11:35 PM

Si, pero si mantiene que nuestro pequeno secreto habra una muy buena gratificacion en ella para usted.

VinyFoxy on February 1, 2008 at 11:50 PM

Bryan,
You made some great points…many of the same that I came to grips with Tuesday morning in the land of hanging chads. What really set my vote for Romney was the business experience. Lifelong politicians don’t have much of a clue in that realm. Needless to say Mitt lost here in Florida, for the most part, to the perception of McCain as a Bona fide military hero, something the Republican party hasn’t seen since Ike. The senator IS that kind of hero (and just about as conservative too.) With the support he seems to be getting, the thing that scares me most is a RINO Peter Pan flying us into some kind of American Never-Never Land.

Schmo on February 1, 2008 at 11:53 PM

Actually, the comment below your stamp is my question to you.

JDH on February 1, 2008 at 11:45 PM

Nevermind Entelecy.

JDH on February 1, 2008 at 11:57 PM

Is (this) the only reason McCain is running for Victory in your estimation?

JDH on February 1, 2008 at 11:35 PM

I’m assuming that you wanted to ask me if the only reason Mr. McCain is running is the one about pleasing/surpassing his father/grandfather.

I don’t think it’s the only reason, but it’s a very strong desire on his part. His best chance was in 2000 and he blew it with the conservative base, by simply being too snooty.

Graceful men, and those who believe in graceful ageing, would retire. He just can’t get himself to do it without making it to the presidency. This then is his final, final chance. He couldn’t run against Bush 43 in 2004, with 9/11, the war et all.

To your point, he doesn’t have an agenda, really. Listen to his speaches “My friends we’re going to do it, together”. But what are we going to do? I’ve reconciled myself to him winning, and leading as CiC for 4 years, and then retire and hand the reigns over to his VP. I have Mitt Romney in mind. Yes, you and others might think this is impossible, but it really isn’t.

Mr. Romney would provide executive, economic and financial expertise, a balance to the McCain maverick/nuttiness (finger on the cod to the football you know), other domestic issues. Those who say Mr. Romney, in the event that he doesn’t get the nomination, would say no, especially if promised the job in 4 years, would be wrong.

In the meanwhile I still hope, against all odds, that Mr. Romney sheds the boardroom image, rolls up his sleeves in 4 days and convinces the masses that he is a down to earth nice and experienced guy.

Entelechy on February 1, 2008 at 11:58 PM

Someone in the press should ask McCain what the differences between the Sunnis and Shiites are, and which Al-Qaeda is?

And should Sharia Law have been allowed in as the basis of both the Afghan and Iraqi Constitutions?

Because, since our men and women fought and died to liberate these countries, wasn’t it completely absurd and self-defeating to allow an inimical theocratic ideology to be put in place as the root of their “new” legal systems?

How can you achieve any mythical “victory” in Iraq (or Afghanistan) if you have already ceded the basis of their very laws to the jihadist enemy’s intolerant, misogynistic, murderous, and essentially anti-freedom beliefs?

If he can stay awake long enough to follow such questions.

profitsbeard on February 1, 2008 at 11:59 PM

Now I think I’ve heard it all, this via a poster at Free Republic:

I just got a phone call from a relative in West Virginia, a long time, hardcore libertarian who relayed to me the wildest story. He’s totally a straight shooting guy and its not like he lays crazy rumors on me all the time, so whatever he said he heard he heard. And apparently there’s a rumor going around that Huckabee is set to drop out of the presidential race and give a go towards the nomination with the Libertarian Party. Along with him, his staff, and his money would apparently come his constituency. And it would be all because of his call to abolish the IRS that would be the bait.

Man, that presents a great big WTF!!

Pal2Pal on February 2, 2008 at 12:00 AM

“My friends we’re going to do it, together”. But what are we going to do?

Entelechy on February 1, 2008 at 11:58 PM

Vote for Juan and learn Spanish, if you know what is good for you.

VinyFoxy on February 2, 2008 at 12:08 AM

Entelechy on February 1, 2008 at 11:58 PM

I meant to type Victory in the WOT. I think you agree this is his whole platform.

The only way Romney would team up is if he had assurances McCain would be done after 4 years. The other consideration would be if he thought McCain could win. A VP Nominee can only do so much and I can’t recall a VP Nominee winning the Presidency after a defeat. Maybe you can? It would be very risky.

I would wait, campaign for R’s in 2010, create policy, enhance my foreign policy experience, go on talk radio, telivision, etc. Then I would make my play. He has learned a lot and will be far enough removed from MA that we all will be comfortable.

JDH on February 2, 2008 at 12:09 AM

Because, since our men and women fought and died to liberate these countries, wasn’t it completely absurd and self-defeating to allow an inimical theocratic ideology to be put in place as the root of their “new” legal systems?

How can you achieve any mythical “victory” in Iraq (or Afghanistan) if you have already ceded the basis of their very laws to the jihadist enemy’s intolerant, misogynistic, murderous, and essentially anti-freedom beliefs?

If he can stay awake long enough to follow such questions.

profitsbeard on February 1, 2008 at 11:59 PM

Absolutely, the great profitsbeard – also, I wonder, having ‘liberated’ that country, are our Soldiers allowed to drink beer there? In all other wars they were.

Entelechy on February 2, 2008 at 12:11 AM

Entelechy on February 1, 2008 at 11:58 PM

Mitt is getting my vote on Tuesday in GA. Let’s hope it helps. I wish Huckabee was out.

JDH on February 2, 2008 at 12:11 AM

I meant to type Victory in the WOT. I think you agree this is his whole platform.

JDH on February 2, 2008 at 12:09 AM

We agree, but there is so much more to the USA presidency.

To your other points JDH, with which I agree, except that yes, I do believe they’d win. I even predict that if McCain is the nominee he’ll take my home state, California. Yes, anyone can laugh hysterically, but CA has a huge contingent of independents, Arnold, who’s endorsed him, and will campaign for him, a good chunk of leftie conservatives, and rightie liberals.

Also, forgot on previous comment to add Mr. Romney being a good balance to McCain on immigration, a big, big topic here in California, even among the liberals who don’t like the current state of affairs.

Entelechy on February 2, 2008 at 12:17 AM

Great article Bryan, I enjoyed it.

Bush would earn His M.B.A. in 1975

http://www.whitehouse.org/administration/georgew.asp

Eisenhower’s views insisted that the government attempt to promote economic growth. The basic principal of his administration was fiscal responsibility; that is, the government has a duty to stimulate economic growth and raise productivity without benefiting any one special interest. By the end of 1953, Eisenhower faced a lagging economy as a result of the Korean armistice’s sharp military cutbacks. A mild recession reached its peak in January 1954 with unemployment rates topping out over 6 percent. His first order of business was to ask Congress to curb the growth of federal spending.

http://elcoushistory.tripod.com/economics1950.html

Remarks to the Committee for Economic Development
May 20, 1954

Many of those decisions are business decisions. It is a matter of great gratification, not only to me but to every associate I have in the administration, both on the legislative and executive side, that the decisions ­that we can see the effects of-that you have been making reflect an optimism and a confidence that we believe is one of the greatest factors necessary to ensure that America will continue to march forward as it has been marching.

I sometimes think that Patrick Henry may have overstated the case ­for anyone of us may not quite accept and live by his immortal state­ment, “Give me liberty or give me death.” But I still believe that that statement is true for our race.

We will accept nothing over and above freedom. And as long as we live that-and believe in it-and do our work in that spirit, to my mind, America is not only safe but America is going forward in the expanding and growing economy that will bring greater and greater happiness to our people, security for us, and promote peace in the world.

http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/speeches/19540520%20Remarks%20to%20the%20Committee%20for%20Economic%20Development.htm

Speakup on February 2, 2008 at 12:17 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5