Audio: Mitt Romney on Card Check
posted at 12:17 pm on March 19, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
In 90 seconds, Mitt Romney manages to run down the devastation that Card Check would wreak on the American economy. And not just during a severe downturn; the reordering of the labor-management-government relationship in this fashion would heavily burden the economy even in the best of times, Romney tells Sean Hannity:
This matches what at least two studies show us. Dr. Anne Layne-Farrar’s study shows that Card Check could cost between 1.5 million and 5.4 million jobs over the next three years, using data in Canada, where Card Check has been employed in various areas. Separately, UCLA researchers found that FDR’s stimulus package and labor-friendly legislation extended the Depression for seven years longer than necessary.
I’m thinking of that song All In The Family used as its theme, and one of the lines in it. Mister, we could use a man like Mitt Romney again …
Previous posts on Card Check:
- Union employees go on strike … against the union
- Video: SEIU accuses Card Check opponent of wanting workers to die
- Johnson against Card Check, too?
- Video: Murkowski tells AK legislature she’ll oppose Card Check
- Video: Warren Buffett on Card Check
- Video: Blue Dog speaks out against Card Check
- Conference call: Rep. John Kline on Card Check
- The Ed Morrissey Show: Dr. Anne Layne-Farrar, Card Check; John Taylor, Getting Off Track
- Three Dems wavering on Card Check in the Senate?
- Obama tells unions that Card Check will pass this year
- CPAC Interview: Card Check
- Obama moving away from fear-based politics?
- Secret ballots for workers in Mexico, but not the US?
- Will Stern strong-arm unions to join the SEIU?
- Video: Labor officials can’t explain why they need to dump the secret ballot
- Card check a dead letter?
- Audio: Sharpton opposing Card Check?
- Card Check loses a vote? Perhaps
- Video: Blago, SEIU, and Card Check
- DeMint conference call: Card Check, bailouts
- Card Check: A direct pipeline to corruption and abuse
- Can Obama get Democrats to support Card Check?
- Video: The Card Check ad CBS doesn’t want you to see
- Irony escapes the House Democratic Caucus
- Guess who used the secret ballot … again?
- Video: Meet Union Boss Bill
- USA Today: Stop Card Check …
- Video: McGovern on Card Check
- George McGovern to fight Card Check in debate ad
- Video: What if Congress passed Card Check for all elections?
- FRC Action Summit: Barbara Comstock on EFCA
- George McGovern: Stop Card Check
- Where did the SEIU get $150 million for politics?
- Right Online Conference: John Fund
- Maybe this is why they need Card Check?
- Video: “I Hate Heroes”
- Johnny Sac takes on the unions
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: « Previous 1 2 3
Which values? Free speech? Not in the bible. Not anywhere in Europe for the 1000 or so years that Christians were crowning rulers. Same goes for rule by the people, for the people, freedom of religion (especially not that), free trade, taxation only with representation, republicanism or federalism, civil rights, etc… Christianity has many great values to offer as a personal ethos, but nothing whatsoever to say about just government (except maybe ‘render unto Caesar’).
RightOFLeft on March 19, 2009 at 8:07 PM
RightOFLeft on March 19, 2009 at 8:07 PM
Just because the “Christians” of Europe didn’t live up to Bible principles, doesn’t mean those things aren’t in the Bible.
Free Speech? show me where God said we shouldn’t have it. And I will show you prophets of God who stood up to government at the risk of their lives.
Having a King? Again, the prophets warned against having a King. ( Was very much for a system of judges, not a King, but eventually allowed a King because the people wanted it ) So he was for rule by the people for the people.
Freedom of Religion? During Christ’s time, no where did he say we should force one religion state…he lived quite peacefully with the different types of Jews, and with the gentiles.
Free Trade…actually many of the parables of Christ taught basic capitalism…the only thing he didn’t accept was priest craft.
Taxation only with representation…again read the arguments against having a King.
The founding fathers relied heavily on the law of Moses when writing their own law.
Conservative Voice on March 19, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Wow… you guys are still at it. Here, I’m with this:
http://hnn.us/articles/1854.html
To wit:
Yep. Pretty much.
So get back with your Christian selves. Cool that you enjoy your faith, but this is so not a nation founded upon Christianity.
beatcanvas on March 19, 2009 at 8:39 PM
beatcanvas on March 19, 2009 at 8:39 PM
your link didn’t work, but I always find it interesting that there is such a need to minimize the influences of Christianity, and feel such a need to neuter religious altogether.
Conservative Voice on March 19, 2009 at 8:46 PM
Conservative Voice on March 19, 2009 at 8:46 PM
However, Marxists fought against religion and the family structure….and tyrants tend to think they are God…should give you a reason to pause.
Government is man made beatcanvas, that I agree with you, but morality is not man made…there are standards…and when we don’t use God’s standard, we get people like Obama that sees no wrong to steal from those who kept their noses clean…to kill babies, and to lynch companies all the while doing worse things.
Conservative Voice on March 19, 2009 at 8:51 PM
CV,
Dude, you’ll find no bigger advocate for your freedom of religion than me. I applaud your exercise of liberty in worshipping God as you choose. Hallejuah. Neutering? That’s a joke, right?
I noticed that you had absolutely nothing to counter that guy’s argument. (The link worked for me just fine when I clicked on it… you can check out more there.)
But in a nutshell, I ask you: doesn’t Christianity teach that God, not men, establishes the rulers of nations?
beatcanvas on March 19, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Romney’s on Larry King Live tonight at 8:30 CDT, 930 EDT
eaglesdontflock on March 19, 2009 at 8:57 PM
On the subject of standards… whose? Because the Catholic Church argued that King George was rightfully seated upon his royal throne. Was that a standard? They would have argued so. In fact, they did argue that it was immoral to oppose the king, did they not?
So perhaps not the Catholic Church…
How about those churches that taught that slavery was biblically cool? Standards again… but whose?
The problem with Christianity is that there are two thousand brands, and I don’t know which one you’re smokin’ these days, but a lot of them hated all over the Latter Day Saints, who are self-professed Christians.
Standards? Whose?
And who are you to tell me what my standards ought to be in this free country?
Outside of stepping on the liberty of others, I’m pretty convinced that my freedom to do as I please was established in my pursuit of happiness on my own land at my own discretion by these founding fathers.
beatcanvas on March 19, 2009 at 9:01 PM
beatcanvas on March 19, 2009 at 8:54 PM
no, Christianity, does not teach that, did you not read my post? If that were the case, than God put in Lenin, Hitler, etc.
The link may work for you because you probably have settings on your computer that allows it to work, all I know is it didn’t work for me, so I can’t tell in what context the quote was given.
Conservative Voice on March 19, 2009 at 9:06 PM
beatcanvas on March 19, 2009 at 9:01 PM
Like I said, just because so called Churches and what not did bad things, doesn’t mean the Bible didn’t teach principles we should all live by. I am LDS, and I do know what many people had to go through in a free country to practice their religion, where is it written that religious people are holy and righteous in every way? In fact I seem to remember great frustration from God because the chosen people were quick to do wicked things.
Standards…like marriage, like honoring your parents, like being honest…the golden rule…
Conservative Voice on March 19, 2009 at 9:13 PM
And who are you to tell me what my standards ought to be in this free country?
beatcanvas on March 19, 2009 at 9:01 PM
I am just a neighbor, I am not passing judgment on you. You are free to uplift yourself, or you are free to fail. But there is no denying that there is a natural law…you said yourself in your next breath…”Outside of stepping on the liberty of others, I’m pretty convinced that my freedom to do as I please was established in my pursuit of happiness on my own land at my own discretion by these founding fathers.”
Seems too many people want “freedom” but none of the natural consequences that come with it…hope you aren’t one of these people.
Conservative Voice on March 19, 2009 at 9:18 PM
Why does that require Christianity? You know, the crazy thing about those Ten Commandments is that they’re just common sense, except for the overtly religious ones.
But back to the subject: can you point me to a reference in history where it shows that the founding fathers hearkened to the bible as a standard when settling upon legislature?
beatcanvas on March 19, 2009 at 9:20 PM
I’m not clear on your meaning here, but I’ll give you mine:
In a nutshell, I want self-determination. I want to succeed. I want to fail. I want to improve myself and waste my time.
In no way do I want to intrude upon others’ lives or property. In fact, I want others to enjoy unparalleled liberty, but to leave me and my property alone to my own determination.
Simply put, freedom.
Are we in agreement?
beatcanvas on March 19, 2009 at 9:25 PM
Why does that require Christianity? You know, the crazy thing about those Ten Commandments is that they’re just common sense, except for the overtly religious ones.
But back to the subject: can you point me to a reference in history where it shows that the founding fathers hearkened to the bible as a standard when settling upon legislature?
beatcanvas on March 19, 2009 at 9:20 PM
Yes, those Ten Commandments are “Common Sense” because they come from God. The God of the New Testament is the God of the Old. The founding fathers used the term, Natures God…it is basically the concept of God that all religions can agree to, Hindu, Islam, Jew, Christian, Native American, etc.
I haven’t done a complete once over on this site, but it was from a simple google search on founding fathers + bible.
Conservative Voice on March 19, 2009 at 9:57 PM
beatcanvas on March 19, 2009 at 9:25 PM
Pretty good definition, though I will repeat what you said in a different post, so that it is complete…that you are free to live how you may as long as you don’t infringe on the rights and liberty of others.
The LDS faith teaches us that we are free agents, we are free to choose good or evil. But that there are consequences to those choices. So yes, we agree.
Conservative Voice on March 19, 2009 at 10:00 PM
Right, no doubt there were some very ardent Christians. That’s not the question. The question is: did the founding fathers base law upon Christian precepts, with the bible as their guide? Did they reach to the bible as a guide for legislature?
The answer is no. For the simple reason that they did not want a government, or its laws, based on religion – they had just left a government with an official religion, where the politicians and clergy were in cahoots with one another. What they wanted was the freedom to worship without interference from the government. But that’s the extent of it. As it should be.
I’m glad we agree on the deliciousness of liberty.
Quick question if you have time: what exactly do you mean by a consequence of an evil choice? Please address this in terms where my personal “evil” choice doesn’t infringe on the freedom of others. Obvious things like murder – well, they’re obvious. So do you have some other intent here?
beatcanvas on March 19, 2009 at 10:11 PM
Why do we need Unions? We have a federal minium wage. We have federal EEOC. Federal holidays. Federal overtime regulations. Work comp requirements..
Unions will destroy small businesses, just as the Unions have destroyed GM. If card-check passes, a Union can go to any business-businesses with as few as 3 employees!
Small business make up 70% of jobs created. As these businesses shut down (due to high costs of Unions) I predict a 20% unemployment within a year……….
TN Mom on March 19, 2009 at 10:16 PM
beatcanvas on March 19, 2009 at 10:11 PM
Yes, the founding fathers did use many principles that are biblically based in founding this country. They weren’t anti-God by any means.
There is no such thing as a personal evil choice. For example, adultery. whats the big deal right? Yet, it often breaks up the family and divorce is very very hard on kids…no matter what age. Drug use…has effect on your body…which means you live a less healthy life…and therefore are not as productive as you could be…you might die at a rather young age etc. Most of the time our choices, we don’t see a direct consequence, but a consequence was given. Opportunity cost / lost…and since we are all interconnected, your choices does spill over to your family, friends, community, even country. Does that mean I believe in a nanny state? No, just saying there is no such thing as a personal choice…every choice has consequences that does effects you, and others. If there were no consequences, then we wouldn’t know what was good and what was bad, what is risky and what is safe.
That being said, natural law is a better teacher than government. Going back to drug use…when the person hits bottom, then he changes his behavior…and it might take losing his job, wife and kids, health…often the government makes the problem worse…gives the bum a home, an income…etc, thus making his lifestyle fair enough, and thereby he isn’t compelled to change. And when he is compelled, it is because natural law taught him a lesson.
Conservative Voice on March 19, 2009 at 10:42 PM
man with a plan!
hanzblinx on March 19, 2009 at 10:43 PM
TN Mom on March 19, 2009 at 10:16 PM
If we are lucky, it will only be 20%. Well said.
Conservative Voice on March 19, 2009 at 10:43 PM
If PrezBo had any balls he’d appoint Mitt Romney as Treasury Secretary. Mitt is a patriot..though I don’t know if he would want to be attached to this sinking ship.
therightwinger on March 19, 2009 at 10:47 PM
If free speech is a foundational American value, and the best you can say for the bible is that it doesn’t forbid it, how can you say that America was founded on Christian values?
Since this is a thread about Mitt Romney, and you’re LDS, I’ll at least try to tie this into the topic. The same people who love to push the ‘Christian Nation’ line don’t even consider Mormons Christians, which has a lot to do with why they’d never consider voting for a Mormon. The same guys who harrass you on your way to the Easter pageant are the guys running the religious right. The worst consequence of trying to shoehorn Christian values into secular government is that politics ends up influencing Christian values, rather than the other way around. I suppose that’s fine if you happen to belong to the current Republican-approved brand of evangelical Christianity, but where does that leave you as a member of the LDS church? I’m just baffled that Mormons wouldn’t, more than anyone, appreciate the necessity of keeping chruch and state separate.
RightOFLeft on March 19, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Hey El Rey!
When this:
brings in attacks of bigotry and accusations of schilling for the Huckster, I take offense. My gold plate remark was iin response to a smart-alec who asked if my polling info and analysis came from talking to God (Don’t question Mitt’s religion which I don’t, but please snark on RCP polling and analysis). Before you make attacks, know what you are talking about. You must be racist for not voting for Obambi. See how that works?
Laura in Maryland on March 19, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Hmmm… that’s likely where we completely disagree. Helpful, and a good discussion, CV.
Personal choice, to you, seems to be a choice where you only are affected. You’re right – there are very few of those in life.
Personal choice, to me, is a choice that I make of my own decision.
I’m input, you’re output – to put it more plainly.
The danger, I think, in believing that there is no personal choice is that it opens you to others’ perceived right to coerce a say in your decisions. After all, you must think of others affected by your decision, they will reason. You choose to buy a 52″ TV? Live in a big house? Drive an SUV? Smoke? Drink? How can you not consider others, the community, the planet… we’re all in this together, they will tell you. Which approaches socialism. You realize this when you then say that you don’t believe in a nanny state, but that thinking even led you there, CV.
On the other hand, I choose to take responsibility for myself, and make my own decisions. My choices, actions, decisions – they are mine to make. Mine alone, personally. Are others affected? Of course. Do I consider others? That too is my choice, but that’s mine to make, and I’ll fight like hell to keep it that way. Because the day that I no longer make my own choices but open it up to the community at large to make for me in their own interest is the day that I stop being the most effective human being I can be. That’s the day that I diminish my contribution because I remove the joy of my own discovery in life.
Be careful, CV. Your thinking invites even you to recall nanny statism. Hard to win others to the cause of liberty when you paint yourself in your own corner.
beatcanvas on March 20, 2009 at 12:07 AM
If free speech is a foundational American value, and the best you can say for the bible is that it doesn’t forbid it, how can you say that America was founded on Christian values?
Since this is a thread about Mitt Romney, and you’re LDS, I’ll at least try to tie this into the topic. The same people who love to push the ‘Christian Nation’ line don’t even consider Mormons Christians, which has a lot to do with why they’d never consider voting for a Mormon. The same guys who harrass you on your way to the Easter pageant are the guys running the religious right. The worst consequence of trying to shoehorn Christian values into secular government is that politics ends up influencing Christian values, rather than the other way around. I suppose that’s fine if you happen to belong to the current Republican-approved brand of evangelical Christianity, but where does that leave you as a member of the LDS church? I’m just baffled that Mormons wouldn’t, more than anyone, appreciate the necessity of keeping chruch and state separate.
RightOFLeft on March 19, 2009 at 10:57 PM
The way I understand the constitution, and reading the federalist papers, there is no such thing as separation of church and state…that is the court reading things that don’t exist in the constitution. It simply means that there is no state run religion, like the Church of England, on the federal level…a little known fact, Massachusetts had a state religion when the constitution was ratified. The founders put their trust in God. They recognized that liberty was given by God, not by government. The Freedom of religion isn’t a freedom FROM religion.
On free speech, did I not mention that prophets took on the government leaders? Is this not free speech? I didn’t want to get into a dissertation with you…
As far as being a Mormon…we understand that without freedom of religion, we wouldn’t of been able to establish ours…and in fact even with freedom of religion, the state government and the federal government has used military force against us. But I do not hate the Christian Right. There are good people in the Christian Right…who may not consider me a Christian…that is their opinion. I don’t view bad acts of people who claimed to be doing those acts in the name of God as proof that Christianity is bad. When I speak of Christianity I am talking about the core Christian values….the ten commandments, the golden rule, being a good Samaritan…and understanding that God is the way the truth and the life.
Conservative Voice on March 20, 2009 at 12:34 AM
Hmmm… that’s likely where we completely disagree. Helpful, and a good discussion, CV.
Personal choice, to you, seems to be a choice where you only are affected. You’re right – there are very few of those in life.
Personal choice, to me, is a choice that I make of my own decision.
I’m input, you’re output – to put it more plainly.
The danger, I think, in believing that there is no personal choice is that it opens you to others’ perceived right to coerce a say in your decisions. After all, you must think of others affected by your decision, they will reason. You choose to buy a 52″ TV? Live in a big house? Drive an SUV? Smoke? Drink? How can you not consider others, the community, the planet… we’re all in this together, they will tell you. Which approaches socialism. You realize this when you then say that you don’t believe in a nanny state, but that thinking even led you there, CV.
On the other hand, I choose to take responsibility for myself, and make my own decisions. My choices, actions, decisions – they are mine to make. Mine alone, personally. Are others affected? Of course. Do I consider others? That too is my choice, but that’s mine to make, and I’ll fight like hell to keep it that way. Because the day that I no longer make my own choices but open it up to the community at large to make for me in their own interest is the day that I stop being the most effective human being I can be. That’s the day that I diminish my contribution because I remove the joy of my own discovery in life.
Be careful, CV. Your thinking invites even you to recall nanny statism. Hard to win others to the cause of liberty when you paint yourself in your own corner.
beatcanvas on March 20, 2009 at 12:07 AM
I don’t believe in the nanny state…my point was that no man is an island, that choices have consequences…but let me be clear, when government tries to control social behavior with what we eat ( trans fats and such ), how much we can earn, what we can buy…that is tyranny, and God is against tyrants. However, when you read the Bible, it is clear God asks us to give, to be charitable…to take only what we need, and then give the rest. The difference is God asks us, he doesn’t threaten to throw us in jail, or ruin your business, etc if you don’t play ball…like tyrants, communists, socialists do.
I am a believer of property rights…you should be able to chop down every tree and kill every kangaroo rat that is on your property, and if the government wants to protect those trees and rats, then it should compensate fair market value for that. And where your body is concerned…first off, it is a Christian belief that your body isn’t yours, but for arguments sake…we learn when we hit bottom. So if our choices causes us to lose our jobs ( or not perform as well as we could, thus the opportunity loss is not getting a raise ) we lose family and friends…then you will sober up, lose weight…or whatever vice you have. Or you may die with that vice…those natural consequences are a bummer.
In short we agree more than we disagree.
Conservative Voice on March 20, 2009 at 12:47 AM
I’m not going to bother reading the entire thread because I figure the so-called “Christian” bigots are spewing their anti-everyone-except-us mantra.
Where are the decent Christians? Ya know, the ones who don’t judge people by the religion they follow?
csdeven on March 20, 2009 at 1:03 AM
csdeven on March 20, 2009 at 1:03 AM
Actually it hasn’t been too bad commander ;)
Conservative Voice on March 20, 2009 at 1:45 AM
MITT ROMNEY NEEDS TO SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN.
This party does not need another slick-ass, wafflng retread.
Fresh meat, please.
And the more water Sean Hannity carries for him , the less I listen.
I am a BECKHEAD/ DITTO HEAD…Sean is too hard to hear with his head so far up Mitt’s backside.
seejanemom on March 20, 2009 at 8:32 AM
You are giving too much credibility to that perception you have of him. In a crisis, Mitt is genuine and decisive. He would have beaten Oslime-a had it not been for the bigots like huckabigot.
csdeven on March 20, 2009 at 8:36 AM
I don’t have a beef with Mitt over his religion, nor with Huck over his. I’m anticipating a good group of candidates having a spirited debate for 2012.
littleguy on March 20, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Is there no end to this stupid religious debate? I am so sick of zealots polarizing any issue that I am beginning to think many of you actually work for the devil.
Jesus Christ did not advocate polarizing a community. Romney exemplifies the values I, and we, should hold. He lives a value driven life.
Look what we have in charge now. This is what bickering and the politics of self destruction brought us.
Keep it up, folks. That’s just what the leftists are counting on.
eaglesdontflock on March 20, 2009 at 10:59 AM
eaglesdontflock on March 20, 2009 at 10:59 AM
+1
Disturb the Universe on March 20, 2009 at 11:13 AM
seejanemom on March 20, 2009 at 8:32 AM
Since you’re so strongly opposed to retreads, you must be dead-set against Sarah Palin, who actually got to take a shot campaigning against the Dems nationally last year and was part of the losing ticket.
I say we keep tabs on all of the prospective candidates and when 2012 rolls around, vote for the best, without worrying whether someone has run before.
thecountofincognito on March 20, 2009 at 1:59 PM
I have no problem with either religion. I do have a problem with his “Christian Leader” comment. And until he drops the religious references, I consider him a bigot.
csdeven on March 20, 2009 at 2:17 PM
All these opponents, no real solutions to fixing the imbalance.
How about bringing in something that takes away the ability for business to perform its current kind of thuggery?
sethstorm on March 20, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3