Mattie is my three year old daughter. She is sitting on my lap watching me write posts and finding words she can read. She keeps begging, “Mom, can I type Mattie? Can I type my name?” I keep telling her, “No, I’m typing about Mitt Romney.”
She knows that I want Mitt Romney to be president. She has learned to listen for his name on the TV and radio. When I am hidden behind my laptop she often begs to watch “a Mitt Romney movie” (i.e. one of his online ads.)
But Mattie has learned much more than politics from me. She has learned her colors, to read and to spell. Right now she wants to spell “dog” and “Rosy.” Rosy is her dog that we rescued from the local animal shelter last spring. She also wants to type “dad.” She loves to type to her dad on Yahoo Instant Messager in the morning. They send each other funny faces back and forth. Now she asks to type “mom.” She likes that Mom and Mattie both start with an “M.”
You see, Mattie has also learned about family and love and the importance of encouraging and lifting up other people. Sometimes I don’t know if she has learned this from me or if she simply came to me knowing this in her tender and innocent little soul. But I don’t want her to unlearn it.
I don’t want her to learn fear or cynicism. That is why this presidential race is important to me. Because the man (or, heaven forbid, woman) elected can have a dramatic impact on the nation that I raise my daughter in. In Laura Ingraham’s book “Power to the People” the very first front she stakes out for us to take back our power is in the family. As women, we have a beautiful and vital role to play in the family. This role should not be cheapened or disparaged by members of government.
That is why I teach the little woman in my home to support Mitt Romney.
On Thursday Governor Mitt Romney will give a speech titled “Faith in America” at the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas. The Library and Romney have both stated that the venue should not be seen as an endorsement, per se. However, it is surmised that having the speech originate from the Bush Library will give the appearance that Romney has the unofficial backing of the Bush clan.
On Monday, Rush Limbaugh had a great monologue about the Liberals looking for someone to run against. They have invested so much time and effort into running against George W. Bush and he isn’t on the ballot. This means they need a suitable substitute to be on the ballot in November.
Rush further theorized that they have found that candidate in Mike Huckabee. Like Bush, Huckabee wears his Christianity on his sleeve and refers often to the positive influence it has had in his life. The Liberals, right or wrong, believe that this will allow them to paint him as an extension of Bush and persuade people that he will not bring “change” to Washington.
Most conservative Republicans, however, are drawn to the message of faith and see it as a great plus in a candidate. Consequently, Huckabee’s numbers are shooting up as he and groups supporting him focus on his religion and his conservative social record. (In fact, Huckabee is so certain of the reception the religion angle will get him, he plays it nearly every chance he gets. He has worked so hard to ingrain it into his public persona that it has almost become a farce.)
Romney is also a man of deeply held faith. However, he seems to be barred from expressing it in part by the political implications of being misunderstood. But also, I think, because of the respect that Governor Romney has for his own and other’s religious convictions. Unlike Huckabee, Romney is unwilling to make God the butt of his jokes and the tag line for his presidential campaign.
Into this supercharged atmosphere comes the Romney speech. On Religion. At the Bush Library. It would seem that Romney is going to play his trump. In one morning he could take the place of Huckabee as the “most Bush-like” and of caring most about religious sanctity in the nation.
The tricky thing about politics is that any asset is also a liability. Anything that can be used to build you up in the eyes of your supporters can also be used to tear you down by your enemies. Is having the Bush seal of approval going to help or hurt him in the general election? And what about being openly religious?
Personally, I think that overall it will be an advantage. I also think that Romney is less concerned with the politics of these questions than he is with being disingenuous. Don’t get me wrong, Romney’s campaign is definitely calculating the political ramifications of every move he makes. That said, he will not abandon his values or character simply for political gain. And this, ultimately, will make him a stronger candidate than what the Democrats will produce.
It was less than five minutes into the GOP YouTube Debate in Florida for Rudy Giuliani to begin personal attacks on Mitt Romney. As soon as they began discussing Giuliani’s efforts to make and keep New York a sanctuary city, the former mayor started dishing out insults and refused to acknowledge substance to Romney’s position.
The mayor accused Romney of doing nothing about sanctuary cities in his state during his term as govenor. That said, he immediately began firing out quips about how Romney had illegal immigrants doing yard work. At his mansion. (Isn’t class envy supposed to be the Democrat’s game?) Giuliani went so far as to dub Romney’s home a “sanctuary mansion.”
Romney’s response was calm, rational and completely ignored by Giuliani who was far too amused by his own wittiness to actually deal with the issue. Romney repeatedly asked if it was acceptable to single out workers, working for a company hired by an individual, who looked or spoke differently from oneself and demand they prove their legal status to work in the United States. He characterized this thinking as un-American. (Giuliani was too busy trying to catch his breath from laughing so hard at his own jokes to notice that he sounded a little biggoted and racist on this issue.)
The implication was not lost on voters, however. During the commercial breaks, CNN.com offered highlights and viewer commentary on the debate. The first comment addressed Romney’s point and agreed that to suggest we aggressively demand proof of legal status from anyone who works for the businesses we patronize smacked of intollerance.
Meanwhile, Fred Thompson had the only ad that focused soley on the weaknesses of fellow Republican candidates. (Each candidate submitted a 30 second spot and they were aired by CNN periodically throughout the debate.) The first half of Thompson’s spot simply showed Romney stating his pro-abortion position during a debate with Ted Kennedy in 1994. The second half targeted Mike Huckabee’s liberal fiscal record. When asked about the ad, Thompson responded with a sly grin and a shrug. He stated simply that those were his opponents own words.
In the time Romney was given to respond, he passionately repeated that he had a pro-choice position at the time he ran for govenor. As govenor, when actually confronted with the issue, he found that he could not sign a bill that would mean death to thousands of unborn children. He changed his position. He pointed out that the change was not immediate and had been made some years ago. He stated that his record as govenor was clearly pro-life. He told Republican voters that he had been wrong and that if they wanted a candidate who had always been perfect they would have to get someone else.
(You’d think his opponents would figure out that he has a good, solid, rehearsed answer to this charge and quit using trying to trip him up on it. It makes him look good and them look petty. But, with all deference to Thompson, he did all of his “attacking” in a video. It was done with much more class than Giuliani’s taunting.)
I don’t remember Huckabee’s response to the Thompson video. With all due respect to Huckabee and his supporters, after a few minutes all of his pontificating just started to sound the same.
Poor John McCain was asked to relive his years as a POW while others answered a question about interrogation techniques. He was overtly emotional as he persistently attacked Romney’s position on waterboarding when Romney did not actually disagree with him. In fact, Romney stated clearly that he did not approve of and would not use torture for interrogation. He further explained, more than once, that he would seek the advice of Senator McCain and others about the effectiveness and morality of interrogation methods. However, Romney simply refused to discuss the specifics of methods he would or would not use. He was of the opinion that that information could be useful to our enemies and that those enemies might have figured out how to tune into CNN.
All in all, Romney turned in a credible performance. He kept his cool and didn’t let himself get tripped up too much. He did have an awkward moment or two with questions about religion but that is a subject for another post.
The highlight of the debate replays, in my opinion, should be his scuffle with Giuliani over immigration in which he defenitely came off best. But you never know, maybe by tomorrow the Giuliani camp will come up with a really good “Yo Mama” joke to even the score.
There seems to be some “conventional wisdom” in the media that says Mitt Romney will HAVE to give a speech addressing the issue of his faith to win over the Christian Right. A panel of media experts was even convened to discuss the idea in depth. (See Mormonism threatens Romney’s presidential nomination, panel says) The consensus is that to win the presidency he must make a speech to allay the fears of evangelicals.
To back up this opinion, is the various polls conducted that suggest that a large portion of Americans would be “less likely” to vote for a candidate who was Mormon. (See The Mormon Speech No More) Then there are a vocal few, like Senator McCain’s mother, who publicly express their doubts about the Mormon faith and its members.
Romney has been open about his intentions concerning “the speech.” He is happy to answer any questions about his faith as they come up. At this time his political advisors do not think a speech focusing on his faith would be wise. However, there may be a time when it is necessary to address the issue at length and he is prepared for that eventuality.
There is speculation, again from the learned media types, that Romney is simply angling for the time when the speech will make the biggest splash. Waiting for excitement about the race to build to get the maximum coverage but in time to influence the outcome of the primary races.
What the elite media analysts haven’t thought about, is the fact that there has been no indication that a “JFK-type” speech about Mormonism would change any minds. Polls may say that people would be “less likely” to vote for a Mormon candidate but they don’t say “less likely” than what. To me, all this says is that all else being equal, the persons polled would base their decision on the issue of candidate’s religion.
In this race, however, very little is equal among the candidates. There are huge political and idealogical differences even among the Republican candidates. In the general election, the Democrat nominee can be expected to be virtually a polar opposite to Romney. At this point, the issue of Religion will diminish in significance.
Religion has not stopped Romney from developing prominent leads in early Primary states where he has campaigned heavily. There is little reason to think that if he is able to win these states that he will have to materially alter his message to attract voters in other states. Even in South Carolina, where they are known to have heavy religious prejudice, Romney has managed to tie for the lead in recent polls.
It seems that the only ones who are waiting for a Mormon speech are the liberal political analysts who are waiting for the Republicans to crash and burn. The speech would bring religion to the forefront and give them material to twist and use against him. To give the speech at this point would be to provide opponents with ammunition without answering the concerns of potential voters.
Romney has a carefully and intelligently run campaign. There is no need to explain a religion that most voters are not really anxious about. But like a good Boy Scout, Romney is prepared, just in case.
In this race for president there has been a lot of focus on what conservatives don’t want. First on the list is another Clinton presidency. Most of us agree that any of the Republican candidates would be far better for the country than the electing the first female president.
With that conviction comes a number of questions, however. Looking at the past, we can see that it is better to get behind one Republican candidate rather than splitting the vote between several conservative candidates which leaving the liberal with a single, solid base. That said, should we nominate a candidate simply because at the moment he seems to be doing better in the polls than the Democratic leader.
Unfortunately, this is all far from hypothetical. Sean Hannity has dubbed his radio show the “Stop Hillary Express,” and vowed to support whichever candidate wins the Republican nomination. Jim Dobson has commented that he would either not vote or vote for a third party candidate if the Republican nominee is not a social conservative. Many feel inclined to support Rudy Giuliani simply because in current national polls he is ahead of Hillary Clinton.
At this point, the focus should be on choosing the best candidate for the job. Polls can be manipulated or misleading. Public opinion can also change. Once we have a nominee we can focus on closing any gap in the national polls.
Mitt Romney is the more socially conservative than either Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson. He has shown in-site and leadership on such issues as health care and security. He has been successful in many endeavors both professional, political, and personal throughout his life. He has a plan for the future.
Many will argue that he is not “ideal.” Well, I have yet to find an ideal politician. What I have found, in Mitt Romney, is the person who best fits my idea of good government who is running for President in 2008.
South Carolina has been a tough spot for the Romney campaign to get off the ground and it seemed fairly obvious why. South Carolinians are known for being anti-Mormon and distrustful of Yankees in general.
Over the last couple of months, though, Governor Romeny has risen dramatically in the polls. And it makes me smile to see bloggers and reporters scratching their heads over why this is so. You see, I lived and worked in South Carolina for 9 months and I know exactly what happened.
The people I met in South Carolina were honest, church-going folks who lived the golden rule. If their preacher preached against Mormons they mostly assumed he knew what he was talking about. But it didn’t change the way they treated thier Mormon neighbors. For the most part, it didn’t change the way that they thought about their Mormon neighbors.
Many of the people I met didn’t like Yankees. They would talk harshly about “the Yankees up North” but they would always welcome any New Englanders who moved into town. Some fought for years to keep the Confederate flag flying over the state capital even though it was offensive to black citizens. Yet these same people had countless black friends and co-workers whom they respected and admired.
For these people, any bigoted beliefs they held were meant to apply to some distant group of people that they did not know. Anyone they knew that did not fit these stereotypes was obviously an exception to the rule.
That’s the key. As long as the people of South Carolina did not know Mitt Romney, he was just a Mormon Yankee. And, as far as they were concerned, he could have the vote of all the Mormon Yankees living in South Carolina. But then they got to know him. They saw his family. He became a neighbor; a friend. Then they could judge him on his own merits rather than stick him into a pre-determined catergory.
In my 9 months as a South Carolina citizen, I never did meet anyone who was as bigoted as the average South Carolinian is reported to be. Of course, that doesn’t mean they weren’t there. I heard plenty of stories from people who knew them or were related to them. And Mitt Romney will probably never win the support of those people.
But the majority of South Carolinians are simply waiting for him to convince them that he is not just a good guy but a good guy with the right qualifications to be president.
In an interview with Sean Hannity, aired on Fox News yesterday, Mitt Romney made a serious mistake. During the course of a discussion about the qualifications of Hillary Clinton, he used the word “intern.” Not only that, but he used it to make a valid point that had nothing to do with her husband or embarrasing public scandals.
What he said was, “And I think the greatest drawback, beyond the direction she’d take us, is that she’s never run anything. She’s never had the occasion of being in the private sector running a business or, for that matter, running a state or a city. She hasn’t run anything.
And the government of the United States is not a place for a president to be an intern. You need to have experience actually leading and running things.”
So the Clinton tag team did what it does best. It got offended.
On MSNBC Live this morning, Andrea Mitchell decided to ask Howard Wolfson, a Clinton insider, about the comment and Romney’s intent.
Mitchell: “This is not the first time he’s used the word ‘intern’ in reference to Senator Clinton’s alleged lack of qualifications, so it’s an intentional point. Do you think he’s trying to provoke her by using that?”
WOLFSON: “I think it’s unfortunate. You know, Hillary Clinton is a two-term United States senator. She has represented this country abroad in dozens and dozens of countries. She’s been a — an advocate for families and children, one of the nation’s foremost advocates for families and children for 35 years. And so, you know, Mitt Romney wants to engage in a campaign of insults, that’s his choice. Americans want to hear issues and ideas and not these kind of insults.”
Pointing out Hillary Clinton, or any other presidential candidates lack of experience is not an insult. It goes directly to the heart of the issue. Certain lessons are best learned by the hard knocks of experience. Do we really want a president learning those lessons with the fate of the nation hanging in the balance? Hillary’s accomplishments are meager. Her resume for President of the United States is remarkably bare. Some would argue that it is blank. Even her most ardent supporters cannot offer up an instance where she has successfully implemented a policy or drafted a piece of legislation.
Instead, they rely on the image of her as a “battered woman;” a victim of male brutality and oppression. Whenever the slightest hint of criticism hits the airwaves, Clinton and her supporters are there to reassure us that her opponents would only do this because she is a woman, because they hated her husband, or because they just want to revel in the smut of her family’s dirty laundry.
As it turns out, there really aren’t too many succinct ways to describe a person who takes a job in order to gain work experience. These days, in the United States of America, the common term for such a person is an “intern.” It was this point that Romney was trying to illustrate when he used the word. The nasty pictures it conjured were all painted by the Clintons and their friends.
Kelly Molique and Corrine Lovas
Susan Gilbert and volunteers, Keri Couvillion, Heather Hedelius, and Rebecca Hecksel
Littlest Woman for Romney: Camille Case and seven week old, Allison Case
Stefany Clark and Mitt Romney
Governor Romney campaign appearance in Paradise Valley, Arizona October 11th, 2007
The paint and final touches had all been completed for the newly built home of Paul and Susan Gilbert in Paradise Valley, Arizona. It was a beautiful setting and georgeous weather to welcome Governor Romney for a speech and fundraiser. Hostess, Susan Gilbert remarked on how complimentary and thoughtful Mitt was about opening their home for the well attended event.
After photos with the Governor, he addressed the general reception in the courtyard. He began by thanking Arizona State Senator Chuck Gray, Sherrif Joe Arpaio, and their spouses for their support. “Throughout the campaign,” Romney said, “the friends Ann and I have made are extraordinary treasures.” His speech was brief, but touched on core values and strengthening home, economy, and military.
He recalled a conversation with Neil Maxwell, a noted Utah educator, who has since passed away. They discussed inflection points in America’s history. Inflection points are significant moments of change for our nation when nearly everything is effected. Governor Romney feels that since 2002 and over the next few years, we are at such a crucial time. How will we respond to Jihadists? Will we take a sharp left turn and become a second tier nation, as many of the European nations have done in the past?
Instead, Governor Romney’s course would be to strengthen our families, economy, and military because a strong America is the world’s best ally of peace. He then fielded questions about immigration, the influence of his parents, how to further his campaign, and strenthen the military.
On immigration, he said, “This is not difficult to handle.” You just stop the magnets, like sanctuary cities. You stop the flow by implementation of an employment verification card, and tell illegals to get in line for citizenship like everyone else.
To strengthen our military, instituting a draft would not be necessary. Improved benefits and four-year welcome home packages, including free tuition at state sponsored universities have proven effective in increased recruitment.
Near the end of the reception, Paul Gilbert announced that the latest Arizona polls are showing Governor Romney within 8 percentage points of the Republican lead. This surge in the polls seems to show that wherever Governor Mitt Romney goes he connects with the people, as he did tonight in Paradise Valley.
Is Giuliani creating his own political party? The Demi-Republican Party? Democrat on social issues and Republican on fiscal issues.
Giuliani is often considered a front-runner in the Republican race, however it is often difficult knowing to which party he really belongs. I often think that he could have run as a conservative Democrat as easily as he is running as a liberal Republican.
Why do so many so-called Republicans support a candidate that only stands for a portion of what Republicans really believe?
Giuliani is not the best Republican candidate. He does not uphold the values held by the Republicans in this nation.
Giuliani is socially liberal in nearly every respect—even ask his staff.
Regarding the issue of fidelity within marriage, Giuliani’s track record is not stellar. Most people know he has been married three times—If this isn’t bad enough look at the way he treats the women he marries. The first one was kind of a weird situation. He was married to his second cousin for 14 years; then he had it annulled—how do you erase a marriage of 14 years? Did annulling it make him feel like he had not done something wrong? The end of his second marriage of 17 years, which was riddled with questionable female “relationships”, came after he announced his plans for separation at a press conference—where’s the tact? Regarding his separation, Giuliani stated, “This is damaging and painful for everyone”—yet he still proceeded? His third marriage was, I guess, a “traditional” THIRD marriage—he married a woman who told everyone she had only been married once. As it turned out, her marriage to Giuliani was also a third for her—no surprise? See entire article at CNN
.
In a memo written by Giuliani’s staff, his aids give a harsh assessment of his flaws in a “vulnerability study”.
Giuliani’s staff stated that, “his support for abortion and gay rights may alienate many conservative voters.”—I hope so. Giuliani’s aides were also concerned that, as a former Democrat, he would be painted as a “flip-flopper,” and that his tenure as an official in Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department was an “albatross for a liberal city” (referring, of course, to New York City). “There is not a minute to waste in inoculating against the Reagan Republican moniker,” the memo said, adding that the candidate should emphasize his “independence from traditional national Republican policies.”—Or do as he did and re-define the Republican parties values.
The memo also stated that, “gay marriage really is the only issue where Giuliani opposes the gay agenda.”
While a supporter of abortion rights, Giuliani had stumbled badly on the issue in his 1989 mayoral campaign, sounding like “just another pro-life male politician trying to explain how he wasn’t anti-woman,” the memo said. The advisers said Giuliani could “win over undecided pro-choice activists” by being more “succinct” about his support for the procedure and for public financing of abortions.
The memo also reported the “charge” that “Giuliani received special treatment from a friendly federal judge to avoid military service during the Vietnam War,” and later “hypocritically prosecuted draft dodgers.”
So where does Giuliani stand on complete fidelity in marriage, abortion, gay rights, and war—just ask his staff. His staff would tell you that, “He doesn’t really fit in with the Republicans. Too liberal.” See entire article at The Washington Post The Washington Post
I hope during this primary election people will stand strong with the candidate that truly maintains their values and not their vote simply out of fear. I worry that many people will compromise their values by voting for Giuliani because he will supposedly “relate to both parties” or “have the best chance to beat a Democrat.” Mitt Romney is our strongest candidate for all of these reasons. He has maintained his values as is represented by his intact, faithful marriage. Mitt Romney can certainly relate to both parties and solidly has the best chance to beat a Democrat as he showed as Governor of a mostly-democrat state.
~ Angi Bagley-Hansen