Is Mitt Romney disqualified from the presidency?

Yes! In the same way that Hussein Obama (a Muslim, a closet-Muslim, a non-Muslim with sympathies for, and intimate ties with, Islamism; it matters not generally, but in this instance it matters particularly.) is disqualified.

We had this discussion way back when. M. Mason and I tended to agree on the substance of Romney's faith, and the implications thereof. And now Mr. Mason invokes the Christian Research Institute. Yet another of our common interests. Hmm.

Read More

Romney drops out

I'm a little surprised by this development, I admit, but not at all shocked. I think the timing of it caught me a little off guard.

But former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman didn't waste any time telling us Republicans what we need to do now that Romney's out of the race:

Within hours of Romney's speech, former Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman endorsed McCain and urged all members of the GOP to back him.

''Our party has had many outstanding candidates this year, but it is now time for Republicans across the country to unite,'' Mehlman said.

"Many?" "Outstanding?" Would Mr. Mehlman care to elaborate, or to list for us the "many outstanding candidates" our party has had this year? "Outstanding" for what, Mr. Mehlman, their unprincipled non-conservative GOP destroying, Democrat empowering brand of conservatism?

Unite behind McCain?! You must be dreaming, man!

Read More

On the cam ... Immigration trail: Governor Romney on immigration

A little Romney Q & A on the issue of immigration, legal vs. illegal; what, to Governor Romney's mind, is central to the debate on immigration in this country? In other words, what is it that should determine our nation's policy on immigration according to Governor Romney?:

Avoid chain migration; disallow families from one citizen

Q: There are still millions of children that were born here that at least have one undocumented parent. Do these children have the right not to be separated from their parents?

A: The Constitution indicates that those that are born here do become US citizens by virtue of being born here. But if they're born here from parents who come across the border illegally and bring them here illegally, in my view, we should not adopt, then, these chain migration policies that say, you've got a child here that's a US citizen, and the whole family can come in. That, in my opinion, is a mistake. We are a nation of laws. We're going to enforce the laws. We're not going to cut off immigration; we're going to keep immigration alive and thriving. But we're going to end the practice of illegal immigration. It's not inhumane. It's humanitarian. It's compassionate. We're going to end illegal immigration to protect legal immigration. (emphasis mine)

First, I just love the way this question was framed! As if to say that taking anything remotely resembling a restrictionist position on immigration, will necessarily result, and by virtue thereof, in families being broken apart and destroyed. Once it is established that this is necessarily the case, and the person questioned takes this bait, well, then the central issue is forgotten or ignored and we begin to talk about how unfair it is, how that it is not compassionate, and certainly not American, to tear apart families, which any kind of immigration restrictionism most definately will result in. Now, I recognize that Governor Romney cannot be held reponsible for the way the question was framed. He can, and should, however, be held responsible for the way he answered it.

So, how does Governor Romney respond to this loaded question? By accepting its central premise and agreeing, it is not fair; it is not compassionate; it is not American. Governor Romney's fair, compassionate, American approach to resolving this dilemma is to "end illegal immigration to protect legal immigration." Not to protect America, or Americans, or American children, or America's elderly, or America's identity, or its cultural and religious heritage; not to ensure the survival of America. No!, the purpose of ending illegal immigration, according to Governor Romney, is to protect immigration.

Elsewhere Governor Romney makes it real clear where he stands on the issue of immigration:

Q: You've been accused of flip-flopping on immigration. You indicated that you'd want the national language of the US to be English. However, why are you airing ads in Spanish? Your campaign also provides a Spanish-speaking version of your website with your son also speaking in Spanish.

A: Let me make it real clear--I'm not anti-immigrant. I love immigrants. I love legal immigrants coming to our country. I'm happy to communicate to them, and I hope they vote for me. And I'm happy to have people all over the country, and I'm going to reach out to them in any language I can to have them vote for me and understand why I'm going to support making this a great land.

I very firmly believe that we have to make sure that we enforce our borders, that we have an employment verification system, and that those people who have come here illegally do not get an advantage to become permanent residents, they do not get a special pathway. That's the problem I have with the bill the Kennedy-McCain bill.

That's pretty clear, I'll give 'im that. This is reminiscent of Governor Romney's statement in his famous faith speech where he indicated that his belief is that all religions draw their adherents closer to God. Quite so. And I suppose that all cultures and the celebration of each culture as a culture, with no superior or inferior characteristics, has the effect of drawing the people thereof closer to becoming good ideological Americans too. You want to know why the statement in the faith speech bothered me so much; why it stood out to me, and why I railed against it so fiercely at the time? This is it. He can't believe that statement apart from the foundation of it affecting everything else he believes, including his belief in how great and wonderful, and vital to America, immigrants are. Meanwhile he alienates conservative Americans who care about their country and the huge negative, destructive impact immigration is having on their country, by appealing to the Hispanic voting block in America, stating in no uncertain terms how much he loves and appreciates them and will do all he can as President to keep them coming in droves, legal droves, of course. Then he and others wonder why conservatives aren't head-over-heels in love with this guy. I don't get it; I don't get it at all.

There is, unfortunately, more...

Proposed Z visa allows illegal aliens to stay in America

Q [to Romney]: Sen. McCain has accused you of flip-flopping on immigration. McCain said: "Pandering for votes on this issue while offering no solution to the problem amounts to doing nothing, and doing nothing is silent amnesty."

ROMNEY: My view is that we should enforce immigration laws. And this bill, unfortunately, has at least one provision that's a real problem. It's the Z visa. It allows people who've come here illegally to stay here for the rest of their lives. Not necessarily as citizens; they have to wait 13 years to become citizens. That's not the point. The point is, every illegal alien, almost every one, under this bill gets to stay here. That's simply not fair to get put ahead in the line of all the people who've been waiting legally to come to this country.

It's not fair to who, Governor? What, to Governor Romney, is central to this issue of immigration? Obviously the Governor is referring to immigrants, again, those of the legal variety of course. But the point is, it's all about the immigrants, what is best for the immigrants, what is fair to immigrants, isn't it. Governor Romney, read this, particularly the following paragraph, which was included for this very purpose -- to state emphatically that an American position on immigration reform makes America and Americans and their interests the central guiding principle on which to form proper immigration policy.:

We disagree with the so-called 'comprehensive' approach because we disagree that it's best for Americans. We concern ourselves with what is best for immigrants after, and only after we've determined and secured what is best for Americans.

Read More

Who won the GOP debate at the Reagan library?

I watched about the last thirty minutes of the debate on CNN and came away with the impression that Romney did not do much to help himself on this night (I certainly wasn't impressed by him), as well as experiencing that down-in-your-gut sick feeling that Senator John McCain might actually win the GOP nomination.

My personal opinion is that Huckabee stole the show from both Romney and McCain. McCain seemed to be in ultra-attack mode, while Romney was, as the subject of McCain's attacks, equally in defense mode. All in all it was really just an unpleasant scene to watch, and from which I don't think I came away an ounce more informed about either man.

But like I said, I was pretty impressed with Mike Huckabee's performance on several counts. When was the last time you can recall, for instance, that a Presidential candidate, GOP or otherwise, spoke with such passion and clarity and lucidity on the issue of the tenth amendment and why governors of States should have the qualifications requisite to become President much superior to that possessed of national legislators? I know, I know, Huckabee is an open borders man, and that's a huge issue with me. But I have to hand it to him anyway. He impressed me as the most "together" of the candidates on this panel by far.

Anyway, I've selected a few comments on the debate from the Mike Huckabee for President blog and posted them below.

Kevin Tracy writes:

I got to watch the debate in Arlington at a debate party. We were ALL impressed with Governor Huckabee's performance, especially his last answer when he refused play the game of who would Reagan endorse and instead offered his endorsement of Reagan.

Quiverdaddy writes:

With the final debate before Stupor Tuesday behind us, it's time to begin recognizing the candidates for what they are. As I watched, I found McCain and Romney to be petty -- Was it "milestones and deadlines" or something different that means the same thing? Does it really matter?

Huckabee made sense and seemed to be mature enough to realize there are much bigger things at stake than whether Romney had a gaffe. So we have establishment "frontrunners", one of whom is testy and the other defensive. One an authentic hero and the other not authentic at all. A Ken doll vs. a GI Joe doll.

I'm all for climbing out of the Valley of the Dolls and going for a real life person fully capable of serving as our president. I know the Mediocracy has to declare frontrunners early -- to winnow the field down and reduce the damage the eventual nominee will endure during the primaries. To that end, it may be time for the commentators to recognize that principled conservatives -- especially those who take the social issues seriously will not support either of these guys.

Unless the establishment wants McCain, they need to rethink Huckabee. After tonight, I've come to the conclusion that Romney cannot be trusted and should not be considered by anyone who cares what happens to this country in the years after Bush.

Please consider giving him fair coverage and being honest about the "frontrunners".

John Michaels writes:

I know I said this previously, but Governor Huckabee. Since Anderson Cooper extended you an invitation to the Democratic Debate, I think you should take him up on his offer. It would certainly make it a more entertaining debate, and you would most likely end up taking both Obama and Hillary to the cleaners.

Ken Daugherty writes:

Bill Schneider is right that Mike Huckabee talked as the common person, my mother is a dedicated democrate and she's voting for Mike Huckabee.

Donald Fahrenkrug writes:

Gov Huckabee won the debate hands down. And he didn't sit on his hands and let the CNN staff ignore him.
He came across as intelligent, honest, very knowledgeable, and as the only one other than Ron Paul, that made any sense.

McCain was holier than thou, condescending, stupid, just plain horrible. Romney seemed like he just had the latest political computer chip implant. He was plastic and not believable, at all.

I am switching from Ron Paul, a truly great man, a gentleman and a scholar, but he let himself be ignored and just sat there.

Gov Huckabee has my vote. Good Grief America, wake up. We need a man of principle in the White House, and Gov. Huckabee is that man.

Jared Bridgeman writes:

It's amazing that Mike got shutout as far as the amount of screen time, but had a more clear message than the other two candidates due to their consistent blathering. McCain has two mouths, he speaks about homeland security, yet he has a Hernandez as his chief Hispanic vote-getter....I don't think he's even a United States citizen. From the get go, I have been extremely skeptical of Romney too...he seems too much in the pockets of big business and wishy washy on life. All of these things make it so easy to vote for Mike...the only problem is...convincing others in MO before Feb. 5th.

Sondra Ashmore writes:

Until today I had always considered you a solid candidate, but not necessarily one I would vote for. You refusing to be treated as a 3rd class candidate while also respecting the other candidates impressed me. I came to this site for more information as I rethink who I'm going to support on the 5th. I vote for character and I think you showed a lot of that tonight. Well done!

Read More

More Romney discussion over at VFR

The Romney discussion continues over at VFR in this thread where LA objects to James W.'s undeserved criticisms of Mr. Romney.

James W. writes:

Hopefulness is not a characteristic you display here [at VFR?] in abundance. While ordinarily hope is a risk that must be run, hope is something that also misleads us, and unraveling the threads of past error is your business here if anything is.

So I am surprised to see so much hope in you over Romney. I understand very well we are only asking for a Republican President that will not be ruinous, so it is not that we expect too much. But I am not hopeful over Romney, for what I have read and heard from his supporters in the Nevada caucus does not give me reason: He is the can-do guy, the successful manager of large corporate turnarounds, and the man who can manage the federal behemoth.

Managed is exactly what we do not want. Making it work is as bad as it not working. Or is it worse?

He will at best only make our masters more effecient in what they are doing to us, and then pass off the reins to a liberal who knows how to whip that horse until it collapses, awaiting another conservative trainer to get him ready for the next lap. Burke--The parties are the gamesters, but government keeps the tables, and is sure to be the winner in the end.

To which LA replies:

Of all the arguments I've heard against Romney, this takes the cake. There is no hope in him and we must oppose him--because he is a can-do guy and a successful corporate leader, as well as a governor of a major state. Romney just can't catch a break. I have never in my life seen so much undeserved hostility toward a politician as I've been seeing toward Romney. I don't know what the explanation for it is. Some people tell me they think it's envy of a man who has everything, intelligence, high abilities, success, looks, a great family, and a huge fortune that he earned. You could write a book about it.

In any case, I would not describe myself as hopeful about Romney. I've repeatedly expressed my doubts about him. But as I've also said, I'm impressed by his talents, and believe he's the best and only acceptable candidate for the GOP nomination. What I will do in November is an open question.

Now, I understand where LA's coming from when he says that James W.'s criticisms of Romney's success as a business man and his reputation as a can-do guy are undeserved. I certainly do not begrudge the man for these qualities. But when he denominates Romney's governorship of Massachusetts as simply "a governor of a major state," then he leaves out a very important aspect of that fact to some of us, namely that of a majorly liberal major state; a state hugely populated by liberals and leftists. Just how "conservative" can a governor of Massachusetts be, Republican or otherwise? If this is not an important consideration for conservatives to contemplate and investigate, then I must be very misinformed about what it is that conservatives should be looking for in a President of the United States.

Read More

I think I must be crazy or something

As most of you know, I have an enormous amount of respect for Mr. Auster and the way he defends Traditionalist Conservatism on a daily basis over at VFR. But look at the terms in which he speaks of Mitt Romney in response to a Romney opponent, presumably from the state of Massachusetts where Romney served as Governor:

LA writes:

On other issues, Romney is the only representative of something reasonably like conservatism in the race who has a chance to win the nomination. (emphasis mine)

I'm not sure what "other issues" LA is referring to here, but it is irrelevant to my point. Are these the kinds of terms we're confined to using when discussing the "relative" conservatism of the GOP's new favorite son, Mitt Romney? In order to identify anything resembling conservatism in the man we have to match him up against the other viable GOP candidates, Rudy Guiliani and John McCain, two individuals who would easily pass as liberals were they in the party that they belong in. Doesn't this speak to Romney's non-conservatism more than it does to his conservatism? Doesn't this speak to yet more concessions on the part of true conservatives to those in the Republican party who are not?

Am I just crazy or what? It seems to me that the marriage between conservatism and the GOP is on really shaky ground at this point. I wonder how much longer it can survive?

By the way, my intent here is not to attack Mr. Auster, so please don't go there, I will not join in. All I'm saying is that I find it to be a very sad state of affairs when one of the leading proponents of traditionalist conservatism is relegated to defending a GOP candidate's conservatism in terms like Mr. Auster uses above. What say you?

Read More