Generally good discussion today at this post about Mitt Romney's Presidential hopes, and this writer's support therein. A timely discussion as the competition for the Presidential nomination is already garnering a fair amount of news, at least on the Republican side (and which was also previewed at Sound Politics in conjunction with the Romney discussion). Accordingly, here's some interesting news that all rolled out today, for those interested:
- Romney picks up the conservative banner, and critiques John McCain, in an interview with Bill Sammon at the Washington DC Examiner.
- The same Bill Sammon joined Fred Barnes on Special Report last night to discuss the Romney candidacy, both having generally positive things to say.
- Meanwhile, another member of the blogosphere joins me in liking Romney's Presidential-like conduct.
- The AP chimes in with "little known" facts about Romney.
- Rasmussen Reports releases a not so thrilling poll for Romney backers on the Mormon issue.
- And, Jonah Goldberg at the Corner provides some likely astute insight, which if true would mitigate much of the surface level challenges polls like Rasmussen's present.
Finally, if you just want more links to plow through before your Thanksgiving holiday, John Podhoretz looks at the benefits to Giuliani of having his time as Mayor attacked. Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich gives a fascinating interview to Fortune magazine. Gingrich's proclaimed strategy, however, leaves Jonah Goldberg flummoxed (and others too, no doubt).
Posted by Eric Earling at November 21, 2006 10:34 PM | Email ThisIn responding to McCain's suggestion that he is personally against gay marriage, but feels it should be left to the individual states to decide, Mitt says, "Look, if somebody says they’re in favor of gay marriage, I respect that view. If someone says — like I do — that I oppose same–sex marriage, I respect that view. But those who try and pretend to have it both ways, I find it to be disingenuous.”
So it is "disingenuous" to be for limited federal government and States Rights?
What a maroon.
Posted by: Splinter on November 22, 2006 08:40 AMAs for Romney or Gingrich, I have looked into their pasts and both are genuine conservatives. You can tell because they have stood on the conservative side of issues even when it was not the politically correct thing to do. Either one could do well in representing the conservatives, and I could argue that Gingrich is the more conservative of the two. However, it may be easier for Romney to build up his national image because he has no history on the national level. Just like a certain governor from Texas snuck past all the national conservatives to win the nomination in 2000 and then pull of the election, I believe Romney can do something similar. I think Gingrich understands this which is why he hasn't committed to running.
As far as the mormon issue, this is simply ignorance and/or mistrust of something people don't understand. As an "active" Latter-Day Saint, I see no assault on Romney's religion that wouldn't help him get elected. A vile whisper campaign in Federal Way against a practicing mormon led to his astounding victory in last year's school board race.
Romney has already shown himself perfectly capable of defending himself and his religion on many occasions. I pity those who think they can score political points by challenging him on it. Let's just hope that it's the left that makes those challenges and not someone on the right with whom Romney largely agrees on political issues.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on November 22, 2006 08:53 AMThe one legitimate criticism I have heard of Mormons is that they can be clannish. This is hardly surprising given the century and a half of abuse they have been subject to for their beliefs.
If I had to opt between Romney and Gingrich I'm not yet sure how I would choose. I am in awe of Ginrich's intelligence and wit, but can her win? Romney at this point still has too many unknowns.
We also have to look at who the other side will choose as its candidate. If its Hillary what would be better - the pretty face or the brilliant mind?
I hope Condi doesn't shy away from the race. I don't think she is ready yet for the big job, but VP will give her the experience necessary to run in 2012 or 2016.
Posted by: deadwood on November 22, 2006 09:26 AMI'm glad you wouldn't let Romney's religion get in the way of your vote for him. It's amazing to me that some people would feel that way. We're not electing a prophet, were electing a president. What matters are his issues on legal and moral issues, which puts him dead-on with true conservative principles.
Posted by: iguacufalls on November 22, 2006 09:31 AMexcept of course for principals like States Rights. But who cares about that as long as he is "pro-life" and anti-gay.
Posted by: Splinter on November 22, 2006 09:44 AMI didn't like it when he took the freshmen of 1994 into the tool shed and took out the switch on them. They just wanted to keep reforming and Gingrich said "no, that is not the way it works".
Posted by: swatter on November 22, 2006 09:49 AM"Half (53%) of all Evangelical Christians say that they would not consider voting for a Mormon candidate"
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Dailies/MormanMittRomney.htm
Posted by: Splinter on November 22, 2006 09:50 AMBigotry will always be bigotry, even when it's done under the guise of religion.
Sam
Posted by: samuel huntington on November 22, 2006 10:47 AMI too deplore how conservatives in this country forget about important issues such as States' rights. Our current mess is a result of straying from true conservatism (i.e. focus on states' rights, small government, and low taxes/spending). I hear many people championing Gingrich and he espoused exactly those principles and when he was Speaker, they were being worked towards. Under our current (soon to be former congress) we focused mostly on social conservatism and what did it get us? Hardly anything. It banned funding of new stem cell lines, didn't ban gay marriage, and didn't get much on abortion done, increased the size of our federal government faster than any other administration with the exception of Lyndon B. Johnson (of Great Society Fame), and provided a new massive drug entitlement in an effort to pander to Seniors all while alienating the 75% of Americans who don't care about social conservatism.
I think that people like McCain and Gingrich have it right, and I hope that other GOP'ers realize this. If we fail to regain our credentials as fiscal conservatives, it will be a long time before our party returns to power. You can be a good, christian, conservative while still not focusing on all those issues.
As Barry Goldwater once said, "I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the [pants]" (Sorry for the editing but I'm trying to keep this acceptable for all ages).
Posted by: Gary on November 22, 2006 11:03 AMI'd say McCain and Giuliani are the GOP safe bests. I'd kind of like to see Gingrich run for President though in terms of being a family values candidate he'd be hung out to dry. Remember Bush won because he was a "uniter, not a divider".
Have you been following the homosexual marriage issue closely? The US constitution requires each state to recognize contracts, including marriage, made in other states. If one state allows homosexual marriage, it is legal everywhere. Right now, same-sex couples in MA are same-sex couples in WA. That is the argument pro-marriage amendment advocates have been shouting. It's unfortunate you had missed that key part of the argument.
I'm all for state's rights and minimal government. However, this is something, like slavery, that threatens to divide us. The constitution allows for amendments like these to keep the country together and sane. It is certainly not unconstitutional or anti-federalist to try and get it amended to protect the sanctity of marriage.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on November 22, 2006 09:43 PM