|
|||||
     Founders
Managing Directors
Blogger Pool
|
 Saturday, June 30, 2007
With Romney's rise in early states and his strong organization coupled with strong resume, Romney has become the "betters" choice among Senators and Congressman it appears. John from Powerline blogs that many Senators are regrouping to Mitt:
On the Senatorial side we have two solid senators (Talent and Bennett) making the same claim. Granted, both are Romney supporters, yet both are solid Conservatives with a reputation among the party faithful. One participant at Monday's fundraising event in Boston, who is very close to the campaign, sent me this in an email and gave me permission to quote:
And we all remember from a few days ago my interview with Bob Bennett: It should also be noted that a man at the table I sat with in Boston spoke to Bennett and the Senator told him that Bill Clinton himself expressed that the Clinton's are planning on a Hillary v. Romney match up. I also find it interesting that with several Senators and Former Senators in the running, we see that majority still looks to Romney. Now this begs the question, do endorsements from Congress matter? Of course they do. Evidence number 1: All the candidates are working to woo the support of Congress. Congressman and Senators have long lists of supporters, contributors and networks from their own campaigns. Generally congressman and senators enjoy some degree of popularity within their districts/states and generally have the support and sway of their state party. Bennett alludes to Senators who are endorsing other candidates but their hearts are in Boston. This isn't a surprise. As we saw with Blackburn, sometimes state party politics and future political aspirations trump your own personal preferences. That's not criticism, just reality. So it will be interesting to see how many Senators decide to get in the fray and when. Then we will see how correct this information I have gleaned is. Friday, June 29, 2007
Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute has an absolutely wrong piece over at NRO about healthcare. I don't disagree with the principle that he's writing about. He urges a return to conservative and free market principles on healthcare. Certainly he's right. The prescription drug plan has been an exposition in government expansion. He also argues that we should reject a government take-over of healthcare. Again, he's right on point.
However, Tanner takes an egregious wrong turn by equating Romney's healthcare plan with Hillary Care: Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has embraced the big-government approach. He has joined Democrats in calling for universal health coverage. The plan he supported in Massachusetts is a variation of HillaryCare.Apparently, Tanner didn't see this at the debate: Or maybe he missed this from the MSNBC debate: Or maybe even this: Tanner goes on to praise Rudy Giuliani's plan that expands healthcare savings accounts and reforms various tax provisions. Certainly there is much to be admired of Giuliani's plan, especially when compared to any Democratic plan. However, it will result in only changes at the margins. Romney's plan is a much bolder plan that would do more for more people. That does not make Romney's plan a liberal idea in disguise. Bold does not translate to liberal. Tanner mistakenly equates small government with small ideas. Romney sees that even small government can accomplish large things. The small government, conservative principles that Romney advocates are powerful tools that can accomplish something as audacious as insuring a nation. Labels: Cato Institute, healthcare, Michael Tanner, national review Rudy Giuliani's main page currently features the following quote at the bottom of the page: "His eight years as mayor of New York were the most successful episode of conservative governance in this country in the last 50 years."- George Will Does this claim seem a little outrageous to you? If so, my question for you is, can you think of any mayor, governor, or president whose service you would nominate over Giuliani as the "most successful episode of conservative governance in this country in the last 50 years?" I can name a Governor. Thursday, June 28, 2007
More thoughts from the Democratic debate
Labels: democrats A few thoughts from the Democratic debate last night:
Labels: democrats Two topics popped up in this U.S. News article after an interview with Romney. The surge in Iraq and Religion. The statements about the surge continue to show what type of leader Romney would be and offer something of a clear contrast between his management style and Bush 43's.
"Romney wants the administration to publicize the "metrics" it will be using to evaluate progress in Iraq this fall, when several reports on the Iraq involvement are due. Among the factors that Romney says must be considered are how much the Iraqi military has improved in providing security and how many neighborhoods the Iraqis have been able to clear and hold in their struggle against the insurgents. He expressed concern that, if the administration doesn't explain the metrics it will be using to assess the effort, President Bush will open himself up to criticism that he is basing his case for further involvement only on the positive factors, not on a fair and comprehensive review of conditions in Iraq." This is consistent with everything we have heard about Romney as a leader. He wants to provide the information to the voters. He wants to know the details of what is going on and to have specific aspects of the effort to use as measurements of progress. He wants to analyze that information and try and make better decisions based upon it. Clearly defined goals, clearly defined measurements, and lots of disclosure. On religion: "Romney also said he has become more willing to address 'the Mormon issue' head-on perhaps in a high-profile speech later this year. He said he hadn't thought such a speech would be necessary until very recently, as his critics have raised anew the issue of his faith, describing it as little more than a cult. Romney told U.S. News that the series of attacks have been very unfair and "may well change my thinking" about a clear-the-air speech." "He noted that in 1960, John F. Kennedy gave a major speech about his Roman Catholicism, declaring that on matters of public policy, he would always put the country first. While Romney expressed doubt that he could match Kennedy's eloquence, he said delivering such a speech might be wise later this year." This seems consistent with earlier impressions that I had. The campaign seems to want to introduce Romney to the country before taking the step of proactively answering the critics of having a Mormon for President. What actually surprised me is that the thought of never answering that question seemed to be a possible approach. I believe he will need to go on record and declare that as an elected representative he is responsible to place the interests of the American people above his own personal preferences and to do what is in America's interest. I believe this will allay doubts in some people's minds who simply know very little about how religion might influence Mitt as President. The opposition is at it in Iowa seeking to attack Romney through use of some 1994 statements about farm subsidies. Romney said back then "I also believe we're going to have agriculture subsidies reduced". Unfortunately, the context of that statement is a little lost on me. Either way, it is totally insignificant to our current situation as a country. In 1994, little was known about the potential for America's farmland to play a significant role in freeing our country from reliance on foreign oil. Because of that potential, our national security requires a different approach now. Romney has promised to lead an energy revolution in our country. As the article explains:
"Romney's Iowa campaign spokesman Tim Albrecht insisted an archival video does not diminish the former governor's strong support for agriculture." "'Gov. Romney believes that investing in agriculture is key to our economy and families,' Albrecht said. 'America's farmers not only provide food for the dinner table, but they will play a critical role in lessening our reliance on foreign sources of oil.'" Iowa's farmland is clearly a part of Romney's goals: "We must become independent from foreign sources of oil. This will mean a combination of efforts related to conservation and efficiency measures, developing alternative sources of energy like biodiesel, ethanol, nuclear, and coal gasification, and finding more domestic sources of oil such as in ANWR or the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)." Don't get me wrong, there are probably many inefficiencies in the way subsidies are managed and there are probably other programs that will be needed to encourage the type of farming required for our national needs. But I think it is clear that the situation has changed such from 1994 that maintaining and expanding America's ability to produce crop that will lead to efficient production of the highest quality biofuels is a high priority and we can expect subsidies to play an important role in any strategy to continue to encourage production. Today, Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement on the United States Senate's vote on the immigration reform bill:
"The immigration bill failed because the politicians in Washington are out of touch with the American people. The voice of the people is loud and clear – secure the border, enforce the law and no special deal for permanent residency or citizenship for illegals. America will always welcome legal immigration, but as a nation we also insist on the rule of law." me like. ...of info. I don't want to distract from what Jeff wrote about the Q2 fundraising, so go read that first, go donate, and then come back here.
First, from Jim Geraghty: Down Goes Cloture! Down Goes Cloture! Second, another important Supreme Court decision, this time striking down the use of race in elementary and secondary schools to acheive a racial balance. Labels: Immigration, Supreme Court Q2 fundraising will come to a close in just a few short days (June 30th). In light of this, I wanted to revive my previous post about how the MSM spun Romney's Q1 fundraising success as being "Deep But Narrow." I also pointed out in a follow-up piece that such characterization of Romney was incorrect and that most other candidates relied on big donors more than Romney did. Both Giuliani and McCain have more June fundraisers than Romney (50, 30, and 25 respectively). Rudy might be tough to beat in Q2 fundraising. Romney needs more money to run his campaign than nationally recognized Rudy, McCain, and Actor Fred Thompson. It's looking like Q2 will be a fundraising horserace. The Boston Globe reports: Mitt Romney, whose surprising $21 million first-quarter fund-raising haul topped Republican rivals in the 2008 White House race, said on Monday he expected a drop in fund-raising cash in the current quarter. This story also notes that Romney is going to personally help fund his campaign in Q2). The stakes are high folks! This is where we come in. Please take it upon yourselves to donate to Romney's campaign!! If y | ||||
Show/Hide 7 Comments | Post a Comment