|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
     Founders
Managing Directors
Blogger Pool
|
 Saturday, August 18, 2007
One debate has finally ended. Or it should now. Mitt Romney is the only candidate for the protection of traditional marriage.
Romney, of course, has been fighting for the FMA for some time as part of his larger effort regarding MA's Supreme Council's incorrect decision in Goodridge. The positions of the other candidates have now been rounded out in this regard: From the Thompson camp: "Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage." McCain and Giuliani also oppose. Why? Usually they point to federalism, claiming that it should be left up to the states to decide. After all, they say, aren't we upset about judges imposing their will on everybody else? Isn't this the same thing? The answer is: absolutely not. The reason we get so upset about judges creating new law with the Constitution is because the proper way to create such law is have a Constitutional amendment. When a people, who are sovereign, undertake to organize themselves into a society, they have the ability to decide how they will be governed. In our case, we developed a social contract known as the Constitution. We agreed to be bound by it. We agreed on methods of changing it. No where did we agree to have it changed by judges. We also agreed on an allocation of powers between the federal government and the states (AKA federalism). The authority for this allocation rests in the Constitution and it can be changed by the very process that we agreed on in that document itself. There is no other independent authority for that allocation other than arguments of policy. To hide behind federalism when talking about a constitutional amendment is simply silly. It is the same as arguing that no amendment to the Constitution should ever be passed because that's not the way we originally set it up. If we had set it up as an unchangeable document, it would have never passed in the first place. So, the real debate is whether or not the sovereign people of our country should pass an amendment protecting marriage. The arguments for protecting marriage as a social institution that is primarily for the purpose of protecting children and that seeks to secure the emotional and financial bonds of a mother and a father to their children are extensive. My purpose is not to elucidate them here. Mitt Romney has also explained the need for a federal approach: "Some argue that our principles of federalism and local control require us to leave the issue of same sex marriage to the states—which means, as a practical matter, to state courts. Such an argument denies the realities of modern life and would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent laws throughout the country. Marriage is not just an activity or practice which is confined to the border of any one state. It is a status that is carried from state to state. Because of this, and because Americans conduct their financial and legal lives in a united country bound by interstate institutions, a national definition of marriage is necessary." You may disagree. No worries. But if you think that the country should stick with traditional marriage, Mitt Romney is your only choice. Thanks to Evangelicals for Mitt for the heads up. Friday, August 17, 2007
Michelle Malkin interviewed Mitt on her Hot Air site.
Part 1: Part 2: Scott Allan Labels: interview, mitt romney, video Romney has been holding a slight bump in the Rasmussen Reports Daily Presidential Tracking Polling History following his Iowa straw poll victory. Consistent with the recent USA Today poll. Now, in double digits, Romney is in third place nationally. This is all with the little bit of news coverage from the Ames Straw Poll. Imagine what winning a few states like say, Iowa, Nevada, and new Hampshire, all in a row, might do for national numbers.
"In the latest survey by the Reno Gazette-Journal, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney gained 24 points to capture the lead from former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani," reports KRNV-TV out of Reno. Here are the results:
Republicans: That makes 3 out of the first 6 states that Romney has a lead in right now (Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. The other three are South Carolina, Florida, and Wyoming). No word of any polls out in Wyoming, but Romney has made steady progress in both South Carolina (within 5% of the lead) and Florida (+2 in the last two Rasmussen polls). ...on the Romney investment story here.
A tease: The article's subtitle, of course, tells the story: "Campaign Insists Investments Are in Blind Trust Only." The word "insists" is a kind of code: journalists use it to suggest that the victim's "insistence" must be untrue. Here, though, there is no question about the fact that Romney's fortune--legitimately earned, as opposed to, say, John ("Fortunate Husband") Kerry's--is invested in a blind trust. This means not only that Mitt Romney doesn't control where his money is invested, he doesn't even know where it is invested. That is the whole idea: when a politician doesn't know where his money is invested, he can't be accused of taking one action or another to further his own economic interests. Which is, in any event, a silly idea when speaking of someone like Romney, one of the ten or twenty most successful businessmen in the United States. Labels: investments, Powerline Blog, stem cell research
Thursday, August 16, 2007
I just got back from the Illinois Straw Poll, here are the results:
1. Mitt Romney -- 40.35% 2. Fred Thompson -- 19.96% 3. Ron Paul -- 18.87% 4. Rudy Giuliani -- 11.61% 5. John McCain -- 4.12% 6. Mike Huckabee -- 3.04% 7. Sam Brownback -- 1.08% 8. Duncan Hunter -- .65% 9. Tom Tancredo -- .33% I have no idea of the number of votes cast although I would guess the total number of people at the picnic was 3-400. It was pouring rain, so I am sure this could account partially for the low attendance. It was at the Illinois State Fair, and the fairgrounds were empty. To his credit, Craig Romney stood out in the pouring rain and welcomed visitors and voters to the picnic, and I have a good interview of that. While there I had the chance to meet Race42008 commenter "Bjalder" and family. I will have some videos up of the event tomorrow over at www.illinoisreview.com. I will post a couple interviews here that I did of Ron Paul supporters. It takes a while to download. Now one point to make. I am 100% positive the Fred's campaign tried to organize for this. It didn't work. And McCain had a terrible showing, of course, not as bad as Tancredo, but still pretty bad. Andy Mckenna, State GOP Chair had this to say: "Congratulations to Mitt Romney, whose strong showing today indicates he has begun to put together a strong statewide organization. There's no question that Illinois' demographics closely match those of the United States and this could be an indication as to whom Illinois voters are leaning toward this coming February."
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Or so says Lowry.
First, there’s the negativity of his campaign. I don’t have any problem with negative campaigning and there’s obviously nothing wrong with Christians engaging in political and intellectual combat, but the spectacle of such a self-consciously Christian candidate running perhaps the most negative of any of the campaigns is jarring and discomfiting. I couldn't have said it better myself. Or so says Lowry.
First, there’s the negativity of his campaign. I don’t have any problem with negative campaigning and there’s obviously nothing wrong with Christians engaging in political and intellectual combat, but the spectacle of such a self-consciously Christian candidate running perhaps the most negative of any of the campaigns is jarring and discomfiting. I couldn't have said it better myself. Rich Lowry gives the heads up on a new South Carolina poll showing Romney making a move there.
Public Policy Polling Republican South Carolina Primary For those not following the South Carolina polls (and I can't blame you for that), Romney's numbers have generally followed his national numbers, hovering around 10% on average. RCP had his average at 7.3% in South Carolina. This new poll shows a marked improvement and possibly a sign of good things to come. This also follows a national trend showing that has Romney ticking upward. The last three polls (Rasmussen, Quinipiac, and ARG) show Romney surging consistently if not spectacularly. Justin has been the best at explaining all the horserace stuff and nuts and bolts of politicing, but it seems like Romney's old school strategy is working. South Carolina, Florida, and other states that other Republican candidates have been banking on look like Iowa and New Hampshire of a couple of months ago. Now, with the early winning, consistently spectacular debate performances, and grassroots organization, Romney is poised to take the lead in those states. Also, for all the grief that pundits gave Romney for his investment in Ames (even with a solid win), it too seems to be paying off, as Lowry seems to have noted. Labels: Polls
Labels: brownback, fred thompson, Giuliani, news Tuesday, August 14, 2007
I just thought people would enjoy this. Grappelli has been a favorite of mine ever since my Beatnik uncle gave me a tape of him when I was 10.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Show/Hide 0 Comments | Post a Comment