Giuliani had this to say in California recently:

"We need a candidate who can compete in New York, who can compete in California. Just like Ronald Reagan, we need a candidate who can win."

The only problem is, I don't think I want a candidate who can compete in California. A lot has changed since Ronald Reagan. California is now a bastion of democrat policies. California has a constitutional right to conduct human embryonic stem cell research. Domestic Partnerships provide registered gay couples with all of the incidents of marriage, minus the name only. The state has liberal abortion laws and recently rejected the chance to pass a parental notification law for when doctors perform abortions on minors.

California is a great place to live in many ways, but it is certainly not very friendly to social conservatives. I would be disappointed if the rest of the country went our direction on these issues. So, when Giuliani says he can compete in blue California, remember the "R" by his name doesn't necessarily stand for red America.

I want a candidate who can win the country, while continuing the progress we have made on social issues. Romney can and will win the country if nominated.

The Mitt Report kindly directs our attention to a new blog: Virginia Students for Mitt.

Perhaps we will see a proliferation of Mitt websites tied to student efforts much the way the state web sites have abounded.

Romney: Mass. Health Plan Can Be Copied, Glen Johnson, AP
Romney Won't Adapt Mass. Plan, Perry Bacon Jr., Washington Post
Romney's Federal Prescription, Mary Jacoby and Sarah Lueck, Wall Street Journal
Romney to Pitch a State-by-State Health Insurance Plan, Michael Luo, NY Times
Romney to detail his healthcare Rx, Lisa Wangsness, Boston Globe

H/T Marc Ambinder.

Labels: healthcare, press

A Rally for Romney is coming to a city near you. Get your rolodex (if you still have one), your Treo or iPAQ (that's what I have) and make sure to sign up to participate at a call day close to you. Click here to sign up.

After signing up, you will be able to select a public team to join, create your own team, or simply be a team on your own. I joined a team.

Finally, you will be introduced to QuickComMitt and be able to track donor contributions.

Romney is currently winning the Bill O'Reilly poll right now at 53% over Giuliani at 42%. In case you needed any more affirmation that John McCain's candidacy is over, he comes in at a mere 5%, and this without Fred Thompson even in the mix.

Romney's Health Care plan is here. The Slides of Romney's Power Point presentation he delivered to the Florida Medical Association are located here.

The Goals of the Reform:

- First, Instituting Reforms That Make Private Health Insurance Affordable. More Americans need access to quality, private health insurance.

- Second, Providing Access To Quality Health Insurance For Every American.

- Third, Enhancing The Portability Of Private Health Insurance.

- Finally, Slowing The Rate Of Inflation In Health Care Spending.

Romney's website lists six steps to bring about change here.

As a person who actually buys private health insurance in the open market as opposed to simply being covered by an employer's plan, I am excited about the thrust of Romney's Health Care plan to foster a more robust market that makes plans more portable and encourages options.

I am also excited about the prospect of being able to buy that coverage with pre-tax dollars as workers who buy through their employers can do.

In fact, by giving that benefit to employees in traditional jobs and denying it to people who don't have an employer giving them health insurance, the tax code has actually created a disincentive from people hanging out their own shingle and working for themselves. Romney's reform will fix that.

There is a lot more to be said but one thing is clear, Romney owns this issue.

READ THIS. Steven A. Camarota is director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C.

A little background. As the Boston Globe covered last year in one of their more breathless displays of "gotcha" journalism, Mitt Romney hired a landscaping company to work on his house 7 years before he became Governor, whose employ he continued until 2006. Lo and behold, some of this country's 6 or 7 million undocumented workers were employed by said landscaping company. Governor Romney's defense? He didn't know their immigration status, and once he found out he hired a different landscaping company.

For those of you without access to the Globe, here are the essentials of Steven Camarota's response (emphasis mine):

But, the consumer, in this case the governor, is in no way responsible for business practices that go on behind the scenes. In fact, if the governor had asked the workers in question if they were illegal, he could have actually been sued under federal law for discrimination.

Think about it in a practical way. If consumers really are responsible in some way for businesses that hire illegals, why single out the landscaping company? What about the fast-food restaurants or video stores frequented by Massachusetts politicians and their employment of illegals? Given how many illegals work in poultry processing, there's also a good chance that the turkey most of us ate for Thanksgiving was processed by an illegal.
...
It is almost certain that every elected official, in fact every citizen in Massachusetts, has purchased a good or service provided by an illegal immigrant at some point. But this tells us nothing about the citizens of Massachusetts, all it says is that there are a lot of illegals in the state and in the country. To imagine a circumstance in which the consumer is at least morally culpable, one would have to have evidence that the buyer was aware of the violations. But there is no evidence the governor knew anything about the illegal workers.
...
There are, of course, people to blame for such situations. In the case of illegal immigration, it's the illegals themselves and the businesses that don't follow the law and hire them. The lawn-care company in this case apparently did not make even a half-hearted attempt to follow the law. The federal government is also to blame. Since Washington has failed to take even the most basic steps necessary to deter illegal immigration, even the most law-abiding consumer will unavoidably purchase services from businesses that employ illegal immigrants.

Labels: Immigration, lawn workers, mitt romney

I don't really have anything to elaborate on KJL's post about Romney's abortion stance, but thought I would give you all a heads up:

I know it’s cool on all sides not to trust Romney, but this strikes me as no there there, despite the reporter’s contention otherwise. He supports a human life amendment but lives in the incremental real world. If Roe is overturned, states will take up the issue. If Roe is overturned, it would be helpful to have a president who supports a federal ban, and who will presumably support those trying to ban abortion in their states (something worth hearing him make clear he would). Romney's position makes sense to me.

Update: Marc Ambinder agrees (my emphasis added):

Mitt Romney is simply struggling to explain the Republican Party's conventional pro-life position. Which is: overturn Roe v. Wade. And then, slowly build up public support for a constitutional amendment banning abortions. ETA: 30 years or more.

This is not a flip-flop.

Assuming that Romney's story of a late-in-life pro-life conversion is true -- and that's a reasonable assumption absent evidence to the contrary -- it's not surprising that he has trouble articulating, in soundbite form, what he believes -- especially to a media that's been conditioned to listen for nuance.

It's also true that everything Mitt Romney says about abortion will be scrutinized to see whether it comports with what he said last week, two months ago, three months ago. His advisers accept that, frustrating as it may be.

Update #2: James Taranto also concurs

The Post reporter seems to be ignorant about the Constitution. Whatever Romney's opinion of a constitutional amendment on abortion (or any other amendment), it is irrelevant to anything he could do as president.

Amending the Constitution is a purely legislative function, possibly the only purely legislative function in the American system of government. To propose an amendment requires the assent of two-thirds of each house of Congress; to ratify it requires the approval of the legislatures in three-fourths of the states. Once this happens--which is exceedingly rare--the amendment comes into force regardless of the president, who has no veto power.

Labels: James Taranto, Kathryn Jean Lopez, Marc Ambinder, national review

Well that surge, too, but I was meaning the continuing Romney surge in Iowa. Strategic Vision has new numbers showing Romney doubling up his competition.

Republicans
Romney 31 (+8 vs. last poll June 22-24)
Thompson 15 (-2)
Giuliani 13 (-1)
McCain 8 (-2)
Huckabee 8 (+3)
Undecided 13 (+2)

Labels: iowa, Polls

You decide...

Labels: fred thompson

Ramesh Ponnuru at The Corner this evening:

So I finally read Wayne Barrett's Giuliani takedown in the Village Voice (I linked to it a while ago). It goes through Giuliani's five big lies about 9/11. The first three are, if true, pretty devastating. It appears that Barrett's reporting was pretty meticulous. But he does have an axe to grind —see this Barrett hit on Giuliani's personal life, for example—so I'm not sure whether he is leaving anything out that exculpates Giuliani.

Having thus far read through the first three (out of five) topics, and even keeping in mind that there is no love lost between Barrett and the former Mayor, devastating is exactly the word I would choose for it. It will be interesting to see whether Team Giuliani addresses these concerns head on, or hopes they can worry about it after the GOP primary.

Labels: Giuliani, national security, rudy, terrorism