|
|||||
     Founders
Managing Directors
Blogger Pool
|
 Saturday, October 6, 2007
“It’s not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me.” –Batman Begins Naïve is the word that springs to mind when I think about what my attitude formerly was towards Mayor Giuliani. Having grown up as a New Yorker and hearing the stories about how one couldn’t walk in the vicinity of Bryant Park after dark before he was mayor was enough for me to put him in a place of reverence. After all, when I moved into Manhattan, I spent a great deal of time in Bryant Park reading and studying. Also, being born in Brooklyn myself, I had an extra respect for Mayor Giuliani, as he was a Brooklyn boy who raised himself from playing stickball in the streets into a successful lawyer and then mayor. Now, I am a rarity in New York. I am an Evangelical Christian and a Republican. Moreover, I am extremely conservative morally, socially, fiscally, and in my attitude towards foreign policy. That being said, I still felt a kinship with Mayor Giuliani for the aforementioned reasons and not in small part because of 9/11. When this election cycle started, Mayor Giuliani threw his name into the hat, and it seemed natural for me to support him, so I did. I even went as far as to write in Facebook groups criticizing those that did not support him. For I, without having yet done my research, had arbitrarily decided that Mayor Giuliani was the only one who can beat Hillary Clinton. (He isn't and I honestly doubt how great that ability is.) I had decided that he was the only one that can win some of the blue states away from Hillary, like New York. (He can’t.) I used emotional logic; I think, therefore it is so. You see, I was under the misunderstanding that even though he was a social liberal, he was also fiscally conservative. I also believed him when he said that he would appoint judges in the mold of Scalia, Roberts, and Alito. It turns out that my assumptions were proven faulty upon an examination of his record. Firstly, what I learned was that Mayor Giuliani is anything but Presidential material. I will refer back to my earlier writing, entitled “Dignity” , to make the case as to why the man is not dignified enough to be President of the United States. Call me judgmental, but I think that dignity should be a minimum requirement for the Presidency of the United States. Secondly, an examination of Giuliani’s record as mayor shows that he did not behave like a fiscal conservative. Justin Hart details a relevant chunk of it quite nicely in this article. Thirdly, Mayor Giuliani’s record when it came to appointing judges reveals that when given the chance, he did not appoint judges in the mold of Scalia, Roberts, or Alito. In fact, he appointed more Democratic judges than Republican judges by a ratio of 8 to 1. Ben Smith of the Politico, who clearly does not condemn Giuliani’s record, nonetheless details his record here. Confronted with all of these facts, one can only come to the conclusion that I came to. Rudy Giuliani does not deserve my support. While he was a good mayor because he was good on crime, the fact remains that he openly tries to deceive us with claims that he is a fiscal conservative in the mold of Reagan and with his claims that he is trustworthy on the issue of the courts. There is a possibility that he is, but I tend to trust what a man does more than what he says. That is a reason I respect Governor Romney immensely. Say what you will about improper or just plain wrong past rhetoric, his deeds have always been above reproach. All in all, in spite of his failings, Rudy Giuliani was good for New York City. He just isn't good for the United States of America and is certainly not a better alternative than Governor Romney.“It is a kind of good deed to say well; and yet words are not deeds.” -Shakespeare Friday, October 5, 2007
Has anyone noticed the bit of irony in the coming GOP debate this week at the Ford Performing Arts Center in Dearborn, Michigan? It wasn’t too long ago that begin associated with anything Ford was a sign of insensitivity.
Back in February, the National Jewish Democrat Council graced the headlines with this press release: The National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) expressed its deep concerns today about Republican Mitt Romney's decision to announce his candidacy for President from the Henry Ford Museum in Detroit, Michigan. Located on grounds formally owned by Ford, the museum is a testament to the life of Henry Ford, a notorious anti-Semite and xenophobe whose belief that Jews were second-class, inferior citizens were expressed in detail in his writings on his theory of Americanization. Ford was also bestowed with the Grand Service Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle by Adolph Hitler. Alan Dershowitz had a fun time with this as well at the Huffington Post: Why would an American presidential candidate choose to announce his candidacy at a museum dedicated to the memory of America's most notorious and influential anti-Semite? I don’t know Al, but why would a national Main Stream Media outlet choose a performing arts center dedicated to the most notorious and influential anti-Semite as the foreground for a Presidential debate? Here’s to hoping that NJDC will do the right thing and take CNBC/MSNBC/Wallstreet Journal to task for such insensitivity. In the ongoing battle between Rudy and Mitt over economic credentials, one of the issues being debated is Rudy’s crusade over the line-item veto. The case that deemed the line-item veto unconstitutional (at least as it was then constituted) was Clinton v. City of New York. The majority opinion was written by Justice Stevens. It concluded that the cancellation procedures set forth in the Line Item Veto Act violated the presentment clause (which outlines the procedure for making a bill into law – think back to School House Rock if you need a refresher).
Justice Scalia dissented: Had the Line Item Veto Act authorized the President to "decline to spend" any item of spending contained in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, there is not the slightest doubt that authorization would have been constitutional. What the Line Item Veto Act does instead -- authorizing the President to "cancel" an item of spending -- is technically different. But the technical difference does not relate to the technicalities of the Presentment Clause, which have been fully complied with[.] Clinton, 524 U.S. 417, 469 (1998).I won’t bore you with the back and forth over the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act as it was then written. There are, however, two points to take away from the discussion. First, in reading the case it is easy to see and supremely ironic why Rudy was so determined to fight the line-item veto: “New York has estimated that the amount at issue for the period from October 1992 through March 1997 is as high as $ 2.6 billion.” Rudy was determined to get federal government money. He thought it appropriate that the rest of the country subsidize his city. For someone who is apparently the pinnacle of fiscal conservatism, he fought hard to be on the federal government’s dole. Second, and I think even more illuminating, is who Rudy thinks is a “strict constructionist”. Apparently Rudy’s idea of a “strict constructionist” is someone who could come out either way on abortion, finds that the constitution mandates taxpayer funding of abortions, and agrees that the line-item veto is unconstitutional. This “strict constructionist” judge of Rudy’s looks more and more to me like John Paul Stevens, who was nominated by a Republican President, Gerald Ford. Of course Justice Stevens would be nobody’s idea of a “strict constructionist”, routinely finding in favor of race-based school classifications, abortion rights, and other “rights” found nowhere in the Constitution’s text. Certainly Rudy’s idea of a “strict constructionist” is not what Republican voters are looking for. Labels: rudy giuliani
FACT: Mayor Giuliani Fought To Tax People For Going To Work:
FACT: Mayor Giuliani Not Only Wanted To Keep The Tax, He Wanted To Raise It:
FACT: Mayor Giuliani Called The $360 Million A Year Commuter Tax "Modest," And Said The City Was "Entitled" To The Tax:
FACT: Mayor Giuliani Sued Republicans In Albany So He Could Keep The Commuter Tax:
FACT: After Losing In Court, Mayor Giuliani Continued To Fight To Keep The Commuter Tax:
Labels: rudy, rudy giuliani, tax cuts, Taxes Thursday, October 4, 2007
One of the things I appreciate about Governor Romney is that he is the only major candidate to call out the ugly and sometimes debasing culture that our kids our "swimming" in. To that end I wanted to call attention to an issue that has reared its ugly head since last Tuesday when Oprah aired a show promoting (among other things) casual sex among friends, pornography and "open marriages".
As many of you know Jason Bonham and I sit on the Governor Romney's Faith and Values Committee and I recently took a full time job with the Lighted Candle Society, a non-profit group fighting pornography. I don't want abuse the fact that I helped to found MyManMitt... but I did want to call your attention to this serious issue and ask you to sign the following petition addressed to Oprah. Click below for more info:  Labels: family values, oprah, pornography Sometimes I get caught up in pointing out the weaknesses of other candidates (which admittedly is the easy part of my job here) that I forget to make the positive case for Mitt. Therefore, let me make a few points for why Mitt is the right candidate, not through comparison to other candidates, but independent of them.
A complete approach to the presidency One of the things that has impressed me most about Romney's candidacy as it has developed has been his complete approach to the presidency. It indicates to me that he understands the full range of roles and responsibilities that the president undertakes: Commander in chief, chief executive of the largest bureaucracy, chief domestic policy advocate, nominator of federal judges, role model, etc. All of these are hats that the president must wear while in office. Recent history has given us presidents that have abdicated or neglected one or more of these roles. Mitt, on the other hand, addresses all of these roles. He does not excuse himself in one area by trying to compensate in another. Indeed, I strongly believe that Mitt tenure in office would restore much of the lost feeling and confidence in the presidency. No longer would there be gaping sores on the office of the president for immorality or incompetence. Mitt could heal those wounds felt by the American people. This is the kind of person I want leading the country. Facts drive the analysis I talked a little bit about this a couple of weeks ago after the last debate. Perhaps this I'm alone in this, but this is something that has been increasingly important to me as I go through law school. One of the things that undermines an advocate most is to have the facts wrong or to abuse their interpretation. On the other hand, advocacy based on solid facts and rigorous reasoning persuades in a way that neither alone can accomplish. Mitt is an ideal advocate. As can be documented through those that have worked with him, Mitt requires two things when he approaches a problem: mountains of data and vivid debate. This is the most consistent and reliable method by which to find the right solutions. This is what the great Abraham Lincoln did in his time, not surrounding himself with "yes-men", but with both dissenting and concurring voices. Additionally, when Mitt has resolved upon a solution, he has the ideal basis by which to persuade. He is backed by facts and reasoning. He is essentially the antithesis of an ideologue. This is the kind of person that I want running my country. Previous success indicates future success This was the first thing that I (and probably other people) noticed about Mitt: he has excelled at everything he's done; in education at BYU, Harvard Business, Harvard Law; in the private sector at Bain Consulting, Bain Capital, the 2002 Winter Olympics; in the public sector as Governor. (Of course, on some level, this inspires a small amount of jealousy at his perpetual success.) Recent history of has given us presidents with a mixed bag of pre-presidency successes or presidents who have been successful in a narrow field. Mitt's success is broad and extensive. This type of sucess leads to a very optimistic projection of his ability to succeed in governing the nation. This is the kind of person that I want running my country. See it for yourself.
Labels: fred thompson Will Reston isn't the only one upset with Fred and taking up the pen to tell him so. Quint Hillyer, editor of the American Spectator, is also a bit perturbed with Thompson... but for different reasons:
You, sir, have a serious responsibility to fulfill. When there were a number of other conservatives considering whether they should try to fill the void in the Republican presidential field, you stepped forward and said you were the one. You said you had the fire in the belly. You sucked all the air out of the atmosphere on the right. In doing so, you pledged to run a different kind of campaign.What are Thompson fans spiking their punch with? Its well and fine for a blogger like Will to call for the "political assassination" of Mitt Romney but calling your fav candidate a "moron"? And this is the editor of AmSpec? I expect a bit more class than this. Hillyer continues: What catalyzes this letter is a campaign phone call I received last night. A bright young woman calling on behalf of your campaign in northern Virginia asked if I would mind listening to a message from you. Well, certainly. And then your voice came on. You said you wanted to return power to the people, to good old regular folks like me. You said it was time to take the power away from the politicians in Washington. You said we needed to return to a government of common sense. You said something about emphasizing our conservative values. And you thanked me for listening.This was great.. because I got the same phone call... only, with my handy dandy Mac at hand... I recorded it. And yes, its probably as bad as he says it is. Listen for yourself: Labels: audio, fred thompson Wednesday, October 3, 2007
James Bopp, Jr. sat down with Jennifer Rubin for an interview about Mitt Romney and conservative issues. Especially in light of the recent dust-up about religious leaders voting for a third party if Giuliani is the candidate, it is enlightening to see why such a prominent and active conservative leader has chosen Romney:
Bopp says he had been impressed with his record of “tremendous leadership skills” in running the Olympics and as a businessman and executive but had to assure himself that Romney’s conversion to the pro-life cause was “sincere.” He met with Romney and came away satisfied by Romney’s words but also by his actual record as Gov. Bopp says: “Unfortunately there are some people in the pro-life movement who are not willing to accept converts. Our whole thrust is to gain converts. If you are not willing to accept them we are doomed to defeat.”Bopp also elaborates on some of the important social issues voters are looking at in deciding on a presidential candidate. On marriage: Bopp says that it is “extremely important,” emphasizing that Romney is the only top tier candidate who supports a constitutional amendment explicitly requiring that all marriage be between a man and a woman. On McCain-Feingold: Bopp says this “goes to the heart of citizens’ involvement in our democracy. To talk about ‘corruption’ is a smokescreen. On judicial activism: Bopp argues that Romney “more than anyone understands it because he lived through it” as governor of Massachusetts in the battle against judicial imposition of gay marriage. On how to pick a president: Bopp says that he would not support a candidate who is not a conservative but that voters should put more stock in who will be “viable” and who has the skills to be in charge of “managing the largest enterprise in the world.” Labels: james bopp | ||||
Today, the Romney campaign came out swinging. In their first official Rudy exposé the Giuliani "tax and tax again" record is thrown into stark relief. The research is pretty extensive and makes an excellent case against the fiscal policy that Rudy advocated while Mayor.
Show/Hide 0 Comments | Post a Comment