The Occasional Observer

He's my paesan. He killed big welfare in NYC. He grew the economy through personal accountability. He refused to countenance the race politics charlatans in NYC, and unabashedly supported the police. He showed courage in leading New Yorkers through our darkest day. He was a real manager, using quantitative measures to improve how the public sector delivers service.

And yet...

on the biggest issues that our next president will face, I don't know if I can trust him. We're probably one or two S.C. justices away from overturning Roe, and the next President could have up to 4 nominations. The National Review explained the Giuliani skepticism among pro-lifers as follows:

Giuliani’s pro-life critics point to his April 5, 2001, address at the National Abortion Rights Action League’s “Champions of Choice” luncheon in Manhattan.

“As a Republican who supports a woman’s right to choose, it is particularly an honor to be here,” Giuliani said. He added: “The government shouldn’t dictate that choice by making it a crime or making it illegal.”

During his unsuccessful 1989 mayoral campaign, Giuliani said, “I’d give my daughter the money for it [an abortion].”

I can't reconcile these positions with the most important moral imperatives that confront America. Take the following words of JPII:

“Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights - for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture - is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with the maximum determination”

Someone who is pro-choice is not defending the right to life with even a minimum of determination. And such a candidate cannot be trusted with the office of the Presidency, at least from the vantage point of one who shares the Holy Father’s concerns.

For Rudy to have stated in the past he is pro-choice, and never have repudiated that position, but at the same time say he would nominate justices like Alito and Roberts, is about as empty as empty rhetoric gets.

Our current Holy Father weighed in on another crucially important issue that will confront our next President.

On March 30, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI gave a list of several issues that are “not negotiable” for Catholics in political life, because they involve matters that are intrinsically evil. One of them was this:

“ Recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family – as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage – and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role”

You know, “attempts to make it juridically equivalent” like civil unions for homosexuals, which Rudy has openly supported.

State and federal courts around the country are chipping away at millenia-old definitions of marriage, and Rudy supports equivocating solutions like civil unions. While Governor Romney was busy doing battle with the judiciary in MA, Rudy was sleeping with the enemy.

Rudy says all the right things about confronting Jihadism. His track record on ignoring the PC police and dismantling the welfare state are truly exemplary. But on the biggest moral issues confronting America in the next decade, issues that threaten to gut the very foundation on which our free society has been built, he is MIA. I really hope he doesn't win the nomination and put me behind the 8-ball: Rudy or a Democrat.

Alaska: where men are men and eagles eat deer.

Despite the fact that anti-war protestors love - at least in recent history - couching part of their argument along the lines that it is they who truly respect and admire our troops and that's why they want to bring them home, the fact is that practically none of them actually do admire the troops. True colors were shown at the protest this weekend:

There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration’s policies in Iraq.

Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back.

Dinesh D'Souza hits another home run with his piece here explaining another poor Jimmy Carter / left policy.

Hillary likens Bill to Osama and other terrorists.

Congressman John Dingell (D-MI), who has been in Congress for 50 (!) years, is once again chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He was interviewed by Amanda Griscom Little, who, based on her line of questioning, is an anti-industrial enviornmentalist extremeist ist. Dingell's district covers much of Wayne and Washtenaw Counties, and is home base for the U.S. auto industry. Do we see how this setting up?

Anyway, the entertanment factor was high. When you have an invulnerable 50 year incumbent, who also happens to be an 80 year old man fully set in his ways, he doesn't really care whether the interviewer comes away with a favorable impression. As Ms. Little asks a series of pointed questions, Rep. Dingell responds with some equally aggressive counterpunches. A few of my favorites:

Q: What major environmental breakthroughs do you see on the horizon for the 110th Congress, in an ideal world?

A: Oh, you're a smart girl, because that's a nasty question...

-------------------------

Q: So you believe the emphasis needs to be on how we're going to rally the world to address climate change, not how we're going to rally ourselves to address it?

A: Well, we have to do all of the above. We've got to begin to find out what we can do, and how we can do it without destituting the American society. But by the same token, we're going to have to help others to do the same thing and persuade them to be participants in that undertaking. In terms of diplomacy, that's probably one of the single biggest problems this country's got.

But you've got a lot of [Americans] saying, "We're going to solve the problem. We're going to make these cars." Well, we could all be riding around in kiddie cars and we wouldn't solve the problem. And we'd have an awful lot of angry Americans. You're not going to solve [the climate] problem yourself any more than you're going to solve Iraq by yourself.

Q: What's a kiddie car?

A: Don't you know what a kiddie car is?

Q: No.

A: It's one of those three-wheel things that kids get when they start out, they sit on and it's got a little handlebar, and they sort of pad around on this little three-wheeled tricycle.

Q: Got it.

-----------------------------

A: ...We'll also ask how this [increasing CAFE standards] can all be done without destituting American industry.

Q: What do you mean by "destituting American industry"?

A: One job in 10 in this country is in the auto industry. Most people don't know that. The auto industry is the biggest user of carpets produced in the Carolinas. The auto industry is the biggest user of glass produced in Pittsburgh. The autos are the biggest consumer of steel. The autos are tremendous users of plastic. And they've got, I think, about four computers in an automobile. Now, you can be quite calm about destituting Detroit, but do you want to shut down Silicon Valley and North Carolina and the Gulf Coast and Pittsburgh and other places that are heavily dependent on this? Plus the transportation industry that moves these cars around?

--------------------------------------

Q: Some argue that protecting Detroit from increased CAFE standards has actually made the U.S. less competitive. Today the most successful auto companies are the ones that are producing the most efficient cars.

A: Now let me just tell you this. First of all, you know which auto company produces the most lines of fuel-efficient cars? General Motors. They produce more fuel-efficient models than does any foreign manufacturer. More than Toyota, more than Nissan or any of the brands.

Q: But the concern is that the total aggregate of their fuel efficiency ...

A: Here's your problem. And you're a bright young woman. You don't have to have this explained to you. Look: Why do Americans buy SUVs? They buy them because they're big, because they're comfortable, because they feel safe, because they can haul six kids and a big load of groceries. Because the soccer mom can take the soccer team to a soccer game. Because they've got four-wheel drive if they run into a huge damn snowstorm. That's why they buy it.

-------------------------------

Q: What about biofuels?

A: If you used every nickel's worth of corn that this country produces, you could only have 70 percent of the fuel it takes to run the American transportation fleet. Do you want to eat corn bread and corn syrup and have your beef fed with corn, or do you want to ride around in a car?

---------------------------------

Q: Your wife is head of the General Motors Foundation. Does she influence your thinking about ...

A: She doesn't lobby. And she won't even talk to me about these matters.

Q: In closing, what do you do in your own life to reduce your environmental impact?

A: Well, I heat my house not above 70 degrees. I take a Navy shower. I carpool with my wife. I shut off the water when I'm cleaning my teeth. I recycle every damn thing I can recycle.

Let's review: he belittled the environmentalist as a "smart girl" twice, got in two "damns", disputed the "consensus" on global warming, put New Zealand's sheep and our auto industry on the same level as polluters, pointed out that hybrids and biofuels are not realistic solutions based on our technology at this point, and refuted the idea that the US should participate in any international enviornmental agreements that lead to us bearing a disproportionate burden and giving China a free ride.

Well done, Rep. Dingell. That would have been a good day's work for Rush Limbaugh.

A great quote, with a hat tip to Pejman over at RedState:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busy-bodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

From MittRomney.com:

Across this nation, thousands of Americans are gathering in their local communities and in our nation's capital to reaffirm their dedication to protecting the sanctity of life. We must create a culture of life where the weakest and most innocent among us are protected.

While there are well-meaning people on both sides of this debate, no one can deny that when hundreds of thousands of abortions are performed every year, it should be a major concern for a nation as great as ours. If we commit ourselves to promoting a culture of life, I believe that one day our nation's laws may reflect what is in our hearts.

Do you see that Foomies?

That is the sight of inevitability.

It is the sight of your future.

And no, this isn't even a joke. There's not much for me to add here. From WorldNetDaily:

Former President Jimmy Carter once complained there were "too many Jews" on the government's Holocaust Memorial Council, Monroe Freedman, the council's former executive director, told WND in an exclusive interview.

Freedman, who served on the council during Carter's term as president, also revealed a noted Holocaust scholar who was a Presbyterian Christian was rejected from the council's board by Carter's office because the scholar's name "sounded too Jewish."

Freedman, now a professor of law at Hofstra University, was picked by the council's chairman, author Elie Weisel, to serve as executive director in 1980. The council, created by the Carter White House, went on to establish the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.

Freedman says he was tasked with creating a board for the council and with making recommendations to the White House on how best to memorialize the Holocaust.

He told WND he sent a memo to Carter's office containing recommendations for council board members.

He said his memo was returned with a note on the upper right hand corner that stated, "Too many Jews."

The note, Freedman said, was written in Carter's handwriting and was initialed by Carter.

It's been a tough month for Jimma. Don't forget about this one:

Last week, in an interview with the Tovia Singer Show on Israel National Radio, a former U.S. Justice Department official said he received a letter advocating "special consideration" for a confessed Nazi SS officer accused of murdering Jews in the Mauthausen death camp in Austria.

Where's CaribouXpress when you need him.

Here's a video of Sen. Brownback's response to those who were quoted as saying he was also a convert to the pro-life cause. In a nutshell, he's saying that he's always been pro-life, he just didn't articulate it that way in the beginning. Fair enough. So long as he's not flat out lying, I think this issue has been put to bed.

As I said before, I don't think Brownback has anything to prove to anyone on this issue. If you have any doubts, just re-watch the Alito SJC hearings. If anyone wants to borrow all 7 VHS tapes, drop me a line and I'll get them to you.

I wish Leon Wolf would get off his high horse and quit it with the snide insults to Romney supporters, though. Are the Brownback/Hucakbee guys going to act like MoveOn types from here on out? What's next, "Mitt Lied, Babies Died"?

If these assertions are true, it means that Brownback wasn't always pro-life (or at least as adamant about it as he'd currently like you to believe). If so, it completely negates his major knock against Romney, and should only fuel those who are currently on the fence to join the Romney camp.

This is a brutally long article (which I admit I didn't fully read and skimmed about half-way through), but it does give a thorough summary of Giuliani's accomplishments as mayor of NYC and makes the case that his focus on economy and crime are what truly makes him conservative. I don't think it will sway any SoCons, but it might explain why he's remained solid #1 in polls and might have more legs then we expect. He surely has a clear sense of what he believes in, and was willing to fight the liberal press to get it done. NYC is certainly a much different place than the one I often visited as a kid.

Which reminds me, got my Mitt exploratory committee fundraising request in the mail yesterday. Time to pony up.

you must watch this video.

1. Mitt delivered a speech on the threat posed by Iran. You can see it here.

2. Mitt got endorsements from former Speaker Hastert and Rep Hoekstra from MI, who will also be Mitt's go to guy on matters relating to our national intelligence capabilities.

er, the Democrats, all along. But as it turns out, plenty of Republicans are ready to bail out on Iraq as well.

I just checked out some behind-the-wall numbers from Rasmussen on the attitudes of likely voters towards Iraq (1,000 likely voters, 12/2-3/2006), and the numbers were startling (to me, anyway):

Among Republicans only:

44% favor, while 36% oppose (20% undecided), the REMOVAL of troops from Iraq.

54% think it is likely, while 46% think it is unlikely, that Iraq will ultimately be an ally of the US.

43% think it is likely, while 56% think it is unlikely, that Iraq will ultimately remain a democracy.

Hagel's surprise 7% showing in a recent Iowa poll might not be that surprising after all.

I guess John Jay didn't get the memo on PC language. Bench Memos had the following quote from the Federalist Papers, in which three of our founding fathers (Madison, Hamilton, and Jay) lay out the arguments for the adoption of the U.S. Constitution.

From Federalist No. 2, written by John Jay (later to become first chief justice under the new Constitution):

"Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country, to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general liberty and independence."

If Jay had the assistance of modern-day America-hating secular liberals to help edit his words, Federalist #2 could have better reflected truthiness:

"Blind luck, self-interest, or randomness brought people to America. They formed a country, established arbitrary borders, imposed their language on the land, professed a religion which suited them (though it is no better and probably worse than most others), carried certain arrogant manners and customs and a general disdain for other cultures, created a government on the principles of representation for the few and subjugation of the many, and then, by their clever planning and the ruthless application of force, established a political regime to allocate power and wealth to a precious few beneficiaries, in violation of their own stated principles of 7/4/1776."

Sen. Webb made a stunning entry on the national scene with his response to the SOTU tonight. He looked comfortable, was in command of his delivery, and had a sharp focus that the SOTU (partly b/c of the nature of the speech) lacked. He zeroed in on two issues: class disparity and Iraq. Sen. Webb's grievances about Iraq have been well documented. The members of this blog have spilled many pixels discussing the relative merits of the Bush doctrine and a Mideast policy grounded in realism. I'll pass on re-hashing that discussion here.

But on the issue of economic populism, Webb hit a home run. He discussed the disparity in perception of the economy: Wall Street types trumpeting all-time highs on the Dow and Goldilocks GDP numbers; while main street America confronts spiraling health care and education costs, and the loss of manufacturing and other blue collar employment to foreign workers. These are real issues confronting the majority of American votes, and I haven't heard them addressed in a systematic way by any GOP candidate save Duncan Hunter. Given that it's unlikely Mr. Hunter is winning the nomination, the GOP is likely to have a candidate whose answer to lopsided trade policy is to simply ignore it and cling to free-trade rhetoric. The GOP response to spiraling health care costs will probably be more consumer choice and a reduction in the reliance on 3rd party payers. I don't think most Americans will be comfortable with these solutions (while the importance of HSA's and market reform w/r/t health care is, to me, a compelling argument).

I really hope that the prospective GOP candidates pay close attention to Sen. Webb's speech. Regardless of who takes the Dem nomination, they'll be hammering Iraq and populist economic themes in 2008. If Iraq is not a winning proposition by that time, and the GOP does not have a popular plan to protect middle class job security and purchasing power, I have a sneaking suspicion we're going to get stung. While it might not have received Milton Friedman's imprimatur, economic populism may be the only thing that can save the White House for Republicans in 2008.

Wow. Just when Fredo thought he'd seen the worst temper tantrum of the week out of his 3 year old son, the boys over at Fumare went all Zinedine Zidane on themselves. These guys, who once seemed like interesting young chaps, have instead become the most egocentric and narcissistic little jokers I've seen in some time. This new post actually split my gut so hard I fell off the chair laughing.

FUMARE'S MAGNANIMITY RE: FALVEY REPORT

We understand that Office of the Dean at Ave Maria School of Law has habitual communications problems--be they with faculty, students or alumni. Thus, we at FUMARE wish to facilitate the dissemination of necessary documents and important information vital to the success, stability and, yes, the existence of our law school. And we have!! Indeed on certain occasions embarrassing the administration itself. I wouldn't be surprised to learn if the faculty read FUMARE to learn what is going on at their own law school. (Admin: Objection, Your Honor, Calls for speculation! ABA: Overruled.)

Bwwaaahaaahaahaa! You've got to be kidding me. Of course AMSOL folks read Fumare all the time. The same way they'd look at an auto accident: it's a disaster but you can't help yourself.

Do these guys think anyone in the whole wide world can't guess how A.M. and his merry band are getting all this "inside information" (if the Falvey report can really be termed "information"-- guess we'll find out when the "magnanimous ones" release it)? If someone wanted to get a report written by Joe Falvey where would they go? I can't figure it out. They could have gotten it from anyone. Anyone I tell you.

Thus, affirming the grand tradition that is our learned Dean's, we will offer him the opportunity to release the Falvey Report via email by 5:00pm Friday, as is his custom and wont to do with other important communiques. Our magnanimity requires us to hold on to our copy and allow the Dean to mitigate the damage so grievously inflicted upon his credibility and those he represents--and so grievously made visible by the ticker above.

Oh boy, I don't know the saddest part of this train wreck. Could it be the fact that they know the Board was to decide on releasing the report within weeks, but the foomees' patience was overcome by the narcissistic need to be at the center of their own self-created hostage-clock hype? This process has been going on for years, but I guess the boys at Foomair felt these next few weeks are make or break! Or could it be the fact that they've actually deluded themselves into thinking they are anything other than the press secretaries for a couple of aggravated employees on the losing side of a pointless power struggle. Sad, sad Foomees. They really jumped the shark on this one. Think my days of reading that blog are officially over.

Despite my disapproval of the tactics that have been employed by the anti-Florida crowd all along, I never took a position on whether Florida or Michigan would be better for the law school. I figured the BOG actually had the responsibility and ability to make an intelligent decision. Thanks to Foomair, I now have a dog in the fight: I can't wait for the Board to announce the move to Florida, and all the foomee angst that will follow. The clenched fists. The empty threats. The puffed-up pronoucements of reprisal. The begging and crying to the ABA (yes, the same guys who deep six pro-life judges) to save them.

And when the law school starts classes in Florida, and forgets about all the bad apples they left behind, I'll be laughing my rear off. Meanwhile, an intransigent handful of insurgent faculty will be starting their MI law school without the evil capitalist around. Financing will be tough, but hey, they'll have the Falvey Plan! If that doesn't work out, they can always seek alternative means to raise funds. As the state lottery says in my homestate, all you need is a "dollar and a dream."

from the "objective" MSM. Newsweek's most recent '08 poll, coincidentally timed to be released right around Hillary's announcement, shows her basically tied w/ McCain and Rudy. Thanks to Patrick Ruffini's analysis, we can see what the actual results would have been had the poll's sample had reflected the actual R/D % split that was observed in the last election (a mere three months ago).

Between taking a day off to watch the Ohio St.-Florida game, and then taking the time to write, debate, and pass this immensely important resolution (click here, search for "House Resolution 43", and select the first article that comes back), sems like Congress has really got its hands full. Although now that I think about it, is there perhaps some meaning to the fact that "Con"gress is literally the opposite of "Pro"gress??? More and more I really appreciate the value of small, local government!

Dick Morris, political gossip columnnist, has always been opinionated and is occasionally astute. That's what makes this prediction at least worth linking to:

"The top four candidates for the Republican nomination can’t win,” Morris said. "Rudy Giuliani, John McCain . . . Romney with all of the flip-flops on abortion and Newt Gingrich, who I don’t think gets into it.”

That leaves a cast of lesser-known Republicans in line for a surprise run toward the nomination.

"I think that the Republican nominee is going to be one of these minor leaguers: [Tom] Tancredo, [Mike] Huckabee, [Sam] Brownback, [Jim] Gilmore from Virginia, Duncan Hunter from California,” Morris said. "It’s like the pitching rotation is all going to be injured at the World Series and the Triple –A pitching staff, one of them is going to pitch the opening game.”

It's a rare day when a guy like Morris, who makes his money prediciting the political future, stakes his reputation on the real longshots. I guess we'll see if this works out better than the "Condi vs. Hillary" stuff he was peddling about a year ago.

Former OK Gov Frank Keating has declined to become another GOP candidate for Pres in '08 (reg reqd for article). Like Gilmore, Hunter and Huckabee, he would have been trying to position himself as the "true conservative" alternative to the current big 3. Robert Novak had reported in Dec that Keating was likely to run. Keating apparently got to the point of considering staffing and logistics for his campaign, and felt that he was too late to make a real impact, given the support that has already lined up behind Romney and McCain.

Here's Mitt on some key issues, from a National Review article linked on his exploratory committee website. I particularly think his answers on Iraq and Iran are insightful into his stance on these issues. I think he--more than any other candidate--will be able to form a comprehensive approach to attacking GWOT.

One disappointing thing, I'm surprised Mitt didn't think of this idea from newly elected lefty MA governor "Free 'em all" Deval Patrick. Although I'm confident in the ability of Deval and his policies to grate me 99% of the time, at least on this one he seems to have a good idea (and has irritated ACLU in the process, bonus points!)

for Jan '07 are out. This is a good indication of where general poll numbers are likely headed: the blogger community is the most "plugged-in" portion of the population. Bloggers have more information than the general public. By January '08, I wouldn't be surprised if the general polls reflect something a little more like this blogger poll.

wades into the race. So pronounceth MSNBC, breathlessly.

Found this link on Drudge.

This is great news for Hunter. Any second tier candidate needs good news like this to gain viability. Viability leads to cash money.

As for the supposed "front-runner," what can you say? This is an embarassment.

Of course, this is just a non-binding straw poll, from one county of the state. I don't want to blow it out of proportion. But for McCain to lose a straw poll to Hunter in his home state just shows how tepid McCain's support is.

Jeff Jacoby over at the BloGlo managed to get into print a column that wasn't a one-side thrashing of Mitt Romney's integrity. In fact, his words should help alleviate the fears of many conservatives who have been fed a steady diet of "don't trust the flipper" stories.

If after listening to Mitt, hearing about his personal story and family life, and listening to him outline his principles, you feel in your gut like he's got to be a true conservative, then Mr. Jacoby wants you to trust your gut. He has been following him since the '94 campaign, and he had this to say (bold emphasis is mine):

As a Senate candidate in 1994, Romney was at pains to portray himself as a liberal RINO -- a Republican In Name Only, smartly saluting Roe v. Wade and declaring that he would do more for gay rights than Ted Kennedy.

"Inhibited by a fear of being (gasp!) controversial," I wrote at the time, Romney "is tiptoeing through his campaign, determined to emit no 'shockers' and antagonize no voters." Voters didn't buy his act, and Romney lost in a landslide -- even as Republican Governor Bill Weld, running hard on an agenda of tax cuts, capital punishment, and workfare, was re elected in a cakewalk.

Romney's very public migration rightward over the last few years is a different kind of act, one intended not to hide his real views but to liberate them. In 1994, Romney struck me as an extraordinarily bright, talented, and decent man -- and a political neophyte who fell for the canard that the only way a conservative could win in Massachusetts was by passing for liberal.

Thirteen years later, Romney is where he should have been all along. Yes, it took some tap-dancing and artful dodging to get from there to here, and some voters will wonder which Mitt Romney, the 1994 edition or the one on offer today, is the real deal. Can he put those doubts to rest? If he's going to win his party's nomination, he'll have to.

A lot of folks who are supporting Rudy or McCain seem to want Mitt to issue some sort of grand mea culpa for his '94 statements. That would be silly. He's already said he's learned from experience. He doesn't need to grovel and put a lot more quotes out in the public record that focus on his words of 13 years ago--that would merely distract from the important issues he's running on now.

Mitt Romney has clearly angered the Boston Globe. The paper has made it its mission to fill the internet with hit pieces on Mitt ever since he's started to gain traction as a candidate.

Today's entry: Mitt lied on gun control!

ORLANDO , Fla. -- Former governor Mitt Romney, who once described himself as a supporter of strong gun laws, is distancing himself from that rhetoric now as he attempts to court the gun owners who make up a significant force in Republican primary politics.

In his 1994 US Senate run, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons.

"That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA," Romney told the Boston Herald in 1994.

At another campaign stop that year, he told reporters: "I don't line up with the NRA."

If you want to know where Mitt really stands on gun control, do the same thing you do on abortion. Look at his actions as governor in the most liberal state in the country. He received a "B" from the NRA as governor. If he had even the slightest inclination to ban guns, he could have pushed it through the MA legislature at the drop of a hat. Earning an NRA "F" would have been as easy as making a phone call over morning coffee.

As with other issues (like abortion), the Boston Globe has made the startling discovery that Mitt is not running for office exlusively in Massachusetts in 2008, but rather running nationwide. But let's take the Globe's criticism seriously. What if Mitt had decided to campaign in 1994 with the line, "I'm the NRA and the NRA is me?" His chance of defeating Teddy K (which might be the most noble cause in American politics, justifying any and all tactics) would have been zero. So you could say that the Globe's main criticism of Mitt is that he's not a political dummkopf.

Of course, the Globe's intent here isn't just to criticize Romney. It's to give fodder to the Giuliani and McCain folks on the internet, and to keep alive the "flip-flop" rhetoric and sink Mitt's campaign. The interesting question is why the Globe would want to help Giuliani and McCain, since you can bet they hate any GOP presidential contender just as much Romney.

My guess? They know that they couldn't sink Romney, despite their near monopoly on the print media in Boston. And they're threatened by the fact that he is the conservative candidate who may be most threatening to their liberal agenda over the long haul. Attacking Mitt on the web is the Globe's way of dialing 911 for anti-Romney reinforcements.

Cross-posted at RedState.com


Update #1:

Courtesy of mymanmitt.com, here's a link to more specific information on Romney's track record on 2nd amendment issues.

Update #2

In response to several comments to this post on RedState, I included this follow up:

"Any and all tactics" encompasses a lot of things that I couldn't endorse, like violent tactics. It was a little hyperbole to illustrate my dislike of the Tedster.

Having read some of the comments in this thread, I'd emphasize that I'm not trying to give Mitt a pass on inconsistencies (real or perceived) in his statements. Mitt can and must answer to those questions from those of us who (rightly) want to be sure that what we're buying is as-advertised. I'm confident that he'll be able to do so based on what I've seen so far.

The reason for this post had more to do with my curiosity as to why the Globe has it in for Mitt. Political agendas go a long way towards explaining it, but I think there's more there. The NY Times is just as ideologically driven, but isn't offering a hit piece per day on Rudy. Does that mean Rudy is a less threatening candidate to the left? Or that his image is just that untouchable? Is the BloGlo just more radical than the Times? Or is the BloGlo making a business decision that they're going to piggy-back on Mitt's new found national popularity to gain some additional moonbat readership?

One last point that I should have made above, but I'll make now. I've read a number of times on RedState folks saying stuff like they're "underwhelmed" with the field, or don't see a single candidate they like. I'd have to disagree. As I read, see, and hear from more of these candidates, I'm quite impressed with the entire field. I watched Huckabee's excellent interview on CSpan RttWH last night. I lived Rudy's excellent tenure as mayor and 9/11 leadership here in NY. Hunter is experienced on military issues and is credible on immigration and homeland security. Brownback is a good man and has an incredibly solid track record on the important social issues facing our nation.

Mitt's my candidate b/c of his issues, his proven ability to run organizations effectively (Bain/Olympics/MA), and because I think he has the right demeanor and rhetoric (not a dirty word) to be an optimistic, effective voice for conservativism. That said, when I look at the whole field, I'm 90% comfortable that whoever gets the GOP nomination will have my whole-hearted support.

This happened a few days ago, but hey, everybody's working for the weekend (so they can blog).

According to mymanmitt.com, the GOP held a Presidential straw poll in South Carolina (you know, a die-hard southern protestant state where a Mormon would never have a chance). Looks like it was the state's county executives who were the voters. The winner?

Have a look.

Having re-read the article, I guess the voters were members of the Aiken Country (SC) exec. committee.

Rep. Tom Tancredo, who as Cramer would say is "best of breed" on immigration policy, has entered the ring as an '08 Presidential contender. As I had privately noted to some of you, Rep. Tom has the "crazy eyes" that just make people think "Wingnut!"

I say this with all due respect, b/c on the issues, Tom's probably the 2nd or 3rd best man out there out of those (10,000 or so) that have announced they are running. Only Hunter and Gingrich are as solid on issues.

Tom probably does Duncan Hunter a favor, b/c now he'll probably get teamed up with Kucinich in the MSM as fringe congressman candidates, instead of Hunter. Tancredo will have his backers, and rightly so. He'll hold candidates feet to the fire on immigration (both illegal and legal--unlike the others who focus just on illegal), and prevent Rudy and McCain's pro-amnesty positions from going unchallenged.

That said, Tancredo does not, IMIO (intox), have a sliver of a prayer of a snowball's chance in hell of winning. I guess the Big Guns (BGs) of the conservative blogosphere, the editors at RedState, agree with me based on this post on RedHot:

Great. Now all we need is David Duke, George Pataki, Newt Gingrich, Gallagher, a ringmaster, a car for all the candidates to squeeze into, and a group of deranged midgets with clubs and rusty daggers, and we'll be all set.

If I were running Mitt's campaign, I would suggest he start visiting Iraq every 3-4 months and Afghanistan every 6 months. I would then make sure to hire a team of 2-3 foreign policy heavyweights to start formulating a clear policy for GWOT, Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, etc. Mitt will easily be able to speak intelligently and credibly on a lot of domestic policy issues, but will definitely need to bolster his foreign policy creds.

What do people think will be top issues in '08 campaign? Most likely (in no particular order), I'd guess:
1. Iraq (although it will be interesting to see where this is in '08 with two years of Dem congress)
2. Social issues (abortion, marriage, stem cells, ...)
3. Economy (unemployment, types of jobs in US, taxes, twin deficits, ...)
4. Terrorism (role of pre-emptive strikes, building democracies, US border control, wire-tapping, torture, ...)
5. Illegal immigration
6. Increasing burden of Medicare and Social Security

Feel free to participate!

Well, apparently the new Congress has already found some common ground: they're all a bunch of lazy bastards. Must be nice to collectively cancel work on a whim to watch college football. Or, you could do what I did: work a full day, then as a reward go home and watch the game. But apparently that's asking a lot.

National Review has been the one conservative outlet that's been fairly pro-Mitt from the start. David Frum, in his Diary blog, makes the case for why he thinks Mitt has a great chance to take the Presidency:

Romney has benefited from the secret issue in the 2008 presidential race: competence. Since Hurricane Katrina, Americans have lost faith in George W. Bush's ability to manage the government. In every poll conducted after the summer of 2005, about 60% of Americans describe Bush as "ineffective." Suddenly, everybody wants a president who can make government work.

Amazingly, though, hardly any of the leading 2008 candidates have ever run anything bigger than a senator's office. John McCain? The former pilot, congressman and senator has zero administrative experience. Hillary Clinton? She had a good view of how the White House is run—but no responsibility for running it. Barack Obama? A former community activist, state legislator and two-year veteran of the U.S. Senate—zilch. Al Gore? He's in the same situation as Hillary Clinton. Tom Vilsack, the Democratic governor of Iowa, and Mike Huckabee, Republican governor of Arkansas, are both super long shots.In fact, only two candidates in the race have ever successfully managed a large organization: Rudy Giuliani and . . . Mitt Romney.

...

Romney's record is not so well known as Giuliani's. But in its own sphere, it is as impressive. In 1984, Romney launched a venture capital firm that funded, among other successes, a startup called Staples. Over his 14 years at the firm, he earned an annual return of 113%. When the 2002 Olympics tumbled into scandal and financial crisis, the state of Utah called on Romney—and the games finished with a US$100-million profit.Romney had unsuccessfully challenged Ted Kennedy for a Massachusetts Senate seat in 1994. In 2002, he ran for the governorship. He inherited a US$3-billion deficit; over the next four years, he balanced the state's budget without raising taxes.

These facts, impressive as they are, do not quite convey Romney's appeal. Romney built his business success on a voracious appetite for data, a willingness to hear contrary opinions and a cool and deliberate decision-making style. Although his politics broadly align with George W. Bush's, his intellectual and managerial style could not differ more.

Potentially exciting news from Wake Forest, showing results from stem cells taken from amniotic fluid without destroying embryos.

So it seems to be a lock that Bush will propose sending another ~20,000 troops to Iraq. I have a very difficult time understanding the use of this; it seems to be wrong on so many levels. First, when making a move such as this I think it is essential to heavily weigh opinion of senior military officials. However, as best I can tell, there is no clear call from the military for 20,000 more troops. This number is useless - it is not a large enough increase to effect the kind of change they need (e.g,. secure the borders, lock down Baghdad, protect oil pipeline and field infrastructure, etc.) You'd probably need 200,000 more troops to do that, which we don't have.

Second, there does not seem to be any clear mission for these increased troops. This is what really bothers me. If the policy were to increase troop levels by 'x' amount to specifically accomplish task 'y', and the level of strength seemed appropriately matched for the goal, then I'm all for it. But with no clear objective, and with what seems to be a less-than-sufficient increase if stability is your goal, I am hard pressed to see why this additional strain on military is the best possible use of troops to protect U.S. I just don't think the reason that we're not having as much success as we'd like in rebuilding is because we're 20,000 troops short (which represents a small increase of just ~14%). Not to mention the rules of engagement make it nearly impossible for our military to do its job properly, and nation-building is not what they were trained to do as we've discussed on this blog before, so without any change in policy it doesn't seem that more troops (at this small level) will help.

As this article indicates, Romney is being slammed by everyone in the GOP field. It's interesting to me that Mitt's the primary target right now, and not the so-called "front runners." That tells me 3 things:

1) The second tier candidates feel Mitt has more support than the polls would indicate.

2) They view Mitt as vulnerable.

3) At this point, they view Mitt's candidacy as a more immediate obstacle to their own campaigns than the supposed front-runners.

Here's what has your Senators preoccupied: how close can they sit to the candy stash.

Well, it's a little early to call it, but I'd say MSM is lining up behind Billary '08 against Obama. Yesterday was CNN. Today is MSNBC/WaPo story about Obama's admission of past cocaine use. I'm thinking the coronation is starting to take shape... Watch for it.

Well, the Clinton News Network remained true to its name, see here. Working overtime for Hillary this time instead of Bill, they "accidentally" called Osama "Obama".. Classic.

I continue to think that the next 3-6 months will determine Mitt's fate. If he's going head-to-head w/ Rudy and McCain, he might win. If he's got to fend off attacks from his right, from legitimate SoCons like Brownback, Keating, or Hunter (if any of them get traction), he's done. And the news keeps getting worse for Mitt. Not because of what other people are doing, but because of the continuous drip-drip-drip of people comparing what he said in the '90s with what he's saying now.

This blog ran a Lexis search and came back with a bunch of quotes from Mitt circa '94 where he was opposing the Contract with America. Apparently, he thought the conservative revolution was too partisan, and he opposed cutting capital gains taxes, among other things. Human Events chronicled some Romney statements, with an eye towards inconsistencies, here.

Clearly, there are going to be conservatives unwilling to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who is so -- and I'll be generous here -- pragmatic. I'm still impressed with Romney's ability to be an effective Republican spokesman, his attention to detail, his understanding of the global business environment, his opposition to amnesty, and his professed care for conservative social issues. To be fair, Mitt hasn't even announced yet, so with the exception of a few fanatical supporters in the blogosphere, the Mitt coverage has been pretty one-sided against him to this point. Maybe that will change once he's promoting himself full-time. But Romney's negatives are building. There are going to be plenty of SoCons out there who look at the "Big 3" and just see 3 moderates, and that will be an insurmountable problem for Mitt.

Exposing their own charade of impartiality, Layton and Eilperin continue the WaPo misinformation campaign on stem cells. It wasn't the focus of their article, mind you, but they just have to slip it in whenever they can. I guess the theory is that once readers have seen the same dreck enough times, it will start to sound true. From the article,

House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours. They include...allowing more research on stem cells.

Oh, the Democrats plan to allow more research, eh? That'll be great. I can't wait for them to lift the ban on...eh...um...hmm...oh, that's right, there currently are no restrictions on stem cell research of any kind.

Of course, what they are referring to, albeit with intentionally loose and misleading language, is that the federal government has mandated that tax dollars won't be spent on research that destroys human embryos, with the exception of a group of lines that had already been created (and the embryos already destroyed) before the President's executive order. The President was under some misguided notion that the people shouldn't be forced to pay for research that millions of them consider tantamount to killing a human being.

They also gloss over the fact that the federal government continues to make funds available for adult stem cell research. You know, the research that is not ethically questionable. Oh yeah, and it also happens to be the form of stem cell research that has actually produced results.

Thought a quick update was in order of who is in and who is out in the GOP race for the Presidential nomination.

IN:

McCain
Rudy
Romney
Gilmore
Brownback
Hunter
Thompson
Keating

Out:

Allen
Frist
Hagel
Santorum
Jeb
Tancredo
Condi

TBD:

Pataki (Don't bother)
Huckabee
Sanford
Gingrich

Back to the Times you know and love. The Anchoress has it covered.

Here's the skinny: a freelance reporter submits a story to the Times stating that a woman in El Salvador received a jail sentence of 30 years for having an illegal abortion. Only problem is, the testimony in court was that she had actually strangled her infant to death, after she'd given birth.

Never willing to let the facts get in the way of a good political action line, the Times ran to press with the story anyway. After getting a flood of reader complaints pointing out the inaccuracy of the story, the managing editors responded with a letter to the complainers, telling them to drink a nice warm glass of shut the heck up.

Finally, their own ombudsman, Byron Calame, had to condemn the reporting and editing. He offered up this little gem: "Accuracy and fairness were not pursued with the vigor Times readers have a right to expect."

Don't worry, Mr. Calame, it absolutely met my expectations.

May '07 be full of blessings for all of you.