I don’t like Romney because he is a two-face and because his decisions and his associations peg him as a liberal, a panderer, and a stooge for banksters and globalists. And since I think he is a two-face, I don’t care what he has to “say” about his claimed johnny come lately conversion to social conservatism because I have no reason to believe he is not lying, just to garner some votes from the gullible.

Now if he wants to spend the next seven years working hard to promote and protect social conservative issues and donate some of his wealth to real social conservative causes, And distance himself from the CFR, the CFR’s policy positions, and purge his campaign staff of CFR agents of influence, then I will accept his conversion as authentic.

By his fruit I will judge him. But somehow I doubt he will change his stripes.

Being from the west, I can understand how you fail to recognize the importance of traditional family values as taught in the churches of the South and their standing as a bulwark of traditionalist Southern conservative ideology. And when I say “the Churches” I am referring to the Baptist Churches and closely related churches which are the dominant churches of the south. Unlike the Catholic north and west, the south is dominated by Baptist Theology which affects people’s politics more profoundly than does the Catholic Theology in most of the rest of the country. The issues of life, marriage, suicide, the death penalty, and religious freedom dominate here, not just in the pulpit, but in the congregation and Southern society at large.

Whereas the Republicans of the north are dominated by the finance and country club crowd often with their illegal nannies and little use for moral issues like abortion.

And the Republicans of the west are dominated by the let it all hang out, do whatever feels good and leave me alone crowd.

And those in the middle states are dominated by those who mainly care about lowering their taxes and raising their farm subsidy.

Of all of these groups the largest who have been consistently in the GOP camp are those in the Traditionalist Southern States.

Have a look at this map of dominant religious groups:

Unlike the north and the west whose practice of religion is mainly ceremonial and lukewarm at best. The beliefs of the people of the south go to their core and for most of them it is central to their life style, their politics, their families, and the education of their children. Here it is not just a Sunday ritual forgotten by lunch time, it is a life long, life changing commitment.

So for Southern Christians to see a man who claims to be a Christian but bears little or no christian fruit with his life or his money and instead panders to groups that support vice and global governance in furtherance of (he hopes) his political career, this has a tendency to make some people vomit.

And let me had here that political battles are not won on logical or legal arguments as you have attempted do in your defense of Romney, they are won through effective marketing of a valuable product and it doesn’t matter how pretty you dress up your product or how sweet its music is to your ears, if it stinks of the sewer, it doesn’t sell.

BTW when I say Christian Conservative, I don’t mean a conservative who happens to be Christan maybe one day a week, I mean a Christian who is conservative in his/her theology every day of the week and in everything he or she does.

as previously stated and for your benefit, and reiterated in context of both analogous and narrative forms:

You wrote:

The problem with Romney is… That he is seen by some as a “social conservative” that Northerners and Westerners can like. But social conservatives actually saw him not as a fellow social conservative…[Romney] madereal social conservatives and especially Christian Conservatives vomit

my emphasis added

Let’s be clear… the conservative factions within the GOP are generally categorized as Economic conservatives, Defense conservatives and Social conservatives.

Based on your comments, I deduced that its clear you see the Southern GOP base as a) “THE social conservative movement” and b)that the souther GOP base is ONLY rooted in social conservatism.

only to be proven correct as you further clarified in your response:

“Republicans just don’t seem to like the man. Now Democrats and the mushy middle in the north on the other hand… Yeah, they love him.”

I feel that your premise is false on both counts.

There are many Westerners and Northners that are social conservatives, and secondarily there are many in the Southern GOP base that are equally if not more so concerned about economic and defense policy than they are about social conservatism.

I for one do not believe that it is the wisest thing for someone so clearly defined as yourself to pretend to speak for “Republicans” let alone your view of what constitutes “The Southern GOP Base”.

But so you may rest at ease let me explain for you plainly the context of my message below:

There isn’t a “Southern GOP base” so much as there is a base of southerners that consider themselves social conservatives that object to Romney on his “recent” conversion to abortion rights…

It was in response to your final statement:

“Romney can never win the Southern GOP base and probably can’t win the west either.”

Given the context of your entire comment in which I was replying to was that Romney apparently made “Real Christian Social Conservatives in the South” vomit and therefore they could never vote for him because “Real Christian Social Conservatives in the South” aren’t like “westerners or notherners” that may like Romney… one may come to the conclusion that you view yourself as a “Real Christian Social Conservative in the South” that vomits at the mention of Romney…

You obviously nailed the CFR claim:

Regarding: CFR.
Romney’s CFR membership is an open secret. He denies it but surrounds himself with CFR members, appears on their site, and speaks at their functions and tracks with them on issues. He is a very, very close associate of the CFR.

Aside from the obvious lack of evidence beyond your arbitrary and anecdotal attempt to paint Romney as some sort of CFR member in cloak and dagger…

a) Romney has also spoken at many gatherings of social conservatives and if we use your “guilt by association” logic, that would mean that the FRC is only one hop away from the CFR by letting alleged CFR members speak at their conventions. Sound silly doesn’t it?

The links you provided are to Christian Conservative sites that claim Romney is tied to the homosexual agenda with a host of unchallenged assumptions about his statements using suggestive language to paint Romney as a Gay pride activist… this is plain and simple bias.

I have many questions in my mind as to why you didn’t just come out and say… “i’m a southern christian that considers himself a real social conservative not like westerners and notherners that claim to be social conservatives… and frankly I vomit at the mention of Romney because I have been led to believe that a) many people suspect he’s a member of the CFR… but I’m not quite sure if he is, only that he talks to “official members” so I’ve heard, but I can’t produce any information specifically on this when I’m asked to, b) he’s politically involved with homosexual groups that have endorsed him such as “Log Cabin Republicans” in his previous political campaigns and this bothers me a great deal to the point that I need to vomit.”…

Now that I’ve parsed the context of our disagreements in narrative, let’s speak plainly concerning your delusional egotist vision of granduer for yourself…

Your “racist straw man” argument has nothing to do with the simple analogy of the context of my statement…

I drew an analogy of bigotry to the real and perceived bias against Romney for his Mormonism in the south using a hypothetical thought experiment… This analogy is appropriate, not in the context of the GOP in the South, but in the context of what YOU are calling the “Southern GOP Base”… note the quotations?

The “victim card” as you say is not being pulled… and yet, I can’t quite determine if you mean “victim card” in the context of Romney’s mormonism and the bigotry he faces, or the plain bigotry of racism?

I’m curious if you would hypothetically support a Mormon in a presidential race that you deemed “socially conservative” enough, or is this impossible to conceive for a “Christian Conservative” such as yourself?

Don’t look at me… It wasn’t me that labored to point out “real social conservatives and especially Christian Conservatives”…

Why… what ever did you mean when you said [Romney] made … especially Christian Conservatives vomit”?

I’d really like to know that… because

a) I’m from the West
b) I’m a social conservative
c) I’m a Christian
and
d) I think Romney is sincere in his conversion to social conservatism

Although I think 2012 is too far to determine who to endorse… I think if Romney wins the GOP nomination… I can tell you I won’t go kicking and screaming to the polls to vote “not obama”.

you see… the null hypotheses of your statement…”Romney can never win the Southern GOP base and probably can’t win the west either.”… where the context of your comments would lead one to believe that you view the “Southern GOP Base” as “real social conservatives and especially Christian Conservatives” seems like it doesn’t pass the reality test does it?

I’ll let you answer for yourself…

….

on a personal note… you claim that I have been divisive based on a comment I made regarding libertarians in the GOP… This is in actuality a straw-man argument…

the premise of my comments in a previous post were not of division, but inclusion of libertarians with exceptions…to the debate of freedom being the core of the GOP’s re-prioritization.

you see… many libertarians seem to think that they represent the conservative base to the GOP, however, conservatives know that there are some fundamental differences between conservatives and libertarians… my suggestion to libertarians in the context was if they didn’t like the “two party” system in the U.S. they may attempt to build their social agenda in another country… there’s nothing divisive about that… its reality, and I was suggesting that taking an extremist’s view of individualism won’t win and can’t reverse our glide towards socialism.

The GOP’s agenda isn’t exactly “divisive” in the context I used it… such as racism or religious bigotry… you see these are divisions in the human condition… not the social contract… this equates to a fundamental difference…

I think its a little odd that you clearly spent the time reading and combing through my comments looking for a straw-man argument while accusing me of utilizing strawman arguments… weird…

well… have at this one… I won’t be bothering with another response… such as this… points made and all… if you wish to ask honest questions… you’ll get honest answers… I give you of course the last word if you wish

One would hope that you don’t view me as the enemy to your ideology.. but one who challenges you to shape and define it more clearly…

happy blogging…

Your whole treatise on the Palin Defense fund is an absolute lie. The mechanism for having the State defend ethics charges is built into the law. All the Governor had to do was ask the AG to certify that she was acting within the purview of her official duties as Governor and the State indemnifies the Governor - or any other state official.

The very idea that you would try and pass off the notion that she’s done the State a favor by not requesting certification from the AG is simply stupid and the idea that private citizens should pay for her legal defense, diverting money that could better go to Republicans trying to win House and Senate seats is absolutely insulting.

Indemnification for official actions is not some unique concept to Alaska. You fools act like nobody’s ever heard of indemnification. It’s common at every state, the federal level, cities and towns indemnify their police officers and every corporation of any size indemnifies their directors and officers. Typically, the only reason any jurisdiction or corporation will not indemnify their officers is if the officer is guilty of a crime or of acting in bad faith.

You people - and I use that term very loosely - are simply pathetic.

First, to answer the question if there is a legal defense fund for Palin the answer is yes, and the official one appears to be at http://www.thealaskafundtrust.com

Sarah’s official (SarahPAC), semi-official, and fan sites all seem to link to this site. It does declare that it is the official site.

By googling ‘Palin Legal Defense Fund’ I discovered not only the fund web site itself but also news reports stating that the fund has already raised over $100,000 in one week.

Note that anybody can set up a trust anywhere and declare that the purpose of the trust is to pay Palin’s (or anybody else’s) legal fees. Or for any other legal purpose. But the purpose we are discussing is a legal defense fund for Palin and an official one does exist. The Alaska Fund Trust was organized and filed as a legal entity in the state of Alaska, curiously enough. Sarah Palin (not ‘the Governor of Alaska’) is explicitly named as a ‘Covered Individual’ who can benefit from the trust. Other ‘Covered Individuals’ may benefit from the trust, too, at the trustee’s discretion. No others are named in the original document however. Note that Sarah could throw a screaming fit against this idea, but it would not prevent such a trust from being organized. Trust organizers, after all, have civil rights, too.

The sole trustee and settlor in the trust document is declared to be Kristan Cole who is a real estate broker in Wasilla. She appears to be a business and community leader in the area if you google her name. She appears to have done all the legal organization of the trust on her own (besides the attys and witnesses, notaries, etc. needed to make the trust instrument fully legal). I would have found a couple of extra trustees to serve with me, but I have no argument against a single trustee.

As I note above, anybody can set up a trust for any legal purpose and even if Palin wanted to, she could not prevent friends or even strangers from setting up a trust to raise funds for her benefit. It is currently, ‘somewhat’ of a free country, although we see that rapidly diminishing!

Examining the trust document available on the web site, I did not delve too deeply into it, but simply satisfied myself that Palin herself is not one of the trustees. She is not. There is only one trustee and that is Cole.

I’d also note at this point that unless Palin was foresighted enough to include such a provision in her agreement to retain legal the services that the State of Alaska cannot provide for her, her counsel probably has the option to accept payments on her behalf against her legal bills at their own option. I know I would be pleased to do so if I were representing her. They would then render her a credit on her next bill and her legal fee balance owing would be reduced accordingly. I would not be at all surprised if this turns out to be the eventual case for most of the firms representing her (there may be more than one, as there are so many ethics complaints).

One very nice feature of the AFT web site is that the visitor is given the opportunity to compare the Alaska Fund Trust with the trusts creating the legal defense funds of Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Stevens, DeLay and Gephardt. According to the web site’s claim, no other legal defense fund compared has more restrictions on who can contribute, or how much, than AFT does, and the presented comparison does indeed seem to be accurate.

I highly recommend reading the list of restrictions on contributing to AFT. It is obviously intended to be a grassroots effort and is so structured.

The contribution limit is $150.00 and contributions are accepted ONLY from individuals, not companies, PACs, unions or other entities.

Why should we expect her to have to rely on a legal defense fund?
Because if she establishes a record of paying the lion’s share of the legal fees herself, then the liberal exploding heads will shout with glee and file even more trivial ethics complaints and eventually bankrupt her. Everybody else uses legal defense funds, and so should she.

Why isn’t the State of Alaska paying her legal bills?
Because that would produce even more ethics complaints against her. No sense in inviting more trouble. Politicians must defend themselves from most ethics complaints, and you can bet that the complaints actually filed are designed to be ones that the State of Alaska is legally prevented from defending her from.

After all, if you were Soros or one of his clever minions, would you not prefer to file ethics complaints where Alaska law says defendants cannot be defended with public funds? If you were the attorney filing such a complaint would you expect to get such work again if you chose a complaint that could be defended with public funds? Would you be considered worthy of your fee if you did not advise your liberal exploding head client that the proposed complaint could be defended with public monies before the complaint was actually filed?

C’mon folks, think! The other guys obviously are. I think those atty types call this due diligence.

Why does she need outside counsel?
Because defending against ethics charges is a process of law, and you need your own attorneys to investigate the facts, gather testimony, investigate the opposition, discover documents that relate to the defense, and refute documents that incline towards the opposition. You can’t use phone bank volunteers to do this, you must have attorneys to file answers in court for you. In most states, only ‘officers of the court’ are allowed to make official filings with any measure of credibility.

As stated above, trying to get the State of Alaska to defend her would result in even more ethics complaints and would be a good example of a self-licking ice cream cone.

In a final google search to determine if there were any counterfeit sites claiming falsely to be the official Palin defense fund site, I did not discover any apparent imposters, but I did discover a report on the Huffington Post that an ethics complaint had been filed in Alaska against Gov. Sarah Palin that her legal defense fund is in itself an ethics violation (it is not – if Clinton, Clinton, Rangel, Dodd, Kerry and all the others can have legal defense funds accepting $10,000 - $15,000 a pop from anyone including corporations, unions and so forth, then Sarah can have one accepting $150 from individuals only. Besides, Sarah could not have prevented organization of this trust even if she had wanted to!!) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/27/palin-legal-fund-challeng_n_192044.html).

This complaint shows just how far the opposition will go to try to paralyze the Palin administration. I think she was wise to resign, whatever her ambitions for service or privacy may be in the future.

Alaska can back to the enjoyable task of being Alaska now.

I think we would be very wise to contribute to her defense fund if we would like to see her in public life in the future.

Ron Robinson

And in case I missed it, I don’t see that Frmr. Gov. Palin had that much trouble spending money on public works. Therefore, the question is still valid: why does she prefer to raise money through a fund that could go towards other uses, rather than using Alaskan funds? After all, if she is such a boon for the state, would it not be a worthwhile investment on the part of its citizens to protect her from frivolous lawsuits, or at least more worth it than government funded local projects? BTW, I don’t know the answer to those questions, good or bad, but none of the answers I’ve seen given by Palin supporters who have ventured to give it a shot so far have made much sense (except for the intellectually honest IDK answers), so it’s rather absurd for such to preemptively declare victory in the argument.

You say there isn’t a Southern GOP base? … which part of this map don’t you get?

Regarding: CFR.
Romney’s CFR membership is an open secret. He denies it but surrounds himself with CFR members, appears on their site, and speaks at their functions and tracks with them on issues. He is a very, very close associate of the CFR.

Regarding “divisive” commentary. Imagine if you had said to libertarians in the GOP; “get over it… the system is beyond your theoretical world, work with what you have to reduce as much government as you can, and if you don’t like it… try another country”. Oh yeah. you did say that didn’t you:
http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2009/05/22/conservatisms-essential-element/#comment-3768

And pinning my name on a racist straw man so you can knock him down is not a legitimate response to my pointing out that Romney has no GOP base from which to draw. Republicans just don’t seem to like the man. Now Democrats and the mushy middle in the north on the other hand… Yeah, they love him.

So please don’t.

And as to the Vichy Rs, the fundraising star can have considerable influence over where the funding goes.

My wishful thinking of them having a hasty/nasty demise doesn’t seem to be working. Even though we all know how biased and dishonest they are.

I will support Palin in any decision she makes, this to me shows what a statesman/woman should be. Her stepping down was a matter of integrity not expedience… and i’m with you Josh on the calling out of fools…

I’m not aware of any homosexual groups he “endorsed”. I’d like to see your information on that.

finally…

There isn’t a “Southern GOP base” so much as there is a base of southerners that consider themselves social conservatives that object to Romney on his “recent” conversion to abortion rights…

all other objections such as the one you’re asserting come from the fringe of southern christians that seem to object to Romney for being a Mormon…

I feel your comments like this are divisive… imagine you stating that Michael Steele could never carry the “Southern GOP base” because of race… race or religion its bigotry… get a head check man…

Romney can never win the Southern GOP base and probably can’t win the west either.

He would sure beat the hell out of the current occupant of the WH.