« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Mitt Romney and The Advice of Evil Men

Reasons To Doubt Mitt Romney Is Pro-Life

Mitt Romney's Advisor On The Environment

Once upon a time, on a totally non-political day, during a non-political speech amidst his taxpayer-funded and non-political bus tour, Mein Obama offered us the following non-political discourse.

“The Republican plan says that what’s been standing in the way between us and full employment are laws that keep companies from polluting as much as they want,” Obama said in a speech at the regional airport in Asheville, N.C., on Monday…..“My plan says we’re going to put teachers back in the classroom, construction workers back to work rebuilding America, rebuilding our schools, tax cuts for small businesses, tax cuts for hiring veterans, tax cuts if you give your worker a raise,” said Obama. “That’s my plan. Then you’ve got their plan, which is, let’s have dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance. So far at least, I feel better about my plan.”

What Our Fearless Teleprompter forgot to mention is that Republicans want to have fewer people as well. That claim could be made of at least one GOP candidate for the White House in 2012. The validity of this depends upon how seriously he takes the advice of Harvard Professor and advocate for human population reduction, Dr. John Holdren, who now works for President Obama. Dr. Holdren, like ObamaCare, is yet another idea that President obama has cribbed off of Republican Candidate, Mitt Romney.

What advice would Eminent Harvard Scholar and current advisor to the president on science and technology offer to Former Governor Romney? Investor’s Business Daily describes Dr. Holdren’s philosophical bent below.

Holdren’s bizarre views are best suited for an adviser to someone like, say, Pol Pot. He views humanity as a plague on the planet and the Industrial Revolution as a tragic mistake. The fewer people, he believes, the better, and he’s not shy about the ways he would use to reduce their number.

Long before he became Mitt Romney’s advisor in Massachusetts, Holdren co-authored Human Ecology Problems and Solutions with Paul and Anne Erlich (of Population Bomb fame). In the introduction of this book, the three Ecologists wrote the following.

Even achieving the necessary transition to stable population size and stable resource consumption will not mean the end of ecological problems, however. Supporting a constant world population smaller than today’s at a material standard of living lower than that now enjoyed in the United States would still require constant vigilance if the quality of the Earth’s life support systems were to be maintained.

The man not only seeks to tell you how to live your life, he seeks to decide whether your children will even be allowed to exist. In 1977, he wrote Ecoscience. He again co-authored with the charming and talented Erlichs. In this particular tome, he called for the following.

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.

(HT: Zombietime.com)

And yet Mitt Romney claims to be a Pro-Life Conservative. A child asked him what he thought about abortion while he campaigned in New Hampshire. He responded as follows.

Romney reaffirmed that he was “firmly pro-life” after a young child asked him for his position on abortion: “This is a tender and sensitive issue, and people – good people – come out on both sides of this issue,” he said. “I respect people that have different views on this issue.” He added that he’d like to see the Supreme Court overturn Roe vs. Wade “and return to the states the authority to decide whether they want to have abortion or not.”

Yet, while he ran for Senate in 1994, he was asked about abortion during a debate and said the following:

I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law, and the right of a woman to make that choice, and my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign.

On another issue near and dear to Holdren, Mitt Romney compiled the following environmental record.

To curb global warming, Romney supports regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, primarily through voluntary measures. He issued a 72-point Climate Protection Plan. His staffers spent more than $500,000 negotiating the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI—pronounced “Reggie”), which Romney praised in November 2005, saying “I’m convinced it is good business.” As plan details were being worked out, Romney began pushing for a cap on fees charged to businesses who exceed emission limits, citing concerns of increased consumer energy costs. He stated: “New England has the highest energy rates in the country, and RGGI would cost us more.” This ongoing disagreement eventually led Romney, in December 2005, to pull out of RGGI. Nevertheless, in 2011 he stated, “I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that.”

(HT: Wikipedia)

He now runs far away from these previous positions he held on abortion and global warming. He even claims to want CO2 stripped from the EPA’s list of regulated airborne pollutants under the current Clean Air Act. But given, his past stances on these issues, and given the man who he hired to offer him advice on them, I see no reason to trust him. When Mitt Romney claims to be anti-abortion and pro-environmental deregulation, the question he needs to be asked is this. “If these are your beliefs, Mr. Romney, why would you ever have asked Dr. John Holdren to help you on these issues with his “advice?”

COMMENTS

  • flipflopper

    I don’t think there can be any doubt the Romney is personally pro life. He is a devout Mormon and Mormon’s are extremely anti-abortion. In fact, there was a recent article in the New York Times that includes first hand accounts of people who interacted with Romney when he was their Bishop. One is from a feminist who was Mormon at the time (not anymore) who was going to get an abortion. Mitt was apparently very adament about her not doing it and tried to pursuade her to reconsider.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/us/politics/for-romney-a-role-of-faith-and-authority.html

    It is my understanding thatMitt has always been pro life personally, but was not sure of government’s role in the matter. His view now with respect to government is pro life and I have not heard him go back to a pro abortion stance since his “conversion”.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      So I’m supposed to believe Romney would consider Paris worth the mass?

      • jackdaniels11

        I think that it is worth noting that both Bishop Romney and Henry IV have had to re-consider their previous beliefs at key points in their lives.

        But let’s not belabour the point too much. After all, there is a candidate in the race who actually DID renounce Protestantism for Catholicism and it’s not Bishop Romney.

        Guesses? OK, fine. It’s Newt Gingrich, who was re-baptized on March 29, 2009. He was quoted as saying, “Washington vaut bien une messe.” (“Washington is well worth a Mass”)

        Then you have Herman Cain, who was against the 9-9-9 plan before he was for it.

        A lot of Republicans have had to re-evaluate the positions on issues. I think that flipflop correctly points out that Romney’s position on abortion has always been a genuine personal abhorrence. Romney’s evolution on the issue is similar to my own. He has gone from having an objection to government interference with the woman’s decision to developing a strong belief that the life of the unborn child outweighs the personal liberty issue.

    • acat

      He’s a mormon, right?

      I’ll bet Bart Stupak’s pretty pro-life in his private life, too.

      Let me make this simple for you. There are candidates who take on conservative trappings to win elections, and there are candidates whose conservatism shines through whatever trappings they have.

      I want the second kind. Mitt ain’t.

      Mew

      • Repair_Man_Jack

        http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/17/elizabeth-warren-im-going-for-the-hick-vote/

        Lizzy Warren trolling for ‘The Hick Vote.”

      • flipflopper

        who would you consider a candidate whose “conservatism shines through whatever trappings they have”?

        • acat

          This round, the closest we’ve got are Cain and Perry.
          Mitt’s well down the list, behind Ron Paul.

          Ever? Reagan. Hands down. There was no doubt where he stood.

          Mew

          • georgekent

            After Ronald Reagan, GHWBush said his would be another term for RR. He even told people to read his lips and made promises about taxes he never intended to keep. People believed him but GHWBush was a RINO and he never got a second term. Then came good ol’ Bob Dole, another RINO who people refused to elect. Finally, along came GWBush who lied about being a conservative but was really a RINO and who lost the USSenate as well as the USHouse and who finally set things up so well that the WhiteHouse was lost when good ol’ RINO John McCain faced BHObama. The common thread is that RINOs make real bad candidates, RINOs cannot be trusted, RINOs will say anything but in the end violate the public trust. If Mitt Romney is the Republican candidate, many will stay away because he is a RINO and cannot be trusted even though he will be portrayed as being “at least better than BHObama”. That is bad thinking though because a RINO in office is nothing but a place holder for the next liberal to come along.

          • macwell

            What is a rino?
            We say republican in name only, but isn’t that just another name for career politician?
            Imho, it’s all of the career politicians that have set up this nightmare we call congress. Congress, it sounds very proper, very serious, C O N G R E S S. Congress is supposed to be the place where we the people’s business gets done. Instead it’s a joke. Trading votes like so many baseball cards. These people, (both democrat and republican), have set themselves up pretty good. They’re well paid, yet their perks are worth more than their salaries. They work little, but make a big show out of the little time they do work.
            We the people MUST send a clear message next year. We MUST rid America from the REAL scourge that is killing us, CAREER POLITICIANS. We MUST revert to the model the founders gave us, citizen government. We have been made to believe that there is some political class out there who are the only ones qualified to run government, that is a lie. Regular people could and would do a better job because they have something I’ve never seen in a politician, common sense!
            Please Sarah, reconsider
            America NEEDS you!

      • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

        In 1976 the Church of Jesus Christ released this as an official position:

        Church Issues Statement on Abortion

        To reaffirm the policy of the Church concerning abortion, the First Presidency is publishing the following official statement on this subject:

        ?The Church opposes abortion and counsels its members not to submit to, be a party to, or perform an abortion except in the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or health of the woman is seriously endangered or where the pregnancy was caused by forcible rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the victim. Even then it should be done only after counseling with the local bishop or branch president and after receiving divine confirmation through prayer.

        ?Abortion is one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day, when we are witnessing the frightening evidence of permissiveness leading to sexual immorality.

        ?Members of the Church guilty of being parties to the sin of abortion are subject to the disciplinary action of the councils of the Church as circumstances warrant. In dealing with this serious matter, it would be well to keep in mind the word of the Lord stated in the 59th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, verse 6, ?Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it.?

        ?As far as has been revealed, the sin of abortion is one for which a person may repent and gain forgiveness.?

        The counsel a “Bishop” or “Branch President” would be the same, which is to make it a personal choice after seeking diving guidance on what is best. Doctrinally we believe in a pre-existence, and we understand that there is a “greater” plan to the family or ‘non-family’ situations we are born into. This is why we don’t take the traditional “hard-liner” 0 abortions ever approach.

        We also have a grand respect to personal accountability in our decisions… and as you can see this 1976 position left some room for the idea that there may be exceptions to the rule, but they should be rare.

        Mitt had a very personal family situation, where I believe a cousin or second cousin or a friend of the family died while performing an illegal abortion… this of course drove the attitude to protect the liberty of a woman’s right to choose, while preaching the correctness of choosing life, thereby not legislating away liberty…

        I see where Harry Reid takes comfort in the fact that he is “protecting” liberty… I see why Romney suggested he’s “personally pro-life” but would Govern in a way not to overturn Roe. V. Wade.

        I do take him at his word that he’s figured out the failure of his thought process, as clearly Roe v. Wade has justified more abortions than the “rare” qualifier our faith would teach. It’s clear you can’t legislate morality… but you can legislate based on moral issues that would prevent abuse of abortion…

        Just about every Mormon politician will have a hard time explaining that position to those that believe there should be ZERO abortions ever…

        Me personally… My sister was raped at a young age, and of her own accord she was counseled on her options either way, and she chose life and put the baby up for adoption… I was an avowed atheist at the time, and yet I saw the wisdom in choosing life.

        I don’t see any situation where the Lord doesn’t have a plan one way or another… but that’s the extremity of my personal faith conversion carving out a political position. I see where some may defend liberty to the nth degree… and they believe that each will account for themselves at judgement day…or maybe they simply don’t believe in a judgement day, but they fall one side or another regarding liberty over legislated morality….

        I also see the argument that we should let the dice roll, and see what life delivers, or fails…

        but its clear that in either policy there will be one-offs that are offensive to both sides of the argument. Thus I can see where others are coming from… I just don’t agree with the analysis due to my faith in God. but that’s a personal experience, and I don’t expect everyone else to see things the way I do on matters of personal faith.

        As for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, here is the updated official position:

        The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.

        The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:

        Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
        A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
        A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

        The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.

        The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.

        For more See here And if you want to know more about the position of “Immigration”, “Stem Cell Research”, “Same Gender Attraction”, “Same Sex Marriage”, etc. just search for it… and look for “Official Statement”.

        • jackdaniels11

          You have brought so much clarity to this issue with your well-drafted responses.

        • acat

          I am, again, enlightened.

          My point, regarding Harry Reid, was to emphasize that members of a given religion don’t necessarily embrace all of its’ beliefs.

          Had the question been regarding Santorum, for instance, my reply would have involved Nancy Pelosi,

          Mew

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            I would presume the answer is somewhat similar in the Santorum/Pelosi case… but I think Pelosi has been outright called out for the incorrectness of her statements by Catholic Bishops.

          • acat

            tend to be more liberal than their parishoners.

            Mew

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            n_ t___

    • http://whattoreadtoday.blogspot.com/ Paula

      One cannot be “pro life personally” and publicly pro-death when it comes to unborn babies. If you believe it is a human life, you have a moral decision to make about whether you will protect and defend that life if you are in a position to do so. “Meh” is not a position in life and death matters.

      Besides, “Bishop” Romney claims to have had some pro-life conversion experience that made him pro-life around the time he decided to run for president. By all accounts, he was a Mormon before, during, and after that change of heart. The “good Mormon” argument doesn’t fly.

    • skorrent1

      Are irrelevant. We are not considering him for the position of personal advisor. We want to know what his actions would be as president. Does he have convictions that would determine his actions in spite of current political fads, or will he blow with the political winds? Abortion was no less immoral when he favored it, but it was more popular. AGW was no more “scientificly proven” when he accepted it than it is now, but it was more popular. Don’t see a backbone here.

      • http://whattoreadtoday.blogspot.com/ Paula

        He nominated an openly pro-abortion judge to a lifetime appointment, mandated that taxpayer pay for abortions through Romneycare and signed legislation for the “Plan B” abortion pill.

      • streiff

        we were assured over and over again that public morality and private morality were different. We found out that was wrong. If a man will lie to and screw around on his wife what chance to mere taxpayers have.

        We conservatives look to a man’s personal values as a metric for how he’ll act in office. It is tried and true.

    • streiff

      From the LDS website

      Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.

      • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

        notexthere.

  • tailfins1959

    Let’s be careful not to enhance Obama’s path to re-election.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      who believe John Holdren’s sick and perverted ideas are worthy of thoughtful consideration while drafting important public policies.

    • paladin1

      lets don’t talk about his liberal views as it could endanger his path to the nomination. We must taslk about his liberal abortion views, his liberal big government views like his support for TARP, Romneycare, bailouts, etc.

      We HAVE to talk about it, publicize it, and make his “latent liberal tendencies” stand out so that we can select and nominate a real conservative like Rick Perry, who has supported and signed bills like pre-abortion sonograms for mothers, voter ID, reduced state budget expenditures, enhanced border enforcement on the state level, and supports the Second and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution. Hmmm….not a very confusing choice at all, is it?

    • evilleramsfan

      we shouldn’t provide a deep analysis into his background and views on different issues? There is a difference between arguing over the issues and digging for dirt on a candidate….

      • tailfins1959

        All I’m saying is to keep in mind how things affect BHO’s re-election. Which moral idiot would you prefer to see inaugurated in January 2013? We can all HOPE Perry catches his stride and even help do it, but we shouldn’t DEPEND on it.

  • Russ Martin

    There’s a big difference between “I am firmly pro-life”, and “I believe in the sanctity of human live, from conception to natural death”.

    The former is a political stance. The latter is a position of principal.

    • jackdaniels11

      believe that the interest of human life must be weighed against other factors. I don’t know a lot of elected officials who believe that rape victims should be blocked from getting a legal abortion.

      I agree with Herman Cain that the rape issue is kind of a side issue since the over-whelming majority of women and girls seeking abortions do not even claim to have been forced to submit to the sex that caused the pregnancy. But I’m not going to judge Romney based on his refusal to articulate his views in words that sound good to the anti-abortion core but do not reflect his values.

      “I am firmly pro-life” is good enough for me. That is my position as well.

  • Russ Martin

    - I mean the latter is a position of principle

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      There’s a vast canyon of difference between “Pro-Life” and Pro-Life.

      • lineholder

        and not trying to plug one of my own diaries either, but if you look over on the diary list today, find No Greater Love, this is a great pro-life story with a pro-choice twist. The mother chose to give up her life for the life of her unborn child.

        Just thought you might appreciate it.

  • http://whattoreadtoday.blogspot.com/ Paula

    I promise, I’ll never do it again. I’ll do anything you say. Just take me back.

    • jackdaniels11

      people don’t change right?

      Once someone says, “I believe that a woman should have the right to a safe and legal abortion” that is an expression of a belief that cannot be re-considered later on?

      I disagree. I believe that people do, in fact, change. Bush went from being a presidential candidate who opposed using U.S. troops for nation-building to a president who used U.S. troops for nation-building. Bush also went from being someone who couldn’t control his drinking to being someone who refused to touch booze.

      St. Augustine went from being a libertine youth to being a celibate monk. St. Paul went from being an anti-Christian to being a martyr for Christ (Acts 22:17-21). People can, and do change. Mitt has always been personally opposed to abortion. He initially believed that the government should not unduly trammel on the personal liberties of the mother. Since then, he has come to view the life of the unborn child as being the greater of the two interests.

      I applaud his decision and welcome him to the ranks of the pro-life army. I have no reason to doubt his sincerity.

      • acat

        The specific case of Saul (later known as Paul) and his Road to Damascus bit.

        A friend pointed out that Paul already was quite zealous, merely in the opposite direction. That is, Paul didn’t change his nature, just his direction, and then only after new data became available. (in a supernatural way)

        Further, one of the reasons the persons of Paul and Augustine appeal are precisely because they changed direction and don’t look back.

        Most people don’t undergo “Road to Damascus” level change. It’s one reason why, for instance, A.A. works the way it does.

        I see very little evidence to suggest “who Bush is” changed, although he did apparently change his direction on some issues as new data became available.

        I see even less to suggest that “who Romney is” has changed, which is disappointing because I’d like him to become someone else.

        Mew

  • adamd

    This is why once the ad war beings Perry will be the GOP nominee.

  • deives

    Why do I have this feeling that Redstate.com is anti Romney and pro Perry? Romney would be a much better President than Perry ever could be.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      Memo received. Thanks.

      • aesthete

        sounds like a small business that provides low-quality recreational drugs to acupuncturists.

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          They just started banning synthetic MJ.

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          notext

      • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

        Romney would be chosen over the O as well… but then again I’d like to see the O lose to some relatively unknown democrat in the primary elections whose sole qualification is that he’s not the O… that would be a real historic first…

        • jackdaniels11

          the destruction of the American private sector and the military that happened on his watch was NOT AN ACCIDENT!

          He’s doing it intentionally. He is the millstone around the economy’s neck. He is Steve Erkel asking “Did I do that?” every time Solyndra or LightSquared lays off 1000 workers and then tells the taxpayers that the $500 million dollar loan that BHO promised to underwrite is now past due.

          Let’s send in Alberto Pujols (Romney) rather than Mario Mendoza (Cain, Perry, or the next “I’m not Romney” candidate). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Mendoza

    • tailfins1959

      Let’s just agree to abide by Reagan’s commandment!

      • jackdaniels11

        And here’s an “amen” to that.

      • In The Hook

        But personally I think there are a lot of people in the camp of “all these candidates are really flawed be it from a policy position or candidate quality position.” I know I’m in that camp.

        And even while I’m concerned that overly ripping one candidate or another could prove damaging in the general because one of these guys is going to be “our guy” come Nov. 2012, I know for a fact that Obama is going to throw everything he has at “our guy.” May as well get all the flaws out there right NOW and make these guys deal with them NOW instead of Aug or Sept. 2012…

    • jackdaniels11

      The editors and about 70% of the front-pagers want a “white knight” candidate. A white knight being someone who has never, in his/her entire life, said anything that would annoy the Tea Party faithful.

      The media is saying that Republicans aren’t excited about Romney. I’m excited about Romney and I’ve been a Republican since I was 21 (long time ago).

      I can’t wait for Romney to chase all of the socialists out of the White House and do for America what he did for Bain Capital and the 2012 Olympics.

  • jackdaniels11

    It is starting to get old. When will I wake up to something other than “We must stop Romney even if it means 4 more years of an even LESS accountable BHO!”?

    I don’t remember this much vitriol ever being hurled at John McCain who said in 2000 that good people can disagree on the issue of abortion. Hell, McCain even considered being John Kerry’s bi-…, whoops, I meant to say running mate.

    Anyway, can the “abort Romney” faction breathe into a paper bag for a few minutes before they start posting their over-the-top spite?

    I understand that there will be no “white knight” this time around. Guess what? Reagan was no “white knight” either. If you don’t believe me, read Ed Rollins’ book, “Bare Knuckles and Back Rooms”. Think Reagan’s choice for a running-mate didn’t chafe every conservative Republican in the party? Think again. Think Reagan’s chief-of-staff, Jim Baker was a conservative? Think again.

    I’m not settling. I’ve chosen Romney because I believe he will continue Ronald Reagan’s tradition of fighting when the battle is worth it and compromising when it’s in the best interests of the conservative cause.

    • acat

      I expect Romney to fold like a cheap suit every time there’s a fight.

      I further expect the Dem wing in the Senate to be more ideologically left and more willing to go all in to get what they want.

      I want someone who’s stood up – successfully – to a legislature, said “No.”, and made it *stick*.

      That’s not Mitt.

      He’s better than Obama, and if he wins the nomination, I’ll support him, but .. I’ll be getting out my nose plugs.

      Mew

      • jackdaniels11

        As governor of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Supreme Court tried to pressure him to sign a bill that would allow gay marriage in the state.

        He refused to sign it, thus forcing the legislature to draft a bill that would attract enough support to over-ride his veto.

        He took a lot of heat for his stance against gay marriage.

        He also stood up to the liberals who wanted him to pass single-payer health care coverage in Massachusetts.

        He also stood up to liberals on the destruction and re-sale of human beings (aka “stem cell research”).

        Mitt’s a fighter who gets results.

        • acat

          Show me the effective.

          Mew

          • Martin Knight

            Can you guess why?

            Look, we’d rather it not be Mitt Romney getting the nomination. But at least let’s be fair to the guy and acknowledge what he had to work with in MA.

          • acat

            …when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts.

            I think he doubled down on his folly in not using his bully pulpit effectively, in not getting in the oppositions’ face, in not shutting down their government.

            I see no reason to reward him for this.

            Mew

          • Martin Knight

            I think he doubled down on his folly in not using his bully pulpit effectively, in not getting in the oppositions? face, in not shutting down their government.

            He did use the bully pulpit. And if it were any other state but MA, even NY, I think he’d have made some headway. But it was MA.

            At the height of his popularity, Romney went all out to recruit candidates for state legislative seats – including seats not contested by Republicans for decades – the MAGOP was actually excited going into election, and they lost, every one.

            The Democrats have 90% of both the State House and Senate and have had those numbers for decades. In other words, he couldn’t have shut them down if he tried. They would impeach him without breaking a sweat.

            PS: The Democrats also have 100% of the Governor’s Council – that’s the 8-person council that approves the Governor’s judicial nominations – so keep that in mind when you hear of Romney appointing liberal judges in MA.

            So yes, I agree with you that it was seriously poor judgment for any Republican with Presidential ambitions to run for Governor of Massachusetts and worse, to actually win (with all it implies).

            If Romney had gone to New Hampshire, Utah or Michigan, he’d be probably be President right now.

          • acat

            I’ll bite my tongue, velvet my claws, and support Mitt in the general.

            Had Mitt managed to win re-election, I may feel differently, but .. at this time, I do not accept that “I failed in Massachusetts” is a useful conservative litmus test.

            Mew

          • Martin Knight

            Let’s just be fair to the guy.

          • acat

            It was Mitt’s choice to run for Gov.Massachusetts, yes?

            It was Mitt’s choice to try to work with people who wanted nothing more than for him to fail, yes?

            It was Mitt’s choice to attempt to ford the river with the scorpion on his shoulder, yes?

            How is it unfair for me to call him out for this failure?

            Mew

          • Martin Knight

            I’m being generic.

            But to be specific, jackdaniels listed out some conservative stuff Mitt did as Governor – you essentially retorted that since he failed to get his way on most of that stuff, it was somehow due to him not trying hard enough.

            I pointed out that the environment he was operating in would have made Coolidge appear liberal. Essentially, I’m saying it would be unfair to judge a GOP Governor of MA without factoring in the huge majorities the Democrats have in MA, and the lock they have on every other statewide elected office.

            It was Mitt?s choice to run for Gov.Massachusetts, yes?

            How is it unfair for me to call him out for this failure?

            That said, I have to add that I’m not entirely convinced of the implied argument you’re making here. Essentially, you’re saying no Republican should ever try for statewide office in MA (or other liberal states).

            I don’t think so.

          • acat

            He also gets the consequences that come from choosing that ground.

            What I’m saying is that Mitt displayed his judgement in choosing that ground, and his ability in failing to win on ground he chose.

            I have no problem with a conservative (which is what Mitt is claiming to be, not merely a GOPer) running for and winning higher office in the Peoples’ Republic of Massachusetts. I fully supported Scott Brown, for instance.

            I do, however, hold Mitt fully responsible for not understanding what he was undertaking, and for the failure that lack of understanding brought.

            Mew

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      As far as being an agent of the nefarious Anti-Mitt, that wouldn’t be me.

      I’ve fired off anti-Mitt diaries such as this one before. But I’ve also gone after Bachmann and Perry before when I’ve felt they were wrong and worth hitting. I’m equal opportunity once I’ve drank the Hatoraide.

    • In The Hook

      But I think there’s a lot to be said for taking your lumps now because the general is going to be a hundred times worse. Obama is a terrible president but he has a high-quality team on his campaign, tons of money and a lapdog press. We need our guy to be as battle-tested as possible.

      I was a Pawlenty guy not because he was inspirational but because he was to the right of Romney and more electable than the rest of the field. Too bad he was an absolutely God-awful candidate who would have been annihilated in the general because his strategy was so, so desperately wrong.

      I think your point about Reagan is a good one. Let’s not forget that he lost any shot at the ’76 nomination because he promised to name Richard Schweiker as running mate. GWHB was to the left of Romney and yet Reagan made him his VP and backed his ’88 run. Reagan was not a purist.

      That’s not to say that we shouldn’t stick to our motto of the “conservative who can win” in the primary and the Republican regardless of who it is in the general, but we should note that even our heroes have had checkered pasts. It comes with the territory.

    • http://whattoreadtoday.blogspot.com/ Paula

      The strategy of nominating someone “good enough” that the base could barely tolerate failed miserably in 2008.

      • http://whattoreadtoday.blogspot.com/ Paula

        nt

      • jackdaniels11

        I just have to point out that the anti-Romney faction of the party is what got us the McCain-Palin ticket in 2008. As far as the election results go, this was the worst Republican ticket since 1964.

        Reagan, Nixon, and both Bushes were able to bring the base, independent voters, and intelligent Democrats together to create a winning coalition.

        Romney can do that. I’d be willing to bet that neither Cain nor Perry can do that.

        • tailfins1959

          The question is: WILL he? Perry has a solid resume, he just doesn’t seem to be able to present it.

  • jackdaniels11

    Since we’re on the subject of judging candidates based on their advisers, it is only fair to mention that pro-life crusader, Robert Bork, is Mitt Romney’s top legal adviser.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/10/16/robert-bork-on-romney-obama-and-biden.html

    I think that any concern that is raised by Romney using Holdren as his Massachusetts adviser can be off-set by Romney’s selection of Robert Bork as his top legal adviser.

  • Right_Again

    by your inclusion of Snape’s picture in the diary, that Holdren is the superficially nefarious bad guy who turns out in the end to have been the hero.

    I don’t know. Maybe you didn’t see the last Harry Potter movie.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      He was a total turd during the quiddich match.

  • bassethound

    in my mind would go something like this…

    I come home from work and settle down for a nap before fixing dinner. I am awakened from a sound sleep by an intruder. He says to me, “Mrs. Hound, I’ve destroyed the Verizon FIOS battery box in your garage, so you have no more land line communications. I’ve also destroyed your cell phone, so you can’t use it to call for help. I’ve already verified that your next door neighbors aren’t home from work, so no one can hear you screaming. So now, I’m going to kill you, but to prove I’m a gentleman, I’m going to give you a choice. I could slice your throat with this knife I grabbed from your kitchen. You’ll bleed to death in minutes. Or I could shoot you through the temple with the Glock I have in my coat pocket. It would be messy, and there’s a slight chance you’d survive in a permanent vegetative state. You decide.”