Redstate

Most of your comments revolve around rhetoric and one-up-manship, You still can't argue based on logic. That's a genie we are all too familiar with.

It's fair game to attack a messenger when he twists the facts as you have.

When I elect a "pro-life" President I damn well expect pro-life judges!  Or at least "strict constructionists" who will not legislate from the bench (how you like Souter's Eminent Domain decision eh?)  Souter is a disaster.  That a Republican would appoint such a justice is exactly why you need to hold candidates accountable BEFORE they are elected.  My friend, stay away from David Souter if you are looking to defend Mitt Romney.  My God. Are you trying to get Mitt run out of the Republican Party?  

First, it isn't that I'm disqualifying Governors.  Not at all.  I'm disqualifying governors with no experience or background in foreign policy.  As I said in another post Reagan never held a postion that gave him direct foreign policy experience either but he acquired his own expertise through his strong interest in the war on communism.  Mitt could have that experience too but has chosen other areas of interest (namely business and state politics.)  Look I want people with experience NOW.  Not two years from now.  I don't think that is unreasonable.  The planet is at war everywhere you look. Experience is at a premium (the right experience of course, kerry obviously has learned the wrong lessons from his experience.)  

This is separate from abortion.  Anyone can have a position on abortion.  Abortion is a matter of morality more than it is of judgment.  But does anyone have a clue as to what a "Romney Doctrine" would look like?  Of course not.  Say those words out loud and you'll chuckle to yourself.

Look, Romney can definitely make up ground here.  But it will be very hard. Very hard.  The world is at war and it will only get worse.  Romney picked a bad time to run for President.

Souter replaced a pro-choice justice, Brennan. No change. Thomas replaced a pro-choice judge, Marshall. Change for pro-life.

So the court moved in the pro-life direfction. If you'd like to take a gamble on any two new justices both being and staying pro-life, go ahead. I'll take my bird in the hand.

I wonder why the "premier Iowa caucus blog" rates Romney as the 2-1 favorite in the Iowa caucus, or why respected Iowa political writer David Yepsen says that so far, Romney's been the most impressive Republican to Iowans.

And Mitt Romney has ALWAYS put his career first.

Defend that statement, if you don't mind, and contrast it with any other politician. Otherwise, it's an atrocious ad hominem attack.

You make a good point.  If Romney just did it because it was politically expedient and he got elected and did good things anyway is that big of a deal?

In this political climate? Absolutely.  What is the worst charge conservatives are screaming at Republicans on Capitol Hill?  Republicans are spending money like drunken Democrats!  Why are they doing this?  Because nothing wins you votes like bringing home the bacon.  Republicans voted for and a Republican president signed a boondoggle of a prescription drug bill that grumpy old seniors aren't even giving them credit for.  Why did they do this? Out of political expediency.  This list of spending done for political expediency is endless.  Should we say, yes were are throwing are principles on the size of government to the winds but we do hold power after all?  That may have been true in the past but it will not be true in 2008.  Primary voters are looking for candidates who will fight it out for the issues conservatives believe in, consequences be damned.  And if conservatives only care about winning, then hell, vote for john mccain, cause he'll pound hillary in 2008.

Again the danger of political expediency is can you trust the man?  Again, the case of george bush and david souter is one that needs to be studied.  The answer is not reassuring.

Now my second point about Romney's prior position is that he is never going to tell you that he was pro-abortion for reasons of political expediency.  Even though anyone who has followed his record can clearly see that is why he was pro-abortion.  It doesn't take a doctoral candidate to know a pro-life republican is going to have a hard time winning an election for governor in liberal massachusetts.  Yet that is not what the Romney people are saying.  They are feeding everyone a cock and bull story about Romney "seeing the light on abortion."  He has a moral epiphany in 2005, which is also conveniently when he decides to run for President (privately of course, the man has said nothing publically.)  This plays right into the trust issue AGAIN.  He can't be straight with you on abortion so he is basically making up this Zenidine Zedane like story about how he suddenly became inspired and saw the light.  Hell, if Romney came out and said "ya i was pro-abortion how the hell do you think I got elected? I'm no fool you know." Then at least he is being honest and wins some trust points.  But he is feeding everyone a line of manure. Because he knows he says that in a debate and George Allen will hammer him and say he has been in the trenches for years fighting for life and the crowd will go wild and Allen runs away with the pro-life vote.

So tell me.  You still trust Romney?

so i clarify any doubts.  look I don't doubt mitt's republican credentials.  I doubt his pro-life credentials.

I hate the notion of Newt's baggage being damning to his campaign.  There isn't a single person in the country who can articulate exactly why whatever Democrat faces him is wrong for America, and why his progressive conservative reforms are right.

In a stagnant political atmosphere, the 21st Century Contract for America, which is the most comprehensive, concrete plan for reforming Washington ever created (far better than the first) will not be simply ignored just because of the smear campaign of slander against Newt during the 90's (which was nothing compared to the "baggage" Bush carried in 2004).

Honestly, and when did smearing someone's personal life become favorable in politics?  Talk about a strategy that would backfire.

Now Romney can go ahead and put together a super smart team, and has already done so in part (quite a blogging team you guys have here.)  BUT, it's a one in a million chance he can make a bond with a foreign policy expert the way Bush and Cheney are bound together.  That was a freak occurence. Sure, Mitt can get some great advisers.  But at the end of the day Mitt makes that decision without the kind of support that Dubya got.

First thanks for the compliment. And you are pretty thoughtful yourself. There are definitly some unreasonable people on this site. But, the problem now with your argument is that no governor can now be POTUS since the Bush cheney thing is a feak occurance.

It's your opinion and I can see why you might have such high regard for Cheney, because I do, but I just don't think anyone has a corner on the foreign policy market. While Cheney is great so are alot of other people.

I'm sorry, but I just don't feel as comfortable with Romney in there making a decision on a missile strikes.

Other than Bush had Cheney I can't see what you're reasoning is for this. I hope it doesn't stem from the abortion issue.

 It is about having people around you that really bring out the best in you and fill in the gaps where you are weakest.  Moreover, having the Confidence in yourself to recognize your weaknesses and address them in a head on manner.  

I think what you have outlined is a pretty standard leadership model that I learned about in my orginiztional behavior/leadership class in college. I don't think it's anything unique to Bush. If I already understand them than I am pretty sure that Mitt does too.

You're right about Redstate, it's a great site, alot better than Free-Republic and some others. Admittedly I really like Romney. I have followed him for a while, and I am not unfraid to let it be known that I support him. I think it's great that you have your opinions too.

I don't know where I saw that.

On a Supreme Court that was pro-abortion a 50-50 split is a failure.  If David Souter is the price I have to pay to get Clarence Thomas then you can have them both back and get me two new justices.  

Now this a better argument.  Let me get to it:

First, what is record when legislation gets to his desk?  That is a very important point.  Because if Romney started vetoing these bills in 2005 (which is when I believe he started to do so) that is inconsequential.  Because at that point in time Romney knew he would not have to face the voters in Massachusetts again and that by signing off on pro-life legislation he helped his presidential bid.  So in that case i fail to see how that helps his case.  But go ahead and post all his pro-life accomplishments (and more importantly the dates) and we can compare notes.

If Romney campaigns against Roe vs. Wade from now until 2008 would that win your trust?  

It doesn't change the past.  The question is when your feet are to the fire what do you do?  Abortion is a sacred issue for pro-lifers.  It is THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE we vote on.  Talk is no good.  Action is what's looked at.  Pro-lifers have suffered unbelievable slurs at the hands of the pro-abortion lobby.  And all I know for sure is that Romney was in league with that lobby for a long, long time.  Show me something that says, "yes, he is one of us.  He made a difference for life."

And if not, has Romney made any campaign promises which he has not followed through on?  This is a good indication of his general trustworthiness.  When he makes a pledge, he sticks to it (like it or not).

"I'm sure on issues like taxes Romney is stout.  But abortion is the true third rail of politics.  It is unlike any other issue you can make a pledge on.  No other pledge is like a pro-life pledge."

Another thing...who exactly is running for president who has never ever said anything waffely on the abortion issue?

McCain -- Remember that 2000 campaign promise that he wouldn't overturn Roe vs. Wade?

Allen -- Remember those quotes of his where he supports 1st trimester abortions?

Giuliani -- He'd really have to be the man of steel to get the pro-life nod.

"you are absolutely right.  McCain has voted the right way on abortion.  But those were easy votes.  He is suspect.  Allen I don't know too much about to be honest except that he is being touted as the Conservative candidate.  He has the southern swagger of a pro-lifer so there aren't as many doubts which is why a stray comment isn't as serious a signal."

"Rudy is a disaster on abortion.  No question about it.  But I knew that Rudy would work his ass off protecting this country and I have a level of trust for him because of 9-11 that is hard to explain.  Also, he is a fascist on law and order which means we'll get some real bork like nominees.  But still, rudy is very vulnerable."

If pro-life voters are looking for someone who's never said anything waffely on abortion, they've got Brownback, Huckabee, and maybe a couple others who are even less likely to win.  So again, would you rather see Clinton serve Brownback's head back to him on a platter, or trust Romney to stick to his campaign promises?

The problem is Romney hasn't just said a couple dumb comments on abortion like allen or mccain.  He was been out and out on the other side in the enemy camp. campaign promises on abortion just don't amount to anything in this case for romney.  And as i said above, he's shiftyness on his abortion conversion now only makes his pro-life position look that much more expedient.  In terms of trust, Allen is at the top of the list with frist and newt.  Mccain barely above romney.  Rudy and romney tied at the bottom.    

I have no doubt Newt is a rock star on foreign policy.  And I believe he has a good pro life record.  But Newt just seems like damaged goods.  It isn't fair to say that, I know.  But I can't see Newt uniting the Republican Party let alone becoming President.  Perhaps Newt will ignite on the campaign trail.  But the way he was booted out of the Congress and kind of disappeared makes me think he won't actually run for President.  But if he declares I'll watch him closely.  Nixon proved there is always room for a 2nd act in politics, or 3rd act for that matter.

Allen over came a 30 point lead against him and a massive fundraising edge and turned it around into a 20 point victory.  He was a nobody congressman who even the gop thought was a joke and his opponent was a popular strong attorney general.  Before that election she got the highest vote count in the state  for her elections and many people saw her as a shoo in.  Allen went on to win the biggest margin in virginia history in almost 4 decades.  

And remember now, it was pro life religous voters who propelled allen to win the gubenatorial primary in 1993, and he went on to sign a parental consent law.  He vetoed the first one because it was a light bs bill.  He also yanked funding for state employees of abortion.

...to Slim Jim, who proves that once the genie's out of bottle, all the Romney folks can twist and turn and spin and strain (and attack the messengers) all they want, but the genie ain't goin' back in.

Or in this case, Romney's insistent decade-long promotion and support of Roe v Wade and a woman's "right" to terminate her own baby's life.

Again, David Yepsen. Look him up.

Not on abortion he hasn't.  Again, I submit that Romney was pro-abortion for the sole reason that it helped him win elections.  His statements are clear and can be seen above.  It is not an ad hominem attack. It is the PUBLIC RECORD. Address the points I made, don't just say "no he wasn't."

I don't understand what you're responding to. I asked you to defend the statement that he ALWAYS puts his career first.

Newt is a fascinating character.  He understands these issues inside and out.  He truly has the long vision you want to see in a president.  Sadly, newt still has baggage from the 90's that I think will cripple him.  It's a shame to see so much talent stuck on the sidelines.

Those are nice quotes.  But none do anything to adddress the points I made above.

Sure Romney has been going off on the left, but again, he did that AFTER he decided to run for President.  That doesn't cost you any political capital when you know you don't have to face those left wing enemies when you run for re-election against them.    

If you want to narrow down the field of candidates to those who have declared war on another country, it's going to be slim pickings.  What exactly are Allen's commander-in-chief credentials?  Being able to spit farther than any other head of state?

Otherwise, Romney has raised the issue of the jihadists in many venues as one of our most serious national concerns, and that diary of Fuller's that Corb pointed to is a great place to start.  I suppose we all remember Romney's view on mosques that serve as propoganda centers for terrorism?

And not to cram too much into one post, but how can you excuse Bush's lack of experience by pointing to Cheney, while hitting on Romney for the same thing?  Who's Romney's VP?

Senator Allen has not always been pro-life. I distinctly remember seeing campaign ads in Northern Virginia in 2000 in which he said he believed in "reasonable moderation" on abortion, meaning somewhere between pro-life and pro-choice. He was saying this, no doubt, to get votes in Northern Virginia (a relatively liberal part of the state). I don't see how that's meaningfully different from what Governor Romney did to get votes in Massachusetts, which is to the left of Northern Virginia.

I have met, talked with, volunteered for and voted for Senator Allen. I think he'd make a fine president. But I doubt 2008 will be his time. He will remind people too much of George W. Bush, and people will think it's time for a change. They will want to give another type of personality a chance. Think of how changes in the White House go: Ford to Carter to Reagan to Bush I to Clinton to Bush II. The one following was always so different in personality and attributes from the one preceding.

The GOP candidate will need a different type of personality to win in 2008. Romney is extremely articulate, refined, sophisticated, knowledgeable and, probably, well-versed in overseas customs and diplomacy. (He has spent considerable time overseas.) In short, he's very different from George W. Bush in many ways that will help him. He'll have lots of money and good organization, and he seems to have natural strengths in early contests in the nomination. He'll be a major player. If neither Giuliani nor Newt run, I think Romney will become the alternative to Senator McCain.

And I know I won't be voting for McCain.

We had such a candidate before, the first George Bush who changed from pro-abortion to pro-life in 1980.  Voila. We got David Souter as a result.

We also got Clarence Thomas.

that allen has the cleanest record on abortion, he has been waffley on it at times.  But i believe his point was hes better than romney on the issue.

Look I'm not an allen expert.  Are there any allen people around?  But I have seen Allen on the talk shows talking about Iraq, North Korea.  He has been in debates on the floor on the senate over withdrawal of troops.  Is he the next casper weinberger or george schulz?  No.  But he is dealing with these issues as we speak.  He has been dealing with them since 9-11.  Romney has not.

As for my perfect candidate who is 100% on abortion and foreign policy?  Haven't found him yet.  That is what the primary is all about.  But sad to say Mitt is in last on both those issues.  Well, Rudy is REALLY AWFUL on abortion.  I mean horrible.  So, mitt is second to last on abortion.

Traditionally, the voting public doesn't like senators they like governors.  This is true.  But 2008 will not be a traditional year.  We could be at war with iran and iraq at the same time.  The next president has to be a real pro at foreign affairs and step in as commander in chief immediately.  A governor is in a terrible position to do that.  Especially a governor like romney or warner because of their total lack of experience.  That is why I feel Romney is not the right fit.  I'd rather have a senator.  I definitely don't want a washingotn outsider (or a democrat :)  But that's just me.

If Romney shoots lights out in the debate that could change things.  You are right.  But as we speak now, he ain't ready.

As for Dubya, like I said he had a symbiotic relationship with cheney unlike any other we'll see in our lifetime.  No way romney, or any other candidate, gets that kind of partnership with their VP.  It just doesn't happen.

As far as I know, most of the candidates you mentioned have more foreign policy experience than Romney (this not being the same thing as homeland sequrity experience).  But Allen?  I'm not trying to attack the guy, but I'm really unaware of this.  Can you educate me on his credentials with some sources?  

Now who exactly is going to satisfy your demand on 100% pro-life purism and AT THE SAME TIME satisfy your demand for foreign policy experience?

But you won't find too many foreign policy credentials for Allen.  He's basically on the same level as Romney.  Except that he's in Washington, which carries the burden of being part of a failure of a congress (especially the Senate.)

As for the pro-life and foreign policy creds, I'd refer you to www.draftnewt.org and www.newt.org.  You should take a look around, maybe sign up.  On foreign policy, I'd reccommend you take a look at the AIPAC speech at www.newt.org.

I don't mean this to be a shameless plug, or a threadjack, but you should take a look around.

Here's a link.

I'd still suggest you just check out one of the Newt sites I listed and just look at the respective "On the Issues" pages.

Only then was I convinced.

The gist of what you're saying is that we can't trust Romney to follow a pro-life agenda as president because he hasn't been singing the right song long enough.  Perhaps you're uneasy about letting anyone in the White House who only 6 years earlier had promised to keep abortion safe and legal in MA.  Despite Romney's 100% record on the pro-life side when legislation comes to his desk, those previous campaign quotes make you nervous.

If Romney campaigns against Roe vs. Wade from now until 2008 would that win your trust?  And if not, has Romney made any campaign promises which he has not followed through on?  This is a good indication of his general trustworthiness.  When he makes a pledge, he sticks to it (like it or not).

Another thing...who exactly is running for president who has never ever said anything waffely on the abortion issue?

McCain -- Remember that 2000 campaign promise that he wouldn't overturn Roe vs. Wade?

Allen -- Remember those quotes of his where he supports 1st trimester abortions?

Giuliani -- He'd really have to be the man of steel to get the pro-life nod.

If pro-life voters are looking for someone who's never said anything waffely on abortion, they've got Brownback, Huckabee, and maybe a couple others who are even less likely to win.  So again, would you rather see Clinton serve Brownback's head back to him on a platter, or trust Romney to stick to his campaign promises?

...for those who keep trying to cover up the truth of Romney's decade-long record of insistently promoting and defending abortion on demand, homosexual Scoutmasters, etc.

But the truth stands unaffected.

off your keyboard every time you post?

I've started hitting delete every time I get an AFA email now, just because of you! I agree with many of their drives, but YOU have soured me on that organization by your constant venomous posts here at RS.  Is it possible you are a Romney Psy-Ops plant? By being so over-the-top you are actually making Romney a sympathetic figure!

Please explain what "logic" is required to interpret the following.

Romney 1994 U.S. Senate debate: "I believe that abortion should be SAFE AND LEGAL in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. 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."  http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/03/02
romneys_revolving_world

Romney 2002 gubernatorial campaign website: "On Abortion Rights. As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current PRO-CHOICE status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be FREE TO CHOOSE based on their own beliefs, not the government's."  http://web.archive.org/web/20021218005104/www.romneyhealey.com/issues/

Romney 2002 NARAL/Planned Parenthood candidate survey response: "I respect and will protect a woman's RIGHT TO CHOOSE. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be FREE TO CHOOSE based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's. The truth is no candidate in the Governor's race in either party would deny women ABORTION RIGHTS."  http://www.pplm.org/Facts/rf_fact/pr_2005_07_14.htm

Logic is indeed required to make some points, but the only thing required to cite Romney's decade-long support for abortion on demand is a simple understanding of the English language.

But thanks for the opportunity to once again post Romney's own words, to the enlightenment of all those who (1) can read English and (2) whose primary interest is the truth and not politically-motivated obfuscation of the truth.

this drudgery again if anyone is interested in your points and others counter points please read this blog.

...your prejudicial imaginations.

But you could save yourself some time by simply unsubscribing from AFA e-mails, rather than continually trouble yourself with having to hit "delete" every time you get one.

I'm probably a bit more qualified for political analysis, by which I'm confident that posting Romney's pro-abortion on demand record is not making him a sympathetic figure with pro-life activists.  

I'm probably a bit more qualified for political analysis

RS posting rules prevent me from telling you exactly where you can shove your qualifications!

NOTE TO SELF: DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!!

It is true that since he has not been president for 4 years he is obviously not as qualified as Bush was in 2000.  He also has had no reason as governor of Massachusetts to surround himself with generals and foreign policy "vulcans".  Does this make him unable to deal with foreign countries?

Mitt has shown himself capable in National security matters and of being an impressive executive.  In 1996 we may not have been at war but foreign policy was still important.  The qualities that make Bush good on foreign policy Mitt has.

I admit though we have not heard a lot of foreign policy stances from Mitt due to his position. If a candidate is good on foreign policy is largely due to their approach and philosophy.  I'm sure it can be argued that Kerry has plenty of experience.

I agree though that Mitt is untested and I think we should wait till the debates to see if it really will be a weakness.  I don't think it will be but if it is I might reconsider my position.  Till then Mitt in 08.

Am I the only person here who thinks President George W. Bush's foreign policy has been mixed? On the plus side, he decided to attack and drive out the Taliban in Afghanistan, which seems like the obvious right thing to do now but wasn't to many people at the time. He has also very skillfully built relations with Pakistan and India simultaneously. He got Libya to give up its WMD ambitions. I also admire his decision to essentially ignore Yasser Arafat.

But he's had many clunkers, too. While I know that there has been some good to come out of the Iraq war, I think it was a mistake in total. In the end, he spent hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of dead and seriously wounded American soldiers to fight a war that was not essential to our security. He has nothing to show for his policies toward North Korea and Iran. Chavez is a danger in Latin America. Putin was misjudged by Bush. China is playing with us.

Compare this president to Reagan or Bush I on foreign policy, and I think these former presidents look far superior. George W. Bush has noble goals for foreign policy, but he has overeached to the point of futility. I hope the next president uses American power more judiciously and is better able to help foreign powers realize that helping us is in their own selfish interests sometimes.

That is not what you said. You did not qualify the statement with "when it comes to the issue of abortion."

Romney always puts his career first when it comes to the issue of abortion.

defended

Allen has bona fides on foreign policy because he can talk about it on TV?

That's your argument for his qualifications?

How you could put Allen ahead of McCain and Giuliani on foreign policy is beyond me, but your stripes are starting to show.

I don't think senatorial experience is what it takes to be a commander-in-chief...and the voting public tend to agree.  What becomes the deciding factor is, like anything else, how the candidates measure up against each other in debates.  Romney gets the importance of the global jihad, and his speeches on it are some of the most articulate I've heard.  

As for the Bush Jr thing, you're still comparing Bush 2000 to Romney 2006.  When Romney hits 2008 he's going to be up to his armpits with the republican establishment, much of which may be inherited from Bush.  As the politician with the best management experience, period, I don't doubt that this guy knows how to build a team that will make up for any lack of hands on experience.

It does sound silly. Maybe you've watched too much Star Trek.

There is one thing that I am absolutely sure about, Mitt Romney has the best managerial/executive capacity and experience of any potential candidate.

To play up Bush's reliance on Cheney as a positive is very strange and quite a stretch.

who newt endorses. Yea there was that whisper where he spoke kindly of romney, but if you look at the limbaugh letter from a few months back he speaks very kindly of george allen as well.  Also when he goes on H&C he tends to speak kindly of allen on there whenenver the issue of 2008 comes up.  I suspect hes deciding between the two.

Bush Jr. was a whole different kettle of fish.  He came into office with the entire republican establishment already as part of his campaign.  Dick Cheney has been a co-president for pete's sake.  Romney doesn't have a relationship like that with any experts.  Cheney and bush were tight when he ran for office.  Doesn't matter if romney selected henry kissinger as his VP.  You are still really rolling the dice with someone with that kind of inexperience.

Here as an outline of the flaws in your logic concerning his foriegn policy as I see it:

1. That someone (GWB- who I am  a fan of) can be not really the brightest tool in shed, but somehow find ways to surround himself with bright people and make good decisions.

     a. Not the best student at Yale.

     b. Drifts around with no plan for most of adult life.

     c. Prosecutes a decent foriegn policy.

2. Romney a proven leader in pre-political life as evidenced by his buisness life and his leadership in 2002 olympics esp. concerning the security issue.

     a. Romney has a JD and MBA from Harvard at of his class.

     b. Romney shown to get posistive results in every executive role he's held.

3. Your conclusion: Romney can't use people who surround him to execute a good foreign policy but Bush somehow could. You seem to be willing to cut Bush a break that in fact Romney doesn't need to be cut. I can't thinkof anything Bush did prior to his presidential election that would give him an edge over Romney on this issue.

You owe Bush's success to who he knew not his previous experience. You owe Romney's likely failure (in your opinion) to Romney's lack of experience not who he knows. A huge contradiction.

To say Bush's success is due to his "tightness" with Cheney prior to his presidential run is funny. Does Romney have to be best bud's with someone to hire them on? No. Additionaly, Bush's team does not represent the only intelligent people in foriegn policy.

As a matter of fact Romney has already started attracting most of Bush's money men. These guys dont throw money around without a little research and some extra backround knowledge. Who's to say Romney couldn't do the same in other areas?

Is 2008 the best time to throw someone without a history of foreign policy experience to be the Republican Party's nominee?  You don't have to be President to have foreign policy experience, look at Newt Gingrich.  Take a look at his first challenge in his "Five Challenges facing America," or is speech to AIPAC and you'll see someone with unparalleled experience in foreign policy.

Look at Mayor Rudy, who throughout 9/11, was the unquestionable leader of New York City when our country was most vulnerable.  As aforementioned, his '04 RNC Convention speech is a testament to his experience.

McCain's experience is weaker since he's only come out in strong support of the Iraqi war, which is a good start, but considering that Iraq is just one piece of the global war, I am not certain how prepared he is to take on the threats of Iran, North Korea, and the irreconciable wing of Islam in general.  But still his experience is much greater than Romney's.

Then there's at least Allen, who has experience on the Senate foreign policy commmittee, including being Chairman of the European relations subcommittee (both weak credentials, but at least they're present.)

As of right now, I would say in this new atmosphere, Romney is not best suited to be our Presidential candidate.  I would have loved him over Dole in '96, but not '08.  But I'll reserve ruling him out until we get closer to '08, because who knows, maybe he'll wow me (and he'll have to wow me a lot) come primary season.

Started barely a week ago, its really 'premiere'

If you want to narrow down the field of candidates to those who have declared war on another country, it's going to be slim pickings.  What exactly are Allen's commander-in-chief credentials?  Being able to spit farther than any other head of state?

He probably has everyone beat there. Won't debate allen's tobacco credentials.  But I have seen allen on the talk shows talking about the great issues of the day.  War and peace.  the threat of WMDs.  Normally, candidates from the senate have a disadvantage running because they can't point to specific accomplishments.  But senators are very well versed on foreign affairs (at least the gop ones running in 2008).  Considering war will be at the very top of the agenda in 2008, candidates who need on the job training are going to have it tough.

Otherwise, Romney has raised the issue of the jihadists in many venues as one of our most serious national concerns, and that diary of Fuller's that Corb pointed to is a great place to start.  I suppose we all remember Romney's view on mosques that serve as propoganda centers for terrorism?

"sure that is good stuff.  But not on the same level of war and peace that senators deal with.  Or Rudy dealt with.  Listen to Rudy's RNC speech in 2004.  It was awesome.  he articulated the bush doctrine better than bush ever has!  He gets it.  Newt Gets it.  Romney?  In a few years he may get it, but we're at war.  I want my candidates to already know it.

And not to cram too much into one post, but how can you excuse Bush's lack of experience by pointing to Cheney, while hitting on Romney for the same thing?  Who's Romney's VP?

Bush Jr. was a whole different kettle of fish.  He came into office with the entire republican establishment already as part of his campaign.  Dick Cheney has been a co-president for pete's sake.  Romney doesn't have a relationship like that with any experts.  Cheney and bush were tight when he ran for office.  Doesn't matter if romney selected henry kissinger as his VP.  You are still really rolling the dice with someone with that kind of inexperience.

Qualifies you on war I suppose you'll get your chance to see Mitt debate that issue.  We may just have to wait a little closer to the election to watch some debates.

You can do better than that.  Who cares about some Iowa Blog?  I have made a case that Romney's position on abortion will doom his candidacy.  People in Iowa don't know Romney's background they just hear him give a barn burner speech on abortion and think that is all there is to the man.  As my article shows there is much more to the candidate then he is letting on.  In the end it will doom him.

"And Mitt Romney has ALWAYS put his career first.

Defend that statement, if you don't mind, and contrast it with any other politician. Otherwise, it's an atrocious ad hominem attack."

Not on abortion he hasn't.  Again, I submit that Romney was pro-abortion for the sole reason that it helped him win elections.  His statements are clear and can be seen above.  It is not an ad hominem attack. It is the PUBLIC RECORD. Address the points I made, don't just say "no he wasn't."

Meant to say "some" not "many."

I shouldn't have even given those... not going to name names, or how many there are... the credit of "many."

Were having an organization led by Condoleezza Rice, Richard Armitage, Robert Blackwill, Stephen Hadley, Richard Perle, Dov Zakheim, Robert Zoellick and Paul Wolfowitz around him since 1998 forming his foreign policy.

Not to mention experiencing 9/11, which is where he really earned his credentials.  (I mean why give Rudy credit, and not Bush?)

These people could even be retained by a Romney presidency.  If they're not tired of the spot light.  The point is a weak spot in foreign policy that governors have can be bulwarked.

Of course Dubya gets credit.  I'm not trying to demean him in anyway.  At the end of the day Bush has made the tough choices.  Choices that would have left Clinton emptying his bowels in utter disgrace.  My point is that Cheney and Bush are probably the best tagteam POTUS and VP we've ever seen.  

But the problem for Romney is that he does not have a VP like cheney to fill out his thin foreign affairs resume.  The other candidates don't need that kind of VP.  Their resumes are good enough.    

"Dick Cheney has been a co-president for pete's sake.  Romney doesn't have a relationship like that with any experts.  Cheney and bush were tight when he ran for office.  Doesn't matter if romney selected henry kissinger as his VP."

Really?  This is amazing logic.  Does Romney have to be blood brothers with every appointment to be able to rely on their expertise?

(as opposed to many of the anti-Romney people on this site.)

I believe you are talking about 1 or 2 people!

I did not put Allen ahead of mccain or rudy.  If anything mccain and rudy (and newt) are ahead of allen.  What I'm saying is that Allen is ahead of Romney.  way ahead.

And not because he is telegenic.  Again, because he has dealt with these issues!  He talks about them, thinks about them, debates them on the floor of the senate!  In short, he knows the stuff.  Does he have as deep a philosophy on foreign affairs as rudy or mccain?  No. That is the strong suit of those two candidates.  I sure as hell wouldn't want to debate them on foreign policy.  BUt again, Romney is not at that level.  In 1996 or 2000 it would not have mattered because foreign policy was not an issue (sadly).  But in 2008 it will be king.

I won't argue abortion since it has been done to death here, but as far as national security there is an "eloquent" posting on it.

What trenches has Romney been in?  As my article makes clear.  Romney has NEVER been in the trenches.  He specificially avoided the trenches of the abortion wars.  Didn't you read the article?

"People are fed up with you because you insist that he 'promotes and defends abortion on demand.'"

Romney did promote and defend legal abortion on demand, insistently and repeatedly in both his 1994 and his 2002 campaigns.  That's what supporting Roe and advocating a woman's "right to choose" means: legal abortion on demand.  He suddenly reversed this position in July 2005.

"Also, the homosexual scoutmasters thing is just ridiculous."

Please explain what's ridiculous.  Romney said, when asked about the Scouts' policy banning homosexuals, that he thought "all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation." What reasonable interpretation is possible other than that he believes -- he said -- that "all people" (adults and youngsters, including those who claim to be homosexuals) should be allowed to participate in Scouting...in direct contradiction of the BSA policy.

"If you insist on being over the top..."

Please define for me what "over the top" is.

You Romney folks take great offense when someone merely points out the plain simple English meaning of Romney's own words.

You're moving away from Romney's lack of foreign policy experience by attacking Allen.

Stop

If you want to defend Romney, go back to defending Romney.

And all I know for sure is that Romney was in league with that lobby for a long, long time

Now that's an exageration, don't you think?  Did he attend their rallies?  Did he seek their endorsements?  Did he donate money to their cause?  The extend of Romney being "in league" was those campaign quotes of his promising that abortion would remain a legal option in MA.  Your arguments are far more persuasive if you don't "wade" into exagerations.

Show me something that says, "yes, he is one of us.  He made a difference for life."

People already have shown this.  He vetoed attempts to lower the age of consent for abortion, he vetoed the abortion pill, and he has consistently stood against stem-cell and cloning legislation.  It seems you have made up your mind to disregard everything Romney does 4 years in advance of the presidential election as nothing but political maneuvering.  If you're determined on this, Romney can't win with you...you've made it impossible by definition.  Furthermore, it seems to be a standard you haven't applied to other candidates.

Allen I don't know too much about to be honest except that he is being touted as the Conservative candidate.  He has the southern swagger of a pro-lifer so there aren't as many doubts which is why a stray comment isn't as serious a signal

In the interest of a fair look at everyone's warts, here's a little about Allen.  

Allen said: "On the issue of abortion, this is what I say to folks. Figure out in your own heart and mind what you think is right. It is a very difficult question. There are some countervailing principles. There are good people on all various sides of this issue."

During his 2000 run for Gov. of VA Allen was very "waffle-ey" on abortion: "Allen's stance on abortion is less than clear. In their first debate in Richmond, Allen twice avoided giving his position on Roe v. Wade."  

The following is quoted from the Republican National Coalition for Life website

"Allen has given every indication that he is another politician who claims to be "pro-life" while endorsing measures to restrict or regulate the practice of abortion, but not make it illegal. In 2000, Senator Allen responded to a Project Vote Smart questionnaire, saying abortions should be illegal when the fetus is viable, with or without life support. In other words, he supported abortion until viability, when 98% of the abortions are performed.  

In 2002, he voted against a Sam Brownback amendment to ban human cloning.

Allen is certainly being touted as the conservative candidate.  But these quotes from a VA politician actually make me more concerned than those quotes from a MA politician.  Why would Allen say waffely pro-choice sounding things when he isn't facing the most liberal electorate in the country?  If a southern drawl is all it takes to charm you into thinking he's more conservative than Romney on abortion, it's time you did a little research.  

Frankly, Allen would probably be trustworthy on pro-life judges, but his history is not as 100% clean as is being touted here.  In terms of pro-life dream candidates, you certainly can't knock on Romney without knocking Allen too.  

So again, if pro-lifers can choose between Brownback, Huckabee, Newt, Frist, Pence, etc, do we really want to hand Hillary something that easy?

If a candidate isn't willing to sacrifice their political career for Life, than pro-lifers shouldn't sacrifice their votes for such a candidate.

While I agree with the sentiment, sacrificing a political career doesn't do any of us any good.  We have to get elected to make change happen.

If Romney is simply positioning himself to get elected to a higher office where he can make change without being voted down consistently, as would happen in pro-death Mass, then maybe he's playing his cards right.  On the other hand, maybe he's exactly what you say.  Therein lies the "trust" issue.

replying to place this in an easy-to-locate place for future reference.

It is about vision and I look forward to hearing the vision each candidate expresses in the primary.

You'll never catch me smearing Newt.  As I said I like the guy.  The baggage i'm referring to is the way he was booted out of the congress and the "perceived" failure of Newt's speakership.

Look if he runs I'll give him serious consideration.  But I don't think he will.

"...Romney has done his best to defend the culture of life on what is probably the most inhospitable terrain in the country."

-John J. Miller (National Review)

He has been in fights with liberals on every social issue imaginable -- gay marriage, cloning, abstinence education, emergency contraception, gay adoption. At times, it's almost been as if the <b<conservative capital of America has been in that tiny slice of Boston occupied by Romney's office.</b>"

-Rich Lowry (National Review)

"Romney has already demonstrated an ability to lead. While governor he's turned around a $3 billion deficit without raising taxes (in "Taxachusetts"!) and has taken a hard-line stand on illegal immigration. Romney also refused to budge when lightening-laced bricks came down on him for arguing during a D.C. speech that some U.S. mosques, which reportedly preach jihad against the United States, should be under surveillance. He made a common-sense argument and refused to falter under fire."

"As more Americans meet Mitt Romney, I think they'll see beyond the handsome exterior and see not just a good salesman, but a thoughtful (and, yes, conservative) leader."

-Kathryn Lopez (National Review)

Maybe I'm not so crazy after all.

The problem isn't just experience.  It is interest.  People can gain experience by being heavily engaged in the great issues of the day as ronald reagan was.  Reagan had never held political office in 1964 but he spoke about the struggle against communism more eloquently than eny elected officials of his time.  He had a strong interest in the great issues of the day and was very well educated on foreign policy regardless of the fact that he held no political office that required he do so.  He MADE himself an expert through his passion for the subject.  This isn't just about holding the right office.  The debate is much bigger than that.  It is about VISION.  What kind of vision do you have for the world you want America to lead?  No amount of studying can give you that.  

...and leave it to you to attack him in a fruitless attempt to justify Romney's decade-long pro-abortion on demand record.

And Ronald Reagan signed the nation's most liberal abortion law as Governor of California, so you might want to choose someone else to reference.

I can't help but imagine you would have treated Governor Reagan the same way you are treating Governor Romney.

Of
"http://www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez200505121326.asp">Romney in the trenches. Notice the quote "On Beacon Hill, Mitt Romney can probably hear his echo when he gathers those who are standing with him on this fight, but that's not stopping him from trying."

George Allen has certainly not seen that atmosphere in Virginia.

...now it's name-calling ("twerps" and "trolls") and wishing you could violate RS's rules to be even more explicit.

Curious.

You post a message expressing obvious personal hostility.

I politely respond, minus the open hostility.

You get mad.

Please explain this phenomenon: is this simply one of those "you can dish it out, but you can't take it" things?

Is Allen still pro-choice in the first trimester?

And he's going to run away with what?

Allen has not seen the trenches that Romney has. Virginia? The trenches? Really?

Mitt is a talented politician no doubt about it.  He would make a fine Secretary of Homeland Security judging from his experience.  But being President means being Commander-in-Chief and Mitt Romney has no experience whatsoever in foreign affairs.  I have the chickenhawk argument and despise people who rely on it as their foreign policy crutch.  My concern with Romney is he has never engaged himself on issues like the Middle East, North Korea, European relations, etc...  The world is on fire.  Israel is fighting a war on two fronts. By the time 2008 rolls around we'll probably be hitting Iran.  These are monumental issues.  We need candidates who have thought about these issues, discussed them, debated them.  Rudy Giuliani has done that, George Allen has done that, Bill Frist has done that, John McCain has done that, Newt has done that.  Mitt has not.  Mitt, like democrat Governor Mark Warner has tinkered in the world of state politics.  Need someone to clean up the big dig?  Mitt is your man.  Need someone to clean up the olympics?  Mitt is your man.  Need someone to give a prime time address form the oval office on the eve of a war with Iran? errr, mitt is not the guy I want sitting in the Big Chair since he has probably spent about 10 seconds dealing with issues of war and peace.

Ok, let's go deeper into this argument (this website is something.  Who knew the Internet could be such a forum for intelligent thought?)

1. First I think Bush is a really bright guy.  But clearly he had no foreign policy experience in 2000. No question about it.  In fact, I would even say Romney has a little more experience than Bush did in 2000.  But this is about a lot more than just having bright people around you.  It is about having people around you that really bring out the best in you and fill in the gaps where you are weakest.  Moreover, having the Confidence in yourself to recognize your weaknesses and address them in a head on manner.  Any other candidate would have never picked Cheney for VP.  Why? Because any other candidate would fear Cheney would overshadow them.  But Bush was very unique in that he felt so comfortable with Cheney he almost had a mind meld with him and Cheney gained unprecedented powers in the White House on matters of foreign policy that made him an almost co-President.  In 2000 we truly got two for the price of one.  Now this is not meant to denigrate President Bush in any way.  President Bush made the tough calls.  But the presence of Cheney assured everyone that those calls were the right ones.

Now Romney can go ahead and put together a super smart team, and has already done so in part (quite a blogging team you guys have here.)  BUT, it's a one in a million chance he can make a bond with a foreign policy expert the way Bush and Cheney are bound together.  That was a freak occurence. Sure, Mitt can get some great advisers.  But at the end of the day Mitt makes that decision without the kind of support that Dubya got.  I'm sorry, but I just don't feel as comfortable with Romney in there making a decision on a missile strikes.  He is just too new to the game and the stakes are sooooo high.

So you are right I don't cut Romney the same slack because he doesn't got that Cheney mind meld thing going on.  It sounds silly.  But I think there is a lot of truth to it.  Bush gave Cheney unprecedented powers and had a level of faith in trust in him I can't imagine Romney doing that with any adviser.  

But of course a lot of adviser's will come calling to Mitt.  Everyone wants to have the ear of a potential President.  I don't put a lot of stock in that or else we would have a President Graham and a President Mondale, or God Forbid, a President Gore or President Kerry.  Bush and Cheney were a one in a million match.  It has never happened before and probably won't happen again in my lifetime.  

Pataki is worse than rudy lol.  I think it was bill buckley who said the only time that pataki would oppose abortion is if it threatened to hurt a gay or lesbian.

Finally a diary that provides a full analysis of Romney's past on abortion WITHOUT spin.  And I've seen some pretty hard spins of some of his quotes.  Well then again, the diary is still pretty young, so I might be talking too soon.

So well done, using only common sense and with a level head (as opposed to many of the anti-Romney people on this site.)

On a sidenote, I also agree with your handicapping of Romney's ability to deal with the Long War on Terror.  Nothing I have seen yet shows me any indication he is prepared to handle the threats of Iran, Hezbollah, or North Korea.  While George Allen has minimal more experience than Romney, there's always Newt, who's positions on foreign policy are always spot on.

When I say in league with pro-abortionists I mean agree with them.  You're right.  That is a bit over the top.  But keep in mind as a pro lifer who is in league with pro lifers all over the country I saw Mitt Romney lining up with the other side for too many years in Massachusetts.  A state were pro-lifers are routinely villified.  If Mitt truly wants to win over pro-lifers how about apologizing to the lonely pro-lifers in Massachusetts who had to fight people like him all those years in the wilderness?  Just because Mitt didn't goto abortion rallies doesn't mean he was an innocent bystander.  By joining the pro-abortion crowd he helped legitimize it and thereby stigmatize the few pro-life republicans fighting back the tide.  

Again, the reason I disregard his actions is because it fits the profile I described in the article.  Can he win with me?  No.  Not at the moment. Because I see no proof he is ready to lead on abortion issues other than his word.  And judging from the profile frankly I don't trust his word.    

Now, as far the other candidates.  I think it is you who are in danger of exageratting in an attempt to make your guy look better.

Allen's comments certainly are cause for a strong second look.  I'm not saying he is perfect.  He's got some explaining to do.  And maybe I'll take a whack at Allen in my next diary piece.  But Allen has never run for office as a pro-abortion candidate the way Romney did.  Allen has always been pro-life.  That is a fact.  It is public record.  Now does he have some shaky statements?  It appears so.  I'm not debating those statements.  But this political equivalency you are using is very transparent.  It is one thing to make statements that raise eyebrows and are a real cause for concern but a completely different matter to run unequivicolly as a pro-abortion candidate as Romney has done not once, but twice.  What advertisments did allen run stating he was pro-abortion?  You won't find them.  Becuase he has never run as the pro abortion candidate.  Your argument is intellectually dishonest.  This is exactly the problem with you guys.  Abortion is just a political issue you need to deal with.  You are spinning.  Romney is spinning.  Everyone can see it.  Tell Mitt Romney to go to the mass citizens for life and hold a meeting and apologize for his prior politically expedient use of abortion to get elected.  that it was wrong.  but that he is truly committed to being pro-life and will commit himself on the issue.  Come clean! Stop spinning.  Humanize the man.  Then pro-lifers will be much more likely to hear you out because for the first time we will know you are being honest by making that embarassing admission.

As for Hillary, we all agree. We do not want hillary clinton president.  If mitt wins the nomination he gets my vote.  If mccain wins the nomination he gets my vote.  If rudy wins the nomination he gets my vote.  But you have to win the nomination on your own merits, not by scaring me about chillary.

Agreed.

Interesting that you point to Newt since I've heard whisperings that Newt may not run if Romney does (due to it not being necessary).  It'll be interesting to see whom the best brain in the GOP endorses.

Your "safe and legal" reasoning sounds mighty circular to me, but those quotes are interesting.

It appears that all the aggressive discussion on this site has honed your line of attack against Romney.

Thanks.  (I think.)

..."abortion on demand" are not unclear.

Both mean that a woman can legally choose to have an abortion for any reason, without limitation.

"Safe and legal" (since Romney mentioned no limitations) has the same meaning, both literally and as euphemistically used by abortion on demand supporters across the board.

Precisely the position Mitt Romney took in 1994, again in 2002, and according to his own words, what he believed should be the case from 1970 to 2005.

(Bill Clinton was rhetorically more conservative than Romney, adding "rare" to his "safe and legal" idealism.)

...of abortion-on-demand supporters knows, that's precisely what they mean when they use all those euphemisms for shredding the body of a prenatal child -- "safe and legal" and "choice" and a "woman's right to choose" and "abortion rights," etc., all of which Romney deployed.

I know it, and you know it. More importantly, so do all the pro-lifers who vote in GOP presidential primaries.

To review:

Romney 1994 U.S. Senate debate: "I believe that abortion should be SAFE AND LEGAL in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. 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."  

Romney 2002 gubernatorial campaign website: "On Abortion Rights. As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current PRO-CHOICE status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be FREE TO CHOOSE based on their own beliefs, not the government's."  

Romney 2002 NARAL/Planned Parenthood candidate survey response: "I respect and will protect a woman's RIGHT TO CHOOSE. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be FREE TO CHOOSE based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's. The truth is no candidate in the Governor's race in either party would deny women ABORTION RIGHTS."

Romney 2002 campaign postcard: "Mitt has always supported a woman's RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Mitt inherits a proud legacy from his mother, who championed a woman's right to choose when she ran for US Senate in 1970 in Michigan before Roe v. Wade when abortion was a crime not a CHOICE."

which was clearly a lie, particularly when David Satcher was being confirmed as Surgeon General.

Way back, Newt Gingrich attempted to shift the language of the debate to one about human life but that appears to have failed, probably because it wasn't pushed hard enough.

"Safe and legal" means safe and legal.  Words mean things, as El Rushbo says.  Where did you get the "on demand" part from?

It's a good thing it's only 2006.  Everyone who's getting things done is too busy to be running for President yet.

Romney repeatedly made clear that he supported both Roe AND abortion on demand.

In fact, according to his own words, he supported "safe and legal" abortion on demand even BEFORE Roe.

"...since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate," he said.

http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/7/14/12544/1705/68#68

Three and a half decade long record of supporting "safe and legal" abortion on demand.

http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/6/26/91132/1367/152#152

A this point in the 2000 election, Bush already had these people on his team, formulating his foreign policy despite on major factor

Foreign Policy Creds weren't that important in 2000

It became vital post-9/11, which is why it was HUGE in 2004, and Bush's foreign policy creds had nothing to do with the people around him, it was himself.  Post 9/11, no one outside of Rudy and Bush (and nowadays, Newt) was more credible on foreign policy.

Even if Romney had the so called "vulcans" around him in 2008, his complete lack of personal experience would hinder his campaign.

When you said 'he has everyone beat there' and you were talking about spitting. I thought you were talking about FP experience. Apologies.

I didn't bring up Allen. Just responding to a line of commentary about Allen.

Technically, supporting Roe does not mean supporting abortion on demand.  It was Doe the same day that made the health exception into the elastic catch-all that it is.

He'll be running for President.  His most recent statements show no intention of sitting '08 out, and nothing but a discontent feeling towards any of the other candidates.

The only scenario I see him endorsing someone is if he finishes poorly in the first few primaries and endorses whoever the frontrunner is to support party unity.

However, here's to hoping it doesn't come to that.

I was excited and interested to see/hear him on Fox News yesterday (or was it 2 days ago?).

Now, not only can I not remember what he was talking about, but I actually fell asleep sitting up listening to him.  

Allen may be many great things, but "Telegenic" is not anywhere near the top of that list.

As an unfriendly, but for the most part, polite, reminder of the smear campaign that will be waged against Mitt in '08.  He does have quite a bit of information, most of it defendable, but nonetheless pretty damning when it comes to slimjim's aforementioned "political expediency."

I mean, before him, the pro-Romney folk were speaking of him as this Golden child that couldn't sin, now at least there's GG to remind them that politics isn't fair.

Albeit in a uniquely unattractive way.

However, I complain to myself everytime a pro-Romneyite comes up with the latest way to spin one of Romney's quotes into some far-fetched federalist angle, or, the worst, when one complains that quotes are being "taken out of context."  I was about to bash my face into the keyboard when the "I want abortions to be 'safe and legal' too for situations dealing with rape, incest, or when the life of the mother's at risk."

So no one really has the moral high ground in this argument.

I feel Souter has been drawn leftward though since he was appointed. In his first few cases (including his first abortion), he ruled with the conservative wing.

Pro-life presidents do try to appoint pro-life justices. But like O'Connor and Souter, some move to the left. What can you do? Impeach the judges? I don't think you can really know how a judge will actually rule once up on the highest hill, except with judges that have very, very, very long records (who can't be confirmed anyway).

But I digress. We're on the same team, and I think Romney is likely to appoint a mostly-pro-choicer like Anthony Kennedy. I just wonder about indicting Bush 41 for an unforseen Georgetown-law-party drift.

The has to be the best diary on the viability of Mitt Romney and the best source for quotes and historical reference on all of Redstate.

I don't want to call anyone out, but this diary is just as well written, or better written than the "A Pro-Life perspective on a Mitt Romney Candidacy."

What?  Did we all just forget?

As an Iowan, I can speak from experience that two independent political blogs have Romney ranked 1st right now are run by political insiders drenched in state politics.  

http://krustykonservative.blogspot.com/2006/07/krustys-six-pack.html

http://caucuscooler.blogspot.com/

More on Yepsen from my blogsite:

David Yepsen, long-time and prominent Iowa potitical columnist, wrote a column today in the Des Moines Register titled: "So far, Romney's been most impressive Republican"

Who is Yepsen? http://www.offenburger.com/guestpaper.asp" link="20050623""

"David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register is generally regarded as one of the two or three most influential political columnists in the nation, given the prominence the Iowa Caucuses have in presidential politics.

Candidates and their staffs joke about having "to go to Iowa and pay homage at Mount Yepsen" if their campaign is going to be successful. When Presidents Bill Clinton and later George W. Bush have visited Iowa, they always check-in with Yepsen."

**

The other two blogs are not just "lock-stepping" with Yepsen either (who is pretty moderal . . . if not a tad liberal, but pretty impartial in his political coverage)

I've spoken with some of the leadership of the Iowa Christian Alliance and they realize that Romney has been as pro-life a Governor as possible.  His votes/vetoes have been on the side of life.  These politically powerful individuals are happy with Romney on the Life issue.

I have looked Romney in the eye and seen him say that he is "Pro-Life".  I don't know how to convey this to y'all, but I just know down deep that he's always been pro-life and now feels at peace on this issue.  What matters now is where he stands now . . . and he firmly stands on the side of Life!  His RECORD as governor confrims this FACT!

...and judging a candidate based on factual recitations of his own words and actions is eminently fair.

It's also a far more accurate means of judgment than relying solely on the latest poll-crafted talking points, especially those diametrically at odds with Romney's decade-long record prior to running for president.

I'm tempted to go the way of Adam C and start tuning out 2008 talk, the way all this Romney sniping is going!

(Well, not completely.  I'm still going to bash McCain, and question Giluiani, so...)

I hear you man.  I tend to like the guy, and if nothing else think he's a good bullet to have in the GOP clip, but I don't think we need a diary every time he makes a headline, especially being that its only 2006.

On the other hand, I don't think the people who support him here are a crazed cult who meet in the basement to discuss their next diary, and the conspiracy to recommend it.  These diaries are just getting weird on both sides.

And hey, to be honest, I wouldn't mind if Redstate put a ban on '08 postings or something like that.  While I've written a few diaries on Newt, it's mostly just news that's crossed over here.  Even though I may add to the "Romney sniping," I still think most of the '08 chatter has been limited to just spam.

At the same time, I don't think its really Romney sniping, just I hate some of the spin that goes on here, and I just try and fight it.  That's all.

I read you as talking to the community more generally, heh.  Oh well.

I didn't even think the community read those threads anymore... even though I love participating in them.  Seemed to be a few weeks ago when the audience seemed to fully drop out of the discussion outside the pro-Romney folk and the anti-Romney folk.

I forgot to put that part at the beggining, clearly the man is running but the point i was trying to make was that if he was to drop out at this stage its uncertain who he'd endorse.

This is another reference to someone having foreign policy experience because of something he said. How do one's words or speeches make them qualified in foreign policy?  

You don't seem to be interested in his actions, only his words.

The reason conservatives are so hard on Bush I for Souter is because Bush picked someone with absolutely NO TRACK RECORD.  Nobody had any clue what Souter believed when Bush nominated him, including Bush himself.  This wasn't a case of a conservative drifting to the left.  This was a case of a complete unknown who when finally unmasked turned out to be a liberal all along.  The reason bush nominated souter was because john sununu vouched for him.  This is what happens when you elect a President who is ambivalent on abortion.  He doesn't give a damn about electing pro-life judges and doesn't make it a priority when appointing judges.  THAT is why we got Souter and that is why I'm so terrified that Mitt Romney will do the exact same thing.  When you see abortion as just a political issue to be dealt at election time you aren't willing to do the hard work to nominate judges like alito.

If Guiliani, Romney, Allen, and McCain are the frontrunners, there is a reasonable argument that McCain has the best pro-life record of the frontrunners.  I would not have guessed that 2 years ago.

In most cases, even the run-of-the-mill voter would prefer a candidate whose words are CONSISTENT with his actions, and vice versa.

All the more so among the conservative activists here at RS.

For example, Ronald Reagan was characterized by the East German secret police as "a firm and unbending politician for whom words and deeds are one and the same."

But there are apparently no limits to the extent to which some will go to rationalize Romney's record.  Now it's a virtue, I suppose, that you have to pick between Romney's words and Romney's actions.

Pretty stunning admission by FirstState.  

It occurs to me that there may actually be a rational explanation for your sudden outburst of emotion, the clue being your adding "egotistical" to the list of perjoratives you've cast my way.

When I wrote "I'm probably a bit more qualified for political analysis..."

You may have interpreted that to be saying, "I'm probably a bit more qualified THAN DAHMICH for political analysis."

When instead, my actual intent was, "I'm probably a bit more qualified for political analysis THAN I AM FOR PSYCHOANALYSIS," referring to my opening subject line.

If you misunderstood, DAH, fine, but it makes me wonder why you rush to find offense where none is intended.

Notwithstanding the clear offense intended by your posts in the exchange.

I would have to agree with that. Aside from the whole "What would you do if your daughter wanted an abortion" episode, he's probably at the top of that list.

the piece by Nathan Burd? Everyone is open about Romney's record on abortion. The difference in the interpretation.

People are feed up with you because you insist that he "promote and defends abortion on demand". Also, the homosexual scoutmasters thing is just ridiculous.

Your free to interpret a person's position, even if it's wrong. If you insist on being over the top then you will probably be ignored (at least by me).

Adam, as long as Newt is getting third place in polls behind McCain and Rudy, it would only be fair to include him on that list.  If that's the case, then Newt easily becomes that candidate.

Romney's popularity is for the most part limited towards bloggers, so maybe the word "frontrunner" isn't the best description for him.  Really, even with Allen, the term isn't too accurate.

Since I'm tired of doing this over and over, I'll refer you to this post from rolltide.

SlimJim states that I didn't provide any links in my post about Romney's views on abortion. For links, including a video link that includes a convincing portion on abortion, visit the front page of www.americansformitt.com.  Links are included in the body of this piece on my website.

Mitt said that he would sign an abortion ban like the one in South Dakota if the legsiature in Mass. would pass one.  SlimJim ignores the reality of the people and legislature of Mitt's state. Pro-life legislative victories are mathematically impossible there right now. That's why his "moratorium" was "brilliant."  It was at least an effort to keep the state from further liberalizing their abortion laws.

Nobody denies that Romney has a pro-choice past.  I made that clear in my piece.  But if the pro-life movement has no room for converts to our cause, then we might as pack up and go home.