Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Seems like good timing for a basic blog rant. It’s been a tough couple of weeks and I’m cranky. Keeping the discussion on matters of politics a little review of the current situation seems in order.

Obamanation remains fixated on their, ‘let’s take over everything’ agenda. The central flaw in their quest beyond public disapproval and even outrage is similar to that of a typical spendthrift. They believe there is still money in the bank if they still have checks.

It’s amazing really. Politicians in both parties have frequently if not continuously committed the same financial sins for which they accuse others. Yet they have no shame for their own misguided actions or for political rhetoric employed as unemployment engulfs our nation.

By our votes we bestow upon them a public trust complete with perks for royalty yet we shed that anchor over two hundred years ago. And with the possible exception of the founding fathers those in public office have a two century record of malfeasance in office. If they were not directly involved with corrupt government they were willing participants by the fact of their incompetent objection.

As noted here elsewhere, notable Republicans like Palin, Romney and Scott Brown support McCain for re-election. Yet it is clear McCain is not a conservative. Which casts doubt on the credentials of the aforementioned.

Mr. Romney, who was supported on this blog since 2008, provided a less than convincing excuse for his endorsement. If McCain’s years of service and experience qualify him as the best choice for American leadership what does that say about his support of shamnesty during the second Bush 43 term? And then there’s Lindsey Graham with similar problems. The GOP has not turned the page toward conservative principles. How will they do that with barely half a year to go before the 2010 elections?

Yes, they are fiercely opposing the current liberal push for a totally out of touch agenda. But what else are they going to do? They believe this strategy against the Obamanation will translate to victory in November. What’s new about that? Sound like politics as usual just as much as the Dems failure on every level since the 2006 midterms.

The GOP fell from grace and have not returned in any meaningful way. The libs are apparently willing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Worst of all, they have not drained the swamp. The culture of corruption is alive and well in Washington, DC and around the country in all levels of government.

The voters must drain the swamp in November 2010.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

editor’s note: The quality of this post has suffered as it is Friday and this month’s budget only allows for beer rather than top shelf single malt Scotch. Po’ Stanford. And no images were chosen for this post as none were available at the time of publication to fit the mood.

With some troubling news coming out of CPAC 2010 along with similar revelations about various ‘conservative’ philosophies and their proponents more reports suggest 2010 is still wide open.

The recent endorsement of John McCain by former running mate Sarah Palin was analyzed by some as the former Alaska governor being polite. But that argument fails given her unnecessary decision to ’stump’ and raise money for the veteran Senator from Arizona whose conservative values have always been in question. His maverick status being built more by a departure from conservative values than adherence to it.

Now this:

Romney backs McCain in Arizona Senate primary race

It’s like 2008 all over again: Mitt Romney is endorsing John McCain. This time, though, it’s not after a bitter presidential primary between the two GOP rivals.

With too many Republicans appearing more like their liberal counterparts in the Democratic party the wonder is how anyone can suggest a GOP majority after the 2010 elections. This blog features sidebar links for Palin and Romney. And past posts have called for support of both in past elections. For now those links and the supportive posts will remain. But the troubling trends being reported render all that subject to change.

What the hell are these people thinking? Enough noise was made by the public this year that even POLS with hearing impairments should have received the message. A return to basic common sense American values is long overdue and more necessary for survival than previously thought. If those connected to the GOP are as unresponsive as their political opposition from the other major party then one thing remains clear.

They are no better than those they criticize and have apparently improved upon the liberal trend of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This is a slice from the healthcare reform bill introduced in Congress by Democrats. That can be said since the committee approved it on a party line vote and the GOP may get another bashing from liberals for being the party of ‘no’. But nonetheless THIS IS a Democrat bill. After reading the linked excerpt below feel free to follow it to find out more on this ‘reform’ bill. The question is…… can you find any problems with the little ’slice’ that is presented here?

You might also find a post at Flopping Aces on this topic useful as well. While this blog does not necessarily agree with the characterization of Romney’s role in the Massachusetts version of healthcare reform from 2006 dissin’ the former Presidential candidate from 2008 for the dramatic failure of that state’s plan may be the price one pays for having their name associated with such a bill. But that raises the question of who else was involved and gave their approval of it? Nuff said.

There may be a pressing need to solve problems with healthcare and someone may even have the solution. But the offerings from the White House and Congress may have much in common with past attempts by government to solve problems in the private sector. They simply do not work. But it is fair to say that whatever comes out of Washington to solve healthcare will be something none of us can afford. That is if it looks anything like what is being proposed thus far.

Just one little suggestion for Congress is offered here as an ending note. Just below you will notice the brief description of the bill along with its title. The last four words of the description could be removed from all legislation. ‘And for other purposes’ is just one more free hand politicians should not be given.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009
H.R. 3200

To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

(b) Grace Period for Current Employment-based Health Plans-

(1) GRACE PERIOD-

(A) IN GENERAL- The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.

One news event that gives this blog the opportunity to present another post on the first choice for President, Mitt Romney. Along with another who is suggested to be on the short list for his party’s VP nomination, Tom Daschle and Mitt Romney were on This Week today. Another suggestion about the possible VP selections is that Romney is not on or would decline, privately or publicly, as he has aspirations to run again for 2012. Bias in check, Romney performed better than Daschle although the former Democratic Senator almost made a point.

The bottom line is that without strong national security and defense other issues on a President’s agenda are basically a moot point. Obama has neither the experience or savvy that comes from it whereas McCain has a lifelong dedication of service to country in the military, the Senate as well as a family history of strength in these matters. It’s in his blood and the resume’ bears that out. Obama cannot will such things or buy it at amazon.com. Anything he has to offer can be duplicated in Congress by other Democrats. He is not what this country needs in the White House.

Stanford Matthews

Romney Promotes McCain: ‘Judgment Comes from Experience’

August 17, 2008 11:19 AM

ABC News’ Matt Stuart reports: Former Republican presidential hopeful and ex-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney promoted Sen. John McCain’s foreign policy experience Sunday, arguing that “judgment comes from experience,” and that “when the people of America are reminded of how dangerous the world is, they recognize the importance of selecting a person that has experience and judgment and wisdom.”

Romney, appearing on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” on behalf of McCain, argued that the situation in Georgia “shows one more time that, in a dangerous and troubled world, it’s helpful to have a leader of the nation that knows these places, knows the people, understands the setting.” Romney added of McCain’s response to the conflict, “John McCain didn’t have to search around to figure out what to say about what was going on.”

Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, Full Metal Cynic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Mark My Words, A Blog For All, Right Truth, DragonLady’s World, Shadowscope, Cao’s Blog, Conservative Cat, Nuke’s, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, third world county, Political Byline, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, DragonLady’s World, Pirate’s Cove, , The Pink Flamingo, , Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe

It is fair to note what has become a shadow issue in the 2008 Presidential race is national security, national defense and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Democratic party base lead by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and their friends at MoveOn, etc., has not supported the troops and continuously called for surrender in Iraq especially and met with leaders of Syria and other state sponsors of terror over the last year. Their totally reprehensible treatment of General Patraeus and opposition to the troop surge in Iraq was the focal point of their surrender strategy and appeasement campaign as well as their central theme for a so-called New Direction for America since the midterm elections. They have become silent on the issue since it became successful with the exception of calling for withdrawal several times since. Every Democratic party candidate has called for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and used the statements as a central theme of their campaigns. Reason enough to reject them all as Presidential candidates.

From the beginning of the 2008 campaign for President the GOP had three liberal leaning candidates among the top tier of contenders. That would be Senator John McCain, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Governor Mike Huckabee. Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney were the most conservative candidates in the mix. Now that former Senator Fred Thompson has withdrawn from the race, Mitt Romney is the closest thing to a true conservative still running in the 2008 Presidential campaign.

This blog has supported Mitt Romney for President from the beginning. In answer to Thompson supporters this blog noted that he was the 2nd choice and would be supported if Romney did not survive the contests. Mitt Romney has the most delegates and has done a satisfactory job answering critics about his issue positions. Only those who require perfection from candidates as their sole argument in opposition to any candidate have continued to suggest that Romney is flawed in his positions. Of course those who happen to support another candidate use the tired arguments in an attempt to defeat him. The undeniable fact that Mitt Romney is exceptionally intelligent, educated and talented as well as disciplined and incredibly successful is reason enough to support him for President.

If you are looking for a perfect candidate you won’t find one. If you are looking for a candidate who will deliver exactly what you want you are likely to fail. But if you want a candidate with honorable values, the ability to restore success where there is failure and who will surround himself with other successful people to accomplish the tasks facing this country you would be hard pressed to find a better candidate than Mitt Romney.

Both McCain and Huckabee have questionable views on immigration, especially the illegal variety. Giuliani may as well and also is characterized as a liberal on social issues. Since the Dems fail in the most basic principles like supporting the troops and calling for surrender when the country is at war and the other three GOP candidates are less conservative than Mitt Romney, the choice should be simple.

If you want to straighten out what is wrong in this country, you should vote for Mitt Romney.

fun headlines on the Clinton campaign…..

from WaPo’s The Trail…
By Anne E. Kornblut
MANCHESTER, N.H

Several outside allies — John Podesta, James Carville and Paul Begala, all of whom served as advisers to former president Bill Clinton — all were mentioned as possible additions to her team of strategists, but each denied that they were being brought in on Tuesday.

Senior Clinton advisers were hunkered down at her hotel in Concord. None of her top campaign officials has traveled with her on the road in recent days, leaving the candidate to largely crisscross the campaign trail with her daughter, Chelsea, and aide Huma Abedin by her side.

The un-fun part was the broadcast network media distancing themselves from the constant talk of an upset in NH and favoring Clinton over others in their candidate focus pieces on the evening news. But then no one ever said the media was unbiased. This blog is biased in that content unfavorable to Hillary Rodham Clinton and others will be posted since too often the main stream, well funded, media glosses over or completely omits any scrutiny of candidates like Clinton. And if they care to dispute that statement they are more than welcome to contact this blog to discuss the matter and any rebuttal will be published. But they won’t.

More fun Clinton headlines…..

Movement In The Clinton World
Atlantic Online - Jan 6, 2008
Reines joines the rarified ranks of such luminaries as Sidney Blumenthal and Huma Abedin and Karen Hicks. Reines is a favorite quotemeister of reporters but …

Gee Wally, there’s that name again, Huma Abedin. Wasn’t there some sort of tabloid story about candidate Clinton and her? If they won’t scrutinize the substantial and glaring hypocrisy and misdeeds of the Clinton Clan, maybe the media can produce a story about Clinton and Abedin for readers. The way the masses absorb stories about Lohan and Spears, etc., they could sell plenty of ads with it.

Huma Abedin
New York Observer, NY - Dec 18, 2007
And there was, of course, Huma Abedin! “The Wallflowers did four songs and they were amazing,” she told The Observer. read more »

Wow, there’s a story with the title of ‘Huma Abedin’ (popular girl).

Fearless fashionista
Louisville Courier-Journal, KY - Jan 3, 2008
Bosworth’s fellow fab femmes include Venus Williams and Hillary Clinton’s unflappable — and unbelievably stunning — aide Huma Abedin. …

Oops, no wonder there are so many stories about Huma Abedin. She was the search term after appearing in several results in Google News for the search term ‘clinton’.

Some of the other headlines in results for search term ‘clinton’ featured the Clinton campaign downplaying the Hillary Tears episode of the Clinton Soap Opera. Then there is one in which the title states that someone still won’t vote for Clinton. It gets better as the union endorsements in Nevada go to Obama.

Sorry Fox, this blog is sort of taking the liberty of posting this entire excerpt but at least the link is provided….

Now some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine:

Emotional Advantage?

Many political observers are saying that Hillary Clinton’s tear-up during a campaign event Monday may have helped to humanize her - and may have swayed New Hampshire voters — especially women — giving Clinton the votes she needed to beat Barack Obama.

But some skeptics question the spontaneity of the emotional moment. Take a look at an interview with the TV program “Access Hollywood” done Sunday — was this a subtle preview of things to come? Again that interview was done Sunday, and the emotional moment in the diner was Monday.

Reporters covering the campaign say to their knowledge — Hillary had never cried in public on the campaign trail before that Monday event — and had never talked about crying before that “Access Hollywood” interview Sunday.

Meanwhile the woman who asked the question that precipitated Senator Clinton’s tear-up says she believes the emotional response was sincere — but —she voted for Barack Obama anyway!

Not like it would take a great deal of convincing for most people to accept Tiny Tears Hillary was a fake like the rest of her campaign. It is too bad for the feminine gender that the first actual candidate for President from the same gender had to be Hillary Rodham Clinton. You could pick an example from many other women that would have been a compelling choice but they may not have been available or interested. It also may not reflect well on women that some of them should look so desperate for a woman President to accept HRC or her bogus attempt to convince the public she is human. It was as bogus as the excuse that trying to look like a man brings criticism of Clinton as well as looking like a woman. The reason that is bogus points to the real problem. It’s not whether HRC has masculine or feminine qualities. The absence of honesty and integrity would be the problem.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is strictly a political animal and not a very good one at that. Reflect on the baggage and the scandals. Especially the most relevant like the withheld First Lady docs and campaign irregularities like Norman Hsu or the dishwashers. As long as your at it, the planted questions in the audience and the inability to answer the driver’s license for illegals question in the debate. And again, her resume’ she claims to be 35 years of experience includes one failed health care initiative in her husband’s first term and 18 minor public laws most of which are sentimental like naming buildings, authorizing displays and the like. Ask her to name three things she has done, SPECIFICALLY, that qualify her to be President. She hasn’t named ONE yet. She uses vague terms or phrases like ‘worked on’ or ‘fought for’ when describing her accomplishments That is because she has none.

And if you look a little closer you will notice that Barack Obama and John Edwards have no accomplishments that qualify them for President either. Senator John Kerry was the last Dems nominee. Al Gore was before that. Two terms of Hillary’s husband and before that Jimmy Carter. What does this party have to offer?

The GOP has better liberal candidates, Rudy Giuliani or Mike Huckabee or John McCain. Of course a smarter voter would select either Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson.

Other good news while typing this post, ABC’s Nightline announced Bill Richardson intends to withdraw from the 2008 Presidential race tomorrow. And the final note of this post is that the DNC is still afraid of Mitt Romney. Why do you suppose so much attack flak was aimed at his campaign? And then he is further criticized for his campaign tactics when all his ads do is point ot the flaws of his rivals to counter their criticism of him. Funny how politics works.

P.S. Kathy at Conservative Thoughts has an impressive chart of candidates on the issues and a commentary that offers a prediction that this blog’s choice, Mitt Romney will likely face HRC in the general. And that is what scares the DNC. That Mitt Romney would face HRC in the general. You gotta love it.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, Jan 08, 2008
CONTACT: Kevin Madden (857) 288-6390

Bedford, NH – Tonight, Governor Mitt Romney made a strong showing in the New Hampshire Primary. While the ballots are still being counted, tens of thousands of New Hampshire voters have cast their vote for Governor Romney’s message of conservative change in Washington. Elections are about the future and Governor Romney will continue to fight for building a better tomorrow. With the announcement of today’s results, Governor Romney made the following remarks to supporters and volunteers:

“Well, another silver. I’d rather have a gold, but I got another silver. There’ve been three races so far. I’ve gotten two silvers and one gold – thank you, Wyoming. But tonight, congratulations go to Senator John McCain for running a first-class race. Congratulations on the gold, Senator, great job.”

…

“This has been quite an experience for us, I’ll tell you. We thought we knew New Hampshire, but now we really know New Hampshire with almost 250 events that we’ve done across this state. We have learned why it is that New Hampshire is the first primary in the nation. There’s a reason for it. The people of this great state really get to know the candidates, ask them questions, learn about their heart and character. People of New Hampshire opened their hearts and their homes to us and for that we will always be grateful. Thank you so much, New Hampshire.

“You know, in all those events, as we’ve listened to so many people from across the state, we hear time and time again, a similar message and that is that people are frustrated. They’re concerned about the future of our country, particularly our leadership in Washington. They feel that Washington is broken, and they’ve heard time and again promises that haven’t been fulfilled by Washington.

“They’ve heard Washington say that they’re going to stop illegal immigration, but they haven’t.

“They’ve heard Washington say that they’re going to get us off our dependence on foreign oil, but they haven’t.

“They’ve heard Washington say they’re going to get people insured that don’t have health insurance, but they haven’t.

“They’ve heard Washington say they’re going to improve our schools and make them the best in the world, but they haven’t.

“They’ve heard Washington say that they’re going to protect our jobs and make sure that the jobs that we have are the best in the world, but they haven’t done that.
“They’ve heard Washington say that they’re going to balance the budget, but they haven’t done that.

“They have heard Washington say that they’re going to make life easier on the middle class and reduce the burdens on the middle class, but they haven’t. You finally got it, didn’t you?

“And I believe that it’s time to send somebody to Washington who will actually get the job done. Thanks, you guys. I don’t think it’s going to get done by Washington insiders that sending insiders back to Washington, just to change different chairs. That’s not going to get the job done. I think you have to have somebody from outside Washington who has proven that he can get the job done in one setting after another.

“And as you know, I had the privilege of working in the private sector for 25 years and helped, with a number of other people, to make businesses stronger. Not every time successful. I learned from the successes and the failures. And then went off to the Olympics and again, with a great team of people, helped make that successful. And then, in the position of Governor of Massachusetts, got the chance to make that state more successful. We did something no one thought would be possible, we did get health care on track for all of our citizens in our state, balanced the budget all four years, rebuilt our rainy day fund.

“I’ve been able to get the job done. And I don’t care who gets the credit, Republican or Democrat. I got no scores to settle. I don’t worry about who’s going to be the hero and who’s not going to be. I want to make sure that the America that this family inherits and your family inherits is an America that remains strong and the hope of the Earth.

“This is the greatest nation on Earth. This is the greatest nation on Earth, not just because of our beautiful landscape, but because of the American people and the heart and character of the American people and the things they believe. The fact that Americans believe in hard work. The fact that Americans love opportunity, and they love it above dependence on government. The fact that Americans are willing to make take risks for the future and sacrifice for their families. That we are a family oriented people. The fact that by and large Americans believe in God, and even those who don’t believe in God, believe in something bigger than themselves. The fact that Americans are patriotic. I will strengthen America, as your President, when I come back here next November.

“I will fight across this nation, on to Michigan and South Carolina and Florida and Nevada and states after that. I’ll fight to be back here in November in those states and in others. But I’ll also fight to make sure that we strengthen this great country by strengthening our families and our homes where our kids learn those American values by strengthening our economy. Look, if people wonder what direction America’s going to head if they choose a Democratic leader like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, all they have to do is look at a state like Michigan, which has had Democratic leadership, where taxes have been going up and jobs have been going out, and where the industries are struggling. We want to make sure that we strengthen our economy, and finally where we strengthen our military to make sure we’re safe here and abroad. I will strengthen America. I will stand up for the values we believe in. I’ll make sure that America is, as it has always been, the hope of the Earth. Thank you so much. Thank you.”

The funniest thing about the New Hampshire primary was Bill Clinton whining about the media. With signature Clinton audacity, Bill had the stones to complain that the media has not provided the needed scrutiny of Barack Obama. Then Hillary Rodham Clinton tries the tears angle. And considering the many reports indicating a substantial number of voters did not make up their mind more than a few days or even hours before the polls opened, it is not unreasonable to think the polls were not wrong but that NH voters changed their minds in the hours before the vote.

If the polls were right on Obama leading by at least 5 points in NH after a victory in Iowa and he takes second place in NH behind by 3%, again, it is reasonable to conclude with the women’s numbers in NH that the ‘tiny tears’ or mix and match Barbie routine of HRC turned the vote for a narrow Clinton victory. And as for the slick Willie media scrutiny complaint, where are those First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton docs Bill?

The questions and scrutiny of Obama or any other candidate pale in comparison to the scrutiny required of the Clinton scandals, from Whitewater and Vince Foster through TravelGate, the impeachment of the former President, Lewinsky and Norman Hsu as well as the locked up First Lady documents . The Clinton transgressions are getting a walk in another Presidential election. But commenting earlier this month on this blog that Karl Rove was right and HIllary Rodham Clinton is the GOP’s easiest target in a general election gets a boost in NH this week.

With the possible exception of Biden and Dodd dropping out of the race, nothing has really been decided yet. On the Dems side it’s one for Obama and one for Clinton with Edwards edging 2nd in Iowa and third in NH. For the GOP it’s one for Huckabee, one for McCain and one for Romney. That’s right, Romney won the GOP caucus in WY. In the big picture NH may be a psychological and traditional statistical measure for candidates but WY’s 3 electoral votes are nearly as important as NH’s 4 at this point in the campaign. Besides the one quiet state victory for Romney is the 2nd place finish in Iowa and NH although it should be noted that fact alone makes the nomination a tougher objective.

What will make this even more interesting on the GOP side is if Romney takes Michigan, Thompson takes SC and Giuliani takes Florida with his big electoral state strategy. The funny part for the Dems is Clinton has to win Michigan since Obama and Edwards are not on the ballot with the controversy over moving up the date. It is fair to say that for this blog’s candidate, Mitt Romney, the Michigan primary is serious. Here’s a little review from USA Today on the Michigan story.

Next stop on primary schedule: Michigan
By Erin Kelly, Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON — For the presidential candidates who survive New Hampshire, the next stop of the grueling primary season is Jan. 15 in Michigan.

The national committees of both parties are not happy with Michigan’s decision to move the voting date. While rules and regs are important it may illuminate a concern about how much control party politics has over elections that should be decided by citizens, one vote at a time. But then we all know that is not exactly how it works. For all the outrage expressed over questionable elections in other countries there appears to be little effective scrutiny over the way we do such business in this country. But that’s another story for another time.

While it is easy to respect Senator John McCain for his service to country it is not so easy to respect his politics. While he staunchly supports the troops and that is admirable and understandable, his actions like the one referenced below from the 2004 Presidential campaigns raises some real questions. It is one thing to call for ‘civility in debate’ which he has done on a number of occasions but to express any kind of support for a Presidential candidate who supports surrender in Iraq and always has is not acceptable. Whereas McCain’s service during the Viet Nam War raises no questions, the same cannot be said of Senator John Kerry.

McCain Defends Kerry’s Record on National Security
Ariz. Senator Calls for More Civility in Debate

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 19, 2004; Page A01

Republican Sen. John McCain yesterday defended Sen. John F. Kerry’s record on national security, undercutting the Bush-Cheney campaign’s latest attacks on the Democratic presidential challenger and frustrating conservatives hoping for a unified front against the Massachusetts senator.

“I do not believe that he is, quote, ‘weak on defense,’ ” McCain (Ariz.) said on NBC’s “Today” show.

Asked on the CBS “Early Show” whether he agreed with Vice President Cheney’s assertion that Kerry is a threat to national security, McCain said: “I don’t think that. I think that John Kerry is a good and decent man. . . . I think he has different points of view on different issues, and he will have to explain his voting record. But this kind of rhetoric, I think, is not helpful in educating and helping the American people make a choice.”

Although McCain restated his support of Bush’s reelection bid, Democrats welcomed his remarks

Some were surprised that McCain put up little resistance to the attacks from candidate George Bush during the 2000 Presidential primary. The article referenced below again mentions a perception about McCain that raises questions. His choices of what to angrily defend or support in his ‘maverick’ style may be more of an indication of what he is about. Defending Senator John Kerry as a rival Presidential candidate to your party’s choice and not defending yourself against an attack from then candidate George Bush simply don’t indicate intelligent choices. It is as if after getting bitch slapped by George Bush in the 2000 primary, McCain and his maverick reputation were silenced by party pressure or some other effective force. These are the troubling matters about Senator John McCain. Being publicly on board with President Bush and Senators Kyl and Kennedy last summer with the amnesty plan and skipping some votes in the process raise a question of his own defense that he does not support amnesty.

John McCain Comes In From the Cold

By Mark Leibovich
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 30, 2004; Page C01

NEW YORK, Aug. 29 — He turned 68 Sunday. He will be 72 on Election Day 2008, if anyone’s keeping track.

Anyway, McCain’s on his best behavior today. He is doing his best imitation of an on-message, on-the-reservation, smartly saluting Republican.

Asked about the bitter primary campaign against George W. Bush in 2000 — Also counterproductive would be any perception that he doesn’t support the president and that he secretly — or not — is rooting for his Senate friend, John Kerry.

For those who may still believe the so-called immigration reform bill from last summer was not amnesty, here is an explanation from Senator Sessions.
So under the AgJOBS portion that was adopted in committee without debate, agricultural workers who have worked 150 workdays–that is not a full day–over the last 2 years, less than half time, will receive a blue card, and that will allow them to live and work permanently in the United States. However, because current law defines an agricultural workday as 1 hour of work per day–that definition is reinstated in the bill on page 397–an alien who has worked for as little as 150 hours in agriculture over the last 2 years will qualify for a blue card.

Loophole No. 13: Once an illegal alien worker receives a blue card, the blue card never expires. Blue cards, the new category of cards given to aliens who are amnestied under the AgJOBS provision of this bill,

[Page: S4514] GPO’s PDF

never expire. The blue card holder can choose to pursue a green card, legal permanent resident status, by working for more hours in agriculture, but that is not a requirement to stay in the United States.

Page 399 specifically states:

An alien in blue card status shall be provided an employment authorized endorsement or other appropriate work permit, in the same manner as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
These are just a few of the items that raise questions of Senator John McCain’s performance and the wisdom of selecting him as a choice for President in 2008. That said, if he was the last man standing of the GOP candidates, this blog would support him fully as the choices on the left side are no choice at all. But it is strongly suggested you consider voting for Mitt Romney. As one person said in a TV interview from New Hampshire, he has a proven record of accomplishment, knows how to get things done, surrounds himself with the people needed to reach the objective and apart from criticism of position changes, understands what people want and knows how to deliver.

Romney was a Republican governor in a Democratic party state and was successful. McCain has been in Congress for a long time and may have trouble with his ‘maverick’ rep as President. Huckabee raises taxes and pays for illegals to go to college and only won Iowa based on religious right support. They were willing to abandon another candidate with equally religious values just because he follows a faith different from their’s. How’s that for American? Again, as stated many times before this blog supports Mitt Romney for President. Currently as of this writing the only thing to get excited about in the 2008 race is that HRC is dropping fast.

………………….
………………….

The statistical tie in Iowa among Clinton, Obama and Edwards finds Obama on top with Edwards edging out Clinton for second. The statistical tie between Romney and Huckabee has Huckabee taking first in Iowa with an 8 point lead. New Hampshire is just days away which is probably good for the winners and not so good for the rest of the pack.

Some reports have Thompson bowing out if he did not have a minimum of 15% for third place. Oops. Other reports figure Romney can’t recover by NH with McCain moving up. But if Clinton doesn’t strike gold in NH her campaign may be in for a rough (short) ride. But for those who do not favor a Clinton candidate that would be a little too much optimism this early in the voting. Or is it?

Some said that if Huckabee could win Iowa, make a decent showing in the next couple of states he could be a contender when the votes move to the South. But they said that is where Thompson would do well. And Giuliani apparently is getting what he planned for in states with few electoral votes….. nothing. Coming out of Iowa, Thompson and Ciuliani are not as strong as there national poll numbers were and Romney had a disappointing finish based on money spent but the negative campaign constant commentary in the media may have hurt his chances in Iowa.

Other reports suggest Edwards may not get much further than Iowa if he did not take first. Well, second is in the middle. Not too hot, not to cold, maybe it is just right. If 2nd is not good enough for Edwards to continue what does that say about Clinton’s chances? Her campaign is viewed as doing better in Iowa than whom? Obama may get a momentum win in NH and if Edwards could take another second…..hmmm.

If Huckabee takes NH he would be in the driver’s seat probably until Super Tuesday. After reviewing Iowa and considering what it may mean to each candidate and what it says, if anything about the rest of the race really shows we don’t know much more than we did yesterday. The people with Excedrin headaches tonite are Clinton and Romney. There surprises were the most noticeable. McCain is keeping a steady strength while on the other side Obama and Edwards are chipping away at the experience and inevitability factors. Basically, still even across the board.

According to the Rasmussen report Giuliani and Thompson lead the national polls for the GOP at 23 and 25% respectively near the beginning of October 2007 while McCain and Romney essentially shared second at 10 and 13% and Huckabee was not a factor in mid-single digits. For the Democrats, Clinton held a whopping 44 or 45% with Obama trailing in the 20’s and Edwards in the teens.

What a difference a couple of months can make. Currently, at Rasmussen Reports, Huckabee has nearly the first place numbers held by Giuliani and Thompson earlier at 22%. Giuliani and Romney are in second with mid teens as McCain and Thompson follow in third in the lower teens. While McCain has been mentioned in news reports as gaining some strength of late, for example, the Peter King endorsement, his 13% is representative of the last months. Giuliani and Thompson have slipped while Huckabee and Romney have gained. The Dems, nationally have not changed, but Clinton is faltering in the early state polls while Obama continues to climb and Edwards appears the same and steady. For the GOP, Huckabee and Romney lead Iowa.

With the religious questions still lingering in the campaign a recent poll indicated eight out of ten likely Republican voters said religion was not a factor in their vote. Of those voters the support for each candidate may be reflected in the other polls. For the twenty percent who say religion is a factor most suggest support for Huckabee. A related story suggest Romney has much ’silent’ support in addition to what the other poll numbers show in Iowa. Huckabee is thought to have much support in Iowa but that has not translated to strength in other early states. A first for Huckabee in Iowa may give him competing strength in subsequent early state contests while less than second may see his recent surge fade. For the Dems, less than first in Iowa may signal the beginning of the end for Clinton while a first for Obama could build a breakout leading into the New Hampshire and other states.

At USA Election Polls one could say Iowa is a statistical tie for each party. As most people know, Huckabee and Romney are a tie as well as Clinton and Obama are tied. Several delegate count listings have what one would expect based on national polls through the campaign to date. But when averages or proportional distribution of state delegates are considered the game changes dramatically.

In New Hampshire it is Romney and McCain or Romney, McCain and Giuliani for the GOP. At one time Giuliani was stronger but his strategy of focus on the ‘big’ states has seen the numbers change. Clinton and Obama for the Dems mirrors Iowa. With the NY connections for Giuliani and a NY Senate seat for Clinton, they were much stronger in the Northeast early on but things are changing.

But all this is just a snapshot in time and too much should not be read into it. Just like Huckabee’s recent rise, two months ago, who’d a thunk it? The view from this blog sees Giuliani conceding early states. The Huckabee surge is only a factor in one state thus far. Clinton continues to decline. Obama continues to climb. Edwards in holding steady and leads in at least one poll in Iowa for the Dems. Thompson has slid some while McCain and Romney have maintained or increased strength, the exception has been the tie for Romney and Huckabee in Iowa.

If forced to pick only from the Democratic party offerings this blog would recommend Obama or Edwards. Only because they are not Clinton and are the only other Dems candidates with a chance to win. But then Biden, Dodd or Kucinich would not be selected here, under the conditions mentioned, or under any other circumstance. That would be why this blog would not vote for a Democrat in 2008. Oh, did Richardson get overlooked? Yes.

On the GOP side, this blog has always supported Mitt Romney for President and will continue to do so. Based on some of the positions of Giuliani and Huckabee, this blog could only support them if they were the last ones standing. While some concerns remain about an outstanding American named Senator John McCain, primarily due to his support of amnesty last summer, if he was nominated he would get this blog’s full support. Nearly the same can be said for Fred Thompson. While some of the early criticism appears to have been a lame attempt to discredit him, since entering the campaign, his performance is a bit puzzling and an aura of almost hesitation causes some questions. But again, if he was the nominee for the GOP he would get this blog’s support.

That brings it back to Mitt Romney. Romney possesses the attributes required to be successful. The criticism voiced about Romney may be more a matter of political gamesmanship and the strategy of rivals. Questions about his faith are a distraction. Questions about his positions may reflect a willingness to respond to the will of the electorate or the strength to do what is right on behalf of them. People do change their minds for good reason although it is popular in politics to highlight that fact as a flaw.

On the practical side, Mitt Romney is credited even by some of his critics for successfully correcting a massive budget shortfall in Massachusetts. He successfully repaired a failing Olympic organization. He has successfully rebuilt million or billion dollar companies. He can do the same for a debt ridden nation. He has the knowledge to surround himself with a team to produce results and strengthen this country. With the economy taking over first place as the most important issue for the 2008 election, Mitt Romney is the one superior choice for President. Not only can he deliver leadership to our economic troubles but the remainder of policy matters are well within his grasp. His faith and family values can also restore some of the traditional concepts that have made this country great. These are not campaign tricks. The man has demonstrated throughout his life that intelligence, discipline, hard work and values have driven his success. He can apply those attributes and principles to leading this nation and getting it done.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, third world county, Faultline USA, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog’s Weblog, Cao’s Blog, Wolf Pangloss, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

This blog has presented opinion and some reports and transcripts related to criticism surrounding Mitt Romney and his Mormon faith. The short version is a candidate’s faith should not be a campaign issue. There are now some reports perhaps gaining circulation about a rumor that Barack Obama is really a Muslim and threatens the security of the US. While it appears Mr Obama’s response or handling of the matter is more subdued than the Faith in America speech finally given by Romney as a result of the repeated attacks on his faith, it may have done more good defusing the campaign flap over religion for Obama to in some way follow suit with a speech of his own. Of course that may yet happen. Mitt Romney may have preferred it go away on its own rather than extending the life of a counterproductive criticism.

As a measure to demonstrate that the two major political parties do not need to always maintain an adversarial posture, Obama presenting an announced speech to respond to the religious rumor about his faith would strengthen the idea that a person’s faith should be off the table. With all the references to JFK’s speech after Romney presented his, it appears we have not learned much since candidate John F Kennedy delivered his statements. However Barack Obama handles this topic will probably be fine. The comments here are just a suggestion with the exception of keeping faith off the campaign table.

One report link about the Obama rumor is presented below:

Obama Describes Faith Amid False Rumors

One report about Obama’s opinions about faith earlier in the campaign are also offered below:

Barack Obama: Putting faith out front | csmonitor.com
How the Illinois senator came to embrace religion in his life.

Here is a link related to faith on Obama’s campaign website:
http://faith.barackobama.com/page/content/faithhome

You may argue that faith is an issue in a political campaign and it is obvious that a voter’s faith may influence whether or not they vote for a candidate. There has been much talk about the separation of church and state. Not everything said about how that concept is interpreted or understood is necessarily correct. With all the conflict about what can or cannot occur due to this concept it is still unresolved to everyone’s satisfaction and typical recurring themes continue to dominate the arguments. One example of what is probably being ignored and more difficult to confront relates to churches and their congregations. A sound bite aired on radio this past week featured a person expressing their church had instructed members not to vote for a particular candidate on religious grounds. Do you view that as a violation of the separation of church and state? It does not matter. It should not be part of the process We are allowed to practice any faith we wish by virtue of the freedom of religion and also free not to participate.

Even if people who feel compelled to consider religion a factor in candidate selection consciously decide to remove it from their selection criteria it may be impossible to determine if that effort was successful. This may serve as one example of where the human condition fails to fulfill the notion we can be objective. Puts a hole in another notion that humans are a superior life form on this planet. Seems the remainder of the animal kingdom may do a better job than us on being objective as well as many other measures.

‘But no one running is more impressive than Mitt Romney’ according to an opinion piece by Mona Charen. So what you say? The reason for her statement was the ‘Faith in America’ speech and prior to the speech she viewed him as something of a carefully packaged and marketed Presidential candidate. There are plenty of reactions to the Romney speech on religion in America with criticism based on a comparison to the JFK speech years earlier or positive comments drawing on the complaint that the Mormon question is unfair and largely presented or supported by rivals or those who support other candidates. Certainly the subjective argument about religion can attribute the Huckabee approach as an attempt to draw support from those viewing his faith as superior.

Charen begins her commentary with a brief review of the candidate pool in past elections as well as specific ‘props’ to the relative merits of the campaigns of Thompson, McCain and Giuliani before describing Romney as the most impressive. There are some interesting notes including no presence of the religion question for either Mo Udall or George Romney, both Mormons who also ran for President. And her reference to no discussion of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s Mormon faith connects with an earlier post here indicating the vast array of faiths represented in Congress that receive no special attention. That includes the Mormon faith of not only Harry Reid but Michael Crapo, Gordon Smith, Robert Bennett and Orrin Hatch. There are about 30 different faiths represented with none getting the scrutiny to which Romney has been subjected. Charen suggests the doctrine or history of Mormon faith as more a matter of scholarly interest.

A Second Look at Romney
Mona Charen
Dec 14, 2007

When Mitt Romney took office as governor of Massachusetts, the state had a $1.2 billion deficit. Four years later it was in surplus. He boasts that fourth and eighth graders in Massachusetts achieved the highest scores in the nation in reading and math, though they were doing so before he became governor as well. But his program of assessment, merit pay for good teachers, English immersion and a focus on math and science may have helped keep them at the top.

It is difficult to find any significant weakness in Romney. He is refreshingly articulate, exceedingly well prepared and self-disciplined, clearly an excellent manager with both private and government experience, happily married with a large, supportive family, and well within the mainstream of conservatism on every major issue. His nomination would not divide the base.

He is just the sort of candidate people complain that they never get.

Much earlier in this long campaign season there were reports that the hot button issues of the war in Iraq and all things related to terrorism like national security, border control and illegal immigration as well as health care and other issues would be surpassed by economic concerns as the top issue before election day. There is reference now to an ABC poll suggesting just such a change in top elections issues. If this information stands and the voting public turns to more personal and practical considerations who better to accomplish the task than Mitt Romney? All the discussion on topics of principle or other ideals or ethical and moral considerations are fine but in the final analysis voter concerns about their wallets may override philosophical pursuits when entering the voting booth.

Not to suggest a scathing indictment of the human condition in America but let’s be honest. We may all have an interest in addressing moral considerations on issues in public affairs and politics but nothing gets attention like economic survival. And no one has a resume’ like Mitt Romney for solving those problems. Could it be that all the fuss over other questions raised in the campaign are merely designed to avoid the question of which candidate has the best record of solving economic issues and financial crisis in the public and private sectors?

A report from AP suggests that a statement in the recent GOP debate by Mike Huckabee was a subtle shot at Mitt Romney’s wealthy status.

“Our founding fathers had a brilliant, really revolutionary idea that the people elected would not represent the elite, but would represent the ordinary,” Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, said at a debate in Iowa this week, a subtle poke at the former Massachusetts governor.

Perhaps Mike Huckabee felt a need to criticize the very proof that Mitt Romney has a history demonstrating his skill and effectiveness in solving economic and financial problems that the former Arkansas governor does not. And since most of the candidates financial disclosures indicate each one having wealth that exceeds the level of most Americans, Fred Thompson’s humorous quip while less subtle than Huckabee’s was no doubt intended to target Romney’s success.

Thompson, a lawyer, actor and former senator from Tennessee, was more direct, saying: “My goal is to get into Mitt Romney’s situation, where I don’t have to worry about taxes anymore.”

While one of Thompson’s disclosures lists his assets between $2 and $8 million and is certainly far below that of Mitt Romney, the source of his income is largely from acting, lobbying and perhaps fees for speaking engagements of which one was for six figures. If the statement that the wealthiest 5% of Americans pay about half the nation’s taxes is accurate then even if Thompson does not have the same after tax income of Mitt Romney it is likely that Fred Thompson’s tax worries are no where close to that of ordinary Americans.

This blog supports Mitt Romney for President. But this particular blog post is not intended as a criticism of either Mike Huckabee or Fred Thompson. It was presented to address comments of other GOP candidates that may be intended as criticism of Mitt Romney. This was not a criticism of Huckabee or Thompson as candidates only their statements directed at Romney. Criticism by others about Thompson suggesting he is lazy or not really interested in being President are as meaningless and trivial as the criticism of Romney’s success or faith. The same is true of criticism of others toward Mike Huckabee if that criticism does not address his qualifications as a candidate for President. Obviously one of the many candidates for President will become exactly that….President of the United States and we should avoid being distracted by campaign tactics designed to redefine an opponent’s strength as a weakness.

With the crushing debt and wasteful spending that has been a Washington characteristic long before George W. Bush became President, selecting Mitt Romney to lead this country could easily prove that his ability to fix such problems wold allow us to then seriously attend to the other great issues facing this nation. With the suggestion by the ABC poll mentioned earlier that the economy is once again becoming the top issue, Mitt Romney’s record of success in matters of economics and finance may be the key to moving this country to the success and respectability everyone wants. The criticism of Romney’s success also mentioned earlier in this post may indicate his competitors are also aware of his superior leadership skills and ability to perform as Commander and Chief.

In August 2005 CNOOC, a Chinese company, dropped its $18.5 billion bid for Unocal.  A concern over US national security by having a Chinese company purchase energy interests in the US caused lawmakers to consider blocking the deal which led to the response by CNOOC.

In the GOP debate on December 12, 2007, Duncan Hunter got creative with one of his allocated times to speak by criticizing Mitt Romney’s connection with Bain Capital and a transaction involving Huawei, another Chinese company, and 3com which Bain is trying to take private.  One report indicates that Huawei is one of a group of investors and putting up $2.1 billion for a stake in 3com that according to the report would not allow the Chinese firm to ‘have legal sway’ over 3com.  The following is an excerpt from the debate transcript.

HUNTER: So those are two very important things.

WASHBURN: We’re going to look at the last video.

‘Not sending technology to our adversaries’ is what Duncan Hunter raised as a concern before his political move to put Mitt Romney on the spot and an obvious campaign tactic to attack a competitor in the 2008 campaign.  There are numerous reports on the net suggesting outrage about Romney, Bain Capital, 3com and Huawei.  But if as Duncan Hunter says, that not sending technology to our adversaries is a real concern, singling out a private equity financing deal as a culprit is rather limp and strengthens the argument that it is almost entirely politically motivated and not justified.

First of all, a repeat of past announcements in the interest of full disclosure.  This blog supports Mitt Romney for President.  This blog also has no problem with Duncan Hunter outside of the subject of this post.  If you are going to state not sending technology to our adversaries as an important issue, address the entire issue rather than singling out another candidate to attack in hopes of gaining political advantage in a campaign.

The United States government has often aided, supported or allied with others who at a particular time shared a common enemy.  Only to have those relationships decay when the parties to such an alliance now found themselves in conflict as enemies. The US backed Osama Bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.  There are many reports indicating a connection between the 911 terrorists and Saudi Arabia.  What is this nation’s history with that country?  Just to examples of relationships the wisdom of which is in question and was not included in Duncan Hunter’s concern expressed in Mitt Romney’s direction.

Huawei has connections with many American companies and others around the world.  Here is an excerpt from Huawei’s website that lists some of the companies.

Huawei has formed numerous partnerships with leading companies, and cooperates with them on the foundation of our self-developed technologies. We work closely with leading multinationals such as TI, Motorola, IBM, Intel, Agere, ADI, Altera, SUN, Microsoft, Oracle and HP to improve the time to market of our products, and to incorporate the latest technologies and best management practices into our company.

Would it be reasonable to expect that technology is being shared between these companies and Huawei?  With all the outsourcing and investment by American companies abroad is it equally reasonable to expect that technology is being shared with other countries that would also match Duncan Hunter’s stated concern?

Duncan Hunter’s remarks aimed at Mitt Romney in the December 12th debate were a cheap shot.  If there is so much concern about any Bain Capital taking 3Com private US lawmakers are in no different a position than they were with the CNOOC/Unocal merger deal.  As reports indicate, the 3com deal is not a merger.  But even so, Congress can stop the transaction if there are national security or other concerns.

That some reports or reviews of Mitt Romney’s ‘Faith in America’ speech express a mostly positive response followed by one point that provides an opinion of why the discussion that singled out one candidate on religion will continue is another example of why this particular inquiry is just plain wrong. To extend rather than dismiss efforts to stir the pot of what amounts to religious bigotry should be denounced by both the ‘faithful’ and the ‘faithless’.

David Kuo at beliefnet is an example of sounding balanced but…..

Romney’s one paragraph gaffe, our big problem, a suggestion
Thursday December 6, 2007
I went into the speech thinking that if it were a purely political speech he’d probably done his job but if it were a spiritual speech he’d be hosed. As with all things political, it wasn’t quite either one.

He further expresses in detail what was positive about the speech and then drops the ‘let’s keep it going’ bomb.

But it was also a profoundly spiritual speech. He said he was going to stand up for his faith and that he wasn’t going to get into the business of theology. Then he did just that. In the middle of the speech was this:

There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

What Kuo may succeed in doing is giving the appearance of a ‘fair’ analysis but by injecting his own religious flavor to the piece rewrite what one should take at face value. Romney’s candor to express one of his beliefs about Jesus and then express the common sense and obvious fact that each religion has its own characteristics while he supports tolerance and rejects bias is lost on Kuo’s review. Was it an error or intentional?

From Kathleen Parker at realclearpolitics.com comes a review more closely in agreement with the opinion of this blog.

He made two important points clear: Freedom and religious liberty are inextricably linked. And, though Romney’s religion informs his life, leaders of his church will not inform his decisions as president.

This is my faith. This is the promise of religious freedom in America. There is a history and a connection between this country’s heritage and religion and the pursuit and preservation of freedom. Mitt Romney is entitled to his faith just as you and I and anyone else. To judge a candidate based on his religious beliefs and your beliefs in faith or absence of them should not enter into your decision to support or oppose a candidate.

He raised the bar by focusing on broad principles of religious freedom, rather than on the small details of doctrinal differences. In the process, he elevated everyone — even those not-so-deserving.

Using your own belief system to defend another’s right to their beliefs honors your commitment to American principles on which this country was founded. To ignore those principles or attempt to force your beliefs on others is neither genuinely religious or American. Whether your beliefs are ‘faithful’ or ‘faithless’ you should also appreciate that the founders provided adequate attention to checks, balances and other provisions designed to protect against abuses of power and undo influence of religion or other concerns. If you are attempting to circumvent these ideals with your own beliefs don’t assist those targeting Romney for his beliefs. There are many faiths represented in American government and the republic survives. Targeting Romney’s faith is just plain wrong.