[Update 02/12/08: An essay by Orson Scott Card may have changed my mind about immigration. Things I say in this entry about that I now think are probably erroneous or worse.]
There are various/ reasons I support Mitt Romney’s run for the Presidency.
[Update: I have moved paragraphs of fading relevance - since they concern /candidates who are either fading or have dropped out of the race - to the end of this entry. I’ve also added a bit more against McCain and for Romney.]
First I’ll say why I don’t support McCain. McCain’s campaign finance reform bill had loop-holes in it which, as had been predicted by many critics, opened the way for parties to receive far and away more exorbitant financing to a degree where private interests can virtually pocket a party. Thanks to McCain’s bill, private radically liberal institutions have been able to gain great control over the Democratic party (so, by the way, unless you intend on casting a surrogate vote for George Soros, don’t vote for Hillary Clinton). (I confess not knowing whether the measure has had a similar corroding effect on the Republican Party). McCain’s position on cutting taxes is to cut them after cutting back government, which is like asking a drunkard to cut back on whiskey after he has stopped drinking. No fat government gets lean before giving money back to citizens (and citizens who retain more of their money produce more money and taxes besides). McCain’s amnesty position on immigration is a threat to the right of sovereign rule of law. When a foreign national is made a citizen – or not even made a citizen - without paying the price, we import a citizen who gives nothing back for the price of import (and the price of import is paid against our will, besides). The protections and benefits of citizenship come with a price - freedom is not free. When freedom is given without a price, freedom is bound, and in this case, bound to the exports, apathy, and eventual controls of other nations. We want immigrants, but we want them to pay the price for American citizenship.
Now I’ll attack some of the attacks against Romney. His conservative social stances are erroneously slammed as flip-flopping by folks who seem to think that the only motivation any politician could have to change his mind is a buckle to peer pressure and not any genuine change of thought. This hard-line cynical criticism has the benefit of being both unprovable and seemingly reasonable. It is only logical if we assume from the outset that we should simply trust one group over another without even perusing the logic of what either has to say. Dismissing one man’s word simply because another man alleges he is lying is not a logical basis of ascertaining whether the man is telling the truth, but that is precisely what every liberal writer and speaker I have encountered does in regards to Romney. Yo. Truth test, folks. It may make a convincing smear, but we aren’t out to form our judgments around the most convincing smear. We like logic. I hope. Logic usually places more trust in the experience and belief of a person witnessing it - not in the witness of their enemy. Both these points are driven across much more strongly than I have put it by Ann Coulter, in this article which I recommend a read of. Coulter also raises the critical point that the Republican candidate the generally liberal MSM fawns over is precisely the candidate we should reject, and explores other fallacies behind the “flip-flopper” allegation against Romney. Amen to that. And is the MSM favoring McCain? Read this contrast of AP reporting of McCain vs. Romney. It’s jaw-dropping. Also recommended: this rallying cry for Romney from NRO’s Mark R. Levin, which among other things very clearly reports the facts of McCain’s very un-presidential contempt and personal verbal assaults on Romney. Romney has never attacked a political opponent’s person, only their position, which is perfectly fair and right to do - it is a contest of record and philosophy. McCain’s attacks make a hypocritical attempt to draw hatred against Romney as among the very wealthy classes - among whom reside McCain himself. No president would lead America well by encouraging class contempt (and by pretending he is not something which he is - rich). Also, McCain blatantly lies about his record and statements on several issues. Here’s a loosely abridged excerpt of Levin on it (click “show” to read it):
show
McCain is an intemperate, stubborn individual.. I could see his personal contempt for Mitt Romney roiling under the surface.. why? Because Romney ran campaign ads that challenged McCain’s record? Is this the first campaign in which an opponent has run ads questioning another candidate’s record? That’s par for the course. To the best of my knowledge, Romney’s ads have not been personal.. the same cannot be said of McCain’s comments about Romney.
Last night McCain.. resorted to a barrage of personal assaults on Romney that reflect more on the man making them than the target of the attacks. McCain now has a habit of describing Romney as a “manager for profit” and someone who has “laid-off” people, implying that Romney is both unpatriotic and uncaring. Moreover, he complains that Romney is using his “millions” or “fortune” to underwrite his campaign. This is a crass appeal to class warfare. McCain is extremely wealthy through marriage. Romney has never denigrated McCain for his wealth or the manner in which he acquired it. Evidently Romney’s character doesn’t lend him to cross certain boundaries of decorum and decency, but McCain’s does. And what of managing for profit? When did free enterprise become evil? This is liberal pablum [or trite, meaningless platitude] which, once again, could have been uttered by Hillary Clinton.
And there is the open secret of McCain losing control of his temper and behaving in a highly inappropriate fashion with prominent Republicans, including Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, Strom Thurmond, Donald Rumsfeld, Bradley Smith, and a list of others. Does anyone honestly believe that the Clintons or the Democrat party would give McCain a pass on this kind of behavior?
.. how can anyone explain [McCain’s] abrupt about-face on two of his signature issues: immigration and tax cuts? .. [he] led the battle not once but twice against the border-security-first approach to illegal immigration.. He disparaged the motives of the millions of people who objected to his legislation. He fought all amendments that would limit the general amnesty provisions of the bill. This controversy raged for weeks. Only now he says he’s gotten the message. Yet, when asked last night if he would sign the [same bill] as president, he dissembles, arguing that it’s a hypothetical question. Last Sunday on Meet the Press, he said he would sign the bill. [Me: is that straight talk? One week he say’s he’s “gotten the message” against his bill, the next he says he’d sign it, the next he waffles on the question? No way. He’s clearly either hiding or undecided on his real position, or else he woudln’t change it every week]. There’s nothing straight about this talk. Now, I understand that politicians tap dance during the course of a campaign, but this was a defining moment for McCain. And another defining moment was his very public opposition to the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. He was the media’s favorite Republican in opposition to Bush. [My note: mainstream media is by and large liberal. Maybe that’s common knowledge, but..] At the time his primary reason for opposing the cuts was because they favored the rich (and, by the way, they did not). Now he says he opposed them because they weren’t accompanied by spending cuts. That’s simply not correct.
Even worse than denying his own record, McCain is flatly lying about Romney’s position on Iraq. As has been discussed for nearly a week now, Romney did not support a specific date to withdraw our forces from Iraq. The evidence is irrefutable. And it’s also irrefutable that McCain is abusing the English language (Romney’s statements) the way Bill Clinton did in front of a grand jury. The problem is that once called on it by everyone from the New York Times to me, he obstinately refuses to admit the truth. So, last night, he lied about it again. This isn’t open to interpretation. But it does give us a window into who he is. [Me: he’s someone capable of flat lying!]
Of course, it’s one thing to overlook one or two issues where a candidate seeking the Republican nomination as a conservative might depart from conservative orthodoxy. But in McCain’s case, adherence is the exception to the rule — McCain-Feingold (restrictions on political speech), McCain-Kennedy (amnesty for illegal aliens), McCain-Kennedy-Edwards (trial lawyers’ bill of rights), McCain-Lieberman (global warming legislation), Gang of 14 (obstructing change to the filibuster rule for judicial nominations), the Bush tax cuts, and so forth. This is a record any liberal Democrat would proudly run on. Are we to overlook this record when selecting a Republican nominee to carry our message in the general election?
But what about his national security record? It’s a mixed bag. McCain is rightly credited with being an early voice for changing tactics in Iraq. He was a vocal supporter of the surge, even when many were not. But he does not have a record of being a vocal advocate for defense spending when Bill Clinton was slashing it. And he has been on the wrong side of the debate on homeland security. He supports closing Guantanamo Bay, which would result in granting an array of constitutional protections to al-Qaeda detainees, and limiting legitimate interrogation techniques that have, in fact, saved American lives. Combined with his (past) de-emphasis on border-security, I think it’s fair to say that McCain’s positions are more in line with the ACLU than most conservatives.
Why recite this record? Well, if conservatives don’t act now to stop McCain, he will become the Republican nominee and he will lose the general election. He is simply flawed on too many levels. He is a Republican Hillary Clinton in many ways. Many McCain supporters insist he is the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. And they point to certain polls. The polls are meaningless this far from November. Six months ago, the polls had Rudy winning the Republican nomination. In October 1980, the polls had Jimmy Carter defeating Ronald Reagan. This is no more than spin.
Romney has the right idea on the separation of church and state with encouragement of religion in general in the public square. (If you missed it or would like reminding, read the transcript of his speech on the topic over at NPR.) He has a very good track record in fiscal reform - he turned both the bankrupt Salt Lake City Olympics and the government of Massechusets around to great surplusses - and reason of hope to reign in our massively burgeoned government. He has the practical approach to foreign policy required to secure our nation by stamping out militant extremism abroad. Romney is the real deal and I choose to trust the position he states he has on various social issues. I am impressed, actually, when a man is capable of changing his mind and saying why he did so. It assures me that he thinks for himself and does not just blindly follow or rigidly adhere to any dogma without thought. Lastly, Romney’s position on immigration is naturalization, not amnesty, and naturalization bears a price for citizenship. Citizens obtained through amnesty draw on the resources of a nation without paying the same price as other citizens. But naturalized citizens do pay the price, and in turn contribute to the society they join.
If your mind is made up not to support Huckabee, you may not need to read these next paragraphs, which blast Huckabee’s utterly despicable tactics and frightening thinking. If you want to read them, click “show”.
show
[Update 02/04/08: I saw this email reporting yet another Huckabee hypocrisy:
Earlier in the day Huckabee attacked Romney for “voter suppression” by telling Hannity and Colmes last Thursday that a vote for Huckabee is really a vote for McCain.
Romney responded, “First a couple of rules in politics. One, no whining. And Number 2, you get them to vote for you. And so I want them not to vote for Mike Huckabee and not to vote for John McCain and to vote for me. … That’s not voter suppression. That’s known as politics,” Romney said. “I want people to vote, but I want them to vote for me.”
But wait, it ain’t over yet!
Later in the day Huckabee released a videotape recorded at a campaign stop in Macon, Ga., over the weekend that urged his supporters to get to the polls. In the video, Huckabee “joked” that “if there’s somebody you know who’s not going to vote for us, don’t let them out of their house.”
“You let the air out of their tires and keep them from getting out. Tell them the primary’s been moved to March But don’t let them near a voting booth until after Tuesday.”
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/251/story/239505.html
Poor, dear, Governor Huckabee: you joke might almost elicit a snicker if we didn’t know that “voter suppression” has been on your mind lately.
]
I will comment on Mike Huckabee’s press stunt, wherein he assembled the press and claimed that, while he had made a negative ad about Mitt Romney (and to be clear, the ad was a smear of Mitt Romney, and not any logical disagreement with Romney’s philosophies or positions - this is the classically ill-reasoned Ad Hominem attack, as the Romans call it), he had, he claimed, changed his mind just then and decided not to air the ad, but he also then claimed he would prove that he had indeed made the ad, but was opting to take the high road and not air it - and he then showed the very ad to all the assembled press. It was as transparently inevitable as it was pathetic that the press would publicize the stunt and rebroadcast Huckabee’s ad. Mike Huckabee could not sincerely hope otherwise; or if he could have, he is far too naive to hold the highest office of the most powerful nation on earth. Either way, the consequences of his actions are that he has left a smearing ad (which smeared Romney’s integrity without any basis of sound reasoning or fact) open to a press arguably rabid to smugly bandy about the dirtiest dirt they can dig up on anything (otherwise they’d have dismissed Huckabee and his ad out of hand) - and, case in point, the ad Huckabee made was and is very dirty and disingenuous - the same as Huckabee’s presenting such dirt to an open press can only be seen unless, to repeat what has been said - unless he is far too naive to warrant serious support of candidacy for President. And if Huckabee is not naive in that way, he is in another: as his campaign asks for support, his behavior asks the Citizens of the United States to tolerate dirty politics.
The most sickening part is that Huckabee feigns his hands are clean of dirty talk. But here the term needs clarifying. Attacking the political position, record, and reasoning of a candidate is not dirty. That’s expected. This is debate. Who has the best ideas? But attacking the very character of another, irrelevant and apart from any bearing on political ideas and record – this is dirty. And this is what Huckabee has consistently done, and which Romney has not done. Romney has not geared any arguments and attacks at people themselves - none of this back-handed religion and character slamming etc. - all of Romney’s arguments against other candidates are appropriately geared at their political positions and histories. Please notice how little the press has distinguished between the two. Arguing with a person’s ideas and choices is not a personal attack; but the press frequently has glibly described it so, misrepresenting Romney’s attacks as personal. Examine anything Romney says in competition with other candidates. He is never back-handed or personal, on the contrary he disagrees respectfully with policy, record, and position. But Mike Huckabee has attacked character and one of the greater substances of character – religion – backhandedly, feigning innocent curiosity, questions. Well, first, who cares about theological questions – Presidential candidates should only care about policy questions in debate. But Huckabee feigned such off-limits religious curiosity regardless (that it is off-limits he doesn’t feign – it’s fair territory in his book of attacks disguised as curiosity). He cannot be given the benefit of doubting that he knows what he talks about. He posed a question framed in Mormon teaching of two opposing supernatural beings as brothers. As a minister he is of course well-versed in how his own and other religions differ. His abuse of that knowledge is to illustrate religious differences - which again, emphatically, are by definition irrelevant and ill-applied to a political campaign.
The question Huckabee posed plays to a cultural position which assumes certain negative questions and answers without words. The execution is fairly brisk and seemingly easy-going, but the underlying reasoning is brute and not in line with any claim of Christian behavior. The assumption his question conjures is this: If a godly being and an ungodly being are brothers, doesn’t that lower the status of the divine by association? After all, the divine has no association with the not divine. Therefore, the ill logic goes, anyone who would associate such a divine holy with a not divine unholy must have a view which degrades the divine or sees the divine as lower, they must not set their sights as high on spiritual matters: they must have a really wrong idea of what is really what with religion; they may even be fools, religiously, or may have been fooled. This is juvenile thinking, folks. If one of two brothers is a criminal who goes to jail, while the other brother is a noble, upright citizen who abides the law, devotes his life to charity, and does good to those around him, is the good brother, by position as brother of the imprisoned brother, therefore less a person, less in virtue, lower in position, less in goodness, or in spiritual terms, less holy? Is one person accountable for the choices of another? The only way one person can be responsible for another’s actions is if he has control over what the other chooses. We are accountable only for what we have control over. One’s own goodness only diminishes when one fails to control himself; so one’s own goodness could only diminish on account of a brother if one had control over a brother. Nobody has control over another; each chooses his own path: but while everybody chooses for themselves the path to follow, Huckabee’s rhetoric assumes it isn’t so: one is less good when one has failed to control another. There are places for control - parents preventing children from harming themselves, for example, or police men preventing one person from harming another, or if the notion isn’t lost on you as it seems lost on so many all-cases pacifists - armies preventing dictators from executing genocide - but on the whole man controls only himself and chooses right or wrong only for himself – not for others. A man can bring good into the lives others by persuading or encouraging others to do good (and good example is the best way to persuade). But it is a very interesting - more harrowing - observation that the cultural assumptions which Mike Huckabee plays his cards from wrest their operations from a presumed right of undue control, from a position where one brother should forcibly cause another to follow a path of virtue.
Huckabee’s rhetoric plays to audiences who have given up the right to think or act for themselves. Want a democracy? Huckabee’s thinking is kin to dictatorial theocracy. Read it through again. Huckabee’s religious attacks implicitly would have it A-OK to support him on the basis of his religion - or else he wouldn’t think it okay to attack the religion of others. Their religion bad, his religion good. Elect the baptist, goes the underlying logic, while the facade is far too clever to be so crudely un-American. His position is not American. It is in fact a threat to the very idea of American, where anyone is game for citizenship so far as they adhere to the rule of law and the Constitution. Huckabee poses questions of religion above the Constitution in the public square. There remains no place for the public square when rhetoric insists only on meeting at the square on the basis of religion - not on the basis of law. I repeat, Huckabee’s thinking is akin to dictatorial theocracy. Do you want that kind of thinking in a President?
I didn’t think so. Say it with your vote.
These next expired paragraphs rail against Giuliani and speculate on Thompson, neither any longer relevant to the race. Again, click “show” if you want to read them.
show
Giuliani loses my vote under one phrase: “Pro-Choice”. The millions of slaughtered unborn in this country never had a choice, folks. Reagan said it best. The only people arguing for the “right” to “abort” were not aborted. Let us speak plainly. There are circumstances (rape, incest, a mother’s life in danger) where terminating the life of an unborn may be necessary. The vast majority of the time there is no such reason for terminating an unborn infant. Far more often, “Pro-Choice” is a euphemism placing the dignity and value of one person – a mother – over another – a child. Well, children haven’t really been given a lot of choices and rights through the centuries. Maybe after the billionth pre-birth slaughter in our nation, the kids will get used to it. We kept lil’ Billy. He was a keeper. Too bad his sister wasn’t.
How did Republicans win a ban on “partial-birth abortion”? By asking about the rights of the extraordinarily brave few infants who, despite the best efforts of a doctor to kill them, survive and come out of the womb, alive. Why, having attempted to kill the infant and failing to do so in the womb, can we not take the life of the infant when he is out of the womb? Why is not the “right” to “abortion” the right to an effective abortion?
Because life does not start out of the womb.
The logic has not yet been taken to the full measure it goes to; which is the reversal of Roe vs. Wade. The victor of Roe vs. Wade has since changed her mind and said the decision was altogether wrong. How many “Pro-Choice” folks site this fact? How many anti-religion folks wrest their speculations against Christianity by such fictionally apocryphal means as presented in THE DA VINCI code? How much more are they willing to champion any ex-Christian who comes along and joins their crowd? But do “Pro-Choice” folks champion the messenger who used to be in their crowd and has turned against them? Nope. It’s not even about messengers or means, it’s all about ends.
Nobody knows when a forming human soul becomes human. It is the moral responsibility of man to define and protect life as broadly as he reasonably can.
I think I could probably support Thompson. I don’t believe however that his campaign has enough steam to topple other candidates.
but I’ve come to think it could be just as innocent as nudity in a doctor’s exam - it’s for learning and improvement, there is no part of it that’s unseemly. I’m open to but uncertain about the idea whether the same principle can apply to nudity in films, and it looks like your film may be a testing ground in my exploration of the idea.
