Apr 15, 2007

Apr 10, 2007; Governor Mitt Romney's Remarks at the George Bush Presidential Library Center

Governor Mitt Romney, his wife Ann and son Josh traveled to Austin, Texas on Tuesday to meet with supporters and later to College Station, TX where they were greeted by Texas A&M students, toured the George Bush Presidential Library. Governor Romney delivered a policy speech that evening at the George Bush Presidential Library.

 

Governor Mitt Romney's Remarks at the George Bush Presidential Library Center

Tuesday, Apr 10, 2007

Rising To A New Generation of Global Challenges

Thank you for that welcome, and thank you President and Mrs. Bush for this invitation to speak at Texas A&M, a proud university with time honored traditions. I've only been here for a few hours, but spending that time with students here, I understand why you chose this place for your library.

You are all lucky to have a national treasure here in this library. I'm not talking about the memorabilia and records – I'm talking about President and Mrs. Bush.

Once they led a nation - today they inspire a nation.

The Navy's youngest pilot became the nation's Commander-in-Chief. And now, he comforts the wounded from Hurricanes and Tsunami.

His 16 year old dance partner became the mother of 6 - including a President and a Governor - the nation's first lady, and the love of their 62 married years.

Inspired by them both, their grandson, George P. Bush, has joined the Navy Reserve.

Their accomplishments changed global politics. Their character changed our hearts.

Let me also add a word of thanks to the Texas A&M community for allowing the Federal government to "borrow" Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

Mr. President, I am told that you have objected to calling your generation the greatest generation. You prefer to add others to the list, including the brave men and women who fought to protect us in Desert Storm, and those who are in harms way today.

I wholly agree with your characterization of our armed forces as the bravest and most patriotic in the world. But I still line up with Tom Brokaw on this. Not due to any deficiency in bravery. But because of what your entire generation of American's sacrificed, and because of what you accomplished.

Frankly, what your generation achieved, for America, and for the world, was so astounding that historians may have a difficult time convincing future students that they are not grossly exaggerating.

Mid century, a menacing madman had captured the wealth and land of all continental Europe. His rantings of genocide had been dismissed as hyperbole, but they were appallingly real. Allied with Japan, Hitler was poised to conquer one last European island and her most famous former colony - us. You stopped them both - your blood washing the beaches of the Atlantic and the Pacific.

And then, another threat, just as horrific. The Soviet Empire hung an Iron Curtain, and spread its leaden weight around the world. The peril of nuclear holocaust was reminiscent of the holocaust that the world had just seen in Europe. This time, the holocaust threatened the entire human race. And again, your generation won.

And the victor was truly an entire generation, not just those, like yourself, who served in the armed forces. In the 40's, you rationed and saved. Your mothers and daughters enlisted to work in factories, just as you did Mrs. Bush. And in the 60's and 70's and 80's, you relentlessly pursued learning and innovation to lead the world in space, in technology, in productivity - you out-competed the Soviets. You drove them to the economic bankruptcy that matched their moral bankruptcy.

Today, we face a new generation of challenges, globally and here at home. We will do as American have always done: we will rise to the occasion.

We have all that we need. We have technology, technology that would have been beyond the imagination of our grandparents. We have national wealth. And most important, we have the heart and passion of the American people - always the greatest source of our strength as a nation.

We need leadership. We are fortunate today to have a President who loves America, who acts solely out of a desire to protect her and to promote liberty around the world. We have a President who leads.

But I think most Americans look at Washington and are appalled at the divisiveness, the bitterness, the smallness, the disunity. Senator Arthur Vandenberg once famously opined that "politics stops at the water's edge." But last week, the Democratic chair of House Foreign Affairs said that we have two foreign policies, one for each party. And then the Speaker of the House helped dignify a state sponsor of terror. At this time of war, her action stands as one of the most partisan, divisive, and ill-considered of any national leader in this decade.

United we stand. United we have stood the test of time and tyrants. Divided is not the American way.

Today, the attention of the nation is focused on Iraq. All Americans want our troops home as soon as possible. But walking away from Iraq, or dividing it in parts and then walking away would present grave risks to America. Iran could seize the Shia south, Al Qaeda could dominate the Sunni west, and the Kurds could destabilize the border with Turkey. A regional conflict could ensue, perhaps even requiring our return into far worse circumstances. The troop surge has a real chance of working, and early signs are encouraging. It is time for Congress to follow the lead of the commanders in the field and the Commander-in-Chief.

What do you see beyond Iraq, into the coming decades? I see what America can be for our children, if we stand united, and if we finally act to honestly face the new generation of challenges that confront us. It is an America that is safe and that is prosperous, even more prosperous than today. It is an America that is respected and appreciated by the nations of the world, because they too will have been blessed with the gifts we enjoy - freedom, security, and prosperity.

I am often asked whether I am a neo-conservative or a realist. Sorry, those terms are too confining. In my view, our objective is a strong America and a safe world.

We should always remember that those two things are connected. As Ronald Reagan observed: "Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong."

A strong America requires a strong military and a strong economy. You can't be a military superpower if you are a second tier economy. The weakness of the Soviet economy was the vulnerability that Presidents Reagan and Bush exploited to bring down the Evil Empire. I have previously addressed action we must urgently take to preserve our economic lead - smaller government, lower taxes, better schools and healthcare, greater investment in technology, free trade.

But there is further action we must take if we are to remain strong and if we are to build a safe world, with peace, prosperity, freedom and dignity. This action will be controversial. It will be strongly resisted. Because this action requires change.

Change in and of itself is difficult. And in the absence of a clear and convincing crisis, it is even harder to garner the will necessary to set a new course. Look at how long it took us to confront the reality of Jihadism. They bombed our embassies, they bombed our Marines in Lebanon, they bombed the USS Cole, they even set off a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center. But we failed to truly see the threat, and to change. After September 11, 2001, our President led us from denial to action.

I think many of us still fail to comprehend the extent of the threat posed by radical Islam, by Jihad. Understandably, we focus on Afghanistan and Iraq. Our men and women are dying there. We think in terms of countries, because we faced countries in last century's conflicts. But the Jihad is much broader than any one nation or nations. Jihad encompasses far more than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For radical Islam, there is an over-arching conflict and goal - replacing all modern Islamic states with a caliphate, destroying America, and conquering the world.

It sounds insane. It is insane. It is just as insane as Hitler and Stalin. But it is also just as real.

Their methods are entirely different than those of the World Wars and the Cold War. Rather than armies, they employ sleeper networks and indiscriminate terror. Their soldiers include children, as do their victims; among their generals are radical clergy. They communicate by Internet. They recruit in schools and in houses of worship and in prisons. And now, they pursue nuclear weapons - they even contemplate using them.

What we face is different, different than what we have faced before. And that means we will have to change if we are to defeat it. And the change will require sacrifice from the American people. I believe America is ready for the challenge.

Today, I'd like to discuss four changes among those I believe are needed.

First, we need a stronger military.

I propose that we sharply increase our investment in national defense. I want to see at least 100,000 more troops. I want to see us finally make the long overdue investment in equipment, armament, weapon systems, and strategic defense.

After President Bush left office in 1993, the Clinton administration began to dismantle our military, in what some called a peace dividend. They took the dividend, but didn't get the peace. It seems that we had come to believe that war and threats and evil men were gone forever. As Charles Krauthammer observed: we took a holiday from history.

Simply look at the neglect of our military

We purchased only a small fraction of what was needed to maintain our strength. Instead, we have lived off the assets that had been purchased in the prior decades. The equipment and armament gap continues to this day.

We wring the useful life out of old and inadequate equipment, starving our budget for purchasing modern and ample armament.

What is the right amount to spend? Secretary Gates has proposed a 10% increase for next year. Bravo. But we will need at least an additional $30 to 40 billion per year over the next several years to modernize our military, address gaps in our troop levels, ease the strain on our National Guard and Reserves and support our wounded soldiers.

A look at our military spending over time is instructive.

Based on my analysis, we should commit to spend a minimum of 4% of GDP on our national defense.

But increase spending must not mean increased waste. If I am fortunate enough to become President, I will convene a team of private sector leaders and defense experts to carry out a stem-to-stern analysis of military purchasing. First, I want to hear about spending on equipment and programs that is more about making a politician's home district happy, than about protecting our nation. That's worse than pork-barrel spending, and it's got to stop. I will work with Congress to install strict lobbying rules and new sunshine provisions to keep a far more watchful eye on self-serving politicians, current and past. And second, I want my team to see if and where we are being fleeced by contractors and suppliers. There will be no sheep allowed in the military purchasing department!

So number one: a stronger military.

Number two: America must become energy independent.

Our economic and military strength require it. I'm not just talking about symbolic measures, I mean that we must finally take the necessary steps to actually produce as much energy as we use. This may take twenty years or more. Of course, we will continue buying fuels from our friends, but we will buy AND sell. We will end our strategic vulnerability to an oil shut-off by nations like Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. We will stop sending $1 billion a day to other nations, some of whom are using that same money against us. And we will rein in our emissions of greenhouse gasses at the same time.

True energy independence will require employing technology to make our use of energy more efficient, in our cars, in our homes, and in our businesses.

Energy independence will also mean pursuing our ample domestic sources of energy: more drilling offshore and in ANWR, nuclear power, renewable sources like ethanol, biodiesel, solar, wind, and full exploitation of coal - solid and liquid. In some cases, we may need to guarantee floor prices to stimulate private investment. In others, shared investments or incentives may be required.

I will initiate a bold and far-reaching research initiative - an Energy Revolution. It will be our generation's equivalent of the Manhattan Project or of the mission to reach the Moon. This will be a mission to create new, economic sources of energy, clean energy. We will license our technology to other nations and we will employ it here at home. It will be good for our national defense, for our foreign policy and for our economy. It will also be good for the world. And while scientists are still debating how much human activity impacts the environment, we can all agree that alternative energy sources will be good for the planet. For any and all of these reasons, the time for true energy independence has come.

Three: we must transform our international civilian resources, to enhance our influence for peace, for security, and for freedom.

Following World War II, America created structures designed to meet the demands of the Cold War. It worked. During the Reagan-Bush years, it became clear that the bureaucratic boundaries in the military between the branches were getting in the way. So the Goldwater-Nichols Act removed barriers to unify efforts across the services. This included establishing "joint commands" with individual commanders fully responsible for their geographic region. Those theaters of responsibility are as shown here.

Our non-military resources enjoy no such jointness, no such clear leadership, no such clear lines of authority and responsibility. Too often we struggle to integrate our military and civilian instruments of national power into coherent, timely and effective operations. When facing the need to strengthen the democratic underpinnings of a country like Lebanon, our education, health, banking, energy, commerce, law enforcement and diplomatic resources are in separate bureaucracies, all under separate leadership, all protecting their own powers and their own prerogatives. So while we watched, Hezbollah brought healthcare and schools to the Lebanese. Guess who the people followed when conflict ensued? The same thing happened with Hamas and the Palestinians.

The problem was just as evident in Iraq. While the military moved in rapid order to topple Saddam Hussein, many of our non-military resources moved like they were stuck in tar. They fight over which agency will pay the $11.00 per diem cost of food at the same time that we are spending over $7 billion a month and taking human casualties.

It is high time to truly transform our civilian instruments of national power. We need to enable joint strategies and joint operations. Just as the military has divided the world into common regions for all of its branches, so too the civilian agencies should align along consistent boundaries. And one civilian leader, a Deputy lets call him or her, with authority and responsibility for all agencies and departments, must be fully empowered, just like the single military commander for CENTCOM. These Deputies of our civilian resources must have sufficient authority over the activities in their region. They will be heavy hitters, with recognized reputations around the world. They must be given objectives, budgets, and responsible oversight. They will be measured by their success in their region in improving such things as healthcare, education, and economy, and for their progress in promoting peace and democracy.

The wonders of America - like our healthcare technology - can be powerful tools to promote the foundations of liberty. It is time that we apply these American wonders to make the world, and in turn to make America, a safer, freer, and more prosperous place.

Four. we need to strengthen old partnerships and alliances, and we need to inaugurate a new one.

I don't need to tell you that the failures of the UN are simply astonishing. Consider the infamous work of the UN Human Rights Council.

The infamy of the UN has made a number of people understandably cynical when it comes to multinational and multilateral institutions. Some of us will be tempted to retreat to American isolation. Others will favor American unilateralism. But America's strength is amplified when it is combined with the strength of other nations. Whether diplomatic, military, or economic, America is stronger when we have friends standing with us.

That may be even more true tomorrow than it is today. The world will look quite different in the future than it has in the past.

The Middle East is facing a demographic crisis. Today, over half the region is under 22 years old. But the combined GDP of all Arab nations, including oil, is less than that of Spain. With the growing populations and lack of jobs, the ground for radical Islam will be increasingly fertile.

I agree with former Prime Minister Aznar of Spain that we should build on the NATO alliance to defeat radical Jihad. He has called for greater coordination in military, homeland security, and non-proliferation efforts. He is right. We should look to expand and deepen this and other alliances.

Today, I want to take his recommendation a step further. As one of my first acts as President, I would call for a Summit of Nations. In addition to the United States, the convening countries would include moderate Islamic states and other leading developed nations. The objective of the Summit would be to create a worldwide strategy to support Muslim nations and peoples, in their effort to defeat radical, violent Jihad.

I would envision that the Summit would lead to the creation of a Partnership for Prosperity and Progress. This Partnership would assemble the resources of all developed nations to work to assure that threatened Islamic states had public schools, not Wahhabi madrassas, micro credit and banking, the rule of law, human rights, basic healthcare, and competitive economic policies. The resources would be drawn from public and private institutions, and from volunteers and NGOs. And policies would favor expansion of free trade and investment.

Merely closing our eyes and hoping that radical Jihad will go away is not an acceptable answer. And American military action cannot change the hearts and minds of hundreds of millions of Muslims. Only Muslims will be able to defeat the violent radicals. But we can help them. And we must help them. For the consequences - for America and for all nations - of a radicalized Islamic world, possessing nuclear weapons, are unthinkable.

Conclusion

I know that the new generation of challenges that we face seems daunting. But confronting challenges has always made America stronger. And the heart of the American people is good. And it is willing. When called to rise to the occasion, the American people will be just as valiant as those of you in the Greatest Generation.

The world awaits our leadership.

On the wall of your library are these words: "Let future generations understand the burden and the blessings of freedom. Let them say we stood where duty required us to stand." We do understand. We stand in duty today. And we are ready stand again, for the future of America.

 

Thank you.

 


Apr 14, 2007

A CEO For The USA?

By: Richard Lowry
National Review
Saturday, Apr 14, 2007

"Mitt Romney tells the audience at a town-hall meeting here how his kids got him a 1962 Rambler - the American Motors car produced by his dad George Romney – for his 60th birthday. It seems just a charming story to warm up the crowd. Romney says, 'We got it started, drove it up the road – and then pushed it home.' People laugh. But Romney is really telling a parable about his favorite theme: change.

"He says his 1962 car had no arm rest, no seatbelts, no bucket seats, and a great big steering wheel that it took a lot of muscle to turn. 'Cars have changed a lot,' he says. And then he launches into his real point: 'People selling us goods and services figure out they got to make them better every year.' The people who run government feel no similar obligation, especially in Washington where 'talk is the currency.' Romney says 'talk has no value – not in the real world,' and that he 'grew up in the real world.'

"This is the core message of Romney's campaign, and it is a credible one that accords with his background and interests. He's a businessman populist running as a Washington outsider, although without the nasty edge or fiery rhetoric of past populist anti-Washington candidates (think Gephardt circa 1988, Perot circa 1992, or Buchanan circa whenever). Romney is technocratic and non-threatening, giving the impression that he will slay the slouching beast of ineffective, wasteful government with flow-charts and unremitting politeness.

"It is impossible to be around Romney and not be impressed – by his obvious intelligence, by his fluid speaking style, by his accomplishments in business and government, by his appearance. The former venture capitalist and Massachusetts governor is a technically proficient candidate, a good fundraiser and organizer who makes a winning impression on the stump. And yet, one still wonders whether voters will buy him."

...

"Prior to his Derry meeting, Romney visits a small manufacturing firm in Manchester, Granite State Manufacturing. He gets a politician's typical speed tour, getting briefed on the company's products ranging from semi-conductors to the small robots the military uses against bomb threats. Then he is brought out onto the shop floor to deliver remarks to the couple of dozen gathered employees from behind a podium.

"Romney seems an incongruous presence, crisp and well pressed, in this industrial setting, with a concrete floor and buzzing lights overhead. He says that he was wondering about what united the company's different products, and his guide explained the company is good at 'things that are changing a lot.' That, of course, sets up Romney nicely, and he gives a kind of mini–business tutorial. It is possible to imagine him fitting in here, after all – as a business consultant.

"He explains that if you're making the same product or delivering the same service over an extended period, 'you're in trouble.' To illustrate that improvement is always possible, he says when Hank Paulson left Goldman Sachs for the Treasury Department, everyone assumed the firm couldn't possibly be run any more effectively, but 'the new chief executive changed everything and now it's doing better.' Then – of course – he complains that government doesn't change enough, and tells the workers that, in the private sector, 'I learned to change things.'

"Romney doesn't have a highly ideological message on the stump. He is running as a mild limited-government conservative. He says over and over again that to make America better 'you don't strengthen government, you strengthen the American people.' He plumps for lower taxes (he wants to cut taxes on saving and investment), advocates keeping federal spending below the level of inflation, and notes that he liked to veto bills in Massachusetts. None of this is hard to believe of Romney."

...

"At every stop, he lauds New Hampshire voters for the intensive nature of their primary, during which they take the time to learn 'about the character of those running.' He urges them to 'measure us for our character and heart and passion and values.'"

...

"At his town-hall meeting, he talks about the importance of marriage. 'Kids deserve a mom and a dad,' he says, and 'where we can, let's encourage marriage before children.' By way of illustrating the de-valuing of marriage, he tells of an aide going to Babies 'R' Us with his pregnant wife and getting asked by a salesperson, 'What's your girlfriend's name?' There are a few gasps in the audience.

"This might seem a tame volley in the culture wars, but few other major politicians talk about the culture of marriage at all, and Romney's upstanding personal life allows him to do it without embarrassment."

...

"On this day, he's campaigning with his oldest son Tagg and Tagg's daughter. Before introducing him at the Granite State Manufacturing event, Romney explains that he 'fell in love in high school,' and married his high-school sweetheart, Ann. Tagg was 'born on our anniversary, one year after we got married' – one of those perfect touches in what seems a perfect family life. He says that Tagg's daughter is taking the day off from school. But could a Romney ever play hooky? 'She's seeing how the political process works and then writing a paper on it for Monday.' She'll probably get an 'A.'

"Years ago, a pollster asked people which presidential candidate they would rather have baby-sit their child. Forget baby-sit – most people would probably be comfortable having Mitt Romney raise their children."

...

"He has a quick sense of humor to go along with his cheerfulness. When he mentions the Rambler, a few people clap, and he quips, 'A couple of guys had Ramblers – but they're not the ones clapping.' At Granite State Manufacturing, he manipulates a bomb-squad robot using a joystick on a table. He points it mock-menacingly toward a reporter: 'Let's see, I'll go for the AP today.' When an official at a charity he visits jokingly says to the assembled cameras that he himself is getting into the presidential race, Romney interjects from the sidelines, 'Not another one!'"

...

"On this trip, Romney is campaigning on the high of having outpaced the other Republican candidates by raising $23 million. The big number ensured he would stay in the first tier of candidates. As a Romney aide explains, with anticipated candidates Sens. George Allen and Bill Frist never getting in the race, the press put Romney in the top tier without his really having to earn it. Now, he's earned it."...

Apr 13, 2007

Hugh Hewitt and Governor Mitt Romney





Conservative Commentator Hugh Hewitt: "There's a long way to go until Iowa, but as 2007 opens, the momentum remains where it was throughout 2006, with Mitt Romney." (Hugh Hewitt's Blog, "Steyn, Owens, Romney And Me," http://hughhewitt.townhall.com, 1/4/07)

Conservative Radio Talk show host has long been hosting Romney on his show. He's not "on the record" as endorsing Romney . . . but he sure seems to be quite praiseworthy. It was at Hewitt's suggestion/request that Lowell and John started the Article6Blog.

Hugh Hewitt's A Mormon in the White House?





Hugh Hewitt's new book - A Mormon in the White House?
An ad for Hugh Hewitt's New York Times Best Seller "A Mormon in the White House? - 10 Things Every American Should Know about Mitt Romney"




The best Hugh Hewitt AMitWH Contest Entry
Gotta push the book to win the prize!


Buy Hugh Hewitt's "A Mormon in the White House"



And please pray that I can win the thousand dollar prize!



Hugh Are You?
Ad for "A Morman in the White House?" by radio talk show host, author, and blogger king, Hugh Hewitt

Apr 6, 2007

Mitt Romney in Iowa

If you are from Iowa and want to help with this site, please e-mail me.

Travels with Mitt: On the Road in Iowa

Iowa Republican Platform

Links

  1. http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/

Mitt Romney 2008 Announcement Des Moines Iowa

Governor Mitt Romney was joined by Senator Jim Talent (R-MO) during his visit to western Iowa on Thursday where he met with local activists and caucus goers for a luncheon. They later traveled to Onawa, IA for a coffee break with area Republicans.

On Monday, February 19, Governor Mitt Romney and his wife Ann traveled to Iowa to meet with local area residents and community leaders at the Sioux City Chamber of Commerce. They were later joined by Congressman Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) as Governor Romney delivered the keynote speech at the Sioux County Lincoln Day Dinner in Orange City, IA.

Governor Romney traveled to Des Moines, IA, Wednesday where he met with Republican Legislators at the Iowa State Capitol before traveling to Pioneer Hybrids in Johnston, IA, for a tour and meeting with employees. Romney ended the day with the opening of the Iowa campaign headquarters in Urbandale, IA and hosted the second "Ask Mitt Anything" Town Hall Meeting by telephone.









[https://www.mittromney.com/img/Photo_Gallery/4.4.07_Iowa/20070404_iowa027_LRG.jpg



Apr 1, 2007

Mar 30, 2007

Questions for Mitt Romney

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Questions

Actual questions asked from Mitt Romney Interviews , organized by subject. Click on the question for the answer.

Issues

Iraq

  1. Do you keep Bush or let him go?
  2. But how do you explain why all that planning wasn't done ?
  3. Yet, you support the president's decision to send more troops right now?
  4. Are you confident the surge is going to work ?

Iran

  1. Does the president have the authority he needs to take military action against Iran.

 

  1. what are the big issues?
  2. How could you fix the budget?
  3. Now you describe yourself as a Reagan Republican Describe the journey .

 

North Korea

  1. Is the president nuclear deal with North Korea a good one .

Abortion

  1. So do you now believe that abortion is murder ?
  2. should women who have abortions and doctors who perform them be jailed ?
  3. if it's killing, why should states have leeway ?
  4. what do you believe the punishment should be for an abortion ?

Gay Rights

  1. Should gays and lesbians be able to serve openly and honestly in the military?

Character

  1. How do you convince voters that some of these changes are sincere, coming from conviction?

Guns

  1. When did you join the NRA?

Healthcare

  1. Do you think the country should have a Massachusetts healthcare plan .

Taxes

  1. Why did you sign a pledge ruling out any tax increases ?

Sports

  1. What do you think of what happened to Bode Miller and his attitude ?

Business

  1. What does Bain do?
  2. what impact did you have on the creation of Staples ?
  3. how old were you when the Staples thing started ?
  4. What other boards have you served on ?
  5. Have you had a failure that you can talk about in business ?

Politics

  1. How did you get elected governor of the state of Massachusetts ?

Massachusetts

  1. Why did you pick Massachusetts as a place to stay after school ?
  2. You are 47 now?

Decision to Run for President

  1. When you decided not to run again for governor, how much did your thought of running for president enter into that discussion?

 

Father

Money

  1. Why did your father not give you any of his inheritance ?
  2. Did he have a philosophy that he didn't want to pass on a lot of money to his kids.

 

  1. When you father thought of running for president in '64, and then actually ran for a while in '68, how old were you in those years and what did you experience during that time?
  2. You can't be born out of the country and run for president, how did that work?
  3. And when did he move to Utah?
  4. At some point I noticed you were on the Points of Light Foundation board, but you go back to either your father starting the volunteer organization that merged into Points of Light? Explain that.

 

Brain Washing

  1. Well, you know, if you ever look at the history of your father and running for president, they all say the same thing, it's all the "brainwashing" comment. Why would that have been the issue? I mean, why would he have been accused of saying something stupid about being brainwashed in Vietnam?

 

Background

 

  1. Why did you pick Mitt over Willard?
  2. Where were you born?

 

Education

  1. In you history, it includes Stanford for how long ?
  2. You finished first in your class at Brigham Young University in Utah ?
  3. Why did you go to Brigham Young?
  4. How did you -- how were able to get an MBA and a law degree at the same time?
  5. And clearly it would be why you did well and, as you know, you finished well enough to give the valedictory address -- the question I want to ask you though is why do you think you did well? Other than having a lot of brainpower, did you have an approach to education?

 

Religion

  1. Who was Brigham Young?
  2. Well, if you go back -- and I found the name Pratt in your background who was some circuitous route related to Joseph Smith who was one of the founders of Mormonism.
  3. Are you prepared to deal with attacks on your religion ?
  4. Do you have an evangelical problem?
  5. Has there been a mood change in the country about the importance of talking about religion?
  6. Has there been a mood change in the country about the importance of talking about religion?
  7. How does your faith inform your politics ?

 

 

Mission

  1. One place that I found that you almost died (His Mission)

 

Personality

  1. What type of leader are you?

 

Personalities

  1. What would you copy from what Bush has done, if anything ?
  2. Why is Dwight Eisenhower one of your favorite presidents ?

 

Personal

  1. What's a normal day like?
  2. What time do you get up?
  3. What's the toughest personal crisis you've ever had to face ?
  4. Are you worried that the stress of the campaign may inflame the MS ?

 

Divorce

  1. Is divorse something voters should take into account ?

 

 

Source

Mar 24, 2007

Governor Mitt Romney and New Hampshire

I'm looking for someone from New Hampshire to help with this site: http://myclob.pbwiki.com/New-Hampshire

Governor Mitt Romney and New Hampshire

  • Governor Mitt Romney; NH Federation of Republican Women's Lilac Dinner; Radisson Center of New Hampshire; Manchester, NH; June 3, 2005
  • "He's conservative enough for my taste. I'm very strong on life issues. He made some courageous vetoes."
  • "I respect his experience, both at the Olympics and in dealing with an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature...I just love his whole approach to things."
    • Former New Hampshire Republican House Speaker Donna Sytek
      • Sarah Liebowitz, "Romney Partygoers Like What They Hear," Concord NH Monitor, 12/22/06

 

Mitt Romney New Hampshire Press Releases

 

Governor Mitt Romney traveled to Concord, NH to participate in a community forum and later to Hollis, NH where he met with local residents at the Hollis Pharmacy. Romney then delivered keynote speeches at the Nashua Chamber of Commerce Business Eminence Awards Luncheon in Nashua, NH and the Hampton/Derry/Portsmouth Lincoln Day Dinner in Hampstead.

 

  • Governor Mitt Romney; NH Federation of Republican Women's Lilac Dinner; Radisson Center of New Hampshire; Manchester, NH; June 3, 2005

 

 

Governor Romney in New Hampshire

Governor Mitt Romney began his trip to New Hampshire by delivering health care policy remarks at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. Romney's son Craig then joined him to visit with the Thomson Family and local residents at the Mount Cube Sugar Farm, and later to tour the Isaacson Steel Plant. The Romneys ended their day in Shelburne at a reception with Gorham area residents.

 

 

http://www.newhampshireforromney.com/

Iran seizes British navy personnel in Iraqi waters...

Iran seizes British navy personnel in Iraqi waters...

Click here for today's story.

Click here for Romney on Iran.

Scary stuff.

~ Mike

More of the Romney family on MySpace

More of the Romney family on MySpace

See all their profiles here. Luckily all of them don't have the same taste in music as their Dad.

I saw this picture under Craig's profile.

Craig Romney

~ Mike

"Two Mitt Romney Ideas"

"Two Mitt Romney Ideas"

But I know teachers in public school who are required to pay union fees as a condition of holding their job. That strikes me as immoral, particularly since some people are opposed to labor unions in principle. I don't know a lot about the laws on this issue, but given what I know about unions and what I'd like them to be like, I have to be attracted to this idea.

Click here for a great take on Romney.

~ Mike

Mar 23, 2007

The Phoniest Scandal Of The Century (So Far) By DICK MORRIS Published on TheH

 

The Phoniest Scandal Of The Century (So Far)

By DICK MORRIS

Published on TheHill.com on March 20, 2007.

Printer-Friendly Version

When will the Bush administration grow some guts? Except for its resolute — read: stubborn — position on Iraq, the White House seems incapable of standing up for itself and battling for its point of view. The Democratic assault on the administration over the dismissal of United States attorneys is the most fabricated and phony of scandals, but the Bush people offer only craven apologies, half-hearted defenses, and concessions. Instead, they should stand up to the Democrats and defend the conduct of their own Justice Department.

There is no question that the attorney general and the president can dismiss United States attorneys at any time and for any reason. We do not have civil servant U.S. attorneys but maintain the process of presidential appointment for a very good reason: We consider who prosecutes whom and for what to be a question of public policy that should reflect the president's priorities and objectives. When a U.S. attorney chooses to go light in prosecuting voter fraud and political corruption, it is completely understandable and totally legitimate for a president and an attorney general to decide to fire him or her and appoint a replacement who will do so.

 http://vote.com/mailmachpro/clink_track.php?cust_id=277153&link_id=63

The Democratic attempt to attack Bush for exercising his presidential power to dismiss employees who serve at his pleasure smacks of nothing so much as the trumped-up grounds for the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in 1868. Back then, radical Republicans tried to oust him for failing to obey the Tenure of Office Act, which they passed, barring him from firing members of his Cabinet (in this case, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton) without Senate approval. Soon after Johnson's acquittal, the Supreme Court invalidated the Tenure of Office Act, in effect affirming Johnson's position.

But instead of loudly asserting its view that voter fraud is, indeed, worthy of prosecution and that U.S. attorneys who treat such cases lightly need to go find new jobs, the Bush administration acts, for all the world, like the kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar. All Republican supporters of the administration can do is to point to Bill Clinton's replacement of U.S. attorneys when he took office. Because the president and the attorney general insist on acting guilty, the rest of the country has no difficulty in assuming that they are.

Bush, Rove, Gonzales and Co. should explain why the U.S. attorneys were dismissed by emphasizing the importance of the cases they were refusing to prosecute. By doing so, they can turn the Democratic attacks on them into demands to go easy on fraudulent voting. A good sense of public relations — and some courage — could turn this issue against the Democrats for blocking Bush's efforts to crack down on the criminals he wanted prosecuted.

In making such a big deal over the routine exercise of a presidential prerogative to fire these prosecutors, the Democrats, led by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) may be biting off more than they can chew. Unless the administration turns and aggressively defends its decision to get rid of these particular appointees, it could be left holding the bag and defending the U.S. attorneys' decision to avoid prosecuting voter-fraud cases.

If the administration continues to follow its run-and-hide policy, it will look terrible asserting claims of executive privilege as it seeks to shield its appointees from Senate interrogation and its documents from committee scrutiny. But if it contextualizes the issue by using the specific failings of the dismissed appointees to prosecute particular cases, it will assume the high ground and its procedural objections will be seen in a more positive light by the American people. If only the administration would show some courage.

Hillary's Secrets Free Report:  Click here now!

________________________________________________________________________

PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY WHO MAY BE INTERESTED IN DICKMORRISREPORTS!

TO SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE TO DICKMORRISREPORTS:

If you have received this email from a friend and want to receive free copies of all of Dick Morris' and Eileen McGann's commentaries, sign up at www.dickmorris.com.

TO UNSUBSCRIBE AUTOMATICALLY FROM DICKMORRISREPORTS:

Please use the "REMOVE ME FROM THE LIST" link at the bottom of this email to unsubscribe.

Please do not reply to the DickMorrisReports mailbox to unsubscribe.  This mailbox is for comments only. 

THANK YOU!

***Copyright Eileen McGann and Dick Morris 2007***




Remove me from the list
Update your info




AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

More on gay rights

 

This from Wikipedia:

Romney has strongly opposed same-sex marriage and civil unions. He has continually stressed the need to "protect the institution of marriage" while denouncing discrimination against gays and lesbians. "Like me, the great majority of Americans wish both to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and to oppose bias and intolerance directed towards gays and lesbians," Romney said in 2004. (more)

On June 2, 2006, Romney sent a letter to each member of the U.S. Senate urging them to vote in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment. In the letter, Romney stated that the debate over same-sex unions is not a discussion about "tolerance", but rather a "debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage". Romney wrote, "Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights. In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation."

I think Garrison Keillor has recently agreed with Romney. (more)

Back to Wikipedia.org...

Romney's letter was his second attempt to persuade the U.S. Senate to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment. On June 22, 2004 he testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, urging its members to protect the traditional definition of marriage. "Marriage is not an evolving paradigm," said Romney, "but is a fundamental and universal social institution that bears a real and substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of all of the people of Massachusetts."

Romney was heavily involved in attempts to block implementation of the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that legalized same-sex marriage in 2003. Romney criticized the decision as harming the rights of children:

" They viewed marriage as an institution principally designed for adults. Adults are who they saw. Adults stood before them in the courtroom. And so they thought of adult rights, equal rights for adults…Marriage is also for children. In fact, marriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children. The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother. (more) "

In 2004, the Massachusetts General Court attempted to address the issue of gay marriage before the implementation of the Goodridge decision. During a constitutional convention, the predominately Democratic legislature approved an amendment that would have banned gay marriage, but established civil unions. An initial amendment offered by House Speaker Thomas Finnernan that would have simply banned gay marriage without a provision for civil unions was narrowly defeated. The compromise amendment needed to be approved in a second constitutional convention to be held a year later before it would have appeared on a state election ballot. The amendment was voted down in the subsequent convention and never made it before the voters of Massachusetts.

Romney reluctantly backed the compromise amendment, viewing it as the only feasible way to ban gay marriage in Massachusetts. "If the question is, 'Do you support gay marriage or civil unions?' I'd say neither," Romney said of the amendment. "If they said you have to have one or the other, that Massachusetts is going to have one or the other, then I'd rather have civil unions than gay marriage. But I'd rather have neither." (more)

In June 2005, Romney abandoned his support for the compromise amendment, saying that the amendment confused voters who oppose both gay marriage and civil unions. The amendment was defeated in the General Court in 2005 when both supporters of same-sex marriage and opponents of civil unions voted against it. In June 2005, Romney endorsed a petition effort led by the Coalition for Marriage & Family that would ban gay marriage and make no provisions for civil unions. (more) Backed by the signatures of 170,000 massachusetts residents the new amendment was certified as a valid referendum on September 7, 2005 by Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly. The measure needs the approval of fifty legislators in two consecutive sessions of the Massachusetts General Court to be placed on the ballot. The Massachusetts legislature however declined to vote on the initiative in two consecutive sessions held on July 12, 2006 and November 9, 2006. Romney responded by joining former Boston Mayor Raymond Flynn and eight others to file a complaint with the state's Supreme Judicial Court to force the legislature to vote on the proposed amendment. The petition also asked the court to instruct the Massachusetts Secretary of State to place the referendum on the 2008 ballot if the legislature failed to vote on the amendment by January 2, 2007. (more)

On the first day that same-sex marriages were to be legal in Massachusetts, May 17, 2004, Romney instructed town clerks not to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state gay couples, except for those announcing their intention to relocate to the Commonwealth by referencing the "1913 law" (General Legislation, Part II, Title III, Chapter. 207 (Certain Marriages Prohibited), Sections 11, 12, & 13), which prohibits non-residents from marrying in Massachusetts if the marriage would be void in their home state...

The General Court in 1913 passed the three laws denying marriage rights to persons domiciled out-of-state who came to Massachusetts to circumvent their own states' anti-miscegenation marriage laws.

This is from the Wikipedia article. Does "The General Court" pass laws?

...Thus, Massachusetts was complicit in circumventing the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1) of the U.S. Constitution. Opponents of same-sex marriage similarly sought to circumvent the Full Faith and Credit Clause by passing the Defense of Marriage Act and by proposing a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Romney was criticized for reviving a Jim Crow era piece of legislation that had avoided being nullifed by the U.S. Supreme Court's 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision due it not saying anything about race. However, Romney's actions were justified when, in March of 2006, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared the statute legal under the state's constitution. (more) Romney declared the "ruling is an important victory for traditional marriage". He also stated, "It would have been wrong for the Supreme Judicial Court to impose its mistaken view of marriage on the rest of the country. The continuing threat of the judicial redefinition of marriage, here and in several other states, is why I believe that the best and most reliable way to preserve the institution of marriage is to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution." (more)

Romney subsequently released a statement in support of a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts state constitution defining marriage as existing only between "one man and one woman" in order to overrule the court's decision. His statement said, "the people of Massachusetts should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to our society as the definition of marriage."

When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney declared his opposition to both same-sex marriage and civil unions. "Call me old fashioned, but I don't support gay marriage nor do I support civil union," said Romney in an October 2002 gubernatorial debate. He also voiced support for basic domestic partnership benefits for gay couples. Romney won the endorsement of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts, a Republican gay-rights group, who in 2005 accused him of reneging on his 2002 campaign commitment to support some benefits for gay couples.

WHICH ONES? LETS DEAL WITH FACTS PEOPLE!

He also opposed an amendment, then before the General Court, that would have banned same-sex marriage and outlawed all domestic partnership benefits for gay couples. When campaigning in 2002, Romney's stated position was that "All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation. While he does not support gay marriage, Mitt Romney believes domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship."

During his 1994 campaign against Senator Edward Kennedy, Romney said that same-sex marriage "is not appropriate at this time" and pointed out that marriage was regulated under the jurisdiction of state laws. He also said his voice, as a Republican, would carry more weight on lesbian and gay issues than Kennedy's, even if they took the same position on issues like allowing gays and lesbians in the military...

This, is an oversimplification and a misrepresentation. The only quote from Romney on this issue, as far as I know, is that he believed that gays would eventually serve openly in the Military. He never to my knowledge advocated it, and I know he has never made it part of his campaign.

When seeking the campaign support of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts, he said, "We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern". He also supported federal legislation that would prohibit discrimination in the workplace against homosexuals.

Defending himself against "flip-flopping" in a telephone interview on Instapundit.com's "The Glenn & Helen Show", Romney asserted he had fought discrimination. In response to a question about his 1994 Senate race debate with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Romney dismissed his pro-choice stance and positioning of himself as a political moderate as a youthful indiscretion. At the end of the interview Romney stated, "And I'm proud that at the same time I've fought discrimination. I believe that each American deserves equal opportunity. Now that's my record and maybe that's why people on this side are dredging up 13-year old history and attacking me now".

I've seen all sorts of errors on the wikipedia article, but I find this portion pretty well written.

I don't like how this sentense, "When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney declared his opposition to both same-sex marriage and civil unions" shows up at the bottom of the page. This is one of the biggest miss-understandings about Romney there are out there. The MSM has repeated hundreds and hundreds of times, the lie that Romney has changed his position on Gay Marriage. This is not the truth. I am so tired of correcting the lie, but I can't get tired, until the MSM stops repeating the lie. Romney has not changed his gay rights stance. Romney has not changed his gay rights stance! Get it into your freaking heads! His only change, has been on Abortion.

~ Mike

Death by a thousand idiots...

Here is another example of the lie that the MSM keeps repeating about Romney.

"Critics have accused Romney of shifting his position on abortion, gun control and gay rights to suit a conservative national GOP electorate now that he's no longer governor of a liberal-leaning state."

Does it matter what critics say, if it is blatantly untrue? Should the Washington Post repeat criticisms that have no foundation in truth?

The Washington post will say, "it's not our fault, we are just repeating what others have accused Romney of." It's not our job to bring you the truth, we just report the news.

This is the problem with the media. Because they are so liberal, we can never trust them.

I just told my friend that Hillary Clinton picks her nose. If Hillary Clinton was the most conservative individual in the race, the Washington Post would say, "Critics say Hillary Clinton Picks here nose" without even looking into any evidence to support the accusation.

There is no evidence to support the belief that Romney has changed his position on gun control, and gay rights. Any reporter that quotes "critics" that accuse Romney of changing positions on these topics is wholly owned by the DNC.

~ Mike

Permalink 02:23:41 pm, Categories: 2008, 541 words   English (US)

NPR

Yesterday on NPR I heard some smug, intellectually vapid, self-righteous, commentator reviewing, as the political expert, the chances of all the 2008 candidates. They were asking if any of the candidates had a "big idea". He claimed that Mitt Romney was "for abortion rights and gay rights before he was against them" and he actually laughed at what he thought was his joke, as though we haven't heard the same moronic drooling commentators repeating the same DNC slogan for how long now?

Every single person on the planet fits, on a continuum between the person who believes any birth control at all is evil, and the belief that murder of an 18 year old should be allowed. Mitt Romney went from being personally pro-life, but not imposing his view on the citizens of Massachusetts, and declaring a truce on the issue, to making a pro-life stance. This is a change in wording not policy. There are many pro-life people who believe, like Romney, that Abortion should be legal in Massachusetts.

But Romney is still for abortion rights! He believes that in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother, abortions should be legal. Even this is a vast oversimplification. Romney believes states should have the right to set their own policy with regard to abortion. Romney is, like every person on the planet, also against some abortion rights. H, like every other sane person on the planet, would not through a party, and give someone a nice "congratulations… good job!" if they had a late term abortion on a 9-month old fetus/baby."

So this jerk, who made a joke out of Romney's belief is laughing at everyone on the planet including himself. I have a different belief on abortion every day you ask me, just like the American public.

But the reference to being "for abortion rights and gay rights before you were against them" compares Romney to John Kerry. Is this a good comparison? How many different positions could John Kerry take on giving the president the right to declare war on Iraq? There were two possibilities: Give President Bush the right to declare war, or don't give the president the right to declare war. So John Kerry was being a complete idiot when he said that ""I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

No John. There were only two options with regard to funding. However on Abortion there are as many different positions as there are people. And Ms. NPR commentator, Romney has not changed his position on Civil Unions, or Gay Marriage (see above). Romney has not even changed his policy on abortion. He has just changed what he is calling himself. He did not want to call himself pro-life. Now he does. He has always been for the right of mothers to have abortions, if they were raped, had incest, or the mother's life was in danger. These are specific positions. He has never changed his position. He has just changed what he calls himself. John Kerry tried explaining actually positions. He tried taking both side of a simple policy. Romney has changed the way he talks about himself on a single very complicated issue.

~ Mike

Character matter

"Character matters "

This article says:

"...As a candidate for governor of Massachusetts, Romney supported gay unions; now he opposes them ..."

How many times do we have to keep going over this? When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney declared his opposition to both same-sex marriage and civil unions. Click here for an article from 2002 showing this FACT. Here is a message to the main stream media. Stop saying lies. Especially things that can easily be shown as lies.

~ Mike

Mar 20, 2007

Obama more liberal than Kucinich, analysis reveals


Obama more liberal than Kucinich, analysis reveals



This is a must read for anyone who wants to see what is really going on.


WASHINGTON - The most liberal member of Congress running for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination isn't Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.

It's Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

And the Republican candidate who's grown less conservative over his years in Congress? Sen. John McCain of Arizona...

The study, released this month by the National Journal, a respected inside-the-Beltway research report, will help voters cut through the spin and hype of TV sound bites in coming months and judge these candidates for themselves.

Unlike TV commercials that focus on a single vote, these rankings are based on comprehensive voting records. The 2006 scores, for example, were based on as many as 95 votes on such issues as federal spending, tax cuts, the war in Iraq, embryonic stem-cell research and border security.

On the Democratic side, the analysis of "lifetime" voting records shows Obama as the most liberal with a score of 84.3 after two full years in the Senate. The most liberal score possible was 99...

The rankings differ if you look only at their 2006 scores. That year Kucinich edged Obama by one point as the most liberal, and Clinton was the least liberal, as she sought re-election and prepared to launch her presidential campaign...

The year-to-year scores can reveal consistency or change. McCain, for example, grew increasingly less conservative in recent years...

McCain got a 46 for social issues - left of center...

Most Liberal: Barak Obama is #4!

Most Conservative. Jim Demint is #1, and endorses Mitt Romney !

~ Mike