Romney is too perfect?

Reasons to agree

  1. Romney doesn't smoke.
  2. Romney doesn't drink.
  3. Ann Romney says Mitt has never raised his voice.
  4. People vote for candidates who are like them. They don't want their candidates to be too good, to smart, too handsome, too competent. They want them to suffer, because we live in an Opera world where we love to bask in each other's misery. If you don't have misery for the public to bask in, they don't care about you. That don't want to watch smart people who have overcome their life's problems, because that will make them feel bad about themselves.

Reasons to disagree

  1. "Too perfect" for what? It doesn't even make any sense.
  2. Romney doesn't smoke? Barak is the only person who does smoke? Are your really saying Romney not smoking makes him too perfect? Are you stupid?
  3. Romney doesn't drink? I bet brown back doesn't drink either? What is the big deal? Did the founding father's say you have to drink in order to be president? I know bush used to have a problem with alcohol, but I don't think he drinks any more. Did not drinking cause bush to be a bad president? People say some of the stupidest things.
  4. People say that because Ann Romney says Mitt has never raised his voice, that he is somehow too perfect to be president. I don't really think any real people think this. I think it is a democrat reporter that doesn't like Mitt, who's ex-wife hates his guts, who is jealous of Romney, and is trying to make others jealous.
  5. We are tired of folksy presidents who don't talk any better than we do. We are tired of nice incompetent people with a good heart. We want someone different who can tear Washington apart and put it back together right.

The Washington Post ran a feature on Five Brothers.

The Washington Post ran a feature on Five Brothers.

The writer commented that "wholesome does not really begin to describe them . . ."

What do the writers want Five Brothers to talk about? Do they want Craig to start using crack? Selling Crack? Would that satisfy them?

The column claims they are more Brady Bunch than Simpsons. I don't get Jose Antonio Vargas, the staff writer for The Washington Post. Is the Romney sons talking about their dad's campaign supposed to be controversial? What are they supposed to say? That they hate their dad? That they don't want him to win? That they hate each other? That they hate the other candidates? Is this where they are supposed to confess all the problems they have had?

The media likes Paris Hilton. She at least gives them something to talk about.

Why can't these Romney boys be more like Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie, and Britney Spears?

PARIS%20HILTON%20cry.jpg

Lis Wiehl of Fox News asks, "Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie, and Britney Spears: Where's Our Generation's Jackie O?"

Getting jail time for drunk driving with suspended license? "That's hot!"

Millions of strangers watching you have sex? "That's hot!"

Snorting coke in a dirty bathroom at a club? "That's hot!"

Snagging a DUI while proudly dangling a sobriety shield from your rearview mirror, only to collapse at a club the next night and check into rehab a second time at age 20? ...Priceless.

Our daughters are bombarded with images of scantily-clad celebrities, stumbling in the street, only to take a drunk-driving joy-ride around town in their $400,000 Mercedes. Celebrity gossip is thrust upon us by radio, TV, magazine covers and pop-up ads. I am sickened by the messages that pop icons are sending my daughter: that underage drinking, drugs, and driving under the influence are tolerable. These celebs and heiresses should be setting a better example.

Gone are the days when our daughters looked up to a poised Mary Tyler Moore or Jackie O. Those women valued their public image built upon morality (even if it wasn't really the case). Once upon a time, it was embarrassing for celebrities to be caught doing something naughty. Today these wild girls have made it commonplace to misbehave. Web sites like Perezhilton.com even celebrate bad behavior. While some argue the effect of widespread exposure of bad girl antics won't lead "ordinary" girls to mimick their behavior, I disagree. If these are the role models for our children, it's very likely our girls will copy the celebrity behavior, especially because they are seen as the new "it" girls.

It seems that celebs are arrested for driving while intoxicated without so much as batting a false eyelash. Some of Hollywood's most notorious bad girls — Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie and Britney Spears — have all recently been accused of drunk driving and/or doing drugs.

The legal blood alcohol content for driving in all states is .08. That means for a 120 pound female, legal intoxication can be reached in as few as two drinks. Need I mention that celebutantes such as Richie are estimated to weigh 85 pounds? Meaning it takes even less than two drinks to legally intoxicate her past the point of safely driving a vehicle. Furthermore, though this is the legal limit, many people experience significant impairment before the legal point of intoxication! And let's be honest, who believes these girls are only having two drinks?

In Hollywood, overusing drugs or alcohol, followed by rehab, is commonplace and celebs do so with impunity. But unlike Hollywood-land, though real world employers are not as forgiving and many would face a chance of losing their job. Repeated rehab stints followed by a quick retreat back to bad habits have provided temporary sanctuary from retribution. But this isn't monopoly, and rehab should not be used as a get out-of-jail free card! This sets a horrible example for our kids. Spears and Lohan went drinking days after their "rehabilitation."

Until recently most of these girls have avoided any real consequences for drunk driving or doing drugs — thanks to their expensive lawyers. However, celebrities should not be above the law merely because they can afford clever lawyers. These Hollywood bad girls deserve punishment, not pity. If these emancipated youngsters are going to take part in adult activities then they must accept adult responsibilities. Having access to such providential lifestyles and tempting adult parties at such a young age should be considered a privilege, not a pardon for bad choices.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that hard time in prison is the best fit punishment for the crime, but whatever happened to community service? Public reprimand and apology? Something to show America that this behavior is not condoned? At the MTV Movie Awards, the pre-show host declared her deepest sympathy to Hilton for her jail sentence. That is absurd. That is what happens when you break the law Paris …you go to jail! Would anyone feel such sympathy if Paris were the town alcoholic driving around in a beat up car and terrorizing the streets by driving drunk late at night? I think not.

Authorities finally seem to be cracking down on this out of control behavior. Richie awaits her punishment after being arrested for DUI in December 2006. Hilton is in jail. Lohan was recently arrested under suspicion of driving under the influence after she crashed into the curb. Did I mention Lohan is not even of legal drinking age?

Must we remind police that these girls are not just endangering themselves but other innocent drivers and pedestrians? According to the Insurance Information Institute, there is an alcohol-related traffic fatality in the United States every 31 minutes and an alcohol-related traffic injury every two minutes.

"To whom much is given, much is expected." (Luke 12:48) These girls are given a lot at such a young age: money, fortune and fame. With this comes the scrutiny of the public eye and a responsibility to set a good example for their young fans and stop acting like heir-heads!

Way to go Lis! But this shows a big difference in the media. You have one media organization wanting more controversy and dysfunction out of kids these days, and ridiculing Mitt's children because they don't get in trouble, and then you have another organization looking desperately for examples of classiness and responsibility. Gosh, I wonder where we can find some good examples?

Well liberalism is a disorder. That is all I can say. Good is bad and bad is good. Liberals don't try to live good lives; they try to live counterintuitive lives, to prove that they are original. They aren't proud when their kids avoid drugs, out of marriage children, divorce, or rehab. They hate parents who raise kids who turn out alright. These things are interesting, and somehow prove that they aren't "too goody-goody".

I think one of the Romney boys said he liked little-miss-sunshine. I didn't. I hated it. I was so much pretence, of the liberal writers just saying how much better they were than everyone else. Our lives may suck. My dad may be addicted to heroin, he may be a pervert, my brother may have been committed for suicide, my 13 year old may have started her long career in S&M exotic dancing, but at least we aren't boring. At least we aren't goody-goody.

They throw in some good parts of the family being nice to each other, and making it threw bad times, but in the end they glorify living on the edge street cred. Which is a loosing game. Watch SLC punk and you will learn that everyone has to grow up. It's stupid to glorify having dysfunction in your life just so you are "cool".

Which brings me back to the media. You have to assume that newspaper writers chose that career so they can tell themselves how good they are. They weren't comfortable yet with the fact that they were good. They couldn't choose their profession with the goal of providing for their family as best they could, they had to choose a career that made them feel good about themselves. And how do liberals feel good about themselves? Just go back to high school, and look at the people who didn't want to admit doing homework because it was nerdy, who would smoke, just so others could see them as being "rebels", and who were always sluting around for that kind of attention.

~Mike

Just in case...

Unfair questions for Mitt Romney

By unfair, I mean that I don't think other candidates have had to answer similar questions.

 

Abortion:

  1. George Stephanopoulos
    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?
  2. 2nd Debate
    1. What would you say to someone who lost a wife or a daughter to an illegal abortion if you named the Supreme Court justice who tipped the balance and over turned Roe v Wade?

 

This one wasn't so much unfair as stupid, and out of left field.

 

America:

  1. 1st Debate
    1. What do you dislike most about America?

 

These ones arn't unfair just to Mitt Romney but to all the republicans. I have not heard a reporter ask any of the democrats about the totally un-ethical Bill Clinton pardons.

  1. 1st Debate
    1. Should Scooter Libby should be pardoned?
    2. Which current cabinet official would you keep ?

 

They could totally ask any of the dems which Clinton cabinet official they would bring back.

 

Wolf got into trouble over this one with Dick Cheney also. Click on the question to see how that went over.

  1. Wolf Blitzer:
    1. Do you want to tell our viewers why you disagree with Mary Cheney?

 

Mitt and Ann Romney's Relationship:

    1. Did you and Ann have pre-marital sex?

 

Has any other candidate been asked about this? Nope. It's OK to ask Mormons different questions.

 

 

Religion

  1. 1st Debate
    1. What do you say to bishops who deny Communion to elected officials who support abortion rights? (Not too bad, but gosh).
  2. Mike Allen
    1. Why are key tenets of your faith still misunderstood ? The tenets of every faith are misunderstood. Big deal. Don't ask a politician.
  3. How is your church so successful in getting its young people to follow its teachings? Ask the church dude. You don't really want to know.
  4. Brian Lamb
    1. Who was Brigham Young? Has Rudy had to tell about the Pope Pios the 3rd?
    2. Do you have an evangelical problem? Brian, do you have a stupid problem?
  5. Wolf Blitzer
    1. How do you deal with the fact that you are a Mormon? How do you deal with the fact that you are an idiot? How do you deal with the fact that your first name is "wolf"?
  6. Jay Leno
    1. Is their enough diversity within the Mormon Church ? Does Mike Huckabee get asked about Baptist in the South supporting slavery? The Mormon church did have racist policies more recently but it never supported slavery. That is part of the conflict it had in Missouri. Mitt Romney's dad was one of the few governors (especially Republican) who actually marched with Martin Luther King. Rudy hasn't been asked if the Catholic church has a molestation problem, but because Romney belongs to a religious minority, that isn't yet politically correct to defend, you can treat him different, and make him explain the stupid things his church has done, but you don't do the same to other candidates...
  7. Chris Wallace
    1. Are you a cultist? Chris, are you an ass?

School Choice and Charter Schools

School Choice and Charter Schools

School Choice and Charter Schools Press Releases

2003

2004

2005

2006

Mitt Romney believes in school choice.

Reasons to agree:

  1. "That is why Governor Romney and I support the choice that parents have made to give their children a charter school education. Charter schools are an excellent alternative for parents who are seeking more options for their child's education."

Books to Read

  1. De-Schooling Society by Ivan Illitch

Websites

  1. http://fornits.com/gatto/

The legislature passed a one-year moratorium on charter school approval as part of its Fiscal Year 2005 budget. In June 2004, Governor Mitt Romney vetoed the legislation.27 In his veto message, Governor Romney wrote, "I am vetoing this section because charter schools provide meaningful educational choices and should not be limited…. It is fundamentally unfair to penalize hundreds of students already enrolled in the schools named in this section while these issues are being resolved."28 The House of Representatives failed to override the veto on a 77-78 vote. 29

On April 1, 2004, the Federal District Court in Boston ruled for the defendants in Boyette v. Galvin challenging the state's Blaine and Religious Exclusion amendments. The Becket Fund appealed.30 Because of a change in plaintiffs, the case has a new name. Michael Wirzburger, et al., vs. William F. Galvin, Secretary of State, et al. is now in the First Circuit Court of Appeals.31

27 Massachusetts Office of the Governor, "Romney Signs $22.402B Fiscal Year 2005 'No New Tax' Budget," Press Release, June 25, 2004, at www.mass.gov/portal/govPR.jsp?gov_pr=gov_pr_040625_signing_05_budget.xml.

28 Massachusetts General Court Website, "Veto Items: Fiscal Year 2005 General Appropriations Act: Attachment B," at www.mass.gov/legis/05budget/govvetoesoutside.htm#312.

29 Kevin Rothstein, "Charter School Moratorium Fails to Survive Gov's Veto," Boston Herald, July 21, 2004, at http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=36496.

30 George Clowes, "Challenge Continues to Mass. Blaine Amendment," School Reform News, November 2004.

31 Phone conversation with Megan Anderson, The Beckett Fund, September 2, 2004.

Romney at Heritage

I wish we could have backed up all the Romney videos before they went away from the Massachusetts website.

Can we e-mail this to as many people as we can? Can we "podcast" it?

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev091405b.cfm

Google e-mails MP3s very well.

~ Mike

Why Ralph Likes Romney

"I worked with Mitt Romney on several projects when I lived in Boston in the late 70s and early 80s. I found him consistent, professional, and disciplined in all aspects of his life. His focus was always on making things work better. His desire for excellence included making himself better too.

He knew well how to balance all the responsibilities in his life and was never an extremist. Respectful of others and open to different points of view, he was always willing to listen and learn from divergent sources. He never forced his faith on anyone, but there was no question that his many strengths came from his strong core values. Central to these values was "doing." He lived the principle that knowledge only has value when used at the right time, in the right place, and for the right reason.

His effective leadership style fostered the learning and development of others, such that others became self-motivated, independent, and productive. He was neither arbitrary nor myopic. Yes, family and faith were central to his life, but always without hypocrisy, self-righteousness, or condescension.

By the way, his zest for learning has been misunderstood. Learning implies change, which means that as more knowledge and information become available, then positions need revision too. This is not "flip flopping," as others sometime accuse. Rather, it demonstrates the ability to find better solutions. Unlike many others, he neither pretends to know everything nor fears change. Frankly, I would fear any politician who was unwilling to learn and to change.

Those who honestly take a closer look at Mitt Romney will find good fruit coming from a good tree. Judge him by that first."

Link

Featured Post

David's Sling by Marc Stiegler is a Great Book

Home › Topics › Book Analysis › David's Sling David's Sling by Marc Stiegler is a Great Book Current Status: Cult Cl...

Popular Posts