Hat Throwing

From Ted Cruz's speech at Liberty University, March 23, 2015
announcing his run for the presidency, photo montage from Rush Limbaugh

Today is the day Senator Ted Cruz announced that he is running for president of the United States.

He’s a Texan. We recently voted for him as our US Senator (2012). Before that he was serving as the Solicitor General, working with then-Attorney General Greg Abbott (our new governor). His work and education resume is notable.

I heard him speak at the first Tea Party rally I ever attended, and I made a note that he was impressive and knew the Constitution.

I heard his father, Rev. Rafael Cruz, speak at a small gathering last month, and learned some of where that understanding of the Constitution came from. Ted had memorized the Constitution as a teen and frequently spoke of freedom and free enterprise. Maybe he really was raised for such a moment as this that our once-great nation faces.

He spoke without notes or teleprompter—something the media seems amazed by, even though that was normal for Sarah Palin back when they were calling her stupid. But, rather than just being referred to as a great orator because of a one-time speech back in 2004, he has won multiple debate and speech contests—with Princeton's annual novice debate team championship named for him.

Anyway, Cruz said, “Today, I am announcing that I am running for president of the United States. It is a time for truth; it is a time for liberty, it is a time to reclaim the Constitution of the United States.”

Much of the speech covered his family story--father escaped from Cuba, mother moved up from working class to computer pioneer. He worked his way through college, and married a successful businesswoman. They have two young daughters. It was a compelling, personal story.

He also had some Reagan-like America-inspiring things to say:

“God’s blessing has been on America from the very beginning of this nation, and I believe God isn’t done with America yet.”

“The power of the American people when we rise up and stand for liberty knows no bounds.”

What is the promise of America? The idea that—the revolutionary idea that this country was founded upon, which is that our rights don’t come from man. They come from God Almighty.

And that the purpose of the Constitution, as Thomas Jefferson put it, is to serve as chains to bind the mischief of government.

The incredible opportunity of the American dream, what has enabled millions of people from all over the world to come to America with nothing and to achieve anything. And then the American exceptionalism that has made this nation a clarion voice for freedom in the world, a shining city on a hill.

That’s the promise of America. That is what makes this nation an indispensable nation, a unique nation in the history of the world.

Some of us do believe in America—the America that thrives by tenaciously sticking to the Constitution. We’ve been heartsick watching the decay and decline, as an ineffectual anti-Constitutional socialist, along with minions and media, has taken us downward into tyranny, poverty, and savagery. We can clearly see what hasn’t worked. And we know what will work, because those principles are known and historically successful.

What we need is not a strong Washington, DC, to rescue us; we need a constitutionally limited government that protects our lives, liberty, and property—but otherwise gets out of our way.

We need a strong leader as president, not because we need a ruler. We need someone who is one of us—but strong enough to stand boldly against the socialist juggernaut that has been taking over the country we love. We need this person to give us hope—to remind us that speaking up for freedom can have a positive result.

This past weekend at the local Tea Party meeting, some of the discussion covered the political dilemma regarding whether a politician should act on principle or just get whatever he can in a compromise. It was a frustrating day for me. (I'll relate this to Ted Cruz in a moment.)

There was a libertarian speaker, who came over from being Democrat when he realized free-market principles really spoke to him. But he thinks the GOP makes a mistake by paying attention to those pesky social conservatives. We should just ignore them, if we want to bring younger, more diverse people into the fold, he suggests. I asked him what particular social issues were getting in the way. He thinks we should legalize marijuana and stop opposing abortion. Just what you’d expect; some stereotypes show up because the reality is so common.

I can write about why he’s wrong on both of those issues another day. But, in brief, if we have a society that values brain altering drugs for recreation, and allowing the killing of innocent human life because of a difference of opinion—then we don’t have a society that can handle self-rule or will abide by the laws required for prosperity in a free market. You have to have civilization as a starting point. So maybe we ought to try boldly stating our views—along with the principles underlying them. And then allow the truth to attract those who actually want freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

And then we had a speaker representing a US congressman, talking about a couple of recent votes that did not go over well locally. The position included an explanation that there has to be some compromise. It might be that the congressman had a valid reason for what looked to us mere constituents as caving in. But he called people who prefer standing on principle as “cliff jumpers.”

Here is a moment in which the Spherical Model can help: if you’re in a tug-of-war with some democrats/socialists who are already well south into the tyranny zone, and you’re barely hanging on at the equator, you don’t get above the equator and into the freedom zone by compromising. All you do is submit to some level of tyranny that is by definition unacceptable.

The congressman’s representative did not win hearts by saying that we could never even threaten to allow government to shut down, because the media would do us so much damage. I asked him whether we could ever count on our representatives just doing the right thing, because the media is never going to be with us regardless.

Dr. Kyle Scott, also one of our speakers, who is a community college board member, offered a good question that we want to know about our candidates and representatives: How do we know if they’ll go the expedient or principled route?

There may be times when you get almost everything you want, and it’s enough that you can seek further progress later. That is real compromise. We understand that. But giving in is not getting what you want in the compromise; it’s giving up our freedom just because the bad guys insist on it and you're afraid of what they'll say about you.

Most of the time we want what we’re promised in the Constitution. And we want our representatives to stand boldly for that.

I got this last June at the TX GOP Convention, just in case.
Glad I'm going to find it useful.

Bold is a synomym for Ted Cruz. I prefer bold. It’s sort of like preferring Tex-Mex to milquetoast. Just more satisfying.

I’m going to repeat a few tidbits from his speech at the TX GOP Convention last June, because they have that satisfying flavor to them (from my notes, so may not all be exact quotes):

“I spent all week in Washington, DC; it’s great to be back in America.”

“In Texas, gun control means hitting what you aim at.”

“Here’s a simple rule of thumb—if you’re litigating against nuns, you’re doing something wrong.”

“We will no longer play footsie with the mullahs of Iran.”

“For five years we’ve been trapped in the Great Stagnation. And those who struggle the most are the ones most hurt by it. How do we turn that around? Get back to free-market principles…. Unleash an energy renaissance….Audit the Federal Reserve…. Abolish the IRS…. And repeal every blessed word of Obamacare.”

There may be other good candidates. I’ll enjoy hearing from them too. But I’m really looking forward to hearing some more bold, strong Constitution-conserving words from Senator Ted Cruz. He inspires hope.

Meeting a Freedom Fighter

This past Saturday we had a special speaker at our local tea party meeting. It was Rev. Rafael Cruz, father of Senator Ted Cruz. It’s the second time I’ve heard him in person, but this time was a smaller group, with more time. He’s a confident speaker, able to go on for an hour or two without notes. And he does probably a hundred or so such speeches a year.

Rev. Rafael Cruz
photo from Cypress Texas Tea Party

Rev. Cruz loves freedom. He was born in Cuba, but he makes sure you know he’s not a Cuban-American; he’s an American born in Cuba. As I recall his story, he escaped from Cuba during the early Castro regime, with $100 sewn into his clothes, and nothing else. But America is the land of the free, and he was able to prosper here, and set up circumstances for his son to get even more education and success.

He tells his son (I’ve heard Ted Cruz repeat this) that he had America to flee to; if we lose our freedoms here, where would we have to go?

He’s a strong defender of the Constitution, and structured his talk on the part of the Declaration of Independence about protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—pointing out that the order of those three things is the priority. Life has to come first—and he points out the most vulnerable are at the beginning and ending of life. Liberty is necessary, or else you’re a slave. There’s no guarantee of happiness, only a guarantee of the freedom to work for it, to pursue it in the way we choose.

As a pastor, it’s not surprising that he recognizes we live in a unique place—founded on the word of God, founded by religious people, seeking to live the word of God.

He’s a huge supporter of his son, which is understandable. He started with an anecdote following Senator Cruz’s election. Chris Wallace had asked him something like, “Are you going to Washington to join the club?” And Cruz answered, “No. I’m going to kick down the door, tear down the curtains, and auction off the silverware.”

He told some interesting background about his son’s growing up that I hadn’t heard. As Ted was entering high school, he was introduced to a leader of the American Enterprise Institute who got him reading classics. From there, Ted, in a group of five, formed what was called the Constitution Club. They memorized the Constitution. They toured the state, doing Rotary Club lunches and other forums. They would write the Constitution on several blackboards while people were eating. Then they would give speeches on free market economics.

A young Ted Cruz gave some 80 such speeches during his high school years. That had to be excellent preparation for later speaking before the US Supreme Court on behalf of the state of Texas while he was solicitor general.

I can’t think of a better high school preparation for someone serving this country. By raise of hand, how many of our elected officials have ever memorized the Constitution? Even the Preamble (we had our homeschoolers memorize it). Can they explain free market economics at least as well as Ted Cruz could in high school? That ought to be a requirement—if we could quantify it somehow as a standard.

During the Q&A I got to ask about the senator’s possible presidential ambitions. Just the night before I’d read something about the formation of a SuperPAC, which is often viewed as an exploratory preparation for running. Rev. Cruz said that the SuperPAC was formed in order to help a number of people in last November’s election, so that was its purpose and timing. However, he did acknowledge that many people have asked Senator Cruz about his willingness to run, and he says the Senator is spending some time seriously considering, and praying and discussing with family, whether he should run. And we can expect a decision one way or another in the next 30-60 days.

I got this button at the Texas GOP Convention last June,
just in case I need it someday

Over the weekend possible candidate Governor Rick Perry impolitely pointed out that we’ve tried a first-term senator without executive experience, and that hasn’t worked out so well. Ouch! Personally, I normally prefer governors, who have executive experience. I’m interested in learning more about Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, and Gov. Scott Walker of Michigan. There may be others. Gov. Perry isn’t my favorite, but he’s light years ahead of what we’ve been experiencing. Gov. Jeb Bush has disqualified himself by supporting Common Core and amnesty; that makes him a “progressive,” which would appeal to Democrats, except for the Bush name. So he’s pretty much unsupportable for either party. That’s of course why the media claims he leads the polls.

I’ve liked a lot of Gov. Christie’s better moments, but I’m concerned that at heart he’s not fully conservative, but so far I haven’t written him off; I’m just not rooting for him. I have similar feelings about Senator Marco Rubio—who lacks the executive experience as well, and has some explaining to do about his immigration reform ideas (which have sounded like amnesty), but I’m willing to give him a listen, since he’s been good on many other issues. Senator Rand Paul has a lot to recommend him, especially on economics. But, while he’s not his father, his foreign policy is too isolationist for a world this dangerous, so I’m concerned but haven’t written him off.

But Ted Cruz—he lives and breathes the principles of the Constitution. The Constitution leads to freedom, prosperity, and civilization—every time it’s tried. We need someone willing to try it. We can’t afford any “compromise” that just sinks us slowly into tyranny. We need restoration of the brilliant American experiment in limited government.

While I’m satisfied with Senator Cruz as my Senator, I also recognize he has a backbone and ability to articulate truth in ways we are much in need of. As for previous experience, he has served in significant positions and done them well. No floating along voting “present” and agitating community organizations. Perry’s implied comparison of Cruz and Obama is pretty ridiculous. They are polar opposites.

I’m in favor of as strong a contrast as we can get with Clinton (or the Clinton-like alternative, if such a thing should materialize), who misspent her youth immersing herself with Marx and Alinsky.

But, speculation about presidential candidates is more of a sport than a solution. Rev. Cruz pointed out that what really matters is what happens when we leave that room. Do we share our ideas with others? Do we become precinct chairs (yes—as a matter of fact, our little tea party group has worked toward that goal pretty successfully the past couple of years; I am one)? Do we run for city council and school board? We need conservative Constitutionalists at every position from the bottom to the top. And every one of us needs to speak louder and let our representatives know what we expect of them as our employees.

So much to do! It’s a blessing we have a clear voice like Rev. Cruz inspiring and encouraging us.

Tectonic Shift in Thinking



At Spherical Model, some years ago, I wrote something about Ron Paul in the 2008 election being valuable because he brought something important to the conversation:

He reads the Constitution. More than most he insists that our economic system would function much better if we actually adhered to the Constitution. He would limit taxes to what is permissible in the Constitution. Up to this point, he sounds very much like a lone voice in the freedom zone.

This election cycle it’s totally natural to be reading the Constitution. All candidates must convince primary voters that they are Constitutional scholars and protectors. That wasn’t true last time around. So there has been a shift.

Have you heard of the Overton Window? It’s a way of describing shift in public opinion on any policy. [It’s named for Joseph P. Overton, former VP of the free market think tank Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Glenn Beck wrote a thriller with this title based on the concept of public opinion shift. Take a look at the site for more detailed explanation and examples.] In short, there is a spectrum of reactions to an idea, ranging from unthinkable to becoming policy. The spectrum looks like this:

Unthinkable     Radical        Acceptable     Sensible        Popular        Policy

The “window” is the range of policies that are considered acceptable, rather than extreme at any given time. One election cycle ago it seemed odd to talk about the US Constitution as the basis for economic policy, even within the Republican Party. McCain claimed to be conservative, but in practice he wasn’t against federal intervention in the economy, and wasn’t even strongly supportive of cutting the budget, reducing the deficit, and lowering taxes. (Romney was clearly for those things four years ago and was considered, in some ways, too conservative to be electable.)

I know it seems like we’ve always believed in the Constitution (and some of us always have), but back then it was called extreme to insist that people who make the money should be the ones to decide who spends it. Now, in part thanks to Ron Paul for helping to shift the window, conservative free market economics are the only acceptable position for a GOP presidential candidate. All of them tout free market economics, and some articulate the concepts with words very similar to 2008’s Ron Paul.

In a Wall Street Journal editorial William McGurn wryly credits Obama for the shift. The piece as a whole deserves reading, but here are some excerpts:

Yes, in the Bush years the air was also thick with accusations that the Constitution was being "shredded."…

Where the accusations against Mr. Bush were led by prestigious law faculties and law firms, those against Mr. Obama reflect a more popular hue. Where the indictments of Mr. Bush were largely limited to war policy, those against Mr. Obama's extend broadly to all areas of policy: foreign, economic and social. And where critics of Mr. Bush were obsessed with outcome, the discontent with Mr. Obama has been magnified by the uneasy sense that he is changing the fundamental rules of the game….

We are learning, however, that ordinary Americans who never before heard of the Commerce Clause are perfectly capable of grasping the argument that if the federal government can require a citizen to buy a product in the market, there's nothing he can't be forced to do….

You can say Mr. Obama probably will not like where a greater public familiarity with the Constitution is likely to take us politically. But you can't say the former University of Chicago professor hasn't made it exciting.

The more Obama is out of touch with the “window” of acceptable ideas, which has shifted away from him rather than towards him, the more often he will seem extreme. If the shift is real, that is if Constitutional principles have become widely understood and appreciated, then it is a matter of articulating the principles to currently listening ears.

In terms of the Spherical Model, we have an opportunity to move upward toward freedom, prosperity, and civilization—if we can continue to articulate the philosophy to people who, after four failed years of imposed socialist policies, are ready to consider cutting government and abiding by our Constitution as a normal thing to consider.

The tempest within the GOP primary is evidence of this positive news. Tea partiers aren’t convinced anyone is conservative enough to suit them (maybe because they won’t be satisfied until the window shifts further). But all of the candidates are more conservative by record and word than our last nominee (maybe our last several nominees). Last time there was pressure to downplay conservative philosophy. This time all are practicing how to articulate the conservative message and honing their ability to do so.

At some point we will have a nominee. There will be some who refuse to believe he is good enough. But take heart that, whoever it is will speak a message that resonates with many more people. And the pull will continue to be toward freedom. That’s a good thing.

----------------------

*Photo credited to Corbis, from WSJ piece linked above.

Backward-Step-Pivot-Forward

We’re getting closer to the end of presidential nomination process, so eventually it will stop being a distraction from a myriad of other things worth talking about. But last night I did follow  the election returns.

screen shot of winning results

Romney was expected to win in New Hampshire, so the question was the margin. Some people were claiming anything under 36% would show weakness—even though historically no non-incumbent has won both Iowa and New Hampshire with any margin at all. As it turned out, he won with over 39% of the vote.

Ron Paul got a respectable 23%. This is the state where the voluntaryist project is going on (extreme libertarians, gathering together in one place to set up their own local version of free government, which unfortunately includes an insistence on legalization of all drugs). Paul has a strong following with the young, students, not yet making much money, possibly never voted before, who consider themselves moderate to very liberal. Most GOP primaries will not be carried by this demographic. Another day, though, I’d like to talk more about them, and the Overton Window principle, which is why I’m pleased these people are out there articulating their point of view.

Jon Huntsman had put everything he had into this state, and he won a respectable 17% of the vote, well above expectations, and well above the other non-Romneys.

On the usually reasonable conservative Mark Levin Show last night, Levin was suggesting what really needed to happen was a backroom meeting of the remaining opponents, where they make whatever deals are necessary to come to a consensus of who among them would continue on, to put the “real” conservative votes behind one non-Romney candidate. At that point in the evening, Romney was estimated at 36% of the vote, which Levin said was a pathetic showing (even though it would have beaten McCain last time around). But what I’m seeing is that if you exclude Paul (which Levin did, I believe), then you put together all the votes of Huntsman (17%), Gingrich (9%), Santorum (9%), and Perry (1%), you get 36%, actually 7,048 votes short of Romney’s votes. In other words, a backroom meeting to join together behind one candidate would still be insufficient.

But, of course, this is just New Hampshire, practically home turf for Romney. So maybe it would still be worth fighting Goliath? We’ll see, but polls show Romney leading in South Carolina (where Perry is putting his remaining energy), and Florida.

There’s something else. The chart below was put out in a memo by Andrea Saul, a Romney campaign spokesperson. I got it in this blog.

According to the chart, the non-Romneys have little chance of garnering the needed delegates, because they have not met ballot requirements. We’ve heard a fair amount about Virginia’s problems, where only Romney and Paul are on the ballot, and it seems unfair to onlookers. And yet, Romney and Paul campaigns were able to handle the detailed paperwork. I believe it is also true that Romney as a first-time candidate four years ago nevertheless met ballot challenges in every state. He handles details and does what it takes to get inconsequential roadblocks out of the way. There’s something to be said for that. (Same for Paul supporters, many of whom are new to politics, and yet passionate and humble enough to ask what needs to be done and then do whatever it takes.)

Is it establishment GOP that took care of these details? Not from what I can see, where my state's GOP-ers were much more likely to support Perry. Nor was Romney considered “establishment” last time around, yet he was nevertheless able to take care of the details. In fact, Romney did almost everything right last time around, except squelch the inexplicable hatred toward him from his opponents. (Huckabee, McCain, and Paul supporters coordinated in West Virginia to add up to more than Romney won in the first round, thwarting Romney’s momentum, eventually handing victory to McCain.)

When Romney saw he couldn’t win for himself, he put all of his energy into helping the party win, recognizing the danger Obama posed to the country. Romney continued, at his own expense (and often contributing his own money) supported conservative candidates for the sake of the party he thought would best conserve our nation. He didn’t continually run, as accused. In fact, he seriously went through the decision-making process about whether to run again, based on where he could best serve. But his willingness to support and help where he could was exactly the right thing to do to garner appreciation across the country—which equals winning approval from the establishment, apparently. Note that the things he did are almost the same things Sarah Palin did—speak in favor of candidates, help with their fundraising, continue articulating the conservative message.

Yes, we have been burned by the “establishment GOP” in the past—more than a time or two. But doing the right things should not disqualify a candidate. Nothing was automatic for Romney; it was a matter of consistently doing and saying exactly what we would want a leader to do and say.

So, while I would not be terribly distressed with a non-Romney candidate (actually, I’d have a hard time pushing myself to support Paul or Gingrich, but I see almost anyone who reads the constitution as better than Obama), I am comfortable with Romney as our candidate. My major concern has been the almost rabid anti-Romney sentiments people who are usually reasonable and conservative hold against him. I’ve been gathering things to say that might help these people feel better about what is looking more likely. But as I go through this exercise, I am finding that Romney needs little help from me. He’s going to be fine.

One example is his skill at communication. This article highlights his varsity skill as a debater. Debate coach Todd Graham describes one of the strategies Romney used to good effect in the two debates over the weekend:

There is a simple debating strategy when answering attacks: “Backward-step-pivot-forward.” First, put up a robust defense—defend your positions thoroughly (backward-step). And second, figure out how to turn your potential weakness into strength. In other words, start with defense and then attempt to make the same issue part of your offense (picot-forward).

He gives examples of Romney doing this, while his opponents get stuck on the backward defense step. Romney then appears more positive and in control, while the others, even when successfully defining their positions, do it with the negative tone of defense.

This opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal calls attention to Romney’s skill in these debates as well, particularly in the way he took on Stephanopoulos’s foolish attempt to trap him. Stephanopoulos not only failed to make conservatives as a whole look foolish, as was his goal, Romney called him on it in a way that revealed the attack so the average American could recognize it, and in a way that was without rancor. That was skill. And this debate skill is a bonus from a candidate who just happens to be superior for our country in every way compared to Obama.

In other words, how about we give up just feeling resigned with an inevitable Romney nomination, and instead consider rejoicing that he is our guy.

Consistency

I’ve continued watching the presidential debates, though often not live. The one from Saturday, January 7^th, proved one consistent point: “journalist” moderators are clueless about how conservatives think, and they seem determined to do two things: make the entire slate look foolish, and pit one candidate against another (mostly they fail at both). What do we really need? A strong contrast between the two parties, and an opportunity for each candidate to express why he is best suited to the job of president.

What did we get this weekend? “Do you agree with the Supreme Court ruling on contraceptives from several decades ago, and do you think there should be a constitutional amendment to allow states to enforce laws against contraceptives?” That’s not word-for-word. But it was actually that ridiculous. There is no discussion in any GOP campaign about whether states should be allowed to outlaw contraception. The ruling that dealt with contraception by inventing a right to privacy is decades old. This distant case, which worded things in a way to keep government out of the personal decisions within sacred marriage, was later used to pretend there was a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. So, if you’re into connecting all the dots, it might be possible to get a candidate to say they have disagreed with the Supreme Court. In which case, the options are to ignore the case as precedent (my preference, to lessen the outsized power of the court) or, as Romney pointed out, to use the legislature and states to amend to US Constitution to spell out what the Supreme Court got wrong.

The exchange is at the beginning of the second segment, so about 15 minutes in. Romney had to answer Stephanopoulos several times before he could convince him the question was too stupid to bother answering; no states want to enforce contraception, so why in the world would anyone push for a constitutional amendment to make sure they could? What a waste of our time!

All of the candidates performed better than the moderators; they almost always do. I even like Huntsman and Paul compared to those moderators (and Paul did not have a good day).

OK, enough about that debate. What I want to share today are a couple of clips from back in time. There’s a narrative about Romney that he is a Massachusetts “moderate=liberal” who “flip flops.” The first clip is from 1994, during the race for Senator against Ted Kennedy, and the topic is government health care.

            Mitt debates Kennedy in 1994 on government health care takeover.

You’ll see that Romney is passionate and forceful against the all-powerful Kennedy, and that he understands the economic ramifications of government interference. If you follow this up by actually looking (by reading Romney’s book No Apology) at how he approached health care in Massachusetts, so that there was no government insurance, you’ll see huge differences between the limited state approach and Obama’s intentional dismantling of the free market in the medical sector. While the Massachusetts plan entails more interference than any of us living in states that don’t have 85% Democrat legislatures would tolerate, Romney is right that it is solely a state solution. He is also sticking with it (changes implemented by Democrat successor included), because it would be inconsistent to support the plan, as good as he could get it, as governor and then denounce it afterward. And inconsistent is not what he is. Nor is he disloyal

The point is, Romney intends to end Obamacare, because he has always been against the socialized medicine approach of Obama’s plan, and he was right in Saturday’s debate that, if we don’t turn it around soon, it will be very difficult to recover.

The second clip is an interview from 2007 with Glenn Beck, and the topic is free trade.

            Glenn interviews Mitt Romney in2007 on North American free trade union.

Everything he says is so clearly conservative, so clearly favoring free enterprise that Beck practically swoons. Before then, and since then, everything Romney says on the economy favors free enterprise—and says it with the authority of exceptional experience. If anything, since the last campaign Romney has gotten more practiced at articulating the conservative viewpoint.

Yet this time the argument against him is that he’s a moderate? Think about what you would believe about Romney if you didn’t have the liberal media as well as fellow conservative opponents telling you he is a moderate flip-flopper. His own record, and his own words are consistent. His performance in every debate has been impressive. If you’re nevertheless intent on “anybody but Romney,” ask yourself where that prejudice is coming from.

Measuring Rick Santorum

It’s the day before the Iowa caucuses. I don’t know what’s going to happen there. While I’m mildly interested, I am not one to work out the mathematical and strategic possibilities based on each of these early state primaries. However, polls have been showing a sudden rise for Rick Santorum, and I hadn’t covered him yet, so I thought I’d do that today.

I have always liked Santorum. I’ve read his book, It Takes a Family, which I thought was quite president someday.” He’s thoughtful and intelligent, and consistently conservative.

My hesitation I that his experience is more limited that some of the other candidates (particularly compared to Romney) in successfully persuading people. If he were to be the nominee, I would gladly support him. I don’t foresee that happening this time around, however. So, if I could see a future for him, I’d like to see him in a significant cabinet position, something that gives him experience that would place him in a good position eight years hence. (I’d also like to see more of Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, or even Michelle Bachman, all with more experience down the road.) I wouldn’t object at all to Santorum as VP.

It has been a disadvantage to Santorum in the debates to be behind, and therefore forced to be on offensive against candidates he mostly agrees with. But in the last debate, December 15^th, there was a moment where he shined. His answer was juxtaposed right after Ron Paul for contrast. The question for both was essentially what he would do as president if he received solid intel that Iran had a nuclear weapon. Early last year I had a conversation with a Paul fan. He mentioned that he really didn’t like Santorum, because he was so pro-war under any circumstances. That wasn’t something I’d ever noticed about Santorum, so I’ve paid attention since then. I think my friend would look at this exchange and think Paul makes perfect sense. I, on the other hand, see it as clear evidence of what people say about Paul’s wrong-headedness on foreign policy, and Santorum gives a good explanation of the more accurate view.

You can see the debate here. The exchanges transcribed below can be seen from about 57 minutes in to just after the hour mark.

Brett Baier: Congressman Paul, the question was based on the premise that you had solid intelligence; you actually had solid intelligence [that Iran had a nuclear weapon] as President Paul. And yet you still at that point would pull back American sanctions. And again, as a GOP nominee would be running left of President Obama on this issue.

Ron Paul: Yes. All we’re doing is promoting their desire to have it [a nuclear weapon]. Ehud Barak, the defense minister for Israel, said that, um, that, if he were in Iran, he would probably want a nuclear weapon too, because they’re surrounded, for geopolitical reasons. So that’s an understanding. So, the fact that they are surrounded, they have a desire…. And how do we treat people with a nuclear weapon? With a lot more respect. What did we do with Libya? We talked with them; we talked them out of their nuclear weapon, and then we killed them. So it makes more sense to work with people. And the whole thing is, nuclear weapons are loaded over there: Pakistan and India; Israel has 300 of them; we have our ships there. We gotta get it in a proper context. We don’t need another war.

Brett Baier: Understood. And you make that point quite a lot. I’m gonna…  I’ll try one more time. Iran is reportedly running exercises on closing the Straits of Hormuz, a key passage, as you know, for global trade. Now, what should the US response be if Iran were to take that dramatic step.

Ron Paul: Well, this is…  The plans are on the book. All they talk about is when are we, the West, going to bomb Iran. So why wouldn’t they talk about… They don’t have a weapon; they don’t have a nuclear weapon. Why wouldn’t they try to send out some information there and say, “You know, if you come and bomb us, we might close the Straits of Hormuz down”? So, already the president, I think is wisely backing off on the sanctions, because it’s going to be an economic calamity if you take all the oil out of Europe. So I think that makes sense. He knows these sanctions are overreaching. Sanctions are an act of war, when you prevent goods and services from going into a country. We need to approach this a little differently. We have 12,000 diplomats in our services; we ought to use a little bit of diplomacy once in a while.

Brett Baier: OK…. Senator Santorum, you have a very different thought about the threat from Iran. For several years, according to US military leaders, Iran has provided training, funding, and lethal arms to jihadists killing American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are those acts of war?

Rick Santorum: They have been continually. They just tried to plan an attack here in this country, killing the Saudi ambassador. They’ve been at war with us since 1979. The IEDs that have killed so many soldiers—they’re manufactured in Iran. This is…  Iran is not any other country. It’s a country that is ruled by the equivalent of al Qaeda, on top of this country. They are a radical theocracy. The principle virtue of the Islamic Republic of Iran, according to President Amadinijad, is not freedom, opportunity; it’s martyrdom. The idea, Ron, that mutual assured destruction, like the policy during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, would work on Iran, when their principle virtue is martyrdom, is…  Mutual assured destruction with respect to Iran would not be a, any kind of, you know, preventing a war; it would be an inducement to war. This is what their objective is; their objective is to in fact create a calamity. This is what their theology teaches. They believe that it is their mission to take on the West. They don’t hate us because of what we do, or the policies we have. They hate us because of who we are and what we believe in. And we need to make sure that they do not have a nuclear weapon. And we should be working with the state of Israel right now. We should use covert activity. And we should be planting a missile strike against their facilities, and say, “If you do not open up those facilities and close them down, we will close them down for you.”

Measuring Mitt Part VII

Up until now almost all of the Measuring Mitt posts (starting here) have been about defending him from various attacks, mostly untrue or skewed. Today this is less defense and more offense—that is, instead of saying why he is not disqualified, saying why he might just be uniquely qualified.

Four years ago, with the economy nearly dropping, and spending out of control under a democrat-majority House and Senate, would have been a good time for a turnaround. Now, in the midst of essentially an economic depression and international “post-American” malaise, a turnaround is a necessity. We are looking for someone who can take on problems, find solutions, and make things happen against the odds. It would be nice if we could elect someone with a track record of doing those very things. It turns out we can.

I cannot guarantee Mitt Romney is the economic and social savior we need, but I am saying his record gives us a better predictor than anyone else’s on the ticket.

Romney came from a successful family, and that helped. But he did not rest on the family laurels; he worked hard. He spent 30 months as an unpaid missionary in France, gaining international experience, and up-close experience with poverty and struggle. During his mission he was involved in a serious accident and was pronounced dead; but in the first of many dramatic turnarounds, he showed there was always hope by waking up very much alive and fully recovering.

He then transferred from Stanford to Brigham Young University, where Ann, his high school sweetheart, was attending. He graduated at the top of his class in 1971, speaking at the College of Humanities commencement. (His writing and communications skills show in his speeches and books.) Four years later, while married with children, he graduated with combined law and MBA degrees from Harvard (cum laude in law, with a scholarship placing him in the top 5% in business). There were no fraternities or other associations for him there; he only had time for study, family, and church—top priorities he has kept as a habit.

Three years later, 1978, he was named vice-president of the management consulting firm Bain & Co. Six years later he founded an offshoot venture capital firm, Bain Capital, which put him in a position to do more than advise, to actually implement his ideas. Staples was one of Bain Capital’s success stories; Romney bought into the idea after nearly rejecting it. He was told by businesses that they spent on average just a few hundred in office supply purchases a year. But Staples founder, Thomas Stemberg, told him, “That’s what they think they spend, not what they actually spend.” So Romney gathered the data (checking actual invoices), found that companies actually spent several times what they believed they spent. A convenient and inexpensive office supply chain was likely to do well. This was a pattern for him, to gather accurate data (and gather it quickly), and then make a decision. Bain Capital made eight times its investment on Staples in three years. Other Bain successes include Domino's Pizza, Sealy, Brookstone, and The Sports Authority.

Besides capitalizing start-ups, it was Bain Capital practice to look for companies that were in trouble, but that could be turned around with better management. Romney turned around companies for a living. This came in handy in 1990. By this point Bain Capital was highly successful, but Bain & Co. was teetering on the verge of bankruptcy because of too much debt. At the request of founder, William Bain, Romney returned as interim CEO for a year. He carefully cut expenses, renegotiated loans, and inspired better morale.

It only took the one year to turn things around. But it was a significant year. Policies Romney put in place continued to be followed, and he is remembered there with great respect. This week Bain & Co. was name Best Employer in America. Incidentally, Romney received only a symbolic $1 for his service as CEO that year.

Then there were the 2002 Winter Olympics. They were mired in deficit spending ($379 million) and unsavory bribery scandals that threatened to take down the Olympic Games completely. Salt Lake City brought in Mitt Romney. With the additional security difficulties the country faced half a year after 9/11, he washed away any hint of scandal and not only overcame the deficit, but made the 2002 games one of the most profitable ever. Romney donated his $1.4 million salary plus an additional $1 million to the games. For a more complete story of this turnaround, you can read his book about it: Turnaround; Crisis, Leadership, and the Olympic Games. Washington, D.C: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2004.

When Romney offers “public service,” he means it. He also turned down his salary as governor of Massachusetts from 2003-2006, and has said he would forego a salary as US President. His governorship is another turnaround story. He replaced a scandal-ridden office with an overwhelming budget deficit. Despite having only 15% of either house in his party, he managed to move the state from a projected $3 billion deficit to nearly a $700 million surplus by the time he left office. He did it the old fashioned way: a combination of spending cuts, targeted fee increases (so users bore the costs), and removal of tax loopholes. And he got Democrat buy-in to make those changes.

Romney has a placard on his desk: “America is never stuck.” To have someone who has accomplished what he has, in his own education and family life, in business, in the Olympics, and in the blue-blue Democrat state of Massachusetts—to have him love America enough to offer to do the turnaround we need might be the opportunity we should take.

America is in deep trouble—far from the founding Constitutional principles of free enterprise and guaranteed rights, upheld by a moral people. But, while the scale is larger, the problems are the ones Romney has had a surprising amount of practice in solving.

I still like several of the candidates. (Certainly Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum deserve a day of discussion, and I hope to get to them before long.) All of our candidates would be an improvement over the man who seems intent on digging our hole deeper. But with Romney, because of his unique experience, combined with his optimism that it can be done, I think he might be just the person we need to get us out of the mess. If you’ve been thinking he was the “lesser evil” that “the establishment” was pushing on us against our will, consider the possibility that he’s in the position he’s in because he’s done a lot of things right for a very long time, and enough people have noticed that he has real support from many people who love America and want her return to what we know she can and should be.

If I choose Romney (and I’m definitely leaning that way, leaning more the more I learn about him), it will be because, as I look over the candidates for the job, I find him the most qualified. And I’m pleased to say more than, “I guess he’ll do.” I think it’s possible he was made and prepared for such a time.

Measuring Mitt Part VI

We’re finally getting around to dealing with the albatross of health care. If there is one single concern people have about Mitt Romney as president it is, how can we trust that he wouldn’t keep socialized medicine at the federal level when he implemented socialized medicine at the state level? It’s a valid and important question. When I looked at his candidacy in 2007, that was my main concern.

He has answered the question. And answered it again, and again. Still it comes up in every debate, and practically every conversation about him. Early in that last campaign, I heard him do a radio interview (not sure now where it was, but it may have been on Hugh Hewitt’s show, which led to my reading Hewitt’s book on Romney).

I am not a health care expert; I am just a regular citizen, involved in health care just as a regular consumer. I have some heath issues that have led me to be very distrustful of anyone making my health care decisions except for myself. So I am maybe more against central planning than average. But my discussion here is just my thoughts on how I have worked through this issue.

First let’s start with a review of the situation in Massachusetts. Romney was governor there 2003-2006 (he ran for only one term). When he came into office, the state was in dire straits—due to overspending and bad management, the very things you see in the wake of liberal administrations everywhere. The health care situation in Massachusetts was somewhat similar to other states, a combination resulting from federal mandates and cultural deficiencies. It is a desire of a civilized people to succor those in need; if someone comes into a hospital with an urgent need, they should be cared for, regardless of ability to pay. But when the federal government mandates how caregivers must give that service—without a way to be recompensed—then two things happen: state and local governments must pay the expense, or the costs will have to be spread out on those who are paying patients, raising costs for all. Usually it's a combination of these. 

And with higher costs, there is a tendency for more people to claim they can’t pay. Add to that the tendency for insurance (a third party) to do the paying, which has also contributed to rising costs. State and federal laws interfere with free market insurance sales and take medical services out of the mindset of market decisions, so it’s not surprising states face the difficult task of paying the bill for patients who get services without paying.

States with more illegal aliens and higher poverty tend to notice the problem more than others, so it might be that we have less sympathy for Massachusetts. Nevertheless, in their near bankrupt economy, they needed a way to stop the outflow of money to medical care. One thing they identified was that people who had income to buy insurance were opting not to buy insurance, because they knew the state was required to allow them to get care. So getting people who could buy coverage to get coverage was a goal, with the purpose of decreasing unnecessary state spending. Romney brought in many sources to help come up with solutions; among these was the reliably conservative Heritage Foundation, which approved of the final version as the best that could be gotten under the circumstances.

There are various ways of persuading people to buy insurance (a way of saying, in today’s medical economy, pay for medical services). Romney’s preference was an incentive—a subsidy or discount for those who made the choice the state preferred. But he was working with a very Democrat legislature (85% Democrat, only 15% Republican); they disallowed that option in favor of a penalty for failure to buy—because Democrats generally prefer using the power of the state to coerce. Romney countered with a compromise, a carrot and stick approach—an incentive for choosing to buy insurance, a penalty for failure to buy insurance. The Democrats rejected the compromise. In order to stem the flow of money to health care, Romney gave in to what is now referred to as the mandate. It was neither his idea nor his preference, but he has stood by it in loyalty to those who worked together to develop Massachusetts Care.

Besides the penalty for failure to buy insurance, the state does provide subsidies to help those who had previously been unable to purchase insurance. They work with private insurance companies to help lower income people to be able to afford insurance. Additionally, there are efforts to make insurance portable when a person changes employers—something most people see as a positive direction for insurance. I think there were also efforts to make insurance more easily purchased across state lines, another good thing. There was no state health care insurance, in competition with free market sources; all insurance was purchased from private, existing companies.

Did this program cost the state? Yes—but not as much as it was costing to pay for people who were essentially sending their medical bills to the state. It was a net gain economically for the state—among a number of policies Romney implemented that brought the state from deep in the red to fully in the black.

The Massachusetts health care bill was 70 or so pages, and specifically limited. While it included the mandate (penalty for failure to purchase), and we lovers of freedom find that offensive, the mandate did not violate the Massachusetts constitution. There were a number of changes made to Massachusetts Care implemented by Governor Duval Patrick, Romney’s successor, which raised the costs beyond initial estimates. But, even so, the citizens of Massachusetts (a highly Democrat populace) still approve of the program and want to keep it.

How does Massachusetts Care compare to Obamacare? Obamacare was a monstrous 2700 pages, with tentacles reaching into schools (clinics set up in schools that could dispense birth control without parental knowledge or consent), additional taxes on home sales, and multiple other intrusions that don’t have anything to do with health insurance and don't have support among the population.

Obamacare adds taxes, penalties, and fees, placing a greater burden on businesses during economic times that already discourage economic growth. There is incentive for businesses to stop offering health insurance as a benefit to employees, and just let employees fend for themselves or go into the national socialized system. The federal insurance (and medical insurance, in the form of Medicare and Medicaid, has never been anything but an economic drain) is in competition with private insurance—and Obama has admitted that this is an incremental approach to converting to eventual total socialized medicine, as you see in Europe or Canada. Always that means costs rise, care decreases, innovation is discouraged. And those who have other than standard needs often fail to get care. Also people tend to pay in time and inconvenience in exchange for higher costs. And government gets to make decisions that have previously been made by patients and their doctors.

Doctors are already on the verge of refusing to participate in government-required care, such as for Medicare patients; it isn’t cost-effective for them to offer the service. In a free country, they cannot be forced to give care for no pay, so if the government tries to require that, doctors will leave their practices, retiring early or changing careers.

Obamacare was implemented without any bipartisan consultation. With control of Congress and the Senate, Democrats could push through whatever they wanted without a single Republican having a say—and that was their approach. But they couldn’t even get all Democrats on board, because the program was so unwanted among the American populace. They had to resort to bribing a number of legislators to get their vote, and they had to do it using shady, unethical technical procedures, over a weekend, because an honest straightforward vote was unwinnable.

The federal mandate is at the heart of the bill; there was no attempt to persuade people without coercion. But the US Constitution is limiting; the federal government is only given certain enumerated powers—absolutely not including the power to force citizens to make a purchase simply because they have been born. The 11^th Circuit Court ruled the entire bill unconstitutional earlier this year, so there is hope that through legal and legislative means it will be ended before too many of the insidious tentacles take hold. (See Heritage Foundation, Impact of Obamacare.)

Is there a similarity between the two health care programs? A very small and limited similarity, plus another 2630 pages of dissimilarities. Romney has frequently pointed out that Massachusetts Care was a specific state solution to a state problem. It absolutely could not and should not be a federal program. He is consistently and firmly against Obamacare. His approach as president would be to use an executive order on his first day in office to give every state an exemption to opt out. Then he would work with the legislature (preferably a friendly conservative legislature) to repeal Obamacare in total, ASAP. He would then work to find market solutions to health care costs—many of which have been offered by conservative legislators but have been ignored.

Was “Romneycare” a model for Obamacare? No, but it has been used as an excuse. And Obamacare is so widely despised that the very existence of “Romneycare” has made it an effective attack on Romney.

I personally would prefer that Massachusetts Care not be part of Romney’s record. I understand his point of view, the position he was in at the time, and the wide ranging powers granted to states that are not granted to the federal government. But I would prefer looking at Romney without the challenge of having to defend anything even remotely socialist.

While I think I understand enough about the whole of Massachusetts Care that it is not disqualifying to Romney as a conservative presidential candidate, I would like to sit down with him and ask a couple of specific questions. I would like to know he has read Bastiat’s The Law, and/or Benson’s “The Proper Role of Government,” and then I would like to be reassured that he agrees—that, even though states are not prevented from acting in ways they can set up for themselves, that he believes there are things states simply should not do. I think, from other things I’ve heard Romney say, that he understands limited government philosophically, heartfelt. But I would like to hear it in language that is clear and unequivocal.

So far almost all we’ve covered on Romney has been to debunk attacks. It will be a pleasure to spend the next post covering his unique qualifications.

Measuring Mitt Part V

As you can probably tell, I’ve been leaning toward Mitt for a while. I have a lot of respect for most of the other candidates, particularly Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum—the ones I haven’t yet covered in this Measuring the Candidates series. (I also like much about Rick Perry, but I did spend a day covering him back in June, here and here. Ron Paul probably deserves a day as well.)

So I was in something like stunned confusion yesterday. I was watching Glenn Beck’s Christmas episode from the day before, and the news segment announced that Mitt Romney had said he was a moderate and a progressive. This week? When people are starting to see that side (and the various other concerns) of Gingrich? Why would he say such a thing? I thought I may need to totally rethink considering my endorsement.

But the first thing I did was do a search online to find the actual quote. I found it, and it does sound bad—but it’s from 2002, not this week.

Think about what you knew about progressivism in 2002. I’m fairly aware of words, and sometimes I notice when meanings change. For example, when I was 18 I was given a journal and started writing in it. I began by describing myself, and I included an assessment of myself as “liberal.” But this wasn’t a political statement. At that point in time, and in my life, the word meant “open-minded” or “generous.” I was going into a “liberal arts” field; the word was positive and unrelated to politics. In addition, while I have always been somewhat conservative in dress and daring, and politically what we now call “conservative,” at that point in my life “conservative”—meaning “stuck on the status quo and unwilling to change and grow”—was not how I would have described myself. Some 20 years later, as I went back and read that first journal, I added a sticky note pointing out that the meaning of the word had changed, and I had never been politically “liberal.”

It bothers me that the opposition so frequently hijacks words that I previously found useful. “Progressive” is one of those. It was around 2001 when my homeschooling children and I went through a history book that enlightened us about the seriously negative turn the country took in the first couple of decades of the 20^th century. I had known very little about the inception of the income tax (that was never supposed to go above 7% for even the most wealthy), the Federal Reserve, and government intervention by Woodrow Wilson and others. I didn’t learn much more about Wilson until maybe 2006 or so, at which point I became aware of the Marxist use of the word “progressive.” So it was only shortly before candidate Hillary Clinton used the word  that I became aware of the alternate meaning. It had always meant what you’d expect: making progress, moving forward, positive movement. Suddenly it was code for Marxist socialist policies.

But back in 2002, even though experts who had read Wilson’s actual writings from the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries may have known the code meaning, most of us used the word “progressive” in its traditional positive sense. I can’t be certain how Mitt Romney defined the word in 2002, but my guess is that, to the liberal but politically uneducated Massachusetts constituency he was speaking to, it wasn’t socialist code. When Hillary used it, she intended the Wilsonian meaning, but used the word knowing her audience was unaware of the Marxist connotations; she was taking advantage of the positive connotations people were familiar with. And that was at least five years after Romney is accused of using the word with the current nefarious meaning.

Similarly, the word “moderate” didn’t really have its negative meaning until McCain’s candidacy four years ago. Although this word began gaining baggage over a longer time, it mostly meant “not extreme.” The Tea Party didn’t exist for another seven years . “Extreme” meant something very different from “wanting low taxes and adherence to the Constitution,” which isn’t extreme in reality but gets labeled that way; back in that day, “extreme” meant anti-government wackos like Timothy McVeigh or KKK members. I’m not acquainted with anyone in the GOP that qualifies as that older definition of “extreme,” so in 2002 we were all “moderates.” So, to a liberal Massachusetts audience in 2002, Mitt was probably saying, “You don’t need to worry about me doing anything completely at odds with your will; I’m just here to fix the state budget problems.”

Of course, I could be wrong. But when you look at everything Romney said during the last campaign—all conservative (using our current definition)—and at his record, which qualifies as conservative (with the proviso that we discuss health care, which we’re about to do), then you can see he is neither a stealth nor overt “progressive” by current definition.

I’m wondering who put forth the 2002 clip as “news,” and I wonder what agenda those outlets that ate it up are admitting to. The actual story was, “Back in 2002 Mitt Romney used the words ‘progressive’ and ‘moderate’ in describing himself, using the definitions they held back then.” The story was not, as purported, “Mitt Romney admits he is ‘progressive’ and ‘moderate’ after spending a career speaking and acting as if he is ‘conservative.’”

My intention had been to cover Massachusetts health care today, which is the biggest concern for most people (including me). But I felt like we had to cover that “definition” thing first, so we can go in with an open mind—what we used to call a “liberal” mind.

So I’m seeing two more posts in this Measuring Mitt series: Massachusetts care, and then a day on Romney's specific skills. I think I can get these out tomorrow and Monday. I’d still like to give the other candidates their due, but Christmas is coming, so no promises about regular posts for a couple of weeks.

Measuring Mitt Part IV

Here’s what we’ve covered while measuring Mitt Romney so far:

·        Part I identified the main general arguments against Romney (but didn’t actually cover them yet—the rest of the post briefly covered Huntsman).

·        Part II looked at the problem of believing the media and opponent stories, with examples of their inaccuracies.

·        Part III looked at character issues, where even enemies have to admit Romney is exemplary.

Today and tomorrow I’d like to cover two more topics: the flip-flopping accusation and Romneycare.

Flip-Flopping and Other Distortions

The flip-flopping argument itself got traction back in the 2004 election. It was used—accurately—on John Kerry, who proudly proclaimed, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." There was a long list of Kerry waffles. He tried to appeal to both sides of various issues, managing to appeal to neither side.

So when the flip-flopping charge was brought against Romney, people thought they knew what that meant—it meant an unprincipled politician who would say anything to any audience and not even bother to keep track of his viewpoints.

Romney and Kerry are from the same state, but they’re very different people. As far as I can tell, every flip-flopping charge, as well as other differences from conservatives, stems from the previous presidential race. No one claims any change from the conservative positions Romney took then. He has been consistently supporting and expressing conservative ideas since his last candidacy, and he was recognized as the conservative among top contenders McCain and Huckabee at that time. So let’s look at some of those specific accusations, made mainly by the McCain campaign in 2007, and what was true.

·        In 2005 Romney supported McCain’s immigration bill as “reasonable” but then opposed it in 2007. In actuality Romney clearly rejected the 2005 bill. Romney remained steadfast in his anti-immigration policy, even when various bills in Congress changed.

·        Governor Romney failed to support Bush’s tax cuts. In reality, at the time he was asked, he was involved in trying to pass a state budget through a liberal legislature that would cut taxes and spending to bring the state back into the black from drowning deficits; at that time, under those pressures, he said he was focusing on the state and staying out of the national political debate. It would be quite a stretch to suggest, however, that staying out meant he was against cutting taxes—the very thing he was accomplishing at the state level against all odds. He remains consistent on this issue, and now that he is involved in the national debate, he is very much in favor of extending those very same Bush tax cuts.

·        Taxes went up under Romney in Massachusetts. Not true. Romney cut state taxes; cities raised taxes, as is their prerogative, whether wise or stupid.

·        Fees went up, and fees are essentially taxes. Not really. Fees cover costs for a special good or service, so they affect only those using the good or service. Fees went up not because Romney raised them, but because he reduced taxpayer subsidies of fees, so that those costs would be borne by the beneficiaries of the goods or services.

·        Illegal aliens were given sanctuary under Romney’s governorship. Not exactly. Certain cities granted sanctuary status on a city level, outside Romney’s influence. A state legislature could act to punish cities for failing to uphold immigration laws, but Massachusetts’s legislature was 85% Democrat, so they had no intention of acting to correct cities on that issue.

·        Romney claimed to be for gay rights and then stood against gay marriage. Not exactly a flip flop. When asked in 1994 whether homosexuals should have the same rights as other citizens—to work, to have access to courts, to be as free from harassment and harm as any citizen—then he said yes, they should have those rights. When, during his tenure as governor, a rogue court decided to “find” a “right” to redefine marriage so that it no longer meant one man and one woman who would engage in the act that could result in procreation and who would commit to a permanent and exclusive bond (an interest of the state as a whole)—then he fought against giving homosexuals that special power over the rest of us. He remains firm on that issue and has testified of the need for a national solution (constitutional amendment and upholding the DOMA law) so that such contracts made in one state will not impose the change in marriage definition on all other states. While it is no longer possible to use the phrase “I support gay rights” to mean supporting their citizenship rights rather than their radical agenda, when he said it in 1994, people knew what he meant. And his stance hasn’t changed. It is essentially the same stance I hold.

·        Romney is against capital punishment. Not true. Massachusetts has no death penalty, but Romney pressed to institute it.

·        Romney was against the NRA and then joined. Hmm. Not exactly. Romney has always been in favor of 2^nd Amendment rights, and although he has never been in lock step with every NRA policy, he has signed on as a member. The main discrepancy is probably on waiting periods; he favored them and then opposed them. But that is because of a change in technology, not policy. Romney favors background checks, so that guns aren’t given to criminals and terrorists. It used to be that a background check took a few days—thus the waiting period. Now that technology makes them almost instantaneous, Romney is against the waiting period.

·        Romney lied about his father marching with Martin Luther King, Jr. Actually, George Romney did participate in King marches. And the elder Romney, former Governor of Michigan and one-time presidential candidate, personally led a march of 10,000. MLK, who was a Republican, spoke in favor of George Romney’s presidential run. It is possibly worth noting that it was Republicans who pushed for civil rights legislation in the 1960s; it was “conservative” Democrats (i.e., in favor of conserving their status quo) who opposed civil rights legislation.

·        Romney provided $50 co-pays for abortions in his Massachusetts healthcare bill. No. The abortion co-pay was not part of the bill, but was later court mandated. When Romney speaks of the importance of choosing strict constructionist judges, rather than activist judges, he speaks from experience with them.[1]

The point of today's post is that, now that it's 2011, maybe it's time to stop allowing the McCain campaign (or any other of Romney's enemies and opponents) to define Mitt Romney.

---

[1] I have paraphrased and added my commentary, but this list comes from a post by Ryan Larsen, January 31, 2008, 7:50 AM, from www.redcounty.com/orange-county/2008/01/california-debate-mccain-remin/, no longer available online.