Boy, the field narrowed down quickly, although with Huckabee still in there, not quickly enough. I was disappointed enough with Rudy's disappearing campaign, but I was doubly disappointed by his support for John McCain. Between McCain's abysmal immigration amnesty proposal, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance amendment (totally against the First Amendment), his frequent jibes against businesses (profit is not a dirty word) and his voting against the Bush tax cuts, there's a reason McCain is called a RINO (Republican in Name Only). Between his views and his snarky, crabby old man ways, I see little attractive in McCain as prez.
I support Mitt Romney, former governor of my state. He was the Republican governor is an overwhelmingly Democratic state (the Legislature is 96% Dems). Romney inherited a very large deficit, and he was still able to bring down the deficit and get things done. He wasn't perfect, and he waffled on some issues, but he balanced the budget without raising taxes, he fired Matt Amarello of the MA Turnpike Authority (something previous governors tried unsuccessfully to do for years), got a state-wide health insurance plan passed, and his lieutenant governor Kerry Healey helped pass some great legislation to protect children. Romney did a good, solid job as a leader. We've has some lame, uninspiring governors lately (Paul Celluci, Jane Swift, current governor-in-training Deval Patrick), and Romney was head and shoulders above them all. He didn't shy away from saying controversial things, like suggesting that some mosques should be under surveillance, or saying that a child deserves a mother and a father. That used to be the understood, but it's something that we as a society need to relearn. Romeny's not the most personable guy around, but I'll take substance over style any day.
Here's what the The National Review had to say when they endorsed him back in September 2007:
"...Romney is an intelligent, articulate, and accomplished former businessman and governor. At a time when voters yearn for competence and have soured on Washington because too often the Bush administration has not demonstrated it, Romney offers proven executive skill. He has demonstrated it in everything he has done in his professional life, and his tightly organized, disciplined campaign is no exception. He himself has shown impressive focus and energy."
"...More than the other primary candidates, Romney has President Bush’s virtues and avoids his flaws. His moral positions, and his instincts on taxes and foreign policy, are the same. But he is less inclined to federal activism, less tolerant of overspending, better able to defend conservative positions in debate, and more likely to demand performance from his subordinates. A winning combination, by our lights. In this most fluid and unpredictable Republican field, we vote for Mitt Romney."
Don't hand over the Republican nomination to lifelong Senator Cranky McCain.
Vote for Mitt on Super Tuesday!!
I just wonder about someone who is out of touch with reality enough to believe Mormon Doctrine; would they be a good President? Would a Scientologist, who was otherwise a competent administrator like Mitt, be okay as President?
Posted by: Jim Franklin | February 03, 2008 at 11:31 PM
Mormonism is certainly a strange religion. South Park did a hilarious episode on Mormonism. Carter really had a problem with the Golden tablets ("But Dude, where are the Golden Tablets?") But as Michael Graham has pointed out, most religions have "good" beliefs and temets, and it's their adherents who are crazy. For Mormonism, it's the opposite of that: the religious beliefs are wacky, but the adherents tend to be wonderful, kind, trustworthy, responsible people. So, yes, I would vote for a Mormon to be president.
Scientologists have both wacky beliefs and wacky adherents. I probably wouldn't vote for a Scientologist to be president.
Posted by: miss kelly | February 05, 2008 at 05:46 PM