'Romney for President' by the editors of National Review:
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.
We believe that Romney is a natural ally of social conservatives. He speaks often about the toll of fatherlessness in this country. He may not have thought deeply about the political dimensions of social issues until, as governor, he was confronted with the cutting edge of social liberalism. No other Republican governor had to deal with both human cloning and court-imposed same-sex marriage. He was on the right side of both issues, and those battles seem to have made him see the stakes of a broad range of public-policy issues more clearly. He will work to put abortion on a path to extinction. Whatever the process by which he got to where he is on marriage, judges, and life, we’re glad he is now on our side — and we trust him to stay there.
For some people, Romney’s Mormonism is still a barrier. But we are not electing a pastor. The notion that he will somehow be controlled by Salt Lake City or engaged in evangelism for his church is outlandish. He deserves to be judged on his considerable merits as a potential president. As he argued in his College Station speech, his faith informs his values, which he has demonstrated in both the private and public sectors. In none of these cases have any specific doctrines of his church affected the quality of his leadership. Romney is an exemplary family man and a patriot whose character matches the high office to which he aspires.
5 comments:
Romney's gotten caught this week in a couple of whoppers.
A. He claims to have wept over the passage of the Civil Rights Act in the late '60s.
Sorry, I find that...dumb...hard to believe...impossible to substantiate...take your pick.
B. He claimed that he observed his father march with MLK.
Now he's saying that 'marching with MLK' meant that his Dad 'supported the cause of MLK.'
Sorry, I find that...dumb...and I'm hearing that it's not true.
These are rookie mistakes, the first mistakes he's made so far as a candidate, as far as I can tell.
Didn't he say he wept when the Mormon church allowed blacks to fully participate in the religion?
Is it really relevant whether he observed with his own eyes or was aware of his dads support?
People are desperately splitting hairs about minutia when it comes to Romney. I couldn't care less about these non-issues.
The criticism of Romney is getting silly at this point. I'm expected to conclude that he wouldn't make a good president because he couldn't accurately recall some essentially irrelevant details from 30 years ago? Please.
It's that thing where intelligent people are held to a higher standard than everyone else.
Everyone always wants to gang up on the smartest guy in the room, hoping to catch him in a slip up about something inconsequential.
The issue comes down to honesty. Why was he bragging about something that he didn't remember? Furthermore, if he made an honest mistake then why has he considered to maintain his comments were correct when they are obviously not? The details concerned are, as you say minutia, however the general theme of honesty is certainly not.
I have to agree. If he honestly believes that he was wrong he should admit it not defend it. I have to believe that he doesn't believe that he's incorrect. This isn't the first gaffe made by Romney though. A few months ago he suggested that his sons' support for his candidacy was tantamount to military service. That time he acknowledged that he misspoke and acknowledged the mistake. That is how you make things go away. Admit you were wrong and everyone moves on. Ardent defense or stonewalling keeps the issue alive. Like Hillary Clinton not releasing the documents in question during her husbands presidency and Mike Huckabee's purposefully confusing explanation of his criticism of the Bush Administration foreign policy as a "bunker mentality", the best way out is through. Just admit that you screwed up. Presidential candidate are human and voters realize that humans mess up sometimes when under the microscope as these candidates are. Even the whiff of dishonesty is far more troubling to voters than a minor verbal gaffe.
Actually, I find every politician, with the exception of ideological fanatics like George Galloway (look him up on youtube, you’ll hate every thing he stands for, but he is a very gifted and entertaining speaker) and patriot's "Former Excellency", not to be sincere. The will say whatever it takes to get elected. If they honestly expressed their unfettered views they wouldn't be standing on that stage. I laugh when people take politicians seriously. Huckabee's Christmas message, Romney's dad marching with MLK, Edward’s "Two America's", Obama "New America", and the rest are all just political moves. Anyone who takes them seriously really is not qualified to make an intelligent voting decision. I think its time to move past show politics and personality/character battles and talk about serious ideological issues. After all we’re electing a President, not a preacher or a next-door neighbor.
Post a Comment