Saturday, October 27, 2007

Mitt Romney - The People's Choice?

We are told by those that say they know that Romney has the most "grassroots" support among all GOP contenders (I guess that would make Ron Paul supporters Salt of the Earth or some such thing). What does he stand for, is it really a conservative agenda and is it the best course?

Let's look at his own agenda-


Affordable Health Care For All Americans

Sounds grand and noble - wait let me check my copy of The Federal Constitution. I do not see any reference to the Federal Government having any business concerning itself with affordable healthcare. The fact that Romney places this as his first point in his agenda is therefore troubling. His plan reads well, it talks about instilling conservative priciples of free market and deregulation but still - within the fine print - we see things like "and helping the low-income uninsured afford the private coverage of their choice."

Consider this:
Governor Romney will end subsidized care for "free riders" by redirecting these existing federal and state resources to help the low-income uninsured purchase their own private health insurance.
Wrong, wrong wrong - you o not redirect my tax dollars from "free care" to subsidized insurance and call it conservatism, free market or smaller government; you get the government out of the healthcare business all together.



A Pro-Growth Tax Agenda

This is of course the catch-all issue of all conservative rhetoric but unless you are really willing to slash spending tax cuts or reductions in marginal rates across the board will just not work - and as part of his agenda he specifically wants to reduce the corporate tax rate. If you are going to start cutting taxes you have to begin with the individual first. Tax cuts without deep spending cuts are not sustainable (see above, even his healthcare plan does not slash spending, it merely moves it around).


Defeating the Jihadist

Oh good grief - Jihad means a holy struggle or striving by a Muslim for a moral or spiritual or political goal - defeating all jihadist could take a very long time and could include bombing the fellow at the 7-11 that has resolved for his own personal jihad to not miss prayer, a student that has decided to veil herself even though she lives in the West and yes followers of Wahbi ideology that wish to restore the caliphate. I am amused at the choice of words for this point, because words are important. If you are going to lead us, you must understand the words you use (we have too many recent examples of a leader muddling important words).

It is hard for Americans to accept, because most have not read deeply enough, but we would never have been attacked in 2001 if our policies were different. Those Muslims that have decided to make their personal jihad that of restoring the caliphate picked the US as a target, the far enemy, because we support their near enemies. Their real goal is to re-order the nature of the governments in their own lands - they saw and see us as a significant supporter of those governments.

You may say "damn right" we don't want them taking over their governments over there - they will then attack us. Doubtful this would really play out - look at their success in running a government in Afghanistan. They took over a backwards and primitive country and after years of work they succeeded in moving it closer to the stone age. If, on the off chance, these radicals did succeed in taking power, reestablishing the caliphate, keeping power and building their new empire into a peer-competitor then perhaps we should be concerned. There are many "if's" in that scenario. It seems pretty foolish to declare war on a bunch of folks that probably could not succeed in all of that just based upon an assumption. If you are not convinced, read about how the wahbi movement started, how their strategy changed over time and their own reasons for attacking the US.

Romney offers us more interventionism, more conflict and more needless war - all based upon a failed understanding of the world.


Competing With Asia - he gets it right
We have to keep our markets open or we go the way of Russia and the Soviet Union, which is a collapse. And I recognize there are some people who will argue for protectionism because the short-term benefits sound pretty good, but long term you kill your economy, you kill the future. What you have to do in order to compete on a global basis long term is invest in education, invest in technology, reform our immigration laws to bring in more of the brains from around the world, eliminate the waste in our government. We have to use a lot less oil. These are the kinds of features you have to invest in, you have to change in order to make ourselves competitive long term.

Stopping Runaway Spending
I don't want to add entitlements. I want to find ways to reform our entitlement programs.
Again, Romney is consulting the old playbook of rhetoric, not The Constitution. You don't reform entitlements, you eliminate them.

Getting Immigration Right
We need to make America more attractive for legal immigrants -- for citizens -- and less attractive for illegal immigrants. I want to see more immigration in our country, but more legal immigration and less illegal immigration.
"I want to see more immigration in our country" - this is not the 1800's with the entire west to settle. Our culture has absorbed too much for now, we need time to acculturate the people that have already come over and have yet to act, think, speak or believe like Americans. We certainly do not need more immigration, a controlled flow of qualified legal immigrants will do just fine thank you. He sounds to me like he is talking to all sides on this issue, he does not address those that are in our country as criminals right now and how he would act to expel them.


Achieving Energy Independence - I do not see anything objectionable here
We're using too much oil," Romney said. "We have an answer. We can use alternative sources of energy -- biodiesel, ethanol, nuclear power -- and we can drill for more oil here. We can be more energy independent and we can be far more efficient in the use of that energy.

America's Culture and Values - I like his nod to States' Rights
I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.
Raising the Education Bar

He talks about the importance of education - I agree - and the importance of powering down to schools and communities but he does not mention eliminating the un-Constitutional Department of Education. If you can't get it right by The Constitution your plan is not conservative.


Lastly, it cannot be overlooked that Romney is a Mormon. Mormonism is not Christianity - it is a cult, read their books. This may be alright for Bob Jones and other evangelicals - after all they routinely support men that profess Christianity but obviously do not live it. It is not ok for me. Every Mormon I have ever known has been a decent person, but they follow a false God and that is simply a fact in my mind. If you are really a Christian and a member of The People - Romney cannot be your choice any more than Hillary or Obama can be.

5 comments:

  1. 1. Your analysis of Romney's policies is fine .. but just remember .. Romney is a doer .. not just a talker .. he deals in the realm of what is most effective and possible .. and that means that he works to get elected also .. not just to be the best political philosopher ..

    2. Re Romney's belief in Christ .. I am not an expert of scripture maybe like you .. but I have read the Bible .. and what I read in the text seems closer to the LDS belief than what Constantine's council at Nicea decided that
    Christians should believe .. in other words .. Jesus is the Son of God the Father and Mary .. He is the Son of God .. and this is not a mere metaphor . ..

    ReplyDelete
  2. Carlos,

    "Electability" is the very thing that has destroyed conservative principles. I do not have a problem with Romney's intentions, just the ideology that they sring from. His agenda is still one that believes the government can solve problems and he ignores The Constitution in his proposals.

    I am not an expert of scripture. I wish I were. My comments about Romney's religion were not factually supported, just my opinion and were probably best left out of the post. I believe what I said but it is not the most important point of contention I have with Gov Romney.

    Thanks for your comments

    ReplyDelete
  3. Romney is a pandering asshat.

    Anyway, anyone who could bad-mouth the Ecumenical Council of Nicea by dismissing it as "Constantine's" simply doesn't know what they're talking about. Yes, Constantine was the Emporer, and yes he called for the council to take place. Is that a bad thing? Is it bad that he legalized the religion, that he opened the door for the conversion of the nations?

    The council itself consisted of a small band of mutilated and mangled Christians who finally, after all the suffering and torture they endured for their God, had a chance to formulate their theology in the open, for all to disseminate. It wasn't convened just for the sake of convening it, and there was no sinister motive on Constantine's part. It was a direct response to heresy, and we desperately needed it. Remember, this was sixty years before there was a "Bible" - which, if you recall, didn't exist until one of these councils met and decided on the canon of Christian scripture.

    Furthermore, if you require biblical support of the teaching that Jesus IS God, please familiarize yourself with the first chapter of John. The Word WAS God, and the Word was made flesh to dwell among us. Etc, etc.

    The foundation of the Mormon "church" happened in the midst of several restoration movements. That's the context we have to consider it in. Jesus told Peter that His Church would never perish, yet all these "churches" are based on the premise that Jesus' Church DID die, and that they magically made it reappear nearly 2,000 years later.

    In short, one cannot be a Mormon unless one truly believes that Jesus is a liar.

    Does that sound very Christian?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Johnny .. Where does the text say that Christ told Peter the church would not perish ?

    ReplyDelete
  5. where did Christ say the church would not perish ?


    Matt. 16: 19
    19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

    29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

    ReplyDelete