MY ROMNEY PROBLEM & YOURS

NOTE: AFTER EXPERIMENTING WITH CROSS-POSTING ON THIS BLOG, I'VE DECIDED TO FOCUS ENTIRELY (FOR THE REST OF 2008) ON MY MAIN BLOG: HTTP://CAMP2008VICTORYA.BLOGSPOT.COM. PLEASE VISIT THAT SITE AND BOOKMARK IT. COMMENTS ARE ALWAYS WELCOME.

NOTE: IF YOU'D LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN, YOU CAN DO SO AT: http://mccain.com/. IF YOU'D LIKE TO JOIN THE FAST-GROWING GROUP THAT SUPPORTS GOV. SARAH PALIN FOR V-P, DO SO AT: http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/. THANKS TO ALL OF YOU!

"My problem with Mitt Romney is that he clearly goes to the same hair stylist as John Edwards." (Anonymous)

A friend in Hawaii is a frequent listener to talk radio host Hugh Hewitt, and she finds it an increasingly painful experience. A few years ago, Hewitt wrote a totally uncritical book about Mitt Romney, and since then he has been shilling for the book and the candidate. My friend said the following:

"Thank you...for your continued efforts to gain a victory for the Right. Steve, I am REALLY offended by Hewitt's McCain bashing. I don't think I've been this angry, even when they went after Bush. McCain has spent half a century serving this nation...in the military and then in Congress, he does NOT deserve this. Every week at Mass I say a special prayer for Bush...I am adding McCain to my list and a prayer that McCain does so well in Florida there is NO chance for Romney. Tell me Steve, what is Hewitt going to do if McCain wins the nomination?" (Sanity 102)

Here's my reply: "Hewitt has NEVER made a compelling reason for his backing of Romney. Mitt is much too robotic (and, frankly, much too rich) to appeal to anything like a majority of the American people. His stance on McCain shows he knows nothing about the role of the military or the nature of heroism. Hugh should be ashamed of himself, but he obviously is incapable of shame."

Should we hold it against Romney that he is extremely rich (with an estimated fortune of $300 million)? No. What we should hold against him is his use of tens of millions in an effort to buy the presidential nomination. He spent his career at Bain Capital working in mergers and acquisitions that made him and his clients huge fortunes -- and cost many dedicated workers their jobs. He sells himself to voters as a "manager," but his skills seem to consist mainly of managing his own vast fortune and his political ambitions.

When Romney ran for the Senate against Ted Kennedy in 1994 he was strongly pro-gay-rights and pro-choice. Now, with a mainly conservative primary electorate, he has reversed his positions.

I have a problem with Romney's wife, Ann, who seems to have no positions that vary even in small ways from her husband's. I also have a problem with the Romney sons, whom I call the "Osmond Quintuplets." They are the quintessence of blandness, human parodies right out of "Father Knows Best." And this is the Romney that supposedly opposes human cloning!

As soon as Romney spots an opponent that the voters like, be it Huckabee or McCain, he immediately "goes negative." Unable to sell his own robotic personality, he goes on the attack against other candidates. He now campaigns without his $3,000 suits and even without a tie -- an experience that appears to be excruciating for him.

Totally clueless about the changes in American politics and society, Romney is pursuing the old Republican ideal of the politician as businessman. However, as Mike Huckabee put it, voters are much more interested in voting for the guy like the one that works next to them -- rather than the person who laid them off. Romney is the latter.

Pundits sometime talk about Hillary Clinton's "high negatives" in polls. However, Romney's negatives are nearly as high as Mrs. Clinton's. Frankly, that demonstrates the good sense of American voters.

Right now, I'm literally praying that John McCain will prevail in the Florida Primary. The evidence shows that this country neither wants nor needs Mitt Romney. As for what Hugh Hewitt will do if McCain wins the nomination, somehow I don't expect him to fall on his sword. Perhaps he'll get a real job?

To prevail, John McCain needs your help. Please consider making at least a small contribution to his campaign.

IMMIGRATION: GOOD FOR WELCOMING COUNTRIES

This weekend (Saturday and Sunday), I've have one of those columns that goes on . . . and on . . . and on about John McCain and immigration. However, I urge you to read the previous column, borrowed from Sanity102. She writes about some thoroughly misguided criticisms of McCain, including those by Hugh Hewitt, a talk-radio shill for Mitt Romney. In previous columns, you'll also see my comments about future President Sarah Heath Palin of Alaska.

Several of the ideas on my immigration columns will come from one of my favorites sources: The (London) Economist. In an opinion piece called "Keep the Borders Open," the magazine's sub-head is: "The backlash against immigrants in the rich world is a threat to prosperity everywhere."

The Economist's general point is this: ". . . Most often migration is about young, motivated, dynamic people seeking to better themselves by hard work. History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity."

In other words, the standard anti-Hispanic rhetoric of the far-right, the nativists, is far removed from reality. More to follow this weekend . . .

Here's more of what The Economist says about immigration, which sounds a lot like what Senators McCain, Kyl, and Graham say about it:

"History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity. Tens of million of Europeans who made it to the New World in the 19th and 20th centuries improved their lot, just as the near 40 million foreign born are doing in America today. Many migrants return home, with new skills, savings, technology, and bright ideas. Remittances to poor countries in 2006 were worth at least $260 billion -- more, in many countries, than aid and foreign investment combined. Letting in migrants does vastly more good for the world's poor than stuffing any number of [checks into appeals from charities]."

The Economist points out that immigrants play a critical, positive role in the American economy. For example:

• Roughly one-third of the Americans who won Nobel Prizes in Physics in the past seven years were born abroad;
• About 40% of science and engineering PhDs working in America are immigrants; and,
• Approximately one-third of Silicon Valley companies were started by foreign-born individuals (mainly Indian or Chinese).

However, what about low-skilled workers, many of them from South of the U.S. border? In fact, their skills levels are about the same as those of our immigrant grandparents or great-grandparents. There's a tremendous need in our country for people who will do work that native-born Americans avoid.

What The Economist is saying is what John McCain believes. Oh, and those beliefs happen to be accurate.

More to follow on Saturday . . .

A SANE VIEW OF IMMIGRATION

In The Economist, January 5-11, 2008, the London-based publication has a fascinating 14-page special report on “migration” (called “immigration” in the U.S.).

In our country, immigration has been an extremely contentious issue, and Senator John McCain’s support of Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) has hurt his candidacy. He’s been accused – falsely, I believe – of favoring “amnesty” for illegal immigrants, and that kind of accusation can be the kiss of death in Republican politics.

The Economist’s position is that immigration is a good thing – a source of diversity, technological advances, and prosperity. In other words, it thinks people like McCain (which the magazine generally favors) are right, while their critics are wrong.

The publication says, “. . . Most often, migration is about young, motivated, dynamic people seeking to better themselves by hard work.” It adds, “History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity. Tens of millions of Europeans who made it to the New World in the 19th and 20th centuries improved their lot, just as the near 40 million foreign-born are doing in America today.”

Much of the debate over immigration involves sloganeering, such as “the rule of law.” In fact, the U.S. has modified many laws that were irrational or immoral, such as the “law” that Black people counted for three-fifths as much as White people. It also eliminated the law that said women couldn’t vote. In the past generation, the country modified the law for those fleeing Communist Cuba, allowing those who reached our shores to stay.

The real issue will immigration – legal or even illegal – boils down to this: Is it a good thing, or a bad one? That is, do people immigrating to this nation provide more benefits than debits?

The Economist admits there can be negatives associated with immigration. It notes that politicians have a tendency to pander to “xenophobic fears. Also, it admits that large numbers of immigrants can provoke job fears among natives. What’s more, it’s clear that huge disparities of income across borders could result in a stream of incomers turning into a flood.

Yet, the magazine sees immigration mainly as a plus. It notes that “many migrants return home with new skills, savings, technology, and bright ideas. Remittances to poor countries in 2006 were worth at least $260 billion . . . Letting in migrants does vastly more good for the world’s poor than [sending off charitable contributions.”

In addition, “The movement of people also helps the rich world. Prosperous countries with graying workforces [America, Europe, and Japan, among them] rely ever more on young foreigners . . . . Around a third of the Americans who won Nobel Prizes in physics in the past seven years were born abroad. About 40% of science and engineering PhDs working in America are immigrants.”

In short, The Economist disagrees sharply with the nativist wing of the Republican Party. The points the magazine makes are the same kind that motivated John McCain, Jon Kyl, Lindsay Graham and others to support Comprehensive Immigration Reform. In the face of persuasive arguments, anti-immigrant slogans aren’t enough.

Sanity102: Why McCain's "The Man"

If you want to sign up as a blogger/onliner for Gov. Sarah Heath Palin, a future U.S. President, you can do so by going to Adam's blog. Sarah, I'd recommend that you talk soon to Senator John McCain. It's increasingly likely he will choose you as his running "mate."

I'm borrowing the following column from Sanity 102, who posted it at: http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com

Excuse me? Ok, Hugh Hewitt has gone too far.Did you know that McCain's adopted "black" [actually, she's Asian] daughter was "given" to McCain and his wife to adopt by Mother Theresa? Did you know that the war in Iraq would never have turned around if McCain had not pushed for the Surge?

Did you know that if his "gang of 14" had not agreed to being reasonable, there would be no Alito, no Roberts, No great judicary picks on the Appellate Courts because the Dems would STILL be filibustering. And if the GOP had used the "nuclear option", the now Democratic majority would be able to do the same?

Did you know that the reason McCain fought against the tax cuts was because he wanted what MOST Conservatives complain that Bush and Company DIDN'T do...cut spending at the same time?Did you know that while most civilians think torture is ok, MOST of those serving, especially in combat, do not? That part of the reason for McCain's disapproval of torture for prisoners is because he spent years during the Vietnam War as a POW and experienced first hand torture.

And unlike Hewitt whose connection to the military is a wife's father, McCain served his country for over two decades.Did you know that his father and grandfather served? And that at least one of his sons is serving now in the war zone? Can any of the major candidates claim that type of dedication to our nation?

Did you know that as a border state senator, he has pushed for funding for border security and REASONABLE method of dealing with illegals...and that his border state has returned McCain to Congress 4 times...the last 6 year run in 2004...2 years AFTER 9/11 (the year that the border situation was supposed to have become vital)?

Did you know that McCain was pro-life before Reagan, Fred Thompson, and Romney were pro-life? Yet...today Hewitt pointed out that the next president would appoint 4 maybe 5 judges to the SCOTUS...and asked, "do you TRUST McCain over Romney and Rudy to appoint strict constitutionists?"EXCUSE ME??

McCain: Urgent Need for Donations

Welcome to the visitor from Gorham, NH, which I visited many times as a child. My father was born in Berlin, NH, and my wife and I spent some nice times at the Balsams, way up north. Come again!

Today, I received the following message from Bard Marston, a Massachusetts-based volunteer for Senator John McCain. Brad's efforts were vital in the Senator's winning the NH and SC primaries.

As Super Tuesday (Feb. 25) approaches, the Senator needs contributions that will enable him to make media "buys" in critical states. I donated $50 today to the Senator, and I hope you'll consider doing likewise. Thanks. (The following is the link to McCain's web site, where you should click on "Contribute": http://johnmccain.com/. I'm asking everyone who visits my site(s) to reprint this posting on their own site, as well as to send e-mails to friends and family members.


Steve,

I hope this is what you had in mind.

Brad
McCain Victory 08
January 24, 2008

Dear Brad,

The Florida Primary is only days away. The McCain Campaign is launching a major media buy and needs your help. It is so important, that Senator McCain has offered to have a private conference call with the top donors from McCainVictory08, when we raise $100,000 for the campaign.

John McCain is connecting with voters and is leading in national polls and in the important state of Florida. Rudy Giuliani has bet his political future on winning Florida. Mitt Romney continues to pour millions of his own money into his campaign. All the candidates know that a win in Florida will catapult them towards Super Tuesday.

We need to make certain that John McCain has the resources he needs to compete in Florida and Super Tuesday. Please make a donation today directly to the campaign by clicking the link below.

Your donation of $100, $250 or $500 will help John McCain get his message out to Florida and answer the increasingly strident attacks of some of his opponents.

I understand that at this point in the campaign, many McCain Suppporters are "maxed out" on donations. Whether you can contribute or not, please help Senator McCain by forwarding this e-mail to five friends or family members.

Make sure to tell them when they make their donation to put YOUR NAME in the "referred by" box at the bottom of the donation page. The top 15 individual donors and the top 15 referrers will be invited to participate in a private conference call with Senator McCain after his victories on Super Tuesday.

I know it is alot to ask but your donation, in ANY amount is much needed and much appreciated by Senator McCain, the hundreds and hundreds of volunteers for the campaign and of course, me.

Warmest regards,

Brad Marston

McCain Victory 08

McCain: Preserving the GOP

Between Thursday, January 24 and Tuesday, January 29, the day of the Florida Republican Primary, I'll be writing several columns on John McCain. Right now, he's the best -- and most electable -- of the GOP candidates.

In my columns, I'd like to tackle some of the tough issues, including Senator McCain's stance on comprehensive immigration reform and on campaign finance reform. I believe he's generally right on both of them.

Sometimes what appears to be the "conservative" position isn't the sound one -- or the correct one. A classic case is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, strongly supported by Lyndon Johnson and just as strongly opposed by Barry Goldwater. In the election of 1964, Goldwater was swamped by Johnson, and a number of fine conservative legislators "drowned" along with the presidential nominee.

Yes, the Civil Rights Act interfered with the "freedoms" of some owners of hotels, restaurants, and the like. But the freedom to deny service to Black men, women, and children was not a "liberty" anyone should possess. Thus, Goldwater was wrong, and Johnson was right.

The controversy over the Act did great damage to the Republican Party, lasting damage. It meant the GOP lost the Black vote -- and apparently that loss is permanent. In presidential elections, the Republican candidate is lucky to get 6%-8% of the Black vote.

That makes it nearly impossible to win several important states, including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Illinois, and California. Also, there are 40-plus Black members of Congress (including one Senator, Obama), and none of them is a Republican. That sad, enduring situation traces back more than 40 years to Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act.

As we examine John McCain's positions on various issues, we find him seeking -- often imperfectly -- to keep the Republican Party from repeating the mistakes of the Goldwater era. Frankly, he doesn't want his Party, however good its intentions, to become a Permanent Minority.

PALIN: ALASKA'S WILDLY POPULAR GOVERNOR

Sarah, those of us who love and respect you are willing to do whatever it takes to make sure that someday you will be inaugurated as President of our beloved country. Keep up the great work! (Later today, I'll have some quotes from the article in Alaska.)

In the February issue of Vogue magazine, Sarah Palin is featured (along with Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius). Sarah is the mother of four children, three girls (Piper, Willow, and Bristol) and a boy, Track, 18, who is in the U.S. Army Infantry. Track enlisted on 9/11/2007. It's likely he will see service in Iraq or Afghanistan, or both.

Sarah's husband, Todd, is an oil field production worker on the North Slope oil field and formerly was a commercial fisherman. A hunter and outdoorswoman, Sarah is a life member of the NRA. Because of her extremely high popularity in Alaska, Sarah is known as "the nation's most popular elected official."

Increasingly, she's seen as a likely choice for the vice-presidential slot on the GOP's national ticket. She's an energy on energy, the environment, and climate change as it relates to Alaska.

There's news tonight that the campaign of Mike Huckabee is undergoing severe shortages of money. As I've written recently, the Huckabee Campaign suffers mainly from a chronic case of foot-in-the-mouth disease, both by Huckabee and his campaign supporters, including: Rev. Richard Rude of Iowa, who made anti-Catholic remarks and B-movie star Chuck Norris, who recently made offensive statements about John McCain's age. Huckabee's "waving" of the Confederate Flag in South Carolina was offensive to Black people and to just about anyone who believes in decency on the part of politicians. Also, his anti-Mormon remarks (saying that Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are 'brothers") were gratuitous. There's more, but you get the point.

The time has come for Huckabee to realize that he will win at most one more state: Arkansas. He should withdraw his candidacy. As for Huckabee getting the vice-presidential nod, any nominee who make such a choice should realize he will be running with an anvil around his neck.

Key Issues for Sarah Palin

NOTE: GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN WILL BE ON THE COVER OF VOGUE MAGAZINE IN FEBRUARY. VOGUE MAY HAVE MORE SENSE THAN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

For many months, I've been one of a group on the Internet advocating that the Republican presidential nominee, whomever he turns out to be, choose Gov. Sarah Heath Palin of Alaska as his running mate. When Adam Brickley started the "Draft Palin" Movement, he, I, and another guy were the three known members of the group. Since then, a lot more people -- some of them national figures -- have joined the growing crowd.

A few months ago, I separated myself (slightly) from the Draft Palin for VP effort and started my own one-man band -- one dedicated to getting Sarah the presidential nomination in either 2012 or 2016. I started wondering -- and, among Palinites this is something of a heresy -- whether it would be a good idea for her to seek the vice-presidency.

Behind my (slight) change in views on the best scenario from Sarah was a growing belief that no Republican nominee can win the presidency in 2008. In a previous column I mentioned The Economist's note that registered Democrats now outnumber registered Republicans by 50% to 35%. I also observed that the Democratic nominees have raised an amazing 70% more cash than their Republican counterparts. A similar fundraising imbalance exists with the two congressional committees.

For Sarah Palin, the question is if it would advance her career to run as the vice-presidential nominee on a losing ticket. Yes, it would do wonders for her name recognition, and the world would get a better sense of what an outstanding human being she is.

On the other hand, vice-presidential nominees on tickets that lose big tend to disappear quickly. Consider Barry Goldwater's running mate in 1964 -- Bill Miller of Lockport, New York -- a man who might have been vaporized after his losing effort. Or consider John Edwards (Kerry, 2004), a man who believes he's a serious candidate for President but will be forevermore the guy who got the $400 hair cut. And whatever happened to Joe Lieberman (Gore, 2000)? Or Dan Quayle (Bush, 1988, 1992)? Or Jack Kemp (Dole, 1996)? Running for V-P on the wrong ticket can be a real career-stopper.

Sarah, it may be that the best thing which could ever happen to you is NOT to be on ticket in 2008. However, I'm still predicting that -- eventually -- they will need to reserve a spot for you on Mt. Rushmore.