Friday, November 30, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
"As this race began, I intended to remain neutral both because there was no conservative consensus candidate and because I know and admire several of those running for the Republican nomination who I believe could win next fall," Keene said. "In recent months, however, Governor Romney has emerged as the single candidate most worthy of conservative support."--Fox News
Gov. Romney: Proud To Be Pro-Life:
Gov. Romney: Building A Stronger America:
Gov. Romney: Sanctuary State of Mind:
Gov. Romney: Important To Support Farmers:
Gov. Romney: First To Sign Tax Pledge:
Gov. Romney: Cutting Washington Spending:
Gov. Romney: It's The Tax Payers Money:
Monday, November 26, 2007
By Faye Fiore, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
November 24, 2007
"Still, Romney seems to have learned that a well-placed flaw or two can be an advantage, putting his campaign team in the unique position of pointing out his shortcomings while his rivals struggle to make voters forget theirs."
“What concerns me about Washington is that people have answers before they’ve gathered any data, done any analysis, solicited opinions from people who disagree,” Mr. Romney said in an interview. “From the business world, you look at that and you say, ‘You’ve got to be kidding.’”--NY Times (click to read full article)
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
A Stem-Cell Solution
Real scientific opportunities.
June 15th, 2007
By Mitt Romney
Late last week, two developments involving stem-cell research offered a sharp contrast between the great strengths of American biomedical science and the terrible weakness of Washington politics.
First, on Wednesday, we learned that researchers in Massachusetts, building on prior accomplishments by colleagues in Japan, had managed to transform regular skin cells into the equivalent of embryonic stem cells in mice. Their work points to a way to produce cells with the qualities scientists value about embryonic stem cells, but without the need to create, harm, or destroy human embryos, and therefore without ethical or political controversy.
But then, on Thursday, the Congress passed a bill that would for the first time use taxpayer dollars to encourage the destruction of embryos for research. Just as it is becoming increasingly clear that scientific ingenuity could offer a way around the divisive controversies of the stem-cell debate, congressional Democrats are working to stoke those very controversies. They have opted to exacerbate what they see as a political debate that works in their favor, rather than encourage a scientific solution that would work in America’s favor.
When I was governor of Massachusetts, my state wrestled with the stem-cell debate and I confronted many of the same issues now being debated in Washington. I carefully listened to all sides, and came to reject the idea that the exploration of stem cells had to come into conflict with America’s commitment to the dignity of human life.
Some advocates told me that only the creation of human embryos for purposes of experimentation, otherwise known as cloning, could help them better understand and perhaps someday treat a series of dreaded diseases. But they ignored the importance of protecting human equality, dignity, and life. Opposing advocates told me that the pluripotency of stem cells — their ability to become a very wide variety of different cell types — would not be of great therapeutic value, and that other sources of tissues and cells could serve the same purpose. But they ignored the unique role pluripotent cells could play in basic science.
Couldn’t the strongest part of each side’s argument — the utility of pluripotent cells on the one hand and the importance of protecting human life on the other — be brought together? I studied the issue for many months, and entered into conversation with experts from across the nation who were looking for consensus solutions, like Stanford’s Dr. William Hurlbut. In the end, I became persuaded that the stem-cell debate was grounded in a false premise, and that the way through it was around it: by the use of scientific techniques that could produce the equivalent of embryonic stem cells but without cloning, creating, harming, or destroying developing human lives.
A number of such techniques have begun to emerge in recent years, and as last week’s exciting scientific publications showed, some of the world’s best stem-cell scientists are hard at work bringing them to fruition. Moreover, two of these techniques, Altered Nuclear Transfer and Direct Reprogramming could produce patient-specific stem-cell lines for the study of diseases. Our government should encourage and support these scientific developments, rather than undermine the effort to find a solution. Finding cures to diseases using methods that uphold ethical principles and sustain social consensus should be the objective of America’s approach to stem-cell research.
Rather than looking for such solutions, however, the Democrats in Congress have decided to turn back the clock and pass a bill that only sets research and ethics at odds, a bill they know will be vetoed by President Bush. This familiar Washington approach to controversial issues is just wrong. On matters of such significance, we should try to bring the country together, not further divide it.
Support for ethical biomedical research should be part of our collective identity as a noble society. Instead of turning the quest for cures into a partisan battle, Congress should embrace the exciting emerging lines of research that could meet the goals of all sides in the stem-cell debate. A bill to support just such a positive approach to stem cell research passed the Senate in April by a whopping margin of 70 to 28. But the House Democratic leadership, choosing politics over the prospect of consensus on science, appears to be unwilling even to allow a vote on that hopeful legislation.
It is time to move beyond typical Washington politics, and offer support for stem-cell research techniques that bring science and ethics together to promote life, protect life, and save lives.
— Mitt Romney is a former governor of Massachusetts and a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.
The Democrats are losing this stupid battle for embryonic stem cell research. Thanks to people like Mitt Romney, who have pushed for ethical and reasonable alternatives, stem cell research is able to progress without the use of embryos.
Can we finally stop equating stem cell research with embryonic stem cell research.......honestly?
This clip is from the May debate:
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Mitt Romney - 20%
Rudy Giuliani - 19%
John McCain - 17%
Fred Thompson - 13% (Can we call Fred's stint dead yet?)
Mike Huckabee - 8%
Ron Paul - 3%
Duncan Hunter - 1%
Tom Tancredo - 0%
Undecided - 18%
Romney has moved into second place with 19% support. That’s up eight points since September. "
"Thompson came into the GOP race late with the hope of winning over social conservatives unsatisfied with the rest of the party's field, and racked up a key endorsement from the National Right to Life Committee last week. But the former star of the television drama 'Law and Order' has trailed the GOP front-runners in early voting states since entering the race in August, and his support in New Hampshire dropped from 13 percent in a September poll to 4 percent in November's survey.
By contrast, Romney's support grew from 25 percent to 33 percent over the same period; McCain held steady at 18 percent; and Giuliani dipped from 24 to 16 percent."
Monday, November 19, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
You’re right. None of them exist.
Why the “frontrunner” label and fifty cents won’t even get you a cup of coffee nowadays:"
Monday, November 12, 2007
The Beginning of the End of the Giuliani Campaign
Big Week for Romney in California
Lazy Fred, Hard-Working Mitt, and Weird Giuliani (Not the real title.....just how I interpreted it).
Giuliani's Headache (aka Mitt's Outstanding Campaign.....well, that's what it's about once you get past the Kerik issue)
Thursday, November 8, 2007
To Quote Dry Fly Politics:
"This morning it was announced that Pat Robertson is endorsing Rudy Giuliani for President. This could turn out to be the biggest and most costliest compromise of his career. Pat Robertson has been a giant among dwarves in the evangelical movement. He has been a vocal leader in the movement against Abortion, Gay Marriage, etc. Now he has compromised all of that to support Rudy Giuliani, an unapologetically pro-Choice candidate. Why did he do it? One word, Mormonism."
To read what the Christian Alliance Presidedent of Iowa said, click here.
Finally, check out Laura Ingraham's take on the situation:
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
By Glen Johnson
BOSTON (AP) — A conservative leader who once expressed concern about Mitt Romney's credentials announced Monday he was backing the Republican presidential contender.
Weyrich is chairman and chief executive officer of the Free Congress Foundation. He helped found the conservative Heritage Foundation and worked with the late Rev. Jerry Falwell to establish the Moral Majority.
"I know when we debate I'll be asked, 'What's the biggest difference between the two plans?' And one thing I'll say is, 'Mine passed,'" Romney said to laughs and applause.
National polls show Romney trailing Republican contenders former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson. But Romney handily wins polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, where the first votes of the election season will be cast in less than two months.
Nova-Southeastern student Matt Thomas liked what Romney had to say.
"I'm married. I have kids. I like how he speaks about family," said Thomas.
His thoughts were echoed by student Jennifer Roque, who said she thinks Romney is the Republican who could beat Clinton.
"He's so polar opposite to her. I think that's what we're looking at," said Roque.
In contrast, he said Monday, he favored appointing judges like conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. These justices, Romney said, "believe that their job is to follow the law and the Constitution, not to make the law."
Later, in response to a question about a school board's approving the distribution of contraceptives for elementary school children, Romney said he opposed such actions but did not believe the federal government should intervene.
Marriage is a "status" and not an activity that occurs within the borders of a state, he said. Therefore, a federal definition of marriage is needed.
Friday, November 2, 2007
DeMint could give Romney lift in S.C.
WASHINGTON — Influential conservatives said Wednesday that Mitt
Romney’s naming of Sen. Jim DeMint as a national chairman of his presidential
campaign will help the former Massachusetts governor woo bedrock Republicans in
South Carolina and beyond.
..........David Keene, president of the
American Conservative Union in Alexandria, Va., noted that DeMint was the
keynote speaker last year at his group’s conference of key activists from around
..........There isn’t a Jesse Helms or a Ronald Reagan around,
but for conservatives Jim is one of the top four or five guys in the Senate in
terms of respect,” Keene said.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
.........Mitt Romney continues to make "All the Right Moves."
Mitt Romney is a Mormon and I am a Baptist: Get Over It!
"The Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Mormons and a few other faiths have three things in common – they believe in Jesus Christ, that He is the Son of God and that He died and was resurrected for our sins"...............
"So what’s the problem?".............
............"This is not an endorsement of Mitt Romney, nor is this intended to defend or explain the Mormon religion. It is a reminder that Christianity has several denominations with different practices. Misperceptions or lack of clarity about someone’s religious beliefs can only distort one’s reasoning in deciding who to vote for"..........
............."Religious affiliation is a good indicator of integrity and character, but it is not the only predictor of presidential performance. And since the First Amendment to the Constitution protects us from a president imposing his religious preference on the rest of us, I would rather have a president with some religion than one whose religion is suspect."