December 18, 2007
Dec 18 08:59 About That Abortion Transformation Dec 18 12:25 Undeniably Conservative Dec 18 13:33 Well Worth Noting Dec 18 17:07 The Ultimate Macho Campaign Video Dec 18 23:46 Utterly Delusional
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006
About That Abortion Transformation
During this past Sunday's interview on Meet The Press, Mitt Romney made this quote:
"...every piece of legislation which came to my desk in the coming years as a Governor, I came down on the side of preserving the sanctity of life."Sen. Thompson has issued this blistering, detailed refutation of Gov. Romney's statement:
Romney's health care legislation provides taxpayer-funded abortions for a co-pay of just $50. Romney vetoed EIGHT provisions in his health care bill that he deemed objectionable, including the expansion of dental benefits to Medicaid recipients. He did not veto Planned Parenthoods' guaranteed position on the Advisory Board or ensure that abortions were covered only in medically necessary situations (as required by MA court ruling). All abortions are covered in the Commonwealth Care program with no medically necessary limitation. Under the program, abortions are available for a copay of $50. (Menu of Health Care Services: http://www.mass. gov/Qhic/docs/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf; "Romney's Health Care Vetoes," Associated Press, 4/12/06)When Stephen Smith from Gov. Romney's campaign emailed me last week , he provided confirmation that abortion need only be covered in state-offered insurance programs if they're deemed medically necessary:
And, under Massachusetts law and court precedent, if the state is funding health care benefits, as it is with the subsidized Commonwealth Care products, it cannot refuse to fund abortions.As far as I can tell, Commonwealth Care doesn't limit abortion coverage to "medically necessary abortion services." Here's another tidbit of information that reflects badly on Gov. Romney:
In 1981, The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ruled That The Massachusetts Constitution Required Payment For Abortions For Medicaid-Eligible Women. (Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)
According To The Decision, When A State Subsidizes Medical Care, It Cannot Infringe On "The Exercise Of A Fundamental Right" Which The Court Interpreted As Access To Medically Necessary Abortion Services. (Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)
Romney included in his health care legislation a guarantee that Planned Parenthood would have a representative on his MassHealth Payment Policy Advisory Board. No such provision was included for a pro-life representative. "You cannot be personally opposed to abortion and then contribute money to an organization whose purpose is to provide abortions," said Jerry Zandstra. "Given the Romney family's support of Planned Parenthood, it now makes sense why he mandated that a member of the RomneyCare Policy board be appointed by the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts." (RepealRomneyCare.com, "Pro-Life Leaders Denounce Romney's Planned Parenthood Connections," Press Release, 5/10/07)Gov. Romney's assertions that he's experienced a pro-life transformation ring extremely hollow. If this fits into the definition of pro-life, then the term pro-life doesn't mean anything. As awful as that information is, this is worse:
Romney forced private Catholic hospitals to provide the morning-after-pill, a position applauded by Democrats and pro-abortions groups. "Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state's new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds. Romney had initially supported that interpretation, but he said yesterday that he had changed direction after his legal counsel, Mark D. Nielsen, concluded Wednesday that the new law supersedes a preexisting statute that says private hospitals cannot be forced to provide abortions or contraception. 'And on that basis, I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view,' Romney said..." (Scott Helman, "Romney Says No Hospitals Are Exempt From Pill Law," Boston Globe, 12/9/05)Why didn't Gov. Romney keep the exception in and let the courts decide instead of his legal counsel making that decision? That's what a pro-life governor would've done. Of course, I'd welcome a true abortion transformation by Gov. Romney. I just hope it happens sometime soon.
Here's how the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts responded to the news that Gov. Romney had flip-flopped again:
Catholic leaders urged hospitals to reject Romney's mandate or risk "compromising their religious integrity and Catholic identity." "C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, a conservative Catholic organization, said Catholic hospitals should refuse to abide by the law. 'The appropriate response for Catholic hospitals is noncompliance. Otherwise, they would be compromising their religious integrity and Catholic identity,' he said." (Steve LeBlanc, "Confusion Over New Emergency Contraception Law Deepens," Associated Press, 12/9/05)I've always thought that Gov. Romney's religious beliefs shouldn't be reason for rejecting him as a GOP presidential candidate. That's why I haven't even mentioned his his faith on this blog until now. While he's sensitive to his beliefs, it appears as though he doesn't object to ramming this controversial provision down the Catholic hospitals' throats. That's the definition of a hypocrite. It's entirely unacceptable.
Remember that we wouldn't be having this discussion if Gov. Romney hadn't signed that bill into law. Having failed that test, he could've at least vetoed several of these provisions. These aren't the hallmarks of a pro-life politician. They're the mark of what might be called a 'bill of goods' politician, one who'll say one thing while believing another.
We already had an administration that governed that way. We certainly don't need another administration like that.
Posted Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:03 AM
No comments.
Undeniably Conservative
That's the verdict rendered in this article . It's just another example of the case conservatives should be making on Fred's behalf. Here's one of the key sections of the article:
In short, Thompson holds the same conservative positions of all the other candidates combined, and has none of their flaws. In fact, any close observer of the campaign season would tell you that Thompson has been on the receiving end of barely any substantive attacks on policy issues. This is no coincidence. And it is the reason he has had to bear the brunt of shallow attacks about his demeanor, campaigning style, and laziness (whatever that means).Fred's conseratism doesn't change in the sense that the same underlying principles still guide his policy positions now as they did decades ago. The issues might change but the principles of unwavering federalism and fiscal freedom still guide his domestic policies.
Thompson is a demonstrably viable candidate with solid conservative positions across the board, and unlike Mitt Romney, whose continued defense of his sometimes liberal record puts a dent in his newfound conservatism, Thompson has not budged on the issues since running for office in 1994.
Fred's also the only candidate that's published detailed plans for entitlement reform, immigration reform, dealing with Iraq and Iran. That's before we get to the issue of judicial nominees, where he's got the best credentials of anyone. (One of his advisors is David McIntosh, the founder of the Federalist Society.
Unlike Giuliani, Thompson is an undisputed social conservative, with the National Right to Life endorsement to prove it. And unlike Huckabee and McCain, he is an economic conservative who was given high marks by organizations such as the Club for Growth, and whose flat tax and Social Security plans were praised by editorial boards across the country. Thompson's courageous and spot-on designation of the National Education Association as the primary obstacle to education in this country also shows a remarkable divergence with Huckabee, who was recently endorsed by the NEA's New Hampshire affiliate.Fred's plain-spoken policies are refreshing, even inspiring. He doesn't back away from fights. He doesn't pull his punches. He calls it as he sees it. It isn't just that he's talked the talk; he's the only candidate who's consistently walked the walk.
Finally, there's this:
Thompson's plan emphasizing border security and opposition to amnesty also stands in stark contrast to McCain and Huckabee's weaknesses on illegal immigration. And unlike the other candidates, most notably Huckabee, Thompson reassuringly has extensive foreign policy experience, and identifies national security as his top priority in light of the greater war against expansionist Islamic radicalism.Fred Thompson is the most qualified candidate in the race. You'll notice that the people that criticize him for his campaigning style don't criticize his substance. That's because it's impossible to argue with his positions.
In fact, they're the type of positions that Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater would take. You can't do better than that.
Posted Tuesday, December 18, 2007 12:30 PM
Comment 1 by Frederick Paxson at 18-Dec-07 03:06 PM
FRED THOMPSON is the best person to lead this country. He is a true conservative and has been his entire life. All one has to do is check his record to see this.
During my time in the Army as am Intelligence Analyst, I served under both Presidents Carter and Reagan (as my commanders in chief). Without argument, President Reagan was the best commander-in-chief a military person could ever have served under. Fred Thompson possesses the same qualities and vision as President Reagan in that he is strong on national defense and sees a dire need to secure our borders and control immigration.
I can think of no better person to lead this country and fix the problems we have. He is the only candidate from either party who has specific and detailed plans on border security and immigration reform; revitalization of America's armed forces; saving and protecting Social Security; and tax relief and economic growth. These are detailed on his Web site at www.fred08.com. I challenge you to find any other candidate who has laid out specific plans to fix anything.
Fred Thompson has published his first principles, some of which are mentioned above. In addition to those, he strongly believes in individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government, federalism, traditional American values, the rule of law and is a strong proponent of the Second Amendment -- all concepts established during the birth of our country and documented in our Constitution.
Again, try to find any candidate who has laid out their plans to "fix" this country. You will find they all speak in vague and abstract terms on their plans.
For those who have heard Fred Thompson speak, you will usually hear him say that the Fred Thompson you see today is the same Fred Thompson you saw yesterday and is the same Fred Thompson you will see tomorrow. He stands by his principles and values and doesn't shift his positions based on polls or public opinion; in other words, he doesn't say what the voters want to hear just to get elected, but remains steadfast on his views and convictions.
During his time in the Senate he focused on three areas: to lower taxes, strengthen national security and expose waste in the federal government. Fred Thompson has foreign policy experience, having served as member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Senate Intelligence committees.
As chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, he opened the investigation in 1997 on the Chinese government's attempt to influence American policies and elections, and this investigation identified connections with the Clinton administration (documented in the committee's report).
As a member of the Finance Committee, he worked tirelessly to enact three major tax-cut bills. Fred Thompson remains steadfast and even though a person may not agree with all his views and he understands some may disagree with him, you can count on him to be consistent and unwavering.
Don't be fooled by his laid back approach and what critics call his "laziness." As a former assistant U.S. attorney, he earned a reputation as a tough prosecutor and he possesses the toughness this country needs in order to tackle today's and tomorrow's issues.
I ask that you take a hard look at what this country needs, then take a hard look at all the other candidates' views, policies, their records and their track record on consistency. Fred Thompson possesses integrity, loyalty, commitment, energy and decisiveness, all traits of an effective leader, and will emerge as the best person to take this country boldly forward.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 18-Dec-07 04:27 PM
Thanks Frederick. Be sure to check out this post at Minnesotans for Fred & California Conservative.
LFR, CalCon &, obviously, Minnesotans for Fred strongly believe in Fred.
Comment 3 by Connie at 19-Dec-07 01:38 AM
Wonderful post and right on! Fred Thompson is the man with a plan and the voice of calm that is sorely needed in America.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 19-Dec-07 02:27 AM
Amen, Connie. That's why he's the only sane choice to be our next president.
He's the smartest candidate in the field on either side of the aisle.
Comment 5 by Connie at 19-Dec-07 04:57 AM
Is it just me or do others have to highlight postings to be able to se them? Dark gray on medium gray bg is very difficult to read.
Comment 6 by Connie at 19-Dec-07 04:57 AM
see...sorry
Comment 7 by Gary Gross at 19-Dec-07 05:54 AM
It isn't just you. I still haven't figured out how to change the colors. GRRRR
Well Worth Noting
Political veterans know that David Yepsen is the foremost expert on Iowa presidential politics. He's had that reputation for a generation. This morning, he's saying that people shouldn't discount the possibility of a surge by Fred Thompson and John Edwards :
All that tends to overlook two other candidates: Democrat John Edwards and Republican Fred Thompson. They're both showing real potential to come up fast here at the end.Time isn't the only thing that Fred Thompson is pouring into Iowa. He's got the most impressive policy resume of any candidate in either party. In fact, it isn't even close in that category. People will notice. Here's another important section:
One reason is the indecision of a lot of caucus-goers in both parties. This cycle, polls have shown around half the likely caucus-goers in each party could still be persuaded to change their minds. In other words, the so-called front-runners haven't closed the sale.
Both Edwards and Thompson are pouring time and resources into Iowa these days. Edwards built a respectable organization in Iowa in his 2004 campaign. He was the front-runner here for a while, then gradually slipped as the attention focused on celebrity candidates Clinton and Obama.
But after a sluggish start, Thompson has sensed an opening in Iowa, and he's moving decisively to exploit it. The opening arises from a combination of Romney's changes of position on social issues and Huckabee's stumbles on foreign-policy questions and immigration.If David Yepsen says that Steve King's endorsement will move votes, then I'll take him at his word. In fact, based on that information, I'd bet that Steve King's endorsement matters more in Iowa than NRO's misguided endorsement of Mitt Romney .
After his winning performance in the Des Moines Register's debate, Thompson has embarked on a lengthy bus tour of the state. During these final days, his campaign says he'll hold events in 50 communities and will visit 54 of the 99 counties.
On Monday, he picked up the surprise endorsement of Congressman Steve King. Of all the endorsements flying around these days, that one could move the most numbers. It sends a powerful signal from one of Iowa's most conservative leaders to others on the right around the state: We've now got a horse we can ride.
BTW, I thought Hugh Hewitt proclaimed Mitt the clear winner of last week's debate. Could it be that David Yepsen has a better read on that than Hugh?
The thought of a strong Thompson finish in Iowa should scare the daylights out of Mitt Romney. Hugh Hewitt has totally discounted Fred Thompson. If Sen. Thompson finishes a strong second behind Mike Huckabee, it'll be a big embarassment to Mitt Romney, who's lived in Iowa the last eighteen months.
I suspect that votes will move once social and fiscal conservatives hear Fred Thompson speak. His conservative credentials are impeccable, his speaking ability strong and his consistency unchallengeable. That's an impressive, winning combination.
Unlike Gov. Romney, Fred Thompson's conservatism isn't subject to seasonal shifts in governing philosophy. He's the same today as he was when he was the GOP counsel at the Watergate hearings as he'll be a decade from now. If Sen. Thompson finishes strong in Iowa, which I think likely, those will be the biggest reasons for it.
Posted Tuesday, December 18, 2007 1:34 PM
Comment 1 by Lady Logician at 18-Dec-07 07:55 PM
BTW, I thought Hugh Hewitt proclaimed Mitt the clear winner of last week's debate. Could it be that David Yepsen has a better read on that than Hugh?
Or at least a less biased one.....
LL
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 18-Dec-07 11:08 PM
Hugh's biased??? Say it ain't so, LL. Say it ain't so. :(
The Ultimate Macho Campaign Video
It kinda says it all, doesn't it?
Posted Tuesday, December 18, 2007 5:10 PM
No comments.
Utterly Delusional
That's the first thing that pops into my mind when I think of Sen. Reid's latest unilateral declaration of defeat. It isn't just that he's utterly incompetent. It's beyond that...BY A BUNCH!!! Here's what Politico.com's Martin Kady wrote about Reid's press conference:
Tired of Republican crowing about winning on Iraq funding, the budget battle and the energy bill, Reid (D-Nev.) shot back on Tuesday afternoon.Al-Qa'ida has regrouped? Where have they regrouped, Sen. Reid? They certainly haven't regrouped in Anbar Province. In fact, they've been all but annihilated there. They certainly haven't regrouped in Saudi Arabia according to this CNN article :
"We hear a lot of Republicans boasting...because of their unprecedented obstruction," Reid said.
Indeed, Republicans have gotten their way in the battle over spending, have forced Democrats to jettison rollbacks of tax breaks for oil companies, and have beaten back attempts to pay for expanded children's health care programs with a tobacco tax increase. Even though they're in the minority, the GOP, backed by President Bush, has used the filibuster to block Democratic priorities over and over this fall.
"Who's winning?" Reid asked a group of reporters. "Big Oil, Big Tobacco. ... Al Qaeda has regrouped and is able to fight a civil war in Iraq . ... The American people are losing ."
"I think that the people of Saudi Arabia have so overwhelmingly turned against bin Laden, al Qaeda and terrorism in general that nine out of 10 of them look at all three unfavorably ," the group's president, Ken Ballen, said Monday.This is just overwhelming proof that Harry Reid either can't tell the truth or that he's utterly delusional. At this point, it's impossible to tell which. For that matter, it might be all of the above.
Another possibility is that he's simply saying this to pacify his MoveOn.org puppeteers. He's gotten his ass handed to him this entire year. He knows that MoveOn.ord and the Kossacks aren't happy with his caving on practically everything. He knows he needs their campaign contributions rolling in if they're to have the money they need to keep their majority.
Voters across the nation need to ask themselves this important question before voting next November: Do you want to cast your vote for someone who will cast his/her vote to keep Harry Reid as the majority leader? If you think that Harry Reid is incompetent and/or the worst majority leader in political history, then your choice is clear. You have to vote to return the GOP to the majority.
Some questions are multiple choice. That isn't one of those questions. That question is binary. Either we're stuck with Harry Reid as majority leader until he's run out of office in 2010 or we defeat enough Democrats to make Mitch McConnell the majority leader.
Given Reid's nitwitted diatribes, I don't think that that's a difficult choice.
Posted Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:47 PM
No comments.
