The following post is borrowed from:
http://www.paulallen.net/2007/02/13/why-i-support-mitt-romney-for-president/
I encourage all to read this interesting and convincing post. I include a few portions here.
"I am supporting Romney because I believe he will be the most capable administrator of the largest government in the world, and that he will tackle head on problems that traditional politicians have swept under the carpet for decades, postponing any solutions because they are afraid of the political fallout for rocking the boat."
"I truly believe that Romney’s approach to governing this nation will be solid and sound because it will be based on tried and proven business, leadership and financial principles, learned from very large-scale real world business experience — experience that no other candidate has."
"I believe Mitt Romney will form the most effective and efficient team of any president in modern history. I believe the national debt will be attacked head on."
"I believed in Reagan and I believe in Romney, and I’ve struggled to believe in between."
Sunday, February 25, 2007
The Coming Welfare State
Or shall we say the welfare state that is already here dragging the country down.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070225/ap_on_re_us/welfare_state_3
"The welfare state is bigger than ever despite a decade of policies designed to wean poor people from public aid....Nearly one in six people rely on some form of public assistance, a larger share than at any time since the government started measuring two decades ago."
This bit of not so surprising news highlights the importance of electing fiscally conservative leaders. Each day the size of government increases as Uncle Sam extends his reach into our lives every step along the way. Every year there are more government agencies and programs with ever bigger budgets donated from this country's taxpayers. It doesn't matter which party controls the budgetary committee in the House and it has certainly not mattered who controls the Presidency. We have seen this sad truth with both Bush I and Bush II. Both of them are supposed social conservatives but they are big government in every respect. G.W. Bush has convinced me that far more harm can come from electing a strong social conservative who is weak on fiscal policy than the other way around.
In the coming Presidential primaries, and generals, this should be something we think about as we consider who we should support. I, for one, support Mitt Romney because I believe he will do the taxpayers a better service than the others who are currently seeking the nomination.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070225/ap_on_re_us/welfare_state_3
"The welfare state is bigger than ever despite a decade of policies designed to wean poor people from public aid....Nearly one in six people rely on some form of public assistance, a larger share than at any time since the government started measuring two decades ago."
This bit of not so surprising news highlights the importance of electing fiscally conservative leaders. Each day the size of government increases as Uncle Sam extends his reach into our lives every step along the way. Every year there are more government agencies and programs with ever bigger budgets donated from this country's taxpayers. It doesn't matter which party controls the budgetary committee in the House and it has certainly not mattered who controls the Presidency. We have seen this sad truth with both Bush I and Bush II. Both of them are supposed social conservatives but they are big government in every respect. G.W. Bush has convinced me that far more harm can come from electing a strong social conservative who is weak on fiscal policy than the other way around.
In the coming Presidential primaries, and generals, this should be something we think about as we consider who we should support. I, for one, support Mitt Romney because I believe he will do the taxpayers a better service than the others who are currently seeking the nomination.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
The Globe and its rather obvious anti-Romney slant
The vast majority of the attacks towards Romney come from the sources I mentioned before. The Globe, the SL Times, and the Herald love to throw around the mud. The all important story today reveals that Romney great-great-grandfather(literally) had more than one wife. If that isn't a completely worthless biased story I don't know what is.
The following op-ed piece is typical of the Globe's outlook towards Romney. Although it is "opinion" we all know that their opinions permeate everything they report.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/24/taking_stock_of_the_2008_field/
"And speaking of Romney, the malleable Mitt has done so many reversals that the makers of flip-flop commercials will have a field day. Romney is also on the defensive as a Mormon, since many fundamentalists don't consider Mormons Christians. Almost half a century after the civil rights revolution, this should not matter, but that's right-wing politics for you. Romney is having trouble getting out of first gear."
They love to ridicule everything and everyone religious as the author so kindly demonstrates for us. That is simply one of many reasons for which the Globe hates Romney. Another is that he actively fought against the homosexual agenda which the Globe has strongly supported. There is no question whatsoever that the leftist media sources are actively campaigning against Romney in the primaries. GOP bloggers didn't start calling Mitt a "flip-flop", they didn't start polling people on the electability of a "Mormon", they didn't "reveal" different LDS beliefs, they didn't claim "fundamentalists" would never vote a Mormon, etc.................There are too many examples to even try to list them. The point is that the Globe and friends began these conversations. I suppose we should ask ourselves why? Perhaps it is because he is the only one of the top three that they feel is definitely "anti-them".
I believe that it is fine for conservatives to have concerns with Mitt but it is interesting that the liberals would spend more time searching his past than the Goppers. It kinda reveals how they feel about him compared to his opponents.
The following op-ed piece is typical of the Globe's outlook towards Romney. Although it is "opinion" we all know that their opinions permeate everything they report.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/24/taking_stock_of_the_2008_field/
"And speaking of Romney, the malleable Mitt has done so many reversals that the makers of flip-flop commercials will have a field day. Romney is also on the defensive as a Mormon, since many fundamentalists don't consider Mormons Christians. Almost half a century after the civil rights revolution, this should not matter, but that's right-wing politics for you. Romney is having trouble getting out of first gear."
They love to ridicule everything and everyone religious as the author so kindly demonstrates for us. That is simply one of many reasons for which the Globe hates Romney. Another is that he actively fought against the homosexual agenda which the Globe has strongly supported. There is no question whatsoever that the leftist media sources are actively campaigning against Romney in the primaries. GOP bloggers didn't start calling Mitt a "flip-flop", they didn't start polling people on the electability of a "Mormon", they didn't "reveal" different LDS beliefs, they didn't claim "fundamentalists" would never vote a Mormon, etc.................There are too many examples to even try to list them. The point is that the Globe and friends began these conversations. I suppose we should ask ourselves why? Perhaps it is because he is the only one of the top three that they feel is definitely "anti-them".
I believe that it is fine for conservatives to have concerns with Mitt but it is interesting that the liberals would spend more time searching his past than the Goppers. It kinda reveals how they feel about him compared to his opponents.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
