Romney vs. Obama on Healthcare: Obama won’t know what hit him.

Our beloved website is receiving lots of traffic now from several sites linking to an old Op-Ed and selectively quoting two parts of it and reading between the lines that Romney wanted a mandate to purchase health insurance at the federal level. This is patently false. I just want to link back to some posts I wrote several months back about RomneyCare in case any readers click over here to our homepage.

In Part 2 of the three part series I wrote on the issue (Part 1 and Part 3 links) I suggested how Romney could smoke Obama in a debate when ObamaCare/RomneyCare came up with the following words/ideas.

Mr. President, when we reformed Health Care in Massachusetts we spent two years working toward a consensus. We had overwhelming public opinion support, input from the entire political spectrum (From The Heritage Foundation to Ted Kennedy), and finally passed a 72 page bill with a vote of 198-2 in the state legislature . . . getting whopping majorities from Republican, Democratic, and Independent lawmakers.

Contrast that to the bill you rammed through Congress in a matter of a few weeks and foisted upon the American people . . . a 2,700 page monstrosity that we were told would have to be passed before we could know what’s in it. A bill that squeaked through Congress by the slimmest of margins (219-212; meaning that it would have failed if only four Representatives had voted differently) only after well-documented strong-arming and promised political favors (“Louisiana Purchase” and “Cornhusker Kickaback”) . . . all this with not a single Republican voting in favor of it and 34 members of your own party voting against it. A bill that is a ugly stain on the fabric of our nation both for the ends that it aims to achieve AND the means by which it became law.

Mr President, based on the current unpopularity of your bill, and, in light of the 2010 repudiation of your party at the ballot box, I think it’s clear which type of leadership the American people prefer. Leadership that is deliberate and wise, that is not in a rush to score a political victory no matter the cost, that respects their voices and works for THEIR best interests. Wouldn’t you agree?

Make sure to check them out … and, of course, check out our site’s comprehensive and accessible page on healthcare, written up by Ben.

How Conservative is Romney on Health Care? - More Senators Co-sponsor Romney’s Medicare Reform Plan

For a candidate who is not even in office yet, Romney’s Medicare plan is attracting a lot of attention from leaders of congress. Just last week, Senators Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) joined the growing ranks of conservative leaders who have co-sponsored legislation supporting Romney’s Medicare plan. 

The media, preferring to focus on “RomneyCare” and how it relates to “ObamaCare,” has largely omitted any discussion of Romney’s achievements on Medicare reform. Romney’s success in crafting a workable plan to reform Medicare has been an unrecognized and significantly under-reported topic in the mainstream media.

As you may recall, Romney’s Medicare reform plan is to give seniors more options on where they can purchase medical insurance by allowing seniors to choose between traditional Medicare or purchasing private insurance with government vouchers. Such a plan would introduce greater competition among insurance companies but also allow seniors to craft health care plans that are more customized to their specific needs. 

Sens. Burr and Coburn liked that idea so much they were willing to attach their names to it by co-sponsoring legislation supporting the idea. Sens. Burr and Coburn also adopted Romney’s proposals on how to reduce the cost of Medicare by gradually increasing the age when seniors are eligible to receive Medicare and by requiring the richest seniors to pay more of their health care expenses than the poor. 

Recently, Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) also teamed up to co-sponsor Romney’s idea on reforming Medicare. Paul Ryan’s endorsement of Romney’s proposal sends a powerful message to Republicans who might wonder how conservative Romney is on health care reform given Romney’s key role in passing RomneyCare. If Paul Ryan, who is one of the most influential and popular conservatives in Washington, is co-sponsoring Romney’s proposals on Medicare reform, then conservatives in general can trust Romney on this issue. 

But the fact that a Democratic Senator, Ron Wyden, also co-sponsored the bill is quite impressive. The Ryan/Wyden bill reveals an important aspect about how Romney creates political goals: namely, that Romney creates bold ideas that are also practical and workable. Romney is not a politician with his head in the clouds, dreaming up “fantasy legislation” that appeals only to one side of the political sphere. He’s a pragmatic conservative who understands the realities facing America, whether those realities are economic or political, and can work within those realities to get things done.

It is important to remember that these leaders in congress who are co-sponsoring Romney’s plan aren’t just expressing vocal support for Romney’s Medicare reform plan. They are taking their support to the highest level by co-sponsoring actual bills that use Romney’s proposals. Any one of Romney’s rivals for the Republican nomination would kill to have Paul Ryan and three other U.S. Senators co-sponsoring legislation about their ideas.

So, in order to get a more complete and accurate picture of how conservative Romney is on health care issues, we must look not just at RomneyCare but also Romney’s Medicare reform plan which is garnering a host of endorsements and co-sponsors from the most respected and popular conservatives in Washington.

Gov Tim Pawlenty: Santorum “A Champion of Pork” + Santorum’s Falsehoods on MA Healthcare

Gov Tim Pawlenty

Thus far in the campaign, Rick Santorum has been tickled to ham up being the one who is above the fray. Well, he wasn’t polling high, hasn’t truly been vetted, and up until his 34-vote win in Iowa, wasn’t getting a lot of attention. Interestingly, Santorum gets plenty bristly-haired during the debates (political pundits note that he comes across as mean), and closer inspection of his record could elicit some real squealing from him.

Yesterday, Governor Tim Pawlenty held an enlightening press conference call which highlighted Santorum’s propensity for pork-barrel spending. Here’s the entire call:

Highlights of the Rick Santorum’s Long History Of Pork-Barrel Spending call:

GOV. TIM PAWLENTY: What I wanted to focus this morning on the notion that Rick Santorum is presenting to caucus attendees in Minnesota and to conservatives beyond that Rick Santorum is really as conservative as those caucus attendees and he’s not. If you look at his record overall there’s a number of things that should be concerning about that record to conservatives. And I’ll just focus this morning on the spending and fiscal aspects of that. Rick Santorum has been a champion of earmarks, when he was both in the House and subsequently in the Senate. He reflected on his time in the House at one point by saying that he is no longer a fiscal hawk. And the reason he cited for no longer being a fiscal hawk is because he wanted to spend the surpluses which is not the philosophy or perspective of somebody that conservatives would look to as a strong, unabashed fiscal hawk. In fact he just admitted and disclaimed that he was no longer a fiscal hawk. And his votes and his behavior in the Congress reflected that drift away from fiscal discipline.

He proudly and enthusiastically embraced earmarking. Some of the more well-known examples of earmarking he supported was the so-called ‘Bridge to Nowhere,’ which was one of the biggest earmark debacles in the modern history of the Congress. He supported things like a polar bear exhibit in Pittsburgh that was federally funding under one of these earmarks. He provided a Philadelphia developer an earmark for a project in the Philadelphia area, and there was a developer that he had some other contacts and associations with. He voted numerous times to raise the debt ceiling and here we as a nation facing fiscal crisis, I mean literally on the edge of the fiscal abyss.

We need a next president who’s been strong and proven in fiscal and spending matters, and we had Rick Santorum voting numerous times to raise the debt ceiling. So, he clearly has been part of the big spending establishment in Congress and in the influence peddling industry that surrounds Congress. He has been part of that. He has been a champion of earmarks, and to hold himself out now as somebody who is an unquestionable conservative in these matters, just is not supported by the facts. So we wanted to call that out this morning as part of his record, part of debate back and forth, and the contrast between these candidates, and Rick Santorum is clearly not as conservative on these matters as Minnesota caucus attendees or Republican or conservative activists and the people who are part of the conservative movement more broadly. So that’s the message we wanted to convey with you this morning, but we also wanted to give you a chance to ask questions or make comments about that topic or others that may be of interests to you, or obviously on the eve of the Minnesota caucuses, as well as other contests around the country tomorrow and the Romney campaign is in full gear as you know and there’s a lot of activity going on, so we’ll be delighted to take your questions on any topic related to those things.

Governor Pawlenty also released this statement yesterday:

“Rick Santorum is a nice guy, but he is simply not ready to be President. Plus, he wants Minnesota conservatives to believe he’s as conservative as they are, but he’s not. As a U.S. Senator, he was a leading earmarker and pork-barrel spender. He described himself as ‘very proud’ of the billions of dollars in pork-barrel projects he championed, and promised to defend the wasteful spending. Even in the face of crushing federal debt, Rick Santorum voted for the infamous ‘Bridge to Nowhere.’ That type of leadership will not help us rein in government and slash the unprecedented federal debt.”

(emphasis added)

Voters need to know about Santorum’s piggy-pork record while serving on Capitol Hill. He loved toting home taxpayer bacon for his state.

By the way, I greatly appreciate Pawlenty’s press conference call and his continuing hard work for Governor Romney.

Disappointingly, Santorum has also been hog-jowled on the campaign trail giving false information about health care in Massachusetts. Click below the fold for a must-read summary from the Romney Press Office:

Click here to continue reading

Serious Anti-Newt Backlash

UPDATE: I published this post regarding the intense anti-Newt pushback I saw yesterday before seeing the following Politico article, which covers many of the same topics, and is itself a great read. Here’s a salient quote from Politico, then the main body of my original post:

A top conservative media figure said the flood of attacks reflects a “Holy crap, it could happen” moment in the movement, as Republican leaders began to realize after Gingrich’s South Carolina victory that he could become the nominee, the global face and voice of their party and theology.

“It could happen, and it would be a disaster,” said the conservative, who spoke on condition of anonymity to protect private conversations. “All of us who were around and saw how he operated as speaker — there’s no one who’s not appalled by the prospect of what could happen. He thinks he embodies conservatism and if he wakes up one day and has a grandiose thought, he is going to expect all of us to fall in line behind him.

“There’s just so much risk on so many levels,” the official continued. “Everyone’s thinking, ‘It could really happen.’ He could win the presidency if there’s a way to win with 45 percent — a second recession or a third-party candidate. The immediate worry is him winning the nomination and losing the election, tanking candidates down-ballot. In a worst-case scenario, you could see unified Democratic governance, and we’d be back where we were in ’09 and ’10. It’s insane.”

Original Post:

In what can only be called a deluge of anti-Newt news, people seem to be coming out of the woodwork to tell the real truth about the winner of the South Carolina primaries in order to make sure he doesn’t also win Florida. Insiders know that Newt would be a disastrous nominee for the GOP, and even Nancy Pelosi knows he’d never be president.

Here are a few of my favorite headlines up tonight:

From the Drudge Report: “INSIDER: GINGRICH REPEATEDLY INSULTED REAGAN.” The link is to a National Review story in which a former Reagan administration member tells it like it was regarding Newt: he was often standing against Reagan, particularly in Reagan’s approach to the USSR that Newt today tries to co-opt. Why is this relevant? To hear Newt tell it, he and Ronald Reagan worked hand in hand to defeat communism and save the free world. But in reality while Newt would vote with the caucus, Newt worked against Reagan. One of many damning quotes from this inside source:

Here is Gingrich [saying]: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.” Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which “have no strategies to defeat the empire.” But of course “the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan.” Our efforts against the Communists in the Third World were “pathetically incompetent,” so those anti-Communist members of Congress who questioned the $100 million Reagan sought for the Nicaraguan “contra” rebels “are fundamentally right.” Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”

This article is definitely worth a read. It makes clear that Newt does not deserve any of Reagan’s credit for defeating communism.

Next up: “William Jefferson Gingrich.” This article compares Newt’s and Clinton’s most endearing shared qualities. Self-centeredness and a disdain for the rule of law when it disagrees with their own ego. Here’s a good quote, one of many:

Newt and Bill, as 1960s generation self-promoters, share the same duplicity, ostentatious braininess, a propensity for endless scrapes with propriety and the law. They are tireless hustlers. Now Newt is hustling my fellow conservatives in this election. The last time around he successfully hustled conservatives in the House of Representatives and then the conservatives on the House impeachment committee.

He blew the impeachment and in fact his role as Speaker. He backed out in disgrace. He now says Republicans in the House were exhausted with his great projects. Nonsense, I knew many of them, and they were exhausted with his atrocious leadership. He is not a leader. He is a huckster. Today Mitt Romney has 72 Congressional endorsements. Newt has 11. Possibly the 11 have yet to meet him.

Now he has found his key for hustling conservative electorate. He is playing the liberal media card and saying he embodies conservative values. Like Bill with his credulous fans, Newt is hoping conservatives suffer amnesia. Possibly some do. Perhaps they cannot recall mere months ago when this insufferable whiz kid was lambasting the great Congressman Paul Ryan for “right-wing social engineering” — more evidence of Newt’s not-so-hidden longing for the approval of the liberal media.

After his Ryan moment Newt’s campaign was a death wagon, and it will be so again — hopefully before he gets the nomination. Conservatives should not climb onto his death wagon. He is a huckster, and I for one will not be rendered a contortionist trying to defend him. I did so in his earliest days and learned my lesson.

And perhaps the most important quote of the article, warning us against the same result we can expect if we nominate Gingrich (remember Clinton was effectively rendered powerless during the last portion of his presidency due to his personal indiscretions). At a time the GOP really needs the White House to put the country back on the right track, we can’t afford an October surprise, or a post-nomination or post-election surprise:

Click here to continue reading

A bit about last night’s debate. Plus: The Financial Times says “Romney vs. Obama is What America Needs”

The Debate

We all saw the debate last night and in my view Mitt took it to Newt, and Newt didn’t quite know how to handle it. Great debate prep by Mitt. A couple other suggestions:

1. Mitt needs to continue taking it to Newt. One of the exit poll results showed that people made their mind up in South Carolina very late, and were influenced by a perception that Newt would be able to take on President Obama. Those of us watching debates for more than a week know Mitt has no difficulty debating, but, like the rest of his message, he’s going to have to keep pounding it again and again: he’s the only guy that can take on Obama, not only on the debate stage but also in the general election.

2. Besides the style points, in my view Mitt must also take on the concept that Newt’s got the “big ideas.” I believe that’s false, and Mitt needs to compare his ideas vs. Newt’s to show why Mitt is the superior choice, particularly on the economy.

3. Newt still will not win a general election. Mitt’s point is right on, and can’t be repeated enough: Newt had a chance to lead the GOP in the 90s and was forced to resign due to ethics violations. That man can’t be the GOP’s standard bearer, end of story. Most news outlets I read that move beyond the reporting about “momentum” are all chuckling, especially the Democrats, at the prospect that Newt Gingrich could possibly be the GOP’s nominee. Obviously we’re not there yet, but it’s a horrifying prospect. One joking report was that liquor sales spiked in DC after the South Carolina results: champagne for the Democrats and whiskey for the GOP.

4. This election will be decided by independent voters. The GOP will carry the right. The Democrats will carry the left. The king makers are in the middle. While I believe the independents are ready to shake off Obama, I don’t believe they will do so with as much ease as one might think. Particularly if the economy, due to its usual resiliency, recovers in any degree before November, which may in fact happen. Mitt’s point isn’t that Obama caused the recession, but that he prolonged it. And it won’t be to Obama’s credit if there’s a recovery, but a recovery lessens the sting felt by people and will make independents harder to earn. Also, independents may agree in part with Obama’s argument that it’s the old GOP that caused the issues the economy has. Newt, as the consummate Washington insider, can’t distance himself from the policies of George W. Bush and the early 2000s GOP as easily as Mitt can. As a result, Newt can’t win independents. Aside from more ties to Bush, his positions are too “grandiose,” to use his own term. I’d say “nutty.” You can see my prior post about arresting Supreme Court justices, and look at Newt’s positions on child labor, moon colonies and more. He’s “an idea a minute,” per Rick Santorum, but no leadership. Independents are less likely to vote for someone rightfully viewed as extreme or unreliable. They will remember Newt’s past. The Democrats will bring it up. And if Newt is our nominee, I don’t think he can win.

Gideon Rachman of The Financial Times Says “Romney vs. Obama is What America Needs.”

This headline caught my attention today. To summarize, Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times (one of the world’s most prestigious financial journals) says Newt, while an amusing side show, complete with jilted wife, can’t beat Obama. He suggests American needs a debate of the merits of capitalism, and Mitt vs. Obama is the only way America can have it.

Click here to continue reading

Timothy Dalrymple: Open Letter to Mitt Romney Skeptics, Especially Evangelicals

Thanks to John Schroeder of Article VI Blog for connecting Mitt Romney Central with Timothy Dalrymple. The following open letter is another outstanding endorsement of Governor Romney as the candidate best suited to represent conservative values as our President of the United States. Tim’s three main arguments below are compelling, especially regarding Governor Romney’s moral leadership.

Timothy Dalrymple is the Director of Content for, the largest religion website in the country, and the managing editor of its Evangelical Portal. He earned his Ph.D. in modern western religious thought at Harvard’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, and contributes to Evangelicals for Mitt. Raised in non-denominational evangelical churches in California, Dalrymple has ministry experience in youth ministry, college ministry, prison chaplaincy, teaching apologetics, and leading overseas missions. Formerly of Boston, he is now a member of Perimeter Church in Johns Creek, Georgia. You can follow him at Philosophical Fragments or Facebook.

Timothy Dalrymple

See the just-released ebook from Evangelicals for Mitt for a comprehensive explanation of why Romney is the best positioned to represent evangelicals’ values in the White House.

By Timothy Dalrymple

Dear Mitt Romney skeptics, and especially my fellow evangelicals,

Do you remember how it felt when the economy began to implode in those anxious, waning months of 2008? We were coming down to the wire in the election contest, and the candidates we had to choose between were Barack Obama and John McCain. Given the choices, of course, I supported McCain. I still think he would have made a far better President than Obama has proven to be.

But as the very foundations of the American economy were shaking and falling away beneath our feet, and we faced the very real possibility of a Second Great Depression, how desperately I wished that Mitt Romney had emerged from the primary as the champion of the GOP. The presiding President and his party took the heat for the financial crisis, and McCain worsened the situation when his actions and statements inspired no confidence in his stability and expertise on economic matters. The election turned in Obama’s favor when he gave the impression of solidity and strength in the economic crisis.

Romney, however, had something Obama couldn’t even begin to claim: a brilliantly successful career in the private sector, and a world of experience specifically in the financial sector, where our most intractable problems lay. Between McCain and Romney, Romney was touted by the conservative commentariat as the conservative option, and I remember feeling as though the liberal media, independents and even some Democrats who were able to vote in primaries had shoehorned John McCain onto the GOP ticket. If Romney had been at the top of the ticket instead, I still believe we would have avoided the lamentable Obama Presidency; compared to a business titan, Obama would have looked like the inexperienced pretender that he was, and he could not have stood up to Romney’s economic expertise in the debates.

Well, we’re still in the midst of an incredible mess as a country. Our financial house is in shambles. Tax reform, regulatory reform, streamlining government, changes to our energy and immigration policies, will all help. But the character of the American people, the moral substructure that provides the necessary, nurturing environment for our democratic free market, has also disintegrated. Our problem is not merely political; it is also cultural. I am convinced of this with every bone in my body: We need to rediscover the virtues of the free market, and we also need to rediscover the economic virtues. On the one hand, we need a President who understands how companies grow and flourish, who understands how the economy works and what provides the predictability and clarity and the space for innovation that the market demands; Romney’s experience in venture capital, properly understood, is one of his truest strengths, because the venture capitalist learns a great deal about what kinds of ventures succeed and what kinds of capital they need. On the other hand, we need someone whose personal integrity and whose socio-political principles will strengthen the family, enrich the workforce, and restore our collective commitment to responsibility and initiative, stewardship and thrift, diligence and creativity.

I’ve written responses to some common misconceptions about Romney and his candidacy – and a long, specifically evangelical case for Mitt can be found in this ebook. The purpose of this letter is simply to set forth, in broad outlines, why I think Romney’s the right guy at the right time for this country. The Presidency is a position of enormously important economic, global and moral leadership. In all three of those areas, I firmly believe that Mitt Romney is the leader we need. He also, not coincidentally, stands the best chance of defeating Barack Obama — and if there’s one thing conservatives agree upon right now, it’s the profound importance of installing new leadership. As the country staggers toward decline, we need someone who can pick us up, rally the American people behind a positive and hopeful vision, and deploy all of his intelligence and experience and skill to move us toward a better future. That’s Mitt.

Economic and Global Leadership

Those who know him personally attest, without exception, that Romney is an extraordinarily intelligent, boundlessly competent, and thoroughly hard-working man. He built a towering reputation in the business world, accomplished a near-miraculous turnaround of the Salt Lake City Olympics (which was mired in scandal and red ink and on the verge of collapsing), and took an extremely liberal state (Massachusetts) that was deeply in debt and restored it to fiscal health and a budget surplus in the course of four years.

In the business world, Romney specialized in turning around failing companies, and he did so with great success. Sometimes, yes, that means eliminating jobs — but in most cases you’re eliminating jobs in order to avoid eliminating a company in its entirety. You make companies more profitable, more competitive, and thus more sustainable. You eliminate jobs now so that you can keep paying the salaries of those who remain, and ideally add more jobs again later. In other words, sometimes the most pro-jobs thing you can do is cut one job and save the company that employs ninety-nine more.

Click here to continue reading

Exclusive (MR12): One Evangelical’s Journey to Promote Mitt Romney

Five years ago, I discovered the amazing resource Article VI Blog, founded by John Schroeder and Lowell Brown. Their reporting and Op-Ed writing, in my opinion, have proved an important contribution to this nation and to the American ideal of freedom. Their tireless research will continue to enlighten Americans who treasure the blessings of diversity.

John Schroeder

John and Lowell traveled to the Bush Library in Texas for Governor Romney’s historic Faith in America speech December 6, 2007. It was there we met and discussed their work and our hope of a Romney presidency.

Following is a candid view into John’s childhood, youth, and adulthood that I found most revealing – especially as relates to his arriving to understand Mitt Romney’s tremendous leadership skills and experience. I am grateful to him for this guest contribution to Mitt Romney Central.

From Protecting The Church To Electing A President — This Evangelical’s Story

By: John Schroeder

The story is now old about how Article VI Blog got started. We have grown from the original team of me, an evangelical Presbyterian, and my Mormon partner Lowell Brown to include John Mark Reynolds, notable Greek Orthodox academic and scholar. All three of us have our individual reasons to be there; let’s talk about mine.

When I started, I really did not care much for Mitt Romney, but I also hated bigotry. Frankly, one of Romney’s key talking points for the ’08 election was what has now come to be called “RomneyCare” and I was aghast. When Article VI Blog started I was in the process of losing about 200 pounds. That gave me a unique view of the health care system – the last thing I wanted was to give the government the power to tell me about my weight, and let’s face it, you put someone in charge of your healthcare, and that is where they are going. But again, I hate bigotry.

See, I am a son of the Deep South. I was born in 1957 in Oxford, Mississippi. My father soon finished law school and we left Mississippi, but my mother’s entire extended family was there so rarely a year has gone by in my life that I have not spent some time in the state. I grew up with “Whites Only” signs, and segregated water fountains. Most importantly, I saw the racial prejudices of the Deep South routinely turn some members of my loving and wonderful family suddenly ugly. We could be having the most wonderful evening in a household full of love and good cheer and the topic would come up and well, let’s just say I saw the good cheer leave the room.

So, on that fateful day when Hugh Hewitt introduced me to the idea that Evangelicals would oppose Romney, not because of something like RomneyCare, but because of his faith, I did not want to see the good cheer leave the “evangelical room” and decided to get involved. Right up until the day before Super Tuesday in the 2008 primary campaign, I worked hard to fight the religious bigotry that was so obviously aimed at Romney, but that did not mean he had my vote. He ended up with it, but he had to earn it.

So-called RomneyCare really was the only serious obstacle to his having my vote. John McCain was, well, not a team player with Republicans, and governance is a team game. Rudy Giuliani was waaaay too far left. Fred Thompson was a joke, and Mike Huckabee really did take the good cheer from the evangelical room. But….

In ’08 Romney ended up with my vote largely because as I studied the RomneyCare issue I came to discover that what was passed in Massachusetts was a far cry from what Romney proposed. What Romney proposed was a hybrid system between private enterprise and public health care. Most importantly it offered subsidies for people to get private healthcare; the government never became the provider. Not ideal from my perspective, but enough to make him far more palatable than the alternatives, particularly when you consider that the public, showing a lack of wisdom in my estimation, was demanding something. A reasonable politician has to act when the citizenry demand, even if the result is less than ideal. Those in elected office are, after all, servants of the people, not rulers.

Since ObamaCare has come to pass, RomneyCare is no longer an issue for me. There are many similarities in the Massachusetts healthcare system and that which ObamaCare shall bring to pass, but in the end there is no comparison. Many legal scholars think ObamaCare is unconstitutional – I am inclined to agree with them. States have a lot of power that the federal government does not. But more importantly to my mind Massachusetts healthcare now has little resemblance to what Mitt Romney originally proposed. He had some vetoes overridden and has been out of office for quite some time now, giving that heavily liberal legislature, and governor, plenty of time to fiddle about. What Mitt Romney wanted, and what Barack Obama shoved down our gullets is radically different. Romney has promised to minimize the impact of ObamaCare as much as the power of the presidency will allow and to make repeal of it a priority in his agenda. That’s all I can ask.

Let’s get back to my youthful sojourns to Mississippi and to bigotry. You cannot be about in Mississippi and not know African-Americans, lots of them. One of the reasons things seemed to turn so ugly in the family gatherings when it came up was because the blacks that I knew in Mississippi were certainly poor and generally undereducated but most of them were decent good people. As an infant, I was cared for by a woman (my mother worked while my father was in law school) who remained in service to the family her entire life, as did several of her children. Now my parents were dirt poor at the time. Mom made a pittance as a production assistant at a Memphis television station and Dad had the GI bill. That they could afford a caretaker for me explains a lot of the poverty in the African-American community of the time. Regardless, I saw that woman (Fannie was her name) on every visit I made to Mississippi until she passed away, which was about the time I graduated high school. She could not read or write, but she was a good woman – having cared not only for me, but for many of my generation. She was a decent person. But the things some of my family members would say when she was out of earshot…. Their words simply did not match the reality I witnessed, and it made some loving, beautiful people look very ugly.

Schroeder & Brown at Faith In America Speech

You cannot live in southern California, one end of the so-called “Jello Belt,” and not know Mormons – lots of them. When I contemplated my evangelical brethren discarding a candidate for POTUS because he was a Mormon, it just looked ugly to me. They were good, decent people. Politically most that I know stand right where I do. They are contributing members of the community, often leading on things that my brethren seemed too pre-occupied to tackle. As the African-Americans of the Mississippi of my youth were poor and under-educated, the Mormons of my adulthood were theologically misguided, but they were good people, even preferable as neighbors. To discard Romney on the basis of theological wrongness reflected very poorly on my evangelical brethren.

I am tempted at this point to go on about the proper relationship of theology and religious affiliation to our citizenship, but that is a scholarly topic, and this is a personal reflection. Besides, it’s getting too long anyway.

I grieve for all those that would discard Romney, or Jon Huntsman for that matter, on the basis of their Mormon faith. To do so, from my perspective, shows little faith in the God who saved me and whom I claim to serve. The New Testament is full of the message that Christ came to free us from the drudgery and ugliness of legalism. Such is not license for debauchery, but rather a reflection of the fact that Christ’s ministry transforms us. We are changed from people who obey the law out of obligation, fear and tenacity to people from whom behavior in compliance with the law flows as a natural consequence of who we are.

If we still operate out of a mindset that demands strict compliance in an obligatory and tenacious manner, then we have yet to experience the deep reality of what Jesus can do for us. Christ, it must be remembered, chose the company of sinners over the religious elite of his day. In plain speak, it is not about theology or membership, but character.

Martin Luther King Jr. spoke some of the most profound words of the last century:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

The years since Article VI Blog started have been very interesting years in my life. Among the more interesting occurrences has been the opportunity to get to know Mitt Romney just a little and some of his extended family quite well. These are people, who when judged by the content of their character, deserve the same shot at the White House, or any other part of the American dream, that the rest of us enjoy.

I do not pretend to know what God thinks of Mormons or Mormon theology – I do not know what will happen to any individual Mormon in eternity, or anyone else for that matter – I am no where near that smart. I know what I believe and what my prayer and study has taught me, and yes, it is quite different than what they believe. But I also know that to deny them their place in our nation, based on that difference, reflects far more poorly on me than it does on them.

All said and done, that is why I started with Article VI Blog. I did not want the prejudices of some in the Evangelical community to reflect poorly on all of us. I wanted anybody that bothered to listen to know that we’re not all that way.

Some six years later the only thing that is different is that Mitt Romney is now unquestionably the best candidate qualified to steer our nation back in the proper direction. Economically, his skill is unrivalled. As an executive, his experience is unmatched. As a politician, his current victories speak for themselves – as does his character. This cycle Mitt Romney has more than earned my vote. I am proud to be behind him – 100%.

[Emphasis added by Lundquist]

If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this. — C. S. Lewis

…………………. Related Resources …………………….

Why Evangelicals Can Support Mitt Romney

Evangelicals for Mitt

JFK’s Amazing, Inspiring 1960 Speech to Houston Ministers, “I Believe in America”


The Truth About Massachusetts Health Care

Problem or Not?

Why RomneyCare Makes Mitt the Best Nominee to Face Obama

Bottomline: Romney Stands Strongly Against ObamaCare

Why Romney Care is Constitutional While ObamaCare is Not

Mitt Smashes Through Supposed “25% Ceiling”; AND Lead Plaintiff for 26 State Suit Against ObamaCare, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi Endorses Mitt Romney

Can you feel the Mitt-Mentum building folks? It’s nearly palpable! Thus, it has been with great pleasure that many of us long-term Romney supporters have watched Mitt smash through the supposed “25% Ceiling” of support that his opponents and Democratic talking-heads have fabricated. We’ve heard many of his GOP opponents and those on the left stating that Romney is a “weak frontrunner” because he rarely polled above 25%. I’ve heard literally hundreds of comment on news programs that “over 75% of the GOP want someone different than Mitt Romney as their nominee.” A couple of problems with that argument:

1) No one else was higher than Romney (rare temporary “flavor of the month” candidates briefly popped into the 30s being the only exceptions) and so if 75% don’t want Romney, then 85% don’t want Gingrich, 90% don’t want Paul, 95% don’t want Perry, and 99% don’t want Huntsman.

2) Romney is now consistently polling above his supposed ceiling, with the most recent Gallup Tracking Poll taking Mitt to 31% and well on his way to 35% plus once he wins New Hampshire.


*************Sick of hearing that Mitt’s involvement with RomneyCare will make him unable to criticize ObamaCare as the nominee?  I’ve argued before on this site that the converse is actually true, that Romney would be the best nominee the GOP has to take it to Obama on the issue of Health Care.

Mitt just added a whole new level of credibility to this argument by earning the endorsement of Pam Bondi, Florida Attorney General, and the lead AG for the 26 state lawsuit heading to the Supreme Court to test the constitutionality of ObamaCare.  Something tells me that she would not be giving this endorsement without a full confidence that Mitt will do as he’s said, and grant immediate waivers to ObamaCare and then work to repeal the law itself through congressional action.

~Addendum from Ross
The Morning Joe crew makes the observation that Gov. Romney is the most disciplined candidate in the field below the fold. Click here to continue reading

"In Defense of Mitt Romney? Absurd!"

This guest post was cross-posted from the We Believe in America blog.

You’ve heard the narrative. It goes something like this: “Why should I vote for Mitt Romney? Why would ANY Tea Party-loving Conservative Republican ever vote for Mitt Romney? Haven’t you heard?

Mitt Romney isn’t a Conservative. Mitt Romney is a flip-flopper. Mitt Romney isn’t genuine. Mitt Romney is an elitist who doesn’t understand the challenges of the average American. Mitt Romney isn’t ‘one of us.’ He’s a RINO. Mitt Romney is ‘the establishment’ candidate. Mitt Romney is ‘Obama-lite.’ Romneycare=Obamacare. Mitt Romney used to be pro-choice. Mitt Romney doesn’t connect to the voters. Mitt Romney is robotic. Mitt Romney just seems ‘too polished.’ Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and ‘Mormonism is a cult.’ Mitt Romney will say anything to get elected and I don’t trust him.”

I’m reminded of a quote I read some years ago from Wendell Berry’s essay entitled “In Defense of Literacy.” May I use it for my purposes: “It may seem absurd to offer a defense of [Mitt Romney], and yet I believe that such a defense is in order, and that the absurdity lies not in the defense, but in the necessity for it” (emphasis added).

I’ll dispense with policy wonkish discussions, and dismiss hashed out, re-hashed out, and—frankly—tired, though regularly regurgitated media narratives designed to create a campaign horse race so as to therefore have something to report on.

Here’s why you should vote for Mitt Romney: because he will make an exceptional President of the United States. It’s that simple. He’s Presidential. Not in appearance only (which, by the way, I can’t ever get anybody to define what “Presidential” looks like), but in substance, and character, and competence. He is a living, breathing example of American exceptionalism. And not least because, in the words of Governor Chris Christie, “He’s gonna win!” He will—pardon the reference—be America’s Gold Medal.

So, let’s run down the list: Click here to continue reading

Mitt Romney for President of the United States of America

Which of these do you think is the most informative and helpful?

Today during a business luncheon, a colleague asked me for details behind one of Governor Romney’s policies and what motivated him, etc. As I did a little research to provide the answers he sought, I discovered that all the answers were contained here at MittRomneyCentral.

Some of you may be arriving to this website for the first time to explore, “What makes this guy with the weird name ‘Mitt’ tick?” Or you may be a relatively new, but regular visitor that is still absorbing the depth of the man we at MRC esteem as the finest leader in decades to run for President of the United States. You may even be a supporter of another Republican candidate just dropping in to take a look under the hood.

THIS POST IS FOR YOU. In this one stop, you can explore one or all of the following articles to learn a tremendous amount of truth about the most principled, value based leader seeking to lead this nation back to “American Optimism.”

Each one of the following articles contains content that will both enlighten and inform you and is among the finest (based on number of reader views and recommendations) of the year 2011 [“FB”= Facebook Recommends]:

Views: 4,800 / FB: 208 / Comments: Dozens

Views: 1,218 / FB: 602 / Comments: 14 (still open)

Views: 965 / FB: 168 / Comments: 4

Views: 853 / FB: 237 / Comments: Truncated

Views: 2,554 / FB: 754 / Comments: Dozens (still open)

Views: 2,110 / FB: 227 / Comments: Dozens

Views: 1,289 / FB: 114 / Comments: Dozens (still open)

Views: 1,154 / FB: 72 / Comments: 20 (still open)

Work Ethic, Drive, Determination, Intelligence, Intensity, Problem Solver…..
The New York Times — December 24, 2021

Mitt Romney for President of the United States of America Your Favorite?

“For without belittling the courage with which men have died, we should not forget those acts of courage with which men have lived.” — President John F. Kennedy