-
Dick Morris’ Bad Entitlements Advice
April 1, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Will Welker Walk?
March 11, 2013 | 273 comments
-
Not Yet Elite, But Pretty Neat
February 5, 2013 | 8 comments
-
The Harbaugh Bowl
January 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Tom Terrific
January 14, 2013 | 55 comments
Political Hay
Mitt Romney’s American Century
Romney takes his stand for a robust foreign policy, but questions remain.
“In GOP race,” proclaimed the New York Times’ headline writers, “foreign policy is mainly a footnote.” On Friday, the off-and-on frontrunner decided to prove the Gray Lady wrong.
Months before the first binding presidential vote, Mitt Romney declared his first war. His foe, like Tim Pawlenty’s before him, is “isolationism.”
The setting was a major address at The Citadel, located in the crucial early primary state of South Carolina, on the day Romney rolled out his foreign policy team. If this collection of advisers resembled George W. Bush’s, so did portions of the former Massachusetts governor’s American century speech resemble Bush’s second inaugural address.
“God did not create this country to be a nation of followers,” Romney declared. ”America is not destined to be one of several equally balanced global powers. America must lead the world, or someone else will.”
That someone else, Romney argued, is likely to have values less conducive to human freedom than the United States. He continued: “Without American leadership, without clarity of American purpose and resolve, the world becomes a far more dangerous place, and liberty and prosperity would surely be among the first casualties.”
Romney rejected any cuts in the Pentagon budget. Military spending, he said, must increase. He decried President Obama’s foreign policy as “feckless,” and took a thinly veiled shot at his less interventionist primary opponents. “This is America’s moment,” he said. “We should embrace the challenge, not shrink from it, not crawl into an isolationist shell, not wave the white flag of surrender, nor give in to those who assert America’s time has passed.”
“I will not surrender America’s role in the world. This is very simple: If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your president. You have that president today,” Romney said.
Hard to believe that this was the same Mitt Romney John McCain rebuked for seeming to equivocate about the surge during the 2008 campaign and appearing to want out of Afghanistan during this one. During his Citadel speech Romney called for a review of the Afghanistan war, which could result in either continuing or winding down the decade-long conflict.
Alone among the top-tier Republican presidential candidates last time around, Romney refused to answer questions about whether, in hindsight, invading Iraq was the correct decision. Last week, Romney told large swathes of Republican primary voters, as well as the party’s defense and foreign policy establishments, what they wanted to hear. But as continues to be the case with social issues, there will be those who ask if this is the real Mitt Romney.
There is no mistaking who Romney plans to take his foreign policy advice from. His 22-member team predictably drew heavily from top aides to the last Republican president: counterterrorism adviser Cofer Black, Dan Senor, spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority, Meghan O’Sullivan, former Bush deputy national security adviser on Iraq and Afghanistan, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and ex-CIA chief Michael Hayden, to name a few. Liberal hawk Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution praised it as a “strong and diverse team.”
By speaking firmly and presenting a collection of seasoned advisers, Romney reinforces a critique of Obama that resonates among swing voters as well as conservatives: that the president is green, indecisive, and uncomfortable with American power. It recalls Dick Cheney’s 2000 campaign refrain to U.S. servicemen: “Help is on the way.”
But weren’t there lessons, at least some of them chastening, to be learned from the kind of help the Bush administration provided? When they flirted with presidential bids, Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, and Chris Christie, all governors, seemed to think there were. Romney and Rick Perry, another governor, don’t seem to think so and they are actually running.
Other questions arise. If isolationism is on the upswing, why is the United States engaged in even more foreign wars than it was under Bush? How does one tell the American people we are broke when it comes to the entitlement programs polls show they still rather like but we have plenty of money to continue the foreign entanglements about which they have doubts?
The economist Herb Stein is often quoted as giving this simple explanation of the federal budget: figure out how much it will cost to defend the country, pay for it, and then see how much money is left for everything else. It’s wiser advice than elected officials have usually taken. Whether that entails perpetually accepting the price tag for what Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan once called “benevolent global hegemony” will be one of the great debates of this presidential election.
Mitt Romney has told us, provisionally at least, where he comes down on this question. He has also told us something else: the demise of George W. Bush’s foreign policy is greatly exaggerated.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (63) | Leave a comment
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/10/10/mitt-romneys-american-century
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Vast and the Tiny
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- Boys and Girls
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
kzat| 10.10.11 @ 6:22AM
I'm not a big fan of Romney - I don't really think he believes in anything, but I'd vote for him over Barry Soetoro in a heartbeat. I agree with slight increase in defense and NASA spending as opposed Barry's spending on ACORN and the like.
That said though, I think much will happen between now and Nov 2012 and others will still enter the race.
Jack in Wi.| 10.10.11 @ 7:26AM
When I see Romney's five sons down at the recruiting station signing up I will be a believer. Actually Romney is my favorite of the 3 stooges the elites have put up this campaign. Cain is a farce. Perry has imploded. That leaves Romney. He has flip flpped on everythign he ever said in his politicical life. A businessman like him may finally have to shut down the empire. Another warmonger Republican who also wants bailouts for his pals will be the final death kneel of the Republican party. Good riddence.
gsr| 10.10.11 @ 12:08PM
Jack, I assume you think Bush was a "war-monger"? Curious, the nation was attacked and you'd want our response to be what exactly? Islamic attacks began in the 1990's and slowly escalated in severity until 9/11/01.
You Paulbots need to grow up and stop smoking weed!!
obadiah| 10.10.11 @ 4:22PM
I'm not a paulbot. I would have preferred a response that met the attack of 9/11/01 rather than using that attack an excuse to monger an unnecessary war. That unnecessary war cost much too much for any longterm benefit gained.
Quartermaster| 10.10.11 @ 4:29PM
Pray tell, who have we declared war on? There are many of us old cold warriors that really would like to know when anyone is going to come up with a coherent strategy to fight whatever war we are supposed to be fighting. Terrorism is not something you declare war on.
Your ilk like to rip the "Paulbots' or "Paultards," yet nothing has actually been done to end the problem. Yes we've lashed out at a couple of targets that, perhaps, may even have needed lashing at, but there is still nothing coherent anout what is going on.
We send troops overseas looking for monsters to slay, but we aren't even guarding our own liberty as we have engaged in an "invade the world, invite the world" strategy and refuse to defend our own borders.
You can call me anything you like, and soemtimes you might even be right, but isolationist does not come close to fitting. Isolationist is just a smear similar to what the rest of the left engages when when they call some one a raaaaacist.
Yes, you are a leftist. We defend ourselves when attacked, but we have no need to go into the world as we have for the last 20 years looking for trouble. Eventually you'll find it, even when minding your own business.
And, Bush was a warmonger. As we have seen, he didn't defend the country as the invasion which began before him continued and even worsened. The nation building trash is going to come down around our ears in both Iraq and the AFG.
If you like calling the non-interventionist an isolationist, then expect to be called a warmonger. The difference is that warmonger is an accurate description of your ilk, and people like are willing to defend the country and when it comes to Liberty, "we are the guardian only of our own." The road you want to take leads to bankruptcy and defeat. Look at Great Britain and you will see where it leads. They were no longer able to afford their empire in 1945 because they had squandered their wealth in two utterly unnecessary wars. We are at the same point they reached in 1945, and there is no United States to come to our rescue and defend the free world.
Quartermaster| 10.10.11 @ 4:29PM
Pray tell, who have we declared war on? There are many of us old cold warriors that really would like to know when anyone is going to come up with a coherent strategy to fight whatever war we are supposed to be fighting. Terrorism is not something you declare war on.
Your ilk like to rip the "Paulbots' or "Paultards," yet nothing has actually been done to end the problem. Yes we've lashed out at a couple of targets that, perhaps, may even have needed lashing at, but there is still nothing coherent anout what is going on.
We send troops overseas looking for monsters to slay, but we aren't even guarding our own liberty as we have engaged in an "invade the world, invite the world" strategy and refuse to defend our own borders.
You can call me anything you like, and soemtimes you might even be right, but isolationist does not come close to fitting. Isolationist is just a smear similar to what the rest of the left engages when when they call some one a raaaaacist.
Yes, you are a leftist. We defend ourselves when attacked, but we have no need to go into the world as we have for the last 20 years looking for trouble. Eventually you'll find it, even when minding your own business.
And, Bush was a warmonger. As we have seen, he didn't defend the country as the invasion which began before him continued and even worsened. The nation building trash is going to come down around our ears in both Iraq and the AFG.
If you like calling the non-interventionist an isolationist, then expect to be called a warmonger. The difference is that warmonger is an accurate description of your ilk, and people like are willing to defend the country and when it comes to Liberty, "we are the guardian only of our own." The road you want to take leads to bankruptcy and defeat. Look at Great Britain and you will see where it leads. They were no longer able to afford their empire in 1945 because they had squandered their wealth in two utterly unnecessary wars. We are at the same point they reached in 1945, and there is no United States to come to our rescue and defend the free world.
John Daniel| 10.10.11 @ 6:48AM
What branch of the armed forces did Romney serve in? Have any of his sons served? Or is this yet another subject on which his rhetoric and reality part paths....
mames| 10.10.11 @ 10:53AM
PURE RINO - MCCAIN REDUX, the GOP is bankrupt. I could never vote for any of them except Cain.
Drunken Sailor| 10.10.11 @ 1:57PM
Last I checked that wasn't a pre-requisite for running for President. I like that in a canidate but not having served isn't a game changer. The only reason you bring that angle up is because only one of the canidates has served.
Al Adab| 10.10.11 @ 2:11PM
Romney inhabits a wing of the GOP to the left of McCain. All we need is to nominate an establishmentarian, Eastern accomodationist Republican. How many times have we followed them to defeat? Remember, the Rockefeller/Romney wing opposed the Conservative Movement from its inception.
Clint| 10.10.11 @ 4:49PM
Dr. Ron Paul served in the United States Air Force as a flight surgeon for several years (1963-1965). While in the air force, Paul reached the rank of Captain. Directly after his service in the air force, Paul worked again as a flight surgeon for the United States Air National Guard (1965-1968).
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
Drunken Sailor| 10.10.11 @ 4:59PM
That's great Clint. John baits the hook and you swallow it. Military service is a plus in a president, but not a pre-requisite. If it was we wouldn't have had Regan.
Jack in Wi.| 10.10.11 @ 11:05PM
Reagan served in the army for 10 years active and reserve.
Drunken Sailor| 10.11.11 @ 9:15AM
I stand corrected. It still isn't a pre-requisite and should not be a disqualifier.
Mike Hawk| 10.10.11 @ 9:04PM
Rick Perry was in the Air Force, flew C-130s, attained the rank of Captain and was an Aircraft Commander. His also attained the rank of Eagle Scout as a youth.
Al Adab| 10.10.11 @ 3:45PM
John Daniel:
Ask the same question about the current occupant of the White House, his predecessor and the one before that.
Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 4:23PM
He did not serve.
Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 4:26PM
However, Cain did serve the Navy as a civilian, at their request, rather than being drafteed. He is a superb mathematician:
CAIN: Lawrence, first of all, I wanted to clarify the record because I didn't want to be accused later of saying that I served in the Navy. And if you read the book closely, it says I worked for the Department of the Navy. Now, your choice of words to say, “How did I avoid the Vietnam War?” I wasn't trying to avoid the Vietnam War. Here's what happened, Lawrence. I was working in a critical area called exterior ballistics. I worked on something called the rocket-assisted projectile for the Department of the Navy. It was my local board in Atlanta, Georgia, that told me, we would rather for you to continue to do that analytical work to help the Navy rather than us drafting you. Secondly, when they had the lottery, I made myself available. The year that they had the lottery for the draft they did not draft me because they didn't get to my number. So I think that's a poor choice of words on your part, to say that I avoided the Vietnam War. I made myself available to my country, and they did not draft me. The rest of the time I was serving my country in a critical role called exterior ballistics analysis. So I am offended with your choice of words in terms of what I was doing during the Vietnam War.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/n.....z1aPdhDDy0"
aware| 10.10.11 @ 7:01AM
Neo con policy on steroids. America is leading all right, right over the cliff. Praise from the Brookings Institute ought to be all you need to know. So let's see, backed by the banking cartel, approved by the military/industrial complex, surrounded by the usual suspects of "professionals", and "lauded" by leftists for "balance".
No doubt your next president and may God have mercy on us.
Plus de choses changent, plus ils restent le même
Timothy L. Pennell| 10.10.11 @ 7:05AM
Look. He can't win. I really believe that. They will go after his Religion, like it was a painted over N-Word, on a Rock, somewhere in Texas. The people who railed against the RELIGIOUS TEST, when John Kennedy ran, in 1960, will go after Mormonism, RELENTLESSLY. That's how they operate. They DO, what they blame the 'Other Side' of WANTING to do. And, of course, their thumb suckers, in the Media, will be more than happy, to help them along.
Then, there's the whole: Romney Care, thingy. He can say what he wants. But, he can put all the perfume he wants, on that Turd. It's always gonna be a Turd. And, the fact that he STILL defends it, is a HUGE Problem, in itself.
You throw in his Global Warming CRAP, and you've got yourself one Dead Duck.
Any questions?
Mimi| 10.10.11 @ 8:07AM
Tim...NOPE !...no questions
Just to put in my 2 cents on..10/10/11 in the MIX
The real deal ...is starting to look like NEWT !
I know, I know but see Andrew Mc Carthy's article on NRO....gives an historical and the big picture of NEWT'S plans. More in depth than anybodies!
His contract vows to not only stop the LEFTS gains but annhilate them!
I know Newts no where being a CHOIR-BOY type, but we have no need for singing NOW...We need the best LEADER, That has a clue what this dreadful bunch is doing to the country....LIBERTY ?/down....PROSPERITY..? /Down....He's surly telling it like it is and has a PLAN.
I'm still sorting them all out...But on this day...I'm seeing a turn toward NEWT!!!!!
PJ| 10.10.11 @ 1:58PM
1 thing going for Gringrich over Cain is he intimately knows the dirt in DC. Will he be able to rise above it? I think he can.
C Smith| 10.10.11 @ 2:05PM
Newt? The guy who visited his wife in the hospital as she was recovering from cancer surgery to discuss divorce? Wanted to marry the woman he was currently "bedding." This lasted until Newt and Bill found something in common, interns and staffers decades their junior. May America's deliverance arise from another place!
For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife. For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her. And when he would have put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet. But when Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod. Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask. And she, being before instructed of her mother, said,Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger (Matthew 14:3-8).
http://popularapostasy.blogspo.....erica.html
PJ| 10.10.11 @ 4:54PM
What's the matter? You don't believe in forgiveness! I don't know if he made things right w/the ex & neither do you. I do know 1 thing; Gingrich would not be allowed to enter in the Catholic Church until he received the annulments which includes in his case examining mental maturity & stability before & after the prior marriages.)
Every politician has dirt in the closet & I'm looking for the 1 who can best lead the country given their human frailties.
mames| 10.10.11 @ 10:56AM
The Mormans ARE a sick cult and Romney proves his proclivity for a good cult movement with his support of global warming.
C Smith| 10.10.11 @ 2:02PM
SATURDAY, JANUARY 19, 2008
Tar and Feathers
“Rigdon… made a new translation of the Bible, in which prophecies of the coming of Joseph Smith and the nature of The Book of Mormon are inserted in the 50th chapter of Genesis and the 20th chapter of Isaiah respectively…. the church was “persecuted”… on the 25th of March 1832 Smith and Rigdon were tarred and feathered at Hiram….In 1836 the Kirtland Safety Society Bank was organized (in accordance with a “revelation” to Smith)…. In March 1837 Rigdon and Smith, the secretary and treasurer, were charged with violating the state law against unchartered banks, and they were convicted in October…. In November the “bank” suspended payments and… Smith and Rigdon left the state for Missouri…. [After a] determined attempt to depose Smith… there was organized… a band… bound to secrecy under penalty of death, and formed to punish all who opposed the Church and its supreme head. Numerous crimes and outrages were attributed to them…. On the 4th of July 1838 Rigdon preached his “salt sermon” … urging his hearers to wage “a war of extermination” on those who disturbed them…. and necessitated the calling out of the state militia…. Smith and Rigdon with others were arrested and imprisoned on a charge of treason, murder, and felony… In 1842 Smith was charged with instigating and attempt… to assassinate ex-Governor L. W. Boggs of Missouri…. There seems to have been no secret about Smith’s cohabiting with other women…. he had a revelation expressly establishing and approving polygamy.” (The Encyclopedia Britannica, Thirteenth Edition, London, vol. 18, pp. 843-844, 1926)
http://popularapostasy.blogspo.....thers.html
v
martin j smith| 10.10.11 @ 7:47AM
Romney is my last tier candidate because I do not trust him for almost anything. OK. I will show preference for an OUSIDER.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 10.10.11 @ 8:09AM
Gosh. Yet another garbage "article" by Jim Antle on foreign policy and defense issues. Like previous ones, it's completely worthless and utterly discredits its author, revealing that he is as ignorant about foreign policy as he is about the Constitution.
I'm ill, so I will not reply to every ridiculous argument in this screed, and will reply to just a few, and briefly so:
1) "If isolationism is on the upswing, why is the United States engaged in even more foreign wars than it was under Bush?"
I'm not sure if it is. I believe it remains a fringe opinion, even though Ron Paul has won a few straw polls recently and is now third or fourth in the latest primary polls. But the claim that "we are in more wars than under President Bush" is a lie. The Iraqi war is almost over, the Libyan intervention is de facto over, and only the Afghan war is still going on. All three of them will be over by 2014 regardless of who wins the 2012 election.
2) "How does one tell the American people we are broke when it comes to the entitlement programs polls show they still rather like but we have plenty of money to continue the foreign entanglements about which they have doubts?"
The entire military budget constitutes less than 19% of the total federal budget and a paltry 4.4% of GDP. The core defense budget constitutes less than 15% of the TFB and a microscopic 3.49% of GDP, its smallest share of GNP since before WW2 if the late Clinton years are excluded. Moreover, as the Heritage Foundation has proven, one could eliminate military spending entirely and there would've still been a huge budget deficit every year, that would be growing year after year, and with it, the public debt. Defense spending is NOT the cause of America's fiscal woes. That is a FACT. Furthermore, a Gallup poll from a few months ago indicates that most Americans oppose defense spending cuts, and a more recent Gallup poll says that only 22% of Tea Partiers and only 27% of Republicans support defense cuts. Regardless of this, the US is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. This country is not ruled by whatever masses want. This country is ruled by what the Constitution says. And the Constitution makes it clear that defense is a DUTY of the federal government, while entitlements are unconstitutional.
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-co.....m-600.jpeg
3) "The economist Herb Stein is often quoted as giving this simple explanation of the federal budget: figure out how much it will cost to defend the country, pay for it, and then see how much money is left for everything else."
I actually agree with that. But this is not how defense spending levels were being determined during the last 22 years. Instead of funding defense fully, politicians have been cutting defense incessantly (with the exception of Dubya) and arbitrarily to pay for their bloated domestic programs they depend for reelection on and the deficits caused by these programs. Under President Obama, as under Presidents Bush I and Clinton, defense spending has been constantly cut arbitrarily to fit budgetary limitations, while domestic programs have not been subject to any limitations. America's defense needs are BIG. That is a fact. Funding defense adequately will always require a budget of the current size, i.e. at least 3.49%-4% of GDP. Remember that there is a huge 9.6 mn sq km country to defend with, along with 308 mn citizens and the world's sealanes upon which the US merchant fleet depends. There is a military of 2 mn people to salary and feed, and worn out, old, obsolete weapons from the 1970s and the 1980s (and many from the 1960s) to replace. There are also health programs to pay for. Even assuming that the US won't defend any of its allies and won't intervene abroad, it will take about 3.5% of GDP at minimum to defend America. Defense on the cheap is not possible.
4) "Whether that entails perpetually accepting the price tag for what Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan once called "benevolent global hegemony" will be one of the great debates of this presidential election."
Myself, I don't care about global hegemony, I care about America's security.
5) Antle mentioned several people from the Bush Admin who advise Romney (probably to tar Romney), but he omitted to mention all other advisors. Most of them are not Bush Admin officials, and the largest group among them are Heritage Foundation analysts: Ray Walser, Kim Holmes, Nile Gardiner, and one more person whose name I don't remember now. There's also former PACFLT Commander ADM James Lyons and former SECNAV John Lehman, who seems to be the #1 candidate for Secretary of Defense in a Romney Administration. If Lehman becomes SECDEF, you can bet that he will dramatically slash DOD bureaucracies, eliminate wasteful spending, and end the stupid Littoral Combat Ship program.
Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 4:08PM
Can't argue with the Zbig.
I'm a huge fan of not giving a shit about enemy civilians in combat. Lowers the costs considerably when you do that.
obadiah| 10.10.11 @ 4:32PM
According to http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm, current military expenditures make up 36% of the federal budget and costs from previous wars runs an additional 16% more. probably you like your figures better. I suspect someone truly "fair and balanced" (dropped from the heavens perhaps) would find something in between.
Red Phillips | 10.10.11 @ 4:42PM
Zbig, you have an unhealthy obsession with Antle that is rivaled only by your unhealthy obsession with Ron Paul.
The percent of the total budget and GDP we spend on defense is irrelevant, but it is telling that you think 19% and 4.4% respectively is “paltry” given that they are percentages of VERY large numbers. What is meaningful is how much we spend in total dollars and how that compares with the rest of the world, esp. our alleged enemies. America spends half +/- (the exact figures are tricky) of what the entire world spends on military expenditures. This is absurd on its face. It is self-evidently excessive. Such profligacy could only be defended by a foolish ideologue and/or a shill.
You say you don't care about global hegemony, only American security. BS! Such expenditures can only conceivably be defended in pursuit of global designs not security which could be had at a fraction of the cost.
Rick V.| 10.10.11 @ 8:11AM
I like Herb Stein's simple yet eloquest recommendation: "Figure out how much it will cost to defend the country, pay for it, and then see how much money is left for everything else." I'll never forget one of my favorite Poly-Sci college professors who, on the first day of his course, held up a dollar bill to the class. He asked, "Does anybody know what this is?" Sensing a trick question, I held my tongue. Another, more adventurous, student replied, "It's a dollar bill." "That's right," the professor answered. "And you can only spend it once. Now let's look at the way American public policy is actually set by American politicians."
Politicians are not like the rest of us. They want to "lead" by spending other people's money; you know, the income that employed people must work to earn. Frankly I haven't heard anything from any Republican presidential candidate that really resonates with me, let alone my wallet.
Herman Cain comes the closest, because he has actually employed people and maximized their potential for their own benefit as well as that of his company.
I hope I'm not left with a choice between Romney and Obama. The Republican party left me with a similar choice 3 years ago - their nominee was John McCain.
PolishKnight| 10.10.11 @ 12:17PM
And history may repeat itself...
Al Adab| 10.10.11 @ 3:41PM
Romney is to the left of McCain. Now how is that an improvement? How often must we follow this wing of the GOP to defeat before we learn?
Rick V.| 10.10.11 @ 4:21PM
PK - Never underestimate the Republican Party's skill at undermining themselves, let alone all conservatives.
Bob K.| 10.10.11 @ 10:51PM
Herb Stein was Ben Stein's father. He was a quintessential Washington insider and he labored in Washington DC to do good and he did very well indeed! Ben now writes for this publication telling us how happy he is to live the life style his father made possible.
Clint| 10.10.11 @ 8:37AM
Wall Street & The Ruling Elite are setting us up for their frontman, Mittens Romney.
Follow The Campaign Money Trail.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
VonMisesJr| 10.10.11 @ 9:53AM
Dan Marino got mocked yesterday on the pre-game show because he put a disclaimer in every statement and pick. This is pretty much what Romney sounds like to me.
We will review the wars, and maybe we will wind down, or maybe not. We will cut spending, but not touch entitlements. Medicare is going bankrupt but health coverage will be unaffected.
Good grief. Didn't we just go through this three years ago?
Chuck| 10.10.11 @ 9:58AM
Romney's war is with Americans, an uncivil war in the GOP between him and social conservatives. Mormonism is a cult and evangelicals know it. Romney supports big government and the Tea Party knows it. What a Romney presidency is really about is the preservation of Roe v. Wade hence the appointment of liberal federal judges that in no way shape or form will ever overturn that disastrous 1973 Supreme Court ruling.
obadiah| 10.10.11 @ 4:41PM
but, but, but I just heard Romney say that he would get rid of Roe v. Wade. That ought to satisfy you.
Gold BC| 10.10.11 @ 5:40PM
Whatever Romney says believe the opposite and that goes for every leftist. Therefore Chuck is right.
Dimitri Aleksandrovich| 10.10.11 @ 10:20AM
Hail Romney! With you as our leader we will succeed where our Great Caesar failed!
What a bunch of neo-conservative garbage. His speech should have been that we need to make the world safe for Exxon, Halliburton and Coca Cola. The world doesn't need us and we don't need the rest of the world. God blessed us with a land abundant in resources and we should make good use of it. We are a Constitutional Republic not an Empire and we should act as such.
Al Adab| 10.10.11 @ 3:43PM
Da, Dimitri:
Romney isn't even a neo-con. He is a corporatist to the left of even McCain and we know how well that worked out.
Spasiba
Stefan Stackhouse| 10.10.11 @ 10:25AM
Mitt hasn't sealed the deal with me yet. I'm starting to warm up just a little bit toward him, but there is still a long way to go. I will give him credit for seeing that our Navy needs to be built up rather than cut, and that was a good plus in his favor.
martin j smith| 10.10.11 @ 10:27AM
I think Perry and Romney will knock each other out.
Bill S| 10.10.11 @ 10:31AM
Romney shouldn't even be a Republican: pro-choice, publicly acknowledged global warming, and inflicted Romneycare on Massachusetts. He's Obama-lite.
Dave Williams| 10.10.11 @ 12:33PM
Cult...mainstream religion...NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER, except in the number of adherents. Twain said it best: "Faith is believing in things that ain't so."
Over to you, true believers....prove (PROVE!) him and me wrong...
Proud Mormon| 10.10.11 @ 1:49PM
It's Romney time. Mitt will vanquish all foes including the Republican Right/Tea Party and the Democratic Left/Anti-Wall St. Mitt will succeed where his father failed and become our first Mormon president. Accept it you right-wingers on this blog.
Drunken Sailor| 10.10.11 @ 1:59PM
What you say may come to pass, but rest assured we won't vote for him based only on his religion, which it appears is all you care about.
PJ| 10.10.11 @ 2:02PM
Sorry babe. I will not accept another statist, Mormon or otherwise.
Al Adab| 10.10.11 @ 2:14PM
Thank you for so clearly making the case AGAINST Romney. We Conservatives have followed the Eastern GOP to defeat too many times to follow again. Your desire to rid the GOP of Conservatives, who brought the GOP its only successes over the last 50 years, demonstrates plainly why Mitt ain't it.
SCPOret| 10.10.11 @ 1:57PM
If you loved Bush and Obama, then Romney is your cup of tea. Obama-Lite!
The GOP elites love him and they will do everything they can to shove him down our throats like he shoved Romneycare down MA throats, and Obama shoved Obamacare down the rest of the US throats.
If i want the real liberal I might as well Vote Obama.
Simon Templar| 10.10.11 @ 6:28PM
But I do not want a real socialist democrat anymore in the WH. I would rather have the progressive Reublican who at least likes the nation he leads and just might do something useful once in a while. So, stop the crazy talk, and if you want someone else then work hard and join their campaign to get them elected.
C Smith| 10.10.11 @ 2:00PM
SATURDAY, JANUARY 19, 2008
Tar and Feathers
“Rigdon… made a new translation of the Bible, in which prophecies of the coming of Joseph Smith and the nature of The Book of Mormon are inserted in the 50th chapter of Genesis and the 20th chapter of Isaiah respectively…. the church was “persecuted”… on the 25th of March 1832 Smith and Rigdon were tarred and feathered at Hiram….In 1836 the Kirtland Safety Society Bank was organized (in accordance with a “revelation” to Smith)…. In March 1837 Rigdon and Smith, the secretary and treasurer, were charged with violating the state law against unchartered banks, and they were convicted in October…. In November the “bank” suspended payments and… Smith and Rigdon left the state for Missouri…. [After a] determined attempt to depose Smith… there was organized… a band… bound to secrecy under penalty of death, and formed to punish all who opposed the Church and its supreme head. Numerous crimes and outrages were attributed to them…. On the 4th of July 1838 Rigdon preached his “salt sermon” … urging his hearers to wage “a war of extermination” on those who disturbed them…. and necessitated the calling out of the state militia…. Smith and Rigdon with others were arrested and imprisoned on a charge of treason, murder, and felony… In 1842 Smith was charged with instigating and attempt… to assassinate ex-Governor L. W. Boggs of Missouri…. There seems to have been no secret about Smith’s cohabiting with other women…. he had a revelation expressly establishing and approving polygamy.” (The Encyclopedia Britannica, Thirteenth Edition, London, vol. 18, pp. 843-844, 1926)
http://popularapostasy.blogspo.....thers.html
thecrow | 10.10.11 @ 2:45PM
http://michaelfury.wordpress.c.....portunity/
Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 4:14PM
I have some problems with some of Mitt's positions, but not on kicking Iranian ass. They need a nuking for 1979 and thereafter.
John3| 10.10.11 @ 6:28PM
This makes a lot of sense to nuke Iran, kill millions of civilians, and start a nuclear war. It is such a great idea you should lobby Congress to declare war on Iran, and any other country you don't like, so you can nuke them. If it's such a great idea how come your favorite country, Israel, doesn't do it. Are you sure you are the shrink and not one of the patients there.
Proud Mormon| 10.10.11 @ 5:43PM
Tea Party drop your opposition to Romney he's going to win the nomination. Do something useful for a change and help the Republicans win the senate and giving the GOP a complete sweep in '12.
Simon Templar| 10.10.11 @ 6:25PM
You are an ass and no better than the blacks who voted for Obama because he was black. Everytime you open your mouth here, so to speak, you convince the rest of us that he is not and should not be nominated. Most of us are willing to vote for a soda can. You are doing a diservice to Romney. Why don't you do something useful and shut up.
bluecollarbytes| 10.10.11 @ 10:18PM
Romney for sec of state.
POST American| 10.11.11 @ 9:17AM
-----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE-------------------
When the '90's Show' fail to do the trick,
bring on ---the '80's Show'.
Meanwhile, Globalisation and 'AWE-stare-IT-he'
agendas surge forward.
(always remembering---we're the 'ITs')
Meanwhile, the very word TREASON is all
but deleted from the lexicon ---and USURY
is considered the unanswerable FINAL word
on 'wisdom' ---truth ---and, in fact, your very own soul.
Meanwhile, the FUKISHIMA fallout and
CHEM-trails, that DON'T exist, fill our skies.
Meanwhile, RED China's just the new 'Red State'
SO----------Keep a goin' kiddies! --Keep a goin'
---------Nachos n' wampum n' MBA's
------------Just keep a goin'...
thecrow | 10.11.11 @ 11:42AM
But aren't we still in the early years of the "New American Century"?
http://michaelfury.wordpress.c.....-disorder/
JOHN CHUCKMAN| 10.13.11 @ 10:50AM
Readers may enjoy on this topic:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zJIE.....ERICAN.jpg