Mitt Romney’s Many Faces

 

Mitt Romney’s Many Faces

When RedState editor Erick Erickson announced he was “done” the “Multiple Choice Mitt,” it set off a heavy discussion around the blogosphere about Mitt’s viability. I particularly like Ruth Marcus’ take in the Washington Post:

Listening to Romney that day was like watching a chameleon in the fleeting moment that its color changes to suit its environment.

These skeptics are not alone, and the buildup to this opposition has been a long time running. As recently as his 2002 campaign for governor, Romney advocated a strong pro-choice stance. Then came the discovery of this video, highlighting the liberal positions Romney took in his 1994 Senate race.Although abortion is likely the most controversial leftist position Romney has reconsidered, it is by no means the only one. He has changed his position on gays in the military, supporting the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy after opposing it during the 90’s. Romney also supported a federal gas tax hike and opposed Bush’s tax cuts as late as 2003. Perhaps the most egregious sin in the eyes of some conservatives was the revelation that Romney voted for Democrat Paul Tsongas in the 1992 Massachusetts primary and then changed his story on why he did it.

Most of this probably comes as little surprise to pundits familiar with Massachusetts politics. But to most of the country this only reinforces an already skeptical view of the man. As this Gallup poll reveals, not a lot of people have heard of him, but the more they hear, the more his unfavorables rise. The GOP can do better.

Related ITA entries:

“Make Room for Mitt?” by D. Darlington
“Romney’s Pro-Life Rumblings” by S. Zirkle

 

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at February 22, 2007 09:27 AM

Advertisements

Democrats Still Playing Games With Critical Issues

Democrats Still Playing Games With Critical Issues




by Christopher Adamo

 

America has just witnessed another amazing episode of hypocrisy from the left, specifically, the recent controversy over former Vice-President Al Gore’s extravagant usage of a private jet. But while breathtaking, given his status as supposed high priest of environmental awareness, Gore’s behavior is also entirely typical. As such, it is illustrative of the real arrogance and indifference driving American liberals.

 

Issues of the day are never determined as a result of the concerns and needs of the citizens, but rather by their ability to be utilized to further accrue prestige (and thus, power) to the political left. Within this framework, amazing “about faces” regularly occur. And some of them vastly eclipse former presidential candidate John Kerry’s schizophrenic proclamation of “I actually voted for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it.”

 

On occasion, certain Democrats such as Hillary Clinton have strayed too far off of the liberal reservation, at which point they are taken to task for their duplicity. Since declaring her intentions to run for President, Clinton has had to perform an impressive political tap-dance away from her previously staunch support for the Iraq war.

 

Conservative leaders correctly characterize the Democrat Party as having a vested interest in securing defeat in Iraq. Consequently, any postures by Clinton that might appear to support America and thereby jeopardize the desired outcome, run counter to the current leftist orthodoxy and cannot be tolerated.
 

More often than not however, ideologues of the political left are content to ignore the glaring inconsistencies among their members, since they know that the “mainstream” media will never point such contradictions out to the general public. A few sterling examples of recent weeks, when considered in conjunction with the virtual media blackout in response to them, prove this point.

 

It is striking that, at the same time Gore’s fossil fuel squandering escapades are coming to light (at least among the “alternative media” and conservative circles), Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has brazenly voiced a demand for the Defense Department to provide her a Boeing 757, essentially for her personal use.

 

Her pretext for insisting on such lavish arrangements is that she needs to be able to travel coast-to-coast without stopping to refuel. Yet past speakers managed to scrape by with a commuter class Gulfstream jet, which is fully capable of making the non-stop trips to Pelosi’s home district in California, rendering her excuse to be wholly without merit.

 

So, where are the sincere liberal environmentalists (an oxymoron to be sure) who should be decrying Pelosi’s excesses along with Gore’s, as they callously risk the very future of the planet? Their cause being deemed so noble and worthy, Gore and Pelosi get a “pass,” as is invariably the case among liberal icons.

 

No doubt the eco-Nazis will rediscover the extremes of environmental harm from jets, both commercial and private class, on the very day a Republican again becomes House Speaker. In the meantime, they are no more likely to take issue with Pelosi than they were with Clinton Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary and her massive celebrity-cruise style “fact finding” junkets.

 

No less of an outrage is apparent in the words of “decorated war hero” (now also a distinguished “hero” of Al Qaeda) John Murtha. Both in regards to the Pelosi jet controversy and his efforts to thwart those who want to secure the country from future terrorist attacks, Murtha has again displayed his true loyalties. And they clearly lie with the liberal cause, at the expense of the rest of the country.

 

Murtha took the occasion of Pelosi’s jet tantrum to level a threat against the Pentagon, warning that defense funds would be cut unless the Speaker’s self-serving stipulation is met. It is grimly telling that, in Murtha’s mind, military expenditures are entirely flexible, based not on the defense needs of the country, but instead on whether or not his cronies are properly indulged.

 

The needs of the troops, so loudly proclaimed by the left when those troops were supposedly being denied battle armor, are now entirely negotiable. Of course the body-armor controversy was never about the troops either. It merely served as an excuse to attack then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

 

Not surprisingly, Murtha’s treachery against the military goes even further still. He has been caught on video, gloating that he will logistically starve our troops by denying supplies and reinforcements, ultimately forcing an American retreat from Iraq. Any war strategist knows the importance of cutting an enemy’s supply lines. Murtha is accomplishing nothing less than a rout on behalf of the terrorists.

 

Thus Murtha dispels any lingering doubts as to whose side he has taken in the terror war. Yet according to Murtha and his comrades, we should be much more concerned over the “national security threat” ostensibly resulting from the squabble between old-media hack Tim Russert and former Cheney Chief of Staff Scooter Libby.

 

“Global warming” scares are proving to be nothing more than the normal cyclical patterns of weather combined with the standard selective liberal alarmism. In stark contrast, the terror threat is real. Its horrific scope was made known to us once already. If we have not learned the necessary lessons of that event, we will be shown again.

 

Meanwhile, Democrats play ghoulish games with this and every other potentially volatile situation in hopes of reaping political gains from them.

 

Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming. He has been active in local and state politics for many years. His contact information and archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

Syria’s unprecedented arms build up

Catholic Church lobbies for open borders

U.S. troops find large amounts of chemicals in car bomb factory raid

U.S. troops find large amounts of chemicals in car bomb factory raid

Chemical Jihad Update. “U.S. troops find chemicals in Iraq raid,” from AP:

BAGHDAD, Iraq – U.S. troops raided a car bomb factory west of Baghdad with five buildings full of propane tanks and ordinary chemicals the military believes were to be used in bombs, a spokesman said Thursday, a day after insurgents blew up a truck carrying chlorine gas canisters.

Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said the chlorine attack Wednesday — the second such “dirty” chemical attack in two days — signaled a change in insurgent tactics, and the military was fighting back with targeted raids.

“What we are seeing is a change in the tactics, but their strategy has not changed. And that’s to create high-profile attacks to instill fear and division amongst the Iraqi people,” he told CNN. “It’s a real crude attempt to raise the terror level by taking and mixing ordinary chemicals with explosive devices, trying to instill that fear within the Iraqi people.”

But he suggested the strategy was backfiring by turning public opinion against the insurgents, saying the number of tips provided by Iraqis had doubled in the last six months.

One of those tips led U.S. troops to a five separate buildings near Fallujah, where they found the munitions containing chemicals, three vehicle bombs being assembled, including a truck bomb, about 65 propane tanks and “all kinds of ordinary chemicals,” Caldwell said. He added that he believed the insurgents were going to try to mix the chemicals with explosives.

“Ordinary,” perhaps, but there are many such chemicals that weren’t meant to be burnt or inhaled, not to mention the myriad unsafe combinations of otherwise generally harmless substances that could increase the body count, as well as the level of panic, that a car bomb can cause.

Reports on Iran’s Nuclear Progress

Reports on Iran’s Nuclear Progress

Recently, the Iranian media have been citing Western sources on accelerated Iranian nuclear activity. It should be stressed that so far, the Iranian regime has neither denied nor confirmed any of these reports.

The Nine Tons of UF6 Gas Brought to Natanz Could Be Used for One Atom Bomb

On February 20, 2007, the conservative Iranian news agency Aftab said, in a report attributed to Western sources, that Iran had “at the beginning of the month transferred a container of nine tons of UF6 gas to the nuclear facilities at Natanz. If they wanted to, the Iranians could [now], using this gas, operate a number of centrifuges… If these nine tons of UF6 in this container undergo an enrichment process, it will be possible to produce from them a single atom bomb.” [1]

On February 20, 2007, the ISNA news agency reported that diplomatic sources in Vienna had told it that “in early February 2007, Iran had transferred nine tons of UF6 from the nuclear facilities in Isfahan to the subterranean nuclear facilities at Natanz, in which centrifuge installation began last month.” [2]

On February 22, 2007, the reformist online daily Rooz wrote that this was the joyous news that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had intended to present at nuclear celebrations following the “Ten Days of Fajr” in early February.

Kayhan: With “One More Step in its Nuclear Program,” Iran “Will Force the World to Treat it As It [i.e. Iran] Wants”

Since early February, a number of reports have appeared in the Iranian media that could hint at this accelerated nuclear activity. In a February 4, 2007 editorial, the Iranian daily Kayhan, which is close to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, stated that Iran’s nuclearization was a fait accompli, and that the West had no choice but to live with a nuclear Iran: “After a period of relative calm, Iran’s nuclear dossier is facing important changes [which] will rapidly change the fate of many issues, and could end in very important results that are different from the past. Iran is about to move ahead one more step in its nuclear program… [which] will force the world to look at Iran in a completely different way and to treat it as it [i.e. Iran] wants…

“The [U.N.] Security Council has asked Iran to suspend all activity connected to enrichment, but the Iranian engineers at the Natanz subterranean [nuclear facilities] are preparing the advanced steps for installing 3,000 centrifuges. [With this], regardless of the West’s reaction to it, in another few months [Iran’s nuclear program] will finally be crowned with success…

“Iran will impose its aspiration to nuclearize on those Westerners [who want to keep nuclear programs for themselves alone]. In fact, if the Westerners think a little logically, and open their eyes, they will see that ultimately, they can do nothing, and that the nuclear Iran has already broken forth… Not a single Western commentator believes that a military attack can completely stop Iran’s nuclear program… The only thing that would come after [such an attack] would be Tehran’s continuation of its [nuclear] program, with greater impetus… The West has no choice [but] to think about life alongside a nuclear Iran…” [3]

“A Nuclear Iran… Is a Fact… That Others Must Accept In Order to Safeguard Their Legitimate Interests”

In a February 5, 2007 article, the weekly Sobh-e Sadeq, which is the mouthpiece of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei circulated among the Revolutionary Guards, Revolutionary Guards Political Bureau director General Yadollah Javani spoke of Iran’s continued nuclear progress: “…Despite the Americans’ imagined success in sending [Iran’s nuclear] dossier back to the Security Council and in passing Resolutions No. 1696 and 1737, the ineffectuality of the passage of this resolution becomes clearer by the day, in light of Iran’s opposition and its continued nuclear activity… Thus, nuclear Iran, strong and influential among the countries of the region… is a fact and a living truth which others must accept in order to safeguard their legitimate interests.” [4]


[1] Aftab, Iran, February 20, 2007.

[2] ISNA, Iran, February 20, 2007.

[3] Kayhan (Iran), February 4, 2007.

[4] Sobh-e Sadeq (Iran), February 5, 2007.

Left vs right

Left vs right

 One day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut. After the cut he
 asked about his bill and the barber replies: “I’m sorry, I cannot
 accept money from you; I’m doing community service this week”. The
 florist is pleased and leaves the shop.
 Next morning when the barber goes to open there is a thank you card
 and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.

 Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his
 bill the barber again replies: “I’m sorry, I cannot accept money
 from you; I’m doing community service this week.” The cop is happy
 and leaves the shop.
 Next morning when the barber goes to open up there is a thank you
 card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.

 Later a Republican comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay
 his bill the barber again replies: “I’m sorry, I cannot take money
 from you; I’m doing community service this week.” The Republican is
 very happy and leaves the shop.
 Next morning when the barber goes to open, there is a thank you card
 and a dozen different books such as “How to Improve Your Business”
 and “Becoming More Successful.”

 Then a Democrat comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his
 Bill the barber again replies: “I’m sorry, I cannot accept money
 from you; I’m doing community service this week.” The Democrat is
 very happy and leaves the shop.
 The next morning when the barber goes to open up, there are a dozen
 Democrats lined up waiting for a free haircut.

 And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between
 left and right.
 God Bless America!