Romney

[Jacob]

Wait- how did this become my thread on the stimulus? This started when several on here made the false claim that the stimulus definitively failed. All I've done is point out why that's obviously not true. Given that people are now arguing whether we can prove it worked, I'd say most here have finally conceded that point so I'm happy to leave it be.

You are obviously wrong. And no, we haven't.

[Jacob]

Article confirms what I long believed: Romney was always pro-life and only pretended to be pro-choice to win in Massachusetts. I have no problem with that. In fact, most of his promises were merely that he wouldn't change current law. He never campaigned for going more toward abortion rights. He was personally pro life. But this bit is interesting.

Gathering in the Church Administration Building, Romney, in Scott's words, "laid out for church leaders ... what his public position would be on abortion -- personally opposed but willing to let others decide for themselves."

By Scott's account, Romney wasn't seeking approval or permission; he was telling the officials what he was going to do. Scott quotes a "senior church leader" saying Romney "didn't ask what his position should be, nor did he ask the brethren to endorse his posittion.

According to Scott, some of the leaders were unhappy with Romney's plan and let him know it. "I may not have burned bridges, but a few of them were singed and smoking," Romney told Scott in a phone conversation.

In Scott's account, Romney displayed plenty of independence from church influence. But why did he feel the need to brief church leaders in the first place?

[RobinFinderson]

You are obviously wrong. And no, we haven't.

Jacob, your assessment of the stimulus as a 'failure' based on the administration's hopeful projections reminds me of my mission, when we would set high goals for baptisms and discussions. Maybe we would try to get five baptisms in a zone one month, and we would only end up with three. Is that really a failure?

Likewise, when someone like Krugman says that the stimulus would have been more effective if it had been bigger, that is an assessment of the bang:buck ratio, and not a judgment of the stimulus as whole. Krugman is saying that the stimulus failed to maximize bang for buck. He is not saying that the nation would have been better off without the stimulus.

And Jacob, I probably share your view of the stimulus. I wish it never happened. I wanted to see the whole financial industry collapse, and build itself up again from zero. I wanted to see the decimation of old money, tied up in financial shell games. I wanted Goldman to get Lehmaned in the buttocks. I wanted there to be serious accountability, even if that meant the destruction of pension funds and 401k's. I wanted the whole house of cards to come falling down, because I think that I have the right skills to thrive in the aftermath of such an armageddon. But I had no such luck, thanks in part to the stupid stimulus. Was it a failure? By some measures, sure, but it certainly didn't fail to destroy my dreams.

[Viking]

Wrong Thread!!!

[RobinFinderson]

Wrong Thread!!!

Thread Nazi.

[oxcoug]

Article confirms what I long believed: Romney was always pro-life and only pretended to be pro-choice to win in Massachusetts. I have no problem with that. In fact, most of his promises were merely that he wouldn't change current law. He never campaigned for going more toward abortion rights. He was personally pro life. But this bit is interesting.

Yeah - he was my bro's stake prez when he first made the choice to run and was apparently pulling some people aside to explain to them that whatever his public position on permitting choice he was personally opposed to abortion...

I don't actually think the position is as inconsistent as some people do.

[Jacob]

And Jacob, I probably share your view of the stimulus. I wish it never happened. I wanted to see the whole financial industry collapse, and build itself up again from zero. I wanted to see the decimation of old money, tied up in financial shell games. I wanted Goldman to get Lehmaned in the buttocks. I wanted there to be serious accountability, even if that meant the destruction of pension funds and 401k's. I wanted the whole house of cards to come falling down, because I think that I have the right skills to thrive in the aftermath of such an armageddon. But I had no such luck, thanks in part to the stupid stimulus. Was it a failure? By some measures, sure, but it certainly didn't fail to destroy my dreams.

I don't know how to respond to some of that, so lets just end on a high note and agree as to most of your last paragraph. Bring the House down!

[Pelado]

Yeah - he was my bro's stake prez when he first made the choice to run and was apparently pulling some people aside to explain to them that whatever his public position on permitting choice he was personally opposed to abortion...

I don't actually think the position is as inconsistent as some people do.

I agree. He's always been pro-life, but didn't believe he could win in Mass with a pro-life stance. It doesn't bother me that much, especially since I don't ever expect (or necessarily want) to see Roe v. Wade overturned. The only value I see right now in a pro-life politician is preventing federal funding of abortion.

[Viking]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/11-end...11-year-trends

This gets to my super cycle theory (well, not just mine).

In markets, the second derivative is usually all that matters in the short run, perhapsnthe medium run. To the extent these awful trends ameliorate, implying a second derivative improvement, Americans will feel better and be more likely to credit obamarama with getting the economy moving in the right direction...finally. The second derivative will be the only thing that matters in the 2012 election and I think it's going obama's way

[il Padrino Ute]

So, Romney said what was needed to get elected as Governor of Mass.? IOW, he did what every other politician has done to get elected.

[Indy Coug]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...asnt_cool.html

[LA Ute]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...asnt_cool.html

Good piece.

Yes but "he's a Mormon -- he's in a cult," another spat, echoing at least one Baptist leader who urged evangelical Christians not to vote for Romney "because he's a Mormon[.]" Ah, but doing and being make for worship in a way that words and song only begin to express, which makes Mitt Romney as evangelical in walk as Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann. Which means this: Evangelicals have three dogs in this hunt. And Mitt, because of his experience and integrity and faith, his potential to lift a nation economically and emotionally reeling from a Democrat-led descent into the leftist swamps -- well, that dog'll hunt!

Mitt Romney, like Perry and Bachmann, lives and breathes faith in a life so authentic that it automatically makes him a political outsider, the real deal in a political world where love and loyalty are measured in nanoseconds. Who is Mitt Romney? New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie answered that simply, telling Iowa primary voters of an enduring and intimate love for his family, a love so un-Beltway that it shines in "a guy who is a father and a husband and loves his wife and his kids."

Mitt Romney not part of the faith-based conservative traditions that power a culture built by American exceptionalism? In the words popularized by that great Catholic theologian, Bing Crosby, "'Tain't so, honey, 'tain't so..." Mitt Romney, in public and private, demonstrates biblical values in walk and talk, in battling an entrenched Beltway class that includes Obama and Newt Gingrich and, he says, is "gutting" a great nation with "[s]low growth, out-of-control regulation, and chronic uncertainty."

And so it doesn't really matter whether Mitt is Christian, Mormon, atheist, or Pescatarian. What does matter is that he is not Barack Obama, that he is not a Beltway insider, and that he does not answer every question with the words "more government."

[calicoug]

I agree. He's always been pro-life, but didn't believe he could win in Mass with a pro-life stance. It doesn't bother me that much, especially since I don't ever expect (or necessarily want) to see Roe v. Wade overturned. The only value I see right now in a pro-life politician is preventing federal funding of abortion.

You already get that prohibition irrespective of whether the president is pro-life or pro-choice. In fact, under a pro-choice president, that prohibition has now been expanded and access to the morning after pill is also going to continue to require a prescription, even though it has been cleared to be given as an over the counter pill.

[calicoug]

Not exactly, no.

I am saying the positions should be consistent internally. I agree with your premise about religious views and candidates, but strongly believe the only basis for passing legislation should be secular in nature. The alternative to that view, I think, would be to argue that a candidate's religious views are appropriate to consider and so too are religious views when passing legislation.

As for your questions about what to consider if adopting the second standard I discuss above, I would suggest those are the same questions one would have to answer with respect to considering religious views in the context of legislation.

I would admit that if a candidate's views got too extreme on a religious viewpoint (admittedly subjective), I would consider them in my vote but that's more of a hypothetical than a practical issue given that such viewpoints (until recently for Republicans) are quite uncommon in general elections and especially when voting for a Democrat as I tend to do.

I'm still hoping to get your response to this, LA Ute.

[Jacob]

You already get that prohibition irrespective of whether the president is pro-life or pro-choice. In fact, under a pro-choice president, that prohibition has now been expanded and access to the morning after pill is also going to continue to require a prescription, even though it has been cleared to be given as an over the counter pill.

That entire paragraph is false.