Romney

[oxcoug]

Romney apparently said today that he would veto the DREAM act.

Setting aside the problems of that policy, Romney's hard line on illegal immigration leads to be believe that he is planning on having a Hispanic running mate to neutralize the negatives.

Which would mean... either Rubio or Susana Martinez.

[LA Ute]

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

I don't think the decision to vote for or against a candidate and the decision to support or not support legislation are the same. With a candidate you're putting a person in a position in which he or she is going to exercise discretion. So you are deciding on a multitude of intangibles, such as judgment, integrity, prior voting record, temperament, positions on the issues, and so forth. With legislation the decision is less complex: is a specific bill is good policy? The merits of the legislation itself are what is at stake.

IMO, for candidates, religious views are almost never relevant. With legislation, I think the values of the person voting on it (a legislator or a voter in a referendum) do come into play. Values run across a spectrum, but religious values (or the absence of them) are in the mix. A Catholic legislator's views on life might cause her to vote against a crime bill that imposes a death penalty or one that increases access to abortion. I don't think that's inappropriate. We all vote our values.

You may not agree with me but I think my position makes sense.

[Viking]

Romney apparently said today that he would veto the DREAM act.

Setting aside the problems of that policy, Romney's hard line on illegal immigration leads to be believe that he is planning on having a Hispanic running mate to neutralize the negatives.

Which would mean... either Rubio or Susana Martinez.

Christie will be his running mate. Already done from what I heard

[Jacob]

Romney apparently said today that he would veto the DREAM act.

Setting aside the problems of that policy, Romney's hard line on illegal immigration leads to be believe that he is planning on having a Hispanic running mate to neutralize the negatives.

Which would mean... either Rubio or Susana Martinez.

I think you said, and I agree, that Rubio is probably not interested.
It could be that Romney has simply made a good policy decision regarding the so-called DREAM Act (which is bad policy, IMO) and his statement is not a purely political calculation. Well, a guy can dream can't he?

[CardiacCoug]

Christie will be his running mate. Already done from what I heard

I think either Christie or Rubio would be great.

[calicoug]

That entire paragraph is false.

Care to expound?

[calicoug]

Romney apparently said today that he would veto the DREAM act.

Setting aside the problems of that policy, Romney's hard line on illegal immigration leads to be believe that he is planning on having a Hispanic running mate to neutralize the negatives.

Which would mean... either Rubio or Susana Martinez.

I disagree. He is planning on doing and saying whatever it takes to convince conservatives he is worth nominating. It's exactly the same strategy that already has gotten him in trouble repeatedly. So much for learning from mistakes.

[calicoug]

Christie will be his running mate. Already done from what I heard

I think Christie would be a disaster for Romney. If there is a politician out there who could more overshadow Romney, I can't think of who it would be.

[calicoug]

I don't think the decision to vote for or against a candidate and the decision to support or not support legislation are the same. With a candidate you're putting a person in a position in which he or she is going to exercise discretion. So you are deciding on a multitude of intangibles, such as judgment, integrity, prior voting record, temperament, positions on the issues, and so forth. With legislation the decision is less complex: is a specific bill is good policy? The merits of the legislation itself are what is at stake.

IMO, for candidates, religious views are almost never relevant. With legislation, I think the values of the person voting on it (a legislator or a voter in a referendum) do come into play. Values run across a spectrum, but religious values (or the absence of them) are in the mix. A Catholic legislator's views on life might cause her to vote against a crime bill that imposes a death penalty or one that increases access to abortion. I don't think that's inappropriate. We all vote our values.

You may not agree with me but I think my position makes sense.

But that suggests that a legislator's religious viewpoints wcould be a factor to you if it was clear those viewpoints would weigh heavily in his/her decisionmaking process, correct? You seem to be saying you don't take religious views into account only where it doesn't seem likely to you that religion will drive their decision outcome.

[LA Ute]

But that suggests that a legislator's religious viewpoints wcould be a factor to you if it was clear those viewpoints would weigh heavily in his/her decisionmaking process, correct? You seem to be saying you don't take religious views into account only where it doesn't seem likely to you that religion will drive their decision outcome.

This has become circular, and I am having a hard time understanding your point. A candidate's religion may be relevant, but rarely. So when is it relevant? There's quite a bit written about that at the site I linked to. Check it out.

If a candidate's religious views drive his policy decisions, then of course they are relevant to voting for him. But there's a difference between a candidate's religion and his religious views. It's one thing to say "I won't vote for him because he's Catholic" and quite another to say "I won't vote for him because of his extreme/permissive views on abortion."

[Jacob]

Care to expound?

you made two claims which are clearly false. first that federal funding for abortion decreased under obama. second that the day after pill is by prescription only. both of those claims are clearly false and you probably already knew that.

[calicoug]

you made two claims which are clearly false. first that federal funding for abortion decreased under obama. second that the day after pill is by prescription only. both of those claims are clearly false and you probably already knew that.

You may want to familiarize yourself with the more restrictive rules adopted for federal funding of abortions under Obama (via executive order). Even if you argue they are ineffective rules, it's really difficult to argue (honestly) that funding has expanded.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13535"]Executive Order 13535 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]



As for the morning after pill- you are somewhat correct- it is prescription only for minors, not for everyone. That said, the FDA suggested it be over the counter for everyone and this administration (in a very rare move) overruled the FDA and said no. So the point stands- under a pro-choice president both issues on abortion have become more restrictive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/us...fter-pill.html

[calicoug]

This has become circular, and I am having a hard time understanding your point. A candidate's religion may be relevant, but rarely. So when is it relevant? There's quite a bit written about that at the site I linked to. Check it out.

If a candidate's religious views drive his policy decisions, then of course they are relevant to voting for him. But there's a difference between a candidate's religion and his religious views. It's one thing to say "I won't vote for him because he's Catholic" and quite another to say "I won't vote for him because of his extreme/permissive views on abortion."

But that IS my point. I think your position is circular. Once you argue you can look at a candidate's religious views on particular issues, you are, in essence, merely looking at their religion. Opening the door to religious input on legislation is tantamount to opening the door to religious input in voting for representatives. If you don't want one, you should avoid the other.

[pellegrino]

cali, you've made this and the republican primary thread interesting, and for that, I thank you.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I've been wondering why I'm not as enthused about Romney as I'd like to be. I'm bothered by his position changes, but those changes bother me most because all of them seem to be done out of political expediency more than principle. But I can get past that, since he would almost certainly not get the GOP nomination if he'd stuck to his guns.

I think my biggest problem with him relates to the manager vs. leader issue. Recently I came across the Covey story about the difference between those two. An effective manager is the guy who can direct a team to cut its way through a dense rain forest, managing human and financial capital most efficiently. An effective leader is the guy who climbs to the top of the highest tree and can shout down to the manager, "Hey, you're going the wrong way," to which the manager replies, "Perhaps, but we're making excellent time!"

I'm convinced Romney is a great manager, and that's an important element that's been missing for awhile. But I'm not convinced he's an effective leader (with the vision and inspiring demeanor). I don't think Reagan was a great manager, but he was a great leader, and I think that's what we need even more than managerial expertise.