Saturday, February 2, 2008

Why Not Romney?

I hesitate to make this post, because I have used my blog to be "pro-Huckabee" not "anti-any other candidate." I began my support for Gov. Huckabee when he was just a dot on the radar. I read his book, I have listened to his speeches, I read his response to various attacks, and my conclusion is that he is the best man to lead our country for the next 4-8 years.

Over the last several months, my dislike for Mitt Romney has grown as strong as my like for Mike Huckabee. I cannot remember another Presidential primary where feelings have become so strong. I thought I would try to figure out why. Here are some reasons I am against Romney:

In Regards to Policy -- It's Often Changing:

In the last debate, Romney more than anybody else, evoked Ronald Reagan's name. He said, "Absolutely" that Ronald Reagan would endorse him. However, he used to say, "Look, I was an Independent at the time of Reagan-Bush. I am not trying to return to Reagan-Bush." When confronted on that, and voting for a Democratic candidate during a primary, he was less than convincing. So why was a Reagan conservative registered as an Independent?

On immigration, Romney claims that he will
cut funding for sanctuary cities. Maybe so, but as governor he took no action against several such towns in his state. Furthermore, illegals worked at his mansion. Huckabee gets all sorts of heat for not wanting to punish the children of illegals, while Romney said virtually the same thing in 2004 -- "I hate the idea of in any way making it more difficult for kids, even those who are illegal aliens, to afford college in our state."

On the homosexual agenda, Romney recently converted to a more conservative support of a Marriage Amendment. In the past, he has supported the state's right to decide such matters. He ran for Senate as more liberal than Ted Kennedy on the position. Gov. Romney's "Governor's Commission for Gay and Lesbian Youth", (which gets hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars) organized schoolchildren from their school-based "Gay-Straight Alliance" clubs to participate in a "Youth Pride Day" parade through downtown Boston.

Romney claims his strength is in the area of finances. He pounces on Huckabee every chance he gets because of some tax increases that occurred in Arkansas. What's the rest of the story?? In reality, as governor of Massachusetts Romney increased fees in the state by $500 million and proposed nearly $400 million in business tax increases. He increased fees for getting married, buying a house, bringing a case to court, and using a public golf course, to name a few reported examples. He increased substantially the fee for restaurants such as McDonald's to have their advertising sign by the side of the road on Interstates. I wonder who ended up paying that tax ... I mean fee?

The Healthcare Package that he signed into law in MA was supported by Sen. Kennedy. Here's a video clip of Romney's discussing it later, and the actual signing ceremony. This package allows a $50 copay for abortions, by the way.

The health of the Republican party in MA suffered after Romney's term as governor. Huckabee has been accused of setting back the Republican party in the state of Arkansas. So, why isn't anybody talking about the results of Gov. Romney's efforts in Massachusetts? Romney arrived on the scene with great promise, but is leaving the Republican Party here in shambles. Not only are the Republicans yielding the governor's office for the first time in 16 years, but registered Republicans have fallen by 31,000 since Romney took office, and their legislative presence is at historic lows. In fact, watch the clip below for an analysis of the Governor's legacy on the day he left office.



In regard to Supreme Court nominees, will he continue in the same manner as his appointments during his time as Governor? "Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show. In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters, and 14 registered Democrats."

When it comes to matter of sanctity of life, this ad by the American Right To Life says it all:



In Regards To Character -- Can He Be Trusted?

While it's not a crime or a sin to change one's opinion on issues, Romney's changes appear to be fueled by political gain. When it was beneficial to run as a liberal in Massachusetts, that's exactly what he did. When it was expedient to run as a conservative for a bid for President in 2008, guess what? He sheds the liberal skin and emerges as a conservative. How do we really know his position?

He has run several attack ads that stretched the truth to the point of breaking on McCain and Huckabee. Yet, during debates he has the audacity to make statements such as, "Can't we elevate the discussion above personal attacks." He can dish it out, but has pretty thin skin when it comes back at him. On several occasions he claimed to not even know what were on some of his attack ads. Hmmm.

Those who know him best seem to like him least. John McCain has been endorsed by both of Mitt Romney's hometown newspapers, a blow to the former Massachusetts governor who often taunts his opponents with negative e-mails titled, "Those who know him best." The Boston Herald, the state's conservative tabloid, endorsed Arizona Sen. McCain for President also.

A person's view of Scripture tells us MUCH about one's character and worldview. Gov. Romney does not believe the first book and foundation of the Bible, that God created the heaven and the earth. (The only one of the candidates still in the race who does is Gov. Huckabee, and perhaps Ron Paul).

Before taking over the Olympics, Romney said he would not use it for political advantage. Now every time the subject of finances comes up, he touts that he saved the Olympics.


Romney may look good and sound good, but I deeply question his authenticity and sincerity. Before the voting this Tuesday, please take a closer look ... and if you like Huckabee, but think he doesn't have a chance to win, you might want to recall that Arnold S. was elected governor in CA because most Republicans didn't think a more conservative McClintock could win. Exit polls showed that if everyone who thought McClintock couldn't win had voted for him, he would have won. Don't be fooled into thinking it's either McCain or Romney. Huckabee is still very much alive.

21 comments:

Kelly S said...

Your blog has been really helpful and informative. I have enjoyed reading your viewpoint. I think I'm still with Huckabee, although his tax proposal scares me!

The Tin Man said...

Fairly convincing evidence that Mitt Romney is a politician from Massachusetts. Actually, come to think of it, Mitt Romney IS a politician from Massachusetts.

I don't blame you for not being able to look below the surface facts. But I have bought Mitt Romney's current positions hook, line, and sinker. And the fact remains that his current conservativism easily trumps that of Huckabee.

It is my understanding that the man has spent upwards of 40 million dollars of his own money already to become president. I believe Mitt Romney cares deeply about the very issues he is campaigning on.

There is a reason that Mike Huckabee is much lower in the national polls than Mitt Romney. It is called - current positions.

Chris & Esther Hilling said...

Kelly,

I wasn't too sure of the tax proposal myself until I learned more about it. The Fair Tax has been endorsed by many economists. You can read more about it at www.fairtax.org.

Brent said...

Two concerns that are commonly expressed are Romney's Mormon faith and his change from past positions. What is seldom noted is that his faith very strongly emphasizes a conservative philosophy (pro-life, budgetary restraint, traditional family, strong defense of liberty, etc). So, in areas where his positions have changed, Romney is in effect "coming home" to a better comfort zone with respect to his religion. There is absolutely no reason to fear that he will flip flop back to previous positions. However, if some people just want to punish him for the past, that is an entirely different thing.

Chris & Esther Hilling said...

Actually, Romney has loaned to himself (4th Q)-- $18,000,000.00, $35,350,000.00 during the year.

One could look at that as caring deeply. Or it could be viewed as buying his way to the White House.

He has worked hard, been successful, and earned a lot of money. I'm not begrudging him of that. It does, however, gives him a distinct advantage over other candidates who don't have millions of dollars to invest in their own candidacy.

If this type of carefree spending is an indicator of what to expect when he gets to Washington, I'm not sure how much change we will see. Huckabee on the other hand, has got the most bang for his buck. Perhaps we should vote for the one who has been the most resourceful of their campaign contributions.

Joel Byer said...

I agree.

I really liked Huckabee's answer on whether or not Reagan would endorse him!

Romney comes across to me as plastic, artificial, and a man with no deep inner conviction.

The Tin Man said...

I found these links that may show you that Mitt Romney's governing record is consistent with his current positions. Mitt Romney was a conservative who ran for office in Massachusetts in liberal clothing.

A record of protecting life:

http://www.mymanmitt.com/redesign/_issues/social_stem_cell.pdf

A record of protecting traditional marriage.

http://www.mymanmitt.com/redesign/_issues/social_marriage.pdf

Chris & Esther Hilling said...

I wanted to work in Huckabee's response to that question as well, but figured 2 political posts in one day was enough.

Romney said basically ... Everything I believe, Reagan would agree with. Even opposing amnesty, which Reagan signed. His answer was very arrogant. Huckabee, in his humble answer, spoke to the heart of the question and the philosophy of Reagan's love and vision for America's greatness.

The Tin Man said...

Mitt Romney did not appear arrogant to me during that answer. He is running for the highest office in the land. If he isn't ready to sell himself, he would be really stupid for spending 40 million dollars of his own money.

The fact of the matter is, I am MOST impressed by Mitt Romney's attitude more than anything else. Your bias against this man is too strong. I may have been too hard on Huckabee on my blogsite, but maybe it simply balances your treatment of Romney.

Chris & Esther Hilling said...

Tin Man said: "Mitt Romney was a conservative who ran for office in Massachusetts in liberal clothing."

That summary is exactly why I can't support Romney. There are some things that are non-negotiables. There are some convictions and principles (esp. Biblical ones such as Sanctity of Human life, and sinfulness of homosexuality) that should not be compromised EVER. If Romney did a Kerry and flip-flopped, that would be bad. However, if he truly held conservative beliefs in those areas, but denied them for political gain, that would be far worse.

I've always believed that the ends do not justify the means. It would be better to hold firm to one's core convictions and lose, than to compromise one's core convictions and win.

Tin Man, this will be my last comment on this subject. We both want what's best for our country. Isn't it great to live in a country where we can freely express our ideas!!

Phillip D said...

Chris, thanks for being fair and mentioning Ron Paul along with Huckabee in regard to believing in creation. Ron Paul came out on a youtube a month or three ago (can't remember now) and made it clear that he believes in creation. He also often mentions "our Creator" in speeches.

~Heather~ said...

This is Phillip D. signed in under my wife's blog. Thank you, Chris, for posting my comments. My comment (my book on the unfairly treated candidates) did show. It's on the next post down, "A vote for Huckabee..." In regard to Romney, his convenient changes on morals make me nervous. If he were seeking to lead a church and had a questionable past, there would need to be a proving period. Is there not also a need for such to prove his record (or conversion) if he is wanting to preside over the most powerful nation on the face of the earth? He's young. Let him run again later after he quits aplauding sodomites and seeking to fund abortions with taxed subsidized MA health care for more than just a few months before the presidential elections. If he is serious he can prove himself. One more thing, after Feb. 5th we'll see who keeps in the race, because staying power will be most important. Let's pray that God's will be done.

zionchild said...

As a christian, I believe the moral issues must supercede the other issues. Do I believe the other issues are important to look at with each candidate? Of course. But as a believer, my conscience will not allow me to vote for a candidate that is of Mormon faith. It's not about his role as a husband, father and friend. Do I want to vote for someone who has taken an oath as a Temple Mormon? That means his oath and loyalty is to the Mormon Church as well as to whomever is currently the Mormon Prophet. That loyalty would supercede all other oaths incliuding the oath of the Presidency. He is not truly Pro-Life, he does not stand for Marriage(one man,one woman)and does not stand agaianst embryonic stem cell research. Whoever we cast our vote for, we must be able to live with that decision.
God Bless America!!

ML said...

Great post on Romney. Now that he is out of the race, Huckabee has a much greater chance of actually being heard.

One observation about Romney and the Mormons. Did you notice that 91% of Utah voted for him? That is sure evidence of the group-think, i.e., cult, that is Mormonism. No one in the media even made mention of this. However, in all the "evangelical" Christian voters, the spread was fairly even. That's because true Christianity sets you free, and part of being free is being able to think for yourself and vote accordingly. True Christianity fits perfectly within our democracy.

Thank God he is out of the race!!!

Mike Peterson said...

Jesus said: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
This February 2nd blog posting is filled with lies and distortions about Mitt Romney. I may not have space to comment on all of them.
Anyone could denigrate another human being by taking some things he said 14 years ago and applying them to now - that's a distortion.
On homosexuals, Romney did not "recently" convert - it was in 2002 that he supported the Marriage Amendment - 6 years ago! It was a very unpopular stand in Massachusetts, one that he made on principle.
There is a big difference between increasing fees and increasing state sales tax and general tax rates.
Romney had NO control over the state law that caused the $50 co-pay for abortions. That's what the truth is.
Romney is widely regarded in the state of Massachusetts as having led a miraculous financial turnaround in that state. Anyone can go to someone's political opponents in a state and what are they going to say that's good about their efforts? Going from a huge deficit to a surplus, without raising tax rates, is that not a success?
You continually impugn Governor Romney's motives for his "conversion" on abortion and other social issues. So is he doomed for life to never garner support from those who are pro-family and pro-life? Ronald Reagan was pro-choice when he was governor of California; a few years later he became one of the strongest pro-life presidents.
"Those who know him best seem to like him least" - not only is this a patently unfair and bashing slam, it is untrue. He convincingly carried his home state of Massachusetts, Michigan (where he grew up), and Utah (where he lived for 3 years during the Olympic turnaround, and where the population got a first-hand view of how effective a leader his is!)
And the most absurd thing in this whole posting was the idea that a person's view of scripture should be an issue in a Presidential race. This is nothing more than requiring a religious test for public office - something our wise founders of America condemned.
Latter-Day Saints believe (as Governor Romney does) that the Bible is the word of God. This is basic to the faith. They study it consistently in Sunday School, Seminary, and use it to teach.
It's a free country, anyone can say what they wish about another person. But with freedom comes a responsibility.
How responsible is it for some of the respondents to this blog to imply that Mormons swear allegiance to the prophet in the Temple, and that they would take this allegiance above allegiance to country. This is little more than ignorant bigotry. It's patently false. The sacred temple ordinances are centered in Christ. And The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not tell its members how to vote. The church speaks out to governments and the public on moral issues such as pro-life and pro-family values. But the idea that Governor Romney would be beholden to the church is naive and false.
Again, express an opinion, but please base it on actual facts. And also it would be a sad day in this country if a Baptist, Catholic, Hindu, Jew, or Latter-Day Saint, or any other faith, could not be supported because of their religion.
Sincerely,
Michael W. Peterson
2610 Armada Street
Herndon, VA 20171

Chris & Esther Hilling said...

Mike Peterson,

The list of "lies" all had links to news stories or articles that show their "truthfulness". The list was a compilation of the reasons why I personally didn't support Romney. Based on the facts, I naturally drew some conclusions. If it's true that he had NO say about the $50 copays, I stand corrected on that.

I intentionally did not address his Mormon faith in my blog. I do not agree with Mormonism. I personally believe it is a cult. But Romney's faith was not a determining factor in my support or lack of support for him. My only reference was to taking the creation account in Genesis as truth -- that tells me about a person's worldview and belief in the veracity of God's Word. If one doesn't believe the creation account, how can they believe anything else in the Bible?

As for Zionchild's comment. I do not approve of all that was written in that post, just as I don't approve or agree with everything you wrote. However, I allow most posts to through, unless they contain foul language or personal attacks.

Thanks for sharing your comment. In looking back, perhaps I shouldn't have written this post. It was a reaction to all the "2 man race" propoganda that Romney and the media was putting out before Super Tuesday. I was sick of hearing that, because I knew that Huckabee was still a contender.

I suppose any of us can "spin" facts to make our candidate look good and other candidates bad. The bottom line is that I don't trust Romney. Over the next four years, if he remain consistently conservative, I'll take a fresh look at him during the next primary.

frazzledmom said...

I'm a little puzzled why you keep saying that Mormons don't believe in earth's creation as recorded in Genesis? Mormons absolutely believe in this.

Chris & Esther Hilling said...

frazzledmom,

I am not saying that Mormons don't believe in creation. I am saying that Romney does not. In one of the early debates, the moderator asked all the candidates who believed in creation as opposed to evolution to raise their hands. The only one's who did were Brownback, Tancredo and Huckabee. Later on, Ron Paul came out in favor of creation. To me, belief in creation is more than a science theory, it communicates one's worldview as well as one's view of
Scripture.

So, my references to this subject is not at all about Mormonism, is it about a specific position that Mitt Romney has.

frazzledmom said...

Thank you for the clarification.

In my recollection of the debate Romney wanted to elaborate on this question because it is possible to believe in creation and to also believe in a kind of evolution. And I think the question was actually about whether or not they believed in evolution not whether or not they believed in creation.

I understand that there are many denominations that teach that these two principles are mutually exclusive. But with Mormons there is no teaching regarding evolution. The doctorine is that God created he Heavens and the earth in 7 days just as it was recorded in Genesis. There is no concern as to how it was done (which may have been through an evolutionary process). There is no concern as to whether it was 7 days like we think of days or 7 days according to some other Heavenly law.

So, Romney actually believes in the creation as put forth in Genesis. He just may also believe in evolution. That's a bit different than saying he doesn't believe in the creation.

I'd also like to address the question about Utah's 91% vote for Romney. I can understand why that would seem to indicate some kind of mindless mentality. But in fact it speaks to the satisfaction they felt due to his performance during the olympics. It also shows Utahn's committment to conservative thinking. Huckabee very much offended the Mormon population so he wasn't going to be an option making Romney the only choice. As far as group-think, that should be evidence of the moral teachings that are unbendable. And the conservative stand shores up moral teachings. Therefore, you will always see the vast majority of Mormons voting as conservatively as possible. You wouldn't see many of them voting a Harry Reid into office even though he is Mormon. If Huckabee had not shown his anti-Mormon bigotry he would've received a much higher portion of that pie.

Mormons know that Southern Baptists in particular have issues with their doctorine. But Pres. Bush has always been respectful and has always been supported whole-heartedly by Mormons.

I think it's interesting that Mormons absolutely cannot discuss politics at a church gathering of any kind, unless there is a moral issue on the ballot such as gay marriage, abortion rights, or gambling. Romney attended church in many places during his campaign and quietly worshipped each time. He didn't get up and speak politics ever. He never brought a camera crew to prove his observance. Not that this means anything, I just think it's interesting compared to all the appearances by candidates at churches we've seen.

Mike Peterson said...

Chris and Esther Hilling,
I appreciate your thoughtful response to my reaction to the blog entry about Mitt Romney.
I was definitely worked up over it and probably should have toned it down.
Nevertheless, it was pleasing to me that you drew a distinction between the religion of the candidate and his political positions.
I think Governor Romney did not convince enough conservatives simply because he had not been a true conservative in the public arena long enough.
I did not support him in the 1994 Senate Race, because he was a moderate to liberal Republican at that time.
But for the most part, from 2002 when he was elected Governor, until this year he governed/acted in a conservative way, what with his opposition to stem cell research, abortion in general, and his rejection of the gay marriage decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court and support for a marriage amendment to the constitution. Those were the big things.
I don't know why Governor Romney did not raise his hand on the evolution/creation question.
Another possibility is that no distinction was made between micro-evolution (fish in cold waters developing thicker skin, horse and cattle breeding, virus' resistance over time to antibiotics) which is common and scientifically proven, and macro-evolution or Darwinism (a fish becomes a reptile becomes a bird becomes a mammal and then a human), which is not only unproven but non-scriptural.
Latter-Day Saints believe very strongly in the creation account in Genesis, that God "created all things by Jesus Christ" (Eph. 3:9)
On a personal note, one of my favorite managers in a past company I worked for was an evangelical and we developed a good friendship. I think he and I both came to realize that we have a lot more similarities than differences on a lot of things!
I do wish you well and thanks for posting my comments.

Mike Peterson
mikepmcn@cox.net

Chris & Esther Hilling said...

Mike,

Thanks for the nice follow up comment. I see what you're saying about the micro-macro evolution thing. I thought the context of the question was clearly macro, but it was not worded that precisely.

Thanks for the discussion.