"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men
from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
(Thomas Jefferson)

Sunday, October 30, 2011

George Will: Mitt Romney May Be The Next Michael Dukakis

Life poses difficult choices, but not about ethanol. Government subsidizes ethanol production, imposes tariffs to protect manufacturers of it and mandates the use of it — and it injures the nation’s and the world’s economic, environmental, and social (it raises food prices) well-being.
In May, in corn-growing Iowa, Romney said, “I support” — present tense — “the subsidy of ethanol.” And: “I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.” But in October he told Iowans he is “a business guy,” so as president he would review this bipartisan — the last Republican president was an ethanol enthusiast — folly. Romney said that he once favored (past tense) subsidies to get the ethanol industry “on its feet.” (In the 19th century, 
Republican “business guys” justified high tariffs for protecting “infant industries”). But Romney added, “I’ve indicated I didn’t think the subsidy had to go on forever.” Ethanol subsidies expire in December, but “I might have looked at more of a decline over time” because of “the importance of ethanol as a domestic fuel.” Besides, “ethanol is part of national security.” However, “I don’t want to say” I will propose new subsidies. Still, ethanol has “become an important source of amplifying our energy capacity.” Anyway, ethanol should “continue to have prospects of growing its share of” transportation fuels. Got it? 
Every day, 10,000 baby boomers become eligible for Social Security and Medicare, from which they will receive, on average, $1 million of benefits ($550,000 from the former, $450,000 from the latter). Who expects difficult reforms from Romney, whose twists on ethanol make a policy pretzel? 

Last week in Ohio, Romney straddled the issue of the ballot initiative by which liberals and unions hope to repeal the law that Republican Gov. John Kasich got enacted to limit public employees’ collective bargaining rights. Kasich, like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, is under siege. Romney was asked, at a Republican phone bank rallying support for Kasich’s measure, to oppose repeal of it and to endorse another measure exempting Ohioans from Obamacare’s insurance mandate (a cousin of Romneycare’s Massachusetts mandate). He refused. 
His campaign called his refusal principled: “Citizens of states should be able to make decisions . . . on their own.” Got it? People cannot make “their own” decisions if Romney expresses an opinion. His flinch from leadership looks ludicrous after his endorsement three months ago of a right-to-work bill that the New Hampshire legislature was considering. So, the rule in New England expires across the Appalachian Mountains? 
A day after refusing to oppose repeal of Kasich’s measure, Romney waffled about his straddle, saying he opposed repeal “110 percent.” He did not, however, endorse the anti-mandate measure, remaining semi-faithful to the trans-Appalachian codicil pertaining to principles, thereby seeming to lack the courage of his absence of convictions. 
Source:  News OK 
If you read this site, you know I support Rick Perry 100% and have since 1990 when I first voted for him.  Does he make mistakes?  Sure he does just like any other person but he is a different politician because he owns up to his mistakes and flaws like not being the best debater which is rare with so many of today's politicians who blame all their gaffes on the media for the gotcha questions.  You know where Rick Perry stands as he doesn't put a finger in the wind as he is a conservative.

As I was doing this post and the one before it on the flip flopper Romney, I was thinking where would I list Romney on my choice for the Republican nominee for President.  Have to admit he is at the bottom.closely followed by Bachmann and Cain.  Cannot see myself going out of my way to support those three for President.  So where does that leave the others?  Here are my choices for the Republican nominee who appeared on stage at the last debate:
1.  Rick Perry (conservative)
2.  Rick Santorum (conservative)
3.  Newt Gingrich (conservative sometimes but not on global warming and healthcare)
4.  Ron Paul (libertarian)
5.  Hermain Cain (Koch Brothers, empowerment zones are liberal, cannot define prolife)
6.  Michelle Bachmann (too far right and too laser beamed)
7.  Mitt Romney (liberal, moderate, conservative -- toss a dart depending on the day)
Shocked at my putting Ron Paul at #4?  At least with Ron Paul you know where he stands because he has his core beliefs.  Don't agree with most of what he advocates but I consider him more honest than I do Cain, Bachmann, or Romney who have trouble with the facts.  I shudder to think what could happen to Republicans if they follow the establishment, Fox News, the Koch Brothers, and other self serving pundits and pollsters pushing Romney or Cain who knows little about how Government works.

Time will tell how much influence the outside forces has on conservatives when they go vote.  Right now most polls are garbage but that doesn't stop Fox News from pushing the liberal slanted polls who also want to choose our nominee.  Conservatives need to stand tall this election cycle and not be influenced by the media or the flip flopping polls!

No comments: