Posts Tagged ‘Mitt Romney’

Reagan on Newt, Romney

January 20, 2012 Leave a comment

In last night’s CNN debate in South Carolina, Mitt Romney made mention that both Newt Gingrich and George Romney, Mitt’s father, were mentioned in The Reagan Diaries and claimed that Newt was mentioned only once and that Reagan thought he had a bad idea. Welp, I happen to have a copy of the Diaries, so here for you to judge for yourself is both the entry on Newt from 1983:

Monday, January 3rd
[Staff and NSC meetings; calls from congressional leadership.]
A tough budget meeting & how to announce the deficits we’ll have–they are horrendous and yet the Dems. in Cong. are saying there is no room for budgett cuts. Met with a group of young Repub. Congressmen. Newt Gingrich has a proposal for freezing the budget at the 1983 level. It’s a tempting idea except that it would cripple our defense program. And if we make an exception on that every special interest group will be asking for the same.

And actually TWO mentions on George Romney in 1984:

Friday, June 22
In the Rose Garden after lunch I met with representatives of the Internation Youth Year Commission. Then a meeting with Sec. Schultz, mainly on the Soviet situation. No break through but further evidence that they aren’t quite sure which way they want to go. George Romney came by, he is heading up a part of our Pvt. Sector Initiative called “Volunteer.” He’s interested in possibly a special medal for outstanding volunteers. I’m rather inclined to think maybe they should be formally included in the presentation of Medals of Freedom. Did a portrait session with mike Evans & then off to  Camp David. Got there in time for a swim.

And on June 1986, there’s a mention that Reagan attended a luncheon for volunteer action group led by George Romney. Note that I only own the abridged edition edited by Douglas Brinkley–the Reagan Library sells the unabridged edition. There’s likely more on Romney there. In this edition, Ron Paul was not mentioned, nor was Rick Santorum, naturally, as Santorum was not elected to Congress until 1990, after the end of Reagan’s term.

I’m not going to go now and track down everything Ronald Reagan ever said about these four, if anything. Just wanted to clarify the historical record to the best of my ability.

As Goes Virginia…..

December 27, 2011 1 comment

UPDATE: Via Bearing Drift, it has been learned that Rick Perry has launched his own legal challenge. Actually, it’s beyond launched–the suit has already been filed in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia. Their argument seems to be that the requirement that voters be registered to vote or eligible to register in Virginia unconstitutionally restricted his ability to recruit signature gatherers. (Focus on seems to be–I’m not a lawyer) They cite a number of other cases in which registration requirements were struck down. We seem to finally have a number for Perry–6k signatures. This isn’t even close to the 10,000 valid required. We’ll see how this pans out–he may get relief from the court, but I imagine the jeers will be even louder from the blogosphere than they were before. Also, one correction–any legislative fix will require 80 delegates, not 60 as I wrote earlier. That means they’ll need 13 Dems to cross over (12 if Putney votes with the GOP).

This is a Virginia-centric blog, so of course, one would expect me to view the entire political landscape through the prism of the Old Dominion. And sometimes, that can be a rather jaundiced view. However, a funny thing happened over the weekend….Virginia became kinda important. Or at least we think we did, or maybe we became less important….at any rate, people were talking about us.

That came when, in the early hours of Christmas Eve, it became known that the ballot for the March 6th Republican Presidential Primary would feature only former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Texas Congressman Ron Paul. Volunteers at RPV’s Obenshain Center had been working since the morning of December 23rd. Paul and Romney got through easily, but on that evening it was discovered that Texas Governor Rick Perry wouldn’t make it. That pretty much left Gingrich for those who don’t much care for either candidate, and the supporters of those two to root for Gingrich to fail. Facebook and Twitter lit up with conversation rivaling election night itself. Granted, some of this was likely due to the fact that “Ron Paul” is something of a fighting word for both Ron Paul detractors and supporters, but it was still pretty amazing for the night before Christmas Eve. Ultimately, around 3 a.m., word came out that Gingrich had indeed fallen short. Huzzahs rang out from those who don’t much care for Gingrich, while everyone else who doesn’t much care for Romney or Paul found themselves rather disgruntled. To add tragedy to all of this, one volunteer died in an automobile accident after a day of working to verify signatures.

So what now? Well, let’s first look at this close to home. The very first reaction to this was the first thing that comes to the mind of any loser (or to the mind of any candidate too lazy/principled to fill out paperwork *cough*AlAsbury*cough*): Write-in Time! However, despite the fact that it is discussed every time a primary comes up, write-ins are not allowed in Virginia primaries. Newt Gingrinch, a Virginia voter, was out of the loop on this, along with Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who suggested such a thing in his post-Christmas newsletter. What’s left for Gingrich? Well, there could be a legal challenge, but the Washington Post talked to observers who suggest this as unlikely. The other possibility would be an emergency change in election law that would allow write-ins. But the RTD notes this too is a problem: the GA doesn’t convene until Jan 11th, and ballots must be printed by Jan 21st. Emergency legislation requires a supermajority of (updated) four fifths–32 Senators, and 60 80 Delegates. Those are high barriers, and with a very slim Republican majority based solely on the fact we hold the LG’s chair, very unlikely to be reached.

Read more…

And so it begins: Trump v. Romney

Today’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley saw the start of the showdown we’ve been waiting ag….well, weeks for: the GOP’s moderate-cum-conservative businessman with a thin political resume (Romney) versus the the GOP’s more moderate-cum-even more conservative businessman with a even thinner political resume (Trump). Granted, it was Ms. Crowley who started the action, but the Donald took up the challenge with his usual gusto.

Highlights include Trump calling Romney “essentially a small businessman.” I consider myself a small businessman, and I need to check my accounts to be sure, but I’m not sure that its all that close to Romney’s estimated $200 million in net worth. However, when you get to Trump’s heights, perspectives change, so really I suppose I’m arguing over semantics here…..

Also amusing: Trump responding to Crowley’s question if he considers himself a “better” businessman, he replied that he’s a “much bigger businessman.” Of course, as we all know, bigger does not always equal better. Wikipedia has a pretty good overview of Trump’s various legal and business woes throughout the course of his career. I admire business success, but I also admire consistency and good judgment. The fact that Trump decided first to go after Romney on the scale of business activities highlights the tone we’ve seen throughout Trump’s nascent campaign so far: rather than go after Romney’s political positions, Trump went for style. That’s, ultimately, my biggest fear of a Trump candidacy: Style trumping (God save me) Substance.

Of course, I really shouldn’t be troubled by Trump’s views on Romney. In fact, Trump, so far, really hasn’t made his business experience the centerpiece of his campaign–he’s far more focused on the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate. That’s all well and good, and I suppose one way to unseat the President, but in the event that strategy just doesn’t work, shouldn’t we want a candidate talking about their ability to lead in a more substantive way than just saying they’re “bigger”?

I will say, though, that Trump had some good points near the end of the interview about America’s current “backseat” view of foreign policy, taking orders from other countries on when to take moral action. But then I’m reminded of Trump’s views on China and Iran, vowing pretty drastic unilateral action. I agree we need to be strong, but I also understand that we’re dealing with two sides here, and even if we’re going to make a stand, we have to understand that foreign policy actions have consequences for both sides. Overall, when Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter, not exactly noted moderates, are doubting the man’s tactics, well……I think we may have a problem.

All this said, this should not be read as an endorsement of Romney. I remain skeptical of Romney for the same reasons as I did in 2008 (guns, abortion, health care), and on probably the biggest issue so far in the campaign, health care, Romney just keeps digging himself a bigger and bigger hole. However, I’m still waiting for a candidate that matches my views on the direction the Republican party needs to take and yet shows they have the leadership to turn politics into policy. I’m looking for a candidate of principle, not opportunity.

Romney’s switches on the issues trouble me on that front. He couldn’t escape it in 2008, and it may be even harder to escape in 2012 given that Democrats passed a federal law largely based on one he passed in the state he led (and indeed, trumpeted by some of the very same people that advised on his). Even more troubling, though, is that Trump has already flirted with running once….in a different party, has already said he’d be willing to exploit sore loser laws to run as an independent if he doesn’t get the nod, and has not even donated to a plurality of Republicans in federal elections. In fact, only 23% of the federal candidates he’s backed have been Republicans. I understand the desire for a new face, but….does loyalty have no virtue these days?

But that could be a whole other series of posts, or even a book, on the virtue of parties in American democracy. Perhaps a simpler way to frame Trump’s integrity. The nearly billion dollars in debt he ran up in the 1990s.


Looks like the Donald may have a healthcare problem of his own. From Political Wire:

Dave Weigel digs up this quote from Trump’s 2000 book, The America We Deserve: “We must have universal healthcare. I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one. We should not hear so many stories of families ruined by healthcare expenses.”

Trump added that the goal of health care reform should be a system that looks a lot like Canada. “Doctors might be paid less than they are now, as is the case in Canada, but they would be able to treat more patients because of the reduction in their paperwork.”

Palin skips House GOP Confab; Steele, Romney speak

January 31, 2009 Leave a comment

The House GOP is at The Homestead in Warm Springs this weekend to talk policy and strategy in the wake of Steele’s accession to the RNC Chairmanship and a solid front against the pork laden stimulus package. The conference featured a number of Republican stars. One, however, was conspicuously absent. From The Note

Retreat organizers tell ABC News that Palin politely declined, giving a perfectly understandable reason.  According to the Congressional Institute, which hosted the conference, Palin said she simply could not make it to the retreat because pressing state business made it impossible for her to leave Alaska this weekend.

So where is Palin this weekend?  She’s in Washington, D.C., attending the super-elite Alfalfa Dinner.


The House Republicans seemed to do just fine without Palin. Their list of speakers included Republican stars Michael Steele, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich.

Asked about Palin’s no-show, House Republican leader John Boehner shrugged.

“Whatever,” Boehner said.

Snubbing the Congressional leadership to attend a high-profile but closed event is not exactly the best way to set-up a run for the top spot in 2012. I’ll write more about that later, but more important is what was said by those who did speak. More below the fold. 

The RNC provides the complete recorded remarks by Michael Steele, where he notes that re-capturing the 20th New York Congressional Seat and the NJ and VA gubernatorial races are the top priorities for 2009. 

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney’s PAC has his full remarks. If the economy remains an issue for the next few years, expect Romney to become a leader on this issue. Also to watch: Will Romney dominate at CPAC? If he does, it’ll become clear that he’s taking the Reagan path to victory–become a conservative leader over a period of time, then cash in. 

God, 2012 has already started. Anybody have any extra Xanax?