Elections Blog

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/11/19/romney_wants_courts_to_force_legislature_to_vote_on_gay_marriage/?p1=MEWell_Pos5 BOSTON –Gov. Mitt Romney said Sunday he would ask the state’s highest court to order an anti-gay marriage amendment question onto the ballot if legislators fail to vote on the matter when they reconvene in January.

Romney said he would file a legal action this week asking a justice of the Supreme Judicial Court to direct the secretary of state to place the question on the ballot if lawmakers don’t vote directly on the question on Jan. 2, the final day of the session.

Romney, an opponent of gay marriage who decided not to seek re-election as he considers running for president, made his announcement to the cheers of hundreds of gay marriage opponents at a rally on the Statehouse steps.

“The constitution quite plainly states that when a qualified petition is placed before them, the Legislature ’shall vote.’ It does not say ‘may vote,’ or vote if procedures permit a vote, or vote if there are enough of the members in the chamber. It says, ’shall vote.’” Romney said.

More than 170,000 people had signed a petition in support of the ballot question, which would define marriage as between only a man and a woman.

Romney has criticized lawmakers since they voted 109-87 earlier this month refusing to take up the question during a joint session, voting instead to recess until Jan. 2 and all but killing the measure.

“The issue now before us is not whether same-sex couples should marry,” Romney said. “The issue before us today is whether 109 legislators will follow the constitution.”

Jeff

That’s right! Call them out for their tricks and games. Get this issue on the ballot!

[Read more →]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2006/10/23/romneys_mormon_allies?mode=PF The Globe has gone too far with this editorial–”Romney’s Mormon Allies”.

I know that Ann Marie linked to the NewsBusters story previously which highlights the Globes utter hypocrisy here, but there was no link to the actual editorial from this site or NewsBusters.

Some of the Globe’s “High and Mighty” statements:

After quoting Jesus (huge red flag when the Globe editorial staff is quoting the Bible!) saying the “Give unto Ceaser . . .” line as evidence of the importance of the seperation of church and state; obviously selectively using the Bible (I’m guessing the whole homosexual-acts-are-”an abomination” part of the Bible weren’t quoted by the Globe as they supported the same sex marriage ruling by the SJC.) The Globe then sternly warns:

“The Mormon church and Mitt Romney should make sure that the church stays out of his nascent presidential campaign.”

Also,

The church also ought to make sure that all its leaders, including Jeffrey R. Holland, who organized the meeting, stop helping the campaign. As one of the 12 Apostles, advisers to church president Gordon B. Hinckley, Holland’s involvement is tantamount to a Mormon endorsement of the candidacy.

In light of church statements denying Holland’s presumed actions during this whole affair and prior to the publication of this editorial the Globe is effectively calling Holland and the Church liars. That’s just infuriating to me . . . but I guess it just makes the Globe look desperate and dishonest in the end.

Romney defended his campaign, saying: “Clearly I’m going to raise money from people I know, and that includes BYU alums, people of my church, people of other churches.” His lack of concern about the issue raises doubts about his ability to keep church and state separate should he move to the White House.

“Lack of concern”? How about Romney’s rights as a politician. Is he precluded from raising money from fellow church members? This has gone too far and the Globe has reared it’s anti-religious head too strongly. I wonder if they feel the same about the church of secularism . . . should liberal candidates not be able to take money from environmental groups, Move-on.org, trial lawyers, etc . . . ?

They finish . . .

But Romney appears all too willing to entangle religion and politics. Voters who practice a different faith, or none at all, deserve assurances that he can separate the demands of public life from the urgings of Salt Lake City.

“Urgings of SLC?” What in the world are they referring to? I’d like to hear what urgings Romney has been following. This could be the most inappropriate and outlandish editorial I’ve ever read from the Globe. I think they must be convinced that Romney will win the GOP nomination because they’re already attacking him for a general election run.

I can only feel that this kind of religious discrimination against Romney will elevate his status among faith-based individuals of all denominations to nearly “martyr” level . . . especially when he did nothing wrong in this whole matter. Ironically, the Globe may end up being Romney’s biggest ally in the end. Ya never know.

Jeff

[Read more →]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa581/reportcard_table.html One full day on the Globe/Mormon piece was enough. Changing subjects . . .

The Cato Institute released it’s “grades” for the fiscal policy records (taxes and spending) of the governors of all 50 states. The full report card is here.
While officially Romney got a “C” that is the highest grade that any Governor got that had to work with a Democratic legislature. That he tied for 12th in the nation when he has to work with a 87% Democratic legislature is truly amazing.

In the full report (warning . . . it’s a 40 page pdf) there’s a lot more info, data, and even commentary on each of the Governors. Of Romney they write:

As Mitt Romney launches his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, his fiscal record as governor should be scrutinized. Romney likes to advance the image of himself as a governor who has fought a liberal Democratic legislature on various fronts. That’s mostly true on spending: he proposed modest increases to the budget and line-item vetoed millions of dollars each year only to have most of those vetoes overridden. But Romney will likely also be eager to push the message that he was a governor who stood by a no-new-taxes pledge. That’s mostly a myth. His first budget included no general tax increases but did include a $500 million increase in various fees. He later proposed $140 in business tax hikes through the closing of “loopholes” in the tax code. He announced in May 2004 that he wanted to cut the top income tax rate from 5.3 to 5 percent, but that was hardly an audacious stand. Voters had already passed a plan to do just that before Romney even took office. In his budget for 2006, he proposed $170 million more in business tax hikes, almost completely neutralizing the proposed income tax cut. If you consider the massive costs to taxpayers that his universal health care plan will inflict once he’s left office, Romney’s tenure is clearly not a triumph of small-government activism.

Much of that sounds pretty harsh (and some of it is outright misrepresentation or speculation), but the Cato Institue isn’t dishing out praise to anyone. Even Gov. Blunt of Missouri (the ONLY one who got an “A” grade) didn’t get only kind words from Cato:

Blunt hasn’t had to fight against tax increases since they are nowhere on anyone’s political radar screen. The second year of Blunt’s tenure, however, indicates that his status as one of the most fiscally disciplined new governors may be short-lived. His second budget proposed a massive spending increase of more than 8 percent, and the legislature was only too happy to oblige. It even reversed some of the cuts to Medicaid that passed in 2005.

For comparison of other 2008 GOP hopefuls:

Pataki got a “D”

If he runs for the Republican presidential nomination on a record like that, it’s going to be very hard for him to convince the small-government advocates who vote in the GOP presidential primaries that he’s still one of them.

Huckabee got an “F”:

Huckabee wants to run for the GOP presidential nomination next year. He’s already been hailed as a viable big-government conservative candidate by some. That seems about right: Huckabee’s leadership has left taxpayers in Arkansas much worse off.

Overall, Romney did better than anyone else who had to work with a Democratic legislature. He’s a true fiscal conservative . . . imagine what he could of done if he had the chance to work with a fiscally conservative legislature!

Jeff

[Read more →]

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Massachusetts The following is my responce to this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501146_pf.html

Mitt Romney did not, “…make his state the butt of his Jokes”. He did not even make Massachusetts liberals the Butt of his Jokes

Romney said, “Being a conservative Republican in Massachusetts,” he told a GOP audience in South Carolina , “is a bit like being a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention.”

Does this the truth hurt the feelings of liberals? Romney is saying the truth. Massachusetts is the most liberal state in the union. Is this fact off limits for Romney to point out? Should Romney be allowed to have a sense of humor? Should he laugh at the fact that he is a Republican Governor of the most liberal state, or must he assume a somber attatude, and never dare make fun of the fact that Republicans are a minority is Massachussetts?

David A. Fahrenthold says the following:

“For months, this blue-state governor has been pitching himself to conservatives in a way that campaign experts say is highly unusual — perhaps even historic. Instead of talking about his home state with the usual lip-quivering pride, Romney uses it like a vaudeville comic would use his mother-in-law: as a laugh line.”

“As in: “There are more Republicans in this room tonight than I have in my state!” — another joke he used in South Carolina.”

David. You are wrong. He is not making fun of every citizen in Massachusetts. He is pointing out the fact that there happen to be a lot of liberals in that state. Is this wrong? Did he say everyone is Massachusetts is dumb? Did he say they are ugly? Did he make fun of them? No. He did not critisize them, he just said there are a lot of liberals. Is he wrong?

Jeffrey M. Berry, a professor of political science at Tufts University in Medford , Mass said the following:

“For an incumbent governor to make fun of the state seemed gratuitous, I think people sort of felt he was flipping the bird to voters here.”

Jeffery M. Berry (let me guess, a liveral) is saying something that is wrong. Romney did not make fun of the state. He said there were a lot of liberals. He didn’t even make fun of liberals. He didn’t say they smell bad, support the communist in China, or have a hard time getting a date. He just said there are a lot of them in Massachusetts.

David goes on:

“Romney, 58, is a transplant from Michigan who raised his family here and gained prominence as a Boston businessman.”

These darn “transplants” from Michigan. We hates them don’t we? Those outsiders. David. How long has Romney lived in Massachusetts? Wait, this just in. David, does not live in Massachusetts! OH MY GOSH. DAVID isn’t even a transplant. He writes for the Washington Times. Washington is not in Massachusetts . David is not pure. He does not have pure Massachusetts blood runing through his vains. He is even worse than Romney. He never has converted to the commonwealth. He lives in WASHINGTON!

David (not from Massachusetts) continues:

“He has an actor’s good looks, ample charisma as a speaker and a résumé that includes turning around the scandal-plagued 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics”.

Notice how David mentions stupid stuff like his good looks. He doesn’t mention anything about Romney living in Massachusetts most of his life. Coming close to beating Kennedy for Senate. Helping Massachusetts companies. Getting Law and Business degrees from a Massachusetts school

“He was elected governor in 2002 — becoming the fourth consecutive Republican to hold that office. Bay State politicos explain this trend by saying that their Republicans usually tend to be moderate, and their majority Democratic Party tends to stage death-match-style gubernatorial primaries that leave candidates exhausted and broke”.

David! David! David! How dare you critisize the democrats in Massachusetts. Saying they, “stage death-match-style gubernatorial primaries that leave candidates exhausted and broke.” Are you emplying that Democrats in Massachusetts, no all citizens of Massachusetts are stupid? That is not a good way to endere your Washington Times to the readers in Boston.
Davod continues:

“Exhibit A of how politicians usually treat their home states: George W. Bush. For Bush, Texas has served as both a showcase for his educational reforms and a symbol of his grounding in the real world — a place where he was proud to wear blue jeans and cut brush.”

Does anyone see a problem here? Come one! Do I really have to say it? David. WHEN ROMNEY SPEAKS HE ALSO TALKS ABOUT THE THINGS THAT HE HAS ACCOMPLISHED IN HIS STATE!

“When Romney speaks to audiences out of state, however, he uses a different blueprint. He does describe policy successes achieved during his term as governor, including the streamlining of state bureaucracy and improvements in educational opportunities.”
David continues his faulty logic:

“For example, at a June speech to the New Hampshire Federation of Republican Women, Romney had a routine that made fun of his state’s far-over-budget “Big Dig” highway project, its problems with organized crime and its Democratic junior senator.”

Is Romney not supposed to ever mention a problem in Massachusetts that he helped solve?

“Specifically, he made fun of Sen. John F. Kerry’s suntan, with a joke that included the term “Code Orange.” That is bad for Kerry, but it also reminds people that Romney’s state elected him.”

Once again, he is not making fun of Massachusetts, he is making fun of John F. Kerry. Is making fun of John F. Kerry off limits? Is this some how making fun of Massachusetts? How do these people get jobs writing for major newspapers?

Lets go back to David:

“Presidential campaign historians say they understand why Romney is doing it: He has to overcome the same “liberal Massachusetts” stereotype that has stymied previous Democratic presidential candidates such as Kerry and former Massachusetts governor Michael S. Dukakis.”

You needed multiple “presidential campaign hisorians” to tell us that Romney is being accused of being liberal just because he is from Massachusetts? Romney is standing up for Massachusetts. He is telling the rest of the world that not everyone from Massachusetts is like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, or Michael S. Kukakis. He is talling America that there are norman sane Americans that happen to live in Massachusetts.

I’m going to use the B-Work now, so please, if you are young, don’t let continue reading. I think Massachusetts is like anywere else, but they have a very liberal media that, here it comes, “BRAINWASHES” its citizens.

This is an excelent example. Mitt Romney makes fun of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Michael S. Kukakis, and David tells the citizens of Massachusetts that he is making fun of them. The citizens. David has got the game down. He quotes un-named people with very long titles (Presidential campaign historians), to state obvious facts as thought they are insiteful (guess what? Romney needs to find some way to distengish himself from previous presidential hopefuls like Kerry, Ted Drunk Driving Kennedy, and Michael S. Dukakis).

Now david contradicts himself; “Lyndon B. Johnson had to separate himself from racist elements in Texas, and Ronald Reagan did the same with the hippie fringe in California. Looking further back, there was Grover Cleveland, who in 1884 used the slogan “Grover the Good” to separate himself from the political corruption in his home state of New York”.

That wasn’t very hard!

But they continue with the anti-smart analisis:

“But Romney is “much more overt,” Yanek Mieczkowski, a presidential historian at Dowling College in New York said: It’s not a fringe element he’s talking badly about, it’s the entire electorate.

When did Romney atack the “entire electorate”? That is not true. Romney has never attacked the entire electorate of Massachusetts.
I don’t know how many of you out there like Rush Limbaugh, but he has lots of things that he has added to the debate. He always uses the phrase, “sympolism over substance”. Thats all this is. Romney should not have attacked Kerry, Ted Drunk Driving Kennedy, or Michael S. Dukakis. It was the wrong symbolism. Lets not look at the substance that Mitt Romney has ever used to critisize the decisions made by Dukakis, lets just make over simplistic blanket statments like, Mitt Romney is bad to critisize them.

“You have to be cautious about criticizing your own,” Mieczkowski said. “It casts a negative light about you, and that’s not good.” Dukakis, Kerry, and Ted Drunk Driving Kennedy are not Mitt’s Own.

See how this works? See how they emply that Mitt Romney critisized the citizens of Massachusetts? They are very clever.
Of course, the Governor loves Massachusetts, but look how David ends the piece:

“But the jokes have not helped. Frank van Overbeeke, a chef at Matt Murphy’s Pub in Brookline, said he had a question for the governor after hearing what he’d said about Massachusetts.”

“Well,” van Overbeeke said, “what are you doing here?”

See how David did that? He made it sound like Romney was attacking the common people. Mitt Romney was attacking a blue-collar chef at Matt Murphy’s Pub in Brookline. But it wasn’t David, who told Romney who has lived in Massachusetts most all of his life, to leave town, it was one of the people. It was Matt Murphy, who told Romney to leave Massachusetts just for saying there are a lot of liberals there.

These people are clever. But no matter how you twist it you can’t twist the truth. Romney loves Masachusetts. Romney always talks about the things he was able to accomplish there. He practically did somersaults any time a company moved to Massachusetts. He faught hard to lower the deficit for Frank Van Overbeeke a chef at Matt Murphy’s Pub in Brookline, and faught to keep from raising taxes on that Pub.

I would like to gather a list of all of the postive thing Romney has said about Massachusetts. Can you help?
Here are all the press releases that mention the Commonwealth

Governor Mitt Romney and Massachusetts

Press Releases

2003

02-19-2003; Governor Mitt Romney announces new unified parks system for Massachusetts
04-08-2003; Governor Mitt Romney calls for turnpike authority, Massachusetts highway merger
04-22-2003; Massachusetts dep, usgen ne take steps to clean up salem power plant
05-02-2003; may marks national foster care month in Massachusetts
05-23-2003; Massachusetts to receive $550 million in federal funds
06-04-2003; helping Massachusetts’ first responders
06-13-2003; Governor Mitt Romney teams up with EPA to protect Massachusetts coastline
06-13-2003b; Massachusetts dep, usgen ne agree on salem power plant clean up plan
07-17-2003; Governor Mitt Romney appoints Reebok’s Paul foster to massport board
07-18-2003; Governor Mitt Romney welcomes another company to Massachusetts
09-10-2003; Governor Mitt Romney focuses on biotech as another company expands in Massachusetts
09-24-2003; Governor Mitt Romney signs lease extension at Massachusetts military reservation
10-04-2003; Governor Mitt Romney appoints three new University of Massachusetts trustees
10-20-2003; Governor Mitt Romney works for resurgence of Massachusetts economy
10-30-2003; Governor Mitt Romney works for resurgence of Massachusetts economy

2004

05-06-2004; Governor Mitt Romney unveils climate protection plan for Massachusetts
05-27-2004; Governor Mitt Romney welcomes straumann usa to Massachusetts
06-29-2004; Governor Mitt Romney welcomes 3com to Massachusetts
07-13-2004; Governor Mitt Romney celebrates mass. Expansion of fujifilm
10-29-2004; Governor Mitt Romney appoints three to University of Massachusetts board, including “dr. J”
12-01-2004b; Governor Mitt Romney nominates fields as w. Massachusetts housing court clerk
12-10-2004; 13,000 Massachusetts students win free college tuition

2005

01-03-2005; Governor Mitt Romney makes appeal to Massachusetts citizens to support Tsunami relief effort
01-21-2005; Governor Mitt Romney names NYC deputy medical examiner as new Massachusetts chief
02-15-2005; to cut crime; Massachusetts makes it easier to share criminal justice info
03-04-2005; Governor Mitt Romney taps secretary Kimball to chair Massdevelopment
04-06-2005; Governor Mitt Romney launches healthcare reform in Massachusetts
04-23-2005; Governor Mitt Romney names colonel mason to lead Massachusetts National Guard
04-25-2005; Governor Mitt Romney and citizens bank tout new jobs in Massachusetts
05-12-2005; Governor Mitt Romney proposes $40m to rebuild University of Massachusetts Boston garage
05-24-2005; Governor Mitt Romney files ‘ Massachusetts GI bill,’ pushes for better soldier benefits
07-07-2005; Governor Mitt Romney announces Massachusetts green communities initiative
07-08-2005; Governor Mitt Romney taps Matthew Carlin for University of Massachusetts board of trustees
08-06-2005; Healey signs bill to honor Massachusetts National Guard
09-02-2005; Governor Mitt Romney makes UMass, prim board appointments
10-19-2005; Governor Mitt Romney lauds nation-topping performance by Massachusetts students
10-28-2005; Governor Mitt Romney joins in surprise presentations of national educator awards to top Massachusetts teachers
11-23-2005; “lights, camera, action!” in Massachusetts
12-15-2005; Governor Mitt Romney awards free tuition to 14,000 Massachusetts students
12-19-2005; Governor Mitt Romney taps two new Massachusetts maritime academy trustees

2006

09-01-2006; Governor Mitt Romney appoints seven trustees at university of Massachusetts
07-18-2006; Healey celebrates made in Massachusetts day
06-21-2006; Governor Mitt Romney welcomes Samsonite to Massachusetts
04-24-2006; officials announce $16 million nanotech grant for University of Massachusetts
03-16-2006; Governor Mitt Romney announces $516.5 million to support smart growth in Massachusetts
03-15-2006; without welfare reform, Governor Mitt Romney warns that Massachusetts stands to lose $56 million in federal funds
03-14-2006; Governor Mitt Romney appoints two new Massachusetts maritime academy trustees

[Read more →]

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3646 This article from the New Standard has some important news . . . state & local officials can now not only enforce federal immigration laws, but they have access to federal records and screening systems (Oh WHY has it taken FIVE years since 9/11 to get this done?).

New Program Gives Local Police Immigration Enforcement Tools
by Michelle Chen

Sept. 13 – Massachusetts has become the launchpad for a new federal initiative to enmesh community policing and immigration-law enforcement. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced last Thursday that it will provide state and local police with unprecedented access to a new federal database. The plan will be tested first in Boston.

The program will integrate two key federal fingerprint databases: the DHS’s growing collection of data on visitors to the US, and the FBI’s fingerprint identification system, which links to the country’s main criminal database, the National Crime Information Center.

Under the merger, according to the DHS, when state or local law-enforcement officials process the fingerprints of someone who is also registered for an immigration violation, federal authorities will be automatically alerted. Local police can assist federal officials by detaining the suspect.

Not surprisingly, the ACLU and immigrant advocacy groups are against this measure (I guess they have something against enforcing laws).

Later the article continues . . .

The DHS acknowledges that the system is still being developed, but says the Boston pilot will serve as a trial-run before the database goes nationwide.

Meanwhile, some states have begun warming to the prospect of taking on immigration enforcement duties. Since 2002, Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement division has launched special joint initiatives with agencies in Florida, Arizona, California and other states to apprehend undocumented immigrants on federal and state charges. Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney proposed directing state troopers to help root out immigration violators earlier this year.

Generally, collaboration between local and federal authorities on immigration has been limited. In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, however, the Department of Justice declared that states had “inherent authority” to apprehend immigrants, even for civil violations.
Romney has been on the forefront of calling for this type of intergration for essentially his whole term as Governor. See his testimony to U.S. House Select Committee on Homeland Security given on June 17, 2003 titled “First Responders: How States, Localities, and the Federal Government Can Strengthen Their Partnership to Make America Safer.” (It’s a long document . . . but has his call for such integration and his actions as Governor up to that point.)

Jeff

[Read more →]

What I’ve created below is in response to a commonly recurring attack on Romney: that he can’t be trusted to appoint good conservative/constructionist judges because of his record of judicial appointees as Massachusetts Governor, specifically regarding gay-activist judges.

The issue came up in a discussion thread to an article I posted on Free Republic (Over 135 comments so far, and some heated debate). One comment (#123), by JohnnyZ summed up the most common attack:

Romney’s record on judges is perhaps the most atrocious part of his political record.

He has nominated not one but TWO homosexual liberal Democrat gay marriage activists as judges in Massachusetts. Most of his judicial nominations have been Democrats. There are no reported instances of Mitt fighting for more conservative judges in Massachusetts. By all accounts the liberal Democrats who must approve his picks have had no complaints with his selections. (That’s a good indication he’s not doing his job right!!!)

I wouldn’t put anything past a flip-flopper like Romney, but going from nominating pro-gay marriage activist Democrats, who are openly homosexual themselves, to nominating conservative justices for the Supreme Court — well, really, it does strain credulity.

Romney has also been attacked on Red State (Usually by Gary Glenn) several times on this issue and it will be a recurring mantra for those trying to discredit Romney on the issue of abortion (since SCOTUS nominees represent the greatest influence a POTUS can have on the abortion issue).

Governor Romney has been criticized by some conservatives for not appointing enough Republican judges. As you read this, I think you’ll come to understand that Romney has done an excellent job on judicial appointees, has been pragmatic, and has navigated the liberal waters of Massachusetts politics better than one would have expected. Hopefully, this piece, in combination with Nathan Burd’s excellent piece “A Pro-Life Perspective on a Mitt Romney Presidency” can act as resources for Romney supporters wanting to “clear the air” when Romney is incorrectly criticized on these points.

Much of what follows comes from a Boston Globe article from July 2005. I have “sterilized” out much of the anti-Romney slant that we’ve all come to expect out of that left-leaning rag (but you can go to the link and read it all).

As of one year ago Romney had nominated 9 Republicans and 14 Democrats as judicial appointees (and a host of “unenrolled” appointees) . . . this in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 4-1 and the legislature is 87% Democrats. Sounds like Romney is beating the statistics there! But what is impressive, is that for Romney, it’s not just about playing politics with judicial appointees. The article states:

With increased attention on judicial nominees after President Bush’s nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. to the US Supreme Court, Romney said Friday that he has not paid a moment’s notice to his nominees’ political leanings or sexual orientation — or to the impact his choices might have on a future presidential run. He said he has focused on two factors: their legal experience and whether the nominees would be tough on crime. He said most of the nominees have prosecutorial experience.

The governor said that, so far, he has had few chances to appoint judges to the highest state courts, where his criteria would change to include ‘’strict construction, judicial philosophy.”

”With regards to those at the district court and clerk magistrate level, their political views aren’t really going to come into play unless their views indicate they will be soft on crime, because in that case, apply elsewhere,” Romney said.

The above is a key point. Ziuko on Red State commented: “If Federal courts are the major leagues, state [and district] courts aren’t even the minor leagues, they’re a pick up game of tee ball. Having the right connections seems to be about the only important attribute for any candidate. Judicial philosophy never seems to enter into it.”

So, I would ask what the big hullabaloo is about Romney’s appointments (the two that had a history of gay activism OUTSIDE of the courtroom)? Who gives a rip if a small-time criminal court judge is gay!?!–especially if they have a judicial record of being tough on crime and are working in criminal courts!

Romney won praise in the legal community when he replaced regional judicial nominating committees that were viewed as politically tainted with a centralized Judicial Nominating Commission. The commission considers applicants using a ”blind” first phase of the selection process that removes names from applications in an attempt to ensure the candidates will be judged on their merits. In addition, all of Romney’s nominees have been submitted to a Joint Bar Committee on Judicial Nominations, which rates candidates as qualified, well-qualified, or unqualified — and each has been found to be either qualified or well-qualified.

As a Harvard Law cum laude graduate, Romney obviously knows a thing or two about proper qualifications for a good judge . . . not one that he’s recommended has been considered “unqualified.”

The BG article continues:

there is evidence to suggest that Romney is making sure his fellow Republicans and conservatives get a piece of the action.

Romney has faced criticism from Governor’s Councilors and some bar associations for failing to nominate more women, minorities, and defense attorneys to the bench. Seeking to counter such attacks, Romney’s appointee to the chairmanship of the Judicial Nominating Commission, Boston lawyer Christopher D. Moore, has reached out to minority and women’s bar associations to encourage members to apply. He’s done the same with the state lesbian and gay bar association, which also has a seat on Romney’s joint bar committee.

Later, some more about Moore:

Romney’s choice to chair the Judicial Nomination Commission, Moore, is a member of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group that fights ”judicial activism” and promotes the legal system as the preeminent venue for protecting ”traditional values.”

Then comes one of the “kickers” . . . seeing who Romney has to get his nominees passed through:

After Romney nominates the candidate, the pick must be approved by the Governor’s Council , where Democrats hold eight of nine seats [all of them elected officials . . . not Romney appointments see here]. . .

”He’s tried to have a process devoid of politics, [but] he also has to get his nominees approved by the Governor’s Council, and that is not a bipartisan body,” said Jones, of Reading. ”The biggest problem in trying to reform the system to make it devoid of politics is that not everyone else buys into that model.”

Romney, asked if he has engaged in any horse-trading with Democratic politicians, said: ”So far I have not ever given any weight whatsoever to whether I think someone can make it through the Governor’s Council. I send them individuals who I feel are highly qualified and have the right judicial temperament related to crime and punishment

But what about higher level appointees?

Peter Vickery, one of the Democrats on the Governor’s Council, says he believes Romney and Moore would seek far more conservative jurists if a vacancy were to pop up on the Supreme Judicial Court, which delivered the gay marriage decision that Romney has routinely blasted.

Some of Romney’s nominees do have stellar Republican or conservative bona fides. For example, Romney’s pick for Peabody clerk magistrate, Kevin L. Finnegan, is a former two-term Republican state representative. Another choice was Bruce R. Henry, the son-in-law of former SJC Justice Joseph Nolan — whom Romney wanted to represent his administration in seeking a stay of the court’s gay marriage ruling.

Taking another angle altogether . . . Romney recently refused to re-appoint David Gorton, the former Commissioner on the Appellate Tax Board (a panel of five judges), in part because of his questionable ethics and his outspoken gay activism negatively influencing his job performance. According to this article: “I won’t rule out homophobia,” said Gorton, who has been a gay rights activist and community leader. From 1988 to 1994, Gorton served as chair of the Greater Boston Gay &Lesbian Political Alliance.

Currently, he is on the board of directors for The Gay & Lesbian Review, serving as its clerk.

The rub for Romney, Gordon believes, stems from the governor’s presidential ambitions. “The religious right hates gay activists with a passion, and I am the kind of guy who would raise red flags,” Gorton said. “Although I am a judge on the job and an activist on the side, I fit their stereotype of ‘activist judge.’”

Although no gay-marriage tax cases have yet to come before the board, Gorton believes it is only a matter of time before they will. Gorton, who has served on the board for more than nine years, has expertise and experience with both kinds of appeals.

Looks like a position where a gay activist could negatively swing decisions/opinions. HUGE RED FLAG!! Fortunately, Romney had the sense to not re-appoint him.

Therefore, does Romney get credit for taking away one gay activist judge? Will this subtract out either of the two that the anti-Romney conservatives are complaining about? I’m guessing they’ll choose to ignore that piece of history.

JohnnyZ said that Romney appointed “TWO homosexual liberal Democrat gay marriage activists”

Well, lets look at these appointees in more depth. First is Stephen S. Abany who was appointed to district court(as an “Associate Justice,” the lowest rung at the district court level) . . . first off, it turns out that he IS NOT a registered Democrat (so JohnnyZ was wrong again . . . no surprise there I guess, I’m getting quite used to it) but his leanings and voting are generally liberal (AKA Democratic). Abany was 57 years old when he was appointed to a DISTRICT Court . . . not even a remote threat to rise up through the judicial system to become a Supreme Court caliber appointee.

The other appointee JohnnyZ refers to isn’t even homosexual (as far as anyone has publicly claimed). Marianne C. Hinkle, a longtime state and federal prosecutor (and VERY TOUGH ON CRIME), was the another nominee in question. She’s a Democrat and a member of a group that tries to promote gay rights in the Catholic church but has no record of judicial/courtroom activism. She was appointed at the same “lowest rung” at the District Court level as Abany and she was similarly in her late 50’s when appointed.

This Romney guys knows what he’s doing. He has been pragmatic and wise in his appointments given the environment he works in.

Also, Romney has been a long-time and outspoken opponent of activist judges. He has tight ties with the Federalist Society and his private charity group has donated to it (liberals have criticized this before). What follows now is some of Romney’s extensive record of being against activist judges and on coming down on the conservative side of court decisions:

These Boston Globe piece excerpts help show that Romney is on the right side of the judicial activism issue:

WASHINGTON — Governor Mitt Romney leveled an unusually personal attack yesterday at the Supreme Judicial Court for legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, telling a group of conservative lawyers and judges that the justices issued the ruling to promote their values and those of ”their like-minded friends in the communities they socialize in.”

Though Romney has criticized the SJC’s watershed 2003 decision many times before, the broadside he delivered at the Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention in Washington, D.C., was an atypically sharp and direct attack on the four justices who found that the Massachusetts Constitution afforded gays and lesbians the right to marry.

”If a judge substitutes his or her values for those values that were placed in the constitution, they do so at great peril to the culture of our entire land,” he said.

The remarks won applause from the 500 lawyers, scholars, and others who packed a ballroom to hear Romney’s speech.

. . .

Romney ended his speech by praising the new chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, and President Bush’s current pick to replace outgoing Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Several Federalist Society members said afterward that they were impressed by what they heard from Romney. ”I think he said the right thing: Decisions should be left to the people,” said Peter Urbanowicz, a Dallas lawyer.

And quotes back from 2004 from another piece:

Romney: ”Beware of activist judges. The Legislature is our lawmaking body, and it is the Legislature’s job to pass laws. . . . While the law protects states from being forced to recognize gay marriage, activist state courts could reach a different conclusion, just as ours did. It would be disruptive and confusing to have a patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws between states. Amending the Constitution may be the best and most reliable way to prevent such confusion and preserve the institution of marriage.” (Wall Street Journal op-ed, Feb. 5, 2004)

Romney: ”The real threat to the states is not the constitutional amendment process, in which the states participate, but activist judges who disregard the law and redefine marriage in order to impose their will on the states, and on the whole nation. At this point, the only way to reestablish the status quo ante is to preserve the definition of marriage in the federal Constitution before courts redefine it out of existence.” (Testimony to Senate Judiciary Committee, June 22, 2004)

Even earlier that year he wrote a powerful opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal called “One Man, One Woman: A citizen’s guide to protecting marriage”

Beware of activist judges. The Legislature is our lawmaking body, and it is the Legislature’s job to pass laws. As governor, it is my job to carry out the laws. The Supreme Judicial Court decides cases where there is a dispute as to the meaning of the laws or the constitution. This is not simply a separation of the branches of government, it is also a balance of powers: One branch is not to do the work of the other. It is not the job of judges to make laws, the job of legislators to command the National Guard, or my job to resolve litigation between citizens. If the powers were not separated this way, an official could make the laws, enforce them, and stop court challenges to them. No one branch or person should have that kind of power. It is inconsistent with a constitutional democracy that guarantees to the people the ultimate power to control their government.

With the Dred Scott case, decided four years before he took office, President Lincoln faced a judicial decision that he believed was terribly wrong and badly misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution. Here is what Lincoln said: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” By its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts circumvented the Legislature and the executive, and assumed to itself the power of legislating. That’s wrong.

Yet another quote:
”He’s trying to get candidates who are conservative and probusiness and who have a prosecutorial background, tough on crime, and to use the words that have been flying around for a few years, he doesn’t want any of those activist judges on the bench,” said Kathleen M. O’Donnell, past president of the Massachusetts Bar Association.

From the Christian Broadcasting Network:

“As governor, all of the issues that have come to my desk that have dealt with the matter of abortion, I have decided on the side of life,” Romney said.

The pro-life Romney now seems to have the entire social conservative values package. He is also not pleased with activist judges and supports the push for a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage.

“The idea of not allowing ‘Under GodÂ’ in the Pledge of Allegiance or taking ‘In God we trustÂ’ off our coins – those are just nutty,” Romney said.

While in Georgia recently Romney said of the Gitmo ruling:

Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts said Thursday that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo Bay detainees was just another reason why the nation should elect a Republican president again in 2008 _ to get more conservative judges on the high court.

The Supreme Court ruled that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, saying in a strong rebuke that the trials were illegal under U.S. and international law.

The court declared 5-3 that the trials for 10 foreign terror suspects violate U.S. law and the Geneva conventions.

“To apply the Geneva accords is very strange in my view,”

On Eminent Domain Ruling (part of this is from the Hugh Hewitt show):
HH: Last question, Governor. Today, the Supreme Court upheld a extraordinary exercise of eminent domain on private property for transfer to other private property. Are you surprised by this? Does it alarm you?

MR: You know, the Supreme Court made an error in judgment on this one. You know, I understand the purpose of eminent domain, to make sure that when roads need to be built, or public purposes are involved, that private property can be taken when there’s fair compensation. But to basically say a mall developer could get eminent domain to take away peoples’ homes, that is not a good idea. The liberals on the Court made a mistake on this, and we’re going to have to get a Court that’s willing to stand by the rights of property owners

Obviously, Romney’s pragmatism will continue to turn off some ultra-conservatives and they will continue to label him as a RINO or some other derogatory label. But many of their attacks are either dishonest or flat out wrong and need to be combated.

Are there more conservative politicians out there? Sure.

Can any of them make a serious run at winning the presidency? Not looking like it now.

Can any of them lead as effectively as Romney could? I highly doubt it.

Romney’s record of judicial appointees is not worrisome to this Reagan Republican.

I look forward to a potential President Romney nominating constructionist and qualified individuals to the SCOTUS, just like he has said he would. One thing you’d be hard pressed to attack Romney on is his record of keeping campaign promises. He has been a man, and politician, of his word–truly a rare gem in our country today.

Jeff

[Read more →]

I remember when the Sales Tax Holiday was signed by Romney a few weeks back . . . but I didn’t realize that what he signed was the largest such law in the nation (among the many states that have one as reviewed in the USA Today)

On Wednesday, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, signed a law that creates the nation’s biggest tax holiday. All retail sales under $2,500 will be exempt from the state’s 5% sales tax Aug. 12-13.

Also from the USAToday, a review of 2008 hopefuls actions in the early primary/caucus states highlights how the political landscape may change in this next election cycle. Alabama will stand poised to be “a player” in the Presidential Primaries in ‘08:

Six prospects also showed up over the past year in Alabama, which recently moved its 2008 presidential primary from June 3 to Feb. 5.

Alabama looms large for Republicans as well. Arizona Sen. John McCain has given $107,750 to state and local candidates and committees there since January. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a leading campaigner for GOP Senate candidates, is squeezing in three fundraisers Tuesday for state legislative candidates. Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee spoke at a state party fundraising dinner, and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is planning a trip.

One of the more palatable Democratic possibles, Evan Bayh is “employing” (literally) and interesting strategey:

Besides giving money, Bayh has found, trained and paid 50 campaign operatives in a program called Camp Bayh. Besides the three in Nevada, he’s sent one to South Carolina, 15 to New Hampshire, 25 to Iowa and six to Indiana.

Bayh’s Iowa contingent is “by far” the largest any Democrat has ever fielded, Bayh spokesman Dan Pfeiffer says. Most are working on legislative races. All, like their counterparts in the other states, are gaining knowledge and contacts that will be invaluable if Bayh runs and they stick with him.

Bayh isn’t the only one getting creative . . . Romney’s state PAC idea has given him an advantage over many other GOP hopefuls:

Romney has created political action committees in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina. They can raise lots of money fast because they aren’t subject to federal contribution limits. He’s spent most of his money on state and local races: $192,650 in Iowa, $95,000 in New Hampshire, $168,715 in Michigan and $131,500 in South Carolina, Romney’s records show.

Romney and McCain are fighting a money battle in Michigan and South Carolina, which usually follow Iowa and New Hampshire in the GOP primary lineup. McCain, who won Michigan in 2000, has given at least $158,000 to state and local party committees there, according to federal records and McCain’s staff. In South Carolina, which he lost in 2000, McCain has already spent nearly $150,000 on state and local campaigns.

Another interesting find was someone pointing out the irony of Romney’s “Polygamy Problem” among the GOP frontrunner field.

Romney’s “name recognition” must be improving some . . . because he’s starting to do a little better in phone “cold call” polls about the 2008 GOP race. According to some recent Strategic Vision polls Romney placed in 3rd (behind McCain and Giuliani) in New Jersey, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and 4th (behind those two and homeboy Newt). In about 8 weeks Romney has made some progress in Georgia (from 5th and 4% to 4th and 6%). Granted, not huge numbers, but Romney is definitely headed in the right direction (just a few months ago it was not uncommon for him to get 0-2% in these polls)!

This New York Times piece reveiws the landscape for the 2008 presidential race and had a few Romney tidbits:

Mr. Romney has four full-time workers in Iowa and three in South Carolina, his aides said. And the candidates themselves do seem to be everywhere, in what officials in both parties take as a sign of how times have shifted . . . Mr. Romney announced that he had created a 75-member Michigan Steering Committee, widely viewed as the cornerstone of a Romney-for-President operation in the state.

There may be a dwindling opportunity to nail down big names — Mr. McCain’s aides said this week that Robert B. Zoellick, the former deputy secretary of state, was the latest big name to join the McCain camp. But it is also important to be perceived by contributors and political journalists as viable and gaining support.

Mr. Romney’s supporters were understandably cheered when David Yepsen, the influential columnist for The Des Moines Register, wrote a column showering Mr. Romney’s efforts with praise, calling him the best organized of any Republican candidate in the state and declaring that he was “well on his way toward winning the 2008 Iowa Republican caucuses.”

Mr. Romney, clearly enjoying his role as chairman of the Republican Governors Association, went to Cedar Rapids to campaign with Representative Jim Nussle, the Republican candidate for governor. There, Mr. Romney announced, to the audible gasps from an audience of devoted Republicans, that his committee was giving $500,000 to the Nussle campaign.

One of the top members of Mr. Bush’s campaigns, Matthew Dowd, who was his chief strategist, is the object of at least interest of both the McCain and Romney campaigns, Republicans say. “Matt is the biggest fish out there who hasn’t signed,” said one of Mr. McCain’s associates, who insisted on anonymity to discuss internal campaign deliberations.

But Mr. Dowd, along with two of the other top lieutenants in the Bush presidential campaign — Karl Rove, the president’s chief political adviser, and Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee — have told friends they are unlikely to do another campaign.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see Dowd follow the rest of Bush’s team to McCain . . . further flaming the fire of a “quid pro quo” between McCain and Bush

In other news:

Amid a gaggle of events and gatherings one stood out: a Romney event on Aug. 18 at a coast resort. Nearly 1,000 people showed up and Romney’s CommonwealthPac garnered more than $1 million. The locals were stunned: Where did that come from?

Romney’s performance at the state’s semi-annual GOP Convention in Century City on Aug. 20—he received a rousing standing ovation following his keynote address and kudos as well from the arch-conservative California Republican Federation—kept the political buzz mounting. One local congressman remarked that Romney “is the most gifted politician I’ve ever met.”
. . .

But the impression is growing of significant Romney momentum among Republican elites and grassroots alike, and some pros compare Team Romney’s prowess to George Bush’s organizational edge in 1999. Now that the internet has changed profoundly the nature of grassroots, no campaign can play a waiting game.

Romney recently touted his record of fiscal conservatism in Iowa:

Romney touted his own record for cutting unnecessary spending in his home state. He said he has eliminated redundant agencies such as combining the state’s three highway departments to save money.

Romney said he doesn’t support cutting costs in areas such as homelessness prevention but has advocated for better use of the money. In Massachusetts, the state spent $20 million on hotel rooms for 599 rooms a night for homeless people to stay after shelters were too full.

Romney said he reorganized the system so that those people who had stayed at the shelter the longest would qualify for the hotel room instead of the newcomers. Now, the state has eliminated the need for hotel rooms, Romney said, and the money has gone to improving housing options for the homeless and low-income people.

“We’ve gotten people out of homelessness,” he said.

That’s a loooong post . . . sorry.

Jeff

[Read more →]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/08/17/romney_aided_conservative_groups/ The Boston Globe today attempted to cast a shadow on donations from Mitt & Ann Romney’s private Tyler Charitable Foundation, particularly donations to the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. Governor Mitt Romney’s private foundation — which often sends money to religious organizations, schools, and social services groups — gave $50,000 in 2005 to two prominent conservative think tanks that have provided him with a platform as he readies for a potential run for president, public records indicate. The Globe then goes on to reveal to their readership that the donations were legal. Whew! Thanks, Globe, for that nugget. I can sleep at night now. No one was accusing him of breaking the law, but thanks for telling us the unnecessary news. Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for Romney, said the governor doesn’t make donations for political reasons.

“Governor Romney’s support of civic organizations is not something he calls attention to,” Fehrnstrom said. “He does not do it for public acclaim. His charitable giving is done out of a sense of helping groups that rely on the philanthropy of others to carry out their mission.”So Romney has a foundation that doesn’t have his name in it, and he doesn’t send out a press release everytime he makes a donation. He keeps it private, and gives his money for the right reasons. Man, he should be dragged into the public square and stoned for such selfless behavior in this era of self-promotion! Didn’t he get the memo? Tax specialists interviewed this week said the donations could help Romney with conservative activists.

“There is a political interest here that says why is Mitt Romney now giving his money to the Heritage Foundation and what is he trying to accomplish?” said Donald Tobin, an associate professor of law at Ohio State University. “But if I were a Republican candidate, it would absolutely make sense to give money to organizations that would promote issues I support.”Yeah. Apparently this is a no-brainer to everyone except the Globe.

Dave

[Read more →]

http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060814/NEWS/608140320/1020 From the Worcester Telegram: Gov. Mitt Romney’s avowed plan to raise Massachusetts state parks to world-class standards is laudable. Parks improve quality of life, attract tourists and educate the public.

However, world-class parks are not free, or even cheap. Maintaining the public’s natural and historic treasures requires a continuing investment of time, energy and money, which for the past decade, has not been forthcoming. The result is the parks have become increasingly shabby.

Fortunately, Mr. Romney, two years ago, appointed a stewardship commission, which in addition to working to improve management of parks is lobbying for park funding. Last year Massachusetts progressed from the 49th to 48th place in terms of per capita state funding for parks.

Dave

[Read more →]

Several different news sources covered Romney’s new Energy Plan for Massachusetts.

First off, Mitchell over at Washingtonians for Mitt beat Romney’s team to the punch with an Aug 10th call for Romney to solidify his environmentally friendly stances in a post called “Go Green Mitt, Go Green”

Just the next day, Romney unveiled his energy plan for Mass.
Press Release
Watch the Press Conference

Or, dig through Romney’s PowerPoint presentation

Some highlights:
“If we do nothing, the high cost of energy will go even higher and residents and businesses will have to pay more,” said Romney. “By taking control of our energy future, we’ll save hundreds of millions of dollars and continue growing our economy.”
Romney said the four steps necessary to take control include becoming more energy efficient, diversifying and increasing our energy supply, fixing our inadequate energy infrastructure and leading the nation in developing advanced energy technologies.
Romney’s plan drew praise from several groups and individuals:
“The cost and reliability of energy is a major issue of economic competitiveness for employers and impacts the state’s ability to attract and retain employers and create jobs,” said Christopher Anderson, president of the Massachusetts High Technology Council. “The Governor has put forth a plan that has concrete actions to address our energy needs for today and the future.”

“Massachusetts has the combination of world class research universities, high tech innovators and entrepreneurs to develop clean energy technologies, and I commend Governor Romney for including this as a key element of his energy plan.” said President Susan Hockfield of MIT.

“We applaud the Governor’s push on advanced energy technologies and believe Massachusetts can become the clear industry leader,” said Jack M. Wilson, president for the University of Massachusetts. “The Lowell campus helped launch Konarka Technologies, a developer of solar technologies, and the Amherst campus has already established bio-energy science and engineering programs to help develop renewable energy devices that use fuels of the future like hydrogen and new organic materials.”

“Through the Trust’s efforts to help grow the clean energy cluster, businesses are thriving and developing new technologies in Massachusetts,” said Warren Leon, director of the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust. “Businesses and consumers are taking advantage of rebates to install solar and wind power that result in significant economic and environmental benefits. We appreciate the Governor’s efforts to focus attention on a sector that can produce savings to companies and individuals as well as generate new jobs.”

Outside news-sources also gave strong coverage.

From the Metro West story on the issue.

The Boston Herald.
The Republican governor won support yesterday from a usually skeptical and critical force: environmentalists. “There’s a lot of good things in there,” said Sue Reid, an attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation.
“(Romney’s) record on energy is not so good, but this is a good plan,” said Frank Gorke, an energy specialist for MassPIRG, noting Romney has opposed the controversial Cape Wind plan for Nantucket Sound.

This other piece has some interesting points as well:

The ultimate goal would be to create sector jobs while fulfilling the state’s long-term energy needs. Romney projects the plan could save the state $575 million in energy costs.

Romney’s 10-year plan includes strategies to entice consumers to reduce consumption and expand the state’s natural gas supply. The plan also encourages adoption of renewable energy sources such as wind.

Mass-SPRIG (the major Environmental political lobbying group on state issues.) released this statement on the Romney’s new energy plan.

First, we want to thank Gov. Romney for taking separate action to stand up for renewable energy in Massachusetts.

This makes the right call by committing to put efficiency first, and that’s a very positive step. It is clear that a lot of thought has gone into this plan, and, for the sake of comparison, this plan is light-years better than what Congress and the Bush administration have put together in recent years.

So, can a conservative be solid on environmental issues? Part of me is thinking: “Where’s the catch?” However, we might be seeing a paradigm shift on this issue.

Jeff

[Read more →]

http://www.lowellsun.com/editorials/ci_4176623 Realizing what a friend she’s had in Governor Romney, Barabara Anderson, Executive Director of Massachusetts-based Citizens for Limited Taxation wrote today an opinion piece praising many of Romney’s recent and ongoing actions.

. . . while other states are moving to prevent eminent-domain abuse, Romney had to veto an amendment to the economic stimulus bill that will allow developers to create their own little mini-towns-within-towns by floating bonds to pay for the infrastructure. As one legislative opponent wrote in support of the veto, this whole concept “would benefit from undergoing full legislative process, including public hearing, rather than enactment as a veto override of a Senate amendment to a spending bill.”

Trying to sneak in eminent-domain as a minor point on a big bill. Nice try, but Romney’s too swift for that! Later Anderson contrasted Romney and former Gov. Dukakis.

Fortunately, Mitt Romney is now in charge of the Big Dig, and is clearly in his element when addressing a crisis. And for contrast, we have former Democratic Gov. Michael Dukakis, returned to rewrite history.

He is everywhere, on television, talk radio, in newspaper articles, insisting that the Big Digaster wouldn’t have happened if the Republican governors had listened to him: They should have kept his transportation secretary, Fred Salvucci, to run it right and for his estimated $2.4 billion cost.

Michael, you can’t rewrite history until everyone who actually lived it and remembers it is dead. And I’m not.

The detials that follow prove her point. Dukakis seems to be suffering from selective memory and an overly partisan mindset.

Jeff

[Read more →]

http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060811/NEWS/608110438/1003/RSS01&source=rss I can’t really fathom how hard it must be to be Governor of Massachusetts, and to essentially be at the will of the legislature. Yesterday gave us another example of Mitt Romney’s attempts to be reasonable and responsible in the face of the legislature’s wishes. From the Worcester Telegram: Gov. Mitt Romney is supporting a proposal aimed at stopping the construction of a liquefied natural gas terminal in Fall River, but recommending that the Legislature throw out another part of the bill that he says jeopardizes the state’s energy supply by blocking LNG shipments to an existing facility in Everett.

“I was very disappointed that a poison pill was added to the bill,” Mr. Romney said of language inserted in the proposal by House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi that would essentially cut off LNG shipments to the Suez Distrigas terminial in Everett. That facility meets about 20 percent of New England’s annual gas demands.

“It’s just not responsible for me to sign legislation that would hurt people,” Mr. Romney said. [Massachusetts House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi] acknowledged the legislation could be found unconstitutional by federal courts, which have ruled in similar cases that energy regulation is the domain of the federal government, but he said he wanted to elevate the issue in both the public’s and the federal government’s consciousness beforehand.

But Mr. Romney said that was the wrong approach.

“If somebody wants to just push the buttons of the feds, bring a lawsuit,” the governor said. “But don’t threaten the electricity and heating of our citizens to get someone’s attention.”
So Romney just wants to protect people from the dangers of a new LNG terminal in a residential area, and also make sure people have heating fuel this winter. Is that too much to ask?

Dave

Add to Del.icio.us

[Read more →]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14303121/ Romney was on MSNBC’s Hardball last night and this link has the entire transcript from the show. However, to save your scrolling digits I’ve pasted in Romney’s portion below. I did not see this interview and would love to hear from anyone who did about how Romney came across:

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL, overlooking the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

For the first time since September 11, 2001, National Guard troops have been ordered to patrol Logan International Airport in Boston. Governor Mitt Romney issued the order this morning and he joins us now from Boston. Governor, what will the army troops, the National Guard troops be able to do there that the airport police can‘t?

GOV. MITT ROMNEY ®, MASSACHUSETTS: Well, frankly, the real reason they‘re there is because we don‘t have enough airport security personnel and TSA personnel to man the double number of points for inspection that we‘ve had in the past. We‘ve always had one single place for security checkpoint.

Now we have a checkpoint at gates, as well as at the security point. We have to double our number of personnel, almost, and there just aren‘t enough people ready to do that. And that‘s why the National Guard has to step in and play that key role.

MATTHEWS: What do you make of Bob Baer, the expert who just came on and said that the problem now isn‘t so much the detection of metal objects that could‘ve been used—that certainly were used in 9/11 and could be used again, because these liquids are undetectable and therefore we‘re going to be in the situation that the Israelis are in, where you really have to detect the criminal intent of the passenger.

How are we going to have the logistical capability to conduct those kinds of lengthy examinations of people before they get on a shuttle to D.C., for example?

ROMNEY: Well, I think what this particular experience has taught us is one more time, the only way to effectively protect the homeland is not by inspecting every possible source of attack, but rather to do effective intelligence and counterterrorism work. That‘s what the British have shown us again.

You have to find the bad guys, reveal the plots before they carry them out, because the number of ways that people can attack us and the number of possible targets is so large that you can‘t protect every single asset, every single human, every single airplane, building, hospital, school. You have to find the bad guys and get them out of our country before they attack us.

MATTHEWS: Well, there‘s the tough stuff, because, as you know, you‘ve got to make decisions regarding civil liberties and national security which often come in conflict. How do we really do a great job of surveillance if we have people who are very concerned in this country about the Fourth Amendment and other guarantees of our freedom?

ROMNEY: Well, of course, we have to respect our Constitutional guarantees of freedom, recognize that the most important civil right we have is the right to life. And we need to make sure that our citizens are protected and don‘t lose their lives by virtue of not having done an effective job to survey those who would attack us.

Fortunately, in Great Britain, they have a very tough Patriot Act equivalent which allows them to do the kind of surveillance that identifies this plot before five or 10 aircraft end up killing all on board.

That‘s the most important thing that we have to do is to protect our citizens, and we can do it within a constitutional framework that we‘ve come to know and love. But intelligence work and counterterrorism has once again been proven as the only effective way to protect the homeland.

MATTHEWS: How do we do that? I‘m sure you‘ve traveled to Israel and gone through those interviews where they‘re very extensive. I remember back when I got out of the Peace Corps, they asked me what was I doing with a typewriter, was I going to write anything about the country, really invasive kinds of questioning to try to get at your political intent because that‘s the only way Israel has retained its 100 percent safety record with regard to hijacking. Can we get that tough?

ROMNEY: Well, we‘re going to be as tough as we have to be to protect our citizens from the kind of criminals that want to kill them. I was at Logan Airport today, as people were having their bags checked one more time just before they got on the aircraft.

They were checked first at the security checkpoint, now at the gate checkpoint. And I asked people going on board, do you find this intrusive, are you bothered by this? And they said, no, we‘re glad you‘re doing it. The American people want to be safe as they travel. They want the airline industry to be safe and effective and on time. They want the hotel industry to be able to accommodate passengers.

Look, this is an extremely high priority for our country, to protect our citizens, and the most effective tool we have currently is intelligence and anti-terrorism efforts. But, of course, we‘re also going to use every means of technology we have to protect citizens at the airport and to have those devices in place that can identify attack weapons and the like. But there‘s no way you can find every possible weapon and secure every possible target. It‘s just impossible. Instead, you have to go after the bad guys.

MATTHEWS: OK, thank you very much, Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts.

P.S. Gov. Pataki (NY) followed where they called up the national gaurd as well . . . and, as mentioned before, Schwartzeneger in CA did as well.

Jeff

Add to Del.icio.us

[Read more →]

http://news.bostonherald.com/localPolitics/view.bg?articleid=152338 This, from the Boston Herald’s Dave Wedge:Just as he did after the fatal Big Dig collapse, Gov. Mitt Romney sprang into action yesterday following news of a possible terror attack, taking firm control while scoring praise from political pundits and even some Democrats.

The possible 2008 presidential contender was the first governor nationwide to launch the National Guard - even though none of the terror-targeted planes were headed to Boston. He also called a 10 a.m. press conference, beating even President Bush to the airwaves, and abruptly canceled a trip to Wisconsin for a Republican fund-raiser.

“I think the governor’s actions were most appropriate, under the cirumstances,” said U.S. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Lowell). Asked how Romney’s take-charge persona is playing out on the national political scene, Meehan replied: “Anytime an executive makes the right decisions under pressure, voters respond.” Many doubters will look at this as they did the Governor’s response to the Big Dig tragedy and say he’s angling for political gain. What people fail to recognize is that this guy is simply wired this way. He reacts to difficult situations with superior leadership. Those are his natural instincts.

Dave

Add to Del.icio.us

[Read more →]

I am not sure how Massachusetts functioned without him in a crisis.  Willard is gaining praise for yet again taking control and giving Massachusetts a flash of that CEO governor we elected in 2002.  Whew, I feel better, don’t you?  I am willing to except the fact that he leaves Kerry Healey in charge nearly [...]

[Read more →]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/08/10/romney_to_activate_national_guard_for_logan_airport/?p1=MEWell_Pos5 This Boston Globe article reviews Romney’s actions in calling up the National Gaurd:

“I don’t know what other governors are doing. Logan has a specific history with regards to the initiation of terrorist activity on airlines, and therefore we have a heightened degree of concern here,” he said.

Since Sept. 11, Logan has become a pioneer in testing and using the latest aviation security technology. It was the first airport in the country to launch a permanent system that scans all checked baggage for explosives.”

One of the gaurdsmen that was called up said in the article:

“It’s still safe to fly. At the same time everyone should be aware and be on alert for people who are acting out of the ordinary,” said Sgt. Steven Hines, who carried an MP-5 machine gun on his patrol.

“I think sometimes people get complacent and they forget and think the threat isn’t there anymore,” Hines said. “As you heard the threat is there.”

Another article picked up by the Christian Broadcasting network stated:

“U.S. authorities raised the threat level to “red” for flights from Britain, the first time the highest threat of terrorist attack had been invoked since the system was created. All other flights were under an “orange” alert - one step below red.”

I’m guessing that Logan Airport has plenty of flights in from Britain. Those are “RED alert” flights and Romney took appropriate action. Romney has been VERY intertwined in developing disaster and homeland security plans. I would expect no less from potentially the strongest homeland security leader in the nation!

However, some are saying that this is all a “play to the media.”

Is Schwarzenegger “playing to the media” too (I sarcastically ask)?

“Schwarzenegger activates Guard in wake of London terror plot”

A snippet:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger activated the National Guard Thursday to bolster security at California airports after authorities said they had foiled a terror plot involving U.S.-bound planes from Britain.

“I have ordered the redeployment of security assets to high priority locations to respond to this threat,”

“These assets include bomb-sniffing dogs, the California National Guard, and the California Highway Patrol, in concert with local and federal law enforcement agencies.”

Strong leadership from men of action!

Jeff

[Read more →]

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/555ivsyw.asp?pg=1 The Big Dig and Romney’s response are featured in this week’s Weekly Standard:
“Early on, anyone looking at the Big Dig saw that it was a management horror show,” Romney told me. “It has been grossly under-managed, with huge cost overruns and extraordinary delays. What we began to find out was that it also had apparently cut corners and not been subjected to the kind of rigorous oversight that you’d expect in the world’s largest public works project.”

“When I learned that a ceiling panel had collapsed and killed a human being,” Romney went on, “it followed the same pattern, but the human cost had now reached a new level. What was before a financial embarrassment became a human tragedy.”

He described how he plans to handle the problem. “The best way to make something better is to expose it to the disinfectant of sunlight,” Romney says. “My approach in these kinds of settings is to open the doors, open the windows, let the light in, let the public see what’s going on. In my experience, people always feel better knowing about the real problems than guessing what those problems might be.” Taking the reins, without regard for the political consequences. Leadership and competence defined again by Governor Romney.

Dave

Add to Del.icio.us

[Read more →]

Stephen Moore, a member of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, sat down recently with our fearless leader Gov. Mitt Romney to talk about the Big Dig. What it a treat it was to read what Mitty thinks of the Big Dig, the interview yielded several jewels.
When I sat down for lunch with Gov. [...]

[Read more →]

Interesting story on the Globe’s Political Intelligence.  It seems that John Kerry crashed a fundraising event of Hillary Clinton’s that took place this past Sunday at the Westin Copley.  Perhaps Kerry was a little concerned about the fundraising juggernaut known as Hillary Clinton being on his turf.  Maybe he just wanted to make a little [...]

[Read more →]

Romney officially announced that he is giving up on the Republican Party here in Massachusetts in order to turn his sights to national Republicans.  Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney spokesman, acknowledged that governor’s sights are no longer at home; he attributes the reason for the lost interest on Romney’s new role as chairman of the Republican [...]

[Read more →]