Interestingly, the Mitt Romney minions are pitching a fit over my list of ten questions that need to be asked of the candidate, many of them centering on gun rights.
The most curious comments are those claiming that Romney is 'another Reagan' and the notion that he is the one candidate who can unite conservatives and beat Obama in 2012.
Let me be clear about a couple of things. When it comes to free enterprise (except for RomneyCare), taxes, and economic policy, Romney is clearly an authority. I see him as being an excellent Treasury Secretary.
But President or Vice-President? No. The reasons are clear and have been discussed here many times.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Were your comments really that controversial? Every candidate should be asked such questions. The thing is, I think Romney has already answered these questions satisfactorily.
Romney is a true public servant. I've met him, and trust no one more to lead our country back from the brink in 2012.
Romney is for gun rights. I suppose there is always some line that has to be determined as to what is an appropriate weapon and what is not.
Should all Americans be allowed to have nuclear weapons? Probably not. Should all Americans be able to have handguns or shotguns? Certainly yes, especially if they are responsible enough to use them. (Many Dems might contend Americans are too stupid to know how or when to use them. Most Republicans would not let their three year olds or mental health patients fire them. What about felons?)
What about weapons in between? Machine guns? Conservatives would probably want a more liberal skew to these rights, while liberals would be more conservative.
The answer to this question must be decided in the public square. I believe that any weapon that allows us to fight off a specific threat is appropriate, while those weapons that might allow us to kill indiscriminately MAY not. It is overkill to wipe out a city (with a nuclear response) when there is just one terrorist in the city. (Even if that terrorist is Osama Bin Laden?)
Mitt is no threat to individual gun rights. He IS a member of the NRA, even if only recently.
As for health care, he is clear that if such a program were to be instituted at all, it should be on a state level, by the will of the state (and the people in that state.) In Massachusetts, it was the will of the people. 98% of those who voted on it were for it, along with the majority of Massachusetts citizens. Is it a perfect system? No. Yet Romney has not said he thinks it is a failure. It has insured 400,000 extra people for less than 1.2% of the state budget. Had Massachusetts done it Mitt's way, it would have cost the state nothing, but the consensus version of the bill turned out to cost something. RomneyCare has also given us the side benefit of sinking ObamaCare, as Massachusetts residents did not want to pay for similar care twice, and elected Scott Brown to stop it.
Most states would not accept the Massachusetts system, and Mitt has said he would not push it on any state, let alone federally. I do think most states would accept some form of health care reform, and Romney's system is a lot closer to that standard than Obama's. For one thing, Romney's system is based on a free market system. Both have mandates, but Romney's only costs the non-paying offender $250 (relatively speaking a parking ticket) vs. $250,000 and 5 years in prison as in the House bill. A $250 fee probably reflects actual costs to the state of a person not being insured. A $250,000 fee reflects actual costs to the state of keeping the person in prison for five years. Honestly, which is fair? (If either one?)
Is Romney on the wrong side of a public debate? Much less so than Obama/Pelosi/Reid. Does his type of health care reform reflect fiscal sense and real compassion? Certainly FAR more than Obama"Care" (cuz I'm telling you, Obama don't care. ObamaCare is about power over the American people and paying off special interests and unions.)
The real answers to these questions ought to be answered by real debate in the public square, not by Romney. Thank you for your voice as a part of that debate.
As for whether Romney should be judged or punished for his specific stance on these specific issues, that is up to the individual voter.
Having asked myself these questions, I support Romney. There is no one I trust more to lead us back from the economic brink in 2012.
Sorry, I thoroughly disagree with you about Romney and will actively oppose his nomination. He has been all over the map on issues that matter to me the most. I hear the same thing from numerous conservatives and Tea Party folk.
Post a Comment