Posted on 11/01/2007 7:41:08 PM PDT by tompster76
I’m quite proud of her!
As you should be.
You're daughter is obviously 'wise beyond her years'!
“Romney advocates more efficient government, while Thompson promotes LESS GOVERNMENT ALTOGETHER, including government interference in private affairs from business to health care. There is a big difference.”
Romney has advocate limiting Government spending.
That's what happens when you are a consistantly high 2nd place, while the 1st place bounces between two others wildly. A low 3rd and a bare minimum 1st will average below a high 2nd.
That's also why the National average is worthless except to predict general trends. If you poll hugely well in a few Blue locations, such as NY and CA, you may be 1st in the national polls, but still lose everywhere else. And the Primaries are state by state, not national, with the delegates weighted to the Red states.
One question I would like to see asked at the debates (for BOTH parties) is:
What govt programs,,,or departments,,,or bureaucracies,,,or agencies,,,will you attempt to reduce or eliminate?
That, to me, is an important question--to see if any are really serious about reducing the size/cost/intrusiveness of the Fed govt.
I disagree entirely. Romney diffuses the eco-extremists by proposing the reasonable approach - voluntary action and I think the statement lays down it clearly - "I found that thoughtful environmentalism need not be anti-growth and anti-jobs." - and correctly.
We can fight the environmentalists by saying "screw the caribou, drill in ANWR" or we can fight them by saying "You know what, we can drill in an environmentally satisfactory way that doesnt harm the caribou, here's how."
His plan was voluntary and he also expressed skepticism about climate change when he released it:
In addition to rejecting more stringent proposals, Romney made a special effort to convey that he personally had doubts about alarmist global warming theory, going so far as to attach a letter to the plan's final version suggesting he remains unconvinced that man-made greenhouse gases are an environmental problem.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15250
“What govt programs,,,or departments,,,or bureaucracies,,,or agencies,,,will you attempt to reduce or eliminate?”
Good question.
There are some areas where Fred Thompson will say no and Mitt Romney may say yes, but not too many IMHO.
Even the ethanol subsidies, Fred was against but heard recently he said something positive about it in Iowa.
A good answer to that would be: “We need another Grace Commission” The entire US Govt should be streamlined, reorganized and reduced. Block-grant instead of direct funds from Washington, etc.
Here are the pre Super Tuesday races.
Thursday, January 3, 2008 - Iowa (41)
Saturday, January 5, 2008 - Wyoming (12 of 28)
Tuesday, January 15, 2008 - Michigan (61)
Saturday, January 19, 2008 - Nevada (34), South Carolina (47)
Tuesday January 22, 2008 - New Hampshire (24)
Tuesday, January 29, 2008 - Florida (114)
Saturday, February 2, 2008 - Maine (21)
Right now, Mitt Romney is positioned to take the first 6 straight if he take SC, with SC and FL narrowly split three ways and ME likely to Giuliani (and maybe NV. That might be a state where Mitt's LDS religion works for him). This will likely eliminate all the "lower tier", and maybe Thompson if he doesn't make a decisive showing in SC or FL.
If Romney wins SC, it might be over pretty soon after that.
He is a machine.
I would ask for 'SPECIFICS''!!!
No generalities--What agencies? What departments? What programs??
That speaks much in Romney's favor. I remember seeing a Thompson video where he flat out challenges the alarmist crap. I like that better.
Romney: "I found that thoughtful environmentalism need not be anti-growth and anti-jobs."
Sorry, but that is unmitigated hornswaggle every time, every place, every way. Environmentalism is all about slowing or stopping growth, which in turns slows or stops jobs related to that growth. Of course, plenty MORE jobs are created in the environmentalist "industry," but they are non-producitve jobs usually funded by taxpayers.
When a politician says what Romney said in the quote above, I see placating at best, lying at worst. Because indeed, YES, environmentalism's leftist agenda IS anti-growth and anti-business, and it is no more possible to accommodate it without hurting growth and jobs than it is to accommodate a water shortage without depriving people of water. It is that simple. I have been watching it here in California since I was still a child and the Coastal Commission came into being. Believe me, for Romney to have uttered those words proves him beyond shadow of doubt to be either very naive or he thinks I'm naive enough to buy such pablum. I lose respect and confidence in politicians who say such junk, and that's exactly what it is: junk.
You are not only wrong, but you fall into an environmentalist/puritan trap in thinking that.
environmentalism's leftist agenda IS anti-growth and anti-business, and it is no more possible to accommodate it without hurting growth and jobs
I agree that the environmental left is anti-jobs, anti-energy, anti-capitalism, etc. ... But you are distorting or misunderstanding the point - breaking that link, IT IS NOT TO ACCOMODATE THEIR AGENDA AT ALL. it is co-opting it, saying - 'your goals can be met without your dangerous socialistic agenda.'
I gave one example - we can drill ANWR in an environmentally sound manner.
Here's another: Nuclear power. you can state flatly: " Thoughtful environmentalism need not be anti-growth and anti-jobs. We can have emissions-free non-polluting abundant energy by moving to nuclear power. This keeps jobs local and doesn ship money overseas for energy purchases. It can eliminate CO2 generation and the 'carbon footprint' from electricity by 100%."
It's all 100% true and like a Judo move turns the environmentalists' argument back on themselves, tying them in knots. Let THEM explain why they oppose pollution-free energy!
You are 100% correct. Romney is smart and savvy enough to know that these are issues important to the American people and it is up to conservatives to come up with free-market and conservative alternatives to the socialist agenda to deal with them. He's saying, we can take care of these things in the right way. Just get out of the way and let us do it. Ignoring them or pretending these issues do not exist will not make them go away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.