Romney's speech at CPAC

Politico ^ | 2/27/2009 | Mitt Romney

[sevenbak]

"The Pursuit of the Difficult"

Thank you all very much. It’s good to see all of you, and to be among so many friends. Being at CPAC feels a bit like coming home. Your enthusiastic send off three years ago propelled my campaign to the top of the pack. That status turned out to be temporary, of course. And when the journey was over, both Ann and I were filled with gratitude for your friendship and loyalty. It warmed our hearts, and we thank you. A lot of you have been asking how Ann is doing. And I’m happy to say she’s doing great.

There are so many conservative leaders here this weekend. I was looking forward to seeing Governor Palin again. There’s a rumor that she has been offered an 11-million-dollar book contract. My publisher has been talking to me about an 11-millon-dollar deal as well. I’m just not sure I can come up with that kind of money.

It’s an honor to be introduced by David Keene. His commitment to conservative principles has been tested and proven, in many venues and over many years. Some of you were here with Dave for the very first meeting of CPAC in the 1970s. You’ve been involved long enough to know that like every great cause in America, the conservative movement has periods of success and moments of setback. And in 2008, we had more than our share of disappointments. But we haven’t come to CPAC to dwell on battles we’ve lost. We are here to get ready for the battles we’re going to win.

As conservatives, we face this new year with resolve, but without resentment. Our country has a new president, and he has our prayers and best wishes. In the last eight years, we saw how a president’s political adversaries could be consumed by anger, and even hatred. That is not the spirit that brings us together. We want our country to succeed, no matter who’s in power. We want America to be prosperous and secure, regardless of who gets the credit. At our best, that has always been the mark of the conservative movement – in good times and bad, the interests of this great nation come first.

Right now the interests of America will depend in many ways on the decisions of President Obama. Those choices are his to make, whether or not we see eye to eye. We won’t be afraid to disagree with him when we must. And we won’t be afraid to agree with him when we can. One thing the President can know is that when he takes strong action in defense of the United States, we will stand by him. And we will always support the brave men and women of our nation’s military that he now commands.

We make these commitments out of principle, and our principles don’t depend on elections won or lost. Contrary to what you hear from some commentators on the left, the 2008 elections did very little to settle the most serious differences of opinion in American politics. Some of those issues were hardly debated at all in the fall campaign. As conservatives in opposition, we have a duty to press on …a duty to state our case with confidence.

Some critics speak as if we need to redefine conservatism. I think that misses the mark. America’s challenges are different from year to year, but our defining principles remain the same. Conservatives don’t enter each new political era trying to figure out what we believe. Facing new and complex problems, we find the answers in principles that endure. Ronald Reagan used to say that “the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that what they know is wrong. ” Conservatives don’t claim to know everything, but what we know is right.

Conservatives believe in settling great questions the way the Founders intended – especially where the stakes are the highest. Courts that have undermined the fundamental right to life have shown an equal disregard for the rights of property and the rights of religious freedom. We’ve even seen them extend rights to terrorist combatants who have killed Americans and who would like to kill many more.

In the way of judicial nominees, these next four years aren’t likely to be encouraging. But we conservatives stand for causes that are too important to allow unelected judges to force their own biases on an unwilling nation. We may not always win at the polls, but we believe in democracy …we respect the will of the people …and across this country, we will not stand idly by as liberal judges try to re-write the constitution and override democracy.

I’m often asked these days what Republicans and conservatives have to do to recover. And I’ll bet my answer is the same as yours. Our first concern isn’t a political recovery – it’s the recovery of our country.

We‘re at one of those rare moments in history, when the biggest tests come all at once. We don’t have the luxury of taking them on one by one. We have to get a lot of things right, and all at the same time. We’re in the second year of a major recession, and if we don’t make the right choices, things could get worse. Americans have already lost some 12 trillion dollars in net worth. And the pool of our nation’s investment capital has also shrunk by trillions of dollars.

The President has already moved to stop our economy’s downward spiral. Parts of the stimulus will, in fact, do some good. But too much of the bill was short-sighted and wasteful. Every single Republican in Congress voted in favor of a better stimulus plan, one that focused on creating jobs immediately. But Congressional Democrats couldn’t restrain themselves from larding up their bill with tens of billions of dollars for their political friends. Republicans wanted to stimulate the economy, Democrats wanted to stimulate the government. Conservatives in the House and Senate stood their ground and voted no—and they were absolutely right.

So far, the Administration has been unclear on what it will do to address the huge decline in the pool of risk and investment capital. These losses will be felt in businesses that don’t start-up and grow, and in jobs that don’t get created. To grow the pool of investment capital, the last thing you’d do is to raise taxes on investment, as the President has proposed. The surest, most obvious course is to rule out higher taxes on investment. I would propose going one step further. For all middle-class Americans, we ought to abolish the tax on interest, dividends and capital gains.

This economic crisis has proven that government has an urgent obligation to address some awful abuses we’ve seen in the financial sector, particularly in housing finance. Free markets, properly regulated and allowed to work as they should, have propelled America to be the largest economy in the world. For years, Washington politicians did nothing to prevent the abuses at Fannie and Freddie, and in some cases they encouraged those abuses for political gain. Let’s be clear on this point: conservatives favor clear, streamlined and up-to-date regulations and laws that let the economy work, but we will vigorously oppose those politicians who are poised to use their own failures as an excuse to undermine the free enterprise system.

I know we didn’t all agree on TARP. I believe that it was necessary to prevent a cascade of bank collapses. For free markets to work, there has to be a currency and a functioning financial system. But we can agree on this: TARP should not have been used to bail out GM, Chrysler and the UAW. And this is personal for me, I want the U. S. auto industry to succeed. But as some of us pointed out last November, that can only happen if its excessive costs and burdens are restructured. And concessions are going to be few and far between if bondholders and unions already have your money when the negotiating begins. The right answer for Detroit is this: Fix it first.

All of these measures are meant to confront the current economic peril. Properly guided, Washington could in fact speed the recovery. So far, some of the actions it has taken will help, and some will hurt. But we can be certain that the American economy will recover. The invisible hand of the market is more powerful than the lumbering machinery of government. In the final analysis, we know that the private sector – entrepreneurs and businesses large and small – will create the millions of jobs our country needs.

Earlier this week, the President addressed not only the current economy, but also his broader goals. I was pleased that he put healthcare, education, and energy on the agenda. The direction we take on these issues will profoundly shape the future of the nation. I’m afraid I know where the liberal Democrats want to take us. And as they try to pull us in the direction of government-dominated Europe, we’re going to have to fight as never before to make sure that America stays America.

President Obama was awfully vague about some of his plans, but I think I heard him say that government is responsible for educating a child from birth—from birth—to its first job. Universal pre-school and universal college. And there were hints as well of universal healthcare and a universal service corps. It all sounds very appealing, until you realize that these plans mean universal government. That model has never worked anywhere in the world. America is great because our society is free and the power of government is limited by the Constitution.

For the last several years, we’ve heard liberals moaning about the 700 billion dollars that have been spent over six years to win freedom in Iraq. They have now spent more than that in 30 days. And with a government almost 12 trillion dollars in debt, any unnecessary spending puts at risk the creditworthiness of the United States. If the world loses confidence in our currency, that could cause a run on the dollar, or hyperinflation that would wipe out savings and devastate the Middle Class. President Obama says he hopes to cut the deficit in half after four years—does that mean a deficit in 2012 of 600 billion dollars? No president should accept such a staggering deficit, much less hold it up as a national goal. This is the time to pare back government spending. It is not the time to fulfill every liberal dream and spend America into catastrophe.

Congressional Democrats are gearing up to take over the health care system. We need to advance a conservative plan – one based on free choice, personal responsibility, and private medicine; one that doesn’t add massive new federal spending. I like what I proposed in Massachusetts when I was governor. And even though the final bill and its implementation aren’t exactly the way I wanted, the plan is a good model. Today, almost every Massachusetts citizen who had been uninsured now has private, free-market coverage, and we didn’t have to raise taxes or borrow money to make it happen. We may find even better ideas in other states. But let’s make certain that conservative principles are front and center. A big-government takeover of health care is the next thing liberals are going to try, and it’s the last thing America needs.

What America does need is a commitment to reforming entitlements. I believe that Medicaid should be capped and put in the hands of the states; Social Security benefits for high income citizens who are now age 55 or younger, should grow with the consumer price index, not the wage index; and Medicare should be reformed with a dose of free-market reality. These and other reforms are essential, because if we stay on the same road, the next generation could see tax rates 50 percent higher even than ours – and that’s to pay the bills we’ve racked up for ourselves. Passing on that kind of debt to our children is not only fiscally irresponsible, it is morally wrong.

I was glad that the President said he favors charter schools. Did you hear what sound came from the Democratic side of the chamber? Crickets. I hope the President will join all of us to expand school choice, reward better teachers with better pay, raise teacher standards in academic subject-matters like math and science, and enable school districts to remove teachers that don’t make the grade. It is high time to put America’s kids first and leave the union bosses behind.

We and the President agree that America must act to become energy independent. But his cap-and-trade proposal is exactly the wrong way to go about it. It would tax American citizens and employers and send businesses and jobs to high polluting and high emitting nations like China. Any carbon plan has to be worldwide in scope: they don’t call it America-warming, they call it global-warming.

Let’s also be the voice that defends the rights of workers – against coercion and intimidation. The working people of this country should be able to unionize the way their fathers and mothers did – by free choice and secret ballot. The Democrats’ plan to take away those rights is an insult to the dignity and common sense of working people. It would be calamitous for the economy. I know that the Democrats want to pay back the union bosses for all the money they gave them, but they must not do it by selling out the American worker – and democracy.

America voted for change. America did not vote for a boat-load of new government spending programs that would guarantee higher taxes and high deficits as far as the eye can see and that would threaten our currency, our economy, and our future. We must be the alternative course. We can’t be that if all we say is no. Our plans must be clear, compelling, and first to the table. Our plans must have at least one common thread—they must make America stronger. Better education strengthens our kids; better healthcare strengthens our citizens; and bringing our budget into balance strengthens our economy and preserves our future. Today, as much as ever, conservative principles are absolutely essential to keeping America strong and prosperous and free.

With all that is happening here at home, there are some who have forgotten that we are at war, that Iran and its jihadist surrogates are killing our sons and daughters abroad, and hope to do it here. I am pleased that our troops will be coming home from Iraq. But let there be no confusion: it is in spite of Barack Obama’s stance on Iraq, not because of it, that the troops are coming home in victory!

President Obama is barely a month into his term, and, of course, his biggest decisions on national security are still ahead of him. His administration has won the favor of liberal commentators by pledging what it calls reform in the treatment of terrorist detainees. He’s also promised to close down Guantanamo, without giving the slightest indication of the next stop for the killers being held there now. That decision, too, has received the predictable applause from certain law professors and editorial boards.

But here’s the problem. That is the very kind of thinking that left America vulnerable to the attacks of September 11th.

This is not a law enforcement problem. It is the gravest matter of national security, with thousands if not millions of lives in the balance. The jihadists are still at war with America. Our government has no greater duty than a vigilant defense, and no greater cause than victory for America and for freedom.

I had no objection when Barack Obama decided to give his first TV interview to an Arabic broadcaster. But when he said that America in the past has dictated to the world, he was misguided and naïve. And the next time our president speaks to a foreign audience I hope he will remember this basic fact of history: America is not a country that dictates to other nations. We are the country that has freed millions of people from the tyranny of dictators. Never in the history of a world has a single country possessed such great power, and used it for such good purpose across the world, as the United States of America.

I believe President Obama was also mistaken in backing away from our commitment to missile defense. And if he calculated that Russia would respond in kind by showing a little restraint and good will, he quickly learned otherwise. All Russia did to return the favor was bribe Kyrgyzstan to shut down our use of its airports, closing access we needed for our troops serving in Afghanistan. Gestures that communicate a lack of resolve only embolden America’s adversaries. With Iran seeking nuclear weapons, with North Korea already nuclear and selling its technology to the Syrians, it is essential that we construct a missile defense, now.

A lot of you have the memory of coming to CPAC in its early days, when America had challenges so big that many in the world – and even a few in our own government – thought we were in decline. They doubted our ability to compete economically, to face down the dangers of the era, or even to defend our ideals. Today we’re hearing echoes of that era once again, from those who speak of America as if our day has passed.

Some of these critics never cared much for our belief that America occupies a special place …that there is work in the world that only we can do …and that Americans have the heart and the courage to get it done. But we know these things to be true. And to those who question the character of our country, including the new attorney general, let us remind them that America has never been, is not now, and will never be a nation of cowards.

I don’t deny that America’s challenges are great, or that overcoming them will require the best that we have to give. But I know as well that times of difficulty always bring out the essential character of our fellow citizens. When I was a boy, my dad used to say that the pursuit of the difficult makes you strong. Well, the pursuit of the difficult will make America strong. We welcome the challenge. It will call on us, once again, to draw on the incredible resilience, ingenuity, and faith of the free men and women of America.

We don’t get to choose the tests and trials ahead. But we’re entirely free, you and I, to choose how we will meet those tests. We will meet them as conservatives have done before. We will find strength in each other, and answer our opponents with good will and honest words. And we will go forward – confident in our beliefs, and certain of victories to come. "

Thank you. ####

[Waryone]

Which fact do you disagree with? I may have to chase it down for the billionth time but it’s been done so many times I’ll get you the proof. Remember we had these discussions last year and there was proof after proof that Romney is a RINO. Romney’s own words, press releases, letters to gays rights organizations, all said the same things but we had Romneybot after Romneybot showing up here trying to defend him with his own lies. Trashing Reagan, trying to make excuses for Romney’s pro-abortion stand. Even if you give them the irrefutable proof to their face, they still refuse to give up their lies.

Just let me know which facts you’ve been deceived in.

[Plutarch]

And just why do you feel a need to create a diversion from a thought provoking talk about the problems we are facing in America?

The Romney-bash spamfests into which these threads rapidly degenerate, with a handful of malevolent posters conducting filibustering posting relays amongst themselves, surely provokes repugnance, but I've yet to see "thought...about the the problems we are facing in America."

[ansel12]

Remember we had these discussions last year and there was proof after proof that Romney is a RINO. Romney’s own words, press releases, letters to gays rights organizations, all said the same things but we had Romneybot after Romneybot showing up here trying to defend him with his own lies. Trashing Reagan, trying to make excuses for Romney’s pro-abortion stand. Even if you give them the irrefutable proof to their face, they still refuse to give up their lies.

Amen brother, that they do. It is what makes the Romney followers different than anyone else.

[BarnacleCenturion]

"Remember we had these discussions last year and there was proof after proof that Romney is a RINO."

 

I was here and that seems to have escaped my memory. I do remember this FR poll though:

 

 

Which GOP presidential hopeful do you want to see win the most delegates on Super Tuesday?

 

Member Opinion
Mitt Romney	75.9%		1,390
Ron Paul	11.5%		211
Mike Huckabee	7.6%		139
John McCain	5.0%		92
	100.0%		1,832

 

[BarnacleCenturion]

“I like Romney.”

I always knew that...

[Diogenesis]

That was fake, single poll, BC.
How Romney is that?

The rest were like this:
FLASHBACK:

FRee Republic Member Opinion
WINNER - Thompson 66.8% 1,658
LOSER --- Romney 12.7% 315

Post Election Rasmussen poll - GOP voters:
WINNER - Palin -- 64%
LOSER --- Huckabee -- 12%
LOSER --- Romney -- 11%

[Diogenesis]

Romney's bad behavior Exposed by Seamus

"Romney Loses Nomination Over Dog Abuse?
Romney was traveling that summer with his wife, five sons, and Seamus to his parent's cottage on Lake Huron.
But hours into the ride, Seamus apparently suffered diarrhea,
which ran down the back window of the car. Romney's sons, all under 13, howled in disgust.
Romney pulled off the road into a service station.
There, he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, and they drove on to Ontario.
.....David Kravitz wrote on BlueMassGroup, a liberal blog.
"It also strikes me as classic Romney: it solves a problem efficiently,
in a business-like manner, and with no regard whatsoever
for the suffering that the solution may cause."

---

It was illegal but Romney is always "above the law (see fake badges, impersonating LEO in multiple states, faking endorsements, dirty tricks, .............)"

"But the details of the event are more than unseemly — they may, in fact, be illegal.
Massachusetts's animal cruelty laws specifically prohibit anyone
from carrying an animal "in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel
or inhuman manner or in a way and manner which might endanger the
animal carried thereon." An officer for the Massachusetts Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals responded to a description of the situation
saying "it's definitely something I'd want to check out." The officer,
Nadia Branca, declined to give a definitive opinion on whether Romney broke the law
but did note that it's against state law to have a dog in an open bed of a pick-up truck,
and "if the dog was being carried in a way that endangers it, that would be illegal."

---

"Dog on Roof? What Was It Like for Romney's Pooch?
Scientists Say Dog Likely Experienced Wind-Whipped, Uncomfortable Trip
"Before beginning the drive, Mitt Romney put Seamus, the family's hulking Irish setter,
in a dog carrier and attached it to the station wagon's roof rack.
e'd built a windshield for the carrier, to make the ride more comfortable for the dog," read the article.
Jordan Kaplan, the owner of Petaholics, a dog walking service in New York City,
and a lifelong dog owner and dog lover, said Romney's actions were uncalled for.
....What Happens to a Dog on a Roof Traveling 50 MPH?"

---

"Romney's dog - This is a distinction Mitt Romney probably could do without, but he is surely
the first presidential candidate to be attacked for putting a dog with diarrhea
in a carrier and tying it to the top of a station wagon.
Romney's defense: Seamus liked it. "He scrambled up there every time we went on trips,"
the Republican said during a campaign stop in Pittsburgh. "He got in all by himself and enjoyed it."

---

"As the oldest son, Tagg Romney commandeered the way-back of the wagon,
keeping his eyes fixed out the rear window, where he glimpsed the first sign of trouble.
''Dad!'' he yelled. ''Gross!'' A brown liquid was dripping down the back window,
payback from an Irish setter who'd been riding on the roof in the wind for hours.
As the rest of the boys joined in the howls of disgust,
Romney coolly pulled off the highway and into a service station.
There, he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car,
then hopped back onto the highway."

---

"Story about dog on car roof comes back to bite Romney
Critics, jokesters make issue of tale
TIME.com's Swampland blog has been flooded with more than 200 comments
from readers complaining of animal cruelty"

---

[Diogenesis]

Good point. On this you are correct.

By inflicting socialized medicine (without a vote),
and gay marriage (against the Mass.Constitution and Clerks rioting,
also without a vote), and BIGdig coverup, and local GOP destruction,
and throwing the Election2008 in a jealous hissy-fit to Obama
by directing a vicious attack upon Gov.Palin directly and indirectly,
the repeat, goose-leg, brownshirt, chameleon, but
RINO candidacy of Mitt Romney remains a major problem "we are facing in America".

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

There are so many conservative leaders here this weekend. I was looking forward to seeing Governor Palin again. There’s a rumor that she has been offered an 11-million-dollar book contract. My publisher has been talking to me about an 11-millon-dollar deal as well. I’m just not sure I can come up with that kind of money.

Low class cheap shot. Why am I not surprised.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

It doesn't take long, nor do you have to look hard, for the anti-Mormon bent of Romney-loathers to show itself.

I take it that you are including the illustrious owner of this board as well since he had this to say about Romney earlier in the week.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Why would he bring her up in his speech, period, but none of his other GOP rivals, unless he wanted to get a dig in at her?

[Waryone]

Don’t know much about Jindal at this point, but my objection to Romney had nothing whatsoever to do with his religion. He was (is) a slimy two-faced politician who would do or say anything to get elected. He ran and governed as an abortionist socialist liberal. His convenient conversion to pro-life conservatism just in time to try to capture the Republican nomination for president is laughable. He’s a fraud. JMHO, of course.

167 posted on February 25, 2009 2:48:30 PM EST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

Thank you so much for posting that. I had not seen that before. I'm sure theBOTs will have excuses as to why this must be a mistake or this never happened. According to them, Romney surely delighted the conservatives on this site, won every poll, never a word of disagreement with their "One" has been spoken on Free Republic. As they try to convince me that after two years of conservatives pointing out Mitt's lies day after day, my eyes were mistaken. Two years of watching videos of Mitt say one thing and then lie and say the exact opposite, two years of watching him impugn Ronald Reagan's character, two years of Romney having his own words, documents, and actions show him to be a bald faced lying liberal.

The only people who lie more than Mitt Romney are his supporters and from what I can see, they lie a long time and think our memories are short. We ended up with "0" because the RINOs keep thinking they can win if they could just get those conservatives to shut up. Well there is no way I'm going to be quiet. I hate RINOs, all of them and Romney is just the biggest liar and phony of the bunch.

[Captain Kirk]

Sorry, as many Conservatives...especially those who understand business and the banking system...supported the bank bailout as opposed it. Romney understands that banks without any liquidity can't lend money and thus completely stalls out any possibility of growth.

My only complaint with the bank bailout was the complete lack of accountability and supervision. That was where the failing occurred.

Your "only complaint?" Now...that's an understatement if I ever saw one. Your second paragraph undermines the whole case you made in the first one. If Romney is such an expert, why didn't he speak out against the "failing" at the time? instead, he panicked and supported a terrible bill (not a good trait in a president). The sad truth is that he. like the others who supported the bailout, inaccurately predicted that it would restore "liquidity." The actual result of Romney's folly is that we are headed for one of two terrible alternatives: nationalization or an even more massive bailout combined with more crippling regulation.

Let's suppose, however, that Romney had (contra history) actually demanded and gotten "accountability." That wouldn't have worked either. We don't live in a magical world where politicians (even if they have business backgrounds) can "plan" the distribution of credit in banking. They tried that in the Soviet Union and it didn't work.

The best alternative then and now was to follow the free market alternative as recommended by the prescient Ron Paul and other critics of the billionaire bailout: bankruptcy. Would there be some short term suffering? Of course! But it would be far less than under the two alternatives created by Romney's folly of ever more massive bailouts and nationalization.

[BarnacleCenturion]

“We ended up with “0” because the RINOs keep thinking they can win if they could just get those conservatives to shut up.”

We couldn`t agree more. And Conservatives shall speak again today at 4:30PM at CPAC. Stay tuned. Rush will speak afterwards.

[rodeo-mamma]

I will have to really give Palin a second chance if what you say is true. It is very possible that my distaste for her was colored by the hate her so-called supporters have been spewing for Mitt. It’s so ugly the way those people have slandered Mitt that anyone they like gets on my shit list really quick. I will start to see Palin in a totally different light if what you say is true. It would serve those Mitt haters right. And it would make me feel a whole heck of a lot better!

[rodeo-mamma]

“Calling people Romneybots and posting recycled John Kerry graphics don’t convince anyone of anything. I suspect the real tactic is to disrupt any thread about Romney so much that you can kill any meaningful discussion.”

You are very correct. It is fascinating to me how people who claim to be conservatives are actually using Communist style tactics. It makes me wonder if these people are actually working for the same people who put Obama in the presidency.

[Ol' Sparky]

And there were hints as well of universal healthcare and a universal service corps. It all sounds very appealing, until you realize that these plans mean universal government. That model has never worked anywhere in the world.

LOL! And, what governor led the charge and signed universal health care into law in Massachusetts? WILLARD MITT ROMNEY!

[Ol' Sparky]

Notice how it is Willard’s supporters that have to bring up the fact he is Mormon to try and deflect attention away from his liberal record as governor of Massachusetts. Pathetic.

[Ol' Sparky]

Tell me again why you don't consider him a Conservative.

Because he raised taxes and fees $700 million as governor of Massachusetts, passed through universal health care, was rabidly pro-abortion, nominated homosexual activist lawyers to courts and didn't lift a finger to stop gay marriage?

And, I am sure I am leaving quite a few things out.

[Ol' Sparky]

There was NOTHING conservative about Romney in Massachusetts. When given the choice between genuine conservatives with a conservative records and this fraud, who do you think most conservatives are going to pick to be the GOP nominee in 2012?