Free Republic

That’s interesting. I was at the rally and I thought they could have fit another 200-300 people on the floor. I actually didn’t think it was going to fill up, since there were still 300 empty seats 20 minutes before Palin went on.

I could except, I live in central NJ. I’d be pretty surprised if they had tickets for the rally in Central NJ. Because I’m surrounded by a sea of blue states and because Obama seems to be taking off a bit, I’m not willing to take a chance that Palin will be showing up in PA again. So I’m definitely up for getting there at 3-4 am, but again, it’d be a real bummer to be turned away.

I’m thinking about attending the Palin rally in Johnstown, PA tomorrow, but it’s an 6 hour drive, and I won’t be able to get a ticket in time. Has anyone here been to a Palin rally? What are the chances of me getting in if I show up 3 or 4 hours early? I’d hate to drive all the way up there for nothing.

This is an absolutely amazing headline. Mitt Romney’s fortune Tied to Business Riches. You know, tied as in “Nixon tied to Watergate Scandal” or “Cop tied to Drug Cartel”. It’s an absolutely stunning indication of how ridiculously socialist the NYT is, that a person can now be “Tied” to business.

“To expand, I believe EVERYONE should serve their country IF they are to have the right to vote. Service, however, would not be limited to the military. Peace Corps, America Corps, and other civic/civilian service would be allowed or substituted. Only the most severly disabled would be unable to fulfill the obligation. Exceptions and substitutions could be created to accommodate those cases. Understand that it would not be forced. It would be voluntary and a requirement only if you want to vote. The premise is based upon the question, why should those who have invested nothing into the country be allowed to determine its course.”

This is what I’d call “slavery”. Even a military draft is only legally justifiable because the constitution gives Congress broad powers to raise a militia. If someone were to institute a draft, and offer, as Charlie Rangel proposed, other types of service as an option, it would not only be patently unconstitutional, but as I said, slavery.

If you’d read America Alone, you’d realize this “mass breeding” habit of Mormons, is every bit as important and patriotic as military service. Anyone who doesn’t have at least 3 children, doesn’t deserve to be president and is patently un-American.

Anyone who declares a day honoring that eugenicist Margaret Sanger, simply utterly reprehensible.

I’d note that this article doesn’t suggest that Romney’s opposed to states or localities having the OPTION to teach intelligent design in public schools. Which is, as we know, the only relevant thing in a fairly federalist educational system. It sounds like Romney wouldn’t prefer teaching ID in public schools if he were, say, a governor or a mayor. But we have no idea about whether or not he think it ought to allowable. And that currently is a question the Supreme Court’s going to have to re-examine if we want progress on the issue.

Umm...THIS poll includes Fred Thompson. He’s at 11% (1/3 of Romney’s support). Did you even view the link?

No thanks. 15% of Romney’s money came from Utah. Utah houses roughly one half of America’s Mormon population. The average Utah resident, is about 30% more likely to be aware of Romney candidacy, due to his work on the Salt Lake City Olympics. Even assuming that every dollar Romney received from Utah comes from Mormons (pretty unlikely), and even discounting the fact that people outside of Utah are less aware of Romney (including Mormons), and thus less likely to donate to his campaign: in short, even assuming a flat out nationwide extrapolation based on Utah’s numbers, we’re left with only 30% of his donations coming from Mormons. Try to tie him to some vast Mormon conspiracy all you like, or try to diminish his accomplishments. But the facts don’t agree.

Early reports have indicated that around one quarter of the money is from Mormons. That still leaves 15 million and change, out of his 21 million haul. Better then any other any other Republicans.

Look at the cross-tabs of that poll. Romney gets wide support from all factions of the GOP, and the political spectrum. Almost as many moderates as conservatives support him. The idea that he can’t win the national election is laughable.

On another note, with Romney’s obvious strength in NH, Iowa is going to be especially important. If Romney wins Iowa, he will without question win New Hampshire. And candidates simply don’t lose the nomination after winning Iowa AND New Hampshire. It’d require a collapse of monumental proportions.

The moderator wasnÂ’t asking about federal legislation, and the bit of ThompsonÂ’s reply that dealt with federal legislation, had nothing to do with his later statements. I mean, the guy asked “do you support or oppose laws that prohibit abortions for convenience”. And when he finally gets around to answering the question, he says he opposes such laws. Now, you can interpret as meaning federal laws if you like, but I see no evidence that thatÂ’s the case, and plenty of evidence (namely that heÂ’d already said he didnÂ’t like federal abortion laws, and the fact that the prior sentences had dealt exclusively with state regulations) that it isnÂ’t. It makes absolutely no sense to say that women and doctors shouldnÂ’t be criminalized, because criminalization is too harsh (which is his clear implication), only on the federal level. I mean, that part of the argument was clearly directed at the moral and political implications of such laws. And it doesnÂ’t become any less “harsh” if the states criminalize the practice, rather then the federal government. Roe v. Wade essentially stated that there were two state interests in the abortion debate. That of the stateÂ’s concern for the health of the mother, and the stateÂ’s concern for the life of the fetus. The states interest in the latter only became “compelling” (i.e., able to overcome the nature of the privacy right that is “broad enough to encompass abortion”) at the point of viability (thus the trimester framework). Restrictions prior to viability were therefore impermissible entirely. Subsequent cases (Akron, Thornburgh, etc) made the abortion right even more extreme by confirming that health exceptions were required (essentially mandating abortion on demand, by defining the health exception, in Doe v. Bolton if memory serves, extremely broadly). Abortion rights were finally scaled back somewhat in Webster, and that decision planted the course on a possible course to ultimately overturn Roe. Specifically in Webster, a law prohibiting the use of state facilities for various aspects of abortion (funding, counseling, etc) was upheld. Finally, in Casey, the court discarded the trimester framework, permitted regulations like the 24-hour waiting period, parental consent, and informed consent, but upheld the “central” (though as Scalia points out in dissent, the trimester framework was as central as anything else) right to abortion articulated in Roe. That was the state of the law when Thompson ran for senator in 96′. Stating that states ought to be able to make “reasonable controls, in terms of parental notification and things like that”, is at best, an utterly meaningless statement from a constitutional perspective. The states already had the power to pass such legislation (parental notification is even lesser in degree then parental consent). Had he been in some sort of hostile environment, his phrasing could have plausibly (though I think incorrectly) been interpreted as a dodge of the basic constitutional question, but he wasnÂ’t in a hostile environment. He was in the middle of an election campaign he would win by 30 points, representing a party and constituency which was overwhelmingly pro-life. And he was tossed an absolute softball by the moderator. His position was pro-choice, and no level of twisting and turning can make it otherwise.

I think Romney’s objection to the Flat Tax stems from a belief that many high income individuals don’t earn all of their money through salaries, but rather throw capital gains, and the like. Whether or not you agree with this policy, it’s clearly easier for a rich executive to obtain money through channels that limit the taxes he’d pay, then it is for a laborer. His statement suggests that he’d be in favor of a flat tax which encapsulated all income, rather then just salary. I don’t particularly agree with this position, but its awfully different from opposing the Flat Tax because you think the rich ought to pay more taxes.

I was here to compare Romney’s pro-choice past, and pro-life record, with Thompson’s pro-choice past, and pro-life record. I’m not attacking you for failing to see Romney’s greatness. I think it’s perfectly possible for people to prefer Thompson to Romney. I don’t, in fact, unlike some Giuliani and Thompson supporters, believe that Romney is the only candidate someone could sanely support. And I have no issue with you finding Romney “stale” and “unexciting”. You don’t have to, because I’m sure you’ll support him when he’s the nominee (as I’ll support Thompson if he becomes the nominee). Romney’s stalwart supporters are excited enough for everyone. What I’m taking issue with is what I thought was a characterization of Romney’s supporters as some sort of brainwashed, stereotypical, presumably Mormon (judging by the BYU comment), neophytes. But I can see you didn’t really mean any harm.

“Places for $500.

A. This one lives in a blue state, thinks Romney is a rock star and claims to not live in Massachusetts.

Q. What is a transplant to California from Massachusetts that attended BYU? :)”

Predictable. I live in a blue state (NJ), never attended anything like BYU (in fact, I’m embarrassed to admit this, but prior to learning of Romney I would throw away pamphlets I received from Mormons due to the “weirdness” factor), and I think Romney is a rock star. If you feel the need to pigeonhole Romney supporters, then by all means go ahead. But don’t be surprised when your pigeonholing doesn’t jive with reality.

“You’re not from Massachusetts? You don’t say!

Okay, Utah then? the mystery is killin’ us!”

RedgirlinBLUESTATE....

“Definitely. Dealing effectively with words takes experience, time and great care. Even a candidate with great writing skills of their own doesn’t have enough hours in the day to do even a fraction of it.”

I enjoyed that. An exchange with you that didn’t involve hostility. Given that I’m supporting a candidate you despise, we’re bound to disagree an awful lot. But I’d guess we’ll be on the same side more often then it sometimes seems. Good to be reminded of that.

“What changed things...repeating famously Castro phrases to South Florida Cubans?”

I have no idea. But I watched an interview of him sometime in late February I believe, where he admitted that he’d written most of his speeches up to that point, but was looking into getting speechwriters (no reason given). He was a valedictorian English major in college, so I imagine he thought he could get away with something like that. But at this level, speech writing has to do with an awful lot more then being able to string sentences together in a tidy way. And gaffes like that highlight this. It really should be handled, at least partly, by professionals.

“And yes I do find him dull, no matter how firey his hand motions, his head swaggers, his lips curl to hurl expressions that were written by others.”

At least until a few weeks ago, Romney had done his own speech-writing (at least the drafts).