Obama and Rev. Wright

I'm curious if Obama honestly thinks the American people are idiots. Hopefully this issue gets more light in the general election. The issue here isn't race. It's his judgement, which he's trumpeting to be superior to those who have experience.

I had to write this for a Political Sciences class in college, so I'd thought you'd enjoy it.

Senator Obama recently had to deal with the"Reverend Wright Issue". Rev. Wright
was the pastor, and is the Pastor Emeritus of the United Trinity Church of Christ, a church that
Senator Obama attended somewhat regularly for the last twenty years. The senator had his children baptized by Wright and he was married by the reverend. The problem? Rev. Wright has been known for his prejudiced, race-charged and conspiratorial sermons. He has accused the US government of manufacturing the HIV/AIDs virus (despite no proof) infecting black men with syphillis (despite no proof) and oppressing Palestinians and Africans, despite our billions of dollars in aid to those areas. Senator Obama started to dip in the polls and was scheduled to give a speech on race to deal with certain questions and the issue in general. His speech had a few main themes, mainly race in general, race in this election and his
association with Reverend Wright.

When he touched on the issue of race in general, for the most part I completely agreed with him and thought it to be excellently written and delivered. The main point I wholeheartedly agreed with is that blacks and whites need to understand each other and come to a much more honest position with each other on race. Blacks need to understand that few whites today really do harbor racist or bigoted opinions and that America is quite color blind compared to Germany, where Neo-Nazis threaten to be represented in the Reichstag again, or in Zimbabwe where race-based confiscation of property continues. Obama also sympathizes with many whites in speech, realizing that few of them benefited from their race at all, especially the later European immigrants from Ireland, Germany, Italy and Eastern Europe. In addition he also makes whites realize that merely because they are not racist and because they did not benefit from their race, does not make racism in America go away. He acknowledges that many cases of alleged "racism" in America are in fact bogus and credit conservatives for revealing them to be so. But he also touched on the fact that many unbigoted and non-racist whites do unconciously ignore racism in America. There are a few parts of this theme however, that I do contend with, though they are not part of the main theme and are mainly side issues.

For instance Senator Obama claims that slavery is this nation's "original sin." While slavery
was black mark in this nation's reputation, it was by no means an American invention and America often has a better record of fighting against racial bigotry and slavery than most. President of the Continental Congress, Henry Laurens once said,

"I abhor slavery. I was born in a country where slavery had been established by British Kings and Parliaments as well as by the laws of the country ages before my existence." (Barton, Original Intent, 289)

While America inherited a system of slavery, it did much to combat the institution and the legacy of racism. I believe that calling slavery "this nation's original sin" clouds this fact. Lastly I think one, and possibly the only real failure of this speech concerning race in general, was the fact that the race dialogue focused almost solely on whites and blacks. Latinos have been living in what is now the United States for almost 500 years. Asians have been emigrating to the US since the early 1800s. Yet it seems like every time a new call for a dialogue on race is made, these two fundamental groups in American society are cast into the sidelines of the dialogue.
The senator then moved on to race as being a part of this election.

As someone who is bi-racial, who raised in a heavily Latino region of the United States with a Mexican-American father, who yet has an Irish surname and very light skin, I often lament the fact that race inevitably becomes part of any race. As the pundits buzz to themselves about the possibility of a McCain-Rice ticket and dissect former President Clinton's comments on Obama and Jackson or Senator Clinton's statement concerning President Johnson and Dr. King, Senator Obama was correct in saying that those issues of race is an uncessary distraction from the real issues that concern America. On this issue, Obama deserves to be lauded by the right and left alike.

Now when Obama touched on the issue of his association with Rev. Wright, I was disappointed. The issue at hand is not about the fact that Rev. Wright has done some laudable things. It seems like every unsavory and downright evil character in history has done some laudable things. The Communist secret police in Russia crushed organized crime and Pablo Escobar provided his community with teachers and hospitals. Such nuances make Rev. Wright's character more complicated, but it doesn't justify their speech or actions, which is the issue at hand. Obama rightfully condemns those statements, but doesn't answer questions why Obama would chose to associate himself with a man who would make those kind of statements, which is the issue at hand. Had Obama come out, repudiate Rev. Wright, left the church and admit to it as a mistake, it would have been viwed as an honest and respectable move that would have ended this thing. However I think that this will come to haunt him later as he moves into the general election.

Democratic Crossover: McCain Democrats

While many cite McCain's massive appeal to independents, for his stance on Iraq, immigration, global warming and so on, is it possible that McCain will also appeal to Democratic voters?

Will we see McCain Democrats in the fashion of Reagan's run for Presidency?

According to latest FOX News polls, (as cited by Rove) McCain will pick up an astonishing 18% of Democrats...if Obama is nominated, whereas only 10% of Republicans will vote for Obama in the general election. Frankly this is quite amazing to me, and yet I can't find it anywhere else.

Is it possible that McCain could not only win the base, the center, but the left as well?

This is Karl Rove's interview on the O'Reilly Factor,

"No, I disagree. Look, you've got to take the difference between sort of what's going on on the surface and what's going on underneath the surface. You take a look at the last FOX poll when they did the head-to-head matchups between McCain and Obama, I've got them right here.

Eighty percent of the Republicans say they're for McCain against Obama. Ten percent of Republicans say they're for Obama versus McCain. Among Democrats, McCain takes 18 percent of the Democrats, almost twice the percentage that Obama takes among Republicans. And Obama is 74 percent of Democrats as opposed to the 80 percent of Republicans for McCain. So McCain is doing better consolidating his base than is the Democrats. Similar numbers for...Hillary Clinton."--Karl Rove

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330437,00.html

The video can be found here.

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.html#

I've also noticed that many liberals and Democrats are trying their best to stop the siphoning of votes to McCain. Dean just came out with his ridiculous fundraising appeal, trying to paint McCain as a third term for Bush. Arrianna Huffington of the Huff Post is trying to say that McCain is a "Bushite" and and "Bush conservative" for allowing political genius Karl Rove to work for him.

Yeah and Clinton was secretly a conservative for bringing on Dick Morris.

The Myspace for "Democrats for McCain."

www.myspace.com/democratsformccain/

Should be an interesting year.

This is not time for Republican Apathy

Seeing that it appears that Senator John McCain (R-AZ) will be the Republican candidate for President in 2008, there have been a plethora of different reactions from the Republican Party. Some, like myself, are happy with the results. Others are not estatic about the results, but are glad that the process is over and understand McCain is a conservative with a few liberal positions, not the other way around. However some, whom Liddy called the "suicide bomber wing of the GOP", will refuse to support McCain at all and, in Ms. Coulter's case, will vote for Clinton, saying that McCain is either identical or worse than Clinton.

This is not only wrong, but suicidal.

First off let's understand something. McCain is not identical or even close to Clinton in political ideology. I mean Coulter, who is known for her exaggerations, needs to get serious.

McCain received a lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union of 82% and an 83% rating from the Christian Coalition, a socially conservative group. According to Voteview.com, McCain had the second most conservative record of the 109th Congress.

http://voteview.com/SEN109.HTM

Clinton receives a lifetime rating of 9 from the American Conservative Union and the Almanac of American Politics rated her 75% liberal with only 20% conservative.

Obama has received a lifetime rating of 8 from the American Conservative Union and was designated the "Most Liberal Senator of 2007" from the National Journal.

So all this talk about them being identical is a joke.

Now some have said that they will just refuse to vote at all or even vote for Clinton to "show their disgust" with the GOP. This frankly is irresponsible as conservatives and as Americans.

1. Democratic Congress + Democratic Presidential = Leftism Abound.

Let's understand that now that the Democrats control the majority of the Congress, and are likely to pick up more seats later, there will be virtually nothing the GOP can do to stop the Democratic political agenda. However with a Republican President, some measures can be stopped and reversed. Conservative policies will have a bit of a fighting chance and perhaps with the help of the White House, we can win back the Congress. Voter apathy will do neither.

2. Refusing to Vote Pragmatically = Irresponsible citizen.

It's the simple fact that this is not a peaceful, easy time in American history. Perhaps if we lived in a Calvin Coolidge style period of American politics, this would not be as important of a choice. However several issues face the American people that warrant and demand our attention.

a. We are in a war.

It sounds so cliche doesn't it? "Oh we're in a war, so shush." It's been used as an excuse for many things and for overlooking things we shouldn't. However there's no overlooking the fact that we are at war and this is crucial. Governor Romney had enough foresight to understand that Americans cannot remain divided and apathetic in the face of two opposing candidates that call for surrender in Iraq, which would result in a Vietnam style fall out, costing us our security in the chaos and the lives of thousands if not more. American honor, security and standing in the Muslim world will be ruined. Can we honestly have two candidates who are so adamantly opposed to American victory in Iraq and who have absolutely no experience in military matters? Are we willing to sacrifice our security and possibly the lives of thousands just so we can "feel good" about our votes? Can you imagine Republicans in 1864 voting down Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War just so they could feel good about their votes? Or how about during WW2? We cannot endanger America's security just so we can gratify ourselves.

b. Judicial Philosophy in America. Now more than ever the old-style conservative way of interpreting the Constitution, as the Framers wrote it, has come under attack. This isn't mere rhetoric but a simple, though depressiing fact. President Bush has made some great headway in confirming experienced, knowledgable conservative judges who will return to this judicial philosophy as enshrined in the Constitution. However will a Democratic majority in Congress, and with several elderly judges and who will possibly retire, now more than ever we cannot afford the likes of Obama or Clinton in the White House to nominate and confirm judges who will stamp their political ideology on the writings of the Founders and Framers.

c. Governmental Deficit. It's a simple fact that our government is deep in debt. With the government firmly controlled by Democrats for what could very well be a long time, we will be further bankrupted by continuous, harmful, and bloated government programs such as socialized medicine, expansive failed social programs and so forth.

d. Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Repealed? This piece of landmark legislation could very well be threatened which would cost the lives of thousands of our most vulnerable and innocent.

The list goes on and on. This is a mere summary. Don't being an indifferent (i.e irresponsible) voter.

Vote.

The Bell Has Tolled: RIP Romney 08

I have to say I didn't see it coming. I expected Romney, with his deep pockets, to fight on as Ron Paul will. The fact that he accepts the necessity of party unity, in the face of a Clinton or the Most Liberal Senator of 2007, in the face of possible economic crisis and in the face of a war on America, requires some respect. The fact that he doesn't continue to divide the party also garners some respect.

If Romney only had conservative credentials to back his talk, he would have made a great candidate. But he does not. Hopefully he can acquire some in the future.

NPR.org, February 7, 2008 · Mitt Romney announced he was suspending his presidential campaign on Thursday, a move that all but cedes the Republican nomination to rival John McCain.Romney — a former Massachusetts governor who spent $35 million of his own money in pursuit of the White House, as well as millions more that he raised from others — told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., that dropping out was for the good of the party, which needs to unite for the general election.

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or (Barack) Obama would win," he said. "And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."

Romney added that it was not an easy decision for him. "I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our sponsors … have given a great deal.""I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel that I have to stand aside, for our party, and for our country," he said.With McCain's apparently unassailable lead in the delegate count, Romney's withdrawal effectively hands the nomination to the maverick Arizona senator. Romney's departure leaves only former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and libertarian Texas Rep. Ron Paul in the race with McCain. Neither of them comes close to the 1,191 delegates needed to secure the nomination.

Overall, McCain has 707 delegates, Romney 294 and Huckabee 195. Romney says he will hold onto the delegates he has won so far. Romney failed to win a major primary or caucus. He was successful in states he has lived in and states close by. But he failed to win over Republican evangelicals suspicious of his Mormon faith, who turned instead to Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister. Romney was also accused of flip-flopping from relatively liberal to conservative positions. Romney often called himself the "conservative's conservative" and has frequently assailed McCain's moderate credentials. On Thursday, he gave his rival a qualified endorsement."I disagree with Sen. McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating al-Qaida and terror," he said.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18772382&ft=1&f=1001

The Bell Tolls

Over time the Mitt Romney camp, or better yet the "Anybody-But-McCain" camp is beginning to realize the sad news. Romney has little hope going into Super Tuesday. With Huckabee remaining in the race, Romney is seriously handicapped going into Tuesday. So he should be in my opinion. The man's a political chameleon with no national security experience and a dismal economic record.

It's time to face the music.

An RCP average of polls shows McCain beating Romney nationally 42.8% to 24.5%. Ouch. Myself a McCainista from the beginning didn't think those numbers were possible. Other polls show little reprieve for Romney. Every single poll taken from January 30th to today has McCain beating Romney by immense numbers. From the FOX News poll McCain tops Romney by 28%. Do any Mitt-boys honestly think that Romney can do well on Super Tuesday?

President Bush has higher approval ratings among the country that Romney has among Republicans. That's a huge shock to me and should be an embarrasment to the Romney camp.

State-by-state it doesn't bode well either. McCain leads California, New Jersey, Missouri, Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama, New York, Illinois, and Connecticut.

So it's time to face the music people. Romney will go down. Odds are, he'll go down hard.

And while we're on Romney v. McCain, I've always been surprised that the conservative orthodoxy forgives Romney for his frequent deviations from conservatism from traditional marriage, to the rights of the unborn, to gun rights, to social conservatism, to taxes, to health care and so on and yet raps McCain on his knuckles. Finally someone else sees it.

http://thestilettoblog.com/2008/02/04/the-daily-blade-learning-to-love-mccain.aspx

John McCain Conservative?

This is the question being asked by many Republicans as it appears to be a McCain-Romney race. While many conseratives are reluctant to support Romney, who's economic record is dismal, stances on social issues change often and who has no military experience, they are somehow convinced that McCain is no conservative and thus must back Romney. However this is simply false. I frankly don't know where it comes from. While Americans, conservatives especially, recognize that he is an Amerian hero, has extensive foreign policy and military experience, has immense legislative experience and is probably the most electable Republican, they somehow fear that he is "not really one of them." They are wrong. I will go over the three main, overlapping, coalitions that make up the conservative movement in America.

Social Conservativism

In America social conservatism's main issues consist of a hard position on crime, traditional values, a limited government approach to education, and Second Amendment rights.

John McCain's strong position on criminals, calling for tougher punishments against those who threaten society, earned him a low 29% rating from the liberal group CURE[1], who call criminals "errants" as if they only accidentially erred against society. He voted for the 2004 Crime Bill which would mandate longer prison terms for serious violent crimes committed with firearms and various drug offenses[2]. He supports the use of the death penalty for serious violent crimes and supports mandatory prison terms for narcotics violations[3].

On the issue of the sanctity of life, John McCain was rated 0% by the pro-abortion group NARAL[4] and hasone of the strongest pro-life records of anyone in the Senate. In 1984, before it was politically convenient for him, McCain voted for H.AMDT.942, the Siljander Amendment, to H.R.5490[5], all of them pro-life measures in the Senate. The last one, H.R.5490 would define an infant as an unborn child, a human being from the moment of conception, thus qualifying them for 14th Amendment protections of their lives. McCain is also against birth control and sex education which includes a vote of no on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education and contraceptives[6].

Some try to cite his opposition for the Defense of Marriage Act as proof that he is not a social conservative and is for the "homosexual agenda." However this lacks context. He voted against it for reasons of state's rights, which is a limited government conservative approach to issues. He did however support the Arizona intiative to define marriage as between a man and a woman[7], defending the traditional definition of marriage.

He received a conservative rating from the liberal NEA union, showing his opposition to the liberal, entenched teacher's union that is harming the education of our children[8]. John McCain voted yes on school vouchers in DC, yes on education savings accounts, yes on allowing more flexibility in federal school rules, and voted to slim down the size of the federal education behemoth[9]. He also supports including the Theory of Intelligent Design being taught in public schools. In 2005 he told the Arizona Daily Star that "all points of view" should be taught to students, allowing for more academic freedom and disussion of ideas in school[10].

Some have tried to cite his support for reasonable gun laws as evidence that he opposes the Second Amendment rights of Americans. Unlike Romney or Giuiliani, he has the Second Amendment as a specific issue on his campaign site[11] and he voted against the Federal Weapons Assault Ban and efforts to renew it, along with the Brady Bill, which would have restricted our Constitutional rights as Americans. He said in a speech before the NRA, that he would uphold our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms[12].

To charge that John McCain isn't a social conservative, despite a twenty year long, proud, consistent socially conservative record, lacks any basis in reality.

Economic Conservatism

One of the long held Republican, conservative beliefs is the ideal of economic liberty, one that John McCain has upheld since the beginning.
John McCain has never voted for an increase in tax rates in 25 years in Congress—never – and clearly and consistently supports cutting and simplifying taxes[13]. He supported private Social Security Accounts, allowing us more freedom in our SS options[14].

Some have tried to black McCain's record by citing his opposition to the Bush tax cuts (2001, 2003) and his refusal to sign the "No New Taxes" pledge put out by Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. However what they fail to realize is that his main reason for opposing those cuts was a failure to back it up with conservative spending policies[15]. What some fail to realize is that in 2006, he supported those cuts, in addition to his incessant campaigning against big government spending[16]. Even Greg Norquist of the ATR has admitted that John McCain has backed up Norquist's pledge with his consistent record[17]. Unlike Huckabee and Romney, signers of the pledge, he is not a new ally in the fight against oppressive taxes from our federal government.

Unlike his rival Huckabee, who increased the size of state government by 20%, McCain has been the strongest, and sometimes the only conservative fighting against rampant pork barrel spending[18].

John McCain also opposes socialized healthcare that would bankrupt the country, cause more taxation, would restrict our economic liberty and would fail dismally, instead supports cutting the taxes of working Americans[19]. He supports free market, conservative solutions to the American health care crisis, allowing more competition[20]. McCain stood for lowering taxes on business (the second highest in the world, lower than Europe even) by 15%. He also supports new rules that would require a supramajority to tax hard working American people.

He also received a full, astonishing 100% from the Cato Institute, a foundation for protecting economic liberty, on the issue of free trade[22]. John McCain said at a Republican debate in 2007, "Free trade should be the continuing principle that guides this nation's economy."[23]

Once again the critics are wrong. John McCain is a friend of the American business owner, the American taxpayer, the American consumer, the economic conservative and above all, the American people.

Foreign Policy/National Security Conservatism

Here is where the Romneys and the Huckabees of the party cannot simply compete. It is common knowledge that John McCain's major strength, among everything else, is his military experience and foreign policy knowledge. He served his country during the Cuban Missle Crisis, on hazard duty. He served his country by leading men on bombing raids against North Vietnamese Communists, over 20 times. He served as a POW, being tortured and held in solitary confinement. He led the Navy's largest attack squadron, turning a mediocre unit into an impressive, well-oiled unit. He has served on the MIA/POW affairs, dealt with American relations with Viet Nam, Russia, Iran, Israel, and Pakistan. He co-authored the bill that led to the 9-11 Commission and the Transportation Security Administration, protecting Americans. He stood up to the destructive policies of Rumsfeld, and stood for the surge and General Petreaus when Republicans in the Congress looked the other way. No one can question his credentials when it comes to this arena. Even the anti-McCain people admit that.

Yet despite the consensus, some will try. They cite his opposition to the use of waterboarding and torture as some kind of twisted evidence of his disloyalty to the security of America. What they forget is that waterboarding was a war crime that Japanese war criminals were tried and convicted for after the Second World War[24]. Torture itself has been long noted as an unreliable way to gather information, which harms America's security and does not help it[25][26].

Once again the critics have been proven wrong. John McCain is exactly what the Republicans and this country needs when it comes to the dangerous and confusing world of geo-political affairs. If you want to keep America safe, don't vote for a former businessman or preacher. While they are respectable professions and while Romney and Huckabee seem like nice guys, like the old British saying goes, "Nice men don't win wars." Vote for someone with military experience and who has fought before. Not for someone who needs on the job training.

So as I conclude, we can see that McCain is the complete conservative candidate, not the "liberal" one. McCain scored a lifetime rating of 83% from the American Conservative Union, who rated Fred Thompson 86%, and no one questioned Thompson's conservative credentials. He's been a life-long Republican, campaigning only for Republican candidates, except Joe Lieberman's bid for the Senate as an Indpendent, which weakned the Democrats hold on Congress. While some of his attackers talk of leaving the party, essentially aiding the election of Hillary Clinton (like it did in 1992), John McCain has stuck to this party.

John McCain represents the essence of the Reagan Coalition, this is why he is supported by those who helped Ron build it. People like Jack Kemp, Phil Gramm, George Schultz, General Al Haig, Dan Coats and many others. Not to mention Dr. Henry Kissinger, Senator Sam Brownback, Senator Joe Lieberman, Charles Schwab, and over 100 retired admirals and generals. This is the year to vote for consistent and experienced conservatism. Unlike John McCain, his critics are none of these things.

Sources
1: CURE's ratings. http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53270&type=category&category=20&go.x=11&go.y=12
2. Library of Congress. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HR03355:@@@L&summ2=m&
3. VoteSmart.org. http://votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=53270623
4. NARAL's ratings. http://www.ontheissues.org/
5. House Amendment 942. http://www.nchla.org/keyvoteabt.asp?vote=307
6. On-The-Issues. http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm
7. Arizona Republic. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0826initiatives26.html
8. NEA's ratings. http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain.htm
9. On-The-Issues. http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm
10. Arizona Daily Star. http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/politics/90069
11. On the Issues: Protecting Second Amendment Rights. http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/77636553-6337-4ecd-b170-49e1c07d2fbd.htm
12. NRA. http://www.nraila.org/Multimedia/MMPlayer_Set.aspx?ID=83
13. Michael Medved. http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/817ee854-0a2e-4a71-bb6e-38e1b2b48388
14. NY Times.http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04EFDA1F3BF932A25752C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
15. NBC's "Meet The Press," 4/11/04
16. Donald Limbro, "GOP 'darlings' slow to sign tax-cut pledge", Washington Times, February 22, 2007
17. Michael Medved. http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/817ee854-0a2e-4a71-bb6e-38e1b2b48388
18. Howard Kurtz, "McCain, Rising Up Against 'Spartacus'", Washington Post, May 13, 2002.
19. Washington Post. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/10/post_132.html
20. MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21243223/
21. Michael Medved.
22. John McCain on Free Trade. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Free_Trade.htm
23. Ibid.
24. St. Petersburg Times. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/235/
25. Brigadier General David R. Irvine. http://www.alternet.org/rights/28585/
26. Boise State University. http://truth.boisestate.edu/jcaawp/9901/9901.pdf

Is Romney Right On the Economy?

Romney, who worked as a CEO and turned around the Olympics, is trying to build a niche as the Economic Conservative. It seems that Ron Paul has the Goldwater Conservative Mantle, McCain has the National Security Conservative and Huckabee has the Social Conservative Mantle.

While these are relatively broad generalizations, that is the essence of each campaign. McCain forgets that Dr. Paul also served in the military, Ron Paul forgets that McCain too worked with Ronald Reagan in the Reagan Revolution and Huckabee forgets that he isn't the only social conservative.

Where is Romney to go? He didn't serve any time in the US military, much to his "regret" as he put it yesterday night. He once said that he was adamantly "pro-choice" and his campaign ads said that he "fought religious extremists" (read: social conservatives). His big government solution to the decifit and the health care issue, clearly rule him out from the Goldwater Mantle.

In Michigan however he found his niche. With the economy taking the paramount, he proclaimed himself the fiscal and economic conservative who has the private sector experience to get things turned around. It worked in the strapped state of Michigan. But it didn't work in South Carolina and surprisingly it didn't work in Florida. In fact voters who said the economy was the issue for them, broke for McCain over Romney by 4 points.

Why?

Well first off his health care "solution" was sad at best. Cato Institute, one of the most economically conservative think tanks around, called RomneyCare, "virtually indistinguishable from the one proposed by Hillary Clinton." And not to mention the fact they called it a, "dismal failure."

Those are tough charges.

They ended their thorough refutation with this,

"Executives often blame others for the failures of their own policies, but that's not a tendency one looks for in a candidate. Romney claims he is a "true conservative" with the business expertise to "get things done." Judging by his experience with health-care reform, far from it."

The full article can be found here:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9127

Then Club for Growth has weighed on Romney's "conservative" economic credentials.

"Romney's strident opposition to the flat tax; his refusal to endorse the Bush tax cuts in 2003; his support for various minor tax hikes; and his once-radically bad views on campaign finance reform all cast some doubts on the extent and durability of his commitment to limited-government, pro-growth policies."

In addition they said the he had some "troublesome positions that beg to be explained."

For the full White Paper on Romney:
http://www.clubforgrowth.com/2007/08/mitt_romneys_record_on_economi.php

Lastly, some who defend Romney's character, usually Romney himself or those who are connected to his campaign, try to paint it as an emergency case that took some liberal, though effective measures. Once again, they are wrong.

Joseph McLaughlin and Andrew Sum of the Center for Labor Market Industries from Boston's Northeastern University, made several points about Romney's "dismal" economic record.

• As U.S. real output grew 13 percent between 2002 and 2006, Massachusetts trailed at 9 percent.

• Manufacturing employment fell 7 percent nationwide those years, but sank 14 percent under Romney, placing Massachusetts 48th among the states.

• Between fall 2003 and autumn 2006, U.S. job growth averaged 5.4 percent, nearly three times Massachusetts' anemic 1.9 percent pace.

• While 8 million Americans over age 16 found work between 2002 and 2006, the number of employed Massachusetts residents actually declined by 8,500 during those years.

They conclude their study with this,

"Our analysis reveals a weak comparative economic performance of the state over the Romney years, one of the worst in the country," the researchers wrote in the Boston Globe."

The full story on Romney's paltry performance can be found here:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12568

So we can see that it's quite obvious why many economy voters did not vote for Romney. In fact it almost makes me wonder why no one, not Paul, Huckabee or even McCain, have taken this issue up at debates. But the facts remain. Romney's record is neither conservative nor great.