About Me

Name:
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

SEND OPRAH MESSAGE NOW! Interview Palen!!

Dear Townhall Friends:

Contact Oprah's producers today and suggest that Sarah Palin be allowed to appear on the show by filling out the short comments form at this web-site: >>>

 
Maybe then these media-elites will get the message that the general public is sick and tired of liberal bias and network favoritism toward Obama-Biden. The squeaky wheel gets the oil!  Time Magazine has featured Obama on the cover of its magazine seven (7) times and have only featured McCain one (1) time.  As Mac says, "We must fight!  We must fight!"
 
Also, here are a list some of Oprah's sponsors: PLAYTEX, BALI, DOVE, TARGET, WACHOVIA, LOWES, VISA, FRONTLINE FLEA COLLARS, MURAD.  Visit the web-site of these companies and complain about their sponsorship of Oprah's one-sided coverage of the candidates, and Oprah's refusal to interview of Sarah Palin!
 
LIFE, LIBERTY, & TRUTH
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Thug Friend Going to Jail!

Obama has close ties and has praised as "a great Mayor" the thug from Detroit who is now headed for jail.  Would an Obama White House have crooks like Tony Rezko, the Detroit Mayor, and other strong-armed foreigners roaming the hallways?  This looks like "a change" right back into the corrupt Chinese lobbyist years of Bill Clinton.  Where's Politico and CNN when you need them?
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

**POLITICO: IT’S NOT ROMNEY! – applause!!!

It was reported today that McCain has finalized his decision and plans to announce his VP pick this Friday. Most experts are reluctant to predict, other than to say that Romney is probably out. POLITICO.COM suggests that Pawlenty is the man. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2008/08/26/mccain-pawlenty-looking-better-than-mccain-romney.html

Nobody’s sure exactly what happened(?). It may have been due to blogging; it may have been e-mails; maybe old-fashioned telephone calls; or maybe prayer. But in any event, it now appears that the camel’s back for Romney as VP has finally been broken -and this is perceived as good news for Reaganites. 

Romney admitted last night (Tuesday) to owning four (4) homes in an interview with Chris Matthews.   It is likely that the McCain team speculated that Romney’s almost-billionaire status would inevitably complicate the GOP’s desire to win in the rust-belt. It is clear that the Democrats are counting on populist themes to propel Obama, and Romney hurts McCain on this count.

Also, it is suggested that LaHaye’s recent comments seemed to carry some clout with McCain since they were echoed by so many other party faithfuls:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/29/evangelicals-warn-against-mccain-romney-ticket/

Evangelical, Tim La Haye, in combination with comments publicly raised by Jonathan Falwell, Dr. James Kennedy, Paul Weyrich, Cal Thomas, Franklin Graham, and others have all now publicly expressed serious concern about Romney. Romney has been described as a flakey, latent “conservative of necessity.” Some believe that Romney has been deliberately misleading in order to capture the White House and will (Clintonesquely) say whatever is necessary to appease the power-base Reagan faithful of the GOP. Furthermore, his Mormon faith has continuously remained a part of the equation. In the opinion of most evangelicals, LDS is a soil which yields instability and a record of regularly changing course due to “pragmatic situational” demands.

It’s unfortunate, but unavoidable, that McCain’s announcement Friday may result in an irreparable wound to the Mormon psyche in working cooperatively within the Republican Party.  However, the fact is that Southern Baptists, Bible belt states, Evangelicals, and the vast global pro-life/ pro-family network (who care about a candidate’s faith) will largely fill any voids and compensate for any loss created by Mormon absence during this election.  

Evangelicals represent "the base" of the GOP and will be energized by the right selection of a running-mate. It’s now finally time for McCain to name Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal, Hutchinson, John Thune, Palin or another acceptable VP so that conservatives may roll up their sleeves and finally get on with the main event. 

It is the GOP’s race to lose.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

BIDEN’S POPULISM SINKS ROMNEY

After Joe Biden’s and Barack Obama’s speeches in Springfield, it is clear that the Democrats will be putting most of their eggs into the populist basket. You heard things like “McCain is out of touch” and “McCain’s won’t know which of his 7 kitchens tables to pick" for dinner discussions.   Many columnists wrote about this on Sunday, and most talking heads also seemed to observe that Obama’s strategy had taken a whole new twist. The selection of Biden is evidence of the working-class battleground which will ensue and the possibility that some of that old Howard Dean juice of 2004 will make a latent resurrection during the last 75 days.

Barack’s primary strategy will attempt to paint McCain as an out of touch wealthy elitist. This worked for Bush against Kerry-Heins, and is touted by most experts as perhaps the most effective of the likely negative campaign tactics to be deployed against McCain. Also, Obama-Biden will focus on the rust belt working-class audiences who have had their homes “stripped from them in foreclosure” and high gas prices which are blamed on greedy Wall Street financiers and George Bush’s good-old-boy oil cronys.

Unfortunately for McCain, Obama’s selection of Romney plays right into these new Democratic themes. After, all Romney is a silver-spoon Harvard billionaire (almost), and the hatchet man from Bain, whose spitting-image is that of a wealthy executive who just laid you off. To contrast, Biden portends the image of a Scranton, blue-collar, street-smart scrapper who has seen economic hardship a time or two. Whereas, the image of Romney is a soft-skinned, milquetoast, son-of-a-governor, begging the questions: Has this Romney guy ever taken the train, picked up a shovel, smelled the smells of a union factory, or witnessed the boarded up windows of a rough neighborhood? Has Romney actually ever worked a hard day in his life after Harvard?

Romney may add some advantage in Michigan, but this seems to be overshadowed by the disadvantages that he ushers in due to the new populist themes. Today, Michael Medved suggested that Kay Bailey Hutchinson (Texas) should be considered in light of the Biden choice.
 
 
This is indeed an intriguing proposition. Most of my well-seasoned conservative friends still prefer VPs like Jindal, Thune, Petraeus, Huckabee, or Palin. 

WE ADVISE MCCAIN TO RECONSIDER HIS VP CHOICE.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCAIN’S RELIGIOUS TEST

Our founding fathers didn’t want there to be any official religious test in the legal code. On the other hand, the population was well rooted in its Christian heritage at that time, and it was a reasonable expectation for people to behave (at the ballot box) in ways that were customary at that time period.  Let’s not forget that children were reading Bibles as a part of their education and solid Biblical grounding was salted into almost every facet of culture. This resulted in a routine “religious qualifier” for not just politicians, but also for business relationships, friendships, and virtually every type of social engagement and relationship. Some today would even characterize this as a sort of – well… bigotry. However, more accurate terms would be “traditional values” or “a reasonable application of reason” by a reasonable people. This also explains why during the first two centuries of America’s history we witness almost exclusively Presidential candidates espousing mainstream Biblical Christian beliefs.   

The wonderful result of what our forefathers established in the United States Constitution was that – as a voter – one may disqualify a candidate for any reason whatsoever. If  you don’t like the color of the candidate’s shoes, the fact that he’s left-handed, or maybe that he beats his wife, you don’t have to pull the lever at the ballot box (even though your party prefers complete loyalty). Certainly the Constitution provides voters with the ability to deliberate over candidate selection with the use of a Christian voters’ guide, a Bible, or any variety of “litmus” tools. It also allows citizens the right to publicly pronounce a candidate’s religion as flawed, fraudulent, or corrupt.

What are reasonable tests in the case of Mitt Romney as he aggressively postures to be named McCain’s Veep partner? Does any one dare scrutinize the potential decision-making outcomes springing forth from his LDS beliefs? Many so-called conservatives’ implore evangelicals to hush-hush, wink-wink… “just be quiet!” about the Mormon factor with Romney. Some have asked, “Do you really think that Mitt Romney would be worse than Obama?”  I can only say to this… “Well, based on Romney’s record, it’s really hard to tell. He has taken two positions on most every important issue.”  Let’s not too quickly dismiss that Romney, at age 60, decided that he was suddenly “conservative,” yet as governor of Massachusetts single-handedly institutionalized left-wing, socialist tax-codes and health policy that would make George McGovern blush. Shouldn’t Romney fans be the least bit suspicious about his eleventh hour “conservative” conversion? Between now and 2012, how else might Romney fluctuate based on political demands or the typical vacillations of Mormonism?

There is little doubt that the religious test is one of the best available for Christian Americans.  

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHAT LABRYNTH NEXT FOR ROMNEY?

In this age of “tolerance” it seems that one’s reference to another’s religion as a “cult” is simply not to be tolerated. This is much the same as it is “off limits” to discuss the juxtapositions of candidate Barack Obama or to discuss his Muslim influences while a youth growing up in Indonesia.

Even so, it must be said that Mormonism is a cult.  Mormon’s views of Jesus and the Bible (superseded by the Book of Mormon) are heretical to thoughtful Christians. Once a person has painstakingly navigated through the maze of Mormon doctrine and has rationalized a host of contradictory views and evidence therein, and then remains unaffected, there is no apparent end to which they might stretch.

In other words, it seems that the same person as Vice President or President, might similarly contort and flail through other vital decision-making affecting the country regardless of evidence, information, or truth? Is it not legitimate to ask how Romney’s views, such as the view that America (rather than Israel) is the Biblically described Promised Land, or Mormon views toward polygamy, official Mormon views toward blacks, or Mormon views toward the American legal system might affect Romney’s decisions as President? Is it not reasonable to speculate that a person capable of such radical rationalization(s) in religion is also capable of radical policies in governance? After all, isn’t Harry Reid a devout Mormon too?  Does Mormonism not hold to the same sanctity of life ethic as does Biblical Christianity?

In addition to their doctrine, there is meaningful distrust by many Americans over decades of Mormon cover-ups and deception within the LDS organization itself. Million dollar crimes have been committed; critics of LDS have been silenced and ex-communicated; leaders of LDS have been implicated in crimes and ethical breaches; Mormon historic records have been altered, destroyed, or have suddenly gone missing; official LDS “prophecies” have gone unfulfilled; LDS “sacred” works and documents have been proven fake, etc. and yet Mormonism keeps on expanding faster than the Scientology, or Jehovah’s Witness cults. 

Most importantly, it should be noted that Romney is not an everyday Mormon layperson, but instead, a high-ranking Bishop within the big-business, billion-dollar, LDS cult. In this case, Romney’s religion is a legitimate disqualifier for the Vice Presidency in the same way it should be for Scientologists and Muslims. Dear Senator McCain, please keep looking!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Inquiring Minds: Celebrities & VP Choices

(originally posted January, 2008)

How long has it been since Tom Cruise’s psychedelic Scientology rant was widely played on YouTube®? The press has occasionally provided glimpses of other big names with extraordinary views seeking to influence society politically or religiously.  The public seems to be enamored with this stuff.  In recent years we have gained regular “insights” (and sermons) from Bono, Shirley McClain, Sean Penn, Madonna, and of course, Oprah where these folks have sanctimoniously unveiled their sacrosanct dogma-of-the-day derived from their individual spiritual views.

Somehow, it has been deemed acceptable (and perhaps even enlightened) to regularly inquire with the powerful elite about their personal religious views and to explore with them how their faith has affected their line of reasoning toward a variety of issues. We are routinely asked to consider a variety of political positions (e.g., the war in Iraq, AIDS in Africa, lead-based toys from China, child labor policy, energy policy, nuclear technology procurement by terrorist nations, etc.) through a lens of religious, ethical, and spiritual enlightenment of celebrities. In many cases these celebrities’ religious or spiritual views are thoroughly examined, all the way down to how much time they devote to their faith, and what habits (reading, ritualistic practices, nutrition, clothing, etc.) they have established in accordance with their faith.

There is one area of the public sector, however, that the examination doesn’t play out the same as it does in Hollywood and is largely lacking. I have noticed that when it comes to current presidential (& VP) politics somehow it is thought of as religious discrimination, bigotry, or “intolerance” if anyone begins to deeply probe into the specific religious views of the various candidates. It has somehow been declared off limits to inquire of a candidate’s religious beliefs in light of how their faith may potentially impact specific political decisions. 

After Romney’s Houston speech, in order to alleviate possible Mormon bigotry, it seemed that the candidate himself was attempting to draw boundaries for those seeking more information. In Houston, Romney seemed to be saying, “this is acceptable inquiry” versus “that is unacceptable,” thereby effectively circumventing further discussion. I’m sorry, but that’s not enough to stop me. It should be regarded as fair-game and jurisprudent to inquire about how Romney’s religion might specifically guide his decisions. Likewise, it is reasonable to wonder how Obama might reconcile his support for abortion rights, which takes the lives of innocents, with his claims to possess Christian beliefs.  

To examine and to scrutinize the details of a candidate’s belief system is tantamount to doing one’s homework as a voter, and really only amounts to a common sense approach to research. Rather than limiting ourselves to Madonna’s latest Kabala worldview, I challenge all voters to become enthralled with the belief systems of future kings. I am confident that the media would make concerted inquiry if the candidate was Baptist, “evangelical,” or Pentecostal. Why not if they’re Mormon?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

HUGE VEEP RISK!

Romney has made several fine speeches during his ascent to becoming a prospective McCain Vice Presidential running mate. However, conservative speeches a conservative man does not make. The fact is Romney’s speeches and candidacy does resemble conservatism almost in the exact comparative manner that the Mormon faith resembles Christianity. It is not until careful dissection of the person (and the faith) that the true nature may be clearly seen.

As one examines Romney’s history, it is clear that he has only recently embraced any type of conservative viewpoints. Huckabee was indeed insightful when he suggested that there is something deeply disconcerting about a candidate for president who does not reach conservative puberty until the age of 60. The “puberty” phrase was keen and perceptive in the sense that most conservatives recognize that conservatism is flavored by life’s long experiences over a period of years typically beginning in one’s youth; conversely, “old-age” or abrupt conservatism appears suspicious. Also, most conservatives recognize that recent heroes of conservatism, like Reagan and Goldwater, were not last-minute converts to the cause.  These two icons had decades of history by virtue of policy statements, policy ideas, voting-records, public declarations, and penned written works which unambiguously demonstrated their deeply held views and philosophies over a long period of time. These two men were not works in progress, but were absolutely galvanized in their thought processes by the time they sought the presidency and well before age 60. 

Critical to this line of thinking is that Romney’s latent ‘puberty’ may have been due to his realization that he needed to shift to the right and appease the base of the Republican Party solely for the opportunistic purposes of attaining the GOP nomination. A worse scenario, however, but one of probably equal likelihood, is that there never was any genuine conversion (to conservatism) by the Romney candidate at all, but instead a rationalization of deception in order to accomplish “a greater good” for the country. Many evangelicals harbor distrust of Mormons and the worldwide marketing campaign that the LDS Church has successfully enacted, and for their “lying for the Lord” practice which has been solidly documented as characteristic of Mormonism culture. It is not a far stretch to think that a man like Romney, who grew up in a devout, dogmatic Mormon environment, might (in good conscience) tilt toward deceptive habits and misleading practices in order to remain (a Mormon version of) patriotic. 

Lastly, for those whom are thoroughly familiar with the maze of Mormon beliefs, and of the gyrations and logical looseness required to embrace such contradictory beliefs, and for the corruption and cover-ups within Mormon hierarchy, there are serious doubts about the decision-making apparatus of such a president. In fact, one can envision all types of unpredictable behavior in a variety of key areas by such a man. In addition to the vulnerabilities in guidance caused by a broken compass, one can also envision, although probably less likely, flagrant abuse by Mormon “prophets” attempting to exert influence over the White House. Essentially this means that there should be no less concern about a Mormon becoming president, than say, a Scientologist, or Jehovah’s Witness being elected.  This doesn’t deny that Mormons are basically very decent, family-oriented folks. However, these qualities alone do not establish reliability, nor provide a framework for one man to make some of the world’s most important decisions as leader of the free world.

In conclusion, it was a relief when Romney bowed out of Presidential contention, and neither should he enter the White House vis-à-vis the Vice-Presidency of McCain. Here are just a few hard examples (from a long list) demonstrating Romney’s unreliability:

                                                                                      
                                                                     ABORTION:

As Gubernatorial Candidate:

Romney ran against Senator Edward M. Kennedy in 1994. During a debate, Romney declared: "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it."
- Boston Globe, March 2, 2006

"I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose."
-2002 Questionnaire for the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL)
Boston Globe, July 3, 2005

As Presidential Candidate:

"I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate."
- Boston Globe, Op-Ed, July 26, 2005

"Every decision I have made as Governor in a very liberal state has been on the side of favoring life." – Governor Romney

GAY RIGHTS

As Gubernatorial Candidate:

"All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation. While he does not support gay marriage, Mitt Romney believes domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship."
- Romney's 2002 campaign website

"Mitt and Kerry Wish You a Great Pride Weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference"
- A flier handed out at "Gay Pride" by the Romney/Healey Campaign 

"We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden to include housing and credit, and a bill to create a federal panel to find ways to reduce gay and lesbian youth suicide, which I also support. One issue I want to clarify concerns [grammar in context] President Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation's military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share…"
- Governor Romney letter to Log Cabin Republicans, October 6, 1994

As Presidential Candidate:

 Lopez: "And what about the 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans where you indicated you would support the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and seemed open to changing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military? Are those your positions today?

Gov. Romney: "No. I don't see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges...As for military policy and the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, I trust the counsel of those in uniform who have set these policies over a dozen years ago. I agree with President Bush's decision to maintain this policy and I would do the same."
- Interview with National Review, December 14, 2006

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT

As Governor:

In 2002, before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared same-sex marriage protected by the Constitution, Romney denounced as "too extreme" the effort by pro-family groups to enact a preemptive state Marriage Protection Amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage, civil unions and same-sex public employee benefits.
- Boston Phoenix, May 14-20, 2004

As Presidential Candidate:

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough: "Do you support a national constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage?"
Governor Romney:

"Boy, I sure do. You know, that's a topic that's really, I think, very important to the country because marriage is not just about adults. Marriage is about the development and nurturing of kids, and in my view, the development of a child is enhanced by having a mom and dad. And so, I think it's very important that we have a national standard because marriage is a status. You get married in one place and then you move to another, you're still married at least in the eyes of the community and the children and the benefits may not follow you, but ultimately we're going to have one standard of marriage in this country and that standard ought to be one man and one woman."
- MSNBC's "Morning Joe" September 17, 2007

GUN RIGHTS

As Senatorial Candidate:

In his 1994 US Senate run, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons.

"That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA," Romney told the Boston Herald in 1994.

As Gubernatorial Candidate:

"He [Romney] is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban."
- Romney 2002 campaign website

At another campaign stop that year, he told reporters: "I don't line up with the NRA."
- Boston Globe, January 14, 2007

As Presidential Candidate:

"Americans should have the right to own and possess firearms as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution," said Governor Romney. "I'm proud to be among the many decent, law-abiding men and women who safely use firearms."
- Governor Romney, News Release, January 12, 2007

As Senatorial Candidate:

Regarding the Brady Bill which required waiting periods to buy a handgun, Romney stated, "I don't think [the waiting period] will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect."
- Boston Herald, August 1, 1994

As Presidential Candidate:                                                                                                        

"Romney says he still backs the ban on assault weapons, but he won't say whether he stands by the Brady Bill.  And after the gun show tour, his campaign declined to say whether he would still describe himself as a supporter of tough gun laws."
- Boston Globe, January 14, 2007

MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE

As Gubernatorial Candidate:

"The minimum wage is important to our economy and Mitt Romney supports minimum wage increase, at least in line with inflation."
- Romney 2002 campaign website

As Presidential Candidate:

Governor Mitt Romney yesterday rejected the Legislature's plan to raise the state minimum wage to $8 an hour over two years, angering Democratic lawmakers and advocates who accused him of abandoning a 2002 campaign pledge to significantly boost the pay of low-wage workers.
- Boston Globe, July 22, 2006

IMMIGRATION

As Governor:

In a November 2005 interview with the Boston Globe, Romney described immigration proposals by McCain and others as "quite different" from amnesty, because they required illegal immigrants to register with the government, work for years, pay taxes, not take public benefits, and pay a fine before applying for citizenship.

"That's very different than amnesty, where you literally say, 'OK, everybody here gets to stay,' " Romney said in the interview. "It's saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine."

Romney did not specifically endorse McCain's bill, saying he had not yet formulated a full position on immigration. But he did speak approvingly of efforts by McCain and Bush to solve the nation's immigration crisis, calling them "reasonable proposals."

Romney also said in the interview that it was not "practical or economic for the country" to deport the estimated 12 million immigrants living in the US illegally. "These people contribute in many cases to our economy and to our society," he said. "In some cases, they do not. But that's a whole group we're going to have to determine how to deal with."
- Boston Globe, March 16, 2007 

As Presidential Candidate:

In his appeals to conservative voters, Romney has made the Arizona senator’s work on immigration one of his favorite targets. When McCain and other senators unveiled the latest reform bill two weeks ago, Romney called it the “wrong approach” and immediately launched a television ad slamming “amnesty” for illegal immigrants.
- Boston Globe, June 1, 2007

TAXES

As Governor:

"Governor Romney…imposed a slew of fee hikes and tax 'loophole' closures….The largest of these was $259 million worth of fee hikes in FY 2004, the bulk of which came from higher Registry of Deeds fees.  Smaller fee hikes, including higher charges for boaters and golfers, we imposed in FY 2003 and FY 2005.  Romney also sought $128 million worth of so-called tax loophole closures for FY 2004; $70 million for FY 2005; and $170 million for FY 2006, which were later reduced to $85 million due to backlash from business leaders."
- Club for Growth on Mitt Romney

"Romney continues to oppose the flat tax with harsh language, calling the tax 'unfair.'"
- Club for Growth on Mitt Romney

Romney didn't support President Bush's tax cuts in 2003.  That earned him praise from liberal Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) 
- Boston Globe, April 11, 2003.

As Presidential Candidate:

"I said no to a tax hike; raising taxes hurts working people and scares away jobs. I also said no to more borrowing; borrowing just shifts our problems to the backs of our kids...Instead, I went after waste, inefficiency, duplication, and patronage."
- Governor Romney, Boston Globe, October 24, 2005

NO NEW TAXES PLEDGE

As Governor:

In 2002, Romney broke with his predecessor, Jane Swift, and Republican governors before her by declining to sign a written vow not to raise taxes once in office.                                               
- Boston Globe, January 5, 2007

As Presidential Candidate:                                                                                                            

Almost five years after he refused to sign a "no new taxes" pledge during his campaign for governor, Mitt Romney announced yesterday that he had done just that, as his campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination began in earnest.
- Boston Globe, January 5, 2007

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »