Mitt Romney for President...Here's why

Status
Not open for further replies.

PetertheRock

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2005
3,099
208
52
Falmouth Maine
✟4,316.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I have to agree, I am not totally comfortable with his position on abortion but given the candidates with a realistic chance of winning I think it's the best we can hope for...

This was posted on another forum by a friend of mine. Again, I don't agree with my friends comments when he seems to put abortion on the back burner. But I do believe the other issues are as equally important as abortion.

mitt_romney.jpg


With all the talk about Romney lately after a great week he has had, this is as good a time as ever to bring out a diary that has been months in the making and explain to everyone why Romney is now officially my first choice in this wide-open field of candidates.

This may be a little long, but my intent with this diary is to be comprehensive and thorough in my reasoning as to leave little doubt why this man has won my support.

The Midas Touch – Mitt’s Non-political History

One of the first things I look at when I consider a Presidential candidate is their back story and previous experience, because you can learn a lot about someone from seeing where they came from, how they dealt with things, and what they’ve achieved before desiring to be President. This is where Mitt excels.

Family and Personal Life

First, he married his high school sweetheart, Ann, in 1969 and has remained faithfully married to her to this day. They have a loving family with five sons and five daughters-in-law. Additionally, it appears that the whole of Romney’s personal life could be summed up in two words: integrity and dedication. He graduated suma cum laude and as valedictorian with his bachelor degree and then went on to work on and earn an MBA (top 5% of his class) and a law degree (cum laude) from Harvard - at the same time.

While this has little actual effect on Romney’s ability to govern well, it will be a breath of fresh air to have a candidate who is a true role model in the White House and for whom their personal life is a positive instead of a liability. With Romney, there will be no charges of impropriety in his marriage or his personal decisions; no claims of cocaine use, no DUI sprung at the last minute, no claims of lack of intelligence. There will be no cigar moments, no grand jury testimonies, and no travelgate investigations. Integrity and dedication seem to guide Romney in his personal choices, and Americans will respond well to that.

Business Life

If one’s desire is to see government run like a business, and it is mine, then you need look no farther than Romney for inspiration on this front. In addition to his marriage, his schooling, and the rest of his personal life being superb, his background in the private sector before becoming a politician is even better.

Romney co-founded an investment company known as Bain Capital in 1984 with an original fund of $37 million from private investors. Over the next 14 years, Romney would lead Bain Capital in many investments and acquisitions, including companies such as Staples, Domino’s, Toys ‘R Us, and Burger King. The company that began as a $37 million investment now manages over $27 billion in assets. Romney left Bain in 1998 to work on the Salt Lake City Games, but kept his interest in the company until 2001. Bain Capital is still operating and still continuing to do very well.

In 1990, six years into the success that was Bain Capital, an organization that Romney had worked for out of college requested that he come back and rescue them. Bain & Company was a management consulting firm out of Boston that Romney worked at for 6 years after college and was now on the verge of folding financially. They requested Romney be their CEO and turn things around, he obliged, and beautiful things happened. Via reforms and restructuring, he turned the entire company around in less than one year and made them profitable again without having to layoff any workers or losing any partners.

In 1998, Romney was called upon to save the Salt Lake City Games much in the same way he had saved Bain & Company. The games were facing a $379 million budget shortfall, plans to have to scale back the games, and allegations of bribery involving the then-President and Vice-President of the Committee. The President and VP were forced to resign, and Romney stepped in in 1999 as President and CEO. Again, he worked his magic and the budget shortfall became a $100 million profit – even including a $300 million security plan that had to be put in place after 9/11 – integrity was returned to the leadership, and the games were a great success. The games were actually expanded instead of scaled back, and the Salt Lake City Games stand as the most attended winter Olympics in history.

As you can see, Romney does seem to have the Midas Touch – everything he touches turns to gold. His business ventures that he manages and leads take off and are huge successes. He has experience with, and success in, managing budget shortfalls, turning companies and organizations around, making things profitable, and instituting necessary reforms and restructurings. I believe success in private executive roles translates directly into success in political executive roles. He is the epitome of success in his personal and private sector life.

The Commonwealth – Romney’s Political Life
Governor 2002-2006
After rescuing the Salt Lake City Games, Romney decided to run for Governor of his home state, Massachusetts. He has previously run in 1994 for Senator against Ted Kennedy and lost, and during that campaign made several statements that have come back to haunt him now, 12 years later. We will explore those statements later.

For now, though, Romney was coming off of three highly successful ventures in Bain Capital, Bain & Company, and the SLC Olypmics and desired to use his executive experience in leading his state as governor. In fact, Romney was pretty much drafted to run by the state Republicans after his successes and because they found the supposed front-runner, Jane Swift, to be unelectable in an election against a Democrat opponent. Romney obliged and won the primary and the election by running on a platform of reform – the same kinds of reforms he worked in the private sector. And reform he did.

His successes in the political executive office are as impressive as his successes in the private sector. Working with a Democratic-controlled state Congress, which cannot possibly be stressed enough, he turned a $3 billion deficit into a $700 million surplus - in just two years. Most impressively, he did this without raising taxes.

What makes that last point even more impressive is remembering he did it with a Democratic-controlled Congress that wanted to raise taxes. And not only was the Congress controlled by Democrats, they had well over a supermajority and could have overridden any veto Romney made. Instead, Romney met with them and convinced them not to raise taxes and to buy into his plan for reducing spending, reducing the size of government, and reforming necessary areas in order to get rid of the deficit. That is one of Romney’s strongest points and one of the biggest reasons I will support him: his ability to effectively vision cast. We’ll discuss that a little later as well.

So with the Democrats on board, Romney turned the Massachusetts financial situation around in less than two years. He did not raise taxes, but did raise the fees people had to pay for some programs such as driver’s license fees and marriage license fees. I couldn’t find any actual reports of the fee increase itself, but near as I can tell the driver’s license fee was upped $5 and the marriage license fee was upped $4. I don’t see this as a big deal at all, and I doubt many others do either, but Romney supporters must be honest about this point.

Abortion
Let’s get this off the table first thing: did Romney change his political position on abortion? Yes. It would do all Romney supporters well to remember that and not pretend otherwise. However, I happen to believe, as do many others, that his conversion was a sincere one. It should be left up to every individual to make that decision for him or herself. Was his conversion sincere or merely calculated for political gain? It’s up to you to decide, and the debate has been hashed out here time and time again. But in making that decision I would point to actions Romney has taken as Governor of Massachusetts, interviews where he has been very candid about his conversion experience, and the clear way he talks about the issue now.

But the main reason I fully support Romney in this area is rarely talked about – no matter what political position he has taken on abortion (pro-life or pro-choice), there is one area of the abortion debate on which he has been clear and consistent: states should determine for themselves their own abortion laws. This leads me to believe he will not only cast a clear and inspiring vision for the culture of life in general, but will also be committed to nominating Supreme Court Justices that will vote to overturn the atrocity that is Roe v Wade.

The War on Terror
The top three issues for me in a Presidential campaign are abortion, reducing the size of government (including, mostly, taxes), and the war on terror. I believe Romney is strong on all three of them, including the war.

But how can a Governor be suited to take over the Oval Office in the time of war, some have argued. He doesn’t have any foreign policy experience! We need a Senator or a… Mayor?

Romney’s credentials speak for themselves in this arena, and give even more reason to be comfortable with a Romney candidacy:
• He is on the Dept of Homeland Security’s Advisory Council
• He co-chaired the Homeland Security Committee of the National Governor’s Association
• He oversaw the complete security detail of the SLC Games, a point that cannot be stressed enough – a $300 million plan just three months after 9/11
• He made a gutsy call and denounced Khatami’s visit to Harvard, cut off all state funding for the trip, and denied him police escort while he was there

In addition to this, he has given several speeches that line out his views on the war on terror, including calling for the possibility of wiretapping mosques, racial profiling of foreign students, more money and attention on intelligence gathering, calling the War on Terror the war against radical jihadists and saying we need to understand the religious part of the war and our enemies, stating that only a small percentage of Muslims are extremists but that a small percentage of a large number is still a large number, and showing great support for Israel against Hezbollah and Hamas.

But so what, many detractors shout. So what if he talked about foreign policy? He hasn’t actually done any! Well, neither has Rudy. Or McCain. Or Huckabee. Or pretty much any of the other candidates at this point. What matters on foreign policy is your underlying beliefs, your intelligence about the subject, and the vision that you want to help America achieve in the world. And having run a multinational business for many years, and dealing with the hundreds of countries at the Olympic Games, couldn’t really hurt Romney in this area.

Vision Casting
This is the foundational reason I am excited about a Romney candidacy. Ever since Reagan, we have been clamoring for another “Great Communicator”. Not just so we won’t have to worry about our guy flubbing up a debate, but because great communicators inspire us with their vision of what America can be. They change people’s minds with their rhetoric and persuasive abilities. They are able to advance a conservative agenda by advancing a conservative philosophy. That is where Reagan excelled, and it is where, I believe anyway, Romney can excel as well.

Romney can reach across the aisle and get things done – not in a mushy pandering sort of way, but just like he did in Massachusetts: by describing his vision for things. He got a Democrat-controlled Congress on board with his decision to eliminate government jobs, reduce government spending and waste, and to not raise taxes. Friends and family that have heard him speak are impressed with him and willing to consider his views. He is a charismatic, likable, persuasive speaker. I am excited for what that could mean for the future of America and for the future of the Republican party.

The Bottom Line
So when it comes down to it, for me, the choice is clear: Mitt Romney is officially my guy for 2008. He will be an inspiring and decisive leader, and I feel like we have in Romney a great hope to rekindle the conservative spirit across this country and see the promise of our great nation begin to be fulfilled.
 

PetertheRock

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2005
3,099
208
52
Falmouth Maine
✟4,316.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Honestly, they are a lot better. Romney is currently 3rd in the polls behind Guiliani and McCainn. I do not see McCain actually winning and I don't think Guiliani is going to be conservative enough to take the Republican nomination. Not to menion both McCain and Guiliani are pro abortion. At least Romney is mostly pro life and would probably nominate pro life judges.
 
Upvote 0

ProCommunioneFacior

I'm an ultra-traditionalist, run for your life ;)
Oct 30, 2003
11,154
562
42
Mesa, Arizona
Visit site
✟21,647.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
There's no way I would support Romney over Brownback. At best Romney is a Republican who pays mostly lipservice to the pro-life cause like Bush and at worst he believes what he believed during his run for the Massachusetts gubernatorial.

Brownback is the only one of the current candidates who not only pays lipservice to the pro-life cause but actually does something about it. And not only does he do something about it, he is adamant about it.
 
Upvote 0

scraparcs

aka Mayor McCheese
Mar 4, 2002
52,793
4,844
Massachusetts
✟91,578.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I do need to look at Romney a bit more certainly. Actually I need to investigate the differences among the potential candidates now.

Also, although mostly pro-life definitely isn't the greatest stance, it's still better than mostly pro-choice.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PetertheRock

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2005
3,099
208
52
Falmouth Maine
✟4,316.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Actually I have no problem with the rape/incest/mothers life exception. I would be very happy doing away with about 99% of all abortions.

You will not see any candidate for President get elected that does not support the exceptions for rape/mothers life.
 
Upvote 0

MikeK

Traditionalist Catholic
Feb 4, 2004
32,104
5,649
Wisconsin
✟90,821.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I agree with the OP's friend that a good government is run like a good business. I also agree that abortion (and just about every other law) is an issue that should be decided by the states rather than the Feds. People have a right to govern themselves, Massachusets likely wants a very different set of rules to live by then Utah does, let each state decide what is best for them for themselves. The Feds should be concerned only with matters that individual states cannot be expected to do on their own, ie defence.
 
Upvote 0

AMDG

Tenderized for Christ
May 24, 2004
25,362
1,286
74
Pacific Northwest, United States
✟47,022.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Are they one and the same? Allow abortions in cases of rape, incest, or when it endangers the life of the mother?

The LDS bishops "caved" to popular thought and decided that abortion was okay (even necessary) in the case of rape, incest, or... so now the LDS people hold that belief.

When considering a LDS running for office, it might be wise to research the OTHER beliefs of the LDS.
 
Upvote 0

Rhamiel

Member of the Round Table
Nov 11, 2006
41,182
9,432
ohio
✟241,111.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
We have to be careful about that “abortions OK when the life of the Mother is at risk” clause, the progressive secularist will use that for mental health and anything else they can warp it into, and the doctors are terrible and would just ok anything. If the health risk is real then ok but people can be deceptive.
 
Upvote 0

MikeK

Traditionalist Catholic
Feb 4, 2004
32,104
5,649
Wisconsin
✟90,821.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
We have to be careful about that “abortions OK when the life of the Mother is at risk” clause, the progressive secularist will use that for mental health and anything else they can warp it into, and the doctors are terrible and would just ok anything. If the health risk is real then ok but people can be deceptive.

We can expect a certain ammount of abuse of such a law, but that alone isn't a reason against it. Many people try (most fail) to get perscriptions for drugs that they are adicted to by faking pain, that doesn't mean that Doctors should stop perscribing the pain meds that people need, just that they need to be careful.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

colleen

We are an Easter people!
Mar 8, 2002
3,953
390
43
✟21,098.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I think a canidate that wants a chance to win against the big names for the republican nomination is going to have to be 100% prolife. He is going to half to be strong enough that people are willing to fight for him to win. And, if he has any chance of beating Clinton he can't be wishy washy on abortion or a lot of people will end up voting third party. The Republican party can no longer give lip service to the prolife crowd if they expect their votes especially if they want prolife democrats to vote for them. I want a president who is going to push a prolife agenda. A President who will ask why congress if bringing him a budget that funds planned parenthood instead of giving them the must funding they've ever received like Bush did. I want a firm no to stem cell research that kills children. We can't afford to have someone who has a nice speech on the anniversary of Roe v Wade, but doesn't do anything to actually stop abortion.
 
Upvote 0

scraparcs

aka Mayor McCheese
Mar 4, 2002
52,793
4,844
Massachusetts
✟91,578.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The LDS bishops "caved" to popular thought and decided that abortion was okay (even necessary) in the case of rape, incest, or... so now the LDS people hold that belief.

When considering a LDS running for office, it might be wise to research the OTHER beliefs of the LDS.

That would be fine if their beliefs were as standardized as the Catholic Church, but I believe there is more freedom of belief there on some issues.

As for LDS bishops, they're just laypeople. Bishop has a completely different meaning among LDS than Catholics.

We have to be careful about that “abortions OK when the life of the Mother is at risk” clause, the progressive secularist will use that for mental health and anything else they can warp it into, and the doctors are terrible and would just ok anything. If the health risk is real then ok but people can be deceptive.

I think a canidate that wants a chance to win against the big names for the republican nomination is going to have to be 100% prolife. He is going to half to be strong enough that people are willing to fight for him to win. And, if he has any chance of beating Clinton he can't be wishy washy on abortion or a lot of people will end up voting third party. The Republican party can no longer give lip service to the prolife crowd if they expect their votes especially if they want prolife democrats to vote for them. I want a president who is going to push a prolife agenda. A President who will ask why congress if bringing him a budget that funds planned parenthood instead of giving them the must funding they've ever received like Bush did. I want a firm no to stem cell research that kills children. We can't afford to have someone who has a nice speech on the anniversary of Roe v Wade, but doesn't do anything to actually stop abortion.

That candidate would get the GOP nomination and lose the election as they would be perceived as too conservative to appeal to the general population. So what that would do would be to give the election to a pro-choice Democrat.

I'd much rather have someone in office that might permit the rape/incest/life of mother, someone with a Bush pro-life record, than someone who considers themselves an ardent supporter of abortion rights.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.