Candidate Review - Assassination of Benazir Bhutto - Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney sees this tragedy as a chance to remind you all that Islamic Terrorism is very scary and Democrats don't take it seriously (although a few may be getting the message).

Well, I think what's happened in Pakistan has made more clear in the mind of the American public and perhaps some of our Democratic colleagues as well that what we're dealing with in the global war on terror, this war against violent Jihadism, is not just an effort in Iraq or even extended to Afghanistan, but this is a worldwide effort on the part of violent Jihadists who have as the their intent the collapse of all nations, Islamic as well as Western. The attacks are not just on Americans and American leaders or even Western leaders, it does include leaders within the world of Islam. There have been death threats and death attacks against General Musharraf. There have been attacks and threats of attack against Madam Bhutto before, so we're facing a world which sees a dramatic growth in violent Jihad, and we're going to have to gather together the civilized nations of the world to help strengthen the ability of moderate, modern Islamic people and leaders for them to reject the extreme, because ultimately, only Muslims are going to be able to reject violent radical Jihadism.

Kind of despicable, Mr. Romney.

Candidate Review -The Environment - Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney has an energy page, which calls for more drilling and seeking out of energy.

"The United States must become energy independent. This does not mean no longer importing or using oil. It means making sure that our nation's future will always be in our hands. Our decisions and destiny cannot be bound to the whims of oil-producing states."

He does favor trying to find new supplies and building more nuclear plants, but I think he's made it clear that he's no threat to the oil companies. He specifically favors opening ANWR.

He doesn't seem to have a page on protecting the environment. Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

Candidate Review - Illegal Immigration - Mitt Romney

Well Mitt Romney does through a bit of a sop to legal immigration, but he's really down on illegal immigration, taking particular aim at sanctuary cities.

They said there's no way to stop them at the border, unless you close down the magnets. And the magnets are sanctuary cities and having employers sign people up that have come here illegally to do work here. You have to end sanctuary cities. You have to cut back on federal funding to cities that continue to call themselves sanctuary cities and welcome people in, as New York has done. And you have to say to employers that hire people illegally, 'That's also going to be sanctioned.' This is the way we're going to have to finally end it.

I do have to say I see some difference between a city saying that they aren't going to prosecute illegal immigrants too badly and employers saying we are going to exploit the hell out of people who can't really defend themselves. But Romney knows which is going to piss off the Republican base more.

He's also in favor of a national I.D. incorporating biometrics. And he's in favor of recruiting skilled immigrants. He doesn't really address the question of "Where are we going to get guys to pick tangerines for a fraction of what we would have to pay American workers?"

But none of the Republicans are addressing that one, I suppose.

Candidate Review - Electoral Reform - Mitt Romney

One good thing about Mitt Romney; he's very predictable. He knows what the right positions on the issues are, and, by gum, he takes them! On campaign finance, the answer is "McCain Fiengold Bad, Public Disclosure Good."

Repeal McCain-Feingold. Governor Romney believes that McCain-Feingold should be repealed because it restricts our First Amendment rights. He believes we should enact reforms that promote transparency and disclosure, preserve grassroots activism and protect the ability to criticize or endorse current officeholders and candidates.

Restore The Free Speech Rights Of The American People. Political speech is at the heart of the First Amendment. The American people must be allowed to advocate for their candidates and their positions without the burdensome limitations of McCain-Feingold.

. . . Support Transparency And Disclosure. McCain- Feingold has driven money into secret corners and given more power to hidden special interests. Governor Romney believes we must have more transparency and disclosure in the process, rather than more restrictions and censorship of political speech.

I don't know exactly how this would work; how hard is now to find out who's donating to political campaigns? Doesn't seem that hard. And one of the problems he's referencing, indirect donations, wouldn't be solved by repealing McCain Fiengold. At any rate, like Keyes, his big issue is preserving the influence of big business over our politicians.

Full public funding of campaigns seems like the better bet.

Candidate Review - The Iraq War - Mitt Romney

Romney doesn't wear his position on Iraq on his sleeve. Probably a smart move. He has three pages on the war on terror (one on the War on Terror, one on how bad Islamofascism is, and one on curbing Nuclear Proliferation (by which means Iraq)), but none of them talk about Iraq (well the page on Global Jihad mentions how we shouldn't focus simply on Iraq and Afghanistan, but realize this enemy could be anywhere). A recent press release covers his position on Iraq in a somewhat truncated way.

First, We Must Succeed In Iraq And In Afghanistan. At a minimum, success means not leaving behind a safe haven in Iraq and Afghanistan for Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, from which they can finance, train and launch devastating attacks on America, Israel, and the world. In Iraq, the Surge's success has been vital to ensuring that Al Qaeda is denied a safe haven from which to launch attacks.

Good plan, but of course it's a long way from free and stable, isn't it? I mean wouldn't a Saddam style dictatorship that was in our back pocket achieve these ends?

A brief pause

I'm not voting for Mitt Romney. I mean I wasn't before, but now I'm really really not voting for Mitt Romney.

Apparently Mitt Romney publically stated he wouldn't consider members of the Muslim Faith for cabinet positions.

I asked Mr. Romney whether he would consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters, given his position that “jihadism” is the principal foreign policy threat facing America today. He answered, “…based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration.”

So you get a position in the Romney campaign based not upon your qualifications but on how many people like you there are in the United States? Seems like a bad policy. And dubious, given that at least a portion of Romney's campaign is built around convincing evangelicals that they shouldn't judge him on his heretical (in their eyes) faith.

Got this from the Carpetbagger.

Candidate Review - Health Care - Mitt Romney

Romney likes to have you watch him speak rather than read his words. I don't have time to listen and transcribe and frankly I'm not interested in doing that anyway. So you have to put up with what little text he has on his website, which is a brief statement and two quotes.

The health of our nation can be improved by extending health insurance to all Americans, not through a government program or new taxes, but through market reforms.

"We can't have as a nation 40 million people -- or, in my state, half a million -- saying, 'I don't have insurance, and if I get sick, I want someone else to pay."

The quote is from a USA Today story, and I'm not sure how flattering it is. Certainly a section of the Republican base wants to hear "Sick people who don't have health insurance get what they deserve." But I don't know how that will fly in America as a whole. The other quote isn't much better.

"It's a conservative idea," says Romney, "insisting that individuals have responsibility for their own health care. I think it appeals to people on both sides of the aisle: insurance for everyone without a tax increase."

Again from USA Today. But of course what is lacking (and I've not reproduced the entire page) is any suggestion of how people who aren't insured now are going to get insured. Is Romney just going to take the presidential podium, look America in the eye and say "You uninsured people - get insured. Thank you and goodnight." Or what?

In other Romney related news, there's a post by Glenn Greenwald on Romney's service as a Mormon Missionary during the Vietnam War - a war he supported but didn't feel much desire to participate in (he got a mission deferment and then an educational deferment).

Candidate Review - Fair Trade - Mitt Romney

In contrast, Mitt Romney comes down squarely on the side of Free Trade; he favors competing with Asia, not locking it out.

"We have to keep our markets open or we go the way of Russia and the Soviet Union, which is a collapse. And I recognize there are some people who will argue for protectionism because the short-term benefits sound pretty good, but long term you kill your economy, you kill the future. What you have to do in order to compete on a global basis long term is invest in education, invest in technology, reform our immigration laws to bring in more of the brains from around the world, eliminate the waste in our government. We have to use a lot less oil. These are the kinds of features you have to invest in, you have to change in order to make ourselves competitive long term."

Romney is the business candidate in a way, so this fits his appeal.

Candidate Review - Foreign Policy - Mitt Romney

I did Romney last last week too - I'll have to remember to do him first this upcoming week. Haven't decided on a subject yet - probably something like immigration or tort reform. Anyway Romney has some standard statements on the War on Terror, which is the only part of foreign policy that most Republican Candidates care about.

The defeat of this radical and violent faction of Islam must be achieved through a combination of American resolve, international effort, and the rejection of violence by moderate, modern, mainstream Muslims. An effective strategy will involve both military and diplomatic actions to support modern Muslim nations. America must help lead a broad-based international coalition that promotes secular education, modern financial and economic policies, international trade, and human rights.

Seems a bit humdrum, but at least he has heard of diplomatic tools, which is more than many of his competitors.

He also has a bit on competing with Asia, which is apparently a big concern of his.

China and the rest of Asia are on the move economically and technologically. They are a family oriented, educated, hard-working, and mercantile people. We must be ready and able to compete. This means ensuring our children are educated to compete in this new market, our trade laws are fair and balanced, and our economy and tax laws welcome new investment. If America acts boldly and swiftly, the emergence of Asia will be an opportunity. Trade and commerce with these huge new economies can further strengthen our economy and propel our growth. If America fails to act, we will be eclipsed.

Does sound a bit like we need to control them or they'll beat us, doesn't it?

Candidate Review - Abortion - Mitt Romney

Well Romney's stance isn't exactly highlighted either, although I suppose that's probably because everybody knows that it has changed over the years. And what there is of his stance, isn't as definitive as some of the others (although he does, of course, say that he's pro-life).

"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."

Does the candidate believe Abortion to be murder? It's unclear. Does he think it's ok for babies to be aborted in Oregon but not in Georgia? Presumably. A much weaker statement compared to, say, Huckabee.

One closing note, Republicans probably care a lot more about this issue then Democrats. Republicans are eager to show off their stance on this issue (except where their stance isn't the expected one), Democrats are somewhat less eager to highlight their position on this issue. Presumably that's because Republicans are fighting to change the Status Quo and Democrats are fighting to preserve it. It's expected that the Democrats will try to uphold the current set up (or expand Reproductive Rights) but it's not very exciting. And while for most Democrats it's a necessary qualification, it's no where near a sufficient qualification.