Tag Archives: Mitt Romney

Conservative CPAC Conference Backs Liberal Presidential Candidate by Gregory Hilton

The only good thing about Ron Paul’s victory at CPAC yesterday is that the stunned crowd responded to the announcement with loud booing. CPAC is the annual Conservative Political Action Conference. For the past three years the CPAC presidential straw poll has been won by former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA).
Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) did not attend CPAC this year because he believes the event has been taken over by Libertarians. National Review commented “Heck, a lot of the time, it seemed like they (the Libertarians), not the American Conservative Union, was CPAC’s host.”
Paul received 31% of the CPAC vote compared to Romney’s 22%, Sarah Palin’s 7% and Huckabee’s 4%. Almost 12,000 people attended CPAC, but just 2,400 of them voted in the straw poll. Of this group, 48% described themselves as students.
The best description of the straw poll came from John Nichols of the liberal magazine, The Nation:

The good news from the Conservative Political Action Conference — and it really is very good news — is that the assembled activists have identified as their preferred choice for the presidency a militant opponent of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq who has voted against the Patriot Act, opposed free-trade deals, condemned the expansion of executive power and warned about collusion between “too-big-to-fail” bankers and the government regulators who are supposed to keep an eye on them. No, the CPAC crowd did not name Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold (D) as their preferred pick to oppose President Obama in 2012. But they did vote, rather overwhelmingly, for the one Republican who shares the views of Feingold — and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders — on the aforementioned issues.

Paul is the only 2008 GOP presidential candidate who refused to support the nominee of the Republican Party. The Texas Congressman was considered such a marginal candidate last time that Fox News banned him from the 2008 New Hampshire presidential debate.
Paul was the only speaker to fill the three CPAC ballrooms and he received an enthusiastic response when he vigorously denounced the liberal Democratic President. No, it was not Barack Obama, he was condemning President Woodrow Wilson who left office in 1921. The Texas lawmaker blamed him for America’s participation in WW I, establishing the Federal Reserve, the income tax (the top rate was 2% under Wilson), and most especially, his advocacy of the League of Nations. The CPAC college students responded by booing mention of Wilson’s name.
Other observations on Ron Paul’s speech and the Libertarian presence at CPAC are as follows:

* Paul’s speech was interrupted with chants of “End The Fed,” and apparently the Libertarians would prefer the old system. They would turn monetary policy over to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Congress.

* On Meet the Press in 2008, the Congressman claimed the Civil War was an unnecessary bloodbath which could have been avoided. Paul’s Campaign for Liberty sponsored a CPAC book signing with Thomas DiLorenzo, the author of “Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe.” His speech was entitled, “Friend or Foe? Abraham Lincoln on Liberty.”

* As Earl Hutchinson has noted, Paul believes “blacks are criminally inclined, political dumb bells, and chronic welfare deadbeats. Here’s what Paul’s campaign website ronpaul2008.com had to say about race. In fact he even highlighted this as ‘Issue: Racism,’ ‘Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry.’
“In other words, the 1954 landmark Supreme Court decision Brown vs. Board of Education school desegregation, the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and legions of court decisions and state laws that bar discrimination are worthless. Worse, says Paul, they actually promote bigotry by dividing Americans into race and class.”

* Ron Paul advocates abolishing the Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act and FISA. He wants the U.S. to leave NATO, the World Trade Organization, the UN, and to end all aid to Israel. The Libertarians sponsored a CPAC event entitled “Why Real Conservatives Are Against the War on Terror.” All of the Libertarian speakers were far to the left of the Obama Administration.

* Paul says: “Eliminate the minimum wage and full employment will immediately follow.” The minimum wage (.25 cents per hour) was passed in 1938, and there certainly was no full employment prior to that time.

* Rep. Paul made his usual isolationist denunciation of the American “empire.” Several European nations have been empire builders, but not the United States. The libertarians are correct that U.S. military bases continue to dot the globe. We are there to keep the sea-lanes open and the terrorists under wraps.
Americans are not seeking empire but we are keeping people safe and maintaining prosperity. We overthrew Noriega, Milosevic, Mullah Omar and Saddam Hussein to put in their places freely elected leaders, not puppet regimes. We use our power to keep peace rather than to rule.
Gov. Huckabee spoke for many in saying, “CPAC has becoming increasingly more libertarian and less Republican over the last years, one of the reasons I didn’t go this year.” He criticized the way CPAC “solicits sponsors, it’s almost becomes a pay-for-play. It’s kind of like, who will pay money to be able to be a sponsor and get time in the program. That’s one of the things that has hurt its credibility in the last couple of years.” In his November, 2008 book, “Do The Right Thing,” Huckabee says “The real threat to the Republican Party is something we saw a lot of in this past election cycle, libertarianism masked as conservatism. As it threatens to not only split the Republican Party, but rendered it is as irrelevant as the Whig Party.” He says libertarianism “is not an American message,” it is a “soulless type of economic conservatism.”
The Libertarian Party responded by issuing the following press release attacking the entire CPAC conference.
Libertarians criticize CPAC conservatives

WASHINGTON – As the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) holds its annual conference, Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict offered the following statement:

I’m sure we’ll hear an awful lot about “limited government” from the mouths of CPAC politicians over the next few days. If I had a nickel every time a conservative said “limited government” and didn’t mean it, I’d be a very rich man.

Unlike libertarians, most conservatives simply don’t want small government. They want their own version of big government. Of course, they have done a pretty good job of fooling American voters for decades by repeating the phrases “limited government” and “small government” like a hypnotic chant.

It’s interesting that conservatives only notice “big government” when it’s something their political enemies want. When conservatives want it, apparently it doesn’t count.
If a conservative wants a trillion-dollar foreign war, that doesn’t count.
If a conservative wants a 700-billion-dollar bank bailout, that doesn’t count.
If a conservative wants to spend billions fighting a needless and destructive War on Drugs, that doesn’t count.
If a conservative wants to spend billions building border fences, that doesn’t count.
If a conservative wants to “protect” the huge, unjust, and terribly inefficient Social Security and Medicare programs, that doesn’t count.
If a conservative wants billions in farm subsidies, that doesn’t count.
It’s truly amazing how many things “don’t count.”

Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh can’t ever be satisfied with enough military spending and foreign wars.

Conservatives like Mitt Romney want to force everyone to buy health insurance.

Conservatives like George W. Bush — well, his list of supporting big-government programs is almost endless.

Ronald Reagan, often praised as an icon of conservatism, signed massive spending bills that made his the biggest-spending administration (as a percentage of GDP) since World War II.

Some people claim that these big-government supporters aren’t “true conservatives.” Well, if a person opposes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, opposes the War on Drugs, opposes border fences, and opposes mandatory Social Security and Medicare, it’s hard to believe that anyone would describe that person as a conservative at all. Most people would say that person is a libertarian (or maybe even a liberal).

Obviously, most liberals don’t want limited government either. It’s just that their support for big government leans toward massive handout and redistribution programs.

The fact is, liberals and conservatives both want gigantic government. Their visions sometimes look different from each other, but both are huge. The only Americans who truly want small government are libertarians.

An article posted at CNS News, linked prominently from the Drudge Report, noted that the Obama administration is on track to beat the Franklin Roosevelt administration in terms of average federal spending as a percentage of GDP. However, the article failed to note that the Reagan Administration already beat the Franklin Roosevelt administration easily. Roosevelt’s average was 19.4 percent of GDP, while Reagan’s average was 22.3 percent of GDP. (Source: White House OMB data)

Wes Benedict will be observing the proceedings at the CPAC conference on Saturday, February 20. For more information, or to arrange an interview, call Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

The LP is America’s third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.

The Social Conservatives vs. the Regular Republicans: The Battle for Iowa Has National Implications by Gregory Hilton

Because of its first in the nation presidential precinct caucuses, Iowa is often at the center stage of American politics. Statewide candidates are frequently linked to presidential contenders, and this year will be no different. A crucial battle is now being waged between social conservatives and regular Republicans, and it will culminate in the June 8th gubernatorial primary. Continue reading

Several Key Senate Democrats Probably Want the GOP’s Scott Brown to Win the Massachusetts Special Election by Gregory Hilton

If State Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) wins the special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s vacancy on January 19th, several Democrats might be relieved. The Senate balance would become 59 to 41, and a few moderates would no longer be on the hot seat. They would not be pressured to provide the crucial 60th vote necessary to pass the health care reform bill and other legislation.
Among lawmakers who might breath a sign of relief if the GOP’s Brown wins are Senators Blanche Lincoln (AR), Ben Nelson (NE), Joe Lieberman (CT), Kent Conrad (ND), Mary Landrieu (LA) and Evan Bayh (IN).
These lawmakers worked as a team to stop the House passed version of the public option.
Lieberman spoke for many of them, “If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote because I believe debt can break America and send us into a recession that’s worse than the one we’re fighting our way out of today.” The Senators won on the public option, Nelson and Landrieu cut lucrative side deals with Majority Leader Reid, but since then the lawmakers have had to cope with outraged voters back home.
Nelson is running 30% behind Gov. Dave Heineman (R-NE) in a hypothetical 2012 matchup, and has said it was a mistake to take up health care this year. Lincoln is 10 points behind her GOP challengers, and Lieberman has seen a 25% drop in his approval rating. It is no wonder all of these Senators are far from happy with the health care bill which passed the Senate.
The pressure on them to once again vote in favor of health care reform is enormous. Every one of these Senators has already made statements questioning the fiscal soundness of the bill. The lawmakers are also well aware of the gimmicks used to get the bill through the Senate. The increased taxes go into effect immediately but people will have to wait until 2014 for benefits. They also realize the bill is not deficit neutral, nor will it save money in the long run.
Finally, if Brown does win on Tuesday he should thank Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) was in office when Kerry began his 2004 presidential campaign. Democrats thought Kerry could win the presidential election, and they did not want Romney to have the power to appoint a Republican to fill a Senate vacancy until 2006. They changed the law to require a special election rather than a gubernatorial appointment in the event of a vacancy. If the law had not been changed Gov. Deval Patrick (D-MA) could have immediately appointed a Democrat to fill Ted Kennedy’s vacancy.

Are Mormons Christians? by Gregory Hilton

Today Glenn Beck said it was “Romney’s turn” for the 2012 GOP nomination. I believe in the First Amendment and the separation of church and state, but many listeners said they could not support Romney because he was a “Mormon and not a Christian.” Beck is also a Mormon and Romney’s religion is certain to have a prominent role in the 2012 campaign. The Constitution does not stipulate that a President must accept a certain version of Christianity, or any religion.
This is not the first time this has happened in American politics. In 1908 the GOP presidential candidate was William Howard Taft, a Unitarian. His religious beliefs were criticized because his church did not believe in the Trinity. Taft was easily elected by defeating William Jennings Bryan who was making his third attempt for the presidency.
The dictionary defines a Christian as “one who professes belief in Jesus as Christ.” Mormons are Christians and the official name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Mormons describe themselves as Christians and they believe Jesus is the son of God who atoned for the sins of mankind. The Book of Mormon says “Jesus Christ Himself is the chief corner stone” of our faith.
Most Mormons I know are better Christians than the rest of us, and they certainly have good morals. They do not agree with some of my beliefs, but neither do the Democrats! The bottom line is that Mormons are Christians and the Scripture says, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and ye shall be saved.”
LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley addressed this topic: “Are we Christians? Of course we are! No one can honestly deny that. We may be somewhat different from the traditional pattern of Christianity. But no one believes more literally in the redemption wrought by the Lord Jesus Christ. No one believes more fundamentally that He was the Son of God, that He died for the sins of mankind, that He rose from the grave, and that He is the living resurrected Son of the living Father.”
The Mormon church uses two sources as its primary authorities: the Book of Mormon and the Bible. The Christian church uses the Holy Bible alone as its authority from God. Joseph Smith is not recognized as a prophet.
Regarding life after death, the Mormon church maintains that although there is temporary punishment for those that are most wicked, Jesus Christ will establish a new kingdom that will consist of three levels: the celestial kingdom, the terrestrial kingdom, and the telestial kingdom. The Christian church holds that there are only two possible fates after death, heaven or hell. These locations are final, both physically and spiritually.