MartiniPundit

So What to Make of Mitt Romney

By chance, I happened to see the now former Governor Mitt Romney on Tuesday on his last full day as Governor of Massachusetts. He had come to lay a wreath for Gerald Ford at the Old North Church, a gesture one local called a “crock of [bleep]” and just another photo op for Romney’s putative run at the Presidency. Lending weight to this view was that Romney’s visit lasted all of five minutes. He came, he shook hands with the vicar, flash bulbs went off as he laid the wreath, and then he was gone. Just another gesture in Ford’s endless interment, and one which may or may not have made the eleven o’clock news.

So what about Mitt? I don’t personally know him and so have no basis on which to form an opinion as does the esteemed blogger Dean Barnett. I did once work with the Governor’s son for a couple of years, and can attest that he was an awfully nice guy. There was a clannishness to the mormons who were there, and a subtle attitude of superiority. They do call the rest of us “gentiles” - even the Jews - and it means something to them. I did and do find the attitude vaguely distasteful. However, beyond that, I’m not concerned with the LDS issue. Mitt Romney says he believes in Jesus Christ, and I believe him. Most evangelicals will probably take him at his word, though those who are aware of mormon theology may not recognize the mormon Christ. Frankly, it’s a non-issue that the media will be happy to play up for lack of substance and understanding anyway.

My view of Romney as governor is somewhat more of an issue to me. He acted as the standard check on a Democrat-dominated legislature that has kept the GOP in the governor’s office for almost two decades. He spoke out on social issues. He visited the occasional disaster site for a photo op (we’re not Louisiana, so local officials are actually pretty good at managing those things by themselves). Basically, to me, he looked like a dilettante. I do believe he wants to be president, and he needed an elective office on his resume. Governor of a state is pretty good - far better than senator, so he checked it off. Could that be why he only served one term? Could that be why he failed to support his Lt. Governor in her bid for the office he was vacating? I don’t know. I do know Romney has coasted through his term. Which brings us to the presidency.

The presidential lineup on both sides of the political aisle is pathetic. All the senators are frankly lightweights, including Hillary Clinton and John McCain, despite their assumed air of gravitas. Guiliani was a mayor for crying out loud, and his whole candidacy rests on an admittedly superb performance dealing with a crisis. Obama is a media creation - though his time may come (hint: run for governor). Edwards is the lightest lightweight in a light lineup. There’s Vilsack, who was at least a governor, but is largely unknown. (There’s recent precedent there, of course: Carter, Clinton.) Romney’s there with Vilsack, though arguably better known because a) Massachusetts gets more national coverage than Iowa; b) the Olympics; and c) his father’s run for the presidency.

Word is Romney’s off to South Carolina now that he’s finished with Beacon Hill, and by a funny coincidence that’s a key primary state. I’m reserving judgment at this point. My initial instinct is that Romney doesn’t have what it takes and that he’s just another Massachusetts pol bitten by the presidential tse-tse fly. He does not have my vote - now. I did vote for him for governor, and if he’s the Republican nominee he’ll have my vote over any likely Democratic contender. But right now, this conservative, Catholic, GOP primary voter is keeping his powder dry.

MIA

That would be me.

Mostly, I’ve been caught up in personal and professional concerns, but I have also been disillusioned with politics of late. I make no promises for the new year, but MartiniPundit isn’t going anywhere that’s for sure.

I leave you with a thought however. Since the holiday deaths always seem to come in threes, who would ever have predicted James Brown, Gerald Ford, and Saddam Hussein?

Operation Iraqi Children

I recently heard about an effort by actor Gary Sinise called Operation Iraqi Children. The idea is to send school supplies - which are in very short supply in many parts of Iraq - and have them distributed by our troops. Winning hearts and minds by giving kids the tools to gain an education. Nothing wrong with candy, but I think this is a great idea and worthy of support.

And kudos to Gary Sinise - I always like seeing a member of the Hollywood establishment do the right thing for a change. The website again is here.

Vote Lieberman

I did not vote for the Gore - Lieberman team in 2000 which should come as no surprise. I’ve known since the days of Jimmy Carter that Democrats cannot be trusted with national security, and since that’s one of the primary reasons I vote for Federal office, I simply cannot pull the lever for a Democrat. Even the rare exceptions - Democrats who get national security, and Joe Lieberman is one - are typically overshadowed on that and other issues by the Republican in the race.

Not this time.

Yesterday, the Democratic party in Connecticut had a defining moment. They chose Ned Lamont to be their candidate for United States senator over the incumbant Lieberman. Lamont represents all that is wrong about Democrats and national security. He’s the candidate of the far Left, the Cindy Sheehans, the Kossacks, and the other moonbats. Far from even thinking we’re fighting a war against terrorism, the Ned Lamonts want to sit down with terrorists and talk it out. Israel should immediately stop defending itself and pull back. The United States should never use military force anywhere for any reason. Except to do the bidding of the United Nations. I cannot take such a party seriously on this issue and I doubt very much the majority of Americans do.

However, in Connecticut, things are a little different as they are in all of New England. This is not exactly George Bush country, and that’s why Lieberman lost yesterday - he supported the President too much. Come the general election in November, Lieberman plans to run as an independent though many of his senate colleagues are asking he not do that. Yet Lamont only beat him among Democrats by 4 points - 52 to 48. Connecticut went for Kerry in 2004, but Bush garnered 44% of the vote. While it’s possible the Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger can win in November, I think it far more likely that Lieberman will win a three-way race. Lieberman has already proven he’ll stand by the President on the most important issue we face today. Current polls tend to support the view that Lieberman can win in the general election, and if he does, he’ll have no reason to thank his Democrat colleagues who’ve failed to support him in this time. He might even choose to caucus with the Republicans, though that’s not important.

For this reason, MartiniPundit endorses Joe Lieberman for senator from Connecticut, and I urge all my Republican (and Democrat) readers who live in Connecticut to vote for him in November.

GOP Straw Poll

I received an e-mail recently from GOP Bloggers of which I am a member. It purported to be a straw poll of current candidates for the Republican nomination in 2008. The list was of the usual suspects, and asked whom I would support and whom I would not support. However, there was a glaring omission to the list - Condi Rice.

I replied to the e-mail to that effect - that I would be happy to participate once Condi was included - but received in response an automated message from the site (i.e. Matt Margolis) suggesting that I needed to confirm that I wasn’t spam - I would only have to do this once. This in reply to an e-mail sent to me.

Well, I’m already a member and my e-mail address should be part of that. I appreciate that a blogger of Matt Margolis’s prominence receives a lot of spam, but I found this to be a rather silly requirement for one who is already a member of not one but two of his sites and who was the recipient of his e-mail. Perhaps I shouldn’t bother.

In any event, for those who care, I would vote for Condi, not that you’ll see that option on GOP Bloggers.

MSNBC Makes a Good Call

MSNBC has cancelled the execrable Maury and Connie duet weekend morning program. If you caught any part of it during its brief run, you were insulted by ill-informed banal commentary, not to mention an odd lack of chemistry between the co-hosts - all the scarier as they are married to one another.

Anyway, I wouldn’t ordinarily have opined on such a topic were it not for the bizarre - literal - swansong Connie Chung performed for their last show. A must see.

Via Drudge.

Rove Will Not Be Charged

Special Prosecutor FitzGerald has sent a letter to Rove’s lawyer stating he will not be charged with a crime in connection with the Plame Affair.

That sound you hear is all those crests falling on the left ...

Zarqawi Dead

The Al Qaeda leader and savage Abu Musab Zarqawi has kept a long-overdue appointment with a pair of 500 lb. bombs. Some have qualms over this - I do not. His death is a good thing, and will lower the overall death toll in the long run. The terrorists are losing, and though they aren’t yet giving up, the end result is clear so long as the US maintains its resolve.

I have no doubt there will be some ‘reprisal’ attacks, that some other strongman will emerge to take Zarqawi’s place, but the fact remains that organizations like Al Qaeda don’t have a very deep bench. They can’t due to political infighting where strong and ambitious men vie for position. Smart leaders in organizations like that eliminate potential rivals, and those they don’t, we do. Whoever replaces Zarqawi won’t be as dangerous, but that’s no reason for us to drop our guard. For today however, we can be glad that one savage has been brought to justice.

Some good background here.

Genetic Immunity to HIV?

There’s an interesting piece in Wired discussing a possible explanation for those people who seem to be immune to HIV. This phenomenon has long been known in medical circles, and it crops up from time to time in the mainstream press. Here’s an excerpt:

Genetic resistance to AIDS works in different ways and appears in different ethnic groups. The most powerful form of resistance, caused by a genetic defect, is limited to people with European or Central Asian heritage. An estimated 1 percent of people descended from Northern Europeans are virtually immune to AIDS infection, with Swedes the most likely to be protected. One theory suggests that the mutation developed in Scandinavia and moved southward with Viking raiders.

All those with the highest level of HIV immunity share a pair of mutated genes—one in each chromosome—that prevent their immune cells from developing a “receptor” that lets the AIDS virus break in. If the so-called CCR5 receptor—which scientists say is akin to a lock—isn’t there, the virus can’t break into the cell and take it over.

Vikings? Perhaps someone should look into Iceland’s situation, as their genetics have been kept in the family for a millenium now. The article is worth a read.

The Bigotry Card

The Senate is debating the FMA again, amidst other posturing that means very little. Harry Reid is apparently upset that the Senate is wasting time on this when it could be doing that other thing - whatever it is. He seems to imply that the Senate is only capable of taking up one task at a time, which some of us think would be a very good thing if true. By all means, debate the FMA is that’s all it takes to keep the Senate out of trouble. Alas, that’s not the case and just another example of Harry Reid’s unprincipled posturing.

Note that I’ve called Harry Reid unprincipled. I think its warranted as the NOAD defines the word to mean: a person not acting or behaving in accordance with moral principles. Reid is a Mormon, and thus has rejected his moral beliefs for political expediency.

This brings me to our ostensibly Catholic senior senator from Massachusetts. Another unprincipled fellow who will do almost anything for political advantage, and sometimes personal ambition (Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment). Note once again, I’m casting aspersions on the man’s character. Does this make you more or less willing to listen to my argument? Less, I hope. I do try to avoid this sort of thing (not always possible, I admit), but today I’m deliberately employing it to prove the point of its lack of effectiveness.

Yesterday, Ted Kennedy wrote an op-ed in the Boston Herald opposing the FMA. There is nothing intrinsically wrong in this - many do, including some conservatives like Charles Krauthammer. There is indeed room to debate the issue, and even to debate whether the Constitution is the right forum to decide the issue. But not if you’re Ted Kennedy, for this is how he frames his argument:

This so-called Federal Marriage Amendment should really be called the Republican Right Wing 2006 Electoral Strategy Amendment because it is more about rallying an extreme base to vote than about solving a problem. Proponents use fear tactics and claim that marriage is under attack by activist judges. That’s simply not true. The country is divided over gay marriage; within the laws of each state, there is ongoing debate in which Congress should not intervene. A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry - pure and simple. A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnerships, and against efforts by states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law.

It’s a vote to impose discrimination on all 50 states, denying them their right to interpret their own state constitutions and to pass their own state laws. [emphasis mine]

Senator Kennedy’s argument - that the FMA will undermine the principles of Federalism - is a good one, and not surprisingly, one with which I agree. Kennedy is no real fan of the principle (just ask him how he feels about applying it to Roe vs. Wade), but his hypocritical adoption of it here while rejecting it there is not the real way in which he undermines his argument. It is the spoken use of the word ‘bigotry.’

Thus, if you oppose gay marriage you are a bigot. Any one of you reading this who opposed gay marriage now knows that Ted Kennedy considers you a bigot.

So why listen to him any further? Why would you debate an issue with someone whose stated position on it is that anyone who disagrees with him is a bigot - in other words, an unprincipled, immoral person.

I recently had this card played when discussing the subject of Indian reservations. I believe they are a horrible anachronism that should be eliminated as soon as possible. They foster poverty, despair, crime, and alcoholism. They oppress people in the name of their own sovereignty - a sham. My Leftist interlocutor found this view to be racist, and said so. Where I saw people being treated horribly by the government, she saw an ethnic minority needing to be patronized. Yet, the moment she played the race card, she lost the debate. What was the point of discussing the issue further with someone who had decided she was talking with a racist? Whatever ideas we might have exchanged, whatever potential to compromise and reach a better position was lost. (I will admit to a certain mischievous pleasure in getting a Leftist to defend a reservation system set up by white men in the 19th century to keep the Indians from claiming any of the useful land.)

This tactic of the Left, to demean and dehumanize their opponents is a losing strategy. Ted Kennedy is called the “Lion of the Senate” by a fawning media. Except when he roars, no one is really scared. He’s basically irrelevant, and not least because he throws around accusations of bigotry intended to marginalize his opponents. Instead, he’s the one on the sidelines.