Why Conservatives Cannot Support Rand Paul for 2016

There has been a lot of speculation about the possibility of Rand Paul running for President in 2016. Given that Ron Paul has been working as a junior United States Senator for Kentucky since 2011, he doesn't have a whole lot of experience in politics, especially when it comes to executive experience. America elected Obama twice. Obama who was a junior senator from Illinois with very little experience to be President. Do we really want to have another inexperienced politician to be our President? 

Another reason we conservatives and the Republican Party should not allow Rand Paul to get the GOP nomination in 2016 is because he flop flops on his political orientation. Sometimes he claims he is a conservative, sometime he says he's a libertarian. Libertarianism and Conservatism are not the same political philosophy. Which political philosophy does Rand Paul really believe? I don't know and I suspect most people don't know either. More importantly, do we really want to elect someone who flip flops on his political views and philosophy? Ron Paul wasn't a conservative. Neither is Rand Paul. Neither one of them are really conservatives. They are both conservatives in name only (CINO) and Republicans in name only (RINO).

The most important reason why Republicans and conservatives cannot support Rand Paul it is the same reason why people didn't support his father Rand Paul. Ron Paul has a well documented history of associating with known racists, anti-semites, conspiracy theorists and Neo-Nazis. 

For example, people couldn't get behind Ron Paul because had published newsletters that spewed bigotry, racism, homophobia and antisemitism. Ron Paul initially denied writing those newsletters but later admitted that he did but claimed that he only wrote the non-offensive parts. Do you really believe that? I don't.

Another reason why people couldn't support Ron Paul is due to the famous photos of Ron Paul with Don Black, who is a well known White Supremacist and also posed with Don Black's son, Derek Black. If you don't know who Don Black  is, you should. He's the founder of the white supremacist website stormfront.org. Not surprisingly, Ron Paul also accepted donations from a white supremacist group and refused to return the money. Two well known White Supremacists endorsed and supported Ron Paul in the 2012 election.

It appears that Rand Paul is no different than his father, Rand Paul, when it comes to associating with questionable people who are known to be racists, bigots and ant-Semites. For example, the famous hacker group called “Anonymous” broke into a website run by the white supremacist American Third Position (A3P), and released a document dump consisting of private forum messages, emails, organizational notes, and other personal information which showed that Ron Paul and Rand Paul are intimately connected with the American Third Position Party and Stormfront. Here's a sampling of what this Annonymous found:

Other excerpts show A3P webmaster Jamie Kelso (whose email account
was one hacked by the collective) coordinating meeting between Paul and
other members of A3P such as corporate lawyer and chairman of the
neo-Nazi group Paul. “I’m going to go to the Conservative Political
Action Conference (CPAC) with Bill Johnson,” reads an email to an A3P
member dated January 2011. “Bill and I will be meeting with Ron and Ran Paul.
I have a teleconference call with Bill (and Ron Paul) tonight. Much
more later. Things are starting to happen (thanks to folks like you).”
In another passage, Kelso, a former Scientologist and account owner
of other German Nazi forums, wrote: “I’ll be at CPAC from Feb. 9 to Feb.
12. I’ll send back reports to you from personal meetings with Ron Paul,
newly-elected Senator Rand Paul and many others. It’ll be here on
WhiteNewsNow, a place that is really starting to get interesting because
of the presence of folks like you. Birds of a feather flock together,
and we are really gathering some quality here.”
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cb5_1372379074#gGo5pQjIqIrAwTw8.99

Other excerpts show A3P webmaster Jamie Kelso (whose email account was one hacked by the collective) coordinating meeting between Paul and other members of A3P such as corporate lawyer and chairman of the neo-Nazi group Paul. “I’m going to go to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) with Bill Johnson,” reads an email to an A3P member dated January 2011. “Bill and I will be meeting with Ron and Ran Paul. I have a teleconference call with Bill (and Ron Paul) tonight. Much more later. Things are starting to happen (thanks to folks like you).”
 

In another passage, Kelso, a former Scientologist and account owner of other German Nazi forums, wrote: “I’ll be at CPAC from Feb. 9 to Feb.12. I’ll send back reports to you from personal meetings with Ron Paul, newly-elected Senator Rand Paul and many others. It’ll be here on WhiteNewsNow, a place that is really starting to get interesting because of the presence of folks like you. Birds of a feather flock together, and we are really gathering some quality here.” (emphasis added by author of this blog)

The Annonymous document dump also revealed that Ron Paul has held meetings with A3P and Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party — the notorious UK fascist group with neo-Nazi roots:

Griffin from the British National Party was also involved in these meetings. "We'll be meeting up with Nick Griffin on Wednesday night... a few of us," Kelso wrote to a member of AP3. "I let Nick know about the CPAC going on Thurs. and Fri. at the Marriott Hotel north of the White House," he said. "Ron Paul will be there Fri. afternoon. Want to meet up with him?"

If Rand Paul's alleged connections with these racists groups isn't bad enough, there's his former association with Jack Hunter, who was an aide and co-author of Paul's 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington. However, the Washington Free Beacon revealed that Hunter used to be a neo-Confederate shock jock called the Southern Avenger, a columnist who compared Abraham Lincoln to Saddam Hussein, and the former chairman of the Charleston, South Carolina, chapter of the League of the South, a secessionist group. The League of the South has been classified as a hate group by the left leaning Southern Poverty Law Center. Of course, Rand Paul has tried to distance himself from Jack Hunter by parting ways with him. Rand Paul has also distanced himself by stating that Hunter's earlier writings "stupid" and said he was not aware of them when he hired him. (Right....) Despite Rand Paul trying to distance himself from Jack Hunter, both men were spoke at an event that was organized by his father Ron Paul. Not surprising, Hunter was a campaign blogger for Ron Paul's 2012 presidential primary bid.

The Republican party as well as conservatives should steer clear of Ron and Rand Paul. The more people learn about these two men, the more we find them in a tangled alliance with those who promote bigotry, racism, homophobia and antisemitism that has been well documented. These men have a long history of associations, communications and support from the dark side of society. Fortunately, Ron Paul has retired from politics.  But Rand Paul hasn't. 

If Rand Paul were to win the Republican nomination, he would be easily slaughtered by a Democratic candidate. Imagine Rand Paul going up against a seasoned and political candidate like Hillary Clinton. The Republican party would suffer a massive defeat at the local, state and national level. The Republican Party would suffer a PR nightmare for having allowed Rand Paul who has strong connections with bigoted people. 

I know 2016 is a long way off. However, time will fly by and before we know it, 2016 will be here. It is crucial that the Republican party and conservatives prevent Ron Paul from successfully competing in the 2016 election. There are so many reasons why the Republican Party and conservatives cannot support Rand Paul. However, I think the best and strongest reason is the Paul's connections to these people.

Based on Rand Paul's history and associations with his father and their mutual connections to bigoted people, he should not be associated with the Republican party. He should not receive any support from conservatives in 2016 because Rand Paul is not a conservative. He is a libertarian and has said so many times. Rand Paul really should be in the Libertarian party which is where he really belongs. He is not one of us. That's why conservatives should not and cannot support Rand Paul in 2016.

the League of the South is a hate group.

the League of the South is a hate group.Jack Hunter is also connected to Ron Paul since Hunter was a campaign blogger for Ron Paul's 2012 presidential primary bid.

Welcome To The Conservative Phrontistery!!

After Mitt Romney lost the 2012 election, I wrote the following in a blog post:

"I need to change and improve myself in ways that will contribute to the defense and improvement of my county. The county will right itself but it has to start with us, the individuals and people, have have made this country better and stronger since the founding of this country. People made America and it was often done without government assistance or intervention. Its time to stop believing that electing a President can make things better and believe in our own capacity make a difference in this country.

With Mitt Romney's loss and the failure of the Republican party to do all that it could to help him win in 2012, I have also come to realize that I will no longer follow a single man or party but that I will follow my conservative principles and convictions. I am currently reassessing my relationship with the Republican Party. 

...

Finally, I am announcing that my blog will undergo a radical transformation in January. My blog will receive a new name. I will change look of the blog. The purpose of my blog will change as well. The subjects that I cover will be different as well."

After taking a well needed break from politics and blogging, I am back. 

 

As promised, my blog has been transformed. The old title of my blog, Conservative Samizdat, has been discarded. I have also updated the look of the blog. However, the most important change you will see is not visible on your computer screen. I have changed. After much introspection and meditation, changing my diet as well as increasing my time in the gym, changing my media diet, focusing on my career as a lawyer, I am not the same man anymore. 

 

As a result, I have a new approach to blogging. The majority of blogs are designed to merely provide either share news or opinions. My goal and purpose of this blog is to provoke, challenge and inspire you intellectually, philosophically, and politically in such a way to leave you a better person after reading my blog, determined to make a difference in the lives of others, your community and nation. 

 

As a result, I won't blog as often as I used to due to the fact I can have a better impact in my daily life in working with others and participating in my community than I will ever have blogging. Which comes to my purpose of the blog. The same is true for each of you out there. Dr. Carson, who has become an instant Conservative superstar, has told people to turn off the television and to educate yourself by reading books and being active in your community. I would add that you should, as much as possible, reduce the amount of time you spend on the Internet and spend more time educating yourself by reading books and increasing the amount of time you spend with your family and friends, at church, and with fellow conservatives. 

 

The reason for this new approach is because it is the individual and people who have have made this country better and stronger since the founding of this country. That concept was forgotten but rediscovered with the rise of the Tea Party movement. I wish remind and inspire people to never forget this idea because it is the most powerful idea the world has ever known and it originated with the founding of our nation and embedded in our Constitution. It isn't enough anymore to simply remember this truth. It is time for you to live it.

That's why I chose the word "phrontistery" for my blog. I wish provide materials for you to ponder on and think about that will either improve you intellectually or inspire you to go out and make a difference as a conservative. 

 

I hope I will be able to accomplish that goal in helping you be the best conservative you can be.

Rick Santorum Wants To Stop Ron Paul Supporters From Changing GOP Platform

Today, Rick Santorum sent a loud and clear message to Ron Paul and his supporters. Don't mess with the GOP platform: 

“I like the platform that we have right now,” Santorum said in an interview on ABC’s “This Week.” “I’m concerned that Ron Paul and some of his supporters out there are looking for a platform fight, and I want to make sure that we have strong, principled conservatives out there . . .to counterbalance the effect of the Paul folks.”

I agree 100% with Rick Santorum. He's got my support. 

Ron Paul was never in the race to win. He has admitted on Fox News that he doesn't want the power of being the President but simply wants to influence the Republican Party's platform. He was only in it for the sole purpose of amassing enough delegates so that he can use his delegates as a way of getting the Republican party to adopt his libertarian views on foreign policy, economics and other issues.

Even though Ron Paul has told CNN’s Newsroom that he doesn't support or like the idea of disrupting the GOP convention, he wants to do what ever he can to insert his political agenda and beliefs into the GOP platform.

The problem is there is already a political party that has a platform that Ron Paul and his supporters support. Its called the libertarian party.  The reason why Ron Paul wants to remake the GOP party in his image is because he knows that the ideas and beliefs espoused by the Libertarian party will never be accepted. If he can dilute the conservative platform to make it more libertarian, then he can make those ideas and beliefs espoused by the Libertarian party to be more acceptable by the public. 

However, making the GOP into another libertarian party will not make their ideas any more acceptable to the public. They will reject the GOP as they do with the Libertarian party. They won't pay attention to the GOP if it becomes more libertarian. The corruption of the GOP platform by Ron Paul and his supporters is not good for the Republican party.

Ron Paul's attempt to change the GOP platform will not work for several reasons. Mitt Romney and the national Republican party will not tolerate any kind of disruption at the convention which is designed to railroad the GOP to adopt Ron Paul's political beliefs. Nor will they  or even sit at the negotiating table with man who is not a conservative and who conservatives won't support. Furthermore, Ron Paul knows that he doesn't have enough delegates to cause any shenanigans at the GOP convention. He's in a inferior bargaining position when it comes to attempting to negotiate with the Republican party letting him change the GOP platform.

We already have the Libertarian Party.  We don't need the GOP to turn into another one.

Why I'm Not Excited About Rand Paul's Endorsement Of Mitt Romney

Many people are excited about Rand Paul's announcement that he's endorsing Mitt Romney in this election. Lets look at Rand Paul talking about Mitt Romney on Fox Business Channel:

Not everyone is excited about this endorsement. A lot of people who support Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul are not thrilled about it. Personally, I'm not thrilled with this announcement either. I am strongly opposed to Ron Paul because of his questionable and controversial background, his racist news letters which he initially denied writing but ultimately admitted to writing it, his endorsements from known racists Don Black and Lew Rockwell, and his foreign policy positions such as refusing to kill Osama Bin Laden or confronting Iran. Ron Paul is someone that conservatives and independents cannot support. 

I'm not a fan of Ron Paul's son either Rand Paul since the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree. For example, Ron Paul is well known for his opposition to Israel despite his attempts to deceive people into believing he supports Israel. Rand Paul uses the same strategies as his father does by attempting to deceive people that he isn't against Israel.

Given how Ron Paul feels about Israel, its not surprising that Rand Paul advocates cutting foreign aid to Israel as a way of reducing our national debt. The problem with this argument is that from an economic stand point, our problem isn’t how much we spend on foreign aid or on military campaigns. That is not why we are massively in debt. Cutting off foreign aid or bringing all the troops home from wherever they are stationed around the world won't make a dent in reducing the national debt. 

The truth is that we can sustain as many military campaigns as America needs if we weren’t for entitlement spending. Entitlement spending is the single largest driver of our current debt right now. In fact, our government is more efficient in the money it spends on defense related matters than it does with entitlement spending. It is true that our government spends more money than it takes in, but the way Ron Paul wants to reduce the deficit by reducing the amount we spend on national security is neither logical, practical or prudent. 

Its not just Rand Paul's views on Israel that bothers me. If you look at Rand Paul's views on foreign policy, he's just like his father. He's an isolationist. He opposed Senator Rubio's attempt to have the country of Georgia be admitted into NATO.  He wants us to get out of Afghanistan, opposed implementing sanctions on Iran

However, the old saying that politics makes strange bedfellows is true. There were rumors that Mitt Romney and Ron Paul formed an alliance with each other during the 2012 primary elections. There may be such an alliance with Rand Paul as well given his endorsement of Mitt Romney. Lets not forget that Rand Paul  never attacked Romney during the 2012 primary but attacked other candidates like Rick Santorum.

Whether the alliance existed then or that Ron and Rand Paul can see the writing on the wall that Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee, its an alliance its an alliance that should not be forged by Mitt Romney and his campaign because Ron Paul has admitted that he isn't in the race to become President but that he's in the race for the sole purpose of amassing enough delegates so that he can use his delegates as a way of getting the Republican party to adopt his libertarian views on foreign policy, economics and other issues.Furthermore, he admitted on Fox News that he doesn't want the power of being the President but simply wants to influence the Republican Party on matters he considers important.

Mitt Romney should not negotiate with Ron Paul or his son Rand Paul under any circumstances since it would be detrimental to the Republican party and for conservatism. Libertarians already have a political party in which it supports libertarian policies and Romney should not allow Ron and Rand Paul to hijack the Republican party just so it can adopt their domestic and foreign policy views.

Furthermore, given that Ron Paul has semi-suspended his campaign and is retiring from politics after the 2012 election is over, he has long term political aspirations for his son and is setting the stage for Rand Paul's eventual run for President. As a result, any negotiation that takes place with Mitt Romney and either or both Ron and Rand Paul in this 2012 election is only helping the Pauls remake the Republican party into the Libertarian party. Besides, if Rand Paul is thinking about running in the Republican party in 2016, he's gonna have to do it on his own without trying to remake the Republican party into a different political party.

Like many Ron Paul supporters, I'm not happy with Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt Romney. But Mitt Romney and Ron Paul supporters can agree on one thing: Barack Obama must be defeated in 2012.

The Best Campaign Ads Of The 2012 GOP Primary

Now that Mitt Romney has recently released the first campaign ad for the general 2012 election, lets look back at the best campaign ads of the primary 2012 election.

Mitt Romney made waves with Republicans with these two ads and really helped define his campaign both in the primary and general election:  

Although Tim Pawlenty's campaign was short lived, he made a really great ad both in terms of style and substance by making a point about Obama's empty podium: 

Herman Cain had a very interesting ads that was unusual which attempted to help him stand out of the crowd of Republican contenders vying for the Republican nomination: 

Another unusual ad from Herman Cain was odd and amusing to everyone which spawned a lot of YouTube spoof videos. A lot of people speculated that Cain was going for the X-File voters.

Ron Paul also had a great ad attacking Newt Gingrich and for unexplained reason, Newt Gingrich got angry at Mitt Romney's attack ad. I think Ron Paul did a better job taking down Newt than Mitt did. 

Mitt Romney produced some other great ads during the 2012 primary race. Here are my top three favorites below: 

The Truth About Romney's Conservatism

Many conservative bloggers, commentators, speakers, journalists, politicians as well as television and talk radio show hosts claim that Mitt Romney is not a conservative. These claims are false. Let's review the truth about Mitt Romney's conservatism: 

1. Traditional Marriage: Mitt Romney has been a fierce supporter of traditional marriage. Maggie Gallagher, founder of the National Organization for Marriage, has penned an excellent article defending Mitt Romney's record on gay marriage. A group of citizens of Massachusetts publicly released a letter defending Romney's record on traditional marriage. Furthermore, he signed the a pledge from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) supporting marriage between a woman and man. As a result, Mitt Romney has been the strongest and consistent supporter of traditional marriage. That is clear from the facts and from those who served with Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. Moreover, Mitt Romney's marriage is another example of his support for traditional marriage since he's been a strong family man since he's been married once to the same woman for 42 years. No sexual harassment charges against him. No accusations of adultery. Romney has been able to create the ideal family: stable marriage, stable family, stable job, great home and lots of grandchildren.

2. 2nd Amendment Rights: Romney has been accused of supporting gun control and expanding the Assault Weapons ban in Massachusetts. The reality is every year he was governor he worked with the NRA on legislation making small reforms to Massachusetts’ existing draconian gun control laws, considered a step forward for gunowners by the NRA. In 2005, he issued a proclamation declaring May 7 “Right to Bear Arms Day.” Gun Owners Action League, the Massachusetts gun organization, issued these statements about Romney’s record, “During the Romney Administration, no anti-second amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk. Governor Romney did sign five pro-second amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law.”

3. Defender of Religion: Mitt Romney has a very long history of defending religious liberty while working as governor of Massachusetts  a strong defender of religion. For example, in 2005, Romney actually vetoed a bill that would have forced Massachusetts hospitals to offer abortive contraception. He also defended Catholic Charities in Massachusetts who being forced to compromise their religions principles in matters of adoptions by filling a bill to protect religious liberty called the An Act Protecting Religious Freedom. As a result of his defense of religious liberty in Massachusetts,  the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty awarded him its prestigious Canterbury Medal in 2008. 

4. Capitalism: Mitt Romney's economic record as a conservative cannot be impeached. He has only spent four years as a politician by being the Govenor of Massachusetts. The rest of his life has been in the private sector.

5. Foreign policy: Mitt Romney has been strong on issues of national security, terrorism, and supports our military.  I strongly recommend everyone read Mitt Romney's foreign policy speech at The Citadel. 

6. Law: Mitt Romney's positions and record on matters that are important to legal conservatives is also unimpeachable. He has a strong record of defending the Constitution, state's rights and appointing judges that do not legislate from the bench.

7. Health Care: Mitt Romney's record on health care is clearly conservative. Before the 2012 election, RomneyCare wasn't a problem for conservatives. It wasn't a problem for conservatives when he proposed his health care plan.The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation liked it and published a report titled the "Massachusetts Health Reform: The Myth of Uncontrollable Costs."  There are several fan over at the Heritage Institute such as Robert Moffit, Ph.D., and Edmund Haislmaier. In fact, the Heritage Foundation advised Mitt Romney in the creation of RomneyCare before they flipped their support for RomneyCare when it became politically unpopular to support it.  Many conservatives endorsed RomneyCare. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have supported RomneyCare. For conservatives worried about the constitutionality of RomneyCare, his health care plan is constitutional whereas ObamaCare isn't.  

8. 2008 Election: During the 2008 Presidential primary, Mitt Romney was hailed as the "true conservative alternative" to John McCain. All the major conservative bloggers, politicians, talk show hots, columnists were strongly endorsing and encouraging conservative voters to support Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney won the conservative vote in many of the state primaries and caucuses. Yet, in one of the strangest reversals in conservative history, Mitt Romney is somehow painted as not a true conservative in this 2012 election.   

9. 2010 Election:  Mitt tirelessly campaigned on behalf of conservatives and Tea party candidates in 2008 and the 2010 elections. He demonstrated his character by working to help the McCain/Palin team defeat Obama. During the 2010 election, he went on a whirlwind tour supporting conservative candidates across the country and provided millions of dollars in donations to local, state and Congressional candidates win. Mitt Romney was an powerful force in helping the Conservative tsunami happen. 

10. 2012 Election: Many people say that Mitt Romney isn't getting the support of conservatives in the primary election. However, if you look at the facts, its clear that Mitt Romney has been receiving strong support from solid conservative voters in the primary elections so far.

People keep insisting that Mitt Romney is not a conservative. Yet, the record clearly shows that he's been consistently conservative ever since he entered into politics. What more evidence do conservatives need to prove his conservative credentials? The fact is that Mitt Romney has always been a conservative. If you want to get more details about Mitt Romeny's conservative record, check out Mitt Romney Central, WhyRomney.com, AboutMittRomney.com and Mitt Romney Encyclopedia.  

In conclusion, let me leave you with the words of a conservative candidate who strongly endorsed Mitt Romney: 

"In a few short days, Republicans from across this country will decide more than their party's nominee. They will decide the very future of our party and the conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan built.Conservatives can no longer afford to stand on the sidelines in this election, and Governor Romney is the candidate who will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold dear," Senator Rick Santorum (Feb 1, 2008)

Mitt Romney Is Not Behind The Redistricting Of FL-22

A lot of conservative blogs are up in arms today about the current redistricting plans for Florida which must be done in order to conform to Florida's new redistricting laws. This new law, Florida Congressional District Boundaries Amendment, known as Amendment 6 on the on the ballot during the 2010 midterm election, was a constitutional amendment to Florida's state Constitution. The proposed constitutional amendment was approved by the majority of voters.

There are false rumors that Mitt Romney and/or his surrogates in Florida are trying to push Represenative Allen West out of action: 

Conservatives pointed out that a major player in the process, Florida Speaker Designate Will Weatherford, has been a surrogate for Mitt Romney in the past. Some used this fact to suggest that Romney was involved in a campaign against Allen West.

This claim is bullshit. 

I can prove it.

Let's look at the language of the Florida Congressional District Boundaries Amendment: 

In establishing Congressional district boundaries:

(1) No apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent; and districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice; and districts shall consist of contiguous territory.

(2) Unless compliance with the standards in this subsection conflicts with the standards in subsection (1) or with federal law, districts shall be as nearly equal in population as is practicable; districts shall be compact; and districts shall, where feasible, utilize existing political and geographical boundaries.

(3) The order in which the standards within sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section are set forth shall not be read to establish any priority of one standard over the other within that subsection.

Now, lets look at Representative Allen West's district:   

Lets take an ever closer look at FL-22: 

Looking at these maps, its pretty clear that FL-22 is a blatantly gerrymandered district with all those squiggly line reaching inland to very specific regions. Those stretched and distended shapes were done to make that district Republican and competitive in a region that is well known to be heavily populated by Democrats. 

Its obviously clear that under the new anti-gerrymandering ballot initiative, FL-22 cannot remain as it is and be legal. It has to change in order to comply or conform to the Florida Congressional District Boundaries Amendment which the voters of Florida overwhelmingly supported. As a result, the GOP leadership's hands are tied. They must follow the law. 

As a result, any legal redrawing of FL-22 is going to be naturally be filled with more Democrats since the district as it currently stands is artificially a Republican district due to the obvious carve outs on the map.

Its clear that the Florida GOP did the best they could do under the law to help Representative Allen West since that area covers Palm Beach County which is not known for being a strongly conservative area, Mr. West should be greatful that his district only became 4 points more Democratic than it used to be.  Things could have turned out worse for him but it didn't.

Lets not forget that Allen West isn't the only person to be affected by the proposed redistricting plans for Florida:

Case in point are Reps. Tom Rooney and Allen West. Both of their South Florida districts got about four points more Democratic, which should make life significantly tougher for each of them. Rooney now has a more compact swing seat (the 18th) north of West Palm Beach, while West’s already Democratic-leaning 22nd district just south of Rooney’s became even more Democratic and will be tough for him to hold.

West has been a very outspoken tea party freshman and has raised huge money, but line-drawers don’t appear to have done him many favors. His district, as constructed, would have gone about 43 percent for the last two Republican presidential nominees.

Both men appear to have options, though. Rooney could run in the new 17th, which includes much of his current territory in the Everglades, while there has been some talk of West running across the state in Mack’s district. (Though West has shown no interest in this.)

Other Republicans who see their districts getting slightly less friendly include Reps. Steve Southerland , Vern Buchanan and David Rivera. Buchanan actually gains registered Republicans and retains the vast majority of his current district — both positives for him — but the performance of his district moves about a point towards Democrats.

The evidence is clear. Mitt Romney or his political allies in Florida are a part of some evil, nefarious back room deal to push out Representative Allen West. Its clear that those who were on the committee to redraw the district did as much as they could to help him out. 

Allen West is a soldier and he can fight under tough circumstances. It will make things harder for him but he can do it. Other people may whine and cry about the new district changes, but Allen West won't. He'll just suck it up and fight harder. And he'll win.

Getting To Know Mitt Romney

Many of you have been doing your due diligence of conducting your own research into each of the candidates in this election. A few months ago, I wrote a series of blog articles analyzing various aspects of Mitt Romney's record. You can now read the entire series below: 

1. Getting To Know Mitt Romney's Record 
2. Mitt Romney's Faith & Economic Leadership
3. A Look At Mitt Romney's Business Career
4. Mitt Romney's Rescue of the Salt Lake Olympics 
5. How Mitt Romney Turned A $3 Billion Deficit Into A $2 Billion Surplus 
6. Govenor Mitt Romney's Record On Taxes And Fees 
7. RomneyCare 
8. Govenor Mitt Romney's Impressive Record of Job Creation 
9. Mitt Romney's Leadership Style 
10. Concluding Thoughts About Mitt Romney's Record

Fred Barnes: Mitt Romney Is More Conservative Than You Think

Fred Barnes, the executive editor of the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard, has printed an article about Mitt Romney that has gotten alot of people talking. Fred Barnes argues that despite what Mitt's rivals say about Romney's conservativism, the truth is that he's more conservative than people think. 

Fred Barnes explains Mitt Romney's current campaign strategy of not diving into the details of his vision for America and just talking in broad terms about it: 

One only has to think back to New Jersey governor Chris Christie’s campaign in 2009 to understand what Romney may be up to. Christie acted like a mushy moderate but has governed like a hell-for-leather conservative. He figured if he revealed his intention to cut spending and taxes and neutralize the teachers’ union, he wouldn’t get elected. I suspect Romney is doing something similar.

We won’t know for certain unless Romney is elected president. But in recent weeks, he’s begun to sound more conservative. Unlike most of his Republican opponents, Romney has declined to offer a specific plan for reforming the tax code. At a town hall gathering last week in Salem, however, he talked up the idea of simplifying the system, broadening the tax base, and slashing tax rates—alas, tax reform at the idea stage.

Mitt Romney knows that conservatives and Republicans aren't the only ones who are watching the primary elections. Moderates, independents and Reagan democrats are either participating in the primaries or watching from the sidelines and paying close attention to who can really defeat Obama. As a result, Mitt Romney is demonstrating that he can defeat Obama by showing everyone that he's got a long range plan of winning the White House by building a strong state and national campaign, raising funds, and reaching out to all voters now rather than during the general election because by then, it may be already too late to win their hearts and minds. That's why Mitt Romney is sticking with his plan of going light on the details and strong on his attacks on Obama. 

Mitt Romney is running down the middle while other candidates are running down the right side of the field and are attacking Mitt for not being conservative enough because Romney likes to make a run down the center. Romney's rivals claim that his tendency to run down the field makes him a moderate and not a conservative. However, Fred Barnes refutes this claim by pointing out that while Romney sticks to the middle of the field, a close examination of his record reveals he's more conservative than he lets on: 

On four of the biggest issues in 2012, Romney is anything but moderate—or timid. He gets no special credit for advocating repeal of Obamacare. That’s Republican dogma. But he’s been the most specific among the GOP presidential candidates in backing the Ryan budget in all its parts, including its remake of Medicare. It was House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan’s plan that Gingrich zinged as “right wing social engineering” before reversing himself under duress.

When Romney announced in November his own proposal for cutting spending and reforming Medicare and Social Security, Ryan was thrilled. “Look at what he put out!” he told Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post. “This is a great development.” Ryan said Romney’s package of spending cuts “tracks perfectly with the House budget,” which Ryan had drafted.

Romney preceded Ryan in adding a twist to the overhaul of Medicare: Under a new “premium support” system in which seniors would choose among health insurance plans, one option would be the current Medicare program. In December, this was included in the bipartisan plan sponsored by Ryan and Democratic senator Ron Wyden of Oregon.

“On entitlements, I think Romney’s plan is easily the best one offered by a Republican candidate,” said Yuval Levin of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center. “It’s a very smart, very well-thought-out, and very conservative approach.”

When he raises “premium support” and Social Security reform in town hall appearances, Romney has a way of making bold changes sound like tweaks. But in Salem, he said, almost as an afterthought, his proposal would “save Medicare and Social Security .  .  . forever.”

Like Ryan, Romney would not reduce defense spending. He wants to bolster the Army with 100,000 more troops and increase the Navy’s shipbuilding rate from 9 to 15 per year. In a speech at the Citadel in October, Romney promised to “prioritize the full deployment of a multilayered national ballistic missile defense system.” And in Iowa he said he would instruct the Pentagon to prepare “credible military options” to destroy Iran’s facilities for building nuclear weapons.

On immigration, Romney has made it a point in the nationally televised debates to criticize Gingrich’s idea of letting illegal immigrants stay in America if they’ve lived here for decades and Rick Perry’s support for allowing college students here unlawfully to pay tuition at the reduced rate for state residents. That, too, puts Romney in the conservative camp.

To sum up, he’s at least as conservative as his GOP rivals on jettisoning Obamacare and more conservative than some on entitlements, national security, and immigration. He’s no match for Gingrich on taxes, but that’s about it. Overall, he’s to the right of Gingrich.

That's why people like Mitt Romney. They know he's a conservative but he presents his conservativism in a way that people across the political spectrum can like and support. America is a center right country. Not a hard right one. Once Mitt Romney enters office as President, Mitt Romney will govern similar to the way Reagan did. Like Reagan who was well liked by almost everyone except the hard core left, who continually and loudly let everyone know how much they despised him.  This is true of Governor Chris Christie. I suspect the same thing will happen to Romney. 

In my opinion, the best kind of conservative is the conservative that win the support of all people, working with democrats in office and pushing through a conservative agenda. Ronald Reagan is the perfect example of this. He was a govenor of a liberal state who ran for President. While he was running, he was working to win support from people across the political spectrum and once he got in office, he was able to work with Democrats like Tip O'Neal to push a mostly conservative agenda through Congress. Mitt Romney is following the same exact playbook as Ronald Reagan is. 

Conservative Samizdat Is Among The Top 15 Pro-Mitt Romney Sites On The Web!

On December 2nd, a blog called Mitt's Momentum published a list of the top 33 pro-mitt Romney websites and blogs on the Internet. The blogger looked at the the Alexa traffic rankings of the top websites overtly promoting Mitt Romney in the United States and that a global ranking used when U.S. ranking statistics were unavailable. I was surprised to find out that my own blog, Conservative Samizdat, is number 15 on that list! 

Here's the list below:

1. MittRomney.com 8,737

2. MittRomneyCentral.com 24,742

3. EvangelicalsforMitt.org 129,303

4. PlanetRomney.org 141,275

5. UltiMitt.org 150,847

6. Article6blog.com 392,270

7. CommittedtoRomney.com 413,226

8. AmericaNeedsMitt.com 426,811

9. WhyRomney.com 434,464

10. MittTheMan.com 548,558

11. GotMitt.com 576,292

12. TheCompetentConservative.com 3,060,067 (global ranking)

13. AboutMittRomney.com 3,078,930 (global ranking)

14. MittRomneyRadio.com 3,199,118 (global ranking)

15. ConservativeSamizdat.blogspot.com 5,428,981 (global ranking)

16. MittRomney2012-BestChoice.blogspot.com 6,458,143 (global ranking)

17. MittFitts.com 6,898,540 (global ranking)

18. MichiganforMitt.net 8,030,247 (global ranking)

19. MittRomneyAndHealthcare.blogspot.com 8,864,045 (global ranking)

20. CitizensforRomney.org 8,963,761 (global ranking)

21. Moms4Mitt.com 11,969,072 (global ranking)

22. TeensforMitt.org 12,033,970 (global ranking)

23. ConservativeforMitt.wordpress.com 13,875,869 (global ranking)

24. MittRomneyRoadtotheWhiteHouse.blogspot.com 14,832,162 (global ranking)

25. IowansforRomney.blogspot.com 22,566,368 (global ranking)

26. ChristiansforMitt.blogspot.com 22,699,427 (global ranking)

27. PresidentMittRomney.blogspot.com 23,425,275 (global ranking)

28. MittsMomentum.blogspot.com 24,265,771 (global ranking)

29. TexansforRomney2012.com (no ranking available)

30. MomsforMitt.blogspot.com (no ranking available)

31. NYforMitt.blogspot.com (no ranking available)

32. MittRomney2012akhil.webs.com (no ranking available)

33. AmericansforMitt.com (no ranking available)

Thank you to fans and readers for making my blog one of the top 15 pro-Mitt Romney websites on the web! 

What A Difference 2008 and 2012 Makes For Conservatives

Rachel Alexander has written a great article for TownHall in which she points out that while many Republicans have been accusing Mitt Romney of being a flip flopper, they conveniently forget that they have flip flopped in their support for Mitt Romney: 

Three years ago, conservative Republicans were falling all over themselves to support Mitt Romney in the Republican primary over John McCain. McCain was considered too moderate, and by the time the Republican primary came around, many conservatives had soured on Mike Huckabee, having heard rumors he was staying in the race as a spoiler purposely to help McCain win.

Fast forward to 2011. What has changed since then? Romney left office as governor of Massachusetts in 2007, choosing not to seek reelection. Other than writing a book and assisting with a couple of political campaigns, he has not done much. Yet now that Romney is the GOP frontrunner, many conservatives are speaking up against him.

Popular conservative websites like Free Republic and Red State have taken a noticeable slant against Romney. National Tea Party leader Lloyd Marcus, chairman of the Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama, has made it a campaign priority to stop Romney from getting the GOP nomination. In response to this onslaught of new attacks from the right, a website entitled WhyRomney.com was set up to debunk accusations that Romney is too liberal.

Romney is accused of flip-flopping on issues, and has come under especially heavy criticism for signing healthcare legislation as Massachusetts governor implementing an individual mandate. As Massachusetts governor, Romney was forced to work with a state legislature that was 84 percent Democrat. In order to getting anything passed in one of the most liberal states in the country, Romney was forced to make a few compromises. Romneycare was a bipartisan plan directed at insuring the uninsured, using the private sector to provide those services. The main goal was to cut down on the costs of emergency room services used by the uninsured. In contrast, Obamacare is a federal government takeover of everyone’s healthcare which also includes a public option. Leading conservative thinkers like Newt Gingrich support individual healthcare mandates, which Gingrich distinguishes from the draconian requirements of Obamacare mandates.

Romney worked with the conservative Heritage Foundation to craft the legislation. One Heritage writer thought it was one of the best healthcare solutions out there, “In reality, those who want to create a consumer-based health system and deregulate health insurance should view Romney's plan as one of the most promising strategies out there.” Another Heritage author encouraged other states to adopt the Massachusetts model. Three years ago, the most conservative Senator in the U.S. Senate, Jim DeMint, praised the Massachusetts healthcare plan, which he later said was hijacked by the Democrat legislature. The Democrat-controlled legislature overrode eight of Romney’s vetoes on parts of the legislation, including a provision forcing small businesses participate.

Romney has become more conservative over the years, much like Ronald Reagan who used to be a Democrat. Romney became pro-life in 2005 when he became aware of the atrocity of embryonic stem cell research. Reagan also switched from pro-choice to pro-life. While Governor of California, Reagan signed a bill into law relaxing restrictions on abortions. Both former presidents Bush switched to a pro-life position on abortion, as has Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey. Many conservatives who are quick to criticize Romney for changing his position on abortion will in the same breath say they support pro-choice Condoleezza Rice for president.

Many of the actions Romney took while governor have been characterized as more liberal than they really were. Romney has consistently opposed gay marriage. He opposed civil unions except for once in an effort to get the Massachusetts Supreme Court to back off from legalizing gay marriage. When the court insisted on legalizing gay marriage anyway, Romney attempted to hold a Constitutional Convention to stop it. The one controversial area he has expressed support for in the past is domestic partner benefits. However, at the same time in 2004 and 2006 Romney expressed support for the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Romney has been accused of supporting gun control and expanding the Assault Weapons ban in Massachusetts. The reality is every year he was governor he worked with the NRA on legislation making small reforms to Massachusetts’ existing draconian gun control laws, considered a step forward for gunowners by the NRA. In 2005, he issued a proclamation declaring May 7 “Right to Bear Arms Day.” Gun Owners Action League, the Massachusetts gun organization, issued these statements about Romney’s record, “During the Romney Administration, no anti-second amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk. Governor Romney did sign five pro-second amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law.”

Rachel Alexander argues that Mitt Romney should not be viewed as a flip flopper but a convert to the conservative cause who is steadily moving to the right: 

The true test of whether Romney can be trusted as a real conservative will be whether he stays to the right. While he has moved to the right on most issues, his positions on environmental issues and the Wall Street bailouts are troubling. He still needs to convince conservatives that he has also moved to the right on those issues.

So far while running for president Romney has generally stuck to conservative positions and has not flopped back to the left. There has been some quibbling over some of the language he uses at times, but generally there is little indication that he intends to return to his prior liberal positions. This is unlike Rick Perry who still defends his liberal position on illegal immigration, labeling conservatives “heartless” in September who do not support his bill that granted in-state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants.

Mitt Romney is no John McCain. His record is that of an elected official who has become more conservative over the years, not one that has consistently waffled back and forth. Instead of labeling Romney a flip-flopper, why not see him as a convert?

It never ceases to amaze me that Mitt Romney was the true conservative over the moderate John McCain in the 2008 election. Yet, somehow Romney become the moderate and conservatives are scrambling to find a true conservative to defeat Mitt in this election.

The truth is that Mitt Romney hasn't changed. Conservatives have. 

Mitt Romney:I've Been Consistent On My Political Views

Mitt Romney sat down with an unnamed New Hampshire editorial board and was peppered with questions on a wide range of issues. One issue that Romney was asked about was the perception that he was inconsistent in his political views. Mitt Romney boldly responded to that question by explaining that he's always been consistent. Watch the short clip below: 

Here's the key quote from the clip above: 

“You can see in my record as governor what I believe and what I’d do,” he said. “I cannot state every single issue in exactly the same words every single time. And so there are some folks who obviously for various political and campaign purposes will try and find some change and draw great attention to something which looks like a change which in fact is entirely consistent.” 

There are good places to learn about Mitt Romney's positions and how consistent he has been throughout the years. I highly recommend either visiting WhyRomney.com or Mitt Romney Central or Myclob's Mitt Romney Encyclopedia.  

Republican & Democratic Insiders Agree: Mitt Romney Most Likely To Be GOP Nominee

In this week's National Journal Political Insiders Poll, Republican insiders overwhelmingly said that Mitt Romney would be the candidate who will most liley win the nomination in 2012. Democratic insiders agree:

 "Romney keeps holding steady while the rest of the field takes turns getting hot and flaming out," said one Democratic strategist. "Tortoise to all the other hares."

Another suggested Republicans would eventually come around. "While Romney certainly isn't a tea party favorite at the moment, by November they will have fallen in 'like' with him given that the alternative is Obama."

Some Democrats identified Romney's perceived moderation as an asset in the general election. "Everyone else gets our base out in droves," said one. "If Romney can get the Republican base out, he'll win. He'll appeal to independents and some disillusioned Democrats."

"Independent suburban voters are more likely to support Romney," agreed another.

Other Democrats echoed their Republican counterparts who see Romney winning by default. "He can talk and chew gum at the same time," said one, "which puts him way ahead of the other candidates."

And the Democratic insiders are correct. Mitt Romney is the only Republican candidate who can appeal to a broad base of people beyond conservatives. Not only does he get support from conservatives, but Independents, moderates, and some Democrats. 

This has been Romney's strategy from the beginning. He has begun this 2012 race by focusing on the long game of unseating Barack Obama while other 2012 candidates are merely focused on the immediate goal of winning the GOP nomination. He's let people know that going to play the well known of tacking right during the primaries and then moving back to the center for the general election. Mitt Romney has been committed to playing the center and as a result has an early start in building that broad base of support he needs to defeat Barak Obama. 

It appears that Mitt Romney's stategy is working since there have been several polls in various states that have Romney defeating Obama if the elections where held today. What's even more important is that many of these polls were taken in crucial states that Obama needs if he wishes to be reelected.

For voters, we also need to focus on the long game. We should not be concerned with who will be the GOP nominee. That is just being focused on the short game. We should be thinking about which candidate is the best person to make Obama a one term president. The answer is becoming increasingly clear: Mitt Romney is the only Republican among the 2012 candidates who can defeat Barak Obama in the elections.

The 53% of America Are Responding To The 99% Protesters

The Blaze had an article up that I want to repost in its entirety. Read it below: 

Meet The 53%. Who are they?  The term 53% refers to the people who are actually paying taxes for themselves and the rest of the country.

The 53% is a group of responsible young people organizing across the country. However, this group is not camping out in parks around the country and demanding the entire capitalist system be destroyed. These men and women have jobs (most of them work at more than one job in order to make ends meet), but they are talking about attending the Minneapolis Occupy Wall St. protest scheduled for today – Friday, October 7th.

Here’s a statement from their web page;

So, like, when you’re, like, community organizing for solidarity and stuff, it’s totally cool to have this little hashtaggy thingy when you’re on twitter, so other people, like, totally know what you’re talking about and stuff. So if you’re, like, totally gonna spread the word about being one of the 53% of people who actually, like, pay taxes in America and don’t just, like, hang out protesting stuff all day… like, here’s the hashtaggy thingy. See you at the protest!   #iamthe53

Filmmaker Mike Wilson (the man who gave us “Michael Moore Hates America“) maintains the page. We spoke with Wilson this morning and he explained that the 53% tumblr page came from his brain and the clever minds of his pals, Erick Erickson of Red State and Josh Trevino.

Reports out of Minneapolis say that a protest is expected today in front of the Government Plaza in downtown Minneapolis. The movement states they are going to try and reclaim and rename this area “The People’s Plaza.” Members of the 53% have mentioned that they will be in attendance to offer a counter opinion to the protest.

As we were talking, Wilson explained that he was loading up his camera and headed to the Minneapolis protest to capture it on video. The Blaze will link to Wilson’s coverage as it comes in.

Mike Wilson told us the group was in the very early stages of organizing, but it is happening online – mostly because they have jobs, families, and a sense of personal responsibility. And the 53% have responded to the people alleging to represent 99% of the country. Based on these photo messages, the 99% is patently wrong in their claim.

While the 99% protesters are angry at the 1% of Americans who have accumulated a lot of wealth through their own hard work, they forget about the 53% Americans (which includes the 1%) who pay taxes that pays for the government services that the 47% of Americans enjoy yet pay no taxes for. 

If there is any unfairness or inequality, its the fact that 47% feel that they have no obligation to pay taxes and feel that they are entitled to the benefits that the government provides that is paid for by the majority of people. 

What's worse is that they want more government services despite the fact that we can't afford it. And they want the 53% to pay more taxes to somehow cover up for the debt that is accumulating at the local, state and federal level. Not only that, but they want an increase in government control in every aspect of our lives and that the 53% happily accept the burden of more taxes in exchange for a reduction in our personal freedoms. 

The colonialist protested against England because they were getting taxed without having any voice in Parliament. Thus, the famous rallying cry, "no taxation without representation" helped launch the American Revolution. Yet, the "99% protesters" want representation without taxation. However, The 99% is really the 45% of America who do not pay taxes. Yet, they expect their demands to be heard and granted. 

This is unacceptable. It it is a perversion of the American way of governance.

The 53% expressed their anger and disgust in our government who have mismanaged the taxpayer's money to such an extent that we are massively in debt. That's what the TEA party was all about.

However, we need to make our voices heard again to remind the 45% that they do not represent America. Instead of occupying a plaza or park, lets liberate it this November 12th. 

An Open Letter To Red State

This is a cross-post from Into Right Field

Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Ryan Larsen. I’m a truth lover, chess player and avid political junkie. I co-founded WhyRomney.com, which is dedicated to correcting distortions and inaccuracies perpetrated against Mitt Romney.

Before WhyRomney, I wrote for lyingliar.com. At lyingliar, we debunked all of Al Franken’s big attacks, from his “Chelsea Clinton is a dog” smear against Rush, to his “Peabody” smear against O’Reilly.

Before lyingliar, I was naive. I didn’t realize the lengths people went to in order to dishonestly paint others as dishonest. And that’s what I see people doing to Mitt Romney. Even on the issue of abortion, where Mitt Romney did in fact change his position, critics distort his record terribly.

While I would not accuse anyone at Red State of being dishonest, I do see people building camaraderie around crucifying Mitt with false accusations. With the future of the world literally at stake, we don’t have time for reckless accusations against the man who may be our nominee. I realize not everyone has time to discern fact from fable, but if you don’t have time to make accusations responsibly, you should not make them at all.

In this, an open letter to Red State, I will address the health care concerns many of you have. I don’t have all the answers, but I have insights which may be a game changer for some of you.

First, I want to thank Ben Domenech for his very good encapsulation of his concerns in a recent piece on Red State. Although I believe Mr. Domenech is wrong in his assumptions, I believe his piece is otherwise intelligent and I’m using it as a reference for understanding the sincere angst felt by many regarding this issue.

Mr. Domenech wrote, “Romney is essentially using the waivers as a substitute for proposing an actual reform … Romney’s plan in Massachusetts … is all we have to go on when it comes to evaluating his model for reform as president.”

Romney laid out his plan in a highly publicized speech on May 12, 2011, calling for “Repeal and Replace.” Waivers are authorized in the bill itself, offering a chance for relief while working for repeal.

Skip to the 5:15 mark. Key features: Restore states to leadership, Empower individuals to purchase their own insurance, Focus federal regulation as opposed to it being over-bureaucratic, Reform our medical liability system, Introduce market forces to health care.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvPENzBO8Hs

I realize Mr. Domenech may still be concerned, because of Romney’s “continued defense of his Massachusetts’ law, including the individual mandate.”

Romney, JD, cum laude, endorsed by Robert Bork, understands state versus federal: “I believe in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. And that says that powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved by the states and the people.” When asked by the moderator why his state mandate was constitutional, Romney replied, “Are you familiar with the Massachusetts constitution? I am.”

Most people don’t realize Romney sought “an opt-out provision for people who wanted to forgo insurance and pay their own way” (HC p. 175). So, Romney did not want a complete mandate in the first place.

More importantly, in the paperback version, Romney says if he could go back he would provide “a tax break for those who have health insurance rather than a tax penalty for those without health insurance” (p. 194). The tax credit does not require an action or purchase on anyone’s part.

In other words, there would be no mandate. The tax credit is justifiable because the state was footing the bill for uninsured hospital patients. When someone acquires health insurance they are removing a costly liability from the state, and therefore deserving of the tax credit. Moreover, this is consistent with a principle shared by Ronald Reagan, “Most employer contributions for employee health benefits should be tax free because this encourages employee health insurance.”

People wanting Romney to distance himself from the mandate already have their wish, without realizing it.

Romney discusses other changes he’d make, such as reinstating his vetoes which the legislature overrode, and making very different choices than the new administration which, for example, allows some people to pay nothing – thereby creating an incentive for free-riders to move into the state. The most costly provision added by the legislature is their requirement that insurance companies provide certain coverage, such as unlimited dental and in vitro fertilization treatments – vetoed by Romney, but overridden. Romney ends his explanation in the paperback with: “There is no question in my mind that our program could be significantly improved if it were managed by a conservative administration. Elections have consequences.”

Mitt Romney is standing by the principles but not the specifics.

So, when we say Romney is sticking to his plan, what we are really saying is that Romney still believes in the following measures at a state level for MA: First, “creating incentives for those who can afford insurance to actually purchase it.” Second, creating “an exchange to help make buying insurance easier for individual – as opposed to corporate – buyers.” And third, “helping the poor buy their own private insurance with a sliding-scale subsidy. The government’s share of the cost comes from redirecting the federal funds that are currently sent to providers” (PB, p. 191).

What he is “standing by,” is not cause for much alarm. The question now, I think, is whether Romney can be excused for instituting the mandate to begin with. Well, he had the Heritage Foundation and other conservatives on board, he had the overwhelming support of the legislature, the media and the people of MA. But if you insist Romney should not be excused, I ask you this: Did Samuel Adams infringe on liberty when he mandated that the kindred of any poor person in MA “shall be holden to support such Pauper?” (1793, “An Act Providing For The Relief And Support, Employment And Removal Of The Poor”). Samuel Adams invented the concept of “States’ Rights.” Did he not understand the role of state law?

If Romney made a mistake, then Samuel Adams made a mistake. Will the Tea Party movement, which derives its name from an act of American Revolution which took place in Massachusetts, fail to excuse a Founding Father from Massachusetts, a signer of the Declaration of Independence?

Here is what critics are missing, but Romney has grasped all along. He has the ultimate “excuse,” the MA constitution, penned by Samuel Adams’ cousin, John Adams. Part 1, Article 10:

“Each individual of the society HAS A RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty and property, according to standing laws. HE IS OBLIGED, CONSEQUENTLY, TO CONTRIBUTE HIS SHARE TO THE EXPENSE OF THIS PROTECTION; TO GIVE HIS PERSONAL SERVICE, OR AN EQUIVALENT, WHEN NECESSARY; but no part of the property of any individual, can, with justice, be taken from him or applied to the public uses without his own consent, OR THAT OF THE REPRESENTATIVE BODY OF THE PEOPLE. In fine, the people of this Commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws, than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent…”
(CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Part 1, Article 10, emphasis added)

It is the right, therefore, of every individual residing in Massachusetts to be protected by it in whatsoever fashion is determined by the people through their representative body.

Those who are not willing to abide the precepts of the Massachusetts constitution are free to reside in a different state. They are not free however to abdicate personal responsibility for knowing the constitutional expectations associated with their choice to reside in the state of Massachusetts.

At this point, I’d like to turn my attention back to the concerns expressed by Mr. Domenech, who said Mitt Romney’s campaign, “took time to bash yet another health care study illustrating how his reforms in Massachusetts raised premium costs and cost the state jobs…”

Romney’s campaign did dismiss the study as invalid, but if the results are indeed invalid then we shouldn’t fault the Romney campaign for saying so. The first problem is that the study is limited to determining the impact of health care cost increases on the surrounding economy. The study is not designed to determine what caused the increase in health care costs to begin with. The study, in other words, had no basis for concluding anything about Romneycare.

But it gets worse. The study makes this assumption because it defers to an earlier study.

That study, in perhaps a Freudian slip, states at one point: “We employed the same mythology.” And, indeed, there is “mythology” in their methodology. Their trend numbers, which they use in comparing health costs under Romneycare with costs before Romneycare, are faulty. For instance, in Table 11 their “trend” numbersclaim that costs in 2006 were expected to decline from 2005, but this is clearly a false trend since costs had increased every year since 1998.

They then subtract their false trend numbers from the actual cost increase, creating the impression that costs rose at a faster rate. The bogus numbers compound each year, as the false trend numbers get further off course. We can see this play out in each of their tables. Consider table 12, insurance premiums for an average single plan. From 2000 to 2005, costs increased by $1500; meanwhile, from 2004 to 2009, costs only increased by $1100. That’s a downward trend. Yet the study claims that the premium rate in 2009 was $215 higher than the trend.

This disqualifies both studies. The first study was based on the difference between actual numbers and false trend numbers. The second study is based on the first study.

Even with the flaws with Romneycare, despite the costly provisions added by the legislature and new governor, it has slowed the rate of many health care cost increases in Massachusetts – despite the aging population of baby boomers (hip and knee replacements are up dramatically, as well as MRI/CT scans, and mobility scooters). In all, it is working. Think how effective it would be if Romney had been able to do it his way. As he said, “There is no question in my mind that our program could be significantly improved if it were managed by a conservative administration.”

Using the raw data contained in their own tables, let’s look at how costs have slowed. Keep in mind that Romneycare went into effect in 2007. To measure it’s effectiveness we start with the previous year, 2006, so as to contrast the status prior to the law taking effect with the most current status reflected in available numbers.

Table 9: State medicaid spending increased by $1.4 billion from 2003 through 2006, and by $1.5 billion from 2006 through 2009. Again, the slight increase is attributable to the aging population.
Table 10: Medicare Advantage monthly rate increased by $166 from 2002 through 2006, and by only $139 from 2006 through 2010.
Table 11: Medicare Personal Health Care expenditures increased by 1.4 billion from 2003 through 2006, and by only 1.3 billion from 2006 through 2009.
Table 12: Average Insurance Premium (Single) increased by $952 from 2003 through 2006, and by only $820 from 2006 through 2009.
Table 13: Average Insurance Premium (Family) increased by $2423 from 2003 through 2006, and by $2433 frp, 2006 through 2009. Only ten dollar difference between cost increases.

Mr. Domenech voiced a secondary concern which I feel needs to be addressed because it is in the context of accusing Mitt Romney of a factual error: “the overwhelming number of those newly covered are subsidized by other taxpayers, and are on Medicaid, not private market-based insurance.”

“The plan expands opportunities for Medicare beneficiaries to use their benefits to enroll in private health plans as an alternative to traditional Medicare coverage” – Ronald Wilson Reagan

The insurance is private, just as Romney said, and is subsidized by government aid more than Romney wanted. The private insurance plans are different from each other, and thus are indeed market based, though not as much as Romney wanted due to mandates imposed by the legislature.

Why did Romney work with the legislature? On February 9, 1983, when Ronald Reagan was asked about people who said he was “moving away from the policies and principles” that got him elected, Reagan responded by explaining that compromise is not retreat: “I’m not retreating an inch from where I was. But I also recognize this: There are some people who would have you so stand on principle that if you don’t get all that you’ve asked for from the legislature, why, you jump off the cliff with the flag flying. I have always figured that a half a loaf is better than none, and I know that in the democratic process you’re not going to always get everything you want. So, I think what they’ve misread is times in which I have compromised.”

Indeed, if there is a gold standard, that standard is Ronald Reagan. But in his last two years as President, Reagan had to compromise with a Democratic Senate on his judicial appointments. Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court, even though Kennedy showed clear signs of being pro-choice, by citing Roe v Wade favorably and expressing a belief in a constitutional right to privacy. With the new Democratic Senate, Reagan could not appoint a clear conservative to the Supreme Court and had to compromise with a nominee the Senate would confirm.

Reagan had first nominated a clear pro-life conservative, Robert Bork, for the seat which ultimately became occupied by Anthony Kennedy. Announcing the nomination on July 1, 1987, Reagan remarked, “Judge Bork is recognized as a premier constitutional authority. His outstanding intellect and unrivaled scholarly credentials are reflected in his thoughtful examination of the broad, fundamental legal issues of our times.”

However, the late Senator Ted Kennedy was noted for leading a strong opposition to Bork in the Senate. Ted Kennedy was Senator from Massachusetts, where he reflected the climate Romney worked in as governor of that state.

Bork, who knows from firsthand experience what Romney faced in “Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts,” endorsed Mitt Romney for President in 2007 and 2011. He is actively serving as chair of Romney’s legal advisory commission.

Mr. Domenech says Mitt has “continued to maintain his approach is a ‘Republican way to reform the marketplace’”

Mitt has from the beginning stood by the principles which I outlined earlier, and has consistently stated that those guidelines could be a useful model for other states to work with. He has dropped other aspects which he once supported, and has consistently opposed many aspects which were foisted upon the health care plan against his desires. In the context of it being a “Republican” plan, Reagan told Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” but did not insist the entire Soviet government change overnight. Republicans understand that leaders in a war zone need space to operate differently depending on terrain. Our Republican leaders in liberal terrain need that same freedom. A Republican idea looks different depending on whether it’s implemented in a liberal or conservative terrain. But Romney moved in the right direction. The alternative proposed in MA was to make health care a constitutional right.

As far as comparing MA with other states, premiums were high compared to the rest of the nation, before Romneycare. They are high now, they were high then. However, Rhode Island and New Jersey were right behind MA. The obvious correllation here is that RI, NJ and MA are by far the three most densely populated states in the nation. When you receive an MRI scan, the hospital charge is primarily for their investment in purchasing the scanner in the first place, not the cost of the actual scan. Likewise, additional costs accrue in densely populated states. Land costs more, so hospitals cost more. Construction is more crowded, cumbersome and costly. The initial expenditure is higher, and so then are the costs to recoup that expenditure.

Massachusetts has the second highest personal income per capita, and personal disposable income per capita, behind only Connecticut. Disposable income influences the health care decisions people make, such as how often to visit their doctor and to seek care at a hospital. This affects cost.