Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

More than the other primary candidates, Romney has President Bush’s virtues and avoids his flaws.”

By

The National Review, probably the most prestigious organ of conservative thought in the country, has made its endorsement in the Republican Presidential Primary.

Mitt Romney.

So really, it ISN’T just me.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • …and I hope a few of you will click trough and READ the endorsement, as it reflects what conservatives are concerned with as opposed what CNN and MSNBC think they are.

      <

      p>BTW – GOP debate in Iowa today at 2 pm on Fox.

      • …National Review has got to be one of the dumbest publications of all time.  Their on-line version hired Jonah Goldberg, whose only claim to fame is that he was the vile spawn of Lucianne (she of Linda Tripp fame) as chief editor.

        <

        p>Please, Ms. Porc, give me a break.

          • …the stupidity of their editors.  And I’ve read enough of Jonah’s blathering to know that he’s an idiot.

          • I found it interesting that a long-time Catholic publication like National Review (Buckley, John Sullivan) would hire a Jew to edit their on-line publication.  I’m not quite sure what to make of it, but I did find it interesting.

      • Does that mean that his positions run all the way from “In favor” on one end of the spectrum to “Against” on the other?

  4. This question is being asked and answered in the affirmative on Free Republic.  Anyone have a comment on that?  Here are some typical entries

    Can we safely assume that Mitt wrote NR a personal check?
    He actually did, though you probably knew that?

    I think it’s the shortsightedness of the current NR editors that resulted in the endorsement. They just want a pretty figurehead.

    NR could potentially look extremely silly in a very, very short time. At this point there’s a small but growing possibility that Mitt could finish 3rd(!) in Iowa, which would be the effective end of his campaign, even though he’d stay in to lose NH and Michigan.
    posted on 12/12/2007 7:24:19 AM PST by JohnnyZ (victim victim Mitt victim victim Romneyvictim victim victim so persecuted, poor me!)
    ————————–
    I have two concerns about Mitt as a candidate. First, his liberal record as Massachusetts governor on many issues. I realize people can change, as Mitt obviously has on abortion, but he does seem to have taken a lot of liberal positions in the past when running for office in a liberal state. My other concern is that his Mormonism will hurt him in the general election. It doesn’t bother me in the least that he’s a Mormon, but in all honesty there are millions of people whom it does bother. Enough perhaps to hurt us badly in the general election.
    posted on 12/12/2007 7:24:44 AM PST by puroresu
    ————————————-
    Sounds like they really like Fred, but don’t like the way he’s campaigned lol…
    posted on 12/11/2007 1:27:08 PM PST by spacekicker
    ————————————-
    Surprise surprise. The National Review endorses a northeast liberal. (yawn)
    posted on 12/11/2007 1:27:09 PM PST by Lancey Howard
    ————————————-
    Interesting !  I thought that National Review was conservative.
    posted on 12/11/2007 1:27:50 PM PST by XeniaSt
    ————————————-
    The conservative (so-called) flagship magazine continues to ignore a real conservative, Duncan Hunter. A sad state of affairs.
    posted on 12/11/2007 1:29:05 PM PST by Cecily
    ————————————-
    So did I, time to remove them from my site roll.
    posted on 12/11/2007 1:29:09 PM PST by fireforeffect
    ————————————-
    Romney supported what liberals wanted to hear in Massachusetts to win and he supports what Republicans want to hear in order to win the GOP nomination
    posted on 12/11/2007 1:29:32 PM PST by ari-freedom
    ————————————-
    Creepy picture of Mitt on the cover
    posted on 12/11/2007 1:30:59 PM PST by Squidpup
    ————————————-
    Not a surprise to me. They have been pushing Mitt like a butcher trying to sell a chop the day before its “sell-by” date.  National Review takes another step towards irrelevance.
    posted on 12/11/2007 1:32:30 PM PST by No Truce With Kings
    ————————————-
    Well, I was thinking about not renewing my subscription to National Review this spring.  That seals it.
    posted on 12/11/2007 1:32:59 PM PST by sitetest
    ————————————-
    Romney supported what liberals wanted to hear in Massachusetts to win and he supports what Republicans want to hear in order to win the GOP nomination
    EXACTLY! And if he gets the nomination, he’ll tack back to the left so quick it’ll make your head spin. It will be “All Socialized Healthcare All The Time.”
    posted on 12/11/2007 1:33:28 PM PST by inkling

    • Are you sure those are real conservatives? To ask a famous question, do the owners of Redstate even know a Republican?

      • that they’re all conservatives from the campaigns of other conservatives. đŸ˜‰  but seriously, last i checked, there were over 500 responses.  how many liberals would waste their time being the 500th commenter on a willard thread?  i take the majority of these comments as being genuine conservative responses.  after all, willard isn’t polling very well amongst republicans.  should we be surprised to find many conservatives who have nothing good to say about him?

        • The italicized question is one PP often asks. I was teasing her.

          <

          p>As I understand it, it’s difficult for liberals to keep accounts on Redstate.

          • …and if the workers of other campaigns are this upset, it’s a better endorsement than I tought.

            <

            p>BTW – I’m watching the GOP debate, on Iowa PBS, and it is FANTASTIC!  Jobs, taxes, trade, NAFTA, China, education choice, who is paying more than their fair share of taxes under the current system, is national debt a defense issue – THESE are the questions being asked finally!  There is a single lady questioner, editor of the Des Moines Register, and she is awesome!  Takes no guff from anybody, and keeps these guys in line!  Doing a Dem. debate tomorrow.

            • i hope they put a webcast up somewhere.

              <

              p>on the subject of fairness of taxes.  did any of the republican candidates have a remedy for the excess federal taxes i’m paying but not benefiting from because the feds consider my spouse a legal stranger to me?  in other words, do they really care about fairness in taxes, or just fairness in taxes to those in their club?

              • What is the magnitude of the excess-tax hit due to the inability to file jointly?

                <

                p>I realize that a small number doesn’t make the problem any better, or make the situation any more fair.  I just wonder what the scope of the problem is, nationally.

                • i will give you general examples and no dollar figures, which are private information.

                • taxed on partner’s health care benefits – we recently moved from WA to a less enlightened state.  i am covered under my partner’s health insurance policy because her company happens to have domestic partner benefits.  that’s a good thing.  what’s bad is that she is taxed on the value of my portion of the benefit as if it were part of her salary.  married heterosexual couples are not taxed this way.
                • joint filing – obviously we can’t file joint federal tax returns.  we have not done the calculations to see how big of a penalty this is.  however, i know it is substantial because i earn almost zero per annum, whereas my partner is the family bread winner.  filing jointly would decrease her tax burden.
                • transfer of funds – we are not free to give each other unlimited amounts of money or goods, as are married heterosexuals.  we are expected to pay a gift tax on any transfer of cash, rent payments, etc. above 12$ annually.
                • social security.  when one of us dies, the other will not be eligible to receive our dead spouse’s social security, as married heterosexuals do.

                • I am aware of the various quirks that favor those married in a way recognized under federal law.  This alone is sufficient reason for our governments to recognize marriage equality.

                  <

                  p>I’m just trying tp get a sense of what order of magnitude the zap is for the average couple.  Is it thousands per year, tens of thousands per year?

                  <

                  p>On the gift tax, you get to exceed $12K per year, but only to the extent that such excess does not exceed, in the aggregate, $1M over your lifetime.  Small comfort, but something.

                  <

                  p>I suppose I will have to wait for Turbo Tax 2007, and run it both ways, to see.

                • remember that not all gay couples are stereotypically fabulously wealthy childless two-income males who have never heard of the concept, glass ceiling.  

                  <

                  p>here’s another item for the list: not being able to claim your own 5 children as dependents because the government won’t allow you to adopt your own children.  you and they are legal strangers.

                • ex. 1:  Single earner at $70K income and reasonable deductions:
                  Joint fed tax: 7,347
                  Single fed tax: 10,003

                  <

                  p>ex. 2:  Double earners at $70K each and reasonable deductions:
                  Joint fed tax: 24,796
                  Single fed tax: 20,310

                  <

                  p>ex. 3:  Double earners at $35K each and not itemizing:
                  Joint fed tax: 7,709
                  Single fed tax: 7,100

                  <

                  p>Ex 2 and 3 are good examples of the marriage penalty at work.  Ex 1 shows that as the income increases, OR, in the case of single earning couples there is in fact a benefit to filing jointly.

                  <

                  p>Note, these are pretty good estimates based on existing tax rates and laws, but there are many assumptions regarding the data.  GIGO

                • …I will add another item.  

                  <

                  p>Estate tax.

                  <

                  p>Under the current (well, not so current) estate tax regime, if I were to die tomorrow, my spouse (former partner) would be taxed on the value of my estate, which includes not only the value of my life insurance policies (of which he is the beneficiary), but also half the value of our house in Welleley (at least), all of the investments that are allocable to me–although we really acquired them together, and he is the beneficiary.  

                  <

                  p>I can clue you that that would not be a small amount.  And that is one reason why I have written here and elsewhere that, by doing away with the estate tax, the national Republicans are the only ones who have done anything (however unintentional it might have been) for gay people.  

                  <

                  p>And the national Democrats want to re-institute the estate tax.  And that’s the third reason that I despise national Dems.

                • …because it was entirely substance-based, and somewhat wonky.

                  <

                  p>NOT ONE question on guns, God, gays, or abortion.  Not that these shouldn’t be asked – but it isn’t ALL that should be asked, and the other debates were ONLY about that.  Illegal immigration came up, but only tangentially when speaking of NAFTA and trade policies.

                  <

                  p>The pundits HATED it – on ALL the news channels – because it was just ‘dull stuff we’ve heard before’.  REALLY?  WHERE?  They’re all pissy because there weren’t any ‘fireworks’ to report on.  I’m working on a post about this….

  5. One of Bush’s greatest flaws is that he’ll hold on to an idea or opinion like a dog with a bone, regardless of the facts or consequences. At least we know Romney is willing to change positions. So I guess one could say that he’s avoiding one of Bush’s biggest flaws.

    <

    p>Oh, and he can pronounce nuclear correctly.

    <

    p>And he likely can tell the difference between Canada’s former Prime Minister and a plate of gravy-soaked cheese fries.  

Archives