Buy at Amazon

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Sioux City Journal Endorses Romney (and Obama)

Nice news out of western Iowa (this is Rep. Steve King's district) where Huckabee's stronghold is (and Fred is fighting for some of that base).

Endorsement done via video.

Text available as well.
"We sought to identify the two candidates we feel best combine a new voice with a strong vision of the future on key issues facing the country. Also, we chose candidates we feel possess integrity, who can lead, who can forge consensus and who will run positive, issue-oriented campaigns.

"We believe the two candidates we have endorsed have a unique ability to inspire and motivate our country to meet the significant challenges we face."

. . .

"From the Republican field, the Sioux City Journal endorses Mitt Romney. Romney combines an outsider's new face with a proven track record of success in both the private and public sectors.

"As a businessman, the president and chief executive officer of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and governor of Massachusetts, he has demonstrated an ability to bring people together and bridge partisan divides, organize, mobilize and motivate in order to solve problems. In short, he combines an engaging personality with the leadership qualities necessary to inspire others to follow him.

"Let's be honest, a candidate for president can prepare volumes of detailed ideas, but if he or she is a polarizing figure within the halls of Congress or devoid of the personal traits necessary to get Americans to listen and act, those plans don't have a chance of success."
Granted, I don't put much stock in these kind of endorsements . . . but it's better that this goes to Mitt than another candidate. Also, the convincing argument they lay out for Mitt may sway some people Romney's way. Who knows?


nick f said...

While this is a nice endorsement for Romney...what "new voice" are they talking about?

Romney sounds like a repeat of the Bush years.

Look, the Bush years weren't bad. I voted for him twice and campaigned for him, but I found his domestic policy to be something far short of conservative.

Again, ask yourself, who has been the most consistent. It certainly has not been Mitt Romney.

Now I'm glad that Mitt has had a change of heart, but I have a hard time believing it. A republican only has to get elected once as president and their good! They no that they will not have to fight for the nomination a second time.

What does this mean for conservatives? Well it means that you better pick a strong conservative the first time, because they will go nowhere but toward the center once elected.

Romney is very adept at compromise, he had to do it quite a bit as governor of Mass. Now I will grat him the fact that he was up against a liberal bulwark in Mass and did quite well.

But how odes one have a "change of heart" on something so fundamental as abortion after 3 elections, and 4 kids?

the answer, well there is probably something else there. In Mitt's case I think it was his desire to be President,and his realization that you cant do that as a pro abortion candidate.

Now while that might be practical, its not exactly honorable. furthermore it causes one to wonder what his approach will be when he is dealing with a democrat controlled congress, and needs to compromise in order to get legislation passed.

Will he compromise on his pro life beliefs when it comes to appointing the next supreme court justice?

Will he embrace expanding government in the name of "cheaper, more accessible health care".

Why not? He has done it before, and as our president, to whom are we to turn if he does?

That is why it is time for us to send a strong message to all future candidates; that we are not going to accept compromise on our CORPS principles. We understand that representative government, by its very nature requires compromise, but we are not willing to sell our soul to get it.

Fred Thompson doesn't require us to compromise on our corps conservative beliefs. His record shows us that there are no significant, "changes of heart" we might have to contend with.

Shouldn't he be the candidate we support until we are forced into another option?

Look, if my logic is wrong, please show me where, but I have given this a great deal of thought, and am dedicated to a Thompson Presidency.

But in order for Fred Thompson to win, he needs support RIGHT NOW.

nick f said...

real quick...forgive my spelling of core as corps....its very

jwh said...

To this 66-year-old, a President must first be a person of integrity and intelligent, insulated from lobbyists'influences. Romney seems to be a very intelligent, especially healthy, energetic candidate. What he does on Sunday and where he does it is certainly no business of ours.
He appears honest and approachable, has an intelligent wife and remarkable family that speaks for itself. Romney looks like a national and world leader who will not disrespect our nation to the planet. Guess I don't go deeply into individual issues. He can surround himself with quality advisors to tackle those. Overall we think Romney is the candidate. Our family has decided to give its 11 votes to him.

Big Jay said...

Nick F,

I like Fred Thompson. I think he can be trusted to make good decisions. I like him personally, and I'm comfortable with his record.

Mitt Romney can be trusted on the issues too. The man keeps his promises both in his personal life, and the promises he makes on the campaign trail.

I like Mitt better than Fred for a couple of reasons. I think Mitt can put together a better team of people than Fred. Especially on fiscal matters Mitt has pledged to do a complete audit on the federal budget and go through it line by line looking for waste, inefficiency and duplication. This is my big issue and I trust Mitt better than anyone else on this particular issue. I also think Mitt is better than Fred at using conservative principles to tackle impossible problems. Also I think that rhetorically he's more persuasive than Fred which will make a big difference over the next 8 years when we work to tackle things like social security when it will become necessary to persuade ordinary Americans, in addition to policy wonks.

And nothing against Fred, but I think dubya has ruined 'folksy' for America. I know I would rather not endure another 8 years of homespun. I know there is intellect under the surface in the case of Fred. But I'm sticking with Mitt.

It's a free country of course. So I wish you Fred guys all the best.

nick f said...

I'm glad this site is cognizant of Reagan's 11th commandment. It really make the primary process a great deal more productive.

I like Mitt's idea for a government audit, but I prefer Thompson's approach to dealing with problem we already know about. While promising to conduct an audit of the budget is good, its a rather easy thing to promise. We already know that we have a huge problem with the tax code and the IRS, providing a solution for this problem doesn't really require an audit.

I like Fred Thompson's idea of offering a choice between the current tax system or a series of flat tax brackets.

As far as Mitt keeping his word; I think Mitt is an honorable guy, but his prior positions on key conservative issues have got to give you some pause. How do you reconcile the change personally?

Thompson on the other hand has maintained the same stances on those critical positions.

Now I think you have a valid point when you make the distinction between campaign style.

But I don't think that Fred is folksy in the same way that Bush is. Fred speaks with a great deal of presence.

Bush was more "ah shucks". Where I think Fred is more Reaganesque. Fred has a great deal of appeal when speaking to a national audience. The Iowa debate demonstrated that.

I could confuse Huckabee and Bush, but not Fred and Bush.

As far as the team Fred would assemble, I think that remains to be seen. I truly believe that Fred would have a delgative style of leadership, much like Reagan. And like Reagan I think we can depend on Fred to pick the right people for the job.

Thanks again, for letting me get my say in!

You have a Merry Christmas!