Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, April 20, 2007
Mary Katharine Ham :: Townhall.com Columnist
EXCLUSIVE: Townhall.com sits down with Gov. Romney
by Mary Katharine Ham
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


MKH: Thanks, Gov. Romney, for taking some time to hang out with us at Townhall today. I’m in D.C. Where are you today?

MR: I’m in Iowa City, IA, which is the home of the University of Iowa, and I just met with 3 or 400 people who were interested in what I’m up to, so it’s a pretty exciting time.

MKH: Let me jump right into this with the Va Tech tragedy, which is of course, what’s on everyone’s minds this week. A lot of our readers are upset that NBC went ahead and showed the Cho video. Should they have taken that step?

MR: Well, I hope that at some point there’s a level of care and responsibility that’s gonna be shown by the members of the mainstream media not to in any way encourage copycat-type activity. And, the attention being given Mr. Cho is, I think, beyond any reasonable level. I certainly wish we could have been far more discreet in what we decide to show the world and keep these copycats from popping up all over the country.

I’d rather show a lot more coverage of people like Liviu Librescu, the fellow who barred the door to keep the gunman from getting to his students. These are the kind of stories we should be hearing.

MKH: Now, one of your claims to fame is that you came into the Utah Olympics and turned around the security situation. Lots of folks are talking about security changes that need to happen on college campuses in light of this. Do you have any thoughts on what those might be and what, if any, role the federal government should be playing in making them happen?

MR: Well, every time something bad happens in the country, there are some folks who say, ‘OK, there oughtta be a federal law put in place to change it.’ And, I’d rather start by saying let’s let individual states and communities decide what they think is best.

In some cases, federal laws help, but I don’t think at this stage it makes sense for us to come up with some federal law to somehow change all this. I do believe the governor of Virginia is right by gathering a group of experts, including Tom Ridge, to take a full review of the law-enforcement response and the decisions made at Virginia Tech, and, I think that’ll be instructive to other universities and other law enforcement agencies around the country. And, we’ll learn from this experience, but I’m not sure if a federal law is called for. Time will tell.

MKH: We’ve already dived head-long, here in Washington, into the inevitable and tacky gun-control debate. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy has already introduced a bill. What’s your take on the battle lawmakers are gearing up for and just how fast they’re gearing up for it?

MR: I realize people will always take the occasion of a major news event to push their agenda. There are people in this country who fundamentally believe that people in our country should not be allowed to have guns. They’re wrong. The Second Amendment protects the rights of individual citizens to bear arms to protect themselves, and I will defend the Second Amendment. I think efforts to politicize this tragedy are mistaken and misdirected.

MKH: Now, you supported an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts. This tragedy is being used to push the renewal of the federal assault weapons ban. What would your stance be if that comes up again?

MR: Well, you know, the weapon used here was not an assault weapon, so I’m not sure what the relevance is. And, that’s what we have to recognize. The people who want to remove Second Amendment rights will look for everything they can. You know, if there’s a weapon that puts our police at risk, like machine guns, of course, then that’s something I would, of course, consider. But, look, we’ve gotta fundamentally recognize the need to protect the right to bear arms and the fact that there are people who are trying to remove that right inch by inch, and we’re gonna have to defend against that.

MKH: One of the quotes of the week, which doesn’t even really need attribution at this point is, “The war is lost.” Your thoughts and what you’re hearing on the trail about that?

MR: Well, first of all it shows a remarkable lack of understanding by Harry Reid. The first phase of the war, the war to knock down Saddam Hussein was won by the United States, solidly, handily, decidedly, and Harry Reid is simply wrong. We won the war to take down Saddam Hussein, and to remove a sponsor of terror.

We’re now in a stage of conflict, which is to help the Iraqi people rebuild their own country. That’s a long process. The jury is out on that. But for him to come out and say we lost the war shows a lack of understanding of the fact that we won taking out Saddam Hussein.

And, secondly, it shows that he just doesn’t understand the nature of the conflict, which we currently are engaged in. And, I go back and think about George Washington. Can you imagine how different our nation would have been if, when the troops were having a tough time at Valley Forge, he just said, “well, we’ve lost.” Or, if Winston Churchill, when the British citizens were hiding in subway tubes, if he said, “Well, we’ve lost.” That is not the American way.

I’m afraid there are some Democrats who can’t get the word victory or success out of their lips. They see loss behind every corner, and instead of looking for our successes and our achievements, they’re always looking for the losses.

Shame on Harry Reid for saying something which will be dispiriting for our troops, and used as propaganda and rallying cries for jihadists around the world.

MKH: What are you hearing from Iowans about it?

The response I’ve had as I’ve made my comments about Harry Reid’s comments today in the three venues where I spoke, was overwhelmingly positive. The largest applause I received was talking about the misguided words that he used to say that America has lost. Did he not remember that we did knock down Saddam Hussein’s government? Has he forgotten that? It’s really a remarkable lack of understanding.

MKH: Speaking of Harry Reid, he and the Dems are also cooking up abortion legislation this week in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the partial-birth abortion ban.

MR: I was pleased with the decision, of course, to permit states to outlaw partial birth abortion. But it underscored something else. Four justices disagreed with the majority. And that means that if the next president were to be a Democrat like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, and they appoint more judges like the four who were in the minority, they would say, in effect, that there’s a constitutional right to partial-birth abortion. Late-term, very late term abortion, which is simply a very offensive practice, and it simply underscores the importance of electing a conservative Republican to be the next president.

MKH: When it comes to winning, you’ve got one of the keys going strong for you—fundraising. But there’s a discrepancy with your poll numbers. Now, I’ve read and heard from folks that this is the way a Romney campaign works, building cred over a long period, so that eventually the numbers will catch up with the money. But in this accelerated election cycle, how does that work for you?

MR: Well, first of all, the places where I’ve spent my time—like I am today in Iowa City, Jackson County, and in Jones County—these are the places where the first primaries and caucuses are held, and the polls here are very encouraging. The New Hampshire poll, for instance, two weeks ago that Zogby put out, had me tied for first place.

The poll that the University of Iowa did just last week has us all in a statistical dead heat for first place, so I’m doing well in the early primary states, which are the ones that count to get the momentum going.

And, of course, I’m not a household name. Not at this point. Win a couple of these primaries, and I become a household name pretty darn quickly. But early on, of course the names people will know, and will acknowledge in the polls, are the names that have become famous from the past. And I anticipate becoming famous by virtue of my message. It’s a message that is catching on across the states that have spread it, and I expect that more and more people in this country will come to my camp and I’m gonna win this thing.

MKH: I’ve been reading this week about your ability to tap new donors. Now, that’s something that always gets politicos talking. Hillary and Obama were the ones who were supposed to tap new donors and new constituencies, and yet you’ve come out as a bit of surprise in your ability to do it. Tell me about how that happens.

MR: Well, we’re really pleased with the message that I’ve been able to carry to people throughout the country. We got fundraising from all 50 states in the country. I’ve gone after young people. I’ve gone after some old folks, like myself, that is. I just turned 60. I’ve gone after our veterans, and we’re bringing people into my camp that are really allowing me to get the kind of support I need to win these primaries.

MKH: I work in the blogosphere where a lot of have noticed your campaign’s pretty considerable online savvy. In particular, I remember you’re doing a podcast with Instapundit and videotaping it for YouTube at the same time. It really sent an early message that you “get” the new media, which is not all that common among Republicans. What’s your strategy?

MR: Traditionally, everyone has assumed that the way to build support in a political sense is to cotton to the mainstream media. But the truth is, if you want to get support among young voters, increasingly, they don’t get the newspaper. They get their news from the Internet, from the web.

And, as a result, a major part of my effort is to make sure we’re communicating with young people, that we’re getting our message across to people who get their information in new and more up-to-date manners. And so, yeah, we have a very active effort. My son Tagg is one of those who plays a leading role to make sure we’re up-to-date with what we’re doing and we’re gonna continue to get our message out through the Internet. I spend a lot of time with folks that are bloggers and webcasters, and I want to make sure that we’re connecting to all Americans, not just the people who read the New York Times.

MKH: Now, in the past, McCain has suggested he’d have blogger conference calls as president. What would be the role of bloggers in a Romney administration. Conference calls, White House press passes. We’re always curious about things like that.

MR: The truth is that I haven’t spent enough time to lay out a media strategy yet for what I would do if I were president. But clearly, it’s important for a president and important for a political party and an administration to communicate with the people of the nation. And, there’s a lot of folks that just don’t get newspapers anymore, don’t watch the TV evening news, and their information comes from the Internet, from blogs and from other webcasts. And, we’re gonna have to find the very best way to communicate with those that are getting the message out.

MKH: I’m sure you’ve got a lot of experience having to find alternative media, since your hometown MSM is the Boston Globe.

No question about that. And, fortunately, the world of alternative media has really come alive in the last few years. I mean, I have five sons. I don’t think any one of them gets the newspaper. Every single one of them gets their information from the web. That being the case, it’s critical to me—I recognize that in my campaign strategy, and if I’m lucky enough to become president, in my presidential plans—to be able to communicate to those folks who get their news in the new media.

MKH: Have any horror stories, worst moments with the MSM?

MR: You know, I’m sure I do. There’s probably more than one, but I’ve never liked people who engage in too much whining, so I’ll skip telling you about the worst that’s happened.

MKH: One last quick one for you. Who has the best hair? You, Sanjaya, or John Edwards?

MR: Well, that’s quite a grouping. I’ll tell you one thing. I don’t spend $400 to get mind cut, so it’s not a comparison I’d like to make. I’d just like to keep as much of it as I can.”

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Mary Katharine Ham is a contributor to Townhall Magazine.

Be the first to read Mary Katharine Ham's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Romney, Ham, Fox
Excellent, excellent interview by MKH.

And moving right along . . .

Hi: I’m doing a piece (or two) on Fox News. I am very much a conservative, but I have problems with the network. Yes, there are some things on it that are very good (Ollie’s war stories, Edie, Liz Trotta, Britt Hume, Sean). However, although I’m not against “fair and balanced,” I am against fair and boring. The graphics are too 1970s and some of the personalities (Shep Smith, Allen Colmes, and even Bill O’Reilly) are getting tedious. They badly need some tough-minded, smart types like Kyra Phillips (CNN) and Chris Jansing (MSNBC). The morning show is unwatchable. The business show on the weekend strikes me as a bunch of overpaid Wall Street types shouting at each other. The multiple layers of lip glop on female news readers isn’t really that appealing. Maybe it’s just me, but I’d love to get some other opinions from conservatives. You can put a comment on my blog (click on name above) or send me an e-mail at: TalkTop65@aol.com. I’d really appreciate finding out if I’m alone – or if some of you have some of the same problems. Thanks for your input.. NOTE; I'M GETTING SOME OUTSTANDING COMMENTS FROM TH PEOPLE. THEY RANGE FROM A LIBERAL OR TWO WHO HATES IT, TO PEOPLE WHO ADORE IT. MOST ARE OF THE "I LIKE/LOVE FOX, BUT . . ." VARIETY. ONE COLUMN WILL APPEAR MONDAY A.M. EARLY, THE OTHER TUESDAY A.M. THANKS TO ALL.

Machine guns?
I had to stop reading after Mr. Romney's ridiculous comment about machine guns.

MKH
Good job, I've been waiting for a good interview of MR. I see he is disavowing his old stance on gun control, although he did somewhat duck the question on the assault weapons ban.

You did not ask him about AGW??

This interview makes me want to support him more, but I would still prefer Thompson.

Mitt Romney
I love watching Fred Thompson on TV but what exactly did he ever DO when he was in Congress? Mitt Romney has real achievements as a Republican Governor of a very liberal state, putting on one of the safest and best run Olympics ever right after a major scandal and also in his personal and business life. We need people who have actual deeds not retoric.

Immigration
Why no questions on how he feels about illegal immigration? Whoever gets my vote will have to be for securing our Borders and enforcing our present laws to get rid of people here illegally.

Just Wait, GW
The Primary is still more than a year away... all questions, including immigration, will be asked. The candidate who gets my vote will support

1- Flat Tax
2- Social Security Privatization
3- School Choice
4- Kicking Terrorist Behind in opposite manner of Harry Reid
5- Immigration Reform
6- Conservative Judges Appointoning

So far, I like Mitt on everything. I'm just waiting for the other questions to be asked to see if I change my mind...

Smooth
Romney as usual was very smooth. He is smart and likeable. He does have some natural appeal to younger voters.

He also understands that certian segments of the voters have preferred media sources. He understands marketing in a way the other candidates do not seem to grasp. He knows how to deal with the press and in his mass media presentations in a way that does not foul up his use of a GOTV to micro target. That is a crucial skill in todays campaigns. It is very hard to run a successful mass media campaign and a micro target campaign at the same time.

GW
Romney has spoken about immigration on several occasions. Go to:

http://www.mittromney.com/Mitt-TV/index

then click on the 'Ask Anything' tab and the 'Ask Mitt Anything: Immigration' link. You'll see how he answered that question in New Hampshire recently.

So Gabby...
Did you watch the Romney video I linked above? How does that line up with your illegal immigration stance?

Mitt sounds OK
I simply don't trust a word Romney says. When he was brought back to Massachusetts by grassroots Republicans, they lost access to him as soon as he became the candidate-apparent. Also, his first act as the official candidate, at the convention, was to break his word. he had said that he would allow the convention to choose his running mate. He decided and announced that it would be Kerry Healy who was not the choice of the delegates. Romney also abandoned her during her own run for governor, btw.

Re: Sam
Right, because leading all Republican candidates in first quarter fundraising, a steady rise in national polls, and near-top polling in early primary states all clearly indicate that Romney's campaign lacks support. Brilliant.

Electable
Mystery Pollster has an excellent analysis of the Definetly Do Not Support numbers of Romney (54), McCain (47) and Hillary (45) in the latest WaPo poll.

How you ask the questions makes a big difference in the results.

Romneys numbers reflect the negative press about his "hunting prowness" and should be a temporary phenomena. Usually Romney's negatives are somewhat similar to McCain's.

leadership
I am encouraged by the fact that Romney is willing to come out and respond to the Harry Reids of this world and their defeatist attitude. He was also out in front last week in criticizing Pelosi for her visit to the terrorist in Syria. He is also able to articulate it in a way that can get through to people.
This is a refreshing change to what we have experienced with Pres Bush. To me, at least, this shows leadership

immigration
Romney is the only candidate that is in the running who is strong on immigration. We know we can't trust McCain with it and we don't know about Guliani either.

This website tracks his record
http://myclob.pbwiki.com/immigration

I know while he was governor he was the first i believe to give the state police the power and trained them to enforce federal immigrations laws.


just for the record
Kathy,

Just for the record, Romney has always been pro-life personally. His position on whether government should be involved in regulating it or not has changed however. I am not excusing that, I just thought it was worth noting in the faith context.


Mitt Romney
A very good interview Mary. Equally given responses by Governor Romney. From observing politicians for many years now, I must say, there is something about Gov. Romney that seems very compelling and positive. I hear it from "most" everyone who speaks of him here in Nevada. But, more importantly, I sense his sincerity as well. I believe Mary, that you may well likely have just interviewed our next President. He is a genuine & fine person. Thanks for the update.


Romney Out-Fox(ed)?
I find Romney to be impressive. I wonder if he can win.

I’m doing several pieces on Fox News. I am very much a conservative, but I have problems with the network. Well, remember the man who went to see a fight (boxing match) -- and a hockey game broke out? On my site, I've asked a few fairly innocent (?) questions about Fox News, and a pitched battle ensued. It's not a struggle between Left and Right, but among conservatives struggling to define the "soul" of Fox News. If you'd like to join in and make comments (and view the carnage), visit me by clicking on my name above. "The more the merrier."


Steve (charter member of "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy")



Gabby good, Romney, Really rank
Thank you, Gabby for the mention of the very best candidate since Ronald Reagan, Representative Duncan Hunter.

Romney made a blatant misrepresentation when he said his is "not a household name". IT IS.
It stands for a whole lot of nothing,all package, but poor product. People are not fooled. He does have name recognition plentee. His poll numbers show that he has little credibility. How soon will Duncan Hunter be interviewed in this venue?

Hope for global conservatism.
Speaking as a non-American observer, I am very hopeful that Mitt Romney does very well in American politics over the next eighteen months - and that he goes all the way.

He is clearly a man who is not prepared to compromise his conservative beliefs. If he is to become a major player on the world political stage (and if he is to make it to the Whitehouse) he is intelligent enough to realise that some trade-offs will be necessary. But he gives me the impression that, as a conservative, there is a clearly defined line, defined by his morals and his conscience, beyond which he would never stray.

How much the world needs - particularly in Europe, and in my own country, the UK. - such people right now.

Mitt Romney is For more Immigration
See see or read his immigration position Go to:
http://www.mittromney.com/Mitt-TV/index

Unfortunately, Mitt is for MORE immigration.
He just wants it to be LEGAL. So if we increase the LEGAL immigration to 20 million per year, he can solve the ILLEGAL immigration.

Typical Politician, unwilling to take a tough stand on Illegal Immigration. Notice how he does NOT talk about what he would do with the 12 to 20 milion Illegals already in this country.

MKH, PLEASE ask him what he would do with the 12 to 20 milion Illegals already in this country?

Does he plan to build at least 700 miles of border fence? Does he plan to dry up the jobs for illegals, so they will self-deport? Will he increase funding to help deport those caught here illegally?

Inquiring voters want to know. So far only Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter have been willing to clearly layout what they will do as President.

Right now, unless Mitt changes his position, I do not trust him on immigration. So far, I will only vote for Tancredo or Hunter.


Question
So will Mary be interviewing any of the Dem candidates, as well.

Within the interest of balance, it seems appropriate to have both sides interviewed to reveal the character of each person’s nature.

Thereby making it possible for voters to make an informed decision.

Romney the "whole package"
Zeb Hardy

You say Romney is "all package, but poor product." I don't know what your standards are or if you have simply not looked into his past. I would hardly call what he did with broken companies, the broken Olympic, and the broken government in MA a poor product. In fact I would say it is just he opposite. I would say that he is not "all package but poor prodcut" but that he is the "whole package." Much better put. Duncan Hunter is great, but we need a proven comepetent administor, not a legislor.

Brett

I think you misundertand Mitt's position on immigration. He is against the status quo. What he means when he says increase legal immigratin is not the number of immigrants but rather increase the number of skilled immigrants that contribute to America continuing to be the innovator of the world. This quote sums it up well:
"There's only one condition on getting your Ph.D. here in the U.S. and that is: You leave as soon as you get it," he told New Hampshire Republicans gathered for their annual convention. "Let me tell you, you get a Ph.D. here in one of our great institutions, I want you to stay. . . . It makes no sense that we put up a big concrete wall against those who have education and skills but our doors have been wide open to people that have neither."

He wants to stop illeagl immigration of unskilled workes that American does not need. He is also for building a wall. He also is the first governor that I am aware that trained and authorized state troopers to enforce federal immigration laws. About that he said:

“Romney Wants State Troopers to Arrest Illegals”


Yvonne Abraham & Scott Helman

The Boston Globe



“Mitt Romney wants the feds to OK his plan for Massachusetts state police officers to have the authority to arrest illegal immigrants solely on their immigration status.”



“’It's one more thing you can do to make this a less attractive place for illegal aliens to come to work,’ the Massachusetts governor said.”



"I think that's a good thing," said Representative Marie J. Parente, a Milford Democrat whose community has enacted licensing regulations that make it more difficult for undocumented immigrants to settle there.”



“’We need to do something,’" Parente told the Boston Globe. "I think that will be a message, that the state of Massachusetts welcomes you if you're within the law."



“The state legislature would have to approve the arrangement Romney is seeking, and the plan has many critics.”

I haven't seen anyone else been this tough on immigration enforcement. I think he is serious about it.

To scooternyc
I don't know if you know it are not but this is supposed to be a Conservative Site. There is NO requirement or intention for balance. This is not Fox News.

http://www.townhall.com/AboutUs.aspx

Brett come on
Romney is for tough border security including a fence. He also is for a tamper proof ID card and strict penalties on employeres, which would prevent illegals from working.

If you want to force every Republican to come out and scream how they are going to send every illegal back home, you are going to make use lose this election just like you made us lose in '06.

I wish we had the political will to make that happen but the facts are we don't and if we keep trying we will lose elections and alienate 40+ million legal immigrants.

Our best shot is a compromise that says if you are here illegally you can never be a citizen if unless you go back home first. If you decide not to go back home we are going to give you this card that lets us know who you are, and that forces you to pay taxes. Oh yeah these things won't start until the wall is built and the Border Patrol is fully manned and funded.

Romney on Immigration Surprise
Smith,
thank you for that information on Romney's immigration stand. You just knocked another item off my list of stuff I agree with Romney about... I just went over to his site and made a donation simply because it made me so pleased.

Indeed, if Romney keeps talking like that on all the important issues, he'll be my presidential choice, hands down.

No, no nomination.....
Like Giuliani, Romney could win in the general election up against either Obama or Clinton.

But neither will get the nomination. The process has been hijacked by the "neo-cons," the "values" voters and other freak-azoids on the extreme right.

Sorry, Mitt! Coulda-woulda-shoulda....

No immigration bill is going to pass
Gabby, trust me, there is not going to be an immigration bill that passes this year. There is no way. They will try, but there is no way a democratic bill will be passed by both chambers. There are too many who will not stand for it. Problem is they dont have enough votes either.

You sound like a liberal the way you are throwing around all this conspiracy-like language.

Everybody loves Hunter, but we all know he can't win. Just giving him press time is not enough. Huckabee gets a ton of free press but he still can't raise money nor gain any traction either.

Romney is touogh on immigration.

Romney: "Those Who Are Here Illegally Should Not Receive Tacit Support From Our Government That Gives an Indication of Legitimacy." [Boston Herald, 1/9/05; Boston Globe, 10/28/03]

Romney Called for Wall on US – Mexico Border; Wanted National Guard to Defend. In an interview broadcast by Fox News on September 29, 2006, host Bill O'Reilly asked Romney, "Would you build a wall between Mexico and the United States and would you put the National Guard on the border?" Romney responded, "Absolutely. We'd put the National Guard there because we don't have the wall yet. You have to have a wall or a fence or electronic surveillance. And you have to have a tamper-proof document to make sure that people who are here are aliens are identified and registered, and people can not hire them unless they're here legally." [Fox News, 9/29/06]







Gabby, get your facts right
Contrary to your unfounded claim, Mitt's and Reagan's views on immigration were astoundingly similar, more so than Reagan and Hunter. Both Mitt and Reagan support[ed] opportunities for legal immigrants to come here and take advantage of opportunity:

http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-24-04.html

I know its an inconvenient truth (a la Al Gore), but a truth nonetheless.

How exactly do you propose "banning" all immigration? Don't you see that the reason we have a problem with illegal immigration in the first place is because it is tremendously difficult to control. But since you seem to have found the easy answer, it'd be great if you could share it with us.

Peter C.
"he gives me the impression that, as a conservative, there is a clearly defined line, defined by his morals and his conscience, beyond which he would never stray. "

I'm not so sure the good impression matches the man. However, I do despair at the lack of conservatism seemingly anywhere in the world. To figuratively look around to Canada, and the across the Atlantic, and across the Pacific, and see nothing but liberals and conservatives-in-name-only is distressing. It stinks to be the only one.

Burn Mitt At The Stake For Heresy
"if there’s a weapon that puts our police at risk, like machine guns, of course, then that’s something I would, of course, consider"

Basically, so long as the citizens are utterly defenseless against (no risk to the police of) the State, then Mitt's happy. Until that happens, we need more gun control.

Join me, one and all, in a mighty Jeffersonian:

"BOOOOOOOOOOO!"

"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms."

[and I would add, never has been]

"The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind.
Games played with the ball, and others of that nature,
are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walk."

And oh yes...
Jefferson more or less founded the DEMOCRATIC party.

And now you have a gun-grabbing front-runner in the REPUBLICAN party.

No to gun control! The people must not be unarmed in this ultimate battle of wills that has been playing out invisibly in every nation since the beginning.

Gabby & Legal Immigration
You wrote: "Mitt is the neo-Bush candidate and that translates into more and more immigration to displace American workers AND citizens, and to overthrow our civilization."

Are you really saying that you are against *legal* immigration? Of *any* sort? Do you really think our country can survive as an isolationist state?

If you answered 'yes' to the above questions, then you really should study up on the subject. You might want to start with Japan as an example. They have gone down that road and are already paying dearly.

A smear tactic
Here, Jerubaal, please allow me to smear your statement as you tried to smear Mitt's statements:

Mitt believes machine guns can be dangerous to police officers. Jerubaal disagrees and thinks that:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Jerubaal thinks that we should all run out and get machine guns and shoot police officers because they are the agents of a tyrannical government.

Smearing is fun isn't it? I mean, there are no rules, and it doesn't even have to make sense.



Mary Katherine should be ashamed
Seriously - wasn't it Reagan who said "trust but verify"? And so someone says something, but you kinda gotta check the file to see what he was saying last year and then the year before.

Romney sais: There are people in this country who fundamentally believe that people in our country should not be allowed to have guns.

Right Mitt, YOU WERE ONE OF THEM!!!

When you raised the gun permit fee from $5 to $100 and when folks said that was a lot of money, you were the one who said that if people couldn't afford it, they didn't have to own guns.

Right....

And which side were you on -- were you the 'rich' Republican in the image that the party has been fighting for half a century (the image that the GOP is only for millionares) or were you against guns before you were for them again?

And the part about "machine guns" -- first, the cop is somehow less dead if shot with the first round? And second anything that has more than one round ("semi-automatic") is a machine gun. And is a gun, which you think that only your rich friends should be allowed to have.

Mitt destroyed the Mass GOP with his "my way or the highway" attitude, my fear is that he will destroy Townhall as well. Mary Katherine should have either adopted the policy that TH will interview EVERYONE or she should have interviewed no one -- I am quite serious that I would vote for Hillary before Romney and I can assure you that I don't want Hillary (or Romney).

And as to Romney's discovery of conservative values, why is it all between the day after the election and the day before Deval took office? Sure he authorized the MSP to arrest illegal aliens but he ONLY DID THIS *AFTER* HE DECIDED NOT TO RUN FOR REELECTION... He started appointing conservatives to state boards AFTER MUFFIE LOST THE ELECTION.

And we won't get into his MANDITORY health insurance scheme. Health savings accounts are now kaput, the required plan won't pay for the medicines that I need to stay alive (and for which I now -- and still -- will pay cash) but it will pay for abortions...

Gotta love the Mittster....

CRIMINALS dangerous for police officers.
> Bravado writes: Mitt believes machine guns
> can be dangerous to police officers

And other guns, when in the hands of criminals, aren't?

Would you like to put on a uniform and stand in front of some of these single-shot weapons as they are shot at you?

It is the criminals, stupid -- and I don't see Mitt doing anyting about that problem....

This was a good interview?

The interviewer asked Mitt about his vote for Bush 41's "assault weapons" ban. First off they are semi-auto rifles, not assault weapons. Assault weapons, by definition, have selective fire capability. In that respect Bush 41 lied, Mitt lied and all the other republicans who voted for it lied (and there were many). Mitt then changes the subject by bringing up machine guns being used to kill police officers. That is a blatant dodge of the question and is totally irrelevant to the way he voted. Can't anyone see that? Do you really want this guy to be president when he does not have the courage to justify his vote? What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED does he not understand? The fact that any so-called conservatives would even consider that man for president is mind-boggling to me. He is just another republicrat and should be spurned by us all.

Re: Pirate
Wow, that was like a reversal smear ... impressive work Pirate! You and Jerubaal should really think about teaming up, it just comes so naturally.

I'm assuming your questions were rhetorical, but I'll answer them anyway. First question, yes, all guns in the hands of criminals can be dangerous (just as they can be dangerous in the hands of law-abiding citizens).

Second question, no, I wouldn't like to stand in front of a single-shot weapon as its fired at me. And as for uniforms, well, they just make me uncomfortable, so thats a double no.

As for you last sentence, "It is the criminals, stupid -- and I don't see Mitt doing anything about that problem," I'll have to check the book, but I'm pretty sure thats not a complete sentence, so I'm not quite sure how to respond.

But lets just assume, all things being equal, that I had a choice of whether I wanted to stand in front of a miscreant with a machine gun, and a miscreant with a single-shot firearm. Every day of the week I would choose the latter. Why? Well because, while the first shot could be equally fatal, if the shot misses, I stand a much better chance of escaping safely with the single-shot than the machine gun.

But I'm sure that when the Founders were drafting the Constitution they thought deeply and meditated upon the use of machine guns specifically, and assault weapons generally, and the vital role they would play in our great Republic. No doubt they thought assault weapons were crucial to individual and societal self-defense against the state, because, after all, thats what they used in the Revolutionary War, right?

republicans as "rich party"
Since when does republicans care if they are known as the "rich party." I have no problem with it. It is a fundamental distinction between REpublicans and Democratic, Republicans are not ashamed to have the money they worked har for. Dems would have us think we should feel guilty if we have money, republicans celebrate it because it represents hard work. You did something and in return you ahve money.

There is no shame in being rich. I would rather be a part of the "rich" party than the party that makes me feel guilty for receiving a reward for the work that I did.


To Bravado
No the founding fathers did not have fully automatic weapons, but they intended that civilians would own the same quality weapons as the military. In fact, during the revolutionary war American civilians had better weapons than the British military. In those days some ciivilians even owned canon.

So yes, the 2nd Amendment was intended to cover ALL weapons.

Sam if you're against Romney...
That's a good sign. Nobody that you would support has a chance in a national election. Go run off with Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo.

For the record every bill that Mitt signed had the ENDORSEMENT OF THE NRA. That's right he has an NRA lifetime rating of a B and did the best anyone could in MA to stand up for conservatism.

Romney is the most qualified conservative. What do I mean by qualified? He has 10 times the executive experience of all the other front-runners combined. He can win a general election and he has the ability to lead and fix the 7 or 8 major issues that we face today.

Gabby you are making yourself look silly
Why are you spouting off on a long post when you are so uninformed on the issues. You make too many false assumptions to count or rebutt. Luckily I don't think anyone takes you seriously so I am not even going correct you.

What planet of conservatism are you on that the only fact you present is from a biased liberal MSM outlet. By the way what is Hayworth doing right now? Oh yeah nevermind, he is still sulking over getting beat by a lightweight liberal in a very conservative district because he is a one issue candidate.

As far as CoFR conspiracy crap, maybe you should keep trolling through the blogosphere, you can find whole sites dedicated to people of your ilk.


Sam, your insanity killed this blog
I would take your bet in a hearbeat.

Mitt is sharp!
Mitt is intelligent, reasonable and personable. He can be trusted to do what's right. In a state that is 85% democratic, it's hard to tell in sound bites what were Mitt's proposals and what was necessary as a matter of compromise. I'm certain that many compromises were made. That's part of political life.
So he raised fees on guns. He was trying to eliminate a $3 billion deficit, without raising income taxes. He had to make up the short fall somewhere. Fees seem like a less burdensome place than income taxes.

He also extended the firearm licenses from 4 to 6 years. He reinstated a 90 day grace period in which to renew licenses. He supported numerous other measures that were supported by gun owners. I'm certain that to get some of the positive things done, there was some give and take in the process. Any leader is going to have to pick and chose the battles he wants to win, particularly in a heavily democratic state. Cut him some slack. He wasn't the governor of Idaho, but Massachusetts.

Tryor

You make a very good argument. However, I'd rather have a representative that votes based on his beliefs and not what will get him reelected. That's exactly why our founders were so afraid of democracy, and why America is in such a mess today.

Gabby's argument
here is gabby's argument: Romney like Bush, so he is just like him.

That means just about every other candidate will be just like Bush too.

I KNOW romney won't be like bush.

Gabby, Sam, Pirate, DPB.....
You guys are SCARY!!

Your postings are full of contradictions. It doesn't appear that any of you listened to the video clip of Romney & Immigration posted at the beginning of this blog. If you did, you didn't hear it! You certainly did not pay any attention to other postings that thoughtfully outlined actual progress in a give & take political process that favored gunowner's rights in the most liberal state in the union.

In my view the fact that you are all so vehemently against Mitt's candidacy is an indicator that he should WIN the primaries and general election handily!!

I would be leary of any candidate who lined up as favorable in your sights!

Sam? How's that again?
What do you mean, "he is a politician."? I'll give you that anyone running is, by definition, a politician. So how do you get elected if you don't run? Let's not forget that he's 60 years old. He just got out of four years as governor, so he was 55 when he ran for governor. That means for 30 years, he was a businessman, and by whatever standards you make your evaluation, a pretty good one. This is not someone who was at the public trough, taking our tax dollars for decades. So who do you want to run for office that is not a politician? How do you want them to get elected without running for office?

You say "He is a poltician. He'll say anything." I say, your just a blogger, you'll write anything.

Romney has proven himself in numerous, difficult circumstances. He's taken risks in order to succeed. Read the book on how the Olympics was turned around. Do a little research. He could not have done that without earning the trust of numerous organizational committees, country delegations, the community, and corporate sponsors.

Of course, he's made enemies. Some people hate his religion. Some people are jealous of his professional success. Some people just don't like his good looks. And when you cut the budget enough to save $3 billion in Massachusetts, you're going to make a lot of enemies. Believe the Boston Globe if you like. Believe the New York Times if you like. But 90% of those who know him personally, or who have worked with him, believe him to be a man of integrity.

Such a man has two options: 1) Never give and inch -- and never get elected. Therefore, you're not able to do any good; or 2) Compromise where you can. Make concessions where you have to in a state that is 85% from the other party, but at least solve some problems and leave the state in better condition than when you found it.

But please, spare us the dismissive comment that this 60 year old father of five and successful businessman, who has held one elective office, can't be trusted simply because you call him a politician.

Wasted interview
MKH wasted our time with the silly questions that have nothing to do with the issues of immigration, the North American Union, the New World order, and Social Security checks going to illegal immigrants.

Instead she sounded like some young kid who doesn't know her knuckle from her kneebone. Town Hall needs some older and wiser people working in the trenches of real life.

Romney Can Win
Romney is definetly electable!

In the time SRBI national poll of Registered Voters the following candidates had the following "Definetly Not Support" and "Probably Not Support" and total "Not Support" numbers.

Gingrich 36 27 63
Clinton 36 14 50
Gore 31 19 50
Guiliani 18 26 44
Obama 18 23 41
McCain 17 29 46
Edwards 17 25 42
Romney 16 29 45

The "Definetly Not" numbers are hard core opposition numbers. They represent voters who will not support the candidates.

The "Probably Not" numbers may be reduced by good campaigning.

Romney's total numbers are essentially the same as Guiliani's and McCain's 44-46 and really not much different from Obama and Edwards 41-42.

All of the candidates have opposition.

Bet
Sam if you want to bet you can go to TradeSport.com and find that Romney, Thompson and McCain all have about the same odds for the nomination behind Rudy.

The idea that Romney is finished and the Republicans are going the way of the Whigs is wishful non thinking.

The Dems are about to spilt over abortion, guns and Iraq. It will be very interesting for the next year and 1/2.

Sam, Sam, Sam....
You continue to blather on and on, making statements that mainly provide unfounded hypothetical theories (or hallucinations?).

The more I hear from you the more strongly I believe that your opposition to Mitt is actually a good sign for his candidacy!

Romney-YES!
Some do have it. And some just don't.

Mitt truly does have & pack the proper punch & I'll strongly so go out on a limb to predict he does indeed "Take it all"!


Re: Vic 6:15pm
Interesting, I don't recall reading in the 2nd Amendment that citizens have a right to bear "all" arms ... or to bear "the equivalent" arms "born by the military." Sounds like a strained, or at least idiosyncratic, interpretation.

So tell me, the military has nuclear weapons, does that mean all citizens have the right to possess nukes? Sign me up.

Decide for yourself...
Reading political blogs is really wearing on me. People like SAM take up so much space with unfounded and ridiculous arguments. It's like he's a personal crusade to drown Mitt, wouldn't his time be better spent promoting a candidate he believes in? (With good information and details.)

I'm now doing my own research, I'm looking for voting records, and recorded statements. So far Mitt Romney is the most impressive. It's too bad, more people aren't looking for information themselves, especially when we live in era of biased media.

BTW- Romney supported gay rights in the early 90's, back then that did not include gay marriage. He fought hard to protect the definition of marriage to be between a man and a women. He found an old-little-known law in the books to prevent out-of-staters from getting married in MA.


To Bravado
That's right, there are NO restrictions. It says simply "arms" and at the time that was ALL arms. If you don't like that I urge you to work towards getting an Amendment that allows restrictions.

Congratulations are in order then...
"Vic"

There's nothing like hearing only the side with which you agree so you can make an uninformed decision when you cast your vote.

It's the same reason why you probably believe in god because you're not interested in any truth, logic or reason just your fantasy.

Good for you, keep that head buried in the sand, hopefully long enough that you don't get to vote.

BTW
Thanks Vic for revealing what both sides know instinctually about one another:

We're not open to any new ideas if they come from the opposition, even if they're great ideas.

The stupidity is just astounding.

Wow, you're right
"Townhall.com split off from The Heritage Foundation in order to expand the scope of Townhall.com's mission to inform, empower and mobilize citizens for political change"

No need to read anything further, this site has it all! The end all and be all.


To scooternyc
If you want to read and discuss liberal stuff go to the Kos. We have a lot of liberals posting on here because they are not automatically banned here as conservatives are at the Kos. Howver, that doesn't mean that the columnists are going to print liberal columns, although Jack Kemp has been doing a good job of that lately.

As I said before, this is a CONSERVATIVE

Vic
You just don't get it; we get that.

Mitt Wrongney
Curt's comment on Saturday (11:07 AM) hits to the heart of the "Romney Matter"...Curt writes as if he too has lived through it, Romney's governorship of Massachusetts I mean, and knows how disingenuous this man really is.

Smith later wrote;
He wants to stop illeagl immigration of unskilled workes that American does not need. He is also for building a wall. He also is the first governor that I am aware that trained and authorized state troopers to enforce federal immigration laws. About that he said:

“Romney Wants State Troopers to Arrest Illegals”
Yvonne Abraham & Scott Helman
The Boston Globe

It is interesting that neither smith Nor Skinner would put a date on this article or Romneys "Statement"...

AND NOW THE TRUTH OF IT...
his "authourization" to the State Troopers came AFTER the Dems won the State House and Romney was going to be shown the door in a couple of short months. Made a big deal out of the event on the steps of the State House too. Symbolism is EVERYTHING to the Romney people.

BUT HE HAD FOUR YEARS!!! And he never gave "AUTHORIZATION" until he knew he couldn't be president without "opposing illegals"...

AND TOO...Did he never had any inkling of the goings on in New Bedford either???
I find it hard to believe a company hiring illegals to do Gov't work AND is getting STATE AID for hiring LOCAL CITIZENS was not found out by the Romney Admin.....

Curt had it right...DO NOT TRUST ANYTHING ROMNEY HAS TO SAY!!

He is a driven political opportunist who is now smooth-talking his way to the very top if we allow it to happen.

Mitt
Should do the "Right" thing...fess up to being a neo-con and move on...Bare his soul to the American Voter, tell us all that he "will do or say anything to get elected POTUS"...then WE can move on to a Real Conservative who WILL crack down on illegals, who WILL protect NOT ONLY the 2nd Amendment but ALL of our Constitutional guarantees equally....

Don't fall for the words (and empty gestures) of a Charlatan!

BTW
When Romney gave that authorization to the Staties he knew it wasn't going to stand when the Dem took over.

Re: Sam/Vic
Sam - sorry bro, but I stopped reading your comments long ago.

Vic - Funny, you didn't answer my question about citizens' right to bear nukes. Please feel free to do so. I mean, what greater deterrent against government intrusion could there be?

Bravado
Oh, hey, Vic should have mentioned to you that if you aren't a conservative you're not supposed to be on this blog; apparently, according to Vic, this is a blog for conservatives only and not balanced opinion/facts need be presented.


The following post:

Vic writes: Saturday, April, 21, 2007 2:35 PM
To scooternyc
I don't know if you know it are not but this is supposed to be a Conservative Site. There is NO requirement or intention for balance. This is not Fox News.

http://www.townhall.com/AboutUs.aspx


MKH Gets Rolled
Note: This week I’ll be featuring a discussion of Mary K. Ham’s appearance on Howard Kurtz’s “Reliable Sources” (CNN). I strongly believe Kurtz was using MKH as a conservative “fig leaf” to justify the media’s excesses following the Virginia Tech shooting. Kurtz’s point was that media the media did “the right thing,” which would be an historic first. For a criticism of the point-of-view of people like Kurtz, please read conservative journalist Jack Kelly in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, where he argues that “To boost their ratings, the media encourage the next mass killer.” You can find Kelly at http://post-gazette.com/forum.

MKH has a great future in conservative journalism, but she needs to watch carefully the company she keeps.


Mitt is a winning ticket...
Just watch--Mitt will likely take it all--all those who bash him, or anyone else for that matter-really needs "a life"!

Remember; he'll likely take it all...

Bravado
""It is the criminals, stupid -- and I don't see Mitt doing anything about that problem," I'll have to check the book, but I'm pretty sure thats not a complete sentence, so I'm not quite sure how to respond"

Well, let's diagram it for you:

"It is the criminals,"

Subject + Predicate (it is) = complete sentence

"stupid --"

Noun of Direct Address - properly offset by commas

"and I don't see Mitt doing anything about that problem"

second sentence, properly preceded by a comma and the word "and", made up of a subject "I" and the predicate "don't see".

Any more grammar lessons while you teach us what a smear job is?

The height of pettiness
Please explain to me how "it is" is a proper predicate. Where is the verb? Is it "is," or "it"? How about the object, or phrases governed by the verb? What exactly is the "it" being referred to anyhow, or does it simply depend on what your definition of "it" is (Clintonesque I know)? Perhaps it would be more appropriate to discuss education reform in this thread.

As for grammar lessons, this is my last one. I prefer to dwell on the substantive issues. For instance, Mitt's support of second amendment rights, which if you'd fairly read the interview, you would have picked up on.

But I gotta say, the haters in this thread should tread carefully, because they may be bashing their future candidate. If you disagree with Mitt's politics, then voice your disagreements intelligently, don't try to smear him. Your attempts to do so are shameful. Lets try to elevate the dialogue a little bit.

Mitt Romney
The previously written blogger "Sam", says nobody knows who this guy "Mitt Romney" is.

Well, apparently "Sam" DOES...

Get used to it people. Mr. Romney will likely take America's heart swift & with raise it with pride!

Mitt Romney
The previously written blogger "Sam", says nobody knows who this guy "Mitt Romney" is.

Well, apparently "Sam" DOES...

Get used to it people. Mr. Romney will likely take America's heart swiftly & with raise it will pride!

bravado
""Please explain to me how "it is" is a proper predicate. Where is the verb? Is it "is," or "it"?"

"It" is the subject. "Is" is the verb. The same exact structure was used in the first two sentences of this very paragraph. I don't understand the problem.

"How about the object, or phrases governed by the verb?"

That would be "the criminals".

"What exactly is the "it" being referred to anyhow"

It doesn't need any referent to be a proper subject.

", or does it simply depend on what your definition of "it" is (Clintonesque I know)?"

That would be syntax; we're discussing grammar.

"Perhaps it would be more appropriate to discuss education reform in this thread."

Indeed, it might.

"it is"
Funny...!

"it is" was not even in the text.

I'll not again write. Playing semantic games over typo's is fruitless.

Remember though: Mitt Romney will very likely be our next President. Enough said.

Good night-

Gun Control
His comment was on the fence. I worries me as he sounds like he would re-introduce the "assault" weapons ban. Anybody who can not take the Bill of Rights seriously should not be elected... and if elected and they still refuse to uphold the laws they are sworn to protect, then they should be impeached and tossed in jail. That goes for Bush and his border stance as well.

Who do you work for, Sam?
Sam, either you are obsessed with Romney, or you are a shill for some other candidate.

If his chances of winning are so minute, why do you have double digit posts on this article? Why waste your time?

A little honesty
It would certainly help our cause against the gun control nuts if we'd be honest.

Just as no one who is intellectually honest can state that the right to bear arms is dependent on being part of a militia, no one who is intellectually honest can state that the text of the 2nd Amendment precludes limitations on the types of arms.

Lets just be honest. The reason we oppose all gun control laws is for the exact reason that Romney states. It's not because we feel that those "assault weapons" are necessary. It's because we don't trust the gun control nuts to stop once they've gotten a foot hold.

Romney: "But, look, we’ve gotta fundamentally recognize the need to protect the right to bear arms and the fact that there are people who are trying to remove that right inch by inch, and we’re gonna have to defend against that."

Back again, Sam?
Can you say obsessed?

America's Future

These next 2 years are vital to the future of this country. For 2007 we must make certain that McCain/Kennedy or whatever it's called this year does not pass the House. It will pass the Senate. The President will sign it, followed by the Totalization Treaty with Mexico, which qualifies former illegals with just 6 qtrs(18 mo) even if worked illegally, the benefits that we had to work 40 qtrs(10 yrs) to qualify for.

In 2008 we must make the candidates address border security and immigration enforcement.
20-30 million citizens of other countries are in our country illegally, 55% from Mexico, most of the rest from other Central and South American countries. Let's not ignore the leftward voting trends of these countries. It is notable that they picked May Day, an old communist day of celebration for their marches.

Most polls show at least half of the American citizens of Hispanic descent want the borders and laws enforced. Republicans will not win by alienating their current voters to get 40% of a new small block that will grow very large, very fast if amnesty is granted. That will grow the Democrats vote larger and faster as the influx increases exponentially as the result of another amnesty. It will spell the end of the Republican Party. The people who used to vote Republican will stop voting or form a new party. Conservatives will lose political influence and we will slide inexorably towards socialism (it has already started).

Most of what you hear about this issue is political propaganda that tries to convince you to give up your country without a fight, including on Fox News. The big money players are all on board the cheap labor express, they care not that American citizens do not want another amnesty. We know the last one resulted in 10 times the number of illegal aliens and a general disregard of our laws. The next one will be equally successful.

We need Comprehensive Immigration Enforcement, not reform. We need to restore respect for the law and the faith of the American people that their government is not selling them out. Amnesty for the illegal aliens is also amnesty for the corrupt companies who have been employing them. Money trumps everything, including love of country. Multi-nationals have no loyalty to country by definition, they see us as a market, not a nation. They see people as workers, documented or undocumented, no difference. If they can't send the work to where the labor is cheaper, then they want to bring the cheap labor here. Citizenship is meaningless.

If we love our Constitution and our representative Republic and we intend to keep it we must not surrender our sovereignty or abandon the rule of law. Profits must not supercede security. We should not create a new path to citizenship. We have a path to citizenship, more generous than any other country, illegal aliens have ignored it and bad choices do have consequences.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.