Stay classy Newt-fanatics!

WhyRomney.com responds to all of their attacks. But they aren’t interested in facts. They are interested in recruiting people to help fight their imaginary monster. And unfortunately, innocent people are falling prey to the web of anti-Romney lies.

Therefore, we will proceed to dissect Hotze’s smear piece as a case study in how deceitful and/or deluded the anti-Romney forces are.

Hotze’s assault relies on numerous strange bedfellows. He doesn’t question the sincerity or motives of Barney Frank, Michael Dukakis, liberal newspapers or any liberal advocacy group. In fact, he cites their accounts as “proof” that Romney lied. Hotze inundates the unsuspecting reader with claim after claim of such “proof.” For instance, half-way through his piece Hotze falsely asserts that Romney “increased taxes” then declares, “The proof is here.” He links the word “here” to a piece written by an openly gay opponent of traditional marriage named Deroy Murdock. Of course, Murdock’s sexuality has nothing to do with taxes. But Hotze’s blind acceptance of what Murdock says is telling because two sentences later Hotze attacks Romney for nominating “2 open homosexuals” to serve as district court judges in Massachusetts. So when it comes to judging Romney, Hotze trusts an open homosexual to be an honest and impartial source for “proof,” but when it comes to judging suspected criminals brought to trial in Massachusetts, Hotze believes the nominees Romney selected based on their effective prosecutorial experience are incapable of being honest and impartial since they happen to also be gay. Consistency is not Hotze’s strong point.

Rebuttal, Gay Marriage:

Hotze’s first claim is that Romney “Unilaterally, illegally and unconstitutionally instituted same-sex ‘marriage’ falsely claiming the ‘court ordered him to.’” Hotze’s sources stake their argument on the claim that the old law didn’t change. But he evidently has not read the actual court opinion, which states plainly: “We are mindful that our decision marks a change in the history of our marriage law.” The distinction Hotze fails to recognize is that even though the wording of the law stayed the same, the court broadened its interpretation of the wording and thus expanded the application of the law which Romney as governor swore an oath to uphold.

The Goodridge decision states: “The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not.”

The decision also states: “We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution.”

Hotze can try to hide from the plain language of the court opinion, but what he cannot do is hide from his double-standard. If he wants to claim that a Governor is not obligated to uphold the law as interpreted by the Court, then why is he not attacking the conservative pro-life bona fides of the many past and present governors, including Mike Huckabee and Rick Perry, for following the Court’s interpretation on abortion when no law told them they had to do so? In Arkansas, for instance, Roe v. Wade has never been codified into law by the legislature. Yet the unquestionably pro-life Huckabee enabled abortion. He “handed out” licenses to abortion clinics just as Romney “handed out” marriage licenses, in both cases because of court decisions and not because of statutes.

The sources propped up by Hotze also claim that the Massachusetts Constitution prohibits the court from saying anything related to marriage. To support this view they site a clause which states: “All causes of marriage…shall be heard and determined by the governor and
council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision.” (PART
THE SECOND, Ch. III, Article V.) However the plain language again contradicts their claim. Nothing in the text limits the court in any way and certainly does not prohibit the Supreme Judicial Court from ruling on issues relating to marriage.

Rebuttal, Abortion Co-Pay:

Hotze next claims that the health care law Romney signed “includes $50 tax-subsidized elective surgical abortions.” He is of course twisting the facts. The bill does not even mention abortion. Blaming the co-pay on Romney is a bit like blaming the founding fathers for Roe v Wade, since the Constitution created the Supreme Court. The truth is, the bill Romney signed does not say anything about abortion but creates an independent agency called the “Connector” which sets the co-pay amount.

As for the government subsidy, two MA court decisions require that state programs cover abortion. Some critics claim that the court decisions were not legally binding, since the decisions were not codified into law. However, this attempted criticism could be applied as easily to Roe v Wade itself, just like attempts to blame Romney for gay marriage like we already discussed. Many states have not codified Roe into law, yet adhere to it, understanding that even though it could be called a “mere” declaratory opinion it sets precedent under Stare Decisis. In other words, the actual “judgment” of Roe v Wade was technically only about one plaintiff and one defendant, but the “opinion” is understood to have sweeping ramifications in all similar cases. Critics also claim that the term “medically necessary abortions” used in the court decisions only applies to abortions where the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Again, this is incorrect. “Medically necessary” is widely interpreted to mean treatment provided for any non-cosmetic, non-recreational reason. It applies to pain, and therefore applies to any pregnant woman seeking an abortion, since women are naturally pained or expected to become pained physically or psychologically as a result of a pregnancy.

In addition to having their facts wrong, critics are missing the point. Abortion in Massachusetts has declined since the health care bill passed. Between 1991 and 2005 U.S. abortion rates had steadily declined, according to a comprehensive study by the Guttmacher Institute. But that trend has changed. Between 2005 and the most recent available figures (2008), the U.S. abortion rate rose from 19.4 to 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women (aged 15-44). However, Massachusetts is bucking the national trend. In 2005, Massachusetts had a rate of 19.9. In 2006, Romney signed his health care bill. In 2007, the Massachusetts abortion rate dropped to 19.0. In 2008, the Massachusetts abortion rate further dropped to 18.3.

Being pro-life is about saving unborn children, not saving money. A full priced abortion (about 500 dollars) is not a financial deterrent to abortion because a much more costly full-priced delivery is by far a bigger financial deterrent to giving live birth. The trade-off Romney got for allowing the Connector to set co-pay amounts is the ability to assure pregnant women that their pre-natal care, their delivery costs and the future health care needs of their children are all safely taken care of because they are insured. Therefore, they no longer have a financial deterrent to bringing their child into the world.

Rebuttal, Homosexual Education:

Hotze claims that Romney “Boosted funding for homosexual “education” starting in kindergarten.” Hotze’s claim is highly misleading. The reference to kindergarten stems from the fact that homosexual and heterosexual relationships must by law be treated as equal in the MA education system, due to the impact court-imposed gay marriage has on longstanding anti-discrimination laws.

Romney is in no way responsible for that, and it is a separate issue from the alleged “boosted funding” Hotze speaks of. The funding issue relates to the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth which funded speakers and activities for high school children. In truth, Massachusetts had the Commission long before Romney took office. While Romney had power to dissolve the Commission, the people of the state overwhelmingly wanted the Commission; dissolving it would have been a violation of their trust and would have created gridlock.

In the past, the Commission had funding as high as $1.6 million dollars, but Romney brought the funding down to $125,000, which the legislature doubled and Romney the next year settled on the $250,000 that the veto-proof legislature wanted. Romney explained the purpose of the Commission, saying, “The work that they’re doing to prevent suicide and prevent violence is important work, and we support the work which they’re doing.” Indeed, the Commission was founded as a suicide prevention effort for gay youth.

In May of 2006, Governor Romney was shown that the Commission had been sponsoring inappropriate activities. Upon learning of this, Romney decided to dissolve the Commission, but after a few hours reached a compromise, saying that he would only dissolve it if they did not refocus on their “original mission.” This prompted the state legislature to immediately craft a new Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth which the governor would have no power to dissolve, and inserted it into the state budget the following month. Romney vetoed that proposal, but the legislature overrode the veto.

The new “Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth” which Romney vetoed is the one which defines “youth” as being as young as kindergartners. Blaming Romney for that is like blaming President George w. Bush for it since it also happened under his watch. Just because someone is in a position of authority does not mean they have power to control everything that happens in a system of checks of balances. This is particularly true in a state where not only the legislature and courts but also the citizens of the state strongly favor the objectionable activity.

Rebuttal, Gay Scouts:

Hotze claims that Romney “Opposes a ban on homosexual scoutmasters.” But in fact, Romney, who is himself an Eagle Scout, made clear that Boy Scouts have a “right” to decide for themselves. Romney actually said, “I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue,” but added that he personally believed “all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.” Romney did not say “conduct,” he said “orientation,” which of course implies that any scoutmaster would need to commit to living the values of the Boy Scouts of America.

Incidentally, critics claim that Romney banned the Boy Scouts from participating in the 2002 Winter Olympics because of their stance on homosexuals. In reality, Scouts were not banned, and according to a local paper, the Deseret News, Boy Scouts received “a list of volunteer opportunities they are eligible to participate in,” although they could not serve as regular volunteers due to “the minimum age requirement of 18 years.”

Rebuttal, Log Cabin Republicans:

Hotze claims that Romney “Promised the homosexual Republican “Log Cabin Republicans” he wouldn’t oppose “gay marriage” in return for their endorsement.” In reality, Romney had always opposed gay marriage and as governor did everything in his power to fight against it, including his support for an amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Hotze is again choosing to take the word of homosexual activists over the word of Romney. His personal decision to do so hardly constitutes “proof” as he claims.

Furthermore, the conversation between Romney and leaders of the Log Cabin Republicans took place in a bar (Romney doesn’t drink but presumably the others do), which is hardly a condusive atmosphere from which to recall details of a conversation years later. The Log Cabin Republicans are relying on their impressions of the conversation rather than exact quotes in context. For instance, one member recalls Romney saying “I’ll keep my head down,” but that quote is not provided in any context – similar to the “phony soldiers” claim against Rush Limbaugh. Rush did say the words “phony soldiers” but the context is what matters. And Hotze does not have the context of Romney’s words. He only has the impression left in the mind of a gay rights activist years after a conversation took place in a bar.

Rebuttal, Health Care:

Hotze claims that Romney “Instituted a quasi-socialist healthcare plan … that destroyed the Massachusetts’ economy.”

The criticisms of the health care plan Romney passed in Massachusetts are rebutted extensively in my response to Erick Erickson. Because of the length of coverage on this issue, I would refer the reader to that response rather than re-posting the response here.

Rebuttal, Gay Adoption:

Hotze claims that Romney “Forced Catholic Charities, the nation’s #1 adoption and foster care service to place children with same sex couples even though he was under no legal obligation to do so.”

Hotze is grossly distorting what actually happened. Catholic Charities had been adopting children to unmarried same-sex couples for 20 years in order to comply with state law. But before gay marriage was legalized by the court, not many gay couples came forward.

Romney did not come to them to tell them they had to adopt to gay couples. They already were doing so. It was in fact they who came to Romney, asking if he as governor could exempt them from the law which they had been following. But as the Boston Globe reported, “Romney said he lacked the authority to do so.” Romney drafted a bill to exempt Catholic Charities, but the liberal legislature rejected the bill.

In other words, what happened is actually the opposite of what Hotze shamelessly claimed.

Rebuttal, Taxes:

Hotze claims that Romney “Increased taxes and fees by close to a billion dollars which destroyed the Massachusetts’ economy and opposed the Bush Tax Cuts.”

Let’s take these one at a time, starting with taxes in Massachusetts:

Romney did not raise taxes. Hotze is manipulating his readers. Romney repeatedly proposed tax cuts, which were shot down by the Democratic MA legislature, starting as soon as he began to turn around the economy, prompting the liberal Boston Globe to complain after Romney’s first year in office, “The first signs of life appear in the Massachusetts economy and the governor calls for a $225 million tax cut.” Some communities in MA chose to raise property taxes at the local level which Romney had no control over. Also, a tax increase was enacted before Romney was elected governor but took effect during Romney’s term after having been tied up in court for several years.

Some have claimed that closing tax loopholes, as Romney did in Massachusetts, is the same as raising taxes. However, as Ronald Reagan has explained, lower tax rates are good but applying tax rates evenly – by removing loopholes – is also good.

Reagan: “Tax loopholes have been closed, making the tax structure more equitable.” (Budget Proposal to Congress, January 31, 1983)

Reagan: “Tax loopholes have been closed, improving the equity of the system.” (Feb. 4, 1985)

Reagan Q&A:

Question: “But in addition to that, you’re also talking about loopholes, tax breaks, whatever you want to call it.

Reagan’s Answer: “I hesitate, I won’t answer that now, as to what all will be in the study. We are, as I said before, in our present proposal, we are changing some that we believe, while they were undoubtedly well-intentioned, they have led to some taking an, getting an advantage that is denied to others. Where that is true, then that should be corrected, whether you have a deficit or have a tax reform or not.” (March 28, 1984)

As Reagan understood, level competition ensures maximum value for the consumer. The laws as originally written did not intend for the tax “breaks” in question to be legal. They were oversights. So closing the loopholes does not have the effect of raising taxes but has the effect of applying tax rates evenly and honoring the original intent of the law, which is a fundamental principle of conservative capitalism. If one business is paying less in taxes because of a loophole, the state is giving them an unfair advantage over their competitors. Because of this unfair advantage they do not need to offer as high of a quality of product or service in order to compete, which means the state is interfering in free market competition, and capitalism suffers. Romney repeatedly proposed tax cuts in MA, however the legislature wouldn’t go along with the larger ones.

Fees

Romney sides with Reagan on fees. Romney saved millions of tax dollars by ending the taxpayer subsidizing of fees. A fee covers the cost for a special good or service provided to an individual by the government; when a fee is not high enough to cover the cost of the service provided, taxpayers end up subsidizing. Romney shifted the burden from the community onto the individual who benefits from the service provided.

Every state raises fees to keep up with the cost of service. Texas Governor Rick Perry, for instance, has accurately stated that he has not raised taxes. He has however raised fees by several billion dollars. In MA, some fees had not been raised in a very long time.

Ronald Reagan was an outspoken proponent of fees. For instance, here is one of Reagan’s many statements: “The third component of the deficit reduction program involves user fees, or more appropriately, the recovery of costs borne by the taxpayers generally, but that predominantly benefit a limited group of businesses, communities or individuals … it is simply inexcusable and intolerable that yacht owners escape without paying even a small part of the Coast Guard services; or that commercial and general aviation are not paying the cost of the air traffic control system that ensures their safety; or that ship and barge operators do not pay a fair share of the costs of waterways maintained by the Federal Government. Our user fee package corrects these and similar shortcomings in current budget policy and will contribute significantly toward reducing the deficit” (February 8, 1982).

Some specific fee-related concerns people have expressed are addressed as follows:

Fuel fee. Romney updated an already existing per-gallon gasoline fee to offset state costs in managing underground fuel storage leaks. At the time, Romney faced a backlog of cleanup claims for the underfunded state program. It is true that in the years since this increase, the fee has generated more revenue than Romney had anticipated. The initial costs, caused by the backlog of claims, were not representative of future costs, due to improved storage tank quality. So that was a mistake, however I think the important thing is that Romney did not spend the surplus but tried to return it to the people. Romney turned a 3 Billion dollar budget deficit crisis into a surplus. He put the surplus in a rainy day fund and tried to give back to the taxpayers most of the 240 million which he estimated had been raised by fees, starting as soon as he began to turn around the economy, prompting the liberal Boston Globe to complain after Romney’s first year in office, “The first signs of life appear in the Massachusetts economy and the governor calls for a $225 million tax cut” (“Romney’s Real Agenda” The Boston Globe 11 May 2004).

Parking fee at state parks. The taxpayer was paying for the parking space. One parking space costs over 20,000 dollars, not including upkeep, re-pavement, snow removal, security etc. Facing a budget crisis, Romney realized the state could no longer subsidize public leisure. To provide the service, the cost shifted from the taxpayer to the individual who chooses to use the service.

Gun permits. First, when Romney did his update it only raised the fee to $75. The legislature later brought it to $100, which Romney partially compensated for by ordering that people not be charged for replacing of lost or stolen permits, and signing a law allowing permits to expire after 6 years instead of 3. The reason for the fee increase was the MA gun control act of 1998 which declared that the licensing authority is only allowed to keep half of the fee, and the rest goes into a new record-keeping fund. The act also institutes a number of other changes which raise overhead and impacted costs. The people are ultimately responsible for this new fund and all the new regulations and overhead, since they elected their representatives. Thus, the people collectively chose the cost of providing the service, before Romney was Governor. Inflation was also relevant, but unlike most of the fees Romney updated, inflation was only a secondary factor for the increased gun permit costs.

Bush Tax Cuts

Romney never opposed the Bush tax cuts. In negotiations with a heavily Democratic legislature, Romney chose not to “weigh in on federal issues,” including the cuts.

The false claim was based on speculation in an article for the liberal Boston Globe which cited a quote from an anonymous “observer” at a private meeting but did not seek either a response or clarification from Romney with regards to that quote. Romney maintains that he has always supported the Bush tax cuts, a fact which does not contradict his decision to not distract from where his impact would be most effective, saying as governor: “I see my role as helping do a good job for the people of Massachusetts, and so I’m not going to be playing a political role outside of that.”

Romney, who evidently was never asked by Bush to endorse the tax cuts, never said he would refuse to endorse the tax cuts. The word “refuse,” used by the writer of the article, initially came from a political antagonist, liberal Democratic Representative Barney Frank from MA, whose statement, calculated to weaken Romney, is not an objective characterization.

Rebuttal, Human Events:

Hotze says Romney was “Voted # 8 RINO by Human Events.”

This only shows the anti-Romney echo chamber at work, believing the false claims repeated by others in the chamber. For instance, the Human Events article claims that Romney supports civil unions but Romney has always opposed civil unions. The only time he said he would be willing to go along with civil unions was as a downgrade from gay marriage.

Rebuttal, Judicial Appointments:

Hotze says Romney has “Passed over Republican lawyers for three quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he faced and nominated 2 open homosexuals.”

What Hotze is missing is that there are different types of judges. Dick Cheney has vocally supported gay marriage. That doesn’t mean that if he had a law degree he wouldn’t make an excellent district court judge, dealing directly with violent criminals and putting them away. In fact, Dick Cheney would be particularly well suited for such a position. Almost all of Romney’s appointments, 30 out of 36, were to lower court positions where judges deal directly with violent criminals at the district and magistrate levels. Rather than political affiliation, Romney looked for effective prosecutorial experience and a record of being tough on crime. As Romney explained when asked about it, “people on both sides of the aisle want to put the bad guys away.”

So in some cases the best nominees were pro-choice or supported gay marriage. Remember, Rick Perry endorsed Rudy Giuliani for president, even though Giuliani is pro-choice, and “appointing” someone to the Presidency is far more significant than a low level court position.

Romney explained that even though he had only a few chances to appoint judges to higher courts, and no chances to appoint anyone to the MA Supreme Judicial Court, in those cases the criteria changes to include “strict construction, judicial philosophy,” which he adhered to in those appointments. In all, only 12.5% of registered voters in Massachusetts are Republican and Romney’s 9 Republican nominees count for 25% of his total judicial appointments, representing Republicans twice as well as they are represented in the general voting public. But more important than political affiliation, Romney’s appointments represent the “relevant” conservative qualifications.

Rebuttal, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman:

Hotze claims Romney “Criticized Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace for saying that homosexual acts were ‘immoral.’”

What Romney actually said was not a reaction to Pace’s comment but a reaction to Pace’s retraction of the comment, “I think General Pace has said that he regrets having said that, and I think he was wise to have issued an apology, or a withdrawal of that comment.”

So Hotze was clearly twisting Romney’s words yet again, proving again that the echo chamber can’t be trusted.

Rebuttal, ENDA:

Hotze says that Romney “Supports passage at the state level of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would force churches and other religious organizations to hire homosexuals and transvestites or face criminal fines and prosecution.”

Romney understands and Hotze should understand that the Constitutional right to practice religion exempts religious institutions from any statute. Perhaps a liberal judge might disregard the constitution, but that is a different problem. With respect to Romney, of course he doesn’t want to force religious institutions to hire people who disagree with their beliefs and standards.

Rebuttal, McCain-Feingold:

Hotze claims, “Romney supported McCain-Feingold “campaign finance reform”, McCain-Kennedy “comprehensive immigration reform” (i.e. amnesty), and parts of the McCain-Lieberman “carbon cap and trade” bill and opposed the Bush Tax Cuts.”

Funny that Hotze is repeating the Bush Tax Cuts claim which we debunked above. Perhaps he’s trying to pad his list. On McCain-Feingold, Hotze is just plain confused. His source (as he calls it, “proof”) doesn’t even mention McCain-Feingold. And of course Romney always opposed it. The source also says nothing about McCain-Lieberman, and I’ve never heard that claim before. And of course Romney did not endorse McCain-Kennedy. He outright opposed it. In a 2005 interview with the Boston Globe he explicitly refused to endorse it. Romney did, in the same interview, politely say that the bill being proposed at the time was “reasonable,” but by 2007 the bill was very different from the 2005 bill, and it was much less reasonable. In 2005 it did not have the provisions Romney most strongly objected to in the 2007 version, like the z-visa.

Conclusion

Like so many others, Hotze just accepted what he heard in the anti-Romney echo chamber, then ran with the accusation that Romney has no core beliefs. And he did so without looking into the other side. At all.

I’m reminded of “The Screwtape Letters” by C.S. Lewis. In these letters, a senior tempter named Screwtape instructs his young apprentice, Wormwood, on how people are misled. Among other things, Screwtape tells Wormwood to discourage thoughtful argument, for “By the very act of arguing, you awake the patient’s reason, and once it is awake, who can foresee the result?” According to Screwtape, it is better to “give him a grand general sense that he knows it all and that everything he happens to have picked up in casual talk and reading is ‘the results of modern investigation.’”

Hotze’s piece recycles the same false attacks we’ve seen before. Help stop the growth of the anti-Romney echo chamber by telling everyone you know about WhyRomney.com. We need your help in getting the truth to those with ears to hear.

With your help, even the hardest anti-Romney smear artists like Hotze will be forced to confront the truth.

Via Don Irvine of Accuracy in Media notes this part of an Esquire interview with Bill Clinton:

I was just watching MSNBC, and they had a woman that used to work for me and a couple of other people on there, and they were talking about the Republican primary. And I was laughing. I said, “Boy, it really has become our version of Fox.” And I say that because think of the economics of running cable channels. Suppose you and I bought a cable channel, and he [pointing] bought another. You know that to make a living out of it, you’ve got to get about eight hundred thousand viewers for all your major programs. So you can get eight hundred thousand, and you won’t be as wealthy as Fox, but you’ll do okay. And now if you get a slice that’s that small and still viable — and you know it’s not like when we just had NBC, CBS, and ABC. That’s all there was. Everybody had enough market share that they knew would guarantee some comfortable level of profit. And yet there was enough competition that everybody could keep each other honest, and when the Vietnam War came along, they could send fifty-five-year-old reporters to Vietnam for extended stays. They could afford to have correspondents in Europe to report. Correspondents in Asia. All that’s changed now. And so the good news is you can get a lot of information off the Internet for free and in a hurry. But I think the breaking up of the media, which is otherwise kind of healthy, has contributed to less actual reporting and a louder, more contentious, more divisive public discourse, highlighting conflict, sometimes falsely.

Tina Korbe notes:

If by “our version of Fox,” Bill Clinton means MSNBC is a less-trusted, lower-rated, liberal attempt to emulate the Fox business model, then he’s right. But if he means to suggest that MSNBC filled a gaping hole in the media as Fox did, then he’s wrong. With its innovative consumer-targeted programming, Fox told a story that the networks didn’t tell. The Fox news crews provided information that wasn’t readily available elsewhere.

Barack Obama appointed 2nd term Kansas Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services and Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano to serve as Secretary of Homeland Security. Both Governorships are now held by Republicans.

Those were Republican states, so the change wasn’t too much of a shock, however in 2010, Barack Obama’s Illinois senate seat was filled by Republican Mark Kirk and the seat in Delaware vacated by Joe Biden was poised to be so much of a shoe-in for a Republican pickup by Mike Castle that Bidens son turned down the option to run for his fathers seat and lose. Republicans in Delaware, however, denied Mike Castle the nomination and instead ran Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell who handily lost to her politically unknown opponent who now resides in Washington.

In 2012, the selection of states with senate elections is particularly favorable to Republicans and we predict that regardless of the Presidential results, that the Republicans will keep the House and win control over the Senate.

But could things get even better for the party – and more importantly: for the party’s conservative base – if  it takes over the Presidency as well? At the time of this writing, Mitt Romney is poised to capture the nomination, and we will operate under the conceit that he will go on to do so, although the following analysis would admittedly apply to any of his competitors. The number of those below who support and have endorsed Romney, however, makes this selection particularly apt to him in particular.

Any Republican in and out of elected office could possibly be appointed anywhere, but this list is one that combines 1) the most moderate (ie: least conservative) Senators, 2) the ones most likely to be on short lists for cabinet appointments and 3) are from traditionally Republican states, making a higher than average likelihood of their successors not only being of the same party, but being more to the right than they were.

Here is the list of people whom Mitt Romney could appoint to his administration to thus make the Senate more conservative:

John McCain: The conservative base has been annoyed by moderate-McCains brand of Republicanism most vocally since he lost the Presidential nomination to George W Bush in 2000. Since then, McCains left leaning votes in the senate only made things worse and he secured the nomination for President in 2008, only to be successfully smeared as being no different than George W Bush. So the man is useless to conservatives: He fights against them in the senate and then the one time where his moderate party bucking history could have helped them keep the Whitehouse, he fails and it gives us the most left wing president we’ve ever experienced. All this sounds like it would make McCain easy to primary out of the party and out of Washington, yet he remains invincible.

McCain won re-election in 2010 and even though he stated this would be his last term as senator, it would be nice if the right could replace him sooner. That leaves only early retirement/resignation, cabinet appointment or death – and since we we know he would never resign except for health reasons and since we here wish the senator many more years to his life, we suggest and hope for an appointment by the man McCain has endorsed in the Republican primary.

Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense would fit McCains strong points and persona nicely and we’re putting him at the top of this list because such a venue of service is the Senators last major shot to bookend his political life. He served the country in Vietnam, he served as Senator, he tried to serve as President and now a high ranking job within the Presidency is the last best fit for McCain to go rather than fizzle the remainder of his political career by serving out his current senate term and retiring.

Lisa Murkowski: The moderate and often times left-of-center senator from Alaska faced re-election in 2010 and failed to capture the Republican nomination, losing to Sarah Palin endorsed Tea Party candidate and former magistrate judge Joe Miller. Murkowski went on to make history by mounting a write-in campaign and defeated the Republican, Miller and the Democrat whom no one cares about, winning re-election without her parties nomination. Murkowski remains a Republican in the senate, however she also remains a pro-choice, big government stalwart.

Murkowski may not want to fight another primary battle in 5 years and may welcome a cabinet appointment. The vacated seat would almost certainly stay Republican and even more certainly be that of a more conservative Republican than Murkowski.

In December of 2011, Murkowski endorsed Mitt Romney in the GOP Primary.

Lindsay Graham: A close McCain friend and ally who endorsed him in 2000 and served as national co-chairman of McCain’s 2008 presidential bid, Graham is notorious for being too moderate for the party base and poking them in their collective eye on key issues.

Graham has a knack for being “conservative enough” on the main issues to keep his parties support, while taking the McCain/Huntsman path in the public eye and criticizing his party frequently.

He is also notorious for being a policy and procedural wonk and would make a good cabinet appointment for Romney, opening the South Carolina senate seat for a more appealing conservative candidate to run and win in a special election.

Graham has not endorsed anyone in the GOP Primary.

Orin Hatch: The conservative, but moderately conservative senator has been in office for 35 years, is running for re-election in 2012 and, having already survived a Tea Party primary, is likely to win in 2012.

Hatch’s experience in the senate makes him a perfect cabinet appointment and the open seat in conservative Utah is the surest shot in the country to elect a much more conservative, younger Republican Senator in his place.

As detailed below, there is reason to believe Hatch may not not be campaigning for a cabinet position, but 50/50 odds on whether he would be considered for and accept one.

Romney has endorsed Senator Hatch for re-election and Hatch has endorsed Mitt Romney in the GOP Primary.

Richard Lugar: the senior United States Senator from Indiana is the longest-serving Senator in Indiana’s history and is running for re-election in 2012. He is likely to win despite the strong Tea Party opposition he faces and many fear he could be successfully primaried but pull a Murkowski in the general election and win.

One problem is that as the most senior Republican member of the Senate, Lugar will likely be elected President pro tempore of the Senate should Republicans gain control of the body in 2012, as we’re predicting. This fact combined with the fact that Lugar is running for re-election at all, could suggest that he is not interested in a cabinet appointment. Along this same line: Orrin Hatch disputes the claim that Lugar is the most senior Republican, based on a different interpretation of the Republican Conference’s seniority rules, which could suggest that Hatch too would rather stay in the Senate for the remainder of his career.

When a president calls you to serve, however, not many men and women refuse, so too much should not be read into these details.

Possible Bonus Seat:

Thad Cochran: The senator from conservative Mississipi is 74 and has been in the senate for 33 years. Cochran’s voting record is considered fairly moderate by Southern Republican standards. He has a lifetime rating of 80 from the American Conservative Union. In 2008, he garnered a rating of 68 from the ACU; the only Republican Senators from Southern states to score lower were Mel Martinez of Florida and John Warner of Virginia.

Love4utah.com

Can’t wait for the Christie-Love presidential ticket…

More from the Daily Herald:

Love set out three priorities that she would focus on as a congresswoman: cutting spending, reining in federal regulations and helping Utah gain control of the federally owned land within its borders. She focused her energy at the announcement on articulating her desire to see the federal government run on a balanced budget and cut its spending.

“It is immoral,” said Love of the federal government’s $16 trillion debt. “We can no longer allow politicians to kick the can down the road.”

Love said her plan to bring down government spending would include dramatic changes to the federal government like ending the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, and repealing President Barack Obama’s health care law. She said she would like to see all of these issues handled by the states.

“We are spending a whole lot of money on things we shouldn’t be involved in,” Love said.

Love joins three other Republican candidates who all hope to win the nomination and then take on Utah’s longest serving U.S. House member, Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah. Love’s position as a mayor, and not a member (or former member) of the state Legislature — like two of her opponents — could give her an advantage in the race, since the Legislature, at times, has a public image problem.

“She has a leg up in getting noticed and distinguishing herself,” said Quin Monson, of Brigham Young University’s Center for the study of Elections and Democracy.

Monson noted that all four of the Republican candidates have the potential to feel the same on many issues, which would in turn cause voters to look for the small differences to set each candidate apart. He observed that for Love to succeed she will have to act different and unique enough from the other candidates.

He also stated that the candidate who ends up winning the GOP nomination will have to walk the fine line of being conservative enough to win the support of the Republican delegates but moderate enough to win the middle-of-the-road Republicans who in past elections have voted for Matheson.

Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, former state representative Carl Wimmer and South Jordan resident Jay Cobb are also vying for the GOP nomination.

Other attacks have come from pro-Romney PACs and Newt Gingrich has an incoherent complaint about them. He is angry over some of the ads alleged untruths and has bashed Romney in very personal terms – calling him a liar and asking if he would show those ads to his grandchildren, implying that he should be ashamed…of advertisements Romney did not write, did not approve and did not have anything to do with. In fact, it is illegal for a candidate to have any such involvement with a PAC.

Michael Hirsh in the National Journal notes:

So let’s briefly play out the pretense of the coming days. Gingrich, who along with Santorum remains Romney’s only viable competitor, will huff and puff about the negative ads that Romney’s super PAC ran about him in Iowa. (Actually, all those ads did was point out accurately that Gingrich bears the “baggage” of two decades of expediency, hypocrisy, and flip-flopping in Washington.) Then Newt, who is among the most negative politicians in modern memory, will permit his own super PAC to attack the former Massachusetts governor over his less-than-conservative record.

All of which will do little to help Gingrich achieve what is almost certainly already beyond him, the Republican nomination, and will only boost Romney with the independent and centrist voters he needs to win in the general election, as will the inevitable attacks by Santorum.

Byron York calls Romneys position disingenuous in what is itself a disingenuous claim:

Where Gingrich has been naive, Romney has been disingenuous. Asked Dec. 20 why he didn’t tell the super-PAC to stop the negative ads, Romney answered, “It’s illegal … I’m not allowed to communicate with a super-PAC in any way, shape or form.” Asked the same question the next day — after experts pointed out there was no law or rule preventing him from condemning the negative ads — Romney said, “I’m sure I could go out and say, ‘Hey please don’t do anything negative.’ But you know, this is politics.”

Spot the difference?

York says Romney was disingenuous for…er…accurately citing a law he was being asked to break.

Then when Romney was asked a different question, which was essentially “why don’t you just say you don’t like them instead of actually tell the PAC to pull them”, he didn’t dispute that of course he could say that but what for? Why would he? The guy isn’t against negative campaign ads. So… what is the bit of disingenuousness?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I think that some people have either lost a sense of historical perspective here or are expecting an unrealistically quick sea change if their contention is that Romney is unacceptably moderate to get their vote in a general election. Turning back the wayback machine to 1992, recall that our nominee (among other things) was most recently known for 1) raising taxes and 2) nominating a pro-choice justice to the Supreme Court. In 1996 we ran “tax collector for the welfare state” Bob Dole, whose cronies groused openly about removing the pro-life plank from the Republican party platform. In 2000, George W. Bush ran on an open platform of instituting the largest entitlement expansion in decades (Medicare Part D), amnesty for illegal aliens, and loads of other big government ideas. I mean, GWB wasn’t defending having done those things in the past, he explicitly told us that if elected, he would implement them as President. To say nothing of the fact that his wife was openly pro-choice and he flirted openly with the idea of selecting Tom Ridge as VP. In 2008, we ran a guy whose entire national name ID was due to the fact that he was, without a doubt, the handiest and most available useful idiot for the media to grab when they needed a Republican to criticize the Republican party.

Now, Mitt Romney has often been criticized (fairly and completely accurately, in my opinion) as a flip-flopper. I agree that this is less than a desirable trait and if I had my druthers I would prefer someone like Rick Perry who has been more or less consistently conservative for a relatively long time (an easier feat in Texas than Massachusetts, no doubt, but that is beside the point). However, the most salient point I can divine about this criticism, given the fact that Romney’s latest flops are all to the right, is that Romney is being criticized for accurately perceiving that he needs conservatives. Yes, I would agree that Romney would bear careful watching as President and constant egging on from Congress, but I would certainly prefer someone who panders to me for political reasons than someone who openly gives me the finger in order to pander to centrists and/or leftists, which is exactly what we have gotten in terms of Presidential nominees for the last 20 years.

When asked if he could vote for Ron Paul if he were the nominee, Mitt Romney said of course he could.

Ron Paul has in turn said that Romney “gets it” about big Government and has not attacked him hard in the debates or in his commercials. The worst he’s said is that Romney is a “flip flopper” in one Ron Paul PAC commercial.

Ron Paul has however attacked almost every other candidate on the stage, in pretty harsh terms. He’s called Perry and Santorum big government conservatives and gone after Gingrich the harshest, calling him a draft dodging hypocrite. But Romney has received hardly anything.

When Ron Paul was on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, he said Michelle Bachmann “hates muslims. she wants to go get em” but of Romney he said “he’s a nice guy”.

I propose today that it is not at all impossible that Ron Paul endorses Mitt Romney and campaigns for the Romney/Paul ticket – which would be a big deal since Ron Paul did not endorse or vote for either Bush or McCain in the previous elections.

Here is the caveat, however: under this scenario, Ron Paul is not Vice President. Under no scenario will Ron Paul be the nominee or nominee for VP. but his son…Senator Rand Paul… a man who has all of the free market small government ideals of his father but much less of the foreign policy potholes that makes people nervous and none of the baggage… Now THAT is an acute possibility. and its one that no one has put forth (that i’m aware of) so far…

UPDATE: January 10th - Why Ron Paul is Mitt Romney’s best friend, part two

With Paul still in the race, it becomes much harder for whatever other non-Romney candidate might emerge, because the anti-Romney vote is suddenly split in two.

If Paul can continue to take 15 or 20 percent of the vote — or even just 10 percent — in these contests, the threshold of victory for Romney in that three-way race is much lower than it would be in a head-to-head race.

And the more Romney keeps finishing first, the more it will be clear that he’s the presumptive nominee, which will probably only increase the margin of his victories. At that point, it will likely be impossible for the non-Romney candidate to continue to fund and run a real campaign.

Remember 2008, when Mike Huckabee seemed to be sticking around even as the race was pretty clearly coming down to Romney and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)? Huckabee’s continued presence in that race — particularly on Super Tuesday — similarly split the anti-McCain vote and probably ruined any chance Romney had of overtaking the frontrunner.

This time, Romney could very well be on the winning side of that equation.

UPDATE: January 10th - Ron Paul defends Romney

In Paul’s view, Romney is right to say that he created jobs by restructuring companies.

“I think they’re way overboard on saying that he wants to fire people, he doesn’t care,” Paul said. “You save companies, you save jobs when you reorganize companies that are going to go bankrupt. And they don’t understand that.”

Look, I don’t think Paul has a serious chance to win the nomination, but to my surprise he has run a quite serious campaign. Watching his speech last night confirmed this. Paul knows he is a million-to-one shot to win, but he also knows that if it comes down to just him and Romney, with the vote floor he’s established early, that he could run as high or higher in a lot of states, and come to the convention with a non-trivial number of delegates and an agenda. His holding his fire on, and even defending, Romney from Perry/Gingrich attacks confirms the strategic sophistication of his campaign. Paul’s defense of free enterprise is certainly a principled one. But it also supports his interest in seeing the field winnowed down. It might also reflect a desire not to do damage to the presumptive party nominee — whom Paul has suggested he prefers to Obama — if he can build a strong position without doing so. Either way, Paul has shown a level of rationality and maturity that contradicts the caricatures.

By contrast, Newt Gingrich, the would-be anti-Romney who flew higher and fell farther than all the others, is looking ever more like an embittered fringe candidate running on pure spite, caring but little about the damage he may be doing to the party or the chances of defeating Barack Obama.

So which is the serious Anti-Romney, and which is the nut?