I just learned tonight, that Ronald Reagan signed into law pro-Abort law two (2) years before 1973 Roe v. Wade came down from U.S. Supreme Court favoring abortion rights, so-called. Of course, as all true Conservatives know, and as everyone else in America and around the world should know, if you do not have the Right to Life, you do not have any Rights or Standing under the laws of your particular Nation State in today's Modern World. So then, is it okay for Ronald Reagan to change his mind about Abortion, as he evidently did, but not Mitt Romney, who has plainly said he has changed his mind on this subject of abortion? As to Romney being far less facile and nimble in his political repartee under the television klieg lights and in front of the cameras, that my friend takes 30 years' experience walking the Washington insider halls of our U.S. Government in Washington, DC. With time, Mitt Romney will get as good at that, as his Opponent, John McCain, and as former TV Star Ronald Reagan was at 30-second sound bites and framing the issues and hiring good stand up comedy/politics writers like Jon Stewart, Jay Leno, and others have done. I liked Mitt Romney for years, and his Father, the former Governor from Michigan, years before that. But as Governor of Massachusetts, and now as candidate for the Republican Party nomination for the U.S. Presidency, I do not like Mitt Romney so much. I like him a whole lot better than John McCain, who talks about a "100 years' war" in Iraq like it's just another roasting chestnut to throw onto the fire of his political speeches. As such, John McCain, who I have known for years as not only a total "loose cannon" politically, but also as a pal of lots of sneaky American power Putschists like Newt Gingrich, Vin Weber and others, McCain appeals far less well to me, than Mitt Romney does. Mitt talks about arcane business executive policy initiatives like "capital gains tax reduction" when what I want to hear from him is who he is and why I should vote for him, not for his pretend manque of Ronald Reagan Reborn. Nobody could fill Reagan's shoes anyway; like many special American characters of his era, he was a "One of a Kind" Guy. Also, he was originally from the Midwest, just like Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee, and myself, and Bill and Hillary Clinton. Obama went to that elitist training ground, Harvard, which totally "gives me the willies" about him. I don't know Obama, but I do know a thing or two about Massachusetts, and about Harvard. I don't want another U.S. President from there. In fact, if I did not have a more broad and generous view of "Massachusetts Mitt" I would not like the idea of him running for President, either. However, it was my idea in the original, to run Mitt Romney against Ted Kennedy for U.S. Senator from Massachusetts. He was a strong candidate, who gave Ted the strongest challenge he has ever faced. A few months later, a Massachusetts Governor whom I despised, a Republican from Harvard named Bill Weld, vacated his office, and Mitt Romney having just run Statewide for Senator, was able to run successfully for Governor. I think we had an interim couple of governors, maybe a couple of lieutenant governors who became governor. They were not impressive to me, either. Mitt Romney, however, offers voters a real choice, and it is a quality choice because he is more than his political experience, resume, and the office he is seeking. I mean, the guy has a real family, he has a genuine dynamism, and he has an active sense of American history, optimism, and authentic "Can Do" spirit which dates to the origins of America, and certainly echoes the era of "The Greatest Generation" (Tom Brokaw's book about World War II Veterans) and even the generations at the dawn of the 20th Century, my Grandparent's generation, immediately preceding later, Modern Age arrivals such as the automobile, refrigeration, mechanized warfare and factories in metropolis cities.
Personally, I like Mike Huckabee for President, because I don' t think America can recover it's greatness, until America ditches it's infatuation with death dealing abortions. While I understand that convenience has its place, for example at the McDonald's drive-in, or use of frozen food dinners, there is no place for convenience when it comes to human life. And because America's coastal areas, East and West, do not seem to grasp or are completely unable to understand my Midwestern objections to pro-Abort policies, I think we need to ram this legislation down the throats of the Ted Kennedys and others, like they did pro-Abort policies, to the Heartland of America. Mitt Romney may or may not be up to that task, but I trust Mike Huckabee will prove eloquent and effective in getting this essential "Job One" done.
Maybe Mitt Romney can serve as Vice President under Mike Huckabee. That would work for me. Even the other way around is acceptable to me.
As to Hillary Clinton, I have always thought well of both her and Bill Clinton, except for that Democratic Party they carry like an albatross around their necks to the finish line every time they win an election. I do not favor feminism, and I do not favor abortion; Should the Democratic Party nominate anyone other than Hillary Clinton, they will surely lose to whomever the Republicans put up in the Fall. She is the only candidate they offer, who could provide the kind of leadership America needs, which is leadership that addresses everyone in America, not just those groups peculiar to the Democratic Party who I deign to catalog here.
This "Super Duper Tuesday" or National Primary" is exactly what is wrong with American politics, since at least the McGovern/Gary Hart takeover of the Democratic Party in 1972: People in leadership positions, who actually might have something constructive to say about who the Party nominates for elective office, are "aced out" by our new system of Big Money, "K" Street Lobbyists and Special Interest Groups, election consultants, television specialists, corporatized media coverage, and Voters who don't know how to genuinely get good questions asked, nor figure out what candidates really stand for. Remember: Both the Democratic and Republican American Political Parties, agreed in collusion a few years ago, to freeze out the League of Women Voters organization from having anything to do with organizing candidate forums or debates. This perfidy against an informed American Electorate took place, despite the fact that this League of Women Voters had done such a stellar job of putting on similar programs on many previous occasions. Those recent corporate media sponsored "debates" do not "hold a candle" to the events put on by the League of Women Voters. Now, that is your "Straight Talk". <link>
