Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Gridlock in '08

Mitt Romney attacks McCain on gay marriage:

Eager to position himself as the most conservative GOP presidential hopeful, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney accused Sen. John McCain Monday of being “disingenuous” on gay marriage.

In an interview with The Examiner, Romney described himself as more conservative than Republican rivals McCain, R-Ariz., and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani on a variety of issues. “We’re in a different place on immigration; we’re in a different place on campaign reform; we’re in a different place on same–sex marriage; we’re in a different place on the president’s policy on interrogation of detainees,” Romney said.

So in his first move in the 2008 campaign Romney uses homosexuals as a wedge issue against McCain. This validates the left’s worst fears of Republicans, doesn’t it?

I support gay marriage. What do I care if two men get married? Granted, there are complications involving business. Companies will be forced not to discriminate against homosexual spouses getting benefits, but this comes from a wider problem of government interfering with the economy and regulating business. The answer is not to make gay marriage illegal, but to free the economy.

On the other issues Romney brought up, I probably agree with him on campaign reform and interrogation of detainees.

Michael Medved said today on the radio that Romney will get the nomination easily because he is the only real conservative. I don’t see any evidence that Romney is a free market conservative. He is a social and religious conservative.

It’s way too early to endorse yet -- the primaries are still a year and a half away -- but I’m leaning toward a vote for Hillary for President and Republicans for Congress. Gridlock in ’08, that’s my bumper sticker. You heard it here first.


Anonymous said...

I'm thinking the same thing. Hopefully the Rebpublicans will be able to take back Congress in '08 or else Hillary plus a Democratic Congress would be an unmitigated disaster.

Its a really wierd time in history. There is so much wealth and relative freedom but yet disaster looms essentially everywhere.


SN said...

"I don’t see any evidence that Romney is a free market conservative."
He's the governor who supported a "universal healthcare" law for Mass.

I think a Democrat President with a GOP legislature is the best combination. A GOP president will continue to give Capitalism a bad name (like a political version of what Keynes did in "saving Capitalism"). Both types will enact bad legislation, but -- in the long run -- it will be easier to unwind a law that was introduced under the color of anti-Capitalism.

For instance, if one wants to unwind Bush's Medicare changes, the argument becomes" we tried his free-market approach, so let's try a more socialist approach now". OTOH, if Hillary had introduced exactly the same law, the argument becomes: "let's give the free-market a chance".

I agree that an all-Democrat government would be a disaster.

SN said...

Sorry to double-post, but I really wanted to add the following: I do think that we've let the GOP have as many Supreme court nominees as we can afford. If one of the non-religious ones show signs of resigning under a Democrat president, that would take me very far toward voting for Hillary. (puke)

EdMcGon said...

Personally, I would prefer it the other way around: Republican president with a Democratic Congress. As long as we are in the "War on Terror", I would prefer a president who doesn't send his attorney general to fight all our wars for us. ;)