Those Mean Republicans

What a coincidence and “Who Really Cares“

This past Tuesday I read a Thomas Sowell article about the book referenced above and was going to write about it.  I held off because I haven’t read the book and can’t cite the author’s sources.  I still haven’t read the book, but as coincidence would have it as I was traveling home from Northern New Jersey tonight I had the opportunity to speak with the author.

On my drive I was listening to Bruce Elliott on WBAL.  His guest was the author of this very book, Arthur Brooks, a Professor of Public Administration and Director of the Nonprofit Studies Program at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

So I called in to the show and asked Professor Brooks about his sources.  He replied that the book documents his sources thoroughly, and then reminded me of what he has said earlier which was that he doubted his original conclusions so he went back and got new data.  What happened?  He came up with the very same results.  He also said that his book (released on Tuesday) would certainly lead to a lot of recriminations and “do overs”.  However, he stands by the book and would defend his conclusions.

All the rage

John Stossel, ABC 20/20, did a report on the topic.

Bill O’Reilly did too

A Primer for you.

One of the primary differences between liberals and conservatives is what the role of the Federal government has in meeting the social welfare needs of its citizens.  I think we almost all agree that government has a role here.  However, the rub is how much of a role.  Pardon the stereotypes here, but I adhere to these beliefs.

Liberals typically think the Feds have a larger role in this area than conservatives do.  Conservatives tend to lean more toward personal responsibility.  Liberals tend to believe that the government should provide more services and if a redistribution of wealth (via taxes) is required to do so then they are more inclined to go that route. 

Like most people I have compassion for those less fortunate than me and I want to help.  I don’t want to give government a blank check to do so.  Not because it is my money.  Not because that blank check means money at all.  That blank check means more government power, intervention, and authoritarianism.  Government does great things.  Government (particularly the Feds) also does things that it should not be doing because it doesn’t have the constitutional authority to do them.  They also don’t do them that well.

I am not the only one who thought so.

Thomas Jefferson said many things and is often quoted like the bible.  Here is one for you:

“The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers.”

Thomas Jefferson and his peers were all to aware of the calamity of the man named Oliver Cromwell and the King of England and what absolute power can do to the people of a nation.  They wanted limited Federal government for a very good reason – they were afraid of a Federal government that would grow so large that it would threaten our liberties.  That it would create an Oliver Cromwell.

What am I talking about?  I am talking about a Federal government who redistributes wealth to everyone.  Corporate welfare.  Social welfare.  Agricultural welfare.  Perscription drug welfare.  Congress has a great thing going.  They take our money and use it maintain power by giving money to the special interest of the day.  IBM one day and the bridge to no where the next.  Over 2/3rds of the Federal budget goes to these kinds of programs moving money from one group to another group.  That creates great constituencies and a “submission to a government of unlimted powers.” that keep them in power.

My point being that conservatives are concerned about limiting the role and influence of the federal government in order to preserve our liberty.  That is why they favor limited taxes and limited government programs.  That does not mean they don’t believe in charity and it doesn’t mean they are not generous.  In fact…

Conservatives are the most generous of all.

When it comes to charity we are a generous nation.  In addition to what Government provides via our tax dollars 75% of Americans give money to charity and 50% donate time to charity.  In those terms Conservatives are the most generous of all.

According to Professor Brooks research conservatives and especially religious conservatives are much more likely to put their money where their mouth is and contribute more money and time to both secular and religious charities.

In Who Really Cares, he demonstrates conclusively that conservatives really are compassionate-far more compassionate than their liberal foes. Strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills-all of these factors determine how likely one is to give. Charity matters–not just to the givers and to the recipients, but to the nation as a whole.

Some might argue that Government spending is charity.  I think the IRS would beg to differ.  Taxes are not voluntary and do not constitute charitable giving by individuals.  Regardless of the necessity, intent, or purpose of taxes they are a redistrtibution of wealth when spent on social services. 

It isn’t just that conservatives are more likely to donate to charity but on average a conservative family gives 30% more than a liberal family and what is more on average liberal household income is 6% higher that a conservative household.

This is an interesting factoid:

If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply in the United States would jump by about 45 percent.

Residents of the top 5 red states were twice as likely to volunteer to help the poor than the botton 5 red states.  The more red the state the more volunteers for charitable causes (remember both secular and religious).

The average percentage of household income donated to charity in each state tracked closely with the percentage of the popular vote it gave to Mr. Bush. 

In other words.  The redder the state the more money they give to charity.

What is more is that the more money conservatives make the more they give to charities who provide all kinds of services to those not as fortunate.  Let them keep more of their tax dollars and the more they will give to charity.

There is one State that is an exception to all of this.  Maryland.  Maryland votes blue but is as generous as the red states.  I wonder what he would have learned about Maryland if he had looked at this data down to the county level.  Would Maryland’s red counties and blue counties follow the same trends?

So are we a bunch of uncaring republicans or are liberals … never mind.

Is the Professor’s study conclusive evidence that conservatives back up their belief in personal responsibility and limited government with donations of time and money?  It would seem so.

County Executive Transition

I received this email from current County Councilman Guy Guzzone who is serving as the lead on Ken Ulman’s transition team.  I didn’t know I was on his distribution list, but I appreciate the information.  This is also posted on the County web site

Members of County Executive-elect Ken Ulman’s transition team will hold a public input session on Wednesday, December 6th at 7:30 pm in the Banneker Room of the George Howard Building, 3430 Courthouse Drive, Ellicott City. The nine member committee will use the forum to gather insight from the community as they move forward in preparing their final report for the incoming Executive. The input session will be televised live on Gtv, Comcast channel 70.

You can read the rest on the County web site (link above) Additionally, Mr. Ulman has appointed his two men to two of his top posts.  From the Sun

Lonnie Robbins, a 17-year Howard County official, is Ulman’s choice for chief administrative officer — a $154,000 post and the county’s top appointed position. Robbins, 56, of Ellicott City, is a deputy administrative officer under retiring Raquel Sanudo, but his promotion, starting Jan. 3, makes him the first African-American to hold such a prominent county government post.

Aaron Greenfield, chief executive officer of Anne Arundel County’s Economic Development Corp., is to be Ulman’s chief of staff, though technically, he will take Robbins’ current title at a salary of $150,000. He is to start Tuesday.

Greenfield, 35, of Lutherville, is a 1990 Howard High School graduate who worked for nearly four years as an assistant city solicitor for Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley’s administration, followed by a short stint as associate corporate counsel at 1st Mariner Bancorp, and as executive director of the Maryland Business Council. He took the Anne Arundel job in March and has been helping to plan for local growth tied to the U.S. military’s base realignment and closure.

I don’t know anything about these men.  However, as far as Mr. Greenfield is concerned, aside from the personal connection, it seems as though Mr. Ulman is trying to create ties to the O’Malley administration given Mr. Greenfield’s experience with O’Malley’s adminsitration in Baltimore City, and his experience with 1st Mariner Bank.  Ed Hale is the CEO and a strong supporter of O’Malley’s.

Will the High Cost of Living in HoCo be It’s Downfall?

The new County Council members recently attended a two day briefing/retreat. The impact of the high cost of housing in the area on future growth and development was apparently a recurring theme.

———————————————————————————-

“The labor force is the single biggest issue in economic development,” said Ed Ely, a former Rouse Co. official who runs a commercial development firm and briefed the council on the county’s big-picture prospects.

“We have a labor shortage,” he said, a point reinforced by McMahon and school Superintendent Sydney L. Cousin.

“If you attract new jobs but limit homes, it ignores a contradiction,” Ely said. “We could kill that golden [economic] goose. Housing and job growth go hand in hand.”

To make things worse, Howard County is the only county between Baltimore and Washington without mass transit, making it harder for workers to get to local jobs from other places. Cousin said the county is facing a crisis in attracting and keeping custodians, school bus drivers and teachers, despite starting salaries for teachers that are double from what they were two decades ago.

“In 1986, at $19,000 a year, our teachers could afford to live in the county,” Cousin said. “Now, at $40,000, they can’t, unless they live with you all.”

Despite that need, Leonard Vaughan, the county housing director, noted that some residents oppose subsidized housing for working families with incomes from about $30,000 to $50,000 if the units would be built near them.

shamelessly lifted from The Baltimore Sun, 11/29/06

_________________________________________________________

The cost of housing in HoCo is high, and has grown quickly. No question about that. A truly healthy, self sufficient, local economy needs to have economic diversity and adequate, affordable housing for all segments of the population. I believe that.

Although, I am not at the hand wringing, hair tearing stage…. yet.

I think some of the oft repeated statements made about how things used to be soo much different and better are an exercise in revisionist history. For example, the comment was made that20 years ago a new teacher could afford to
live in the county – but now at $40,000 they can’t.

Using a tiny one bedroom condo over by the Columbia Mall that sold for $50,000 in 1985, and sold again in 2005 for $125,000 as an example — (on little patuxent pkwy – found with just a quick check of transfer records) … tells me that in 1985, when interest rates were 12% — it would have required a $24,000 per year salary to qualify as “affordable” housing. A little tight for our new teacher.

(according to HUD  “affordable” means no more than 30% of income for housing expense – though lenders used 28% for housing to income ratio) $462.88 principle and interest plus another $125 for taxes, insurance, condo fees and private mortgage insurance common for first time buyers = about $600 per month total payment with 10% down.

The same condo today — at $125,000 with 10% down at 7% = $748.47 (pi) plus about$225 (tic/pmi)=$975 monthly expense — which, at 30% affordable housing indicator, requires exactly $40,000 income.

Soooo – sadly, a young teacher fresh out of school, living alone, is not going to be able to “afford” a lovely four bedroom, 3 1/2 bath mini-manse…. but, he or she can afford exactly the same one bedroom condo his 1985 counterpart could possibly squeeze into – right here in Howard County – with more ease than the 1985 grad.

In fact, I graduated from college in 1983 — and my first job did not pay $19,000 per 10 months. though I did buy a tiny one bedroom condo in the North End of Boston on $17,000 per year in 1985. I don’t think it was as nice as the one by the mall, though. Mine was a 400 sq ft 4th floor walk up in a 200 year old building…. and it had orange shag carpet and mushrooms growing between the baseboard and the flooring.

That’s not to say affordable housing is not an issue — I just prefer we not cloud our thinking with fictional nostalgia.

Cindy V.

Unseemly Fundraising

Loan aided O’Malley campaign

D.C. lawyer answered plea for $500,000 for TV ads

State law allows campaigns to borrow an unlimited amount if the loan is from a bank or if repayment is personally guaranteed by the candidate. Loans must carry interest, or the campaign must record the lack of interest as an in-kind contribution. The cash infusion kept O’Malley competitive despite dwindling reserves, but carried significant risk.

If O’Malley had lost to Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., his political future would have been in question, and he might have had a hard time raising money from donors for repayment. But after his victory last month, collecting donations as an incumbent chief executive will be much easier.

In an indication of just how much a governor can raise, O’Malley’s campaign account has taken in about $136,000 since Election Day, said spokesman Abbruzzese.

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

the preceding was lifted from the Baltimore Sun — edited by cv

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

I have issues with fundraising reform efforts that involve stifling the freedom of speech and association of individuals. I’m very conflicted about it.

 

But I am not particularly conflicted about the idea of an elected official conducting fundraising while in office.

 

While I truly believe it is possible to accept support from like minded folks without any quid pro quo…. this “after the fact” fundraising is just, well, unseemly.

 

cindy v.

 

Weathering the Perfect Storm

With a little bit of time to sort out the results of Black Tuesday, I’m gradually returning to my normal optimistic self, who believes that maybe Maryland can be at least a 1-1/2, if not a full 2, party state. Please bear with me as I briefly touch upon several issues along this line.

Despite my earlier comment in evaluating Gov. Ehrlich’s loss that a Republican needs a perfect storm to win statewide in Maryland, I think that I might have actually got it backwards – O’Malley beat Ehrlich only because the Democrats had a perfect storm in their favor. Nationwide, voters were fed up with Republicans in general and they took out their anger against Republicans at all levels. Voter turnout was higher among Democrats and lower among Republicans. In any “normal” year, even in Maryland, Ehrlich would likely have won re-election.

Despite the Ehrlich ads to the contrary, anyone who has been in downtown Baltimore or waterfront neighborhoods can’t help but be impressed with the massive redevelopment and rehabilitation that is going on in the City during the time of (but not necessarily due to) O’Malley’s tenure as mayor. In an earlier post, I mentioned that I thought Ehrlich ran a good, near-perfect campaign. IMHO, the imperfection was the TV ads that could be seen as bashing Baltimore City. Despite the debacle that is the Baltimore City Schools, those ads ran counter to what most people saw when they visited Baltimore. As governor of all of Maryland, I think Ehrlich could legitimately have stepped in and taken some of the credit for the Baltimore City renaissance. Sure, he would have been denounced by O’Malley and the Sun for political opportunism, but wasn’t he being denounced by them for other things already? If you’re taking heat anyway, you might as well enjoy some of the sunshine.

Other thoughts from looking back at Black Tuesday:

Three big jurisdictions – Baltimore City, Montgomery and Prince George’s – are Democratic locks. Baltimore and Howard Counties are swing jurisdictions, and just about everywhere else goes Republican. Howard County, though, is the true bellweather jurisdiction in Maryland. This year O’Malley barely won in Howard County (Ehrlich narrowly carried Baltimore County); Ehrlich carried Howard in 2002. Glendening won Howard County in 1998; I believe that Sauerbrey carried it in 1994. (I think the 1994 results do not disprove my theory of Howard County as bellweather, but rather speak to what really happened in 1994.)

The most visible elected Republican official in Maryland right now is new Anne Arundel County Executive John Leopold. Here I’ll insert another plug for Ehrlich to run for Baltimore County Executive in 2010.

Two of the larger Republican leaning jurisdictions in Maryland – Carroll and Frederick Counties – do not live up to their potential in influence in statewide politics. I believe that in no small part that is because both of those counties have county commissioner forms of government, so that political influence is diluted among several commissioners rather than a single, highly visible county executive. I realize that these are hot button issues in both counties, but the Maryland Republican Party would likely benefit from charter-county executive styles of government in those two counties, which would likely produce two Republican county executives.

Congressional Earmarks to Continue?

On the evening of November 8, 1994 I spoke with my brother (as liberal as they come) about the GOP take over of Congress.  He said to me “You got what you wanted.  How do you feel?”  I told him I was cautiously optimistic.  He replied the only difference between a GOP congress and a Democratic Congress is where they spend the money.  What their spending priorities are.  At first I was happy to tell him – you were wrong.  The longer the GOP stayed in power my brother proved to be correct.

Twelve years later the voters sent a get well card to the G.O.P.

“You spent like Drunk Democrats.
But now I’ll bet, you’re sober.
I hope you will learn a lesson during
Your two-year hangover.”

What disappointed me most about the most recent GOP congresses was the pork barrel and earmark spending.  “Bridge to no where anyone.”  Newt Gingrich has been decrying the spending habits of these GOP wannabes for years.

If conservatives wanted the GOP congresses to go crazy spending our money, driving up deficits, and acting like the party in control then we would not have elected them in 1994.  They were more interested in being the party in power rather than reform.  In 2006 the voters said enough is enough and sent them packing.

In my mind it will be years and years before voters ever look at the Republican party as fiscal conservatives.

I spoke with my same brother over Thanksgiving and he asked me again.  How do you feel now that the Democrats are back in control.  I told him I was cautiously optimistic.  Maybe the Democrats will bring some sanity back to spending.

Then I read this…

Even before the Democrats become the majority party in Congress, there are signs that little of importance will change. New York Times reporter David Kirkpatrick recently wrote a front-page story in which he quotes Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) on “earmark reform.” Inouye said, “I don’t see any monumental changes.” Inouye will take the gavel from the current chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK). The two have what Kirkpatrick calls an “unusual bipartisan camaraderie while divvying up projects.”

Ok, defense appropriations.  The devil is in the details.  Defense is one of our top priorities – the Consitution says so.  I am willing to wait and see. 

They are not alone. Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) indicates she, too, will jump on the gravy train because “what is good for the goose is good for the gander.” Nice. So much for Democrats’ commitment to reform. Apparently, the only “reform” will be to use their majority status to funnel more of our tax dollars to the pet projects of Democrats.

I don’t claim that these two speak for the majority of Democrats.  I think it is foolish to say that earmarks will disappear, but will Democrats spend with abandon?  However, they should let history be their guide.  They got botted in 1994.  The GOP got the boot this year.  It was about fiscal responsibility then and it will be two years from now.

This is not to say that Iraq and ethics had nothing to do with the results of November 7, 2006.  They were a big part of it.  However, Iraq, ethics, and spending created a perfect storm that swept the GOP out and the Democrats in.  Can the Democrats avoid the same fate?  I think they can if they are fiscally conservative.  If not 2008 will be a very interesting year.

Reading with a Critical Eye

The Reality of Our All-Volunteer Military
By Russell Beland and Curtis Gilroy
The Washington Post
Saturday, November 25, 2006; Page
———————————————————————————————————————————-

WOW!!!! If you only read this article you will be SOOOOO misinformed.

These guys say  ” in many cases a tour of duty in a combat zone actually appears to increase the likelihood of a service member’s staying in the military.”

Well, I guess that depends on how you define “volunteer”.  Once they get these guys over there — they won’t let them leave… even when their enlistment is up.  And they have been “calling up”people who have fulfilled their obligations, etc.

Russell Beland is deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for manpower analysis and assessment. Curtis Gilroy is the director of accession policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

This falls under the category of “consider the source”.

I don’t know of anyone who has anything less than the highest regard for the men and women in uniform —

—-for many of us, criticism of the WAY THEY ARE USED and in too many cases ABUSED is the highest form of praise for the value we place on their contribution and sacrifices.

Active military are not “allowed” to criticize…. complain ….. march  (well, march in protest that is)….. dissent …..

It is up to the American People – who claim to be so supportive of the troops – to actually support them; to question the illconsidered dangers, to insist that before these brave men and women are put in mortal jeopardy that is is reasonable and necessary.  You think a “mind is a terrible thing to waste”.? … well, a LIFE is a terrible thing to waste…  the willingness to sacrifice for others is a terrible thing to waste…. the honor and commitment of the few, the proud etc … is a terrible thing to waste.

If we had mandatory service in this country – with no exceptions – more people would think longer and harder about the “sacrifice” they are willing to let “someone else’s kid” make.

Cindy Vaillancourt  – throwing the B—S— flag!

Replacement for Sigaty/Watson/Kaufman…Gordon

The Ghosts of BOE Meetings Past, Present, and Future are all right here in the room – will Mr. Ulman learn from them?
Just in case it is not as obvious to him as it is to me…. how about a little primer?

Enter stage left the Ghost of BOE Present…

(lifted from the Baltimore Sun)

”…. Watson was the only member to vote against each motion that will move pupils to Veterans Elementary School in Ellicott City, which is scheduled to open in August.

“I just didn’t feel that enough effort had been placed on moving the neighborhoods closest into the school,” Watson said after the vote last week.

Diane Mikulis, the vice chairman who will return to the board along with Patricia Gordon when the panel expands to seven members next month, said she was comfortable with the plan.

“This is the best of the worst,” Mikulis said. “I think that this is what we need to do.”

Bob Mead of Wheatfield could not believe the board’s decision.

“Are you serious?” he asked. “Most of the parents want their kids to go to the new school instead of driving them all over the county. It just makes sense.”…..”

Well, Bob Mead of Wheatfield, there’s the problem — “it just makes sense”.

Kids going to their own neighborhood school….. what a novel concept! A new school has been built, and kids are going to need to be moved around …. but instead of moving them around so that they go to the closest school, or the one they might reasonably go to the longest… let’s have one more round of our own “HCPSS musical chairs”.

And outgoing Courtney Watson was the only one with the …forsight …. to question this plan?

Lesson from the “present” for Mr. Ulman — new appointee needs to have some backbone, some ability to “stand alone” if necessary to argue for the things that MAKE SENSE.

Whether you like Courtney Watson, or not, she has often stood up against popular and easy for the greater good, the harder “right”. Without her – who will step up? Sandie French? She’s what we need to stand up TO.

Mr. Ulman will be appointing a replacement not just for MKS, but for Courtney and Josh as well —- Josh may not have won the election, but he was an important part of the turn around at BOE – the neutering of the bullies, as it were. What will happen without some backbones and voices of dissent? Are we destined for a return to group think – indoctrination retreats – abdication of responsibility to lawyers?

The Ghost of BOE Past can be summed up in one name … “Sandie French”. ’nuff said.

Lesson for Mr. Ulman — your appointee will have to be able to stand up to a fair amount of Bullying – have a chat with Laura Waters and Virginia Charles…. and Jim O’Donnel…. and have a good long talk with MK Sigaty.

Or just watch the tapes of the BOE meetings — see Ms. Sigaty getting a little terse when she says “Let’s not just look into it, let’s do something.” (paraphrasing) – but is sure sounded to me like she was getting frustrated.

Learn from the past – protect the future.

And finally, our good friend, the Future.

The HoCo BOE /HCPSS has the worst record of planning for the future … I mean, really profoundly lacking in vision and planning. I am hopeful that at least Mr. Aquino has the real world business experience to help make some reasonable choices – and maybe the legal background to rein in the out of control HCPSS Lawyers …. but that’s about it for potential change on the new BOE.

Ellen Giles may have an encyclopedic knowledge of local history and policy- but like so many other “experts”, she spends a lot of time and energy explaining why something “will not work”. Like, “we’ll never have public services in the western part of the county…ever”. She can tell you names and dates of every conversation ever held about extending water and sewer — and she will. This is why she deems it unnecessary to be looking for land for schools “out there”…. because it will never be developed as fully as the east.I bet that’s the same thing the “experts” said 30 years ago. Let’s ask Ellen, I’ll bet she can tell you who said what, when…

Larry Cohen seems like a nice man – with a ton of experience in the educracy. Time will tell if he will use that insider knowledge to fix the parts that don’t work well – or if he is too invested in the history, culture, and camaraderie of the status quo. Hope springs eternal.

And then we have Pat Gordon. A nice enough old gal – 83 years old… says she is too “tired” to stand up for what she says she believes. An election cycle “place holder”. Don’t worry Mr. Ulman – you’ll be able to appoint a second BOE member, so you can afford to “take a chance” on the first appointment.

The Ghost of BOE Future is giving you, Mr. Ulman, a chance to change the trajectory of this sorry, stagnant, uninspired, “doesn’t make sense” path…. will you?

There are folks who would make terrific school board members who are just terrible politicians.

I guess we can’t hope for an actual jump across the aisle to appoint Roger Lerner — though he would be a great BOE member — unafraid to ruffle feathers, but too smooth and civil to be unnecessarily confrontational — smart, experienced, caring, all kinds of good things —- but a republican in a Democratic county… unlikely to overcome that particular obstacle and unwilling to sell his soul on the campaign trail for a few votes.

But you, Mr. Ulman, as the elected leader of the WHOLE county – not just the ones in your party – wouldn’t it be a nice idea to acknowledge the need for “everyone” to “feel” like they are being represented? Is there any doubt the Democrats are represented on the BOE? Take a page from Eisenhower. Consider Roger Lerner.

But then, even more underrepresented are the “independent voices”. The anti-status quo folks who are “never” going to get an elected representative with the current electoral system. With seven seats on the board – would it be sooo bad to have one of them represent 1/7th of the citizens? Allen Dyer has worked long and hard at great personal expense to right wrongs, protect the integrity of the local republic, he’s a combat veteran, a trained lawyer, a gifted computer geek —- and he’s proved himself willing to be David to the Goliath of the BOE educrats… let’s not forget it turns out he was RIGHT when he said the BOE was breaking the law … and that illegal stuff involving money was happening behind closed doors.

You say the voters have already spoken about these guys? No, I don’t think so. The voters made choices based on all kinds of weird criteria —- but tens of thousands of them DID vote for these guys — I don’t recall a box for VOTE AGAINST either of them.

I have some other ideas for terrific BOE appointees. Call me, we’ll talk.

Cindy Vaillancourt

Steelers v Ravens

It just hasn’t been a good year for football or politics…

Vile is as Vile does

Another Howard County Blogger has a post calling Mitt Romney a Vile Scumbag.  Searching the writer’s blog it seems that this epitath is based upon an article written by Eleanor Clift.  Eleanor has earned the nickname Eleanor “Hillary” Clift for her political idealogoy.  Since this blogger hasn’t written anything else about Mitt Romney I am left to wonder if his feelings are simply based upon Clift’s article.

The basis of Clift’s article is that Mitt Romney is pandering to GOP conservatives on the issue of traditional marriage.

There ought to be a prohibition against opportunistic politicians messing around in state laws to further their presidential ambitions. With his days as governor of Massachusetts nearing an end, Mitt Romney is trying to reopen the issue of same-sex marriage in the only state where it is legal.

The problem with Clift’s article is that Mitt Romney has been a supporter of traditional marriage when he ran against Ted Kennedy for the US Senate and Eleanor Clift knows it – or if she is a journalist worth her salt she could have easily researched it.

During his 1994 campaign against Senator Edward Kennedy, Romney said that same-sex marriage “is not appropriate at this time”[35] but supported Federal legislation that would prohibit discrimination in the workplace against homosexuals.[36]

In fact Romney is on the record very clearly on this matter.  He advocates respect and tolerance for gay couples.  He also supports the same rights for gay couples that those in traditional marriage enjoy.  Eleanor Clift should know this and should report it instead of writing vile articles.

…also voiced support for basic domestic partnership benefits for gay couples. Romney told the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts (a Republican gay-rights group) that he did not support same-sex marriage, but would fight discrimination against gays and lesbians. He also opposed an amendment, then before the Legislature, that would have banned same-sex marriage and outlawed all domestic partnership benefits for gay couples. As a result, the Log Cabin Club endorsed Romney in the gubernatorial election. When campaigning in 2002, Romney’s stated position was that “all citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of sexual orientation” and that “homosexuals should have the right to a domestic partnership status that affords them the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship.”

Anyone who uses the internet, a blogger for example, could get the same information – if they wanted to.  Of course, it is their right not to bother.

What are we to conclude?  That Clift is lazy?  That the blogger believes everything that he reads and posts it without seeking more information?

I believe that Romney has been consistent on the subject in question.  He hasn’t been pandering to anyone.  Agree with him or not I find that his consistent stand to be refreshing.

Perhaps Ms. Clift will next wow us with her in depth analysis and research regarding how Mitt Romney brought universal health care to Massachusetts and we will find that posted on Steve’s blog too.  Some how I doubt it.