From politics (moderates who lean to the right) to Pogo (drools during poker stare) to rants (Whatcha expect from savvy, sassy sexagenarians?) to raves (Have you had your kudo today?) -- we never take ourselves too seriously.
We do, however, reserve the right to slaughter an occasional sacred cow. And in case we fail to mention it -- we will never forget....
So forgive me or something, but I've never cared for the guy. That guy from New York. No, the other senator. Schumer. Don't particularly care for Imus, either. But Imus did a number on Schumer the other morning and I just found a copy of the transcript.
Imus: Have you been aware, even since 1981, of the state of treatment that veterans have been receiving throughout the Veterans Administration hospitals?
Schumer: Yes, it’s gotten much worse in the last seven or eight years because the funding was just cut, cut, cut, cut, cut. I get stories all the time of veterans wounded in Iraq, they get good treatment over in Iraq . . . The Veterans Administration has just been decimated in terms of funding and it’s unbelievable because . . . we ask these people to serve us and in the DoD part, at least in Iraq, and initially when they are wounded from all reports they are treated well, after that they are just sort of forgotten about and the VA is just in terrible shape, terrible shape . . . It’s a little like FEMA with Katrina. They put the wrong people in charge. They don’t really care.
Imus: Senator Schumer, you’re not suggesting to me that this is something that just happened under the Bush administration. This has been going on since Korea, since the second world war.
Schumer: It’s been going on for a while, but what happened with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is that the system got completely overloaded and it really broke down.
Imus: We’ve known for years, certainly since 1981, that the care and the way that these veterans have been treated to a large degree, not because it’s the people’s fault — most of them, the doctors and nurses particularly at the Veterans Administration — but for a variety of reasons, in many cases, their treatment and care has been woefully inadequate.
The bureaucratic red tape has been a nightmare for a lot of these people, and that’s been going on for years, and my question is why haven’t any of you ever done anything about it?
Schumer: Well, we’ve tried. I’ve been fighting since I got to the Senate for full funding for the veterans, and we didn’t do any oversight. That’s the real problem here . . . I’ll tell you one other thing that will happen. We’ll get full funding for the VA this year, for the first time. We did actually, to show you a little bit that this isn’t just catching up to the crisis, we did a budget in early January . . .
Imus: Let me interrupt you for a second, but this is nonsense, Senator Schumer. I want to be respectful, but you can’t possibly be serious and suggest — I mean I’m not a fool. You can’t suggest to me that because the Democrats are now in power that something is going to be done about Walter Reed and about the mess in the Veterans Administration and all of this, and that if the Democrats hadn’t taken control of Congress that nothing would have been done. That’s preposterous; of course it would have.
Schumer: Well, something would have been done if the story would have gotten out . . .
Imus: Here’s another question. Have you ever been over to Walter Reed?
Schumer: Ahh, not in a while, no.
Imus: How long has it been since you’ve been over there?
Schumer: Oh, before Iraq.
Imus: So, before Iraq since you’ve been over to see the soldiers. So, we have elected you — first in the Congress and now in the Senate — and you’ve got a bill now to do something we’ll get to in a minute; but you haven’t even been to Walter Reed Hospital.
What a slime-ball.
Here's a YouTube video. Wish we could see the yucker's face.
On second thought -- I don't want to see his face. Again.
So this is how the dims plan to gain support for their version of the Defense Spending Bill -- add on favorite projects ("pork") to appease the folks back home.
It's plain that Democrats are unwilling to approve the bill's $100 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan without devoting considerable sums of money to the home front.
"The president wants to make sure we take care of Iraq, but I think we also have to make sure that we don't lose sight of what we have to do here at home," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill.
Already, money in the bill not directly related to the war exceeds $20 billion.
The funding — ranging from $3.5 billion for medical care for veterans and active duty troops to $500 million in "emergency" money for a Western fire season that has yet to start — has raised hackles with Republicans who say Democrats are using the measure to muscle federal dollars back home.
"Wartime funding should be not used as a gravy train," said Senate GOP conservative Judd Gregg (news, bio, voting record) of New Hampshire.
But Gregg said the White House would be hard-pressed to veto the bill over the add-ons, and White House aides have conspicuously failed to issue one — though a veto promise hangs over the bill because of its higher-profile provisions setting a deadline for ending the U.S. military role in Iraq.
All told, farmers would get $4.3 billion in disaster aid, aimed chiefly at the drought-stricken Great Plains and California farmers hurt by a hard freeze earlier this year.
The drought disaster aid package has been scaled back, in part to make room for $74 million for a peanut storage program that pays storage and handling fees as farmers market their crop. And Rep. Sam Farr (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., is pressing for $25 million for spinach farmers who pulled produce from market shelves after last year's E. coli outbreak.
Meanwhile, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., isn't waiting on the upcoming farm bill to extend income subsidies aimed at small dairy farms. Obey's 13-month extension would cost $283 million.
Those items and others, including $2.5 billion for homeland security projects such as additional cargo screening at ports and airports, $2.9 billion for levee improvements and other aid for the Gulf Coast, and $735 million to close shortfalls in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, offer virtually every lawmakers a reason to vote for the Iraq funding bill — regardless of their feelings on the war itself.
Democrats insist they aren't being bought off.
"Absolutely not," said Rep. Jim Costa (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat representing a farm district in California's Central Valley. The California delegation is demanding help for citrus, avocado and other farmers facing $1.2 billion in losses from a devastating January freeze.
"I would support this one way or another," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy (news, bio, voting record), D-N.D., a driving force behind the drought aid package.
In some cases, such as drought aid for farmers, new money for veterans medical care and additional aid for the Gulf Coast, Democrats are fulfilling promises from last year's campaign.
Still, the need to maximize the vote count among Democrats makes it harder for party leaders to say "no" to lawmakers whose requests are, say, more parochial.
Republicans accused Democratic leaders of larding the bill with spending aimed at greasing its way through Congress.
"They've tried to appease every member of Congress, every coalition, every interest group, by loading this bill up," said Rep. Ray LaHood (news, bio, voting record), R-Ill. He said the strategy risked having the bill collapse of its own weight.
"If this is a sweetener deal, then it makes me real sour on the whole bill," said Rep. Lincoln Davis (news, bio, voting record), D-Tenn.
There are a few lawmakers — such as Rep. Peter DeFazio (news, bio, voting record), D-Ore. — whose support for war funding is contingent on add-ons. In DeFazio's case, it's $400 million to extend payments to rural counties hurt by cutbacks in federal logging.
The billions of dollars not requested by Bush include $1 billion to prevent or prepare for a possible avian flu epidemic and $400 million in additional heating subsidies for the poor.
I don't know who will be willing to step up and highlight the pork attached to defense spending, but someone should.
Dick Morris is not much of a prognosticator, but he knows Hill 'n Bill. Morris asks the right question (in case dims are listening) and uses Bill's own words to refute Hillary's claims to the c0-presidency during her hubby's reign.
As for the Walter Mitty reference -- remember Thurber's character who was a legend in his own mind? According to Morris, that's also Hillary.
Is Hillary Clinton the Walter Mitty of presidential candidates when she takes credit for the successes of her husband's presidency?
Lately, she's been repeatedly linking herself to Bill's job creation, budget balancing, economic programs and domestic policies initiatives. There's a lot of “Bill and I” and "we” in her speeches. It's all part of the “bring back the Clinton years” theme that she rolls out to Democratic Party audiences.
But there's more to it.
At the core of her highly disciplined campaign message is her claim that her “experience” in the White House and the Senate makes her uniquely qualified to move right into the Oval Office. According to Hillary, her two term co-presidency with Bill specially prepared her for the next Clinton administration and gives her exceptional credentials that no other candidate can match.
And her message is working — the most recent Gallup Poll shows that 45 percent of American voters cite Hillary's “experience” as the highest positive rating about her.
Out on the campaign trail, she often refers to her “eight years in the White House,” when asked why she should be elected.
So, what exactly was it that Hillary did in the Clinton White House that gave her all of that experience?
Well, obviously there was the health care fiasco, Hillary's secretive, expensive and utterly failed attempt to socialize the health care industry. Surely, she can't be referring to that.
So what is it that Hillary is referring to?
One would think that the $20 million combined memoirs of the former first couple could provide some clarification. But a careful reading of their respective stories leads to even more confusion. One wonders whether they ever read each other's work.
It seems that in her book "Living History," published in 2003, the former first lady doesn't really claim to have been an influential co-president working and learning at her husband's side after all.
No, that's all new.
And most of what she does take credit for involves traditional first lady issues, such as childcare and cancer research. She barely mentions any role for herself in the signature issues that confronted the Clinton presidency.
If you contrast her current claims of helping to run the country against her own writing about her White House days, there's a big difference. Now she speaks of the Clinton administration accomplishments, as if she were part of implementing them. But only four years ago, she told another story.
Bill doesn't seem to recall her help and involvement on too many issues. Even on those relatively few things that she actually does take credit for in her book, the former president doesn't have the same recollections that she does about her important role in the White House.
In her book, Hillary discusses her advocacy in the White House on social security, welfare reform, the bankruptcy reform bill, violence in the media, budget cuts and improvement in the Family and Medical Leave Act.
But, in his memoirs, Bill rarely mentions Hillary's role in any of his administration's policies, except for health care. One would have expected that he would have described some of the details of her unparalleled 'experience.'
In fact, of 102 mentions of Hillary in Bill Clinton's "My Life", the content is as follows:
• 34 entries describe trips taken by the first couple • 26 entries are about Whitewater or other scandal investigations • 17 entries are about their personal relationship • 11 entries are about Hillary's integrity, character, her writing a book, supporting American crafts, etc. • Nine entries describe her role in health care • Only five entries concern a substantive role, including: participating in a White House staff gathering at Camp David; speaking out for women's rights in China; campaigning for child protection legislation; and campaigning for Democratic candidates, and the Millennium Project
That's it!
Here's some examples of how Hillary catalogued some of her work and how Bill described the same issue:
Welfare Reform : “I supported welfare reform and worked hard to round up the votes.”
• Bill makes no mention of her role concerning that important issue.
Media Violence and Children :“Bill and I … convened a White House strategy session on how to curb media violence directed at children.”
• Bill remembers it somewhat differently, crediting Al and Tipper Gore with a drive to get V chips in televisions. No mention of Hillary.
Budget Cuts :“I also spent two years helping … Stave off cuts in legal services, the arts, education, Medicare and Medicaid.”
• Bill makes no mention of Hillary in discussing the budget cuts.
Adoption Reform :“I worked hard … to spearhead adoption reform.”
• Bill writes about how proud he was about his “sweeping reforms of our adoption laws.” No mention of Hillary.
Child Support : “Bill and I wanted tougher child support collection efforts.”
• Bill describes signing another of his priorities into law. No mention of Hillary.
Hillary's self-portrait should remind voters of a dog who finally catches a car ....
It was confusing before Fitzie started his investigation of who leaked Valerie Plame's identity. The jury decision this week only confounds that investigation and its supposed resolution .... If the "truth" was known before the investigation, why did it continue? If the jury considered Libby a "fall guy" and kept "waiting" for Cheney or Rove or the President to be called, then why was Libby found guilty? Oh yeah -- he perjured himself .... This observer has said all along that if Libby perjured himself -- he was guilty of perjury, but questions remain .... Was the investigation (at the point of interviewing Libby et al) "legitimate" or was it, indeed, a witch hunt to incriminate someone/anyone from the Bush administration? And if the issue was "only" perjury, why does the jury even discuss or suggest that "others" were involved .... and why, in the closing deliberations -- did the jury need clarification on the definition of "reasonable doubt?" And what influence did the judge's decisions to disallow certain evidences and/or witnesses have on the deliberation process? Was Libby denied the right to defend himself by prejudicial omissions? As for the jury -- Why is only one jurist speaking out? Something or someone doesn't jive ..... The outspoken jurist likely has ulterior motives in his post-trial role(s) .... What is or was his relationship with witnessing journalists? Something just doesn't jive.
Hopefully, other jurists will speak out. I don't trust anyone associated with the journalism community -- especially someone who was a lead jurist and now spokesperson for the jury ....
-- until she posts another rock'em-sock'em discourse, that is.
This filibuster on Coulter's comment has been worked, re-worked and over-worked long enough. Tonight I posted my last comment. Maybe. It was on HotAir's blog ... Here it is --
I’ve watch Coulter’s 28+ minute speech and Q-A session several times. IMO, it’s vintage Coulter. While the f-word (in any context) has never been on my fav list, I thought her reference to rehab as a liberal reaction to everything NOT politically correct as funny! In all honesty, I was more “shocked” hearing MM (whom I respect highly) refer to McCain as John “screw you” McCain in her interview with Sean Hannity. And I’m not even a McCain fan ….
If this comment offends someone, sobeit. I don't really give a flying flip. What I do give a flying flip about is that (whether she's loving all this negative reaction or NOT), Coulter is a dang good writer and speaker. She IS effective. She makes lots of money doing what she does and her counter-points are delivered with wit and precision. And humor. She is articulate, ultra-bright, intellectual. She's also a humorist. A satirist. I'm becoming concerned that many conservative pundits are taking their objection to her a tad too far. I fear many of them may regret some of their protestations .... Whatever has happened to the pundits who have taken a stern objection to Coulter (personally and professionally), I can't answer.
Nor can I "answer" why, on tonight's O'Reilly show, Michelle Malkin shot a harsh eye and warning at her co-guest Kirsten Powers: "I'm not the person to be picking a fight with ...." Dang. Not becoming. And over the Coulter comment? Jeez -- must be the eclipse or something going on we don't know about .... Even O'Reilly cringed.
Time will tell.
Meanwhile, watch Ann Coulter's entire speech and the Q-A session.
It's good to be with so many conservatives. In fact, I invited all the conservatives in Massachusetts to come hear me today and I'm glad to report that they are both here.
I'm happy to learn that after I speak you're going to hear from Ann Coulter. That's a good thing. I think it's important to get the views of moderates.
The mainstream media is surprised that we're here. They wrote our obituary last fall. Course, they've written our obituary before: after Watergate, after the 82 midterm elections, after Iran-contra, and after Bill Clinton's election. The truth is that their wishful thinking reports of our demise have been greatly exaggerated. In fact, I predict that we'll be around a lot longer than . . . say, newspapers.
No conservatism is alive and well. And it is needed more than ever. America faces a new generation of challenges, critical challenges. Today is similar in many respects to what we faced as a nation 30 years ago, looking at the menacing face of communism.
In fact, 30 years ago, in this very conference, one man stood up and told America what was needed. It was conservatism, a new coalition of conservatives that would lead to a brighter future for the nation. Ronald Reagan said this: "What I envision is not simply a melding together of the two branches of American conservatism into a temporary uneasy alliance, but the creation of a new, lasting majority." And here is where he said that this conservative alliance would lead: "I have seen the conservative future, and it works."
Coming from Massachusetts, I saw first hand the liberal future, and it doesn't work. That's why I ran against Ted Kennedy. Liberal social programs weren't solving poverty; they were in fact creating a culture of poverty. I didn't win, but at least Teddy had to take out a mortgage on his home to beat me.
I was once campaigning in a poor section in Boston when a person came up to me and said: "What are you doing here? This is Kennedy country." I looked around at the vacant store fronts and boarded up windows and replied: "Yeah, it looks like Kennedy country."
No, it is the conservative coalition represented here that can build a brighter future for America: economic conservatives, social conservatives, and national security conservatives.
I saw the potential of economic conservatism when I became governor. The state budget was $3 billion short. Liberals wanted to raise taxes, but I cut government instead. I eliminated and combined duplicative and wasteful agencies and programs, and I balanced the budget four years in a row. One commentator said that I didn't just go after the sacred cows, I went after the whole herd. And after four years as governor, I'm proud to report that Massachusetts has 600 fewer state workers than when I took office.
I went after taxes as well. The Legislature passed a $250 million retroactive capital gains tax increase. I knew my veto would be overridden by the 85% Democrat majority. So I had the Department of Revenue send every taxpayer a pro forma bill for their new higher taxes, and then I waited for folks to call their legislators. And did they ever. Then, I sent the Legislature an amendment that turned the $250 million tax increase into a $250 million refund. Amazingly, the Legislature now saw the error of their ways.
I didn't stop there. We made the investment tax credit permanent. We passed sales tax holidays. We gave tax breaks to medical manufacturing companies. We gave real estate tax breaks to seniors. And in each of my last three years, I submitted a budget that cut the income tax.
It's time for some economic conservatism in Washington as well.
We've seen an embarrassing spike in non-defense, discretionary spending . As you know, I'm proud to be the first Presidential candidate to sign Grover Norquist's tax pledge. But I have another pledge I am making to you today. If I am elected President, I will cap non-defense discretionary spending at inflation minus one percent. That alone will save $300 billion over 10 years. If Congress sends me a budget that exceeds the cap, I will veto that budget. I don't care if it's a Republican or Democrat Congress, I will veto that budget.
And I know how to veto. I like vetoes. I vetoed hundreds of spending appropriations as Governor. And, by the way, if Congress doesn't want to do the cutting itself, then give me the same line item veto I had as governor.
And one more thing, I will personally lead a top to bottom review of government programs, agencies, procurement and spending . It's time to cut out the mountains of waste and inefficiency and duplication in the federal government. I've done that in business, I've done that in the Olympics, and I've done that in Massachusetts. And boy, I can't wait to get my hands on Washington.
Democrats in Washington are itching to raise taxes – 2011 is set to be a record breaking tax hike. Not if I'm President. I'll fight to stop the tax hike. And I'll fight for a new savings plan for middle class Americans as well – one that will grow the economy and help families at the same time. Under my plan, the amount of tax they will pay on dividends, interest and capital gains will be absolutely zero.
It's high time to take government apart and put it back together, but this time simpler, smarter and smaller.
Let's talk about social conservatism too.
Massachusetts became center stage for the liberal social agenda – sort of San Francisco east, Nancy Pelosi style.
Ten months into my term, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said our Constitution requires gay marriage. John Adams, who wrote it, would be surprised.
Less than a year later, scientists were trying to convince me that it's not a moral issue to clone entirely new human embryos solely for research.
Not long after that, the Catholic Church was forced to exit their adoption service because they preferred placing kids in homes with a mom and a dad, not two dads or two moms.
I have stood in the center of the battlefield on every major social issue. I fought to preserve our traditional values and to protect the sanctity of life.
I vetoed bills, and filed new bills. I enforced a law that banned out-of-state same sex couples from coming to Massachusetts to get married. I went to the court again and again, I testified before Congress for the federal marriage amendment, and I championed our successful drive that collected 170,000 signatures for a citizen ballot initiative to protect marriage.
To me, a fundamental principle of democracy is at stake. It is the people who are sovereign in America, not a few folks in black robes. Judges add things that aren't in the Constitution, and they take away things that are in the Constitution. In that regard, they let the campaign finance lobby take away First Amendment rights. If I'm President, I will fight to repeal McCain-Feingold.
Another aspect of American sovereignty is the security of our borders. The current system is a virtual concrete wall against those who have skill and education, but it's a wide open walk across the border for those that have neither.
McCain-Kennedy isn't the answer. As governor, I took a very different approach. I authorized our state police to enforce immigration laws. I vetoed a tuition break for illegals and said no to driver's licenses. McCain-Kennedy gives benefits to illegals that would cost taxpayers millions. And more importantly, amnesty didn't work 20 years ago, and it won't work today.
The new generation of challenges we face today includes challenges to our national security as well. Violent [jihadists] are intent on replacing moderate Islamic governments with a Caliphate. To do that, they seek the collapse of our economy and our military.
We will defeat the violent jihad with a two-part strategy. First, an unquestionably strong military. The best ally peace has in the world is a strong America. We need more men and women in the military, better armaments, and a Strategic Defense Initiative. And there's a second aspect of our strategy: we must bring together all the civilized nations of the world in what might be called a Second Marshall Plan. Together with them, and with volunteers, businesses and NGOs, we must support moderate Muslim nations and peoples. They need public schools that are not Wahabi schools, the rule of law, property rights, modern banking and agriculture and pro-growth economic policies. In the end, it is the Muslim people themselves who will eliminate radical jihad.
Iraq is just one front in the war. We removed Hussein, but afterward, we were under-prepared, under-planned, under-manned, and under-managed. But walking away now or dividing the country and then walking away would have real and severe risks for America and for our troops. I support the troop surge for that reason. And one thing I know, we shouldn't let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid dictate our battle strategy to the commanders in the field or to the Commander-in-Chief.
Conservatism is a belief in strength. It is because of America's strength that we don't all speak German and that our kids don't all speak Russian. And it is because of America's strength that our grandchildren will not have to speak Farsi or Arabic or Chinese. America must remain the world's military superpower. That is a first principle of conservatism. To remain the military superpower, we must remain the world's economic superpower as well. You can't be a Tier I military with a Tier II economy – the Soviet Union tried to keep that up for a while, and lost.
It's inconceivable to us that we could ever be passed economically. But 100 years ago, it was inconceivable that anyone could have passed England or France. But we did. And if you look East, you can see that we are facing much more difficult competition from Asia than we have faced before. They want to move the center of manufacturing and technology and innovation from America to Asia. We may just smile, but don't forget what Will Rogers said:
"Even if you're on the right track, if you don't move, you'll get run over." America will move, but the question is, "In what direction?"
History can be a guide. The 20th Century saw two economic systems pitted against each other. Ours was built on free enterprise, free trade and the primacy of the individual. The Soviet's was built on government command and control, and the primacy of the state.
Ours produced the most powerful economy in the world that has given its citizens a standard of living our grandparents never dreamed possible; theirs produced a downward spiraling standard of living and eventual collapse.
The 20th Century history lesson is that America's economy is strong because we put our trust in freedom, in the American people, and in the free enterprises they create.
If we are to keep America strong, we must turn to the source of America's strength. Liberals think that government is the source of our greatness. They're wrong. The American people are the source of our strength: hard working, educated, skilled, family-oriented, willing to sacrifice for their family and their country, God-fearing, freedom-loving American people. They always have been the source of our strength and they always will be.
And so if we need to call on the strength of America, you don't strengthen government, you strengthen the American people.
You strengthen the American people by letting them keep more of their own money, and not taxing their families at death.
You strengthen the American people by making sure that the voice of millions of voters trumps the voice of unelected judges.
You strengthen the American people by securing our borders and by insisting that the children who come legally to this land are taught in English.
And perhaps most importantly, you strengthen the American people when you strengthen the American family. marriage must come before children because every child deserves a mother and a father.
This is not the time for us to shrink from conservative principles. It is time for us to stand in strength.
Because America faces unprecedented challenges, strength is the only answer. Strong military, strong economy, strong families.
Thirty years ago, in challenging times, a great coalition was forged in these halls. Today, we face a new generation of challenges.
If we in this room lock our arms together, we can forge the political will to rebuild our military might. If we in this room will simply march forward we can propel America's growth and prosperity to lead to the world. If we in this room lift up our eyes, we will lift the spirit of the nation.
Now is the time, this is the place, for us to stand together, to lead a great coalition of strength, For our families, for our future, for America. May God bless this great land.
Politico: Governor, you’re pretty popular on blog row.
Romney: Well, it’s a great group, I’ll tell you that. I appreciate the blogs because the blogs are able to really zero in on issues and find the truth. Sometimes the mainstream media writes one article and it sits out there and it may be accurate, it may not be accurate. But the blogs are open – there’s a discourse, there’s back and forth and it allows us to get to the truth. And that’s why the blogs are playing such an important role, particularly in grassroots organization of American politics.
Politico: How helpful do you think the blogs have been so far?
Romney: Oh, I don’t know at this stage that you can point to great advances for anybody based on blogs alone. But I think what you’re seeing is that blogs are able to get to bottom of things and to cut through the spin. The spin has a huge impact on the mainstream media. Candidates are able to go to the mainstream media, spin their story, they write it and sometimes it’s accurate, sometimes it’s not. The blogs actually are open for comment and debate and they ultimately get the truth out. And that’s critical, in my opinion. Because there are going to be a lot of opposition research folks on other campaigns trying to put up things that aren’t accurate.
Politico: Governor, what did you mean by “spin”?
Romney: Well, sometimes an opposition research team will go to the mainstream media and try and slant or direct a story in favor of their viewpoint. And the nice thing about blogs is that if that happens to them, why they still are open to get the views of the other side and you see the truth getting ultimately told.
Politico: Governor, how do you unite a polarized country?
Romney: I think that what we have to do is have Republicans and Democrats be willing to reach across the aisle and find common ground on important issues. I remember Ronald Reagan used to sit down with Tip O’Neill -- they were friends even though they were competitors, from a political standpoint. I have, in my service as governor, sat down almost weekly with the Senate president and the speaker of the House of the opposition party. We work on issues together. We sometimes agree, sometimes we don’t. But communications, openness and searching for common ground is what America wants to see. They do not like the fact that the polarity in our political process has yielded an absence of action. They want Washington to change and I represent a change in the way business has been done in Washington.
Politico: Do you have any hope for doing that?
Romney: I do, because I’ve done it in Massachusetts. Here I was in a state that had a legislature 85 percent Democrat, and I balanced the budget all four years without raising taxes. I also put in place, together with the legislature, an insurance plan that took some mandates off insurance companies -- I wanted to take off more -- but got insurance for all of our citizens without the requirement of raising taxes and without a government takeover. That’s the kind of conservative thinking that’s willing to reach across the aisle and find common ground with Democrats.
Politico: Are you concerned that only people of vague faith will be able to run, if someone who’s strong and vocal about their faith gets picked apart, as your Mormon faith has been?
Romney: When people don’t know a great deal about a person’s faith, they’re just not sure what it means. And as they focus in on my faith, I think that they’ll see Ann and my marriage, they’ll see our family and they’ll say Hey, there‘s nothing wrong with that. Whatever has produced those guys has got to be OK. And I don’t mean by that they we’re perfect -- we’re a long way from that. But our faith has certainly made us better than we certainly would have been otherwise. I’m proud of the fact that my parents were of my faith, and I’ve learned from them. I think you will find that the people of America, as they get to know us better, will be pretty darn comfortable with us as a couple and me as a politician.
Politico: Mrs. Romney, do you mind joining the conversation? (The former governor smiles and playfully shoves two of the four tape recorders on the table in front of her.) On ABC’s “This Week” and at a recent event in Salt Lake City, you were quite candid or blunt about the fact that you saw this was going to be a difficult process, but you seem to have steeled yourself for that. Could you just talk about what you think this is going to be like?
Ann Romney: It’s interesting. If you go to Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Atlanta – wherever it is, in Orlando – you LOVE meeting people. That is not hard. You love, actually, even, the fundraisers. They’re great. People are wonderful and supportive. The only part that’s distasteful is, unfortunately, the media. (Smiles.) Here you guys sit.
Romney (chuckling): These aren’t the media. These guys are open, honest, fair and balanced guys.
Ann Romney: All the rest of it is an extraordinary honor, to be able to be doing what we’re doing. I’m awed by it. People in Iowa and South Carolina and New Hampshire take their citizenship very personally and responsibly. It is impressive to me, and I’m buoyed up by it. (Refers to the media.) It keeps people out of that arena. That’s very unfortunate.
Romney: You’ve got to have a pretty thick skin to be able to do it. And I’ve grown up in a home where politics was spoken about and then my dad ran for office and my mom did. And I’ve learned that you can develop thick skin and just don’t worry about it.
Politico: Mrs. Romney, how involved do you plan to be in the campaign? (Ann Romney was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998. She says she’s healthy now but worries the stress of the campaign could inflame her MS.)
Ann Romney: As involved as my heath will allow. We’re not quite sure where that line is yet. I can’t keep up with him. There’s no question about that. I also am an equestrian – I love to ride horses. They keep me balanced and healthy and feeling great about life. Besides my family, it’s the joy of my life. So I have to get out every once in awhile and see my horses. I’ve got to tell you: They don’t care whether [you're] Republican or Democrat. They just want to know if their oats are coming. It’s kind of stabilizing and balancing and being able to pull out every once in awhile – see the grandkids, see the horse, get my bearings, and then jump back in.
Politico: Governor, how do you strike a balance between being your own candidate, without renouncing the president?
Romney: I just have to do what Popeye used to say: “I am what I am and that’s all I am.” I indicate what my positions are, what I think about issues. I try and do so with respect. In doing so, in some respects I’m going to be acknowledging the president’s leadership. In other cases, I’m going to be critical, just by virtue of my positions -- not intentionally, but just every person is different. Even if you’re in the same party, you have different views on certain issues and I don’t line up that I know of with any Republican, exactly -- even Ann. (Gestures toward his wife.) And so people will draw their distinctions. I’ve lived a different career, I have a different management style than does the president and do other Republicans, and people will draw that distinction as they think appropriate.
Politico: What is the difference in your management style?
Romney: Oh, I’m going to have to let you make that assessment. I wouldn’t try and characterize the president’s. My management style is to bring in a lot of people who are bright and have more skill and experience in certain areas than I, to gather a lot of data and insist on an analytically driven decision-making process, to ask for a lot of debate, a lot of discussion of the pros, the cons, the upsides, the downsides. I like a highly deliberative process for making decisions. Now, I can pull up and shoot whenever I need to. But I like having a very extensive debate of people who agree and disagree on issues in order to make a final and best answer
Politico: What have you learned about the country so far in this process?
Romney: I read, some time back, excerpts from Jimmy Carter’s malaise speech, which says that the problem in America is the American people and that the wonderful government leaders are doing their job but the American people could just wake up – effectively, that’s what is says. What I’ve learned is, as I have always believed, the greatness of America is the American people – that the heart of the American people is strong and well and the American people are looking for leadership in Washington to finally get their act together and lead. And that’s why I am in this. It’s because I’m very concerned about the America that I’m going to leave to my kids and grandkids and your kids and grandkids and I think I can make a real difference.
Politico: Governor, what books should we be reading?
Romney: I like reading – I read a lot of books.
Politico: Even during this process?
Romney: Yeah, yeah. “The Looming Tower,” I just read, by Lawrence Wright, which I found very interesting. “The Cube and the Cathedral” – a very good book, about Europe. “America Alone,” by Mark Steyn – I read that. I just read one called “The River of Doubt,” about Teddy Roosevelt. “Mayflower,” by Nathaniel Philbrick. So I like reading.
Ann Romney: We pass the books between us.
Politico: Ever fiction?
Romney: I LOVE fiction. Right now, we’re reading a lot of Vince Flynn. I’ve read every Louis L’Amour book there is – I love those old Westerns. Unfortunately, those are gone – although, as my memory gets weaker, I can go back and read some of them again. Vince Flynn is a spy-novel type.
Ann Romney: Vince Flynn? I’m on his third one. It would really be nice if those characters that were in those books were real and were really doing some of this stuff.
Romney: What’s the other one that I like? The great CIA operative? Mitch Rapp!
Politico: What the White House reporters really want to know is whether your Crawford will be in Deer Valley, Utah, or Lake Winnipesaukee, N.H.? (He has homes both places.)
Romney: Well, that’s a hard choice. But without a question, it would have to be in Lake Winnipesaukee, N.H. We’ve actually chuckled about that, thinking about it the last couple of weeks and months. I wouldn’t want to impose the Secret Service and the press corps on our nice little community in New Hampshire. So maybe I’d get to visit once a year for a quick weekend and then get the heck out. Because I wouldn’t want to intrude on the beauty and the calm of that fabulous place.
Sans the editor's introductory comments (you may read them at the link above) this is one of the most personally informative interviews by Mitt and Ann Romney to date.
We're putting together a new blog called Elderscapes.
It is a "no frills" resource for elder-care, elder-issues and topics designed for the aging population and their care-givers.
We're don't sell insurance or travel packages or equipment -- our purpose is to become an information hub for self-help and helping others -- to understand the problems, the needs and resources for promoting dignity and support for the aging population within our global community.
Stop by and share the resources -- suggestions are always welcome!
Subtitled: How to gain support on the home-front 
We're putting together a new blog called