Mitt Romney Meets the Press

Today, former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, went one-on-one with Tim Russert and emerged looking confident, articulate and, well…, in a word, presidential. Russert, who is well known for his even-handed administration of tough-love journalism, knows how to ask the tough questions and persists until he gets a cogent answer. But to his credit, Russert focuses primarily on those questions that are prominent in public discussions. He is very good at what he does and is head and shoulders above his journalistic peers.

One of the knocks on Romney, of course, is that his current positions on an assortment of issues have changed, especially since his days on Beacon Hill. Russert emphasized the point by waving a pair of colorful flip flops at Romney. I guess what goes around comes around. We still have our pair of John Kerry flip flops from 2004. God save us from cutesy slogans.

But Russert is a professional and, as usual, he was well-prepared with video clips to illustrate a position where Romney is thought to have lately changed his views. The issues included: abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, gun control, and immigration. Romney readily admitted that some of his views have changes and painstakingly spelled out where appropriate how those changes evolved. Some of the answers were complicated, but then, these are complicated issues. I thought his response to the criticism he has received concerning the people who work on the landscaping of his Belmont home was particularly succinct. This is, by itself, is a silly “gotcha” flap, but it speaks to the larger issue of immigration which may end up being one of the most important issues of the presidential campaign. Some people demand simple declarative solutions to complicated questions, but simple answers aren’t always the best. By the time the interview concluded, I felt that he had fully addressed all the questions. More importantly, Tim Russert, who does not suffer weasel answers gladly, seemed satisfied.

I had only two criticisms of the program and they apply to the subjects of the questions asked. Entirely too much time was spent was spent discussing Romney’s faith. There are some people who, under the guise of enforcing the separation of church and state, would like to banish any trace of religion from our culture. But we remain a country built on a tradition of faith and I, for one, admire individuals possessing strong beliefs, but see no need to examine those beliefs, or the church from which they are espoused, to judge their merits. I would also have like to hear more of Romney’s views on international affairs. With the exception of one brief exchange dealing with Mike Huckabee’s criticism of President Bush for what he calls an “arrogant bunker mentality" in foreign affairs, there was little discussion of foreign relations. Romney, by the way, rejected Huckabee’s assertion and thought, rightfully so, that he owed the President an apology.

Well done, Mitt.

No Iron Lady

Peggy Noonan possesses a rare talent for cutting through the bovine effluence and getting to the heart of the matter. Writing in the Wall Street Journal might limit her exposure somewhat as most of the lefty media tries to ignore the Journal’s existence, let alone its editorial opinions. But for producing tightly reasoned and balanced analysis, it has few peers. What better place to showcase the talents of Peggy Noonan. Moreover, the Journal is very good at getting its message out via the web.

In her recent piece, Things Are Tough All Over, Ms. Noonan cites Margaret Thatcher as an example of a strong and highly-effective leader who never needed, and probably never considered playing anything resembling the gender card. Mrs. Thatcher sought no special quarter from those with whom she dealt and all the while carried her femininity with ease and dignity. And Ms. Noonan cites several other examples of effective leaders who happen to have been women. The article is a great read.

There is a larger point than Hillary whining about how the “boys” ganged up on her in the last debate and that speaks to the need for candidates to provide an honest and forthright articulation of their positions on the important issues. If candidates utilize the strategy of avoiding taking a position so as to avoid future criticism, and Mrs. C is not the only candidate that answers questions with non-answers, they will leave voters scratching their heads as they try to drill down beyond the sound bites to discern just how a candidate might handle the demands of the presidency. Watching Mrs. C. try to avoid taking a position on Elliott Spitzer’s plan to issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens was agonizing and frustrating. How many of us yelled at the screen, "answer the damn question."

The issues are large and complicated. War is easy to hate. What’s to like? And yet we are faced with real and serious threats from dangerous enemies that do not play by the old rules. The United States is a compassionate country that tries to meet the needs of its less-fortunate citizens. But we must ensure that a balance be struck between government control and the self-reliance that has made this country great. As a son of an immigrant, I have special reason to appreciate the opportunity that America has offered to new comers over the centuries. At the same time, if we do not deal constructively with the flood of illegal immigrants in our midst, we run the risk of unraveling the very fabric of our way of life. These, and similar issues, are complex and their solution will not come from fence-sitting non-answers. Would that we had more writers like Peggy Noonan to guide us through the obfuscation.

The Man from Pinpoint

In his new book, My Grandfather’s Son, Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, breaks his long-standing silence and produces a poignant memoir of his upbringing, his educational experiences, and the events that helped mold his personal philosophy of independence and self-sufficiency. Much has been written about Thomas, especially since his contentious 1991 confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, about this man that liberals love to hate because of his conservative views on many social issues. In reading this frank and revealing book, I was struck by how his life’s journey had dovetailed with the emergence of the modern Civil Rights movement which provided him a unique vantage point from which to hammer out his own point of view.

Born in 1948 in the tiny village of Pinpoint, Georgia, Thomas entered a world where black people still lived a segregated existence and during his early years, he had ample experience of the limitations such a system imposes. He came of age just as the budding Civil Rights movement emerged with all of its exciting potential. Thomas had an insider’s perspective as young blacks found themselves surging ahead into uncharted waters. Fortunately, he had been raised with a strong set of values that helped him chart his own course.

Thomas was raised in Savannah by his maternal grandfather, Myers Anderson, whom he called Daddy. A stern man, Anderson used his own brand of tough-love to teach his belief in self-reliance, hard work and tenacity. While the young Thomas bristled under Daddy’s discipline, he found ample opportunity in later years to fall back on these values. Another powerful influence came from the catholic nuns who taught at the segregated parochial schools that he attended. In addition to providing him with strong academic foundation, the nuns were also instrumental in helping him attend The College of the Holy Cross that he entered following several years of wrestling with the strength of his religious vocation in the seminary.

Thomas worked hard to graduate from Holy Cross as well as Yale Law School. And while his strong academic skills stood him well, he struggled financially, especially in law school where he was a married student with a wife and child. But the more telling struggle was the one he waged with the emerging battle for Civil Rights. As an undergraduate he was part of the black student movement and experienced the heady rhetoric and activism that sought to right century-old wrongs. While Thomas had plenty of firsthand experience of life under the old ways of segregation, he was troubled by some of the new ideas being put forth, especially those that stressed separatism and rejection of white society. He also disagreed with some of the new social theories, such as forced busing to achieve school integration. He felt that while this solution allowed for statistical “progress”, it did not do enough to address the issue of providing quality education for all students. He distrusted the disturbing trend towards increased emphasis on government programs rather than stressing self-reliance as a means of improving one’s lot in life. His experience with Affirmative Action left him bristling over the fact that when he went in search of his first job, he found that his hard-won Yale Law degree was devalued in the marketplace by the assumption that black graduates had not been held to the same standards as other students. At the same time, his efforts to build a career, trying to balance the needs of his family against his determination to achieve a measure of job satisfaction should resonate with generations of young people, especially those who lacked a strong support system, who sought to make their way in the world.

In 1991, President George Bush nominated Thomas to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Among the qualities that supported his nomination was his hard won conservative philosophy that made him an attractive candidate for the Republicans. Unfortunately, it also made him a marked man for the democrats who quickly geared up to block his appointment. The chain of events is well documented, but it is important to recall that the charges brought by Anita Hill came by way of a supposedly confidential FBI investigation that was leaked to the press by committee staffers. In spite of the fact that the Judiciary Committee had already passed his nomination to the full senate, the hearings were re-opened to air Hill’s lurid uncorroborated charges in the public arena. And while, in the final analysis, it boiled down to his word against hers, Thomas brought a spotless record to the table while Hill’s employment record detracted from her credibility.

Fortunately, there were enough tough minded supporters who refused to let Clarence Thomas get Borked. But for a man who had struggled to live his life in a just manner, he realized that Hill’s charges would stick to him forever. Yes, he was eventually appointed to the Supreme Court, but he was left with a besmirched reputation that, in some quarters, will never be retored. In an attempt at blocking the appointment of a man who’s only sin was his conservative views, his detractors, left wing liberals all, stooped to the old segregationist trick of accusing a black man of sexual impropriety. It was more than ironic to watch members of this same group rush to defend Bill Clinton a few years later when was impeached for lying about using the Oval Office as a lair for sex with a subordinate.

On October 9th the Boston Globe ran an editorial by Derrick Z. Jackson’s that I thought at first was a review of My Grandfather’s Son. After reading the article, however,I realized that Jackson, in all likelihood, hadn’t bothered to read the book, which he neglected to name. He simply used snatches of the book to do a hatchet job on the Supreme Court Justice who, according to Jackson, should just forget about Hill’s charges since he had “won” in 1991. The Globe added editorial balance by running a cartoon next to the article depicting Thomas’ car spinning mud on Anita Hill posing as an innocent bystander. Nice Touch. If any of these journalistic wizards had bothered to read the book, they would have realized that the recalling of anecdotes of Hill’s employment were an effort at understanding why she made these charges which Thomas labels sees as totally false.

It is not hard to see how liberals can disagree with Clarence Thomas, but throwing fabricated dirt on his Supreme Court nomination is a far cry from a thoughtful debate on the issues. Don’t make the same mistake as the Globe staff. Read this book and you will come away with an appreciation of the ordeal that Clarence Thomas underwent and the inner steel that allowed him to survive it.

A Frank Libertarian?

According to Barney Frank (D-MA), if people enjoy an activity, there is no reason not to allow them to engage in it, as long as it causes no harm. Case-in-point: Casino gambling, which Frank supports for Massachusetts. If we follow this logic, couldn’t the same case be made for legalizing prostitution and other “victimless" crimes? The State of Nevada, where prostitution is quite legal, certainly thinks so. But I digress, as it’s not clear how gambling qualifies as an activity that causes no harm given the concerns about crime, addiction, traffic, and other social problems that come along with casino gambling. And in spite of the countless studies that have shown legalized gambling to be a nasty regressive tax on the poor. Frank argues that the government has no business telling people what to do with their money. Think about that statement coming from one of the bluest of the blue man group, known as the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation. But even if you accept that on face value, the state, by legalizing casino gambling is actively promoting a vice-riddled pass time within close proximity of its citizens. Think of the advertising currently done by the Mass. Lottery that clearly encourages people to participate. I can't wait to see the ads for the new casinos.

Frank thinks casino gambling would be a plus for Massachusetts as it would, he reasons, bring a supply of good jobs. In fact, he would like to see a casino located in the Fourth Congressional District, which he represents. And while he bristles at those that might look down there noses at casino-related work, it is important to question whether these are the types of jobs that our government should be promoting. Are these the types of jobs that involve the development of a skill base through education and experience that will help the worker thrive in an increasingly competitive work place? With few exceptions, casinos employ mostly unskilled workers in jobs with little advancement opportunity.

The Democrats, led by Governor Patrick, are proposing a watershed change to the cultural fabric of our state, rationalized by the endless quest for more tax revenue. What we need is careful and thoughtful analysis, not specious comments posing as leadership.

Eagle-Tribune endorses Ogonowski for Congress

In a refreshing contrast with the "progressive" blather emanating from Morrissey Boulevard, the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune has endorsed Jim Ogonowski for the congressional seat representing the Massachusetts Fifth District. Citing both his business and military experience, the paper goes on to draw the sharp contrast between Ogonowski and his major opponent, Democrat Nicki Tsongas, who’s primary body of experience stems from being the wife of the late Paul Tsongas.

Backed by the usual laundry list of Union backers, Tsongas is poised to chime right in with the fully Democratic Massachusetts Congressional delegation and its commitment to providing a governmental solution to every problem. Jim Ogonowski, by contrast,brings a thoughtful and creative approach to the issues of the day.

Read the endorsement and its incisive analysis of the clear choice facing Fifth District Voters. May clearer heads prevail.

http://www.eagletribune.com/puopinion/local_story_284115543

Globe Endorses Tsongas for Congress

The mighty Globe has examined the campaigns of Democrat Nicki Tsongas and Republican Jim Ogonowski and has concluded that Ms. Tsongas is the better candidate to build on the progressive leadership of former Congressman, Marty Meehan, whose resignation set the stage for next week’s special election in the Massachusetts Fifth Congressional District. If progressive means liberal, and I assure you that it does, The Globe is correct. Nicki Tsongas is definitely singing from the lefty hymn book.

Ms. Tsongas is four-square behind the push to over turn President Bush’s recent veto of the bill that would expand the State Children’s Health Insurance program. Jim Ogonowski is taking a more cautious approach as he is concerned about some of the provisions in the bill, such as the possibility that benefits might extend to the children of illegal aliens, or as the Globe calls them, undocumented immigrants. Not to worry says Nicki. Nor is she apparently concerned about the cost of this massive expansion of government health care. This giant step towards socialized medicine deserves a more thorough examination beyond the mantra, “it’s for the children.”

Tsongas is also said to have the most-clearly defined plan for reducing US involvement in Iraq. If the Fifth Congressional District ever decides to declare war on, say, Vermont, this brand of expertise should come in handy. In the meantime, she can join the congressional Greek chorus criticizing the President.

The Fifth is a blue district and perhaps any republican would face an uphill slog to election. At the same time, however, a serious discussion of the issue deserves more than an analysis of which candidate is more progressive.

A Voice of Reason

With the rush to establishing Massachusetts as a casino gambling Mecca, our own Vinny deMacedo has emerged as one of the few voices of restraint and reason. According to an article in the September 22nd issue of the Old Colony Memorial, State Representatives Vinnie de Macedo (R-Plymouth) and Tom Calter (D-Kingston) attended the monthly meeting of the Plymouth County Selectmen’s meeting on September 20th,to discuss the issue of allowing casino gambling in Massachusetts. DeMacedo made it clear that he is against the establishment of casinos anywhere in Massachusetts, and particularly in Plymouth County. Rep Calter indicated that he has not yet made up his mind on the issue. State Senate President Therese Murray, who was not present at the meeting, is known to be a supporter of casino gambling. Once again, Vinny de Macedo is demonstrating his clear thinking brand of leadership on an issue that could potentially change the culture of our home state for all time.

Politicians are quick to point to the “need” for additional tax revenue while paying lip service to providing relief for the tax payers. Allowing casinos seems like a painless way of bridging the gap as presumably only those citizens choosing to visit the casinos will be out of pocket. What is being ignored is the seepage of the casino culture into the surrounding communities. If anyone thinks that the casinos will be hermetically sealed cocoons of vice, they had better do some re-thinking.