Posted on 07/04/2006 9:36:49 AM PDT by Jeff Fuller
After studying Mitt Romney’s experience with Homeland Security (HS), I would argue that Romney’s Homeland Security experience and credentials exceed those of any other 2008 presidential hopeful—republican or democrat (rivaled only by the “wild-card” candidate, Rudy Giuliani). His experience is not limited to sitting on committees and being briefed on these issues. He is often the one called upon TO DO the briefing to key committees due to his “on the ground” experience with devising and implementing large-scale security plans. Much of this stems from his great success in leading Salt Lake to a safe and successful Olympic Games in the post-9/11 world as well as subsequent strong disaster management leadership as Gov. of Massachusetts.
Dr. James Carafano a senior research fellow for defense and homeland security at The Heritage Foundation, said in “Olympic Sized-Security” the following: “The 2002 Salt Lake City, Utah, Winter Olympics featured an unprecedented, integrated security and intelligence apparatus organized by Mitt Romney (now governor of Massachusetts). Salt Lake set the standard.”
Romney’s HS resume is strong and speaks for itself:
He sits on the Department Homeland Security’s Advisory Council (Advisor to Secretary Michael Chertoff of the DHS--a member of the Bush Cabinet)
He Co-chairs the National Governor’s Association Homeland Security Committee. Two of the letters he co-authored in this role can be found here (to the U.S. House) and here (to the U.S. Senate).
He oversaw and implemented the complex HS plans of the Salt Lake Olympics, both before and after 9/11, carrying off the Games without any major security glitches or events. Details of this experience can be found in Romney's book, "Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership, and the Olympic Games" (two chapters: “Securing the Olympic Games” and “September 11”).
As Governor of Massachusetts:
1) His state recently became one of only 10 states nationwide to receive a the highest grade for disaster preparedness (See CBS story).
2) He proactively led Massachusetts through a recent (May 2006) “State of Emergency” due to their worst flooding in 70+ years. Romney’s leadership through what the Federal government designated a "Major Disaster Emergency" drew rave reviews both locally and nationally (whole separate blog entry to follow).
3) The Massachusetts Avian Flu disaster plan has been held up as a model that the CDC and other officials have praised.
Sentinel HS testimonies/speeches by Romney:
1) Testimony to U.S. Senate Governmental Affairs and Homeland Security Committee on May 13th, 2003 titled “Investing in Homeland Security: Challenges Facing State and Local Governments”
2) Testimony to U.S. House Select Committee on Homeland Security given on June 17, 2003 titled “First Responders: How States, Localities, and the Federal Government Can Strengthen Their Partnership to Make America Safer.”
3) Lectured at The Heritage Foundation (conservative think tank group) on Oct 23rd, 2003 giving a talk titled “Grading Progress on Homeland Security: Before and After 9/11”
4) Testimony to U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on May 4th, 2004 titled “Lessons Learned from Security at Past Olympic Games”
5) Lectured and answered questions at The Heritage Foundation on September 14, 2005 titled “Homeland Security: Status of Federal, State and Local Efforts” (no text, but can listen to or watch his presentation.)
Since today is Independence Day the thought came to my mind that many in our world seek to destroy our freedoms. Romney is the candidate who is most qualified to help prevent such attacks on our nation as well as lead us through any crisis that may occur. He is the man I would want as my President should crisis occur.
Fire away!
So called? His support of socialized medicine and gun control pretty much paints him as an all out RINO.
Not to mention he's backed away from fighting the gay marriage decision by the SJC.
Romney should run on the Democratic ticket and his shed his chameleon status.
LOL! Kind of says it all. What else is left to be said?
Romney would make one hell of a liberal democrat, he has their views already.
I have said for some time that Mitt Romney is the only GOP candidate who can win the presidency (excepting Gullianni), because he has everything it takes to win. Good presentation, fresh ideas, charisma and looks. Never discount looks when half the voting public is female.
We may never get a 100% conservative president, and maybe we don't need to have one. After all, the president is the leader of the country and everyone is not conservative. Of course, our dream president would do everything exactly as we wish, but that is not realistic. Fire away.
Governor of MA where Kennedy and sKerry come from? Egads!
Actually this is to everyone who's commented here so far.
All Shock . . . No Substance.
Name calling does not impress me.
The South . . . Where George Wallace, Pat Roberson, and David Duke come from? Egads! (please tell me that you are capable of higher lines of thought than that!)
It's going to come down to Romney, Giuliani, or McCain, and Romney is the best of those three.
Memories are still fresh of the atrociousness of sKerry's campaign. Now another MA being put for prez? No!
You're probably right. I prefer Romney to any of the other electables. As for social issues, he is a Mormon. Some don't like that fact, but at least, generally, the Mormons have some semblance of Christain values. I know he waffles on abortion, but my sense is that he has done that to get elected governor of Mass. Didn't he do a Hillary to get elected there? He's not from there. I think he has been planning on the presidency for some time and he knew that being a governor is the best credential for the job. I have no idea why he chose Mass. I'm surprised he didn't choose WV. Rockefeller did. WV is easily bought.
Romney IS NOT your typical Northeasterner/MA man. Born and raised in Michigan. He's a true Republican through and through. The fact that the Boston Press and 85% of Mass politicans (the dems) HATE him should tell you that this is anyone but sKerry!
No. No. No.
His negatives outweigh his positives.
We need a conservative. We need one now more than ever.
You're using the same argument that the hildebeast will be using when she really gears up her campaign after she's re-elected to her senatorial position. She was born and raised in IL. Lived in AR. Resided in DC. Now she's from NY. Plus, she's a woman, wife and mother and already has White House and Congressional experience. If fact if one goes by credentials, she's better that Romney.
I've liked what I have heard from his mouth. He doesn't hold up the big "I" ala clinton. He talks like an intelligent person with ideas and not just slogans. I am tired of canned campaign slogans. I would like to hear someone talk without a teleprompter or memorized party lines for a change. I think people will warm up to Romney when they begin to listen to him.
Being able to run an Olympic Games is scarcely preparation for running this country, and his tenure as governor of Taxachusetts is notable only for his ill-conceived attempt to institute mandatory "Hillary-Care" for all. Should make anyone there feel nostalgic for Cuba.
As to his candidacy in a short: NO WAY!
Oh, wow! That sets MY mind at ease!
</sarcasm>
(Home of the Marxist Brothers: Carl and Sander Levin, Li'l Debbie Stabenow, etc. etc.)
Romney went to Harvard Law School and MBA school and stayed on in Boston with consulting. Nearly all of his professional career was spent in Boston and they raised their family there. In 1999 he was called upon to lead the Olympics in SLC Utah. He had roots there and after the Olympics they were planning to stay in Utah . . . but the Mass. GOP "Drafted" him to supplant their INCUMBENT candidate that was dying in the polls. He rode the wave of his incredible excecutive success off the Olympics to a comfortatble 10-12% win in a state with only 18% registered Republicans.
So, he didn't pull a Hillary Clinton-New York thing since that was his home for so long. He wasn't eyeing the presidency back then . . . but everyone took note when he won so convincingly that he was definitely one of the GOPs "rising stars." He's quickly "warmed up" to the idea of being POTUS. With hindsight being 20/20 I'm sure he were Gov. of a place like WV or Ohio, or Michigan!
He's even said, "By the way, had I known I was ever going to get into politics, I think someone would have told me. Don't stay in Massachusetts, the most Democratic state in America, go back home to Michigan where your dad's name is golden." (father was a well loved 2 term Republican Gov. of MI)
I agree that he's the most capable executive among the 3 "electables" and the most conservative. It's a no-brainer to me.
As far as health care that everyone is compelled to buy under the law, a hearty no-thanks!
Shhhh...don't throw in a little reality on this thread. These are the same folks that still think Bernie Kerik is a hero. That little mob connection and theft of 9/11 funds was just a little speedbump dontcha know.
Explain to me what aspect of the Mass Healthcare plan is in any way related to "Hillary-Care" (unless you think it is inherently wrong?
THis link has my own explanation of why Romney's and Hillary's plans are more opposites than anything.
http://jjfuller72.redstate.com/story/2006/5/29/0030/34495
Again, this forum seems to be more about labels, name calling, and pre-conceived notions. Hopefully at least some that are reading and not commenting are gleaning some useful information.
By David A. Fahrenthold Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, April 5, 2006; Page A01
BOSTON, April 4 -- The Massachusetts legislature approved a bill Tuesday that would require all residents to purchase health insurance or face legal penalties, which would make this the first state to tackle the problem of incomplete medical coverage by treating patients the same way it does cars.
Gov. Mitt Romney (R) supports the proposal, which would require all uninsured adults in the state to purchase some kind of insurance policy by July 1, 2007, or face a fine. Their choices would be expanded to include a range of new and inexpensive policies -- ranging from about $250 per month to nearly free -- from private insurers subsidized by the state.
"We insist that everybody who drives a car has insurance," Gov. Mitt Romney (R) said regarding the health insurance bill. "And cars are a lot less expensive than people." (By Julia Makalie -- Associated Press)
Romney said the bill, modeled on the state's policy of requiring auto insurance, is intended to end an era in which 550,000 people go without insurance and their hospital and doctor visits are paid for in part with public funds.
"We insist that everybody who drives a car has insurance," Romney said in an interview. "And cars are a lot less expensive than people."
Tuesday's votes approving the bill -- 154 to 2 in the House and 37 to 0 in the Senate -- were the culmination of two years of politicking and several months of backroom negotiations, as rival health-care plans from Romney and the two Democrat-led chambers were hammered into one.
What resulted is a proposal that health-care experts say is unlike any other in the country. What to do about the 45 million Americans without health insurance has flummoxed both the Bush administration, whose proposal for "health savings accounts" fizzled, and that of Bill Clinton, whose broad plan for health-care changes fell flat.
On the state level, Hawaii and Maine have programs that seek to offer near-universal access to health insurance, and Illinois last year approved a subsidy plan that will widely increase coverage for needy children.
But no state, experts say, has taken the step of making health insurance coverage a legal requirement. The idea was applauded by Uwe E. Reinhardt, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, who said that he has long believed that the American system of allowing uninsured patients to receive care at the government's expense was nothing more than "freedom to mooch."
"Massachusetts is the first state in America to reach full adulthood," said Reinhardt, noting that the new measure is a move toward personal responsibility. "The rest of America is still in adolescence."
I can only guess some "Moderator" decided it said too much, because it disappeared without any explanation.
If you read my post . . . you would realize that I mentioned Giuliani, but left him out as a "wild card" . . . if he were REALLY interested in running for POTUS, he would be working the pavement here in Iowa, meeting in small groups, etc . . . I still don't think he will run.
However, Giuliani was a Mayor (granted, of a BIG city), but a Mayor none-the-less. Romney ran a major international event (with a well-recognized history of terrorist activities) right after 9/11. He's run a state. He's a recognized authority. I don't see Giuliani being MILES ahead on this issue. But, assuming that Giuliani won't run, who can beat Romney on this issue?
And, someone above critiziced, the Homeland Security entity has been very ineffective and wasteful in many areas. If you read the links of Romney's testimonies it is obvious that he is calling attention to many of the problems and wastes that were/are occuring and providing remedies.
This is my anti-Romney rant. I will post it as often as I can, so folks out in the country will know what a bad guy he is.
In 2005 there were significant floods in the North-western part of the state--in the Greenfield area. There was a state of emergency declared, many hundreds were homeless and there was loss of life.
It was not a huge disaster, but you would think that the Govenor would do the "fly out to the location and see what is being done" thing.
Nope, not Mitt. Mitt got on a plane alright. He flew to a republican fund raiser in South Carolina. He was more interested in getting votes in a primary three years from now than he was in making sure his own constituents were being taken care of.
This guy talks well, and he is a good business person. But, he is NOT a leader. He doesnt have a vision and he doesnt have the brains to see where the morale and well being of his state takes precendence over a fund raiser.
Was this a big deal in the local and national press. No. Did it really matter to the people in the area? Nope--they didnt care if he was there or not. However, it would have been the "right" thing to do. You make sure the troops are taken care of. You make sure your people are safe and sound, before you run off to do something else. It was one of those defining moments when a person's true character shows through. And it wasnt a pretty site.
He is a loser. He would be a loser no matter his political affiliation, religion, or race. He is another of those well dressed, smooth talking, good looking, fake conservatives.
Stay away from him.
Apparently, Romney doesn't impress any of us. So, it seems we're even.
No one will ever mistake this for freeRINO.com.
What about this man? He doesn't seem to be in the Rino class. I don't think the open border lackeys will like him though. .
40th Governor of Colorado
Term of office: January 1999 – present
Lieutenant Governor: Jane E. Norton
Predecessor: Roy Romer
Successor: incumbent
Born: October 22, 1950
Fort Worth, Texas
Political party: Republican
Profession: Politician
Spouse: Frances Owens
William F. "Bill" Owens (born October 22, 1950) is an American politician and a member of the Republican Party. He is current (and 40th) Governor of Colorado.
Born in Fort Worth, Texas and a practicing Catholic, a master's degree in public affairs from the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. He is an expert in Soviet affairs and writes and lectures often on Russia. He has been married for almost 30 years and has three children. Before his political career, Owens worked for 20 years in the private sector as a consultant with Deloitte and Touche, with the Gates Corporation, and as director of a trade association.
Owens served as a member of Colorado state house of representatives from 1982 to 1988 and Colorado state treasurer from 1995 to 1999. Since 1999, he has served as the 40th Governor of Colorado. In the 1998 governor's race, he defeated his Democratic opponent, Gail Schoettler, in a very close election (they both received about 48% of the vote). He won the 2002 governor's race by defeating the Democratic candidate, Rollie Heath, 64%-32%, the greatest majority in Colorado history.
In 2002 he was proclaimed by the National Review, a conservative political magazine, as the "best governor in the U.S." [1]
Following the retirement announcement of U.S. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell in 2004, Governor Owens briefly considered running for the open seat, but ultimately decided against it. Leading up to the 2004 primary, Owens caused some controversy in the Republican Party by announcing support for Bob Schaffer's run to replace Campbell, but then endorsing Pete Coors when Coors announced his entry into the race.
Owens has also been mentioned as a potential nominee to the Cabinet of President George W. Bush in Bush's second term. Owens has said he expects to remain governor, but he also has not categorically ruled out the possibility of accepting a Cabinet nomination. Such a nomination may be less likely after the defeat of Coors in the general election. Owens has described his politics as mostly conservative with some libertarian influences. He is widely considered to be a possible candidate for President of the United States, or a possible nominee for Vice President in 2008 or 2012.
Oops, sory, I forgot to format. .
Romney could be strong in this arena (we really don't know until something happens and HE has to react to it), but his stances on other issues just won't fly with enough people for him to get a serious run put together to get there.
Giuliani is a case where he WOULD be a decent choice if and ONLY if this were the big thing, but this election will be held in 2008, not 2002 or 2001, when Giuliani would've won handily (I think).
Neither one will get a big run put together.
I still think it will be someone who isn't even getting much run right now.
He is a republican through and through in the same sense that Pataki is.
What I find especially ironic, is there are are at least 3 or 4 democratic governors and 3 or 4 democratic senators, who are MORE conservative then him.
His positions on gun control, abortion, and gay rights, are the same exact positions that Hillary Clinton has.
Simply put, I have never, and will never vote for someone for president who openly supports abortion, and there are enough pro-lifers with that view to doom Romney or any other pro-abortion/pro-gun control/pro-gay rights republican to defeat.
Romney and Hillary also have some other things in common.
Like policies they agree on, abortion, gun control, gay rights, etc.
No one West of the Great Lakes, or South of the Mason-Dixon, has a clue who Mitt is.
We've got a 50% RINO in office now. Mitt doesn't even come THAT close to being a conservative of any denomination.
I am sorry for the flooding that hit your area. I cannot speak for why things played out as the did. We can both speculate as to the reasons (you seem to have done that and added plenty of embellishment and hyperbole). If he was in error, I feel that, more recently, he has corrected that. Over on week after the most recent flooding in Mass. he cancelled a major weekend trip to Washington state and Wisconsin for political conventions. He is definitelly just about personal political ambition. I'm sorry if you see it that way.
In a position of leadership like governor not everyone will be be pleased with your actions. I'm sorry if you feel that strongly against Romney for this experience. However, trying to convince everyone about "what a bad guy he is" seems to be a bit overboard for the experience you describe, espeically without knowing all of the potential reasons for Romney's actions.
So, do yo live in Mass or Vermont like your name says? Is this second hand information or have you moved since then? Just wondering.
You said: "His positions on gun control, abortion, and gay rights, are the same exact positions that Hillary Clinton has."
Where are you getting your information? I'd really like to know . . .
Romney is the most outspoken opponent of Gay Marriage in the nation! How could you miss this?
Romney has ALWAYS BEEN PERSONALLY PRO-LIFE! Politically he has stood on the side of life in every opportunity he had (vetoed emergency contraception bill, vetoed stem-cell research bill, vetoed a law seeking to decrease the age for parental consent for abortion). He did campaingn on a promise not to seek to alter the MA abortion laws (an unfortunate compromise that any MA Republican must make) . . . and he has kept this promise.
Romney has been on the record before supporting the Bradley assault weapons plan, but most people support this . . . He supports the rights of people to own and use registered guns responsibly. Also, I know, through a reliable but private source, that Kayne Robinson, past President and current Executive Director of General Operations for the National Rifle Association, "is not opposed" to a Romney presidency. He knows that Romney will not work to restrict gun rights.
You said: "Simply put, I have never, and will never vote for someone for president who openly supports abortion, and there are enough pro-lifers with that view to doom Romney or any other pro-abortion/pro-gun control/pro-gay rights republican to defeat."
. . . your conclusions mean nothing when your premises are wrong. If you don't like him, fine . . . don't vote for him, but at least get your infomration right.
A couple of posts ago I forgot to put a question mark at the end of "He is definitelly just about personal political ambition?"
Nice guy.
But you have to admit, he has taken some truly dumb shoot-yourself-in-the-foot positions in the past. One I still have a very hard time with was his support for allowing homosexuals to serve as scoutmasters. Has he sincerely repudiated that screwball position? I hope so.
Since he's Governor of the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts, he doesn't have a prayer (no pun intended) of being nominated as the Republican candidate.
I think if Romney were paired with Allen, the ticket would win easily.
In the live debate with Ted Kennedy was Romney was asked the following: "You also sit on the national executive board of the Boy Scouts of America, which has an exclusionary policy banning gay members. Do you support that policy, and if not have you ever done anything as a board member to oppose it?"
Romney responded: "I have been to one board meeting now of the Boy Scouts of America board (as of 1994). I believe that the Boy Scouts of America does a wonderful service for this country. I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue. I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."
Obviously he should have stopped before that last statement, but , I believe, he clarified his statement as not endorsing homosexual Scoutmasters, but felt that all boys should be able to be boy scouts, and adult homosexuals might be able to serve on boards, be merit badge counselors, etc . . . . . . but not to be Scoutmasters or in a position to go on campouts. Anyway, he probably regrets every saying it . . . but, again, it was said "off the cuff" in a live debate. I have never seen anything else anywhere suggesting that he supports homosexual scoutmasters.
Anyway, he did end up on the right side of the issue since his main point was that the BSA should be able to make its own decision on the matter. Surely the Freepers can respect that!?!?
You're trying hard are you his brother or something.
Lived in MA for 45 years, went to college in VT. No embellishment, no hyperbole.
He had the chance to do the right thing and he didnt do it.
He is an empty suit who probably couldnt win if he ran again. His Lt Gov will have the floor wiped with her weak rear end. And I am also a life long Republican in a very Democratic state and district.
I live in Mass, dead meat in the South, panders to whom ever wants to be pandered to. We Mass Republicans had a choice Mitt or swifty, a RINO or a Commie. Mitt is a bad as his father, the definition of spineless RINO.
Romney ran in 1994 and 2002 as a flaming lincoln chafee clone, think not, heres one article to show you an example of his rampant liberalism.
Copyright 1994 Boston Herald Inc.
The Boston Herald
October 27, 1994 Thursday SECOND EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 038
LENGTH: 482 words
HEADLINE: Conservative group yanks its support for Mitt
BYLINE: By Joe Battenfeld
BODY:
A national conservative group yesterday attacked Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mitt Romney for espousing a "left-wing agenda" and urged its followers not to support his candidacy.
The group said Romney's nationally televised debate performance against Sen. Edward M. Kennedy showed he is "anti-family" and running away from conservative Republican themes.
"It makes no difference who wins (the Senate race)," said L. Brent Bozell, executive director of the Conservative Victory Committee, a fiercely conservative fund-raising group.
"Romney is not going to be a fighter for a conservative agenda."
The group's attack is not likely to hurt Romney in Massachusetts, where he is trying to appeal to the critical voting group of moderate independents.
Romney adviser Charles Manning last night dismissed Bozell's group as a right-wing organization that has not been involved in Romney's campaign.
"This is the type of gimmick that groups like this use to try to get publicity and it's really silly," Manning said. "There isn't anyone, anywhere who could ever say that Mitt Romney is anti-family."
Manning said Bozell's group has not contributed to Romney because he does not accept political action committee money.
Bozell said in an interview that he helped collect more than $ 3,500 in individual donations for Romney over the last few weeks.
He said he now regrets asking his group members to contribute to Romney because the debate "demonstrated very clearly that (Romney) has more in common with liberal Democrats than he does with conservatives."
Bozell's group is one of the most conservative in the country, and has been a constant critic of Kennedy's record in the Senate.
"I'm sorry we ever raised a penny for his campaign," Bozell said in a statement.
Other conservative leaders in Washington also were reportedly upset with Romney for voicing support on Tuesday night for gay rights, abortion rights and forcing employers to release information on their hiring record of women and minorities.
"Any man who runs on quotas for women is not one of us," Bozell said.
Kennedy attempted to link Romney several times during the debate to conservatives such as Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and accused him of trying to return the country to the policies of the Reagan-Bush administrations.
Romney objected to the characterizations, saying: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."
Romney has sought throughout the campaign to portray himself as a "Bill Weld Republican" who is is liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal matters.
One conservative strategist, however, said a Romney victory would hurt Republicans who are attempting to appeal to conservatives in the 1996 election.
"In their minds, if Romney is elected, that's a disaster to the future of the Republican Party," the strategist said.
Make no mistake, romney is nothing more than a politican who does whatever it takes to win an election, he is not one of us. This is just one article i found while digging up info on his senate campaign, beleive me there are PLENTY i've run across. The underline quote i think is perfect example of who romney really is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.