• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •
Posted on 07/19/2007 5:21:28 PM PDT by Reaganesque
Mitt Romney has a lot of ideas. That's one area where you can't criticize him.
His latest idea is called the "One-Strike, You're Ours" Law. Catchy title. Basically, what Romney proposed last night during his speech in Colorado Springs was tougher penalties for first time sexual Internet predators who prey on young children. If you are caught and convicted then you'll get "stiff mandatory jail time" plus Romney will sick big brother on you because the penalty will also be a lifetime of tracking by GPS systems.
I can already see the ACLU mobilizing the forces. If they thought the Patriot Act was something, wait until they get a load of this! Why do I have a feeling that Romney will need 60 GOP Senators to get that passed?! Here's a couple more items that a President Romney will try and accomplish:
He says he will require the Department of Justice to enforce the federal obscenity laws already on the books and ensure that producers and distributors of obscene material are prosecuted. How he will do that isn't clear.
Romney also says he'll "punish and fine" stores for selling really over the top violent and sexual video games to minors.
I'm sure most, if not all of the presidential candidates agree with the overall theme of what Romney proposes. The difference is that he's actually putting out ideas in this area. He's including these themes as part of his overall stump speech. He's trying to come across as not just a CEO business guy. He's engaging in what many social conservatives believe is an active culture war. Will it pay dividends?
That said, at least Mitt is daring to put ideas out there. Good or bad, he's the only major candidate to do so thus far. Go Mitt!
Romney doesn't get it, and he'll drive away independents who want less government, not more.
Wow. Another big government conservative. Sounds like he will double, maybe triple the size of the federal government. Heck, why not just get rid of state governments entirely.
Send People Like Michael Jackson To Lifetime Halfway Houses In Alaska
by Alan Srout:
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/may/article120.html
All the east coast conservative pols are for big government.
I like the idea of enforcing the laws we already have. Maybe some of the other candidates will pledge to do the same.
Nice spin, but there is no talk about doubling anything or increasing the size of government here, it’s about law and order. He’s talking about enforcing the laws already on the books or imposing tougher sentences on pedophiles or sex peddlers. I say bravo!
Women, independents and Reagan democrats, just like conservatives, want the laws enforced and tough sentences imposed on those who prey on children.
Now, now it's for our own good, you know. Nevermind that Dateline NBC is catching predators and you have state laws as well. But those pesky states, who needs them, eh? Why can't there just be one single government for everything. Heck, let's go further and just have world government.
Pure pandering by Romney, nothing more.
State laws are already doing this. Romney is not running for Governor anymore, haven't you noticed.
All this will do is open up a can of worms. Tell your candidate to leave the Internet alone and focus on the real issues.
“Wow. Another big government conservative.”
Do you whine and moan about ‘big government’ when the military sets out to recruit more soldiers too? Sheesh, this is one area that the government has an actual mandate, let them have the resources to do their job.
Is this a priority, though? I agree that scumbags should be arrested for trying to pick up kids on the Internet. But laws already exist for that. See, there's this thing called the Justice Dept. Romney isn't running for Attorney General. He's running for President.
Post #11, well said.
As I understand it, pedophiles and other sex offenders can’t be cured or reformed. If they’re let out of jail, it would be a good idea to put a monitor on them to see where they go. The most recent high profile pervert cases have involved offenders who failed to report to their parole officers and skipped out of town. Then they picked up some little girl and murdered her.
Romney didn’t commute anybody’s sentence while he was governor or grant pardons. I hardly think that sounds like a liberal’s approach to law enforcement. I agree with you that Romney’s putting out proposals and ideas to address problems. He’s not sitting back and expecting to win by relying on some fake t.v./ movie star personna and set piece speeches in front of selected, adoring audiences, either. I’ve heard him respond to hostile questioning from Democrat and independent types in New Hampshire. He stuck to his positions even when they obviously didn’t suit his audience. He also addressed every question with a logical, well thought out answer just as he has done in the debates.
This is exactly what is needed to protect children. It’s about time that the government cracks down. A national law is needed on this. This cannot be tolerated any longer.
Given the fact that no matter what Mitt says or does you and your buddies will reflexively dismiss it regardless of merit, I think we'll stay the course. As hard as this maybe to hear for you, you are not his/our intended audience.
He’d track 1st time offenders but he won’t go after Bin Laden?
In Reality, those people shouldn’t be let out of jail unless they are walking to the gallows to be hung.
When I was 12, I was walking home from school with my baby sister who is 5 years young that me. A young man driving a car stopped and told us that he had candy and asked if we wanted some. We just kept walking, and the young man drove away in his car. Thank God that young man did not attempt to do anything further. This just cannot be tolerated any longer. Any comment other than that is just missing the point.
Wrong. When Romney entered the race, I was hoping for some good-old fashioned, fiscal conservatism. Finally, someone who'll abolish whole cabinet departments and reform the tax system. Get rid of the subsidies and handouts. Looking at Romney's business success, I was hoping for that, and I was willing to overlook his Libertarian stands on social issues, which were still better than Rudy's.
Now Romney's trying to pander to the socons when he should be promoting a message of low taxes, limited government, and strong defense. Romney has a mixed record on social issues, it's not his strength, yet here he is supporting more laws against Internet predators that's not high on anyone's priority in 2008 and has to go thru Congress anyway. Real smart Mitt, alienate your core supporters to go after folks who are already supporting Fred or Hunter.
The President sets the tone for his Attorney General and the Justice Department. That tone trickles down to all the States Attorney Generals. So far, I like the tough, law and order approach Romney intends to set. He is not proposing creating any new federal rights, laws or bureacracy or usurping any states rights.
He clearly discusses enforcing an already existing federal law involving obscene material crossing state lines and encouraging tougher state sentences for offenders. Who opposes enforcing the laws we already have? We've had just about enough of compassionate conservatism to last a lifetime.
Enforcement. What a concept. Enforce the immigraton laws and enforce the sexual predator laws. It's about time.
--- Are far as your other complaint, you must have missed the Romney agenda on his website and the 10 or 11 articles posted here about his plans to lower taxes, limit the federal government, and encourage a strong defense.
Conservatism, Republicanism, is a philosophy of strength. We believe in a strong military, a strong economy, and in strong families and values. We believe in the American people. … And when you need to call on the strength of America, you don't strengthen government, you strengthen the American people." – Gov. Mitt Romney (Gov. Mitt Romney, Remarks At The Young Republican National Convention, Hollywood, FL, 7/7/07) Romney's Plan for
Yawn. You are such a twit. When I first heard of Mitt (his run for governor) I was, well not "excited", but close. Another Romney, and maybe this one would make it.
Bottom line: Major disappointment. George yes, Mitt no.
Being a GovernmentShrinker, I’m no fan of big government, and prefer things that must be done by government to be handled at the state or local level whenever possible. However, sexual predators or children, and especially those who use the Internet for their depraved activities, are just inherently not a state or local issue.
I don’t want one state putting a GPS tracker on one of these sick monsters and telling him he’ll be up for life in the slammer if he takes it off, only to have the sick monster drive over into the next state which prohibits or refuses to cooperate with GPS tracking of convicted criminals. And it’s hardly a state issue when one sick monster puts on live child-rape-to-order shows via the Internet from his home in one state, and other sick monsters in other states are shelling out money via national credit card companies to watch it in their own homes (and of course a lot of that is not just interstate, but international). And a large percentage of children who are abducted by sexual predators are very quickly driven across state lines.
Nope, this is an inherently non-local issue. However, the ones who directly commit such crimes on children (as opposed to SOME of the ones who just get caught watching) should never be candidates for GPS tracking, because they should never be let out of their cages. In fact, most of them shouldn’t be alive (I’m inclined to support life in prison for the ones who were brutally sexually abused as children themselves).
If states want to do this, that's up to them. But what in the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to do this? We need less commerce clause abuse, not more. I get very concerned when candidates propose feel-good ideas with seemingly zero thought about whether or not it's a Constitutional province of the feds. It's Bush all over again.
I truly respect your research-based advocacy for Romney, and I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything -- but when people expressed concern about Romney's "ocean" ad that he was trying to get government involved in such things as videogame violence, you said he wasn't trying to do so, and that he was just trying to use the bully pulpit to inspire parents.
Now, it appears that the concerns expressed on that thread were justified -- he wants the feds to get involved with punishing stores that sell violent or sexual videogames. I'm a mom, and I intensely dislike the government getting even more involved with my parenting. You cannot invite them in in one area without giving them more control over all areas. Government needs to back off their conceit that they are responsible for raising our kids, not get more involved.
Like all the non-profits hooked into the current WH? I think that some are very fearful of an outsider.
—snip—
Now Romney’s trying to pander to the socons when he should be promoting a message of low taxes, limited government, and strong defense.
—snip—
Mitt consistently discusses exact targets for percentage of GDP for taxes, government and defense. “Mr. Romney proposed adding 100,000 troops and keeping defense spending at 4 percent or more of America’s gross domestic product, a remark that garnered applause from the families and friends of Hillsdale’s 306 listed graduates.”
It is part of his core message, and reading the article, it is part of his stump speech.
Well, you'll be happy to know that Romney pledges, if elected President, to cap non-defense, discretionary federal spending at inflation minus 1 percent. That would save $300 billion in ten years. Romney pledges to veto any federal budget that exceeds the cap.
He also pledges to personally lead a top-to-bottom review of federal government programs, agencies, procurement and spending to eliminate waste, inefficiency and duplication.
At the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference (3/2/07), Gov. Romney talked about his plans to restrain government spending and eliminate waste and inefficiency.
MUST SEE TV that will make microgood smile.
Enforcing current laws should not increase the size and scope of the government. Maybe some people will just do their jobs.
The problem with this approach to sex offenders is in the details. The feds give the states money based on how many people the states have on their offender lists. Coincidentally or not, offenses as minor as public urination are now enough to get one branded a sex offender for life in some states. And, monitoring people is not an effective way to prevent most actual repeat sex offenses — in the same way that a mere “virtual” fence is not enough to stop people from crossing the border.
The answer is much, much simpler — if someone is so dangerous that they need to be tracked for the rest of their lives, lock them up for life or execute them. This is a much more effective way of preventing repeat offenses, and is much less likely to ruin the lives of people who make a stupid mistake and get caught peeing in an alley after a night out on the town.
Sounds like one of his plans might interupt something some folks are doing?
Right now, unless you are a pedophile or selling sexually explicit, obscene material - as defined by current law - to minors, I don't think you, personally, need to worry.
Predators still need to be monitor 24/7!
Advocating a return to Constitutional government does not make one a criminal. That’s positively Clintonian.
Some here seem to protest too much in defense of instead of for such a dastardly deed!
I’m all for the worst possible punishment for sex offenders of all types, but once someone does their time, their punishment should be done.
If they are so dangerous that they need to have their whereabouts constantly tracked and monitored, then they should still be in prison.
Amazing we got camers every where even Google his it fleet of camera ready to roam the street and hear hollowing about a good idea to harness the sex offended.
Go Mitt Go many of Parents who lost children would still be alive.
I just heard a story a few days ago a 4 yr old taken from her home yard raped and left wondering the streets pantyless naked in the wee hours.
They don’t use the word rape anymore it is not PC I guess like Mitt plan is not PC to some here!
No they call it molested which could mean any thing!
If they are so dangerous that they need to have their whereabouts constantly tracked and monitored, then they should still be in prison.
get real this is an addiction their is no cure for the world criminals.
“If you are caught and convicted then you’ll get “stiff mandatory jail time” plus Romney will sick big brother on you because the penalty will also be a lifetime of tracking by GPS systems.”
Honestly I think even this is too lenient.
It just reveals that candidates such as Romney aren't interested in real limited government - they favor big governmnet albeit a different form of it from the Dims.
I consider myself a conservative-libertarian, whereas the government should support the pro-life agenda and oppose the homosexual agenda. But other than that, the federal government needs to be reined in, big time. I don't care if other people use drugs, or if adults do whatever in their bedrooms. Who cares?
I agree with your concerns. We need clarification. I think it is more about enforcing current laws and demanding that people actually do their jobs. We’ll see. He’s a brilliant and successful guy, but everything he throws out their for discussion cannot always sound or be brilliant, I guess. Nobody is perfect. Not even my man, Mitt. LOL.
At this point, I believe Romney would hold down spending (I don’t sense that he’s an “overturn the existing system altogether” guy, which is what I would prefer...but it’s possible that no candidate can accomplish that). He’s got a good business background, he seems aware of spending issues in his personal life, he’s not been afraid to use the veto.
However, I’ve noticed during this campaign that there are really three flavors of small government conservative: those who mostly care about taxes; those who mostly care about taxes and spending; and those who oppose the extension of the federal government tentacles further into any part of our lives unless it’s specifically permitted by the Constitution — even in the name of a good cause.
Arguably, the feds do have Constitutional jurisdiction over interstate internet crimes. However, obscenity is a tricky area — as it’s impossible to strictly define, it is generally judged on the basis of community standards. If Romney were strictly talking tough on executing violent or child sexual predators who solicit all over the country via the Internet, I would have zero problem with that. But that’s not what I hear him saying — he’s talking about stricter federal government involvement in obscenity (legally impossible to clearly define on a nationwide basis), and federal punishment of bricks-and-mortar stores that sell violent/sexual videogames (which is the province of the states). I can’t support more enforcement of unConstitutional federal laws.
As for whether I personally need to worry, I see it differently than you do. I personally do worry that the federal government is so large, out of control and unaccountable that we are in grave danger of losing our Republic. I oppose smoking laws as a violation of private property rights, even though I don’t smoke. I oppose the militarization of the police in the name of the drug war as fourth amendment abuse, even though I don’t take illegal drugs (tylenol is a different matter :)). I am very concerned about government infringement of the second amendment, even though I don’t own any guns. I opposed the internet gambling ban, even though I have zero interest in any kind of gambling.
If we all wait until it’s our own ox being gored before we protest government intrusion, then it will be too late to do anything about it. And the fact that here at FreeRepublic, it’s nearly impossible to advocate for strict adherence to the Constitution without being accused of engaging in criminal activities (not referring to your comment — but others), is frankly frightening.
Give me a break. I'm all for Internet predators getting the book thrown at them. Is it the President's job? No, it isn't.
I'm a bit of an extremist when it comes to child rapists.
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.