Romney picks up Shultz, Rice, Huckabee and Nancy Reagan Endorsements

JEFFHEAD.COM (Multiple News feeds) ^ | June 1, 2012 | Jeff Head

[Jeff Head]

Over the last few days, since Romney clinched the GOP nomination for President by going over the 1,144 committed delegates needed with his win in the Texas Primary on Tuesday, May 29, 2012, a number of new endorsements have come in for Romney's bid for the Presidency.

These include George Shultz, former Secretary of State; Condoliza Rice, former Secretrary of State and National Security Advisor; Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas and presidential candidate; and Nancy Reagan, wife of President Ronald Reagan. Here's what each of them had to say on the date they endorsed Romney:

NANCY REAGAN endorses Mitt Romney (May 31, 2012) “I offer my firm endorsement of Mitt Romney's campaign for president. Ronnie would have liked Gov. Romney's business background and his strong principles, and I have to say I do too. I believe Mitt Romney has the experience and leadership skills that our country so desperately needs, and I look forward to seeing him elected president in November.”
MIKE HUCKABEE endorses Mitt Romney (May 31, 2012) “I was very careful and deliberate in not wanting to get involved in the process prior to somebody securing the nomination, largely because I play on both radio and television. I didn’t feel it was appropriate for me to pick a Republican candidate. I don’t think anyone doubted that I was going to support the Republican. But Mitt Romney has now earned it — and I use that term very specifically. He worked hard to get it and therefore I think all Republicans and all conservatives need to rally around Gov. Romney. "So, I made it very clear: I’ll do everything that I can to vigorously support Mitt Romney because I think our country is at stake, and I believe his leadership would provide the right direction as opposed to what we’ve had for four years, which is the wrong direction. “Four years ago, we were opponents. There’s a lot that happens when you are running against somebody in a primary, but it’s not personal between Mitt Romney and me. It’s about our country, and quite frankly, Mitt has worked hard. He has my absolute and full support. I think when you look at what Obama has done and what Mitt Romney brings to the table in terms of being able to manage something, for heaven’s sakes, Mitt's managed a state, he’s managed a significant capital enterprise, he’s managed a huge non-profit endeavor, the Olympics, and done it all successfully. Barack Obama came to the presidency having managed nothing, not so much as a hot dog stand. And this country is struggling because of it. "I am going to do everything I can humanly do for Mitt Romney to be the next president.”
CONDOLIZA RICE endorses Mitt Romney (May 30, 2012) "We care about the future of this country, and the future of our world and I’m delighted to join so many friends here in supporting, and in my case, endorsing, Gov. Mitt Romney for President of the United States. If America is going to rebuild its strength at home, rebuild its sense of who we are, it needs a leader that also understands how really exceptional the United States of America is, and is not afraid to lead on the basis of that exceptionalism. America's leadership is craved in this world, it’s understood in this world. The only thing the American people dislike more than weak leadership, is no leadership at all. And Governor Romney, you can bring it back."
GEORGE SHULTZ endorses Mitt Romney (May 30, 2012) "“What Mitt has done at Bain Capital has been a major contribution to the American economy. He has learned and instinctively can feel what it takes to get this huge amount of money that is sitting on the sidelines of our economy to move forward and be invested."

I found Huckabee's statement interesting, and compelling, given the history.

CLICK HERE ON THIS LINK to see what each of the following names on the list below had to say (and when they said it) in endorsing Romney:

Rick Santorum
Newt Gingrich
Michelle Bachman
Rick Perry
George W. Bush
Rudy Guliania
Mitch McConnel
Herman Cain
Dick Cheney
Sarah Palin
Paul Ryan
Marco Rubio
Jim Demint
Jeb Bush
John Lehman
John Huntsman
Nicki Hailey
Christine O'Donnell
John Bolton
John Mccain
Paul Pawlenty
John Sununu
Christ Christie
Darrel Issa
John Kasich
John Voinovich
Tom Foley
Bob McConnell
John Ashcroft
Eric Cantor
John Boener
Connie Mack
Dennis Hastert
Richard Shelby
Dana Rohrbacher

A long and impressive list of very recognizable names that brings together every portion of the GOP...from the very conservative, to moderates (which he will have to have to win, as sad as it is to include some of their views), which will and is also attracting a majority of the independents...which he will also have to garner.

[Colonel_Flagg]

I submit he will have no choice but to follow keep those commitments.

Jeff, if the 2012 Republican primaries have any moral to them, it's that conservative influence over the party is at its nadir.

If Romney wins, it will be in spite of conservatives, not because of them. Over and over again, he's made appointments and statements that indicate that he is simply not interested in my vote. So he's not going to get it. This, coupled with his record as Governor, makes him unacceptable.

Those who think he'll somehow tack right and stay there if he's elected because his feet will be held to the fire by those who are actively being ostracized from party politics need to think again. Romney will control the party apparatus.

[Jeff Head]

Well said, KC. And I agree.

Romney is most likely going to be the tool the GOP is taking to the contest.

The absoultely over-riding chance in that case is that it will be either Obama or Romney as president in 2013. That’s pretty straight forward.

We get to decide what to do with that. To cast a protest vote. To cast a 100% ideological vote. To not vote. To vote for romeny. Or to vite for Obama.

Given what Obama is doing and what it is plain he will continue to do, I can take no action or inaction on my part that might see him get another four years to take an unfettered wrecking ball to this Republic. It has been relatively unfettered anyway...but in his second four years, I suspect we will learn the true menaing of that word.

Romney clearly has bad aspects in his record...but he has also committed to significant differences in the last five years, and has published those differences, and made commitments regarding those differences to very many very prominent people who are now endorseing him with money, with effort, and most importantly, with their reputation.

If you look at his positions on the issues, and what he says he plans to do...it is not a bad plan just on its face.

I believ he will have to be true to it...and I know there is a good chance he will. So, given my statment in the paragraphs above, and the fact that it is almost a certanity that it will either be Romney or Obama...my path is clear.

Everyone is free to analyze it as they will and make their own choice...but that is mine, and why I am doing it.

God’s speed to you, my FRiend. We live in very compelling, impatcful, dangerous, and yet interesting times.

[Jeff Head]

Amen.

[Jeff Head]

Romney is seeking and getting the endorsement of the may people (and more) this article refers to...and not just the four mentioned,but the scores listed on the article this thread links to.

He needs their money, he needs their active work, and he needs their reputation. he is committing his stance on the issues to them. His stance on the issues (taken by itself) is not bad...read them.

If he does that, he will succeed and the country will turn around. If he turns radically from it, it will not, and he will not have anything to claim or point to, and he will lose the support he is garnering now.

If, OTOH, he stays true to thos commitments, and we dleiver hims the majority house and senate, eh will be unbelievably successful, I expect similarly to Ronald reagan who applied the same types of principles to his turn around.

Romney will want that, he will get credit for it, and he will get an additional four years...all things I suspect he desires and seeks.

So, yes, I beliee he will be true to the commitments he is making now.

I know there is no chance whatsoever for anything like that with Obama.

Again, the chance Romney will trumps the certainty that Obama will not.

[Yashcheritsiy]

I take that as a compliment, in fact. Looks like I stand in pretty good company with Reagan.

Problem is, by supporting Romney, you're disowning a good share of what Reagan stood for, too.

But you don't care, since if Reagan were running today, you'd run from him, too.

But tell us again, Dad, how you almost talked Goldwater out of standing for the Constitution back in '64. IIRC, that was around the time you got your gonads ripped off in a cotton gin, wasn't it?

Oh, and you did know he came out post Roe v. Wade as pro-abort, pro-gays in the military, pro-medical marijuana didn't you?

You mean like Romney, at least on the first two counts?

Good grief, if you were any more emasculated, you'd be trolling the waterfront in the Castro...

[netmilsmom]

As a Catholic, you are called to vote for the least harm.

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=21656

Remember that “Born Alive Act”?

[Colonel_Flagg]

His stance on the issues (taken by itself) is not bad...read them.

I did read them. And since he's the guy who publicly distanced himself from Reagan-Bush, defined himself as a progressive and who governed as a liberal, I simply don't believe him.

Romney will stand wherever he thinks he'll get the most votes. His actions speak louder than his words.

I agree we must have the House and Senate regardless of who is President and that is where my energy and money will go in this election cycle. But Romney is simply a bridge too far.

[Jeff Head]

And I can understand you doubting him. But he is making huge political commitments and expending huge political captial with these endoresements to stand on these issues. He is toast if he renigs on them, and as a a pol, that is not what he will be inclinded to do.

OTOH, we have Obama who has no chance of supporting anything even close to those stances. To the contrary he will continue to take his "fundamental change" wrecking ball to the nation.

So, for me, on what I consider the excellent chance that Romney will have to keep those commitments, I will use him to defeat Obama who is clearly doing all in his power to deatroy us. While at the same time working with you to impact the House and Senate as we have indicated.

[Colonel_Flagg]

But he is making huge political commitments and expending huge political captial with these endoresements to stand on these issues. He is toast if he renigs on them, and as a a pol, that is not what he will be inclinded to do.

And if elected President, that will hardly matter. Being elected President seems to be all Mitt Romney wants, given the shape-shifting he has done to get to this point.

Jeff, I think the world of you and admire the work you've done on this forum. But I think we need to agree to disagree here. Best to you and I hope you are feeling well.

[Jeff Head]

WILCO on the agree to disagree.

Time will tell any way. If he gets elected, we will know within 6 months what he intends...stay the course he has campaigned for and been able to use to get endorsements (which would be a good thing and what I expect), or, shift change and etch-a-sketch (which would be a bad thing - although still probably not as bad as Obama - which is what you expect).

If he wins, we’ll get back in six months and resume the conversation...and if he etches-a-sketch, I will be the first to admit it, eat crow, and work to make his stay as short as possible.

BZ.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Time will tell any way. If he gets elected, we will know within 6 months what he intends...stay the course he has campaigned for and been able to use to get endorsements (which would be a good thing and what I expect), or, shift change and etch-a-sketch (which would be a bad thing - although still probably not as bad as Obama - which is what you expect).

If he wins, we’ll get back in six months and resume the conversation...and if he etches-a-sketch, I will be the first to admit it, eat crow, and work to make his stay as short as possible.

You, sir, have a deal. I am not above admitting when I'm wrong as well. And as two patriots having a civil conversation, I am willing to stand down should you be proven right. And frankly, if Romney wins, I pray your point of view prevails.

[Jeff Head]

You, sir, have a deal. I am not above admitting when I'm wrong as well. And as two patriots having a civil conversation, I am willing to stand down should you be proven right. And frankly, if Romney wins, I pray your point of view prevails.

Done...cyber handshook on it, and knockin' knuckles.

...and amen to everything you said, including your prayer, that is my prayer as well.

[BlackElk]

BOTH Myth Romney and Barack Insane Obozo have long track records of moral complicity with the evil of abortion throughout all stages of pregnancy. See Romneycare (adopted a year AFTER Myth CLAIMED to have become "pro-life") which offered abortion at ANY stage of pregnancy for a mere $50, and Obozocare with the Sebelius regulations attached thereto.

Material cooperation with evil is, ummmm, EVIL and not permissible to Catholics. Russell Shaw is a well0respected writer and Our Sunday Visitor, while not an official organ of the Roman Catholic Church, is generally a fine publication. Nonetheless, I recognize no moral obligation to choose Romney because he has SO FAR not succumbed to cooperating with post-birth infanticide as Obozo has.

To make such distinctions is to jump to the top of the slippery slope voluntarily and slide on down is to trivialize 2000 years of Catholic heroism and martyrdom. BOTH Obozo and Romney are unabashed and enthusiastic babykillers. Additionally, BOTH Romney and Obozo are enthusiastic persecutors of the Roman Catholic Church (for reasons that would apply to any other pro-life and pro-family church as well).

I think it is safe to say that there are no foreseeable circumstances whatsoever under which Obozo is entitled to a single actually Catholic vote. However much many Catholics might prefer someone (Myth Romney) THEY might (probably wrongly) PERCEIVE as more trustworthy on matters of national defense, money, taxes, money, spending, money, education, money, culture, money, guns, money, energy, money, trust fund protection and promotion, and, ummmm, money, voting for an enthusiastic baby-killer and persecutor of the Roman Catholic Church or any other is NOT MORALLY permissible for any Catholic. It is material cooperation with the central major evil of our time and also with persecution of our Church.

If opposing any and all baby-killers and Church persecutors means that I am not answering some presumed "call" to vote for "the least harm" which means the alleged lesser of two evils, that will just have to be tooooo bad because I don't vote for babykillers and Church persecutors and you (and whoever might presume to make such a call) are going to find that those Catholics absolutely committed against baby-killing and Church persecution are no more likely to "convert" over to supporting Myth Romney than members of the WWII Resistance were likely to convert to the nazism of their era.

If Russell Shaw is willing to listen to this false siren song of the Massachusetts trashbag, then he has freedom to do so under civil law. I would not want to be standing in his shoes explaining such moral surrendermonkeyism to Jesus Christ at the threshold of the next life.

The reference to the Born Alive Act, an Illinois legislative proposal that resulted from one instance of a baby aborted alive at "Christ Hospital,"(no less) a Lutheran hospital, in which a baby aborted alive in a late term abortion was ordered to be exposed to death by the hospital "authorities" by being placed in a furnace room by a nurse. The nurse was Jill (?) Stanek, a reformed Christian who forfeited her job rather than cooperate. I think she works for Judy Brown at American Life League nowadays. Stanek is a moral heroine. So is Judy Brown. I am betting Judy Brown won't be endorsing the Massachusetts baby-killer for POTUS any more than she would endorse Adolph Eichmann or Dr. Mengele.

In the "Christ Hospital" case, the child may or may not have died. Truthfully, I do not know but, as a result of the awful publicity applied to the worse reality at "Christ Hospital," its owners changed hospital policy to prevent any repetition. The child's death (if that was the result) is, of course, of great moral significance. The purposeful policies of Roe vs. Wade and its progeny, and of opportunistic baby-killer politicians like Romney and Obozo are of greater moral significance for me as a Catholic and not just because of the number of victims and likelihood of mass repetition. No one asks me, as a Roman Catholic or even as an American, to choose the leaders of the hideously misnamed "Christ Hospital" to carry on or cancel a policy of acting as Dachau for many unborn innocents (do they perform abortions of the conventional sort in the name of our Savior???). I am asked to vote in November between and among, inter alia, Myth Romney and Obozo. I will be voting for Tom Hoefling. I owe him that vote as my reformed brother in Christ, as a never deviating protector of each and every life lovingly formed in the womb by God, as a near infinite moral superior of the likes of Romney and Obozo and because four years ago I foolishly argued here against his advocacy of third party politics when another pair of unacceptables were nominated by the major parties: McCain and Obozo.

I have voted Republican in every POTUS election from Nixon in 1968 to McCain in 2008. I have regretted many of those votes (Nixon I, Ford, Bush the Elder, Dole, McCain). That is it. From now until the day I die, I am voting Catholic. I won't vote for phony baby-killer "Catholics." I will gladly vote for any candidate who deserves and has earned my vote whether Catholic, reformed, Orthodox Jew, or of no faith whatsoever who can convince me that he/she has EARNED my vote. Sometimes that will mean voting third party as I will for Tom Hoefling. On rare occasions for a Democrat, sometimes not at all. If you or any Catholic want to compromise, you or they will be doing it without me.

If Myth Romney wants actually Catholic votes, he should be made to earn them. I don't expect to see Myth earn them any more than Obozo will. I will not worship Moloch or Baal in the form of either one of those candidates.

What's next? Two major party candidates who regard the decision to kill one's children born alive up to the age of 10 years of age as a matter of "privacy." The Democrat says that 10 years of age is not enough. He/she/it thinks 12 would be better. Are you suggesting that I have a moral obligation "as a Catholic" to vote for the Republican he/she/it who would cut off the killing at age 10??? I don't think so!

[wagglebee]

Excellent post!

[BlackElk]

No, I will not defend Mormonism as such or any other faith which is not that of the Roman Catholic Church. I am closer to some (Eastern Orthodoxy) than to others (Mormonism, United Methodist, Congregationalism) but I disagree to some extent with each and every one of them precisely as each differs from Catholicism. So what? I would defend the right of a Mormon to be a Mormon, a Sikh to be a Sikh, a Hindu to be a Hindu, a Muslim to be a Muslim.

Specifically, as to MormonISM, I do not believe that there is an angel named Moroni or that there were ever any "golden wheels" given by him to Joseph Smith, and therefore, I do not believe in the Book of Mormon which Moroni is said to have given to Joseph Smith on those wheels. OTOH, if I had been alive at the time, I would have resisted those who lynched Joseph Smith. Religious differences do NOT justify murdering one's fellow human beings simply because of such differences. I do not believe in polygamy which was a feature of the early Mormon Church but I have difficulty (given the provisions of the First Amendment) with the idea of the federal government requiring abandonment of polygamy as a condition of Utah statehood so long as the polygamy (a very bad idea in any event) was voluntarily entered.

I think very well of most Mormons I have known since I have found them generally to be morally conservative and patriotic folks who often put others to shame on those scores. I am OTOH utterly and negatively amazed at some of their religious doctrines but those doctrines are no threat to me or mine or anyone else for that matter. Brigham Young was, ummm, an overly textured fellow but neither he nor anyone like him have been among us in this world for a very long time. His behavior was likely a reaction to what happened to Joseph Smith.

[Elsie]

OTOH, if I had been alive at the time, I would have resisted those who lynched Joseph Smith.

Actually, JS had a smuggled in gun and he died in the shoot out that occured.

[netmilsmom]

You are not voting for MR.
You are voting against the evil that is Obama.

>>Russell Shaw is a well respected writer and Our Sunday Visitor, while not an official organ of the Roman Catholic Church, is generally a fine publication. Nonetheless, I recognize no moral obligation to choose Romney because he has SO FAR not succumbed to cooperating with post-birth infanticide as Obozo has. <<

Read the article, it wasn’t Shaw, it was, “Moral Principles for Catholic Voters,” issued in August by the four bishops of Kansas.

Listen to the Bishops.

I’m going with my daughters’ Crusaders for Life group to protest the HHS mandate on Friday. I fully expect to be spat on and sworn at. This protest will be illegal if BO makes it back in.

[BlackElk]

netmilsmom:

If you and your daughter are spat upon at a Kansas protest against the KATHLEEN GILLIGAN SEBELIUS issued HHS mandates, then Kansas must not be what it was when I traveled to Wichita from Connecticut in 1991 to represent CT pro-lifers arrested by US Marshall's deputies and Sedgwick County personnel at the late Killer Tiller's abortion mill parking lot during what Operation Rescue called "The Summer of Mercy." The matter was before the notoriously pro-abort but personally nice guy US District Court Judge Pat Kelly, an ex-Catholic. Kelly was waging war against then Wichita Bishop Gerber (once Kelly's parish pastor) who I believe was succeeded as bishop by Bishop Thomas Olmsted who is now in Phoenix, AZ. I don't think Bishop Olmsted will be telling anyone to vote for Myth Romney much less Obozo. Bishop Olmstead is not a lesser of two evils kind of guy.

If Kansas is degenerating like that, perhaps the bishops issuing such a document bear some responsibility? Sebelius who is the daughter of the notorious Ohio governor Jack Gilligan was governor for two terms in Kansas. Has she been publicly excommunicated? Publicly humiliated? Denied the Holy Eucharist? If not, why not? Her public buddy and her fellow members of the Sanger/BlackmunTiller/Sebelius mutual admiration society is, ummm, no longer with us. Ms. Sebelius, an alumna (along with Nancy Pelosi) of some misguided excuse for a "Catholic" women's college in DC run (into the ground by the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur whom I had in grammar school way back when they were still Catholic) needs public repentance or public excommunication.

What we most certainly do NOT need is any more accommodation of any sort with money-mad or power-mad pro-aborts whether Obozo or Romney. If the Kansas bishops disagree, that's on them. It won't be the first time that I disagree with bishops nor, undoubtedly, the last. I don't live in Kansas and the bishops in question have no authority whatsoever over me unless I happen to be visiting their respective dioceses.

My Bishop is David J. Molloy of Rockford, IL, since he was consecrated a bishop and succeeded Bishop Thomas G. Doran on May 14, 2012. Not in Bishop Doran's lifetime nor likely in God's lifetime are we likely to see Bishop Doran (since 2000, a member of the Church's Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura which is the Church's Supreme Court) endorse the likes of Myth Romney for POTUS or any theory of "lesser harm or lesser evil." Bishop Doran publicly denounced Notre Shame University for welcoming Obozo and honoring him and suggested a change of that sorry institution's name to Northern Indiana Humanist University, stated in 2006 (while Romney was busy including heavily subsidized abortions and Planned Barrenhood under Romneycare) that the US would soon outstrip Nazi Germany in killing innocent human beings (he was being modest since 50+ million dead babies is about 5 times Hitler's toll). Bishop Doran enthusiastically welcomed a return of Tridentine (Latin old style) masses to this diocese. It appears so far that Bishop Molloy intends to continue Bishop Doran's style of leadership.

As any Catholic should avoid the grave penalties assessed latae sententiae (automatically) against anyone who materially cooperates with abortion, I quite vigorously disagree with this nonsense that we have some sort of obligation, as Catholics no less, to vote for Myth the enthusiastic babykiller and persecutor of disagreeing churches for EXACTLY the same reasons as I will not vote for Obozo either.

You bet I am not voting for Myth Romney. Nor am I voting for Obozo. I am voting against the evil that is BOTH of these evil twins.

When my clients in the pro-life movement (1100 of them in various incidents) swarmed INTO the abortion mills of Connecticut in substantial numbers, de-sterilized the instruments, poured raw eggs into the suction machines and generally put such mills out of business for weeks at a time, THAT was said to be "against the law or illegal." In such an event, then the law is itself illegal as a violation of Natural Law. If Obozo or Myth want to persecute Catholics or other morally conservative religious folks for ACTING as though they believe what they say they believe, so be it. Whenever this happens in Church history, we win! We turn the last shovel of dirt on the figurative coffins of our enemies. Do we believe in the promises of Jesus Christ to our Church or do we not? If we are Catholics, then let us act on those promises.

If we are spat upon or (puhleeze!!!) sworn at (oh, the intolerable psychological discomfort of being SWORN AT!!!), we should regard either as a compliment considering the source. Plenty of pro-lifers were brutalized or sexually assaulted by law enforcement, went to jail at some length for the privilege and right to shut down the abortion mills even temporarily in places like Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, West Hartford, Atlanta, etc., under the effectively pro-abort regime of Bush the Elder while the US Civil Rights Commission labored in vain to punish the perpetrators of anti-life violence at the request of John Cardinal O'Connor and Archbishop John Whealon and NYC Congressman Guy Molinari.

AND, BTW, where are my brothers in the Knights of Columbus when Catholic women and children are being spat upon or even sworn at??? It should be their privilege to non-violently get in the way of any heathen exercise of that sort. I believe that my council's 350-400 pound and relatively young insurance agent is available if expenses are paid (from Illinois and back) and perhaps his sizable eldest son (likewise) who is about 22 years old and an absolutely immovable object and an irresistible force, like his dad.

I tend to ignore counsels of those (particularly in the local hierarchies) who cry "Peace, peace, when there is no peace" or who counsel cooperation with evil, lesser or not. As St. John Chrysostom famously observed a long time ago: The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.

The bishops owe us a LOT more than: Vote for Myth Romney since there is a remote possibility that Myth would be a smidgeon better than Obozo on the issues that count.

People who protest the HHS mandate should ALSO protest Romneycare and be militantly in the faces of those who disagree and who counsel compromise with such evils. If our forebears were torn to pieces and consumed by lions at the Circus Maximus for refusing to worship various Caesars (some of which Caesars were marginally better than other Caesars but who was wasting time calculating which Caesar was the lesser of the evils as in Claudius was surely more benign than Caligula or Nero. maybe we could worship Claudius just this once!), if St. Peter could be crucified upside down for the entertainment of the guests at Nero's garden party which was lit by the flames of other martyrs covered with pitch and set afire alive, if Catholics and others were martyred for resisting the nazis and communists in the last century, can we 21st century folks muster the courage to be accused of being, well, RUDE to our pro-abort enemies like Romney and Obozo and anyone who might spit at you or swear at you on Friday??? Or even to vote against both of these shameless babykillers????

[netmilsmom]

Seriously Tl;dr.

Can I have the Reader’s Digest Condensed version?

[Elsie]

You are voting against the evil that is Obama.

Sorry; but our laws do NOT allow voting AGAINST someone.

We can ONLY vote FOR someone.

---

It's true we can SAY we are voting 'against' someone, but that does NOT make it so.