Tag Archives: Mitt Romney

Governor Bobby Jindal signs bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks

Bobby and Supriya Jindal
Republican Governor Bobby Jindal

Weekly Citizen reports:

Governor Bobby Jindal signed two new laws.  The legislation – SB 766 by Senator John Alario and HB 1086 by Representative Alan Seabaugh – are part of the Governor’s 2012 legislative package.

SB 766 by Senator John Alario prohibits abortions of an unborn child who is 20 weeks or older, and provides for license revocation and disciplinary action for any person who intentionally or knowingly performs or induces an abortion on a woman when she has a baby who is 20 weeks or older.

HB 1086 by Representative Alan Seabaugh prohibits euthanasia for the non-terminally ill and the severely disabled.  Prior to Governor Jindal signing this new law those same protections were only offered for the terminally ill.

Governor Jindal said, “It is incumbent upon us to protect the weakest and most vulnerable among us, and these new laws will protect innocent human life.”

Earlier this year, Governor Jindal signed SB 330 by Senator Rick Ward to create a specific crime for performing an abortion in Louisiana if the abortionist is not licensed to practice medicine in Louisiana. The legislation also created the crime of aggravated criminal abortion by dismemberment when the unborn child is dismembered in the course of a criminal abortion.

Governor Jindal also signed SB 708 by Senator Sharon Weston Broome to require that the fetal heartbeat be made audible and ultrasound images be displayed for optional review prior to an abortion.

Here’s the breakdown of possible running mates for the Republican nominee.

Jindal is in first place:

1a. Gov. Bobby Jindal, LA — No single person better combines the ability to excite the Republican “base” with the breadth of resumé experience, the reformist record, and the proven ability ofcrisis management than does Jindal. At age 25 he rescued Louisiana’s state health-care system from Medicaid-induced collapse; he helped forge a national Medicare solution (along Paul Ryan’s later lines) that won over Democratic moderates like John Breaux and Bob Kerrey but fell short when Bill Clinton pulled the plug during the Lewinsky mess; he ran Louisiana’s second-largest system of colleges; he served as the number two guy at the federal Department of Health and Human Services; he served three years in Congress and emerged from Hurricane Katrina as the only Louisiana politician with his stature enhanced by his highly effective responses; and he has been the most successful conservative reformer (and the only re-elected one) ever to serve as Louisiana’s governor. As governor he pushed through some needed ethics reformed, pared state government, kept taxes low, handled the BP oil spill superbly, and pushed through (partly in his first term, partly in his second) a series of education reforms (expanding choice and improving accountability) that, combined, probably outstrip even those of Florida’s Jeb Bush and Wisconsin’s Tommy Thompson as the boldest and best school improvements in modern American history.

Some will gripe that Jindal adds no geographical advantage to the ticket — and they are right. But that consideration pales in comparison with what he will add in one particular area. It is almost certain that, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on Obamacare, the question of “what would Republicans do to replace it” will dominate campaign coverage throughout the summer and perhaps all the way until Election Day. Romney himself, as the author of Romneycare and a once-avid advocate of an individual insurance mandate, is poorly equipped to handle this question. No high-ranking elected official in the country, however, can match Jindal for his expert knowledge on health-care policy, nor can anybody else match Jindal’s ability to explain positive, conservative alternatives to the Left’s state-controlled systems. In short, he takes a major Romney weakness and turns it into a strength, on an issue that really could sway the whole election.

Jindal also will be hard to attack. He has been somewhat inoculated by none other than James Carville, who said (for the dust-jacket of Jindal’s excellent book) that “I don’t agree with the guy on everything, but Governor Jindal has provided competent, honest, and personable leadership throughout some of Louisiana’s toughest times.”

Alas, nobody is perfect, and while national conservatives love Jindal, numerous Louisiana conservatives (some of them quite perspicacious, not to mention friends of mine) will bend anybody’s ear about certain alleged shortcomings and apostasies. Individually, their complaints may have merit. Collectively, they still don’t add up to an effective indictment of somebody who has had more success with conservative governance than anybody in Louisiana history.

Conservatives also will complain that Jindal is sometimes too inaccessible, and that his own geniality masks a serious political ruthlessness in his administration. In truth, there is a certain air of LBJ-like political muscle — definitely minus the corruption, thank goodness — that comes from the administration. On the other hand, in the hardball realm of national politics in which the Left and its media allies have no compunction about smearing conservatives relentlessly, conservatives could probably use a measure of ruthless effectiveness.

If Bobby Jindal and his team are deceptively tough, it also means they are tough to beat. Conservatives and Republicans of all stripes should celebrate such a quality — and Mitt Romney darn well ought to make use of it.

He is tied for first place with former senator John Kyl of Arizona.

I would prefer Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan, Pat Toomey or Bobby Jindal. Go with ice cold competence. These are all people with stong fiscal conservative credentials but who are also thoughtful, reflective social conservatives.

Doug Groothuis explains why conservatives should unite behind Romney

From Patheos, a MUST-READ post from evangelical philosopher Dr. Douglas Groothuis.

Excerpt:

Many conservatives (Christian or otherwise), me included, are disappointed that Mitt Romney will be the Republican candidate for President. They lament that a more principled conservative (such as Michele Bachmann, or, to a lesser degree, Rick Santorum) was not selected. Perhaps they stand for the libertarian principles of Ron Paul. Whatever the case, many will be tempted to not vote at all or to cast a protest vote. This is a deep mistake, based on faulty ideas about politics and the meaning of a political vote. In this short essay, I will labor to convince fellow conservatives, whether Christians or not, to support and vote for Mitt Romney for President. I have waited to endorse Romney until all the other competitors have been eliminated. I do not expect to convert political liberals to this cause, which would require much more argumentation.

His list of points are:

  • we have to be realistic about the alternatives
  • protest votes are wasted votes
  • the differences between Democrats and Republicans are HUGE
  • Romney is far more preferable to the alternative

Click through to read the rest. I highly recommend this post.

Here’s just a fragment I liked because it touches on religious liberty, which is my core concern:

Third, the essential principles between the two parties, however each candidate may vary from them, are sharply divided. Democrats support a larger government and heavier taxation and regulation. They view the Constitution as a wax nose they twist any way they want (progressivism), pit corporations and “the wealthy” against “the common man” (call it class warfare, a holdover from Marxism), and support a weakened national defense (the only area of the federal government Obama is trying to cut). They do not support religious liberty, and they are pro-abortion with a vengeance. Under ObamaCare, every American would be subsidizing the killing of innocent human beings with their own tax dollars. Ponder that, for God’s sake. It denies the First Amendment (by requiring many religious people to violate their religious principles) and sets a dangerous precedent for state intrusion into matters of religious conscience. Further, the Democratic party in general, and now Obama very pointedly, do not respect heterosexual monogamy as the norm. They favor same-sex marriage, which is not marriage at all.

Republicans support smaller government, lighter taxation and regulation, a higher view of the Constitution as a body of objective truths to be applied rightly today, and the opportunities allowed by a basically free market. They advocate a strong national defense (or “Peace through strength,” in Reagan’s formulation) and are much more pro-life. This means a Republican president is far more likely to appoint Supreme Court justices who honor the Constitution and oppose Roe v. Wade; to appoint dozens of federal judges with great influence, all of whom are likely to have a high and proper view of the Constitution; and to use executive orders (whether or not they are constitutional; they probably are not) in the pro-life cause, such as refusing to give foreign aid in support of abortions abroad and refusing to fund abortions in the military. While there are exceptions, Republicans support the historical and traditional family. While they grant all citizens the rights enumerated in the Constitution, they do not support same-sex marriage.

Its very hard for me to post link to this endorsement, but I feel that Dr. Groothuis has earned the right to be featured here because of his longstanding support for Michele Bachmann, and then later Rick Santorum when Michele dropped out. I think his post is realistic, and explains the real alternatives facing Christians and conservatives. There are few Christians I respect more on worldview and policy matters than Doug Groothuis, and he is the author of one of the top books on Christian Apologetics.

What I really liked about this article is how many books that Doug referenced, including David Freddoso’s book “The Case Against Barack Obama“. That book was one of the reasons why I started blogging in January of 2009. If everyone knew the real Barack Obama, then no one would vote for him. It’s a lack of knowledge that causes people to vote for him. Anyone who knows his real record and affiliations knows that he is totally unqualified to run so much as a lemonade stand.

Mitt Romney outspent Rick Santorum 4-1 in Wisconsin

From liberal CNN.

Excerpt:

Ads, phone calls and mailers have bombarded voters in Wisconsin in the days leading up to Tuesday’s vote — the next major battleground in the Republican presidential race.

The Badger State primary has gained significance over the last week as both Mitt Romney’s and Rick Santorum’s campaigns have indicated it could dramatically alter the momentum and duration of the race.

Romney and his allies have outspent their rivals by a little less than a 4-1 margin on television ads in the state, according to figures provided by an unaligned Republican media consultant that tracks ad spending in the nomination race.

Romney leads polls in Wisconsin and is expected to win in the District of Columbia and Maryland, which also vote Tuesday.

And something interesting from The Other McCain:

UPDATE 10:50 p.m. ETChris Moody of Yahoo News writes about Santorum’s campaign in Wisconsin, which included visits to seven bowling alleys and more than a few beers:

He has arguably been one of the hardest working candidates in the race, having labored his way up from the bottom of the polls when he held events in Iowa that literally no one showed up for, to becoming the lead rival to the frontrunner. The man has only taken five days off the campaign trail since last summer, and spent most of that time eking his way along financially. With weak organization to speak of and an entourage that consisted of little more than the candidate and a friend with a Dodge Ram, Santorum went from being the candidate who could hardly get his name on the ballot in some states to becoming a household name.

Ho-hum. Mitt Romney buys another state in the Republican primary. If they were spending the same amount of money, Santorum would win the primary by a landslide. This primary is being decided by money – Mitt Romney’s millions, to be precise. Romney also gets lots of money from global warming socialists and rich Wall Street bankers.

Here are Mitt Romney’s top contributors:

Goldman Sachs $521,180
JPMorgan Chase & Co $356,400
Morgan Stanley $297,550
Credit Suisse Group $296,160
Citigroup Inc $280,050
Bank of America $245,900
Kirkland & Ellis $225,202
Barclays $217,150
HIG Capital $188,500
PricewaterhouseCoopers $185,550
Blackstone Group $178,050
Bain Capital $151,500
Wells Fargo $148,950
UBS AG $140,650
EMC Corp $128,300
Citadel Investment Group $123,625
Elliott Management $123,500
Bain & Co $112,800
Sullivan & Cromwell $106,650
The Villages $97,500

Rick Santorum has to go door to door for his votes.