The Mitt Romney campaign has announced several additions to its Advisory Committee on The Constitution and The Courts, including several prominent lawyers who had previously supported Fred Thompson campaign. Among the former legal Fredheads to enlist in Team Romney include former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Victoria Toensing, Former Assistant Attorney General Rachel Brand, Former Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh, Former Assistant Attorney General Charles Cooper, Former Assistant Attorney General Eileen O'Connor, and Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Noel Franscisco, among others. It's an impressive list of additions to an already impressive roster of legal talent. Notably absent from the list, however, are any of the former Fredheads who contribute to this blog. As far as I am aware, we are all still uncommitted.
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
Sources on the Second Amendment
There are worse prospects than Romney, but. . . . he ain't Fred. It's hard for me to very enthusiastically back one of the remaining candidates over another. I find myself asking, "Who shows the least interest in domestic politics?" among these perhaps-necessary evils. Romney, unfortunately, sounds like "a man with a plan."
The only thing Romney does not do is rely on the death of the Son of God for his Salvation from sinful rebellion from God.
There are no other candidates on the field even close to Romney's ideological conservatism. Unless you are looking for a certain personality, in which case you might want the affable but liberal Huckabee, then Romney is the unquestionable conservative choice.
You want to translate that second paragraph for the rest of us?
The problem is not Romney's conservative ideology, it's the fact he seems to have adopted that ideology right about the moment that he needed the support of Republican primary voters who consider that ideology important. In other words, he comes across with all the right words, not because he believes any of it, but because he's a CEO executing a marketing campaign.
As for whether Huckabee is "liberal", the Republican primary voters of South Carolina don't appear to think so, and SC is one of the most conservative states in the country.
I don’t know about that. About the only issues that he’s arguably changed on is abortion and guns. On fiscal issues like controlling government spending (something the GOP has been sorely lacking in) and bread and butter issues like entitlement and health care reform he’s been pretty consistent in generally favoring more free market approaches. Those really seem to be his passions and in that he’s more than a bit like Reagan – someone who was really more concerned about some of the “larger” issues but gave lip service to (and even switched his position on) hot button social issues because that’s what it takes to get the nomination. I’m fine with that and so long as he appoints decent judicial nominees, I’d wager the majority of social conservatives in the party will be fine with it as well.
Romney appears to be the clear conservative choice here. Giuliani is as socially liberal as Romney ever was. McCain is all-around unpredictable. Neither Giuliani nor McCain would defend the borders.
And even if Romney ended up becoming a social liberal after getting elected, he is still the smartest/most competent of the Republican candidates, and hence the best choice for President putting ideology aside. And while despite his HLS degree, I haven't seen Romney giving much thought about originalism/constitutional jurisprudence issues, I trust that he would be the most likely to hear the advice of damn smart Fed Soc types when it comes to appointing judges, so that for all practical purposes he would be the equivalent of Thompson in terms of his impact on the courts and the Constitution.
But he says Romney is the obvious choice. I agree. He has the best chance to keep the GOP governing coalition together.
"Just out of curiosity, does the "Advisory Committee on the Constitution and the Courts" actually give any advice to the candidate?"
In particular, did they help draft this -- and, if not, are any of them at all concerned about endorsing a campaign that embraces such legal views?
Reading the link yuo just provided made me more sympathetic toward Gov. Romney than I had been.
My concerns with him are not so much policy concerns, but concern's regarding the man's general unlikeability and about his vulnerability on account of his background.
The Democrats will be able to make hay out of his business background. The line will be that he made zillions by buying up businesses and firing people to make the businesses more valuable. Unlike tenured professors, most people feel vulnerable to being fired, and this will hit them in the gut. The fact that Romney looks and acts like the epitome of the privileged plutocrat will make such a campaign quite effective. Nobody feels warmly about this man as a person.
Considering Romney unelectable, and seeing no other economic conservatives, I consider the national security bona fides and the social policies ot the candidates, in that order. On this basis, I would vote for Mayor Giuliani or Sen. McCain over Sens. Clinton or Obama.
Not that that has anything at all to do with Romney's candidacy, of course. I personally lean toward McCain, for reasons that have to do with politics, not theology, which I'd always thought was the point of a political contest.
As for Adler's actual post: though Romney is certainly putting together an impressive group of advisors, Bush did too, and that didn't seem to work so well. In my mind, the relevant question isn't so much whether these advisors actually give advice to the candidate, but rather whether the candidate is the type to actually take such advice when it's given. Romney seems like he would, which bodes well should he actually get the job.
Alert the media! :)
On the "are Mormons Christian" thing -- best not to get too worked up. This is just another argument over who has the best imaginary friend.
However, with regards to fiscal conservatism, is there any more conservative candidate in the field? No earmarks. No pork. Cuts in Federal government to mirror tax cuts already passed.
Especially in light of the recent market downturn he's shown the most commitment to the free market of any candidate (with the possible exception of Dr. Paul).
But maybe because of that, he is also the guy who we all hated in high school, the best looking kid in the class who was also the quarterback of the football team, but also got As in all the AP classes he took. You can't go out for a beer with him, because he, of course, doesn't drink. Now add in the six well adjusted kids, and the nine figure fortune he earned on the side, and you get someone who is very hard to like.
"The campaign receives legal advice from members of the Romney for President Advisory Committee on the Constitution and the Courts, which is comprised of some of our nation’s top constitutional scholars and legal experts."
Forget policies. I'm not voting for anyone who doesn't know how to use the word "comprise" properly.
The cynical would ask I suppose, is "Somewhat innacurate" close enough to be stated in a Campaign Commercial.
In my mind Romney's biggest fault is that he is "too slick," and it shows. Very few of the statements by any candidates in some sort of Q&A are really useful at this point, but several of the answers given in the article Professor Lederman linked are such obvious non-answers it seems worse than the rest.
As a life long Mormon, I understand what you are saying and I agree that people are misinformed. Many times they see to be intentionally misinformed.
My Christian Friends tell me that Grace is a gift from God that no man can earn. To try and earn it through my actions is an affront to God and shows hubris and a lack of faith. Actions are not important, only faith is important.
My Mormon Faith teaches me that no one can earn their way into heaven. Human beings by our nature are flawed and it only through the Grace of Christ that we can get to heaven. However, I believe that actions have consequences and actions reflect my faith. Mormons have a saying, Faith without works is dead. In otherwords, it isn't enough to say that we believe. We have to live our life like we believe. Our actions have to reflect our words and our beliefs.
In my faith, I would never say I have been "saved". That is something God will decide, not I or any other man.
He didn't make a lot of mooney from downsizing companies? I'm not saying that's all he did. I'm not saying that this wan't good for the companies or the economy in the long run.
I'm saying that people whose jobs are not secure don't warm to other people who make a lot of money through taking away the jobs of others.
Well, it's over whether they have the same imaginary friend or not, no?
Question ducking and constitutional disregard as virtues?
The name Victoria Toensing is reason enough to steer far away from that madding crowd.
That's a Catholic saying, and in its origins had a technical meaning which was anathema to Protestants. Which is why Calvinist denominations remain skeptical.
Referring to Toensing as "impressive" is like calling Mario Mendoza a "superstar".
Maintaining a strong and realistic national security posture as a virtue.
It's one thing to have a Secretary of Defense with a do-or-die mentality and a new agenda to remake the armed forces, but when he gets free reign to continue making endless decisions that cost a lot of lives - that's where the hate rolls in. The liberals hated Rumsfeld for his ignorance, but they hated Bush more for standing by the loser time after time, where a new choice was needed. Look at the state of things now - Gates and Petraeus have done a much more competent job with a similar set of tools that Rumsfeld was given.
We weren't able to hold Cheney or Rumsfeld or others accountable, so we wanted Bush to show that he was accountable. When Bush dumped Powell - the only one of the group who clearly was not just loyalty-oriented and has been praised for his relative competency, that sealed the nail in the coffin.
When Bush dodged his accountability to manage his cabinet in a merit or competency based manner, and stuck by his cabinet, we then held the GOP responsible and gave a lot of otherwise-competent legislators the boot to punish Bush.
We should want a competent manager before any other qualities enter into the picture. Romney can offer that much at least - and Guliani is too willing to stuff cronies where they don't belong, so he would never be competent in his management style.
Mark Field: "That's a Catholic saying, and in its origins had a technical meaning which was anathema to Protestants. Which is why Calvinist denominations remain skeptical."
Actually, it's right there in James, so Calvinists accept it pretty wholeheartedly.
"Faith without works is dead," is not just a Catholic/Mormon saying, it's straight out of the epistle of James. However, there is great controversy among denominations as to what it means. Faith plus works? Faith alone? Faith alone, but with works as a natural response to salvation?
Martin Luther was in favor of scrapping the whole book from the canon for this very reason.
Not the way Catholics were using it in the 16th C polemics (or at least the way Protestants interpreted the Catholic position). For them, "works" included the [Catholic] sacraments; thus, the sacraments became a means of justification outside of faith. Or, at least, it could be seen that way.
"My Mormon Faith teaches me that no one can earn their way into heaven....However, I believe that actions have consequences and actions reflect my faith. Mormons have a saying, Faith without works is dead. In other words, it isn't enough to say that we believe. We have to live our life like we believe. Our actions have to reflect our words and our beliefs."
But where Mormons become heretics is where they say that the good works that we do are acceptable to God apart from faith in Christ. Mormons believe that faith in Christ only works for us if we've done all that we can do to be good people. For them, faith in Christ pushes us over the line but only after we've been as good as we can be. This will always be heresy.
That provides delicious irony in light of the many Protestants who have told me that Mormons are going to hell for adding to the Bible.
On this issue, he differs from both McCain and Huckabee.
Agreed, but he can't manage the government unless he gets elected first.
McCain has just too many flaws and has been too erratic lately. If reports are accurate, he was all set to join the Democrats in 2001 until Jeffords beat him to it. Plus, there is the whole list of bad legislation he has cooked up with Lieberman, Kennedy, Feingold, etc. I may not even back him in the general if he gets that far.
Romney seems smart and competent, which would be a nice change from Bush. And I think he is better suited to deal with what looks like an economic downturn approaching.
Plus, that's an impressive array of legal talent backing him.
From what I have seen, McCain is actually less of a fiscal conservative than are Romney and Giuliani. In fact McCain has admitted his ignorance of economic topics in general! It seems Phil Gramm is his advisor on this matters, brought in to address this shortcoming, which is some comfort.