Tavares, Tuttman, and Romney
Written by Sam on November 27th, 2007Thrust into the national spotlight on the 2008 presidential campaign trail, the case of killer Daniel Tavares is a horrific tale that reaches back well over a decade.1991 - Tavares pleads guilty to stabbing his mother to death in their Somerset home, and is sentenced to 17- to 20 years.April 2006 - Kathe Tuttman of Andover is nominated to the state Superior Court by then-Gov. Mitt Romney.
June 11, 2007 - Tavares, 41, completes sentence with year off for good behavior but charges of assaulting prison guards keep him incarcerated on $50,000 bail.
July 16, 2007 - Judge Tuttman grants Tavares’ bail appeal and releases him on personal recognizance, even after Worcester prosecutors warned of his violent history and the assault charges.
July 23, 2007 - Tavares defaults on a court date after fleeing to Washington state.
Nov. 17, 2007 - Tavares is accused of murdering Beverly Mauck, 28, and Brian Mauck, 30, in their home in rural Graham, Wash., reportedly after an argument over $50.
Friday - Romney calls for the judge to resign, with his GOP presidential campaign spokesman citing a “systematic failure” in the case “starting with the judge.”
Tuttman is a Democrat who Romney appointed because he wanted “diversity” on the Massachusetts courts. Is this the man we want choosing our next Supreme Court justice?
27
PM
The key story out of this has been missed entirely. Rudy Giuliani has completely obliterated his chances of becoming Mitt Romney’s VP by politicizing this tragedy.
28
AM
Why do people from MASS have Willy Horton style moments?
Joseph, Rudy does not need to worry about such things.
28
AM
Joe, Rudy Giuliani had absolutely no chance in becoming Romney’s VP, assuming that the man even gets the nomination.
28
AM
Murdock has quiet the Chutzpah to attack Romney in the article on judges, without revealing that he supports Guiliani.
In reality, Guiliani has an even worse record: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2957.html
In this recent Guiliani v. Romney battle, I think there has been a desire to figure out who is right and who is wrong.
Yet I think the answer is much simpler: both are right in their attacks on each other.
Both Romney and Guiliani were unabashed liberals who have flip flopped on many issues since publicly deciding to run for President. Both men have also acted like they will be tough and pro-active in the war on terror, but did not support a change in our strategy in Iraq until it was clear that the Surge will work (I am only guessing they were heddging).
The main difference between the two men is that Guliani (who was probably to the left of Romney) has not flip flopped on as many issues but instead decided to act like he is being honest and consistent. On the other hand, Romney went through an avalanche of conversions on many issues.
It is a fair criticism to say that FDT was from TN, and it was “easy” for him to take conservative positions (even Al Gore was pro-life when he ran for Senate in TN) as compared to Romney and Guiliani who are politicians from the Northeast.
One can hope that if they become president, they will have no incentive or desire to flip flop on issues that
they have now been forced to take a stand on - under this examination it should be assuring that in fact Romney has take stance on issues to the right of FDT.
-However, something makes me very uneasy in having such a Clintonesque Republican candidate. And I personally believe that either Romney would get destroyed in the General Election for flip flopping.
28
AM
I think there are a lot of reasons that the two would not run on the same ticket–this is only one of them. There are practical reasons as well. There is no way that you would want a ticket of two from the North East. Either would either need a southerner or a westerner to balance the ticket out some. Both probably also need someone who is more conservative than they are themselves (socially is the biggest deficit).
Huckabee or Hunter would seem to be natural choices.