Boston Globe: Looks like Mitt’s running again
posted at 2:15 pm on December 8, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Maybe, maybe not. But that’s a sexier lede than the real point of the story, which is that Romney’s using his PAC not so much to get Republican challengers elected as to keep himself out in front of crowds and scratch the backs of incumbents who could prove useful to him later. He’s a politician. Surprise.
According to the Globe analysis, he spent $244,000 on contributions to congressional and other candidates between April and the November elections. He has spent more than twice as much on staff salaries and contracts to hire professional fund-raisers, who are compiling contributor lists that will serve Romney well in a future presidential campaign.
In essence, Romney is financing a political enterprise that he can use to remain a national GOP leader and use as a springboard should he decide to launch another presidential bid for 2012…
[T]he committee’s track record of spending most of the money on other expenses, such as Romney’s political staff, raises questions about written fund-raising solicitations he has made that were mailed to potential contributors…
“The main purpose of Mitt Romney’s PAC is to enable him to travel around the country on virtually a full-time basis to campaign and raise funds for candidates and to promote policies that will strengthen America,” Fehrnstrom said…
Although Romney raised dire warnings of Democrats “spending millions” to defeat Republicans last fall, the list of candidates who received funds is dominated by incumbents who were either unopposed or headed to an easy victory, and who also endorsed his presidential candidacy.
All perfectly legal and predictable, especially if you remember how Mitt ran the Republican Governors Association, but worth noting anyway to counter the rumors that Palinmania has chased him from the field. The more I think about it, the better positioned I think he is for 2012: For voters worried that the party’s too southern and evangelical, he’s a natural alternative to Huckabee, and for voters worried about the party not taking policy seriously enough, especially economic policy, he’s a natural alternative to Palin. He’s a relatively rare creature among Republicans today — a social conservative whose chief appeal doesn’t lie in his social conservatism. Pawlenty, an evangelical, casts himself in the same mold, devoting far more of his public rhetoric to economic policy than to “values.” Huck’s tried to follow suit by getting out in front in opposing the bailouts, but his pedigree as a minister and the “Christian leader” nonsense from last year will always frame how he’s perceived. The only question is whether he’s willing to blow $40 million more on what might be another busted grab for the brass ring. Exit question: If Huck and Palin both jump in, will Mitt lurch to the center on social issues? He can’t compete with them for social cons, so he might as well try to capture the center. But if he does that, after having already been centrist-ish when he ran for Senate against Teddy in 1994 and then tacked right as governor, won’t his credibility be completely destroyed (assuming it isn’t already)?
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Just give up, Mitt. You belong to the Bush generation of Republicans.
MedSchoolCatholic on December 8, 2008 at 2:17 PM
and is un-electable nationally
jp on December 8, 2008 at 2:17 PM
He can be Palin’s #2.
Firebird on December 8, 2008 at 2:19 PM
the guy who had a 50-state ground game, had the potential of tens of millions of Mormon supporters from day one, spent $150 million and couldn’t win a non-caucus primary where a Romney wasn’t a governor, AND was beaten by John “I fly coach on southwest” McCain is going to take down Barack “I have 20 million text message addresses” Obama!?!?!”
LOL
What, is hotair becoming collegehumor or cracked.com?
battleoflepanto1571 on December 8, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Good. He’d make a good president.
therightwinger on December 8, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Jindal > Romney > Sanford > Palin > Pawlenty > Getting kicked in the nuts > Huckabee.
therightwinger on December 8, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Palin-hater Allahpundit wrote:
Oh please. Please ask the Club for Growth or other ficsal conservatives who they would prefer; Romney or Palin.
I gurantee its Palin by a landslide.
Norwegian on December 8, 2008 at 2:25 PM
I cannot see the American public electing a President that has been out of public office as long as Mitt will be in 2012.
I don’t see him winning in the South as a Mormon. Too many Evangelical Christians view the Mormon church as a cult vs. a Christian church down here. I went to a Bible College in Georgia and that was how they viewed them.
IMO, Sarah can wait till 2016 and have more experience as governor to put on her resume.
ny59giants on December 8, 2008 at 2:25 PM
He should run for Governor of Michigan. If he could turn around that state even I would vote for him. Until than, I’m on the Conservative Youth train. Next Stop Palinville, followed by Jindal.
portlandon on December 8, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Mitt’s a political whore but he’s a high class hooker.
He’d be the best to take on the anointed one in 2012.
2012….wow….I remember when I was kid I thought we’d all be using flying cars in 2012.
mylegsareswollen on December 8, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Hey, look it’s election time again?
(returns to important matters)
fogw on December 8, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Let see Palin who can actually is growing the state or Mitt, when gov population went down??
I think Palin will be a better president then Mitt. We do not know where Mitt stands on social issues.
BroncosRock on December 8, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Its all about Jindal and John Thune
mofo88 on December 8, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Jindal > Palin > Steele > Sanford > Barbour > Giuliani > Fred! > Ahn “Joseph” Cao > Romney > Zell Miller > getting kicked you know where > Bloomberg > Cruz Bustamonte > McCain > Feingold > Alan Keyes > Jack Murtha > Lyndon LaRouche > Huckabee
battleoflepanto1571 on December 8, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Palin needs seasoning. Jindal and Romney are my early favorites. (Jindal needs to keep doing a good job in NO, and Romney needs to make some waves being out of office. He could shore up his pro-life stances a bit.)
Huck, please stay on tv.
Chubbs65 on December 8, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Mitt is another big government Republican. Mark Sanford or Ron Paul are the two best candidates right now. maybe Palin if she reveals a libertarian streak.
lodge on December 8, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Again I don’t understand why people like Mitt so much, what has he DONE as a governor that makes him a good president??
By the way Mitt ONLY SERVE ONE TERM as Governor. By the time 2012 comes along, Palin would have SERVED LONGER as Governor then Mitt.
BroncosRock on December 8, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Why would his credibility be “completely destroyed”? Obama has “tacked” far more than Romney ever has and is Obama’s credibility “completely destroyed”? Not hardly, and in fact Obama’s credibility is so high that he doesn’t even have to release an American birth certificate.
MB4 on December 8, 2008 at 2:32 PM
I’d like to see Romney in there cleaning up big auto.
ctmom on December 8, 2008 at 2:33 PM
FIFY
cjs1943 on December 8, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Why have Mitt when you can have the real thing in Sarah Palin??
BroncosRock on December 8, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Mitt Romney is so NOT where the GOP needs to be for 2012. He didn’t last long enough in the primaries for the MSM to really open him up but by the time 2010-2011 rolls around, enough of the electorate will have either themselves been unemployed or have known enough unemployed persons to wrap their arms around someone who destroyed more jobs than he created. A daddy’s boy who claims to have ’saved’ the Olympics while merely getting them to quit openly accepting bribes. Mitt is the epitome of the empty suit and would ensure Obama gets another four years.
grdred944 on December 8, 2008 at 2:35 PM
They will crucify Romney again for his religion.
I think he’s a good politician (if there is such a thing).
I suppose more appropriately, I believe he’s a good man. An oddity in politics today.
And to think, the man actually has real executive experience! Something the average American doesn’t seem to think is important in affairs of state.
I want to see him in control of budgetary matters!
BTW Allah-what’s wrong with Romney keeping himself in the political mix? Maybe he wants to make a difference. Maybe he knows he can make a difference and doesn’t want to give up the fight.
I think he knows he has something to offer this country & he’s just as disturbed as all of us by what’s happening.
I’d rather see him behind the wheel than anyone who’s run since Reagan (an anomaly, to be sure).
Badger40 on December 8, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Sanford 2012. Not Mitt or Huck, maybe Palin, maybe Jindal but my concern is that he’s liberal. Any fresh face I haven’t heard of would also be OK.
The Dean on December 8, 2008 at 2:35 PM
3 years and 11 months to go before 2012
HURRY MITT HURRY
Dave Rywall on December 8, 2008 at 2:36 PM
If the economy is still the number one issue in 2012, it would be a good fit for a wonk like Romney. I don’t believe either Huckabee or Palin will run in 2012.
Slublog on December 8, 2008 at 2:36 PM
I would like to see Mitt/Sarah or Sarah/Mitt. I would like to see Jindal complete the cleanup of that mess called Louisiana. Then he would have some real credentials to run on.
cjs1943 on December 8, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Mitt is a Country Club Republican, because in 1992 he said when he was running against Kennedy he is not a Reagan Republican. That means Mitt is a Country Club Republican just like John McCain.
BroncosRock on December 8, 2008 at 2:37 PM
I can’t wait for Mitt to go away. I’m tired of him masquerading around as a conservative.
keepinitreal on December 8, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Please Mitt STAY HOME and NOT RUN again.
BroncosRock on December 8, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Allah: Romney can’t compete with Palin & Huck for social cons? Are you implying that social cons are one-issue voters? I’m certainly not. Yes, I agree with many of Huck’s social positions, but I wouldn’t pick him over Palin or Romney, because of his big-spending economic positions (W all over again). And as much as I like Palin, Romney’s got lots of experience and economy cred. I’m not Mormon, but the fact that he’s Mormon doesn’t bother me a bit — if anything, it signals he’s more grounded than your average politician.
Romney/Palin or Romney/Jindal for 2012!
Splashman on December 8, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Mitt Romney for Treasury Secretary in 2012!
CP on December 8, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Indeed, sadly. Why punish himself, and waste so much money? He’ll be great in a variety of cabinet posts.
Entelechy on December 8, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Mitt is a BIG TIME LIBERAL REPUBLICAN JUST LIKE JOHN McCain.
BroncosRock on December 8, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Sarah! > Jindal > Fred! > getting kicked you know where > Pawlenty > Romney > Sanford > McCain > Hillary > Jack Murtha > Lyndon LaRouche > Satan > Obama > Huckabee
Norwegian on December 8, 2008 at 2:44 PM
My completely shallow observation about Mitt Romney:
Republican Al Gore
JeffWeimer on December 8, 2008 at 2:44 PM
The MSM had no intention of opening up to anyone other than Obama-lama-ding-dong.
belad on December 8, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Isn’t Romney the guy who ordered Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts to distribute the “morning after” pill, thus forcing them to act counter to their faith and morals?
Romney will NEVER have my vote for that one.
unclesmrgol on December 8, 2008 at 2:46 PM
I don’t have any problem with Mitt running. If the economy is still the big issue it would likely be good for him to be out there. But I personally think that it’s very possible that whoever runs in 2012 will be a sacrificial elephant with the media still on Obama’s side. So, at this point, I’m very much in favor of both Palin and Jindal waiting for 2016 to run. Waiting for 2016 has the added advantage of extra time for them both to build their credentials and gain more executive experience (I’m in favor of Palin serving a second term as governor. No ‘Cuda in the Senate please.). Politicians never do what I think they should though.
meltenn on December 8, 2008 at 2:46 PM
He is a RINO from the Bill Kristol wing.
He seems like a decent guy, but he’s a manager, not a leader. He’s not inspiring. He probably could fix alot of the problems in DC, but he’s just not electable.
We got burned with RINO McCain and his ilk. That’s not gonna happen again. We’re going to want a true movement conservative with a proven conservative track record of reform, small gov’t, strong defense, and strong values.
Iblis on December 8, 2008 at 2:46 PM
People WAKE UP before you make a mistake and elect Mitt I am A LIBERAL Republican. We should elect Ted Turner for president, cause HE was A CEO of a company. We should also elect Bill Gates as president cause he was a CEO of a company.
That is what you people who want Mitt to run are saying.
We should draw a CEO name out of a hat and call him and ask him to run for president, cause he/she is a CEO.
BroncosRock on December 8, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Palin or Jindal will be the nominee. Expect Mitt to get in there once again. But those that supported him this year after Thompson tanked (Rush, Sean, Ingraham, Levin, etc) will abandon ship 2012 and Palin or Jindal will get the support.
jencab on December 8, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Oh, and Palin needs to get on the stick and set up a PAC herself.
meltenn on December 8, 2008 at 2:49 PM
People are still using the term LIEBERAL? Amazing!
Dave Rywall on December 8, 2008 at 2:49 PM
It looks like the media is going down the drain faster than McCain’s turd of a campaign.
I don’t think the media will be a factor in 2012 as it was this year because it won’t exist, and because no Republican is going to be stupid enough to accept public financing again.
Iblis on December 8, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Well Sarah has got better legs but Mitt is far more knowledgeable, so I guess it boils down to priorities.
MB4 on December 8, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Top 10 Things you could talk about over lunch with Mitt Romney:
1. Why he hates the French more than snowmen.
“First, Not France”
(February 27, 2007)
2. Why his favorite book is Battlefield Earth by L. Ron Hubbard
“The one by L. Ron Hubbard…I’m not in favor of his religion by any means, but he wrote a book called ‘Battlefield Earth’ that was a very fun science fiction book.”
(May 1, 2007)
3. Guns and abortion: evolving perspectives.
“I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I’ve been a hunter pretty much all my life.”
(April 3, 2007)
“I’m not a big-game hunter. I’ve made that very clear. I’ve always been a rodent and rabbit hunter. Small varmints, if you will. I began when I was 15 or so and I have hunted those kinds of varmints since then. More than two times.”
(April 5, 2007)
4. Hitler had some good ideas.
“Liquefied coal, gosh. Hitler during the Second World War — I guess because he was concerned about losing his oil — liquefied coal. That technology is still there.”
(April 19, 2007)
5. What not to say to fiercely anti-Castro Latino Republicans gathered for the Miami-Dade Lincoln Day Dinner.
“Hugo Chavez has tried to steal an inspiring phrase — ‘Patria o muerte, venceremos.’ It does not belong to him. It belongs to a free Cuba.”
(March 9, 2007)
NOTE: It is a starkly fascistic phrase that was, in fact, a tagline for Castro, who Romney had, earlier in the same speech, declared “a stain on Cuban soil.” It means means in Spanish, “Fatherland or death, we shall overcome.”
6. Throwing your wife under the bus. Mitt Romney was pro-choice at one time, but when he was asked about a contribution to Planned Parenthood from his wife at that time, he inartfully dodged the issue.
“Her positions are not terribly relevant to my campaign.”
(May 10, 2007)
7. Are the French Mormons? Are they from outer space?
“In France, for instance, I’m told that marriage is now frequently contracted in seven-year terms where either party may move on when their term is up. How shallow and how different from the Europe of the past.”
(May 5, 2007)
NOTE: France’s civil unions have no set date, but seven-year marriage contracts are a plot point in the “Memories of Earth” science fiction series by Mormon author Orson Scott Card, a retelling of the Mormon theology in which the limited marriages stand in for the other non-traditional marriage practices of that faith.
8. How not to talk about national security and sound like you’re ordering a coffee at Starbucks.
“Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is we ought to double Gitmo.”
(May 15, 2007)
9. Trading your for “governor” cap for your “management expert for President” cap.
“I’m not going to weigh in. I’m still a governor.”
(December 28, 2006)
10. Snowmen.
“I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman.”
(October 1, 2007)
chunderroad on December 8, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Why aren’t people out stumping for tah FRED?!? He would make a good combo with any of the choices…
His latest on the economy is freak’n awesome, and I was never a FredHead.
SkinnerVic on December 8, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Are you even aware of how Mitt made the enormous amount of money he has made? By running a company that successfully turned around many businesses and small companies. Turning around failing organizations is what he does! And it’s pretty ignorant to say the only thing he did for the olympics was to stop openly accepting bribes.
That said, if he ever became a serious contender for the presidency, the gloves would come off and the Mormon issue would really get nasty. So I’d prefer Palin because I think she could win. When I saw her acceptance speech for the VP nomination my first thought was that she should be the first name on the ticker, not the second.
rcw on December 8, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Romney’s got the 2nd Amendment credibility of John Kerry, as far as I’m concerned.
Bruce in NH on December 8, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Ugh!
So,this will be Mormon bashing hit piece once again,
and with Prop 8 going down in flames(no pun intended),
the Liberals and their Lefty protest goons,fresh off
‘blameing Mormon political ads’ will go after Mitt with
a vengence,and thats all anyone, will ever learn about
Mitt!
Me thinks,that a Republican should be a Conservative
and have a sqeaking clean record and one that will rally
the base and git er done!
canopfor on December 8, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Why Not elect Donald Trump as president??
He is a good CEO of the Trump company.
BroncosRock on December 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Krikey!
this sure is Deja vu!
this thread looks like many I saw 6 months or so ago…
oh well,
hee hee might as well say it :D
I’m with MITT!!!
Romney / Palin 2012
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on December 8, 2008 at 3:01 PM
He certainly has no credibility on social issues. There’s no way to spin the fact that his health care plan provided public money to pay for abortions. And that he was for gay marriage before he was against it. If the republicans run him evangelicals will vote for Obama.
A;so, the guy made his fortune by leveraging his inheritance money to buy troubled companies, close plants and layoff workers to temporarily jack up the stock price, and then sell what was left to gullible investors. You think the dems won’t point this out?
kcewa on December 8, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Uh, no thanks.
CP on December 8, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Official winner.
chunderroad on December 8, 2008 at 3:05 PM
He doesn’t want the job?
kcewa on December 8, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Mitt Romney is the only one of the contenders who could step in right this minute as President and really fix this country’s problems. No one else even comes close.
JA on December 8, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Where’s the data? Are you looking at long-term stock prices for these organizations including time periods pre/post Romey? Have you controlled for other factors in your analysis? Please…. Say what you want about his social positions and flip/flops — he has been very successful at turning companies around. Unfortunately, sometimes plants have to be closed. Companies bring in consultants like Romney to do the dirty work for them. BTW, did he sell the SLC Olympics after making a quick buck on it?
rcw on December 8, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Indeed, indeed.
Aronne on December 8, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Could we please stop with the Mormon talk! Romney has every right to believe the way he believes and to practice any religion he wants to. Simple as that-end of story. First, i will not take a potshot at Romney but facts are facts: he changed his position on abortion, but arguably saved the Salt Lake City Olympics as it was undergoing financial challenges; he spent a part of his fortune in promoting his candidacy getting little in return but also was able to attract a loyal and inspired staff; he is a good speaker and businessman, but had a hard time gaining credibility with working class voters. If Romney runs in 2012, so be it. In my opinion it will just make Sarah stronger if more candidates enter the GOP primary season.
technopeasant on December 8, 2008 at 3:15 PM
The GOP’s answer to John Edwards, Romney. I like him but he’s toast.
Palin – 2012
Onager on December 8, 2008 at 3:16 PM
rcw on December 8, 2008 at 3:08 PM
The SLC olympics aren’t going to be a campaign issue. Sorry.
AS for his business record go to this link: With a Business Record Like That, Romney Should Just Stick to the Flip-Flops
It’s Dem propaganda, but it will be devastating in a general election. And Romney doesn’t have the politicasl skills or personal appeal to counter it.
kcewa on December 8, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Mitt for car czar? (HT: NRO Corner)
Interesting. He would get national exposure, and if he could pull it off, would have an argument for 2012, other than cars are in his genes.
Obama stuck it to Bush by nominating Shinseki. Bush should return the favore by appointing Romney.
Wethal on December 8, 2008 at 3:18 PM
bingo
But you are probably right about Mitt not being able to counter it. The question is — can any true conservative candidate counter anything the liberals with the full support of the media want to pin on them?
rcw on December 8, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Repubs need to do what the Lib/Soc/Communists did.
Groom a guy for 20 years. (ever notice that Obama has never had to support himself).
But by 2012, it may be too late. 4 years could be enough time for the Communists to slam the door shut.
notagool on December 8, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Fixed that for you – as evidenced by the GOP primary. That speaks for Mitt too. Too bad you’re pulling your talking points on the Mitt abortion issue from the “bad record of Mis-Mitt talking points”: He was FORCED by the Supreme Court of Mass after it had been there a couple times over the issue that the state was required.
Nice try.
SkinnerVic on December 8, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Any Forbes-esque non-politicians that can make a run?
I would like to see Romney bolster his pro-life/NRA credentials a bit.
Chubbs65 on December 8, 2008 at 3:26 PM
It’s not that I dislike him. But I think the only reason for nominating him is if you really believe the party’s future is in abandoning social conservatives once and for all in 2012 to prepare the party for 2016.
And then your better choice would probably be someone like Pawlenty who doesn’t have the baggage.
kcewa on December 8, 2008 at 3:27 PM
how pathetic is it when half of the people making comments are so out of the loop they don’t realize Sarah Palin is a national joke?
The sooner everyone realizes that and she disappears the better.
bingsha on December 8, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Too early!
newton on December 8, 2008 at 3:31 PM
He still did it. That’s like saying the whig party leaders were forced by the supreme court to support returning escaped slaves. He could have vetoed the bill.
kcewa on December 8, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Are you kidding me with this garbage?
He forced government officials to recognize Gay Marriage based on a court’s opinion. The Legislature never changed the law nor did the people vote to change the law. Either of which are required by the State’s Constitution.
He championed Socialized Medicine in Mass. providing for $50 copay tax payer funded abortions and a permanent seat on the board for Planned Parenthood.
Supported the Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Bill while quadrupling the Gun Owners taxes and fees.
Hell, just because he called his revenue generation FEE hikes instead of TAXES does not make him a Fiscal Conservative either.
jparks1972 on December 8, 2008 at 3:36 PM
I like Mitt, I think if Huck, Rudy and Fred and him weren’t splitting up the votes and we didn’t have lib mischief in our primaries he would have won the nomination.
Things he has that most Republican candidates do not:
1. He may have been somewhat liberal in the past, but he now espouses conservative values and is not afraid to make the case. He is the only candidate in the running that was arguing against amnesty for illegals.
2. If he gets in he will work hard, he is well disciplined and so is his team.
3. He is a good debater and speaker, and will call out the libs on their nonsense.
4. He is telegenic.
5. Name anyone out there that would be better.
echosyst on December 8, 2008 at 3:37 PM
You’re missing the point – it was already that way. You (and all the others smearing this phony talking point) make it out like Mitt was responsible, when in fact it was a long-held relic prior to his time in MA.
Now if you’re looking to argue whether or not he should have fought that prior baggage, that’s a different discussion.
SkinnerVic on December 8, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Obama is in the White House for at least 8 years, and the democrats will control the House of Representatives, and the Federal Budget for at least 60 years.
The question is, will conservatives give up on government?
Skandia Recluse on December 8, 2008 at 3:42 PM
I met Huckabee at a Costco book signing in Greenville SC last week.
He proved to be a bigger buffoon in person than he is on television.
Game show host is his clear destiny.
jake-the-goose on December 8, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Anyone outside of Huckabee and we will be a lock to take control again after four years of the One.
lavell12 on December 8, 2008 at 3:52 PM
You have been listening and watching the MSM way too much.
lavell12 on December 8, 2008 at 3:54 PM
That’s what I’m arguing. If he wasn’t willing to fight it in Massachusetts then why should anyone believe he won’t compromise on the same issue (taxpayer funding of abortions as part of health care reform) as President?
kcewa on December 8, 2008 at 3:55 PM
A related question: will the republicans give up on conservatives (esp. social conservatives) to try and win elections?
kcewa on December 8, 2008 at 3:59 PM
I don’t buy into the hype his campaign put out about how he turned around businesses. He turned them around like Gordon Gecko turned them around. As for the Olympics — my point illustrates that he did little but has no problem taking credit. Fine, he can have the credit but telling a bunch of crooked officials to quit taking money and making sure venues were constructed on time (as they always are – even in Athens) is no great shakes and certainly does not make one White House worthy.
I am with you on Palin though.
grdred944 on December 8, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Blah blah blah a buncha hotheads dislike Romney because he is Mormon. End of story. These threads can wait a few years can’t they? I’m tired of this shit.
Dr. Manhattan on December 8, 2008 at 4:10 PM
grdred944 on December 8, 2008 at 2:35 PM
You have no idea what he did for the Olympics! It was a mess and he cleaned it up and left it in the black. Maybe you should know before you spout off. It was a cess pool, but I don’t think Salt Lake was the only cess pool in Olympic history. They have always taken bribes and they didn’t get away with it in Salt Lake. The whole Olympic international organization is nothing but people with their hands out.
He was just what they needed and I think he took $1 for his service.
He is a good man and a good business man. Too bad we’re too stupid or too bigoted to recognize it.
Bambi on December 8, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Didn’t mean to leave the whole thing in black.
Bambi on December 8, 2008 at 4:11 PM
This may or not be a good thread for this point, but here goes: Republican governors should not be chastised for raising taxes, unless they raise them so high their government runs a surplus, or so high that businesses and people flee the state (such as in California.) It should for us be an article of faith that federal taxes be kept as low as possible so that state and local taxes can be as high as need be. Governments must spend money, but taxes should be assessed and the resulting monies spent at the local level first, then the state level. It should not be an issue in Republican Presidential primaries that a governor raised taxes, again, unless they raise them so high their government runs a surplus, or so high that businesses and people flee the state.
Sheerq on December 8, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Cant we wait for the gunsmoke to settle from this election before starting another one? Sheeesh!
abcurtis on December 8, 2008 at 4:17 PM
No, that’s a tactic. You were making the point that MITT started it, when…
In 1981, The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ruled That The State Constitution Required Payment For Abortion Services For Medicaid-Eligible Women. (Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)
According To The Decision, When A State Subsidizes Medical Care, It Cannot Infringe On “The Exercise Of A Fundamental Right” Which The Court Interpreted As Access To Medically Necessary Abortion Services. (Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)
In 1997, The Supreme Judicial Court Reaffirmed Its Position That A State-Subsidized Plan Must Offer “Medically Necessary Abortions.” (Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Attorney General, 1997)
And that goal-post moving on Mitt by people is what pisses me off… If you want to make the point he should have fought that specific point, say so from the beginning instead of tossing out deadbeat canards.
SkinnerVic on December 8, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Allah can now beat Palin over the head with Romney.
KBird on December 8, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Here here… Hey Bambi – long time, no see.
SkinnerVic on December 8, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Staples, Domino’s Pizza, Sealy, Brookstone, and The Sports Authority – All companies that owe their success in part to Mitt. No one on either party comes close to matching his business acumen.
chansen9 on December 8, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Thank you for reminding everyone that some Republicans are just as prone to naive Messiah worship as Obama supporters were.
No one can just step in and “fix” this country’s problems. President does not equal emperor.
Hollowpoint on December 8, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Why are so many of you Mitt supporters so sensitive and have to blame someone not wanting him to be president on stupidity or hatred? Could it simply be that we may not agree with his stated policies OR perhaps because we believe that hsi past successes, positive as they may be, are not sufficient criteria for him to be in the White House?
grdred944 on December 8, 2008 at 4:33 PM
I’d like to watch the 1995 version of Mitt debate the 2008 version.
V15J on December 8, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Been there, done that, and the result is President-elect Obama.
ddrintn on December 8, 2008 at 4:51 PM
Romney/Jindal ‘12
iamse7en on December 8, 2008 at 4:51 PM
grdred944 on December 8, 2008 at 4:33 PM
It’s not that I will die to have Mitt as Pres, but you said he did nothing or that it wasn’t a big deal. Believe me I know and I know it was a big deal. So go ahead and criticize him all you want, but be sure you know what you are talking about.
Hi Skinner Vic. It’s been lonely out here.
I hate to see this starting already.
You know after all the work we did in CA you’d think that some would be grateful, and not go after him for “you know what”.
Bambi on December 8, 2008 at 5:09 PM
What a hit piece! The author makes ludicrous statements of fact without evidence and wholly ignores start-up costs and administrative costs involved in setting up such a committee. Man, the legal bill alone in drafting the paperwork would be astronimical.
Why create some new standard and hold Romney alone accountable? Clearly he is being singled out for scrutiny and ruination.
Lets apply this same standard to every pack and see what their startup costs are and how much of their money has been allocated to others. Anyone care to check, say HuckPAC?
Lori on December 8, 2008 at 5:09 PM
Good
Vashta.Nerada on December 8, 2008 at 5:43 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »