Romney: Job loss “the one inconvenient truth” that will haunt Obama

posted at 10:55 am on February 11, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Mitt Romney made a big hit with a crowded CPAC main hall this morning, delivering a passionate attack on the Obama administration and its performance on the economy.  Romney peppered the speech with a number of zingers that will be certain to be repeated later, such as:

What we were hearing was not just a new and improved Barack Obama; it was an entirely different Barack Obama. Saul Alinsky was out; Jeffrey Immelt was in. …

Make no mistake: What we are watching is not Brave New World; what we’re watching is Groundhog Day! …

He guaranteed that unemployment wouldn’t go beyond 8%. As he watched millions and millions of Americans lose their jobs, lose their homes and lose their hope, his response was this: It could be worse.

It could be worse? This is the leader of the Free World’s answer to the greatest job loss since the Great Depression? What’s next? Let them eat cake?

Oh, excuse me. Organic cake.

The biggest attack point, however, was probably this: “But how difficult is it to take office in the middle of a raging economic crisis and understand that the economy should be your number one priority?”  It got a huge applause line, and it characterized the entirety of his speech.  Instead of focusing on the economy, Romney argued that Obama directed his attention to health care, increasing regulation, and practically everywhere except boosting the economy.  To the extent that Obama did focus on economic policy, Romney charged that Obama focused on Euro-style market management:

Under the pressure of a crisis, people turn to what they really believe. With our economy in crisis, the President and his fellow liberals turned to Europe for their answers. Like the Europeans, they grew the government, they racked up bigger deficits, they took over healthcare, they pushed cap and trade, they stalled production of our oil and gas and coal, they fought to impose unions on America’s workers, and they created over a hundred new agencies and commissions and hundreds of thousands of pages of new regulations. Theirs is a European-style solution to an American problem. It does not work there and it will never work here!

The right answer is not to believe in European solutions. The right answer is to believe in America-to believe in free enterprise, capitalism, limited government, federalism-and to believe in the constitution, as it was written and intended by the founders.

It was a focused, tight speech that never strayed from its central point of rank incompetence on economic policy.  And it was very well received; even though early speeches sometimes get overlooked at CPAC, the room was full and the attendees enthusiastic.  In fact, there was a long line of people that couldn’t make it into the auditorium.

Romney did himself no harm at all here at CPAC and may have done a tremendous amount of good with this speech.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Five words for you, Kris:

Vote in the primaries! Vote!

;)

gryphon202 on February 11, 2011 at 12:09 PM

I always do. And I am not as worried about purity as some of the commenters here. If Romney gets the nom, I’ll vote for him. I gritted my teeth and voted for McCain. I sure didn’t like him, but I would rather be moaning about McCain right now than marching at Tea Party rallies. Romney can’t be any worse than McCain, and I’m sure he would be much better than another four years of destruction.

Kristamatic on February 11, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Obamacare (Romneycare) the second “inconvenient truth” for Obama (and Romney)!

Christian Conservative on February 11, 2011 at 12:19 PM

Go, Mitt, go!
I dig this cat.
I support Palin mostly because of the guano-insane, hate-filled lefties idiotic attacks against her but Romney’s the man.
I can get over Masscare, especially if he says he learned lessons from it.

joeindc44 on February 11, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Folks, those liberals in my State of Massachusetts were hell bent on passing some form of universal health care. It was going to happen in one form or another. I was afraid of a public option or single payer system being enacted as it would violate my concepts of free enterprise, crush competition, increase costs and reduce the quality of health care in my state. I thought the compromise solution of an individual mandate was a good idea on the state level and thought it had a chance of working, whereas I knew the other liberal ideas had no chance of working. So, I threw my support behind the plan that included an individual mandate. That legislation was a state law and not a federal law and was perfectly constitutional under the Massachusetts constitution. Such an individual mandate is not constitutional under the federal constitution as it is beyond the enumerate powers of Congress, even the modern expansive interpretation of the commerce clause. Although the individual mandate may have been constitutional in my state, it was not, however, a good idea. Although it may have been the best option available given the range of options the liberals were pursuing, it has proven to be expensive, ineffective and unworkable. Not only would I not advocate such an unconstitutional plan on a federal level, I advocate against it — not only on a federal level, but also on a state level. It’s a bad idea. I vow to repeal ObamaCare.

Now, Mitt, what’s so hard about that?

tommylotto on February 11, 2011 at 12:21 PM

Yes. Because the governor of a state is a “job creator” … sure.

Learn something about economics and get back with me.

I’ve lived in MA. It would take a reformation on economics from Friedman to create jobs there … idiots of the first order in all walks of life.

IrishSamurai on February 11, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Did you READ the article? NOPE.

Romney RAN on job creation. PROMISED to create jobs. Evidently HE thinks it’s the Governor’s job to create jobs!

Lot of fail in both YOU and Romney.

Sarah Palin made a lot of campaign promises too. She came to office with an incredibly aggressive agenda. The difference between her and Romney is she actually fulfilled each and every one, and she did it in just two years!

Again, Romney sucked at being Governor. He is totally clueless. That’s not saying he’s a bad human being, it’s just saying the man doesn’t have the skill set required to be a CEO. Most people don’t.

He’s a good middle manager type, but the kind that needs close supervision.

We need serious people with serious skills, that takes Romney out of the picture.

BTW, where was that “profile in courage” when the corrupt media and the democrat party blood libeled not only Sarah Palin, but the 40 million members of the Tea Party?

You think people won’t remember he was nowhere to be found while that was going on?

Sarah Palin, herself, was receiving death threats in unprecedented numbers, and yet, she stood up and spoke out against the evil. She didn’t just defend her own honor, she defended the honor of every patriotic, red blooded American.

She stood there and caught hell! But unlike Mitt, she stood there.

Romney has always been a political coward.

He’s the last person on earth I’d want anywhere NEAR the White House.

gary4205 on February 11, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Even if Romney promised with his hand on a stack of Books of Mormon to sign Obamacare repeal I would be hard pressed to believe him. When I look at him, in light of everything he’s said (and not said) and done, I see jello, not steel.

SKYFOX on February 11, 2011 at 12:23 PM

I guess it’s nice that Romney can do the TOPHUS thing. (Teleprompter Of Presidential Hopefuls of the United States).

Now if only someone can train Romney’s TOPHUS to say “In hindsight I see that Romneycare was a bad idea. Once your healthcare is put in the hands of bureaucrats, everything goes downhill except costs. I’ve been aware of other ways to solve many healthcare coverage problems that don’t include mandates or excessive government management. If given the chance, I’d repeal Romneycare, just as I’d repeal Obamacare…”

drfredc on February 11, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Go, Mitt, go!
I dig this cat.
I support Palin mostly because of the guano-insane, hate-filled lefties idiotic attacks against her but Romney’s the man.
I can get over Masscare, especially if he says he learned lessons from it.

joeindc44 on February 11, 2011 at 12:20 PM

You forgot your sarc tag!

Romney has not only NOT learned his lesson from his disastrous socialized medicine plan, he’s STILL telling other governors that it’s they way THEY should go too!

Complete morons are quite rare, but in Romney, we may very well have found one!

gary4205 on February 11, 2011 at 12:30 PM

You think people won’t remember he was nowhere to be found while that was going on?

Sarah Palin, herself, was receiving death threats in unprecedented numbers, and yet, she stood up and spoke out against the evil. She didn’t just defend her own honor, she defended the honor of every patriotic, red blooded American.

She stood there and caught hell! But unlike Mitt, she stood there.

Romney has always been a political coward.

He’s the last person on earth I’d want anywhere NEAR the White House.

gary4205 on February 11, 2011 at 12:22 PM

I think this is exactly what will happen- most people don’t pay any attention to politics at all until the last 5 minutes of a Presidential campaign. People in general will remember that Palin has a dancing child-out-of-wedlock daughter, and that she kills wolves. Romney will look mild and normal to most people. In a sometimes scary world, boring can be super appealing.

Kristamatic on February 11, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Sorry, Gary, meant to quote you.

Kristamatic on February 11, 2011 at 12:32 PM

I think this is exactly what will happen- most people don’t pay any attention to politics at all until the last 5 minutes of a Presidential campaign. People in general will remember that Palin has a dancing child-out-of-wedlock daughter, and that she kills wolves. Romney will look mild and normal to most people. In a sometimes scary world, boring can be super appealing.

Kristamatic on February 11, 2011 at 12:30 PM

The Republican base will remember quite well. Those are the cats who pick our nominee. Romney cannot win the nomination, so it’s a very moot point.

He will never stand against Obama in a political contest. And thank God for that, because he’d lose.

Remember, Romney came in THIRD behind McCain and Elmer Gantry. 2008 gave us the worst field of candidates that I can ever remember. If the best Romney could do is third out of that bunch, he needs to rethink his chosen path. Go find a new hobby.

gary4205 on February 11, 2011 at 12:36 PM

I guess it’s nice that Romney can do the TOPHUS thing. (Teleprompter Of Presidential Hopefuls of the United States).

Now if only someone can train Romney’s TOPHUS to say “In hindsight I see that Romneycare was a bad idea. Once your healthcare is put in the hands of bureaucrats, everything goes downhill except costs. I’ve been aware of other ways to solve many healthcare coverage problems that don’t include mandates or excessive government management. If given the chance, I’d repeal Romneycare, just as I’d repeal Obamacare…”

drfredc on February 11, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Romney’s problem is that someone of his supposed economic insight and econ/intellectual heft should have known what the outcome of RomneyCare would be. Central planning works no better in states than it does at the federal level, even in a relatively small state, like Massachusetts.

pugwriter on February 11, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Hey. Romney co-opted my ground hog day snark about him. The day he peeks his head out to see if the universal health care debate is still raging.

If so he hides for another 90 days hoping it will blow over.

Geochelone on February 11, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Sorry, Gary, meant to quote you.

Kristamatic on February 11, 2011 at 12:32 PM

No worries. Sometimes I accidentally hit strike instead of quote! Of course I never think to hit preview, so…. :-)

gary4205 on February 11, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Romney’s problem is that someone of his supposed economic insight and econ/intellectual heft should have known what the outcome of RomneyCare would be. Central planning works no better in states than it does at the federal level, even in a relatively small state, like Massachusetts.

pugwriter on February 11, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Ed Zachary!

A smart person would have KNOWN what happens when you let the camel get it’s nose under the tent!

My God, Reagan preached against socialized medicine in 1961 and pointed out that the Communists preferred method of getting control of a people is through first implementing socialized medicine.

The fact that Romney didn’t know Reagan’s “Operation Coffee Cup” efforts and his speech by heart, tells you all you need to know about Romney’s alleged “smarts.”

gary4205 on February 11, 2011 at 12:43 PM

So then Romney flip-flops renouncing his frankenstein plan and then what? Remember it was the Heritage Foundation that created the individual mandate, not Romney. I’ll take someone who’s a 70% friend 30% enemy with a shot at winning a lot of independents rather than four more years of Oprama.

IMHO, as an independent you’re all delusional if you think Palin has any shot at winning the presidency.

hot-heir on February 11, 2011 at 12:51 PM

The Republican base will remember quite well. Those are the cats who pick our nominee. Romney cannot win the nomination, so it’s a very moot point.
gary4205 on February 11, 2011 at 12:36 PM</blockquote

I thought having the base despise you was a prerequisite for being the GOP nominee? What did I miss?

Kristamatic on February 11, 2011 at 12:57 PM

President Mitt will be smiling and talking about “the call of history” as he signs the last of my 2nd Amendment Rights away. Screw him.

SurferDoc on February 11, 2011 at 1:12 PM

I thought having the base despise you was a prerequisite for being the GOP nominee? What did I miss?

Kristamatic on February 11, 2011 at 12:57 PM

It seems that way, doesn’t it.

The last time we won landslide elections the base LOVED our candidate. His name was Ronald Wilson Reagan.

gary4205 on February 11, 2011 at 1:13 PM

RomneyCare was subsidized with 1 BILLION DOLLARS OF FEDERAL MONEY. Now they want more to “Fix” it.

portlandon on February 11, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Its amazing how ignorant people are when it comes to RomneyCare.

RomneyCare did take federal money but he directed the money to go in a different direction. Instead of taking they money to pay for poor people who received medical care at a hospital, he transfered the money so that it became a voucher so that poor people could purchase their own health care.

In essence, Romney created a medical voucher for poor people to purchase their own health insurance.

That’s a conservative principle. Much like school choice and vouchers for poor people. The government gives parents choice by giving them money and letting them choose which schools they want to pay for.

Its funny that conservatives are in support of school choice and vouchers but don’t like the idea of medical vouchers.

Romney was #50 out of 50 in job creation! He’s WORSE than Obama at it all.

Mitt Romney plays the jobs card

Commentary: Looking at his record, it’s a losing argument

gary4205 on February 11, 2011 at 11:52 AM

Not true.

Massachusetts started out as 50th out of 50 after one year in job creation and by the time Romney left office four years later, 47th. Moreover, out of all the New England states, Massachusetts lead in job creation.

So in spite of a hostile veto-proof legislature, he still managed to leapfrog three other states. You can’t force a business to go into a state that does all it can to discourage their presence. Short of an armed coup and naming himself dictator of Massachusetts, Romney did about as well as anyone could do as governor of that particular state.

Moreover, Romney served as governor of Massachusetts (2003-2007), with a generally conservative record that included economic expansion.

He balanced the budget every year of his administration with out increasing taxes or increasing state dept. Romney turned a $3 billion budget deficit into a $2 million surplus by reducing government spending and added 80,000 new jobs by the end of his term.

Moreover, lets compare Mitt’s unemployment rate when he started office and when he left office:

Jan 2003 (When Romney entered office) 6.3%

Jan 2007 (When Romney entered office) 5.4%”

Conservative Samizdat on February 11, 2011 at 1:15 PM

IMHO, as an independent you’re all delusional if you think Palin has any shot at winning the presidency.

hot-heir on February 11, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Your “concern” is noted.

I think you’ll find 90% of the millions of people who support Palin consider themselves independents, not Republicans.

But thanks for your helpful tip.

gary4205 on February 11, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Massachusetts started out as 50th out of 50 after one year in job creation and by the time Romney left office four years later, 47th. Moreover, out of all the New England states, Massachusetts lead in job creation.

So in spite of a hostile veto-proof legislature, he still managed to leapfrog three other states. You can’t force a business to go into a state that does all it can to discourage their presence. Short of an armed coup and naming himself dictator of Massachusetts, Romney did about as well as anyone could do as governor of that particular state.

Moreover, Romney served as governor of Massachusetts (2003-2007), with a generally conservative record that included economic expansion.

He balanced the budget every year of his administration with out increasing taxes or increasing state dept. Romney turned a $3 billion budget deficit into a $2 million surplus by reducing government spending and added 80,000 new jobs by the end of his term.

Moreover, lets compare Mitt’s unemployment rate when he started office and when he left office:

Jan 2003 (When Romney entered office) 6.3%

Jan 2007 (When Romney entered office) 5.4%”

Conservative Samizdat on February 11, 2011 at 1:15 PM

More RomneyBot fail!

The ONLY reason Willard moved that hell-hole of a state from #50 to # 47 was because Katrina happened on his watch, wiping out most of the coast, and causing job creation to come to a halt.

There is NOTHING you can do to make that incompetent hack look palatable to anyone with a working brain.

You look up failure in the dictionary and Romney’s picture is there, with gold leaf edging!

He was a complete and total failure as governor. He’s a complete and total failure as a leader.

He will NEVER be president. N.E.V.E.R

gary4205 on February 11, 2011 at 1:20 PM

`No Apology’ for Health Law May Hinder Romney in 2012

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-11/romney-s-no-apology-for-health-law-in-massachusetts-may-hinder-2012-bid.html

gary4205 on February 11, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Mitt “Finger in the Air” Romney has seen that Palin’s zingers get attention so has decided that’s the type of person he is – I’m not sure if it counts as a flip or a flop?

miConsevative on February 11, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Do you live in MA? If not, then it doesn’t matter to you? That is the whole point of the 9th and 10th amendments and the Federalism provisions for states in the Constitution …

Man some of you are just “obvious trolls” …

IrishSamurai on February 11, 2011 at 11:41 AM

RomneyCare was subsidized with 1 BILLION DOLLARS OF FEDERAL MONEY. Now they want more to “Fix” it.

portlandon on February 11, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Its amazing how ignorant people are when it comes to RomneyCare.

RomneyCare did take federal money but he directed the money to go in a different direction.
Conservative Samizdat on February 11, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Thanks for proving my point, that RomneyCare took over 1 BILLION dollars of Federal money, therefore it DOES effect every taxpayer in the United States.

portlandon on February 11, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Romney’s forte is supposed to be economics. As Gov. of MA, he was working with a dem legislature. And yet he couldn’t put 2 and 2 together when signing Romneycare into law…

For dems, it’s all about control. Control over what we eat, control over what doctor we see, control over the end of our lives, control over what the media tells us (Fairness Doctrine), control over us from cradle to grave…

Gohawgs on February 11, 2011 at 1:56 PM

One of the problems with Romney is that he is not secure in his own identity. He is always imitating something or someone. He parks his SUV and starts running around in a pick up truck, ala Scott Brown; then he starts wearing
jeans and a casual shirt, ala Reagan?-who knows, now he is
throwing out one line zingers – ala the only person who is
great at it – Palin.

The other problem is that he, along with others, sat silently while Palin, the Tea Party, etc. tackled Obamacare, too much spending, etc.

Too late to the party, Miteens!

Amjean on February 11, 2011 at 1:58 PM

He balanced the budget every year of his administration with out increasing taxes or increasing state dept. Romney turned a $3 billion budget deficit into a $2 million surplus by reducing government spending and added 80,000 new jobs by the end of his term.

Moreover, lets compare Mitt’s unemployment rate when he started office and when he left office:

Jan 2003 (When Romney entered office) 6.3%

Jan 2007 (When Romney entered office) 5.4%”

Conservative Samizdat on February 11, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Good comment. This is type stuff I look for when trying to decide on a candidate. Got any links for your info?

Vince on February 11, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Which is why I said … if Romney comes out in the primary debates and supports full repeal of Obamacare on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, you still hold Romneycare against him? If so, you’re hopeless and what is wrong with the Tea Party wing of the Republican party …

IrishSamurai on February 11, 2011 at 11:43 AM
In order for me to vote for Romney, he’d have to

1) Apologize for MittCare

2) Promise to fight to repeal ObamaCare

3) Acknowledge that government cannot solve problems like healthcare through welfare programs.

MeatHeadinCA on February 11, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Mittens has even more baggage than health care in Mass.
Flip flopper without intellectual discourse, he puts his finger in the wind more than the weather person, he stands on the sidelines until the debate is over; then jumps in agreeing with the majority opinion; stayed silent while Palin, The Tea Party and others fought Obamacare, excessive spending, battling Obama and his band of incompetent thugs for 2 years.

Amjean on February 11, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Mittens has even more baggage than health care in Mass.
Flip flopper without intellectual discourse, he puts his finger in the wind more than the weather person, he stands on the sidelines until the debate is over; then jumps in agreeing with the majority opinion; stayed silent while Palin, The Tea Party and others fought Obamacare, excessive spending, battling Obama and his band of incompetent thugs for 2 years.

Amjean on February 11, 2011 at 2:08 PM

We’re going to need an incredibly competent LEADER to get us out of the mess we are in.

Romney has no concept of leadership. Those two have never shook hands.

The only true leader we have is Palin. She’s been leading since 2008. Mittens has been hiding afraid to go on record for anything, because the political winds might change, thus he’d have to change as well.

Romney knows he’s a flop-flopping fraud. A phony. He’s just figured out the best way to not have to flop and flip is to hide under his desk and then at the right time pop out and scream “look at me, it’s MY turn!”

Screw him and the horse he rode in on!

gary4205 on February 11, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Under the pressure of a crisis, people turn to what they really believe. With our economy in crisis, the President and his fellow liberals turned to Europe for their answers. Like the Europeans, they grew the government, they racked up bigger deficits, they took over healthcare, they pushed cap and trade, they stalled production of our oil and gas and coal, they fought to impose unions on America’s workers, and they created over a hundred new agencies and commissions and hundreds of thousands of pages of new regulations. Theirs is a European-style solution to an American problem. It does not work there and it will never work here!

The right answer is not to believe in European solutions. The right answer is to believe in America-to believe in free enterprise, capitalism, limited government, federalism-and to believe in the constitution, as it was written and intended by the founders.

~ Romney

BTW, I’m I the only one that finds it hilarious this azzhat said THIS of Obama and the Euros>

they took over healthcare

Is Romney REALLY this stupid, or does he think WE are this stupid?

gary4205 on February 11, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Loved the speech. Ed is right about Romney’s narrow focus. I don’t think Romney could have made as strong a point against our weak president if he had not stayed point. If he had been all over many issues, including healthcare, it would not have worked or made such an important point. We need a new president, that was the point. the one we have is so inept!

There will be other venues to address healthcare, but Romney already has made the point for the repeal of Obamacare.

Lori on February 11, 2011 at 2:54 PM

gary4205 you must be the one who is stupid if you think Obamacare is not a takeover of healthcare. That aspect alone sets it apart from Massachusetts. Romney kept healthcare in the private sector and decisions left to patients and their doctors. Obama, he created bureaucracies to make such decisions and controls and rations out healthcare and treatments. That would never fly in Romney’s Massachusetts.

I don’t wish to call you names gary so If I have misunderstood your point about being stupid please clarify. Obamacare is a takeover, Massachusetts was not.

Lori on February 11, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Bret Arends at MarketWatch talked about this a year ago:

Mitt Romney plays the jobs card

Commentary: Looking at his record, it’s a losing argument

Romney, who may well be President Barack Obama’s opponent in 2012, he had great time last week blaming the president for the current jobs shortage.

Speaking to the CPAC right-wing conference in Washington, D.C., Romney said that the dismal employment situation, a year after Obama took office, showed the president was a “failure” who was “going downhill faster than… Lindsey Vonn.”

OK, let’s take him at his word. Then what does that say about Romney?

The Republican contender was the governor of Massachusetts from January 2003 to January 2007. And during that time, according to the U.S. Labor Department, the state ranked 47th in the entire country in jobs growth. Fourth from last.

The only ones that did worse? Ohio, Michigan and Louisiana. In other words, two rustbelt states and another that lost its biggest city to a hurricane.

The Massachusetts jobs growth over that period, a pitiful 0.9%, badly lagged other high-skill, high-wage, knowledge economy states like New York (2.7%), California (4.7%) and North Carolina (7.6%).

The national average: More than 5%.

This was after four years. So far Obama has been in office for just one year. How was Romney’s performance by his first anniversary?

Fiftieth out of fifty.

That’s right. In Romney’s first year in charge, Massachusetts ranked dead last in America in jobs growth.

What makes this worse for Romney is that he actually ran on a jobs platform. Romney — who made his fortune building Bain Capital into one of the biggest venture capital firms in the world — promised the voters of Massachusetts that as governor he’d use his business savvy and connections to bring new jobs to the state.

“I don’t have to wait in the lobby to see middle management,” he pointedly said during one campaign event. It was a shot at his opponent, state politico Shannon O’Brien.

Romney went on: “There’s virtually not a chief executive officer in the country that won’t let me in to sit down with them in their office to pitch Massachusetts. And that is what I’ll do, inside Massachusetts, outside Massachusetts, outside of our country, to encourage businesses to come grow and thrive in the most robust portion of the economy, Massachusetts.”

Net result: 50th out of 50 after one year, 47th after four.

gary4205 on February 11, 2011 at 3:06 PM

gary4205 you must be the one who is stupid if you think Obamacare is not a takeover of healthcare. That aspect alone sets it apart from Massachusetts. Romney kept healthcare in the private sector and decisions left to patients and their doctors. Obama, he created bureaucracies to make such decisions and controls and rations out healthcare and treatments. That would never fly in Romney’s Massachusetts.

I don’t wish to call you names gary so If I have misunderstood your point about being stupid please clarify. Obamacare is a takeover, Massachusetts was not.

Lori on February 11, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Are all Romney supporters as ignorant as you are to the facts?

RomneyCare is a complete takeover by government.

You have the state FORCING people to buy insurance, you have government FORCING price controls on the insurance companies and hospitals, and you absolutely have a “comparative medicine board” See also: “death panels”

There is almost no difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare, except the name.

It socialized medicine run by the state. There is NOTHING free market about it.

It’s ALL run by the state government.

Try studying how Texas fixed our health care issues. THAT is what the free market looks like.

gary4205 on February 11, 2011 at 3:11 PM

A couple of points.
1) If not Mitt in 2012, who? Because no one else will win. Then we’ll have 4 more years of Obama.
2) The Mitt Healthcare haters should realize the country has changed. We are not going back to pre-ObamaCare. We need to change Healthcare in America because the system is broken. Bush had 8 years to fix it and we did not.

We have very little time to get organized around a solid candidate. A repeat of 2008 is exactly what Dems are counting on. Lets focus on winning the White House, not our egos.

mperek on February 11, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Romney is the only person who is more than qualified to beat the emptysuit in the white house.

Chudi on February 11, 2011 at 3:18 PM

A couple of points.
1) If not Mitt in 2012, who? Because no one else will win. Then we’ll have 4 more years of Obama.
2) The Mitt Healthcare haters should realize the country has changed. We are not going back to pre-ObamaCare. We need to change Healthcare in America because the system is broken. Bush had 8 years to fix it and we did not.

We have very little time to get organized around a solid candidate. A repeat of 2008 is exactly what Dems are counting on. Lets focus on winning the White House, not our egos.

mperek on February 11, 2011 at 3:14 PM

1) If not Mitt in 2012, who?

Sarah Palin. She’s the only one who has been beating Obama like a rented mule since 2008.

The nomination is already hers.

Romney has been hiding for two years while Palin has been fighting the Obama regime.

She will destroy him.

2) The Mitt Healthcare haters should realize the country has changed.

The country sure has, that’s why Romney has no chance whatsoever.

It’s not just the fact he beat the actual communists to the punch on creating a socialized “health care” system, it’s the fact that he was too stupid to know it would imploded almost immediately.

WillardCare isn’t this guy’s only problem.

He was one of THE most incompetent hacks to ever be elected governor anywhere.

As I posted, the guy ran on job creation, like he is now. Massachusetts was # 50 out of 50 in job creation after a year of his stewardship. And this was in boom times!

He crept up to #47, but ONLY because of Katrina, which wiped out the Gulf coast.

Romney is a useless. He’s NOT a leader.

Where was he at while 40 million Tea Party members, the people he will need to vote for him, were being blood libeled by the media and the democrat party?

Sarah Palin stood strong and firm, but “profile in courage” Mitt Romney was nowhere to be found.

Romney does not have the skill set to be president. No a single skill that it takes to do the job.

The man is a joke. He needs to go find a new hobby.

As for beating Obama, heck, Romney couldn’t even beat Huckabee or McCain, two of the worst candidates ever. He stands no chance whatsoever against Obama.

gary4205 on February 11, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Gary, Romney supporter, I plead guilty. Ignorance, NO!

You my friend are bereft of facts concerning the Massachusetts insurance reform. You could study up and maybe you would change your mind a bit. No, Romney does not beleive in government takeovers, he is Mr. Private Sector. He would not tolerate a government takeover of any industry. I think you know that but feel compelled for some reason to ignore facts.

Lori on February 11, 2011 at 3:43 PM

Romney is likely the most capable to get this country running again. And the most likely in the Republican croud to win the general election. My vote is Mitt Romney!

enerwaste on February 11, 2011 at 5:18 PM

Palin 2012!

Done That on February 11, 2011 at 5:36 PM

hot-heir on February 11, 2011 at 12:51 PM
Your “concern” is noted.

I think you’ll find 90% of the millions of people who support Palin consider themselves independents, not Republicans.

But thanks for your helpful tip.

gary4205 on February 11, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Oh boy…really? Care to point out one poll…any poll that provides any legitamacy to your thoughts on how independents view Palin? Listen, I like Palin. I think she’s great and is a fantastic role model for women. But outside the conservative echo rooms, she is not perceived as fit to run the country. She comes off as a rube and in 2012 I guarantee that dog won’t hunt.

hot-heir on February 11, 2011 at 5:49 PM

I think you’ll find 90% of the millions of people who support Palin consider themselves independents, not Republicans.

gary4205

I don’t think, I KNOW you’re delusional.

Just curious, how many times a day do you rub one out while thinking about Palin?

SHE CAN’T WIN!!!!! Stop spending all your money on kool aid, and use some of it to buy a clue.

xblade on February 11, 2011 at 6:02 PM

Oh boy…really? Care to point out one poll…any poll that provides any legitamacy to your thoughts on how independents view Palin?

Hot-heir

Oh, that’s easy. The polls are wrong. Every single one of them. Palin is really leading in all of them. Just like Christine O’Donnell was.

xblade on February 11, 2011 at 6:05 PM

Dude looks old.

promachus on February 11, 2011 at 6:21 PM

The original post is embrassing boosterism. Hugh Hewitt must be ghost-writing.

Romney spent more money for fewer votes in 2008 than any political candidate in human history. How does that portend well? In 1976 Reagan rallied at the end against Ford, showed his true mettle in a hair’s-breath loss, and was poised for 1980. Romney just lost — badly. At at the end, he wasn’t even able to engage his opponents directly, his eyes sliding away in baffled geniality. McCain and Huckabee treated him with outright contempt. He is decidedly not the man.

We have very little time to get organized around a solid candidate. A repeat of 2008 is exactly what Dems are counting on. Lets focus on winning the White House, not our egos.

mperek on February 11, 2011 at 3:14 PM

This makes no sense. No consensus for any candidate is reached a year away from the first primary. Where was Obama comparably in early 2007?

rrpjr on February 11, 2011 at 7:25 PM

It’s not so much that he’s wrong, it’s the pathetic crowd pleasing and naked ambition that puts me off Romney.

Remember Michigan? He wasn’t so sanguine about small government when he needed their votes to catch McCain. He promised to bring all the rust belt jobs back. Same deal with Romneycare.

We have very little time to get organized around a solid candidate. A repeat of 2008 is exactly what Dems are counting on. Lets focus on winning the White House, not our egos.

This is exactly wrong. First of all, the first primary is in a year. “Getting behind” a candidate early would just give the media that much longer to make a fool out of them, particularly if it’s a high-profile dunce like Romney, Palin, or Huckabee.

Secondly, the Republicans did nothing particularly wrong in 2008. It would have been impossible for any candidate to get closer than McCain did. Besides the bank collapse that would have wiped out any GOP candidate (and the Palin gamble that backfired when she couldn’t speak Manhattan), there was eight years of Bush to contend with. If the Obamatons could tie McCain – Bush’s arch-rival – to W’s administration, no one to the right of Joe Lieberman could have won.

Don’t worry, a candidate will be selected in good time, – we don’t have to pick from someone we aren’t sure about. Remember, Republicans have the good primary system, the one that picks a winner fast. Last cycle, McCain had a 5 month head start on Obama. (The fact that he spent most of it asleep was his own failing.)

HitNRun on February 11, 2011 at 8:15 PM

He was one of THE most incompetent hacks to ever be elected governor anywhere.

As I posted, the guy ran on job creation, like he is now. Massachusetts was # 50 out of 50 in job creation after a year of his stewardship. And this was in boom times!

He crept up to #47, but ONLY because of Katrina, which wiped out the Gulf coast.

gary4205 on February 11, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Look, it’s hard to gauge how much an administration can be directly responsible for creating new jobs. There are so many factors that are out a leader’s control such as natural disasters, a democratic majority congress and etc.

But lets look at the most important factor: Romney had a democratic legislature. And as well all know, democrats like to pass anti-business laws. Look at Illinois and California which are perfect example where Congressional democrats have ruined a state economy.

So in spite of a hostile veto-proof legislature by state Democrats he still managed to leapfrog three other states. You can’t force a business to go into a state that does all it can to discourage their presence. Short of an armed coup and naming himself dictator of Massachusetts, Romney did about as well as anyone could do as governor of that particular state.

In fact, Executive Director Barbara Anderson speaking for the Massachusetts Citizens For Limited Taxation recognized that fact and praised Romney:

“There was no one else out on the horizon and with the legislature almost entirely Democratic, we felt it was necessary to have a grown-up in the corner office. … And we were right to back him. He’s been a really good friend to the taxpayers.”

Lets look at some additional facts:

During Governor Romney’s Term, Massachusetts Per Capita Personal Income Grew By 14%, Outpacing Per Capita Personal Income Growth For The Entire United States.

In 2003, Massachusetts per capita personal income was $39,442 and rose to $45,877 in 2006.(U.S. Department Of Commerce, Bureau Of Economic Analysis, “State Annual Personal Income,” http://www.bea.gov, Accessed: 7/29/2007)

In 2005, Massachusetts Had A Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI) Of $43,501. This PCPI Ranked 3rd In The United States And Was 126 Percent Of The National Average, $34,471.(U.S. Department Of Commerce, Bureau Of Economic Analysis, “State BEARFACTS 1995 – 2005: Massachusetts,” http://www.bea.gov, Accessed: 7/29/2007)

In Three Years, the number of companies in the state’s Development Pipeline went from 13 To 288. “Under Ranch C. Kimball, who became Romney’s secretary of economic development in 2004, the number of companies in the Massachusetts development pipeline jumped from 13 to 288 in three years.”(Brian C. Mooney, Stephanie Ebbert and Scott Helman, “Ambitious Goals; Shifting Stances,” The Boston Globe, 6/30/2007)

Listen to Mitt Romney himself explain his situation:

“I came into a state that had no pipeline, no sales force that called on companies and encouraged them to come into the state. There was no activity of any significance to bring jobs to the state. And we went to work, legislature and I, to try and change that. It took us a while to get all the incentives in place.”

Source.

Good comment. This is type stuff I look for when trying to decide on a candidate. Got any links for your info?

Vince on February 11, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Thanks. I almost always cite my sources. I forgot this time. But here’s where I got my information from.

Conservative Samizdat on February 11, 2011 at 9:01 PM

gary4205 on February 11, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Look, it’s hard to gauge how much an administration can be directly responsible for creating new jobs.

But lets look at the most important factor: Romney had a democratic legislature. And as well all know, democrats like to pass anti-business laws. Look at Illinois and California which are perfect example where Congressional democrats have ruined a state economy.

So in spite of a hostile veto-proof legislature by state Democrats he still managed to leapfrog three other states. You can’t force a business to go into a state that does all it can to discourage their presence. Short of an armed coup and naming himself dictator of Massachusetts, Romney did about as well as anyone could do as governor of that particular state.

In fact, Executive Director Barbara Anderson speaking for the Massachusetts Citizens For Limited Taxation recognized that fact and praised Romney:

“There was no one else out on the horizon and with the legislature almost entirely Democratic, we felt it was necessary to have a grown-up in the corner office. … And we were right to back him. He’s been a really good friend to the taxpayers.”

Lets look at some additional facts:

During Governor Romney’s Term, Massachusetts Per Capita Personal Income Grew By 14%, Outpacing Per Capita Personal Income Growth For The Entire United States.

In 2003, Massachusetts per capita personal income was $39,442 and rose to $45,877 in 2006.(U.S. Department Of Commerce, Bureau Of Economic Analysis, “State Annual Personal Income,” http://www.bea.gov, Accessed: 7/29/2007)

In 2005, Massachusetts Had A Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI) Of $43,501. This PCPI Ranked 3rd In The United States And Was 126 Percent Of The National Average, $34,471.(U.S. Department Of Commerce, Bureau Of Economic Analysis, “State BEARFACTS 1995 – 2005: Massachusetts,” http://www.bea.gov, Accessed: 7/29/2007)

In Three Years, the number of companies in the state’s Development Pipeline went from 13 To 288. “Under Ranch C. Kimball, who became Romney’s secretary of economic development in 2004, the number of companies in the Massachusetts development pipeline jumped from 13 to 288 in three years.”(Brian C. Mooney, Stephanie Ebbert and Scott Helman, “Ambitious Goals; Shifting Stances,” The Boston Globe, 6/30/2007)

Listen to Mitt Romney himself explain his situation:

“I came into a state that had no pipeline, no sales force that called on companies and encouraged them to come into the state. There was no activity of any significance to bring jobs to the state. And we went to work, legislature and I, to try and change that. It took us a while to get all the incentives in place.”

Source.

Good comment. This is type stuff I look for when trying to decide on a candidate. Got any links for your info?

Vince on February 11, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Thanks. I almost always cite my sources. I forgot this time. But here’s where I got my information from.

Conservative Samizdat on February 11, 2011 at 9:01 PM

gary4205 on February 11, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Look, it’s hard to gauge how much an administration can be directly responsible for creating new jobs.

But lets look at the most important factor: Romney had a democratic legislature. And as well all know, democrats like to pass anti-business laws. Look at Illinois and California which are perfect example where Congressional democrats have ruined a state economy.

So in spite of a hostile veto-proof legislature by state Democrats he still managed to leapfrog three other states. You can’t force a business to go into a state that does all it can to discourage their presence. Short of an armed coup and naming himself dictator of Massachusetts, Romney did about as well as anyone could do as governor of that particular state.

In fact, Executive Director Barbara Anderson speaking for the Massachusetts Citizens For Limited Taxation recognized that fact and praised Romney:

“There was no one else out on the horizon and with the legislature almost entirely Democratic, we felt it was necessary to have a grown-up in the corner office. … And we were right to back him. He’s been a really good friend to the taxpayers.”

Listen to Mitt Romney himself explain his situation:

“I came into a state that had no pipeline, no sales force that called on companies and encouraged them to come into the state. There was no activity of any significance to bring jobs to the state. And we went to work, legislature and I, to try and change that. It took us a while to get all the incentives in place.”

Source.

Good comment. This is type stuff I look for when trying to decide on a candidate. Got any links for your info?

Vince on February 11, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Thanks. I almost always cite my sources. I forgot this time. But here’s where I got my information from.

Conservative Samizdat on February 11, 2011 at 9:02 PM

Lets look at some additional facts:

During Governor Romney’s Term, Massachusetts Per Capita Personal Income Grew By 14%, Outpacing Per Capita Personal Income Growth For The Entire United States.

In 2003, Massachusetts per capita personal income was $39,442 and rose to $45,877 in 2006.(U.S. Department Of Commerce, Bureau Of Economic Analysis, “State Annual Personal Income,” http://www.bea.gov, Accessed: 7/29/2007)

In 2005, Massachusetts Had A Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI) Of $43,501. This PCPI Ranked 3rd In The United States And Was 126 Percent Of The National Average, $34,471.(U.S. Department Of Commerce, Bureau Of Economic Analysis, “State BEARFACTS 1995 – 2005: Massachusetts,” http://www.bea.gov, Accessed: 7/29/2007)

In Three Years, the number of companies in the state’s Development Pipeline went from 13 To 288. “Under Ranch C. Kimball, who became Romney’s secretary of economic development in 2004, the number of companies in the Massachusetts development pipeline jumped from 13 to 288 in three years.”(Brian C. Mooney, Stephanie Ebbert and Scott Helman, “Ambitious Goals; Shifting Stances,” The Boston Globe, 6/30/2007)

Conservative Samizdat on February 11, 2011 at 9:03 PM

I apologize for the triple posting.

My bad.

Conservative Samizdat on February 11, 2011 at 10:59 PM

I liked Romney last election and I like him for the next but is he electable? His Mormonism worked against him last time both subtly and openly. His faith would again be exploited by candidates on both sides. It is a nasty business but the truth nevertheless. Or do we voters have what it takes to ignore and deplore such prejudice??
For the record I am not a Mormon….
As for Palin, she appears too often to be a shrill airhead.
Still, look at the utter imbecile of a failure of a president we have in Obama. The manboy is a true danger to the Republic. I consider him a traitor to his own country.
Palin may not be good but she is gold compared to obummer….
I have my cake and eat it too.

Sherman1864 on February 11, 2011 at 11:44 PM

His Mormonism worked against him last time both subtly and openly. His faith would again be exploited by candidates on both sides. It is a nasty business but the truth nevertheless. Or do we voters have what it takes to ignore and deplore such prejudice??
Sherman1864 on February 11, 2011 at 11:44 PM

I hope people can put such prejudices behind them and that we can look beyond a person’s faith when voting for a President.

Maybe that will happen one day…

Conservative Samizdat on February 12, 2011 at 3:13 PM

Ed, video of Romney’s speech is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPxcZnvzeqY

SgtSVJones on February 12, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Do as I say, not as I did.

unclesmrgol on February 12, 2011 at 10:51 PM

2) The Mitt Healthcare haters should realize the country has changed. We are not going back to pre-ObamaCare. We need to change Healthcare in America because the system is broken. Bush had 8 years to fix it and we did not.

We have very little time to get organized around a solid candidate. A repeat of 2008 is exactly what Dems are counting on. Lets focus on winning the White House, not our egos.

mperek on February 11, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Ok so Mitt passes a heath care bill to “lower the costs of health care”. How is that doing? More than Two Billion dollars in cost overruns already?

Well lets put that man in charge of the National economy, we need a man who will make proposals to lower costs that actually increase costs.

Oh wait, we’ve already got one. If you want higher costs, more debt, and a struggling economy, elect Romney, or Obama… whichever.

Hey, who needs an economy, or a functioning currency, or anyone who will lower the costs of government. We need “electable” at all costs (pun intended).

gekkobear on February 14, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Ok so Mitt passes a heath care bill to “lower the costs of health care”. How is that doing? More than Two Billion dollars in cost overruns already?

gekkobear on February 14, 2011 at 12:04 PM

The reason why RomneyCare isn’t working is because of Governor Deval. RomneyCare was fine until Mitt left office and then a liberal started ruining it:

While Patrick inherited the current healthcare system, he is an unabashed fan and has exacerbated its massive cost increases. The cost to the state has gone up $2.2 billion. For fiscal year 2011, the office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services has a budget of $8.1 billion. The number for fiscal year 2008 was $5.9 billion, which means an increase of 37%.

Source.

Conservative Samizdat on February 17, 2011 at 10:16 AM

Comment pages: 1 2