Romney: Sure, I can work with Democrats

posted at 10:09 pm on June 27, 2011 by Allahpundit

On the one hand, there’s no candidate in the field who wouldn’t say the same thing. Barring a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, which is impossible for the GOP this go-round, to get any contentious legislation passed you’ll have to make a deal with the left.

On the other hand, if there’s anyone in the field who shouldn’t be reminding primary voters of his flexibility, it’s you-know-who.

Does this guy really not understand that the big worry about him isn’t that he’ll be too ideological to make a deal with Democrats, but rather that he’ll be so squishy that he’ll be easily rolled? Maybe this is part of his new “I’m a centrist and I’m stickin’ to it” authenticity push? Or maybe he’s worried about Huntsman outflanking him in New Hampshire with his own ostentatious “civility” messaging. If there’s any state where Romney can get away with a bit of extra bipartisan maverickiness, it’s New Hampshire.

Collaboration in Massachusetts was possible, Romney told business leaders in Salem, because he didn’t attack lawmakers from the other party as “a bunch of Neanderthals.”…

“I worked with [former Massachusetts Sen.] Ted Kennedy, for Pete’s sakes,” Romney said in Concord, noting that they disagreed on “almost everything.”

One issue that Kennedy and Romney worked closely on was legislation expanding healthcare coverage in Massachusetts. He recalled, to laughter, that at the ceremonial signing of the Massachusetts healthcare law, the Democrat had joked that when he and Romney agreed on a piece of legislation “it proves only one thing – one of us didn’t read it.”

“The truth was we had both read it and we’d found some common ground,” Romney said, “and I think that has to happen in Washington.”

Common ground with Ted Kennedy on RomneyCare: A winning primary message if I’ve ever heard one. And not the first time he’s pushed that talking point while on the trail, either. But consider this a reminder that his strategy for the primaries is basically to act as if there are no primaries. He’s the frontrunner and the self-styled de facto nominee until someone starts threatening him in the New Hampshire polls, so for the next six months the only candidate he’s likely to attack is Obama. Even after Pawlenty starts hammering him, he’ll do his best to ignore him lest an all-out war end up inadvertently elevating T-Paw in the process. Going to be a dull campaign among the centrist candidates, at least until Pawlenty starts to get traction.

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

Exactly. Reagan was persuasive, he didn’t gain traction from Blue Dogs by appeasement and pandering to their concerns. He lead by example. They followed him—not the converse.

Geochelone on June 27, 2011 at 11:31 PM

Please state an example behind your theory.

sheryl on June 27, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Cindy Munford on June 27, 2011 at 11:32 PM

No rallies because they are typcially in the middle of the week when I’m working.

Though I belong to a conservative group in CA and attend the monthly meeting and lectures with many tea party folks.

sheryl on June 27, 2011 at 11:37 PM

Ronald Reagan would not be elected by the commenters here at Hot Air.

sheryl on June 27, 2011 at 10:52 PM

WTF? Do you know who has won every Hot Air poll for the last, what, 5 months in a row? Palin. One out of every three readers chose Palin as their preferred candidate.

Palin, in whom it is widely recognized (and certified by detailed polling elsewhere) as the most Reagan-like Conservative in the field. She is a disciple of Reagan.

So we are now to believe that Palin supporters would thumb their noses at Reagan who in their eyes is a Legend among Legends?

And that is not to say that a sizable contingent of non-Palin people would also cast their vote for Reagan if given the chance.

HELL, IT WOULD BE A FREAKING LANDSLIDE.

Geochelone on June 27, 2011 at 11:42 PM

sheryl on June 27, 2011 at 11:37 PM

Tea Party folks have asked the RNC to stay out of primaries. That is as it should be. I think you are incorrect about Gov. Palin saying she would run as third party candidate. I am not a moderate so I have a hard time getting excited about most of the field but I will support whoever wins.

Cindy Munford on June 27, 2011 at 11:43 PM

Geochelone on June 27, 2011 at 11:42 PM

I could be wrong but I don’t think sheryl is keen on either Pres. Reagan or Gov. Palin.

Cindy Munford on June 27, 2011 at 11:45 PM

How do you guys think one should answer those two questions that Romney was asked directly ?

–What can you do to unite the very divided country?

–What do you propose doing to bring America back together?

bayview on June 27, 2011 at 11:26 PM

Question #1. I’ll unite the country by convincing the other side that they’re profoundly mistaken. If they can’t see the wisdom of that set of ideas, then I’ll encourage them to emigrate to more congenial surroundings. If they insist upon staying around to continue the fight, I’ll drive them out!
Voila, country united!
Question #2. See answer #1!

Lew on June 27, 2011 at 11:47 PM

Cindy Munford on June 27, 2011 at 11:45 PM

I know for a fact she is vehemently anti-Palin. I have seen her posts. I don’t care about that part, although it shows where she is coming from.

Now her assertion that HotAir commenters would NOT vote for Reagan has got me so flummoxed I can’t imagine how anyone could consider it a possibility.

Here is one argument. Consider the published demographics of Hot Air commenters who participated in the polls conducted on Hot Air. Surprisingly the age is well shifted toward the elderly end of the scale. Many HotAir commenters lived through the Reagan Revolution. THEY CRAVE A RETURN TO REAGANISM because they knew what is was like to live in that time.

And considering that Obama is so routinely and rightfully compared to CARTER makes the case and the desire all the more compelling. We often reminisce about those days.

Geochelone on June 27, 2011 at 11:55 PM

Ronald Reagan would not be elected by the commenters here at Hot Air.

sheryl on June 27, 2011 at 10:52 PM

I won’t presume to speak for everyone, but I would certainly vote for him again, if he were still with us and it were possible. President Reagan was my Commander in Chief. I served under him for seven years and it was an honor.

BruthaMan on June 28, 2011 at 12:00 AM

Geochelone on June 27, 2011 at 11:31 PM

Please state an example behind your theory.

sheryl on June 27, 2011 at 11:34 PM

SDI-Star Wars Defense Initiative
Gorbachev-tear down this wall
Tax reductions
Defense Cold-War Spending
He FIRED the Air Traffic Controllers.
He FIRED THEIR UNION AZZES.

Doesn’t sound like appeasement to me. Does sound like Donk-Speak to me.

He didn’t say;

“Mikhail, I was wondering, and I don’t mean to impose upon you too much, but would you consider, or at least give it some thought about removing the top layer of this wall, it seems a tad bit too high.

I hope I haven’t stuck my nose into your business and I mean no offense. Do accept my apologies in advance if I have caused you any irritation.”

Geochelone on June 28, 2011 at 12:05 AM

Keep the sound bites coming Mitt… If you aren’t attacking (like Reagan did in 1980), you’re falling behind… Open a nice big hole for Perry and Bachmann to run through…

Perry / Bachmann 2012

phreshone on June 28, 2011 at 12:06 AM

Geochelone on June 27, 2011 at 11:55 PM

I know. The only good thing about Carter was that we got Reagan. Considering that Obama is worse, we are due for some serious relief.

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2011 at 12:07 AM

Lew on June 27, 2011 at 11:47 PM

Thank you for providing such a wise and profound answer.

bayview on June 28, 2011 at 12:07 AM

Does NOT sound like Donk-Speak to me.

FIXED

Geochelone on June 28, 2011 at 12:07 AM

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2011 at 12:07 AM

History repeats itself. That belief in this context is my only hope for salvation.

Geochelone on June 28, 2011 at 12:10 AM

And considering that Obama is so routinely and rightfully compared to CARTER makes the case and the desire all the more compelling. We often reminisce about those days.

Geochelone on June 27, 2011 at 11:55 PM

Don’t forget pappy bush was the mittens of the day. He believed in more taxation and openly mocked the larger curve and supply side economics, calling it voodoo economics. Here we were presented with a choice of Carter, Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson on one side and Reagan or Carter lite on our side. The gop put their full weight behind bush but could not overcome the gipper. Probably by tapping bush as VP he boxed him in from trying to primary him in 84. We had high hopes for pappy in 88 that he learned the errors of his aways. Alas, he caved on taxes, iraq, reunification and hastened to reap the so called peace dividend and lost to Perot / Clinton.

If you look at the 1856 & 1860 elections, the gop is at a very pivotal point where the overriding question is whether we get to keep sand refresh the republic or slide into progressive anarchy governed by rule of man, not law.

AH_C on June 28, 2011 at 12:14 AM

Please state an example behind your theory.

sheryl on June 27, 2011 at 11:34 PM

The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. I believe they were known as “Boll Weevils” back then, Dixiecrats prior to that. Today, known as the Blue Dog Democrats.

When good men do the right thing, others follow.

BruthaMan on June 28, 2011 at 12:15 AM

Allahpundit condensed Romney’s answer to two direct questions into a taunting soundbite and used that in the title like a Pavlov’s bell, and the predictable reflex reactions come pouring in.

bayview on June 28, 2011 at 12:15 AM

Reagan was so convincing that people were afraid to call themselves Democrats. And Reagan accomplished much of his agenda with the Donks in total control of Congress and the press against him. Remember Sam Donaldson. Jeebus. What an attack dog, even HE liked Reagan when it was all said and done. Tip O’Neil liked Reagan who was his nemesis. In the end RR got them to CAVE-IN by his powers of talking straight to the people.

Geochelone on June 28, 2011 at 12:16 AM

bayview on June 28, 2011 at 12:15 AM

It is true that it is a tricky question to answer. I think I would have gone with, “I will work with everyone the citizens of the United States send to Washington to represent them but it remains a two way street.”

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2011 at 12:20 AM

AH_C on June 28, 2011 at 12:14 AM

Another good post by you. You seem to know the history and have seen the same patterns re-emerge. Only a synoptic view can make the murky so clear. You have done just that.

Geochelone on June 28, 2011 at 12:20 AM

Good grief. First his refusal to call Romneycare a mistake, and now this? How many kisses of death can this guy’s political career survive?

gryphon202 on June 28, 2011 at 12:26 AM

Reagan was so convincing that people were afraid to call themselves Democrats. And Reagan accomplished much of his agenda with the Donks in total control of Congress and the press against him. Remember Sam Donaldson. Jeebus. What an attack dog, even HE liked Reagan when it was all said and done. Tip O’Neil liked Reagan who was his nemesis. In the end RR got them to CAVE-IN by his powers of talking straight to the people.

Geochelone on June 28, 2011 at 12:16 AM

Excellent points, Geo and thanks for the kind words.
That’s what I call working with the opposition — we win, they lose. It worked because Ronald had conviction and passion. Didn’t work for McCain because he was only convinced that as a war hero, it was his turn. And without those attributes mittens doesn’t get it either.

AH_C on June 28, 2011 at 12:29 AM

Good grief. First his refusal to call Romneycare a mistake, and now this? How many kisses of death can this guy’s political career survive?

gryphon202 on June 28, 2011 at 12:26 AM

The DONK-RINO hybridization experiment is complete. And what a curious chimera it is.

Geochelone on June 28, 2011 at 12:30 AM

On the other hand, if theres anyone in the field who shouldnt be reminding primary voters of his flexibility, its you-know-who.

Just when I begin to think that the quality of your punditry is strained……….

tom on June 28, 2011 at 12:32 AM

It is true that it is a tricky question to answer. I think I would have gone with, “I will work with everyone the citizens of the United States send to Washington to represent them but it remains a two way street.”

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2011 at 12:20 AM

That is not a bad answer, but the headlines reporting that answer will be?

—Romney: I will work with Democrats.
which will generate 500 posts attacking Romney by HotHeads in HotAir

—or Romney holds out conditions before he will work with congress to heal a divided country
which will generate 1000 barks condemning Romney in DailyKos.

bayview on June 28, 2011 at 12:33 AM

I look forward to seeing Romney soundly defeated early in the primaries next year.

karenhasfreedom on June 28, 2011 at 12:41 AM

Geochelone on June 28, 2011 at 12:16 AM

Excellent points, Geo and thanks for the kind words.
That’s what I call working with the opposition — we win, they lose. It worked because Ronald had conviction and passion. Didn’t work for McCain because he was only convinced that as a war hero, it was his turn. And without those attributes mittens doesn’t get it either.

AH_C on June 28, 2011 at 12:29 AM

What’s frustrating is that many have no perspective. All you have to do is follow the template laid down by one of the greatest.

Its one thing to devise and implement the plan; that great invention we call Reaganism; but nowadays we can’t even manage to feign a pale copy of what has been shown to work like magic, every time its tried.

Geochelone on June 28, 2011 at 12:48 AM

bayview on June 28, 2011 at 12:33 AM

Darlin, Gov. Romeny and his supporters dream of the day that he can generate 500 comments on HotAir. Don’t despair, it is early days.

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2011 at 12:50 AM

Allahpundit condensed Romney’s answer to two direct questions into a taunting soundbite and used that in the title like a Pavlov’s bell, and the predictable reflex reactions come pouring in.

bayview on June 28, 2011 at 12:15 AM

Romney suggests that he’s willing to “work with the Democrats.” Did you think AP could pass that one up?

It was a softball pitch just lofting gently over the plate. AP is only human. Well, beta human, anyway.

There Goes The Neighborhood on June 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM

bayview on June 28, 2011 at 12:15 AM

It is true that it is a tricky question to answer. I think I would have gone with, “I will work with everyone the citizens of the United States send to Washington to represent them but it remains a two way street.”

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2011 at 12:20 AM

The question is certainly an open invitation to give a “unifying” answer. The only decent answer is to turn it around and put part of the onus on the other side. As in, “I can work with those Democrats who are willing to come together with me.” They’re fishing for a response that indicates you won’t stand up to the Democrats because that would be mean.

There Goes The Neighborhood on June 28, 2011 at 1:02 AM

There Goes The Neighborhood on June 28, 2011 at 1:02 AM

I’m great in retrospect but I would probably fall flat on my face if I had to be spontaneously sage or witty.

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2011 at 1:05 AM

Romney: Sure, I can work with Democrats

Good to know Romney is capable of such, still best to work against them.

rukiddingme on June 28, 2011 at 1:08 AM

“the Democrat had joked that when he and Romney agreed on a piece of legislation “it proves only one thing – one of us didn’t read it.”

Hell froze over– I have finally laughed at something Kennedy said.

leftnomore on June 28, 2011 at 1:11 AM

How do you guys think one should answer those two questions that Romney was asked directly ?

–What can you do to unite the very divided country?

–What do you propose doing to bring America back together?

bayview on June 27, 2011 at 11:26 PM

I will crush my enemies, and see them driven before me, and will hear the lamentations of their women metrosexuals!

–Conan the Conservative

dominigan on June 28, 2011 at 1:18 AM

There Goes The Neighborhood on June 28, 2011 at 1:02 AM

I’m great in retrospect but I would probably fall flat on my face if I had to be spontaneously sage or witty.

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2011 at 1:05 AM

“Oh. man! What I should have said was …”

I know exactly what you mean. Now, if they would just let me respond in writing the next day, I could be awesome!

There Goes The Neighborhood on June 28, 2011 at 1:19 AM

Lew on June 27, 2011 at 11:47 PM

Thank you for providing such a wise and profound answer.

bayview on June 28, 2011 at 12:07 AM

I’m not interested in “uniting” the country. The day this country is “united” is the day it dies! Unity is just another word for peace, and no American who wants to stay free will ever settle for mere peace, when with a little effort we can be free. Peace is easy and therefore nearly worthless, while freedom requires sacrifice and is therefore more precious than life itself.
What is so complicated about that for you?

Lew on June 28, 2011 at 1:26 AM

There Goes The Neighborhood on June 28, 2011 at 1:19 AM

Debates are overrated anyway!!!!

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2011 at 1:28 AM

Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey.

bayview on June 28, 2011 at 1:35 AM

Mitt is using the “Prevent Defense.” He’ll play it close to the vest, not risking a thing because he thinks he’s ahead and he hopes to run out the clock, until the very last moment, when it will suddenly dawn on him that he’s lost.

Fred 2 on June 28, 2011 at 1:44 AM

if you read the entire LAT article you get a much different impression. Romney attacked O plenty.

Attempting to straddle that line, Romney said President Obama had failed to work in a spirit of bipartisanship and had used his first two years “to jam through” legislation that Romney described as “strictly partisan,” including the controversial healthcare overhaul and changes to the financial regulatory system.

Romney threaded plenty of criticism of the president through his remarks, but his call for civility was reminiscent of the tone of a rival, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., in his 2012 campaign announcement last week.

i’m sure the LAT would love to sew division in the R ranks. They would LUV for conservatives to stay home. We will see a lot of this from now on….they LUV O…they will do anything for O

r keller on June 28, 2011 at 1:57 AM

sew=sow

r keller on June 28, 2011 at 1:58 AM

I could be wrong but I don’t think sheryl is keen on either Pres. Reagan or Gov. Palin.

Cindy Munford on June 27, 2011 at 11:45 PM

You are wrong. I voted for Ronald Reagan and for McCain/Palin.

I hope you’re right that Sarah doesn’t run third party or support a third party candidate. I’m only taking the woman at her words during her Hannity interview when she said beware a third party may emerge.

On the contrary, I don’t dislike Sarah, I’m highly disappointed in her. I thought that she had the makings of a Reagan or Thatcher but she quit her governorship, did a reality show, still talks in too many platitudes, gets in stupid fights with the press and went on bus tour.

At this critical time, I want a serious thinker who’s handled big economic problems & fixed them (ala Romney in MA, Olympics and with big business).

I just don’t see those skills from Sarah. It’s ashame because I thought she could be the first woman POTUS. I’ve said that many times on this site.

sheryl on June 28, 2011 at 2:41 AM

Claire Berlinksi a Thatcher biographer on Sarah Palin’s unreadiness to be POTUS. It’s just a quick clip from a fuller interview over at Uncommon Knowledge (I highly recommend the site at NRO) but I agree with her sentiment here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBLqnr45UCw

sheryl on June 28, 2011 at 2:48 AM

sheryl on June 28, 2011 at 2:48 AM

Berlinski is a flake who is ex-CIA and lives in Turkey, for pity’s sake!
She thinks she’s an authority on Thatcher (as if) and hates Sarah Palin.
No, thanks.

Jenfidel on June 28, 2011 at 2:57 AM

T-Paw will not get traction. He is Milquetoast compared to Romney. (I know a lot of people here will lol and scoff at that notion) Iowa will go at the last moment for anything that breathes or even a scare-crow if needs be. Their vote means nothing. Romney needs to keep doing what he’s doing with New Hampshire.

scotash on June 28, 2011 at 3:44 AM

Romney’s obvious strategy is to organize, raise money, and run as if he’s the nominee already. All this “work with Democrats” talk melts the hearts of the independents and may even attract those remaining Democrats with any sense.

It’s risky, and ignores Nixon’s old strategy from 1968 which has been the way non-incumbent Republicans have won ever since: run to the right in the primaries, tack to the center for the general. Only Reagan won with a true conservative message, and that was only possible because of Carter’s poor performance. Those circumstances may be duplicated this cycle, but Romney is trying to lay down a marker in the center and run against Obama as a leftist.

Like I said, it leaves him very vulnerable in the primaries, but perhaps he feels this way fits his style best.

Adjoran on June 28, 2011 at 3:46 AM

Ronald Reagan would not be elected by the commenters here at Hot Air.

sheryl on June 27, 2011 at 10:52 PM

We have some real boneheads here….with short memoiries.

Reagan was part of the political fabric of the US for decades before his ascendance to the Presidency. He had earned the publics trust when the times crossed passed with his philosophy…..a philosophy of which he evolved into and developed over his long stint as a pulbic servant.

The fact that he is even mentioned with the likes of Palin, who is a neophyte by comparison, is a laugh riot.

Reagan earned the public trust over the long slog. He would win in a landslide today.

rickyricardo on June 28, 2011 at 3:55 AM

Ronald Reagan would not be elected by the commenters here at Hot Air.

sheryl on June 27, 2011 at 10:52 PM

This has come up before. Hot Air is too radical to nominate a Reagan again.

He signed a liberal abortion bill in California, signed a healthcare mandate forcing private hospitals to treat non payers for free, appointed two semi liberal Supreme Court Justices (Kennedy and O’Conner) withdrew from Lebanon after an attack on Marines (showing weakness) & presided over Iran Contra (no cabinet control).

He is still our best modern president of at least the last 100 years, but there is NO WAY the Hot Air gallery would nominate him with all that baggage.

scotash on June 28, 2011 at 3:55 AM

Romney needs to keep doing what he’s doing with New Hampshire.

scotash on June 28, 2011 at 3:44 AM

i don’t necessarily disagree and I like Romney smartly ignoring the ridiculous social issues.

One however, gets the sense that Romney is a handsomer McCain. Frankly, another weak kneed moderate, left of center president who nominates a bunch of Souters to the USSC will be just a sbad as an Obama re-election.

We are one justice away from losing our Constitution.

We would be better off with Pawlenty, Bachmann or Perry

rickyricardo on June 28, 2011 at 4:01 AM

I have the impression that every time Mitt opens his mouth he jams a foot or two in.

Sorry, I have no interest in Mitt Romney. Just the fact he was governor of “liberal land” Massachusetts is enough for me to put the kibosh on him.

I say this as a resident of CT, I dispise our governor too.

gdonovan on June 28, 2011 at 5:42 AM

If Obama had worked with Republicans on his health care and stimulus bills we would have had a better result of which no one would be calling for repeal.

Who said anything about compromise? Common ground is not the same thing as compromise.

Oh that Obama had been more like Romney. Time to make the switch.

Lori on June 28, 2011 at 6:02 AM

Peace is easy and therefore nearly worthless, while freedom requires sacrifice and is therefore more precious than life itself.
What is so complicated about that for you?

Lew on June 28, 2011 at 1:26 AM

It is easy. One side has but to surrender. May it never be us.

SKYFOX on June 28, 2011 at 6:13 AM

Do we have a new queen of concern trolls?

SKYFOX on June 28, 2011 at 6:15 AM

I thought that she had the makings of a Reagan or Thatcher but she quit her governorship, did a reality show, still talks in too many platitudes, gets in stupid fights with the press and went on bus tour.

sheryl on June 28, 2011 at 2:41 AM

Not buying this BS, sorry.

1. she quit her governorship,
2. did a reality show,
3. still talks in too many platitudes,
4. gets in stupid fights with the press
5. went on bus tour.

Your characterization is so disingenuousness and leaves out so many details that your portrait is as transparent as you are.

Geochelone on June 28, 2011 at 6:41 AM

Geochelone on June 28, 2011 at 6:41 AM

Or as transparent as her chosen candidate…

Gohawgs on June 28, 2011 at 6:44 AM

He’s a all white Mormon version of Progressive Barack Obama.

No no no!

PappyD61 on June 28, 2011 at 6:51 AM

Gohawgs on June 28, 2011 at 6:44 AM

Sheryl is getting a bit too huffy with Cindy. Not cool. Did you see where csd snapped at Cindy too? If you can’t be civil to Cindy then you got a big big problem on your hands.

Geochelone on June 28, 2011 at 7:03 AM

This is the first remark I have made to you. “You and yours” are you suggesting that I have discussed you with my family? Too funny.

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2011 at 12:01 AM

Then you clearly shouldn’t be sticking your nose into conversations if the context of “you and yours” is lost on you. Perhaps in the future you should reread the comments before hand?

csdeven on June 28, 2011 at 12:44 AM

More jackassery from csdeven.

Geochelone on June 28, 2011 at 7:14 AM

Now her assertion that HotAir commenters would NOT vote for Reagan has got me so flummoxed I can’t imagine how anyone could consider it a possibility.

Geochelone on June 27, 2011 at 11:55 PM

Michael Reagan said that his dad would have a tough time getting elected with this ideological purity push we have going now. But we don’t get to compare 1988 Reagan to who we have today, we have to compare 1980 Reagan to our candidates today. His stance on abortion would have eliminated him from consideration with many here at HA.

csdeven on June 28, 2011 at 7:51 AM

More jackassery from csdeven.

Geochelone on June 28, 2011 at 7:14 AM

More obsession from you. How does your grammy feel about sharing room in your head with me?

And you need to learn the same lesson CM did. If you’re going to stick your nose in the middle of a conversation, the least you could do is get the context correct.

csdeven on June 28, 2011 at 7:54 AM

He is still our best modern president of at least the last 100 years, but there is NO WAY the Hot Air gallery would nominate him with all that baggage.

scotash on June 28, 2011 at 3:55 AM

Yep.

csdeven on June 28, 2011 at 7:56 AM

I thought that she had the makings of a Reagan or Thatcher but she quit her governorship, did a reality show, still talks in too many platitudes, gets in stupid fights with the press and went on bus tour.

sheryl on June 28, 2011 at 2:41 AM

B.S., pure B.S….it’s typical of a troll to say “I used to be a Republican, but they are so extreme now….blah, blah”
The lamest story ever told…”I was supportive of her, but now…”, we don’t fall for your story, it’s a fairy tale told often by people who try to gain respect by starting off with a lie…

right2bright on June 28, 2011 at 8:09 AM

… the Democrat had joked that when he and Romney agreed on a piece of legislation “it proves only one thing – one of us didn’t read it.”

Teddy Kennedy

Sorry, fellow Ted Kennedy haters, but that’s pretty funny.

Jaibones on June 28, 2011 at 8:16 AM

Mitt Romney can work with Democrats, but there haven’t been any Democrats in the Democrat Party for a long time. So what Mitt is really saying is, I can work with progressive socialist wannabes. No Thanks Mitt.

Dr Evil on June 28, 2011 at 8:59 AM

During the early part of my professional career, I lived and worked in Massachusetts for 3.5 years.

None of the natives knew anyone who was a Republican, although a few thought they might have a friend who met a Republican once. So you had to see things from the standpoint of the leftmost extremists to see anyone to the right.

The more Romney opens his mouth, the more I am convinced that nothing has changed in Massachusetts: Romney is merely a not-quite-as-left-as-left-can-be politician….but definitely NOT A CONSERVATIVE!!

And an inability to admit that Romneycare was (and is) a huge, disastrous mistake is a bad sign. A competent executive recognizes quickly when things are not working, and changes direction to correct the situation: only a fool continues full speed ahead toward failure.

landlines on June 28, 2011 at 9:04 AM

We have some real boneheads here….with short memoiries.

Reagan was part of the political fringe fabric of the US for 2 decades before his ascendance to the Presidency. He had earned the publics trust when the times crossed passed with his philosophy…..a philosophy of which he evolved into and developed over his long stint as a pulbic servant.

The fact that he is even mentioned with the likes of Palin, who is a neophyte by comparison, is a laugh riot.

Reagan earned the public trust over the long slog. He would win in a landslide today.

rickyricardo on June 28, 2011 at 3:55 AM

FIFY.

Not how I remembered it. Reagan was constantly mocked all thru the 70s — Bedtime for Bonzo, anyone? Just flip thru Time/Newsweek as they made him out to be a nice, but naive B-Actor.

True, he was an ardent conservative, primarily on defense & fiscally since Goldwater’s run at POTUS. But with Nixon’s big government moves, most GOP felt that was the real deal to spend on social programs. He won because he had vision of a bright strong future by minimizing the Feds. Some today would bring up amnesty, spending and other nitpicks as if to point out his hypocrisy.

Total distortion. Reagan had to work with Democratic majorities and Northeastern Big Govt Repubs. The GOP had been in the legislative wilderness for decades. They (the Nelson Rockerfellerians) took the wrong lessons from Hoover & FDR and believed the Fed’s job was to help improve our “general welfare” with programs. Voices like Goldwater & Reagan were viewed as deranged. To counter these big spenders/govt hacks, RWR so wanted a line item veto. Dubya on the other hand, never vetoed a single bill that came across his desk.

As for Palin, she too had 2 decades of public service, working her way up. Reagan was able to leap into Governorship because of his work as SAG President and the support of the defense industry. Is it any wonder that they began leaving Cali after Moonbeam became Governor?

AH_C on June 28, 2011 at 9:10 AM

Yep.

csdeven on June 28, 2011 at 7:56 AM

Please entertain us with your profound insight why Reagan could never win a “fantasy” 2012 race.

AH_C on June 28, 2011 at 9:13 AM

This has come up before. Hot Air is too radical to nominate a Reagan again.

He signed a liberal abortion bill in California,

Juxtapose his action then and his regret 15 years later in “Abortion and The Conscience of a Nation

signed a healthcare mandate forcing private hospitals to treat non payers for free, appointed two semi liberal Supreme Court Justices (Kennedy and O’Conner)

Does anyone recall conservative judges that would/could pass the Senate, let alone the Roe v Wade litmus test? As for O’Connor, that was during the height of ERA and appointing then center-right O’Connor was wise. Too bad she drifted center left.

withdrew from Lebanon after an attack on Marines (showing weakness) & presided over Iran Contra (no cabinet control).

With a weak hand in both houses, it seemed best at the time to withdraw and leave the ME to the jihadiis. I’m sure if he had an inkling of WOT, he would have held fast.

He is still our best modern president of at least the last 100 years, but there is NO WAY the Hot Air gallery would nominate him with all that baggage.

scotash on June 28, 2011 at 3:55 AM

Agree on the best, but to conceptually place him here in the 2012 race, you would also have to factor in a host of other factors that would shape his early 21st century worldview. Needless to say, he would be judged on his principles and clarity of vision and with that in mind, he would have flattend McVain, Obambi and any of the current crop of GOP contenders.

AH_C on June 28, 2011 at 9:30 AM

How about something along the lines of: I will work very hard to persuade Democrats that my approach is the right one. If I can not persuade them, then I will work very hard to implement my policies without them.

I don’t want to hear about “working” with Teddy Kennedy. I want no compromise with Kennedy Democrats. Kennedy and his ilk did incalculable harm to this nation, harm from which we may never fully recover.

Dubya “worked” with Kennedy, too. He let him essentially write the No Child Left Behind bill and conceded its most important element, vouchers. He allowed himself to be persuaded that drug assistance for the elderly needy “made no sense,” in Kennedy’s words, unless it was treated as an entitlement for all. He stood foursquare behind Kennedy-McCain. I don’t want another president willing to make those kinds of compromises (of course, Bush didn’t compromise on immigration–it’s the bill he wanted, mores the pity).

I understand that as governor of Massachusetts, Romney had to work with its senators, especially the Liberal Lion. But it’s nothing to brag about.

SukieTawdry on June 28, 2011 at 9:36 AM

I thought he WAS a Democrat.

Pablo Snooze on June 28, 2011 at 9:53 AM

AH_C on June 28, 2011 at 9:13 AM

I doubt you are that easily entertained.

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2011 at 9:55 AM

All the Palinistas and Pink Cowboys should start practicing this line:

ROMNEY IS MY CANDIDATE AND MY NEXT PRESIDENT, I’LL VOTE FOR HIM BECAUSE HE’S THE BEST CANDIDATE.

Falz on June 28, 2011 at 10:20 AM

I doubt you are that easily entertained.

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2011 at 9:55 AM

Heh ;)

AH_C on June 28, 2011 at 10:24 AM

I understand that as governor of Massachusetts, Romney had to work with its senators, especially the Liberal Lion. But it’s nothing to brag about.

SukieTawdry on June 28, 2011 at 9:36 AM

Spot on. Mittens is hoping against hope that the country is moving dead center ahead, hence tacking left from his rightward position in ’08. And to think I supported him then against McVain.

AH_C on June 28, 2011 at 10:27 AM

T-Paw will not get traction. He is Milquetoast compared to Romney. (I know a lot of people here will lol and scoff at that notion) Iowa will go at the last moment for anything that breathes or even a scare-crow if needs be. Their vote means nothing. Romney needs to keep doing what he’s doing with New Hampshire.

scotash on June 28, 2011 at 3:44 AM

I agree. T-Paw isn’t going to get any traction. He’s polling at 6% and he’s not even that popular in his home state.

The only threat to Mitt Romney right now are Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann.

Conservative Samizdat on June 28, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Romney: Sure, I can work with Democrats

He just lost the nomination.

CynicalOptimist on June 28, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Romney: Sure, I can work with Democrats

He just lost the nomination.

CynicalOptimist on June 28, 2011 at 1:16 PM

“I’m a uniter, not a divider”
-George W. Bush

“With four Texas Democrats campaigning at his side, Gov. George W. Bush said today that he was sending a ”signal to America” about his ability to work across party lines.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/26/us/2000-campaign-texas-governor-bush-showcases-democrats-bolster-bipartisan-image.html

Seems to me Bush won the nomination with this tactic. I rather liked Bush for the most part.

scotash on June 28, 2011 at 4:35 PM

he’s still here?!?!

heh……bye and take huntsman with you…….

RealMc on June 28, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2