Mitt Romney: Vote for me — or for Herman Cain

posted at 8:46 pm on October 10, 2011 by Allahpundit

I don’t get it. Why would Romney want to promote a “true conservative” competitor who’s, er … much less organized and lightly funded than Rick Perry?

You know who this benefits?

Mitt Romney’s affection for Herman Cain has been well documented, at POLITICO and elsewhere. Romney took it to the next level at a New Hampshire town hall this evening.

“We each have our own experiences, he’s a great guy. Vote for either one of us and you’ll be happy,” Romney said, per POLITICO’s Reid Epstein.

Romney also called Cain a “terrific guy” and said voters should “give him a good look.”

So obvious and cynical is the game here that if I were Cain, I’d find it patronizing. Don’t agree? Here’s what else he said at the town hall tonight:

After talking about his experience going from Bain Capital to the governor’s mansion, Romney suggested that Cain was, perhaps, not quite as ready as he is for the Oval Office.

“I was able to find ways to use my skills in a public sector setting, probably something — if I were Herman — I’d say I wish I had that too because you don’t want to necessarily learn that for the first time as the president of the United States,” Romney said.

Romney’s jab at the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO came in response to a question from a college student who has asked Romney to contrast himself with Cain.

Translation: “He’d be a risk due to his inexperience, but that’s okay as long as you’re not thinking about voting for the guy who governed Texas for 10 years with terrific job growth.” As a gloss on this, go read Philip Klein’s short but insightful post about the persistent weakness of the GOP field. Since 1959, no Republican has gone on to win the presidency without earning at least 40 percent of the primary vote at this point in the race. Our top tier, meanwhile, is chronically mired in the mid to low 20s, with Romney so desperate to break through the 25-percent ceiling that he’s now actually touting other candidates in the race to try to force the most advantageous hold-your-nose Romney vs. Not Romney showdown that he can. It’s come to this, my friends. Or no, rather — it’s come to this.

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 5 6 7 8

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 9:13 AM

I agree, the economy (jobs) is of primary importance. That’s why Herman Cain is resounding with regular folks. How can you trust anyone like Robamney when he changes like the weather. I believe I saw a headline here yesterday that said Cain was beating Obama? Either way whatever the polls say, short of having no other option that Ro and Bo, I’m still thinking. I’m not backing another RINO though. So someone would have to prove to me that I can’t believe what I’m hearing and seeing about Robamney for me to ever support him. End of discussion.

DanaSmiles on October 11, 2011 at 9:28 AM

Evidently. Like the iStink Hippie was to the police car, so is csdeven to Hot Air.

kingsjester on October 11, 2011 at 9:20 AM

Awwwww, wadda madder wittle baby? Is your lame blog failing again and you feel the need to lash out?

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 9:29 AM

right2bright

Good to know you will vote for Romney IF it comes down to that as I will for ANY of our candidates. What we don’t need is a 2006 election because their candidate did not get elected.

g2825m on October 11, 2011 at 9:29 AM

Cindy Munford on October 11, 2011 at 9:24 AM
upinak on October 11, 2011 at 9:24 AM

The Sunshine boys, csd and MJBrutus are both now firmly behind Romney. That tells me all I need to know.

kingsjester on October 11, 2011 at 9:30 AM

kingsjester on October 11, 2011 at 9:30 AM

Unfortunately by the time it’s all over (sooner due to primary date changes) we will all be Mittwits.

Cindy Munford on October 11, 2011 at 9:32 AM

g2825m on October 11, 2011 at 9:19 AM

All of the positions you quote him to claim he is conservative are from when he is running for president. He ran for Senate and Governor before that and was Governor.

He is not a conservative, he only plays one during presidential campaigns. I’m sorry, don’t trust him and he did not change like Reagan did. Reagan had a long and distinguished history of explaining his change from dem to republican and a long and distinguished history of conservative thought, speeches and writing.

romney has absolutely no history of conservative thought, speeches or writing except in his campaign for president. To claim he never thought about these issues until he ran for president and therefore it was o.k. for him to be a liberal prior to running for president underscores my point, it does not refute it.

the guy is not a conservative and will not run as a conservative.

My point about Reagan by the way, isn’t that Romney is no Reagan (he isn’t), it is that someone tried to use Reagan’s more moderate positions as a sword to claim conservatives were “intransigent”. I was pointing out that Reagan was from a different era and that what his policy positions were then do not define conservatism now.

I simply do not trust Romney whatsoever. I don’t think he will enforce the borders, don’t believe he will repeal Obamacare, don’t believe he will cut spending, don’t believe he will take on entitlement reform, and don’t even really believe he would appoint conservative judges. He has no history of conservatism outside of his claims in running for President. he went out of his way to be a “moderate” as governor of MA to make himself look good to independents for a presidential run. He has never fought for a conservative principal. He was completely invisible during the first 2 years of Obama’s administration. he is not a leader. I don’t believe I could support him.

I have no problem with people changing positions. It happens. I myself went from far-left liberal to far-right conservative. I simply don’t believe Romney is now a conservative. It is not something I’m willing to accept on faith and Romney has done nothing – in his 4+ years of running for the presidency – to convince me he has a conservative bone in his body.

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 9:33 AM

Cindy Munford on October 11, 2011 at 9:32 AM

McCain/Dole Deja Vu.

kingsjester on October 11, 2011 at 9:34 AM

Provide the proof or admit you are ignoring the facts about why Bechtel was granted an $8 million extension.

You wont because you can’t. Just like your lies about how Romney has rode his fathers coattails to success, you never have provided the proof.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 9:27 AM

If I provide the “proof”, if I show that Bechtel received the contract after being held responsible for the death of the woman…than you will admit I am right and not post support for Mitt again?
You see, you want me to post the links again, so you just take up my time…let me ask you this.
Is Bechtel a long time supporter of Mitt and his father?
Has Bechtel received a more than fair share of contracts under Mitt?

Now on to his father…I can’t convince you, nor any one could, that a famous father, one of the most connected and powerful men in our country, didn’t help his son.
When young George Bush knocked on a door, do you think it was opened?
When Al Gore knocked, when Chelsea knocked, you don’t think they were not welcomed?
Your naivete is so strong, that really you can’t see common sense…sons and daughters of powerful people have an edge, if you don’t accept that, then you won’t accept the fact that the earth revolves around the sun.
Chelsea stepped into a “consulting” job out of college, at about $250,000 a year…Bush was a “consultant”, Gore was a “consultant”, Romney was a “consultant”…see a pattern?
I can give you dozens more…but you won’t, or can’t understand the simplest of facts…people of great wealth and power, give their kids a huge advantage.

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 9:35 AM

So someone would have to prove to me that I can’t believe what I’m hearing and seeing about Robamney for me to ever support him. End of discussion.

DanaSmiles on October 11, 2011 at 9:28 AM

Here is the problem with your, and other ideologue’s view….

There is no candidate that will make you happy. ANY GOP nominee will have to moderate their policies. Even St Palin the Victimized would have backed off on her positions in order to get things done. This election, like every election will be decided by the indies. The indies don’t much care about social issues. They want jobs, the economy to improve, and a strong foreign policy. Romney fits that bill and Obama does not.

Romney will decimate Obama in the general. He would have beat him in 2008 had we not nominated that sissy McCain. Romney will hit Obama on every issue he can. That includes Van Jones, Bill Ayres, and his other radical associations.

In the end, the most important reason to elect even a RINO like Romney is that he will nominate constitutional conservatives to the court. If Obama is reelected, he will stack the court with progressives and we will be suffering under them for the next 20 years. Now, you can enjoy the idea of sticking it to the rest of us in the short term by voting for Obama, but the consequences to the future will be more destructive than the satisfaction you’ll get saying “I TOLD YOU SO!!!”.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 9:38 AM

Chelsea stepped into a “consulting” job out of college, at about $250,000 a year…Bush was a “consultant”, Gore was a “consultant”, Romney was a “consultant”…see a pattern?
I can give you dozens more…but you won’t, or can’t understand the simplest of facts…people of great wealth and power, give their kids a huge advantage.

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 9:35 AM

I don’t disagree with you at all, but don’t see where this matters. A rich/powerful person’s son or daughter can be a good candidate even though helped by their parent to get in that position. It is what that person believes, etc. that matters. I wouldn’t disqualify someone just b/c they came from wealth and privilege.

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 9:39 AM

The Sunshine boys, csd and MJBrutus are both now firmly behind Romney. That tells me all I need to know.

kingsjester on October 11, 2011 at 9:30 AM

CSD has always been behind Romney and only Romney…she was almost psychotic when Fred was beating his @ss…she is not a well person, I would think that her stake would seek help for her.
When Perry was ahead of Romney it got really strange with her at times, mentally strange.
She will never be convinced, even if Romney took child brides, that he is not anything but perfect in every way, shape and form.
Perhaps she is hoping for a celestial marriage to him or something…I don’t know, but it will get strange, that I promise you.

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 9:41 AM

The Sunshine boys, csd and MJBrutus are both now firmly behind Romney. That tells me all I need to know.

kingsjester on October 11, 2011 at 9:30 AM

And that comment right there is why your blog is soooooo lame and why you have to trick people into going to it.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 9:41 AM

In the end, the most important reason to elect even a RINO like Romney is that he will nominate constitutional conservatives to the court.

Will he? What proof is there of this? I’d wager a lot that Romney will nominate more Souters and Sandra Day O’Connors than Scalias and Roberts. W was far more conservative than Romney is (and that isn’t saying much) and we had to fight tooth and nail to get solid conservative nominees. I’m not convinced that Romney would come through on this.

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 9:41 AM

I don’t know, but it will get strange, that I promise you.

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Get strange?!?!?! You are being kind.

Cindy Munford on October 11, 2011 at 9:43 AM

I don’t disagree with you at all, but don’t see where this matters. A rich/powerful person’s son or daughter can be a good candidate even though helped by their parent to get in that position. It is what that person believes, etc. that matters. I wouldn’t disqualify someone just b/c they came from wealth and privilege.

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 9:39 AM

You are reading something into what I wrote…I don’t have a problem, it is just important to set the record straight…he is not a “self made” man like Cain is. Doors opened to him, that you and I could never have opened. The image of him being the great business man, the man who is self made is just not true…anymore than Al Gore is a great businessman now that he has made his millions.
He is smart, intelligent, and had a great start in life…he was son of one of the most powerful men in American politics.

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 9:44 AM

I wonder, are we maybe asking too much of folks from the Northeast to agree with us on the meaning of conservative?

Cindy Munford on October 11, 2011 at 9:45 AM

Get strange?!?!?! You are being kind.

Cindy Munford on October 11, 2011 at 9:43 AM

That made me laugh out loud…
Strange as in cross between Twilight Zone and Psycho…I don’t know, she may be an alien from another planet…arriving in a red truck.

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 9:46 AM

Ya know … I’m warming up to Romney now – how could you not? I mean – this guy plays the Conservatives like a smooth violin. He’s a master at manipulating them.

“Hey vote for me and my millions of campaign dollars – or vote for the guy who has $5.00 in the bank”

Who would you rather face if you were Romney? Rick Seventeen Million Perry or the Pizza man. Seems like a simple choice if you’re Romney.

Conservatives – can y’all help Romney out with this please? He wants this race to come down to him and Cain – make it so huh?

LOL

HondaV65 on October 11, 2011 at 9:46 AM

I wonder, are we maybe asking too much of folks from the Northeast to agree with us on the meaning of conservative?

Cindy Munford on October 11, 2011 at 9:45 AM

Never stopped to think about that…interesting, their perception of “conservative” may be completely different. And may change with the seasons, like Mitt does…

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 9:48 AM

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 9:35 AM

It is your bigotry that informs your opinion and it has been clear since 2008.

You are like the people who knew for a fact that the world was flat and used specious “proof” to prove it. Provide the proof of these super secret unholy alliances if you want any credibility. If not, just keep spewing.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 9:49 AM

I wonder, are we maybe asking too much of folks from the Northeast to agree with us on the meaning of conservative?

Cindy Munford on October 11, 2011 at 9:45 AM

I don’t think so. Evidently,for some, consistent values and ethics don’t mean a whole lot.

kingsjester on October 11, 2011 at 9:49 AM

HondaV65 on October 11, 2011 at 9:46 AM

I am really starting to dislike you…this Cain really setting himself up to be the VP of Romney, it is starting to make sense…darn you.

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 9:49 AM

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 9:38 AM

Just to make sure you know, I would never vote for Obama. I will also never vote for another RINO and completely ruin any chance this country has for survival, call that what you will. If we go down, it might as well be a self proclaimed liberal who does it and not someone who merely lies about his convictions. I’m not telling my grandchildren I had a choice between an executive in the executive position and voted for a liar or flip-flopper or whatever makes you feel better.

DanaSmiles on October 11, 2011 at 9:49 AM

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Gotcha.

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 9:50 AM

It is your bigotry that informs your opinion and it has been clear since 2008.

You are like the people who knew for a fact that the world was flat and used specious “proof” to prove it. Provide the proof of these super secret unholy alliances if you want any credibility. If not, just keep spewing.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 9:49 AM

I’m a bigot for thinking that a father would help a son? Good grief, you are a strange one…
Okay, George Romney a proud and honorable Mormon father, didn’t help his son…he ignored him.
Except, getting the Selective Service to change the rules of the draft and not draft missionaries into the Vietnam war…good thing the next year, by coincidence, that Mitt was called to that war torn nation of France for missionary work…by coincidence…

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 9:53 AM

W was far more conservative than Romney is (and that isn’t saying much) and we had to fight tooth and nail to get solid conservative nominees. I’m not convinced that Romney would come through on this.

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 9:41 AM

We wont know until that day arrives, but I am positive whomever he nominates, they wont be a progressive. But that doesn’t matter unless our nominee can beat Obama. As of now, Romney has the background and practical experience to do that. Cain does also, but he hasn’t shown the staying power yet. If Cain can convince the indies, then he will be the guy to beat Obama.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 9:56 AM

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 9:49 AM

Interesting, he is so nuanced that I pegged him as a Perry supporter. I just can’t tell.

Cindy Munford on October 11, 2011 at 9:57 AM

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 9:53 AM

No, you’re a bigot for telling lies about his religious beliefs. The rest of your baseless attacks on him are a result of your bigotry.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 9:58 AM

Just to make sure you know, I would never vote for Obama.

DanaSmiles on October 11, 2011 at 9:49 AM

Yeah, I realized after I wrote that, that is wasn’t you who said that. I apologize.

But I do think sitting at home or voting 3rd party is the same as a vote for Obama. Obama will not get the indies, but if he can discourage those who would normally vote GOP, then he makes progress.

But even at that, I don’t believe there are enough of you sitting home that will make a difference. The issue will be the economy and jobs. Romney’s background and success in those areas will be the main issues because people vote their pocketbooks before they will vote ideology. That proof is found in the likely voter polls and not the silly online polls at Hot Air.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 10:04 AM

As of now, Romney has the background and practical experience to do that. Cain does also, but he hasn’t shown the staying power yet. If Cain can convince the indies, then he will be the guy to beat Obama.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 9:56 AM

I don’t think Romney can beat Obama – here’s why:

1. Romney’s various flip-flops and Romneycare will be easy for Obama to define Romney as a politician willing to say anything to get elected

2. Romney is basically a wuss and won’t go after Obama hard (i.e., just like McCain) – while Obama will have no problem going after Romney.

3. Part of Romney’s appeal to independents, etc. right now is that the press is fairly friendly to him and once he is the nominee, they will turn savagely on him – a la McCain. Romney is running McCain’s campaign over again and is going to have the same results.

4. Romney does not excite the base and will not get the base turnout he needs

5. Romney does not excite the base and will not get the volunteers or donations he needs

6. Romney is not exciting or charismatic and therefore will not excite independents/dems to vote for him (let’s face it, a lot of non-political people vote on personality)

7. Ultimately, Romney is not that much different than Obama – particularly after the primary when Romney “moves to the middle” it will be easy for Obama to make it seem like a choice without a difference and most people would rather stay with the devil they know.

8. this part is unfortunate, but I suspect a lot of evangelicals will have a hard time voting for a Mormon.

I realize that Romney matches up well head-to-head against Obama right now. But Romney is essentially “generic republican” in most people’s minds right now (despite running for president for more than 5 years, which also shows how weak of a candidate he is). When he becomes the nominee and people start paying attention, Obama will have defined Romney and his numbers will go down significantly.

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 10:09 AM

okay I am back from chow…

romney has absolutely no history of conservative thought, speeches or writing except in his campaign for president. To claim he never thought about these issues until he ran for president and therefore it was o.k. for him to be a liberal prior to running for president underscores my point, it does not refute it.

the guy is not a conservative and will not run as a conservative.

Monkeytoe
You need to go back and look at all my previous posts as he Governed as a conservative and I showed that!

“ “It’s the worst I’ve seen it. Going back to the post-war era, I’ve never seen such an acute and focused fiscal crisis and particularly for the state government,” said Richard P. Nathan, director of the Nelson Rockefeller Institute of Government at the State University of New York-Albany…

“The estimated budget gap of $547 million in Massachusetts is among the largest in total dollars, according to the report by the National Conference of State Legislatures… Massachusetts officials have predicted that in the next fiscal year the shortfall will far exceed an earlier projection of $2 billion.”
The Boston Globe – Deficits studies say crisis is worst since WWII – Dec 5, 2002

It continued to get worst. By the time Mitt Romney took office as governor of Massachusetts, the upcoming state budget for that year would have a structural deficit of nearly $3 billion if the budget was not cut. [3] Furthermore, the existing budget passed the previous year, that would be in effect for several more months, had a projected total deficit of approximately $1.2 billion [4]. He inherited about a $650 million deficit in that budget by the time he took office. [5] http://aboutmittromney.com/economic.htm

“Between January 2003 and December 2006, Massachusetts was one of seventeen states to accelerate its job growth every year (creating more jobs each year than were created the year before), and one of only two states — Illinois being the other — to accelerate its job growth by at least 20,000 jobs each year. Massachusetts was one of the top ten most-improved states (seventh overall) in terms of job creation, going from 49th in the nation in the first year of the Romney Administration to 36th in the nation in the last year.”

NationalReview.com – Romney’s Jobs Record – Jun 21, 2011

g2825m on October 11, 2011 at 10:11 AM

If Cain can convince the indies, then he will be the guy to beat Obama.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 9:56 AM

that is very true.

Tonight’s debate is a big night for Cain, Perry and Romney.

I think Perry has been sharpening his skills lately (been quiet.) I think he may make a comeback tonight. If he doesn’t, it might be a problem. I still like him.

If Cain just keeps going the way he has been in the debates and in interview, he will benefit tonight, as well. It would have to be a very big gaffe to change his momentum now. Up to this point the only big gaffe he had was months ago about the Right of Return and since then he has been studying foreign policy and he is a brilliant man and quick study.

Don’t see him floundering or losing his cool tonight either. If he attacks Perry or Romney too much, that might be a problem. If he criticizes their policies as he has been doing, that would be fine and expected in a debate.

Romney can’t do too much to help himself tonight. He has to sit around and wait for Perry or Cain to falter. He has to keep both of them down just enough so he looks good, but not too much that one of them (Perry or Cain) goes too far down in the polls that the other one has enough strength to beat Romney.

And I hope one of them do, or Newt is resurrected. Except I don’t know how Newt will do in the general with his personal baggage.

Santorum is always a very distant option. Good man and good conservative. Can’t see him getting traction. Maybe if the others falter and Santorum is left standing.

Elisa on October 11, 2011 at 10:14 AM

You need to go back and look at all my previous posts as he Governed as a conservative and I showed that!

I saw all of your posts and I completely disagree with you. He did do some good work on MA’s budget. But that is all. And that is completely outweighed by Romneycare. Sorry, but the “federalist” argument does not work. Yes, I believe that state’s have the right to do their own thing, but that doesn’t mean I have to vote for a State’s governor who believes the state should be in control of health-care.

And, Romney did nothing else conservative. he has fought no conservative battles. His nominees were not conservative. If we are going to compare state budgets, etc. – Perry is obviously better. Romney’s “success” came during an economic boom. How much is owed to that? How did the Big Dig turn out? Romney did not govern as a conservative.

Romney is not a conservative. He isn’t. He is a little bit right-of-center. But only a little. And not enough for me to believe he would not cave under pressure and/or fail to lead on any important issues.

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 10:19 AM

No, you’re a bigot for telling lies about his religious beliefs. The rest of your baseless attacks on him are a result of your bigotry.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 9:58 AM

Honey, you should really try to be more definitive…what lies have I told?
You seem to take umbrage with me and my “lies” and ask me for explanations…and I give them.
So now it is your turn…you tell me what lies, or sit down, shut up, and quit falsely accusing people that you don’t agree with.
This will be interesting, as you fumble for an excuse…

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 10:19 AM

I’m a bigot for thinking that a father would help a son? Good grief, you are a strange one…
Okay, George Romney a proud and honorable Mormon father, didn’t help his son…he ignored him.
Except, getting the Selective Service to change the rules of the draft and not draft missionaries into the Vietnam war…good thing the next year, by coincidence, that Mitt was called to that war torn nation of France for missionary work…by coincidence…

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 9:53 AM

You are incorrect here again…
The religious minister deferrment was always there. The Selective Service spoke to the LDS church as more Mormons lived in the State of Utah and so many Vietnam draftees thought that too many Utahns would be able to avoid service since most young men at the age of 19 serve an LDS mission. So basically it came down to one out of every four served in Vietnam from Utah,however, Romney lived in Michigan with a small Mormon population at the time and so Romney REGISTERED with Selective service but was deferred because of his LDS mission. When he returned he attended BYU and then later Harvard Business and Law Schools. When his number came around to be drafted in approx 1970 his number was around 300 and they were not drafting anyone above 195! Also while at BYU at the age of 18-19 he participated in the rallies against the Anti-Vietnam crowds.
You all keep bringing up these weak arguments against Romney.
Also just so you ALL know when a young man or woman submits their paperwork for a mission YOU have no control over where in the world you will serve…so not even George Romney can control that…again more Mormon myths. So George Romney had no influence on his son and where he served a mission or the timing of it.

g2825m on October 11, 2011 at 10:21 AM

Romney can’t do too much to help himself tonight. He has to sit around and wait for Perry or Cain to falter. He has to keep both of them down just enough so he looks good, but not too much that one of them (Perry or Cain) goes too far down in the polls that the other one has enough strength to beat Romney.

I think Perry needs to have a strong showing tonight or he’s done. I don’t think he has to outright win or have an extraordinary performance, but he needs to appear competent and that he is learning / getting better at a strong pace. If he doesn’t show that, I think the last of his support will disintegrate. If he does do that, he stays in the race and has a chance to build back up.

Cain on the other hand, simply needs to keep from making a big blunder. He doesn’t need to win or prove anything, simply not show that he has the potential of a big implosion and his momentum can keep up.

Romney can only keep doing what he is doing. He is never going to win over conservatives on his merits. he can only win over enough people thinking that Perry/Cain can’t win against Obama. Which, if it happens, is sad that we will be left with a nominee that the vast majority doesn’t even like.

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 10:24 AM

g2825m on October 11, 2011 at 10:11 AM

You do understand that it take years for a economic cycle…that what happens in “2003″ is the result of what was going on in 2001, 2002, 2003…he didn’t take office until 2003, so nothing he implemented would have any effect for several years…the earliest would be 2005.
The first couple of years of his term has to be given to his predecessor, and he basically maintained that, with some increase in taxes/fees.
Not unlike what Obama, the first 12 months or so was George Bush, but then he changed the game entirely, and after 18 months or so, it was his game, and his moves were worse.
Mitt rode the wave of the previous administration, and the boom of the nation…RomneyCare begin eating that up, and will continue to destroy their economy…the fortunate part, Mass is a wealthy state, with powerful people residing in the state.

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 10:27 AM

Also just so you ALL know when a young man or woman submits their paperwork for a mission YOU have no control over where in the world you will serve…so not even George Romney can control that…again more Mormon myths. So George Romney had no influence on his son and where he served a mission or the timing of it.

g2825m on October 11, 2011 at 10:21 AM

The religious minister provision was there…but mishies are not “ministers” that was a special provision given to them…nice try though.
BTW, just also to set the record straight…”Doctors” were also exempt, and that is why Harvard officially adopted the term “doctor of jurisprudence”, a term that had been around for many, many decades, but they applied it to their program to keep their “doctors” in school, others than adopted the same.
I have no idea how a mishie is chosen to serve where…I am sure it was just a coincidence…just like the timing of mishies being classified that same as religious ministers who had congregations…just a coincidence, what a lucky guy Mitt was.

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 10:35 AM

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 10:19 AM

you DID NOT go back and read everything I posted as the NRA came out in support of Romney in MA for his signature legislation for gun rights, he cut taxes, he reduced their debt and left it with a $2 Billion dollar surplus, he Governed as a conservative. He also as posted here multiple times was against Amnesty and even vetoed a bill authorizing the same thing Perry is now championing, he also refused to host Khatami from Iran while he was Gov, etc etc…so all of these are things while he did as Governor…I still cannot understand your and others dishonesty on his record?

When I ask for proof from his record as a Governor and since you all claim he is a flip-flopper but where?

“However, he cut taxes while city and county governments within the state raised them, which along with Massachusetts residents being charged increased taxes by other states, caused a small bulge in the tax burden in the years in between. But the tax burden ended at the same level in the year of his final budget as in the year he entered office, with the help of the tax cuts that he made.
This improvement in tax burden rankings occurred while Massachusetts experienced the worst economic situation in the nation and had the highest ratio in the nation of democrats controlling the legislature, a veto-proof 85%, whose leadership stated intentions to raise taxes. (See record survey above and Taxes/Fees link above for details.)
Contrast that with other fmr. governors considering a 2012 presidential run:
• Rick Perry. Texas’ tax burden increased 0.8% during his tenure, from 7.1% when he took office in 2000, to 7.9% in 2009 (the latest year data is available), maintaining the ranking of the 45th most taxed state in the nation.
• Tim Pawlenty. Minnesota’s tax burden increased 1/2% during his tenure, from 9.8% when he took office in 2003, to 10.3% in 2009 (the latest year data is available), changing his state from the 17th most taxed state to the 7th most taxed state in the nation.
• Mike Huckabee. Arkansas’ tax burden increased 0.7% during his tenure, from 9.3% when he took office in 1996, to 10% when he left in 2007, changing his state from the 33rd most taxed state to the 14th most taxed state in the nation.
• Sarah Palin. Alaska’s tax burden increased 0.9% during her tenure, from 5.4% when she took office in 2006 to 6.3% when she left in 2009, maintaining the ranking of the state with the lowest tax burden in the nation.

“The U.S. is in the midst of its third major economic transformation of the last 120 years, equivalent in scope and depth to the emergence of the factory economy in the 1890s and the mass-production, corporate economy in the 1940s and 1950s. This means states must act decisively to encourage entrepreneurship or be left behind in this New Economy…
“The study, based on similar ITIF studies in 1999 and 2002, uses 26 indicators—such as educational attainment of the workforce and number of new startups and business failures—to provide detailed rankings on how states are adapting to the challenges of a global, entrepreneurial, and knowledge-based economy…
“The state farthest along the path to the New Economy is Massachusetts. Topping the list in 1999 and 2002, Massachusetts’ lead over other states in 2007 has increased—with a concentration of software, hardware, and biotech firms supported by universities such as MIT, Harvard, and others. The state had the fourth-highest increase in per capita income, according to the study.”
BusinessWeek.com – Ranking the States for the New Economy – Feb 27, 2007

I can post more…

Critics falsely charge that Mitt Romney supported McCain-Kennedy in 2005 and as Governor instituted sanctuary cities. The reality: sanctuary status was instituted on a city level outside Romney’s purview. With a liberal legislature, no bill outlawing sanctuary cities would have passed. Romney did not endorse McCain’s bill in 2005; in an interview with the Boston Globe he explicitly refused to endorse it (11). Romney did say in the same interview that the bill was “reasonable,” but the 2007 bill is very different from the 2005 bill; the provisions Romney most strongly objects to, like the z-visa (12), were not in the 2005 bill. Accordingly, his position did not change when he opposed the 2007 bill, but the bill itself had changed. http://whyromney.com/#amnesty

g2825m on October 11, 2011 at 10:35 AM

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 9:38 AM

Dude – I think you may have convinced me.

WTF? Why not Romney?

I mean, we’ll see if Perry can make a comeback – it’s not likely but strange things DO happen at sea. If Perry can’t make a comeback and this show is down to a man with MILLIONS in the bank to beat Obama – and one that has NO MONEY and NO POLITICAL experience whatsoever – I’ll have to pick Romney – especially since he has led the “purely purest of the purely pure” Conservatives around by the nose and outmaneuvered them at every step during this election.

I mean – yeah, dude’s a RINO – but maybe a Tea Party Congress can keep him in check. It’s a better bet than thinking that a man with ZERO political experience can skillfully manipulate Congress to meet his agenda.

HondaV65 on October 11, 2011 at 10:37 AM

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 10:09 AM

Number 6 should be number 1…it is unfortunate for Mitt, but people vote on personality, and he has never connected with the vast number of people…intellectuals, business people, eastern snobs…but the general public has ignored him.
He spent record amount of money, nearly $8 per vote (twice as much as anyone had ever spend in the history of primaries), and he couldn’t get people to vote for him…when you can’t even buy votes, you know you are in trouble.
It is a shame…but the election will hinge on who connects to the American people…and he just hasn’t ever been able to do that.

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 10:40 AM

right2bright and monkeytoe,
I can see reading your posts that even when facts are presented that you continue to twist or misread things in the way YOU want to see them.
I have been a missionary and so you cannot sit and tell me what it takes to serve and not to serve. Missionaries from ALL churches get the same deferment! Also he did not attend Harvard until after his mission and it was the school and ALL schools that had that deferment and NOTHING Mitt or his father did to prevent him from serving. Here try this quote from Romney and not what someone else says:
I was supportive of my country. I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam.”(16)
In 1994, this is what Romney said, in context: “I was not planning on signing up for the military. It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam, but nor did I take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft. If drafted, I would have been happy to serve, and if I didn’t get drafted I was happy to be with my wife and new child”(17)

As a military member and serving overseas here in AFG and in Iraq, we do not care whether our CinC has served before but just want to know that He/She has our back AT ALL TIMES. Many people over here have NO issues with Romney as CinC. See his speech to the Citadel the other day.

g2825m on October 11, 2011 at 10:45 AM

g2825m on October 11, 2011 at 10:35 AM

Dude, he passed and endorsed and championed Romneycare. Anyone who believed taht was a good idea at any level, city, state or federal – is not a conservative. It is dishonest to claim otherwise.

yeah, socializing medicine at the state level in the name of federalism is “conservative”.

He is NOT a conservative. He is a politician. He did endorse Bush’s amnesty. He nominated liberals to top positions in MA.

He has never come out and forcefully fought for a conservative issue on the national level. He was mostly silent during Obamacare, the debt ceiling debate. He’s been absent on entitlements. He attacked Perry from teh far, far left on SS.

he is not a conservative. Make every argument you want in his favor, that he is fiscally prudence compared with Obama. Fine. You are being totally dishonest when you claim he is conservative. Words have meanings.

The guy said himself he wasn’t conservative (until he recanted when he wanted to run for president). He dismissed Reagan.

Yeah, he can change. But Romney only changed in what he says. Not what he does.

You can call him a conservative a million times. It does not make it true.

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 10:47 AM

You do understand that it take years for a economic cycle…that what happens in “2003″ is the result of what was going on in 2001, 2002, 2003…he didn’t take office until 2003, so nothing he implemented would have any effect for several years…the earliest would be 2005.

right2bright

That is a weak argument. If you would have read the post it stated that the MA economy WAS in crisis status from 2001, 2002, 2003, it took Romney coming in and convincing the Legislature of cutting taxes and spending to turn things around! So it was Mitt’s policies that turned it around just as he did with the 2002 Olympics and hundred’s of other businesses.

Also I know more about economics than you know…

I am singing off now as I know that there is never going to be any way of changing your attitude because that is where the issues are with Romney even though I and others have shown many of you that he has governed and proven he is conservative you will still be stuck with the attitude that he is not…

Just have to add that MOST but not all Romney backers do not resort to name calling your candidates and belittling remarks.

GO NAVY!!

g2825m on October 11, 2011 at 10:53 AM

I am singing off now…

Oops…signing off…hahaha

g2825m on October 11, 2011 at 10:54 AM

I have been a missionary and so you cannot sit and tell me what it takes to serve and not to serve. Missionaries from ALL churches get the same deferment! Also he did not attend Harvard until after his mission and it was the school and ALL schools that had that deferment and NOTHING Mitt or his father did to prevent him from serving.

* * *

As a military member and serving overseas here in AFG and in Iraq, we do not care whether our CinC has served before but just want to know that He/She has our back AT ALL TIMES. Many people over here have NO issues with Romney as CinC. See his speech to the Citadel the other day.

g2825m on October 11, 2011 at 10:45 AM

I never said anything about his draft status or missionary work. I too, served in the military. My recollection is that military personnel prefer those with military experience, but not having it is not disqualifying, and I never said it was. I also don’t care about his draft status. It’s way past time to forget that issue. It ended with Clinton I think

I’m not against Romney for any of those reasons. I’m against romney because he is not conservative at all, as proven by Romneycare, if nothing else. that alone demonstrates that he is a big-gov’t guy. Even if he is shown to be 100% conservative in other ways (he isn’t and claims to the contrary are simply dishonest) believing that socializing health care – even if just at the state level – is a good idea is sooo far from conservative thought as to be laughable.

I think Romney is mostly fiscally conservative, but most of all a pragmatist. I don’t think he is a closet liberal. I think he has no real beliefs – that he believes he can “manage” all issues. but, the problem with that is that he can easily (and most likely) drift left while in office. If one doesn’t have core principals, it is easy to be swayed with media pressure and polls.

I don’t think Romney is evil, or that he is bad guy, or that he wouldn’t make a fine Senator from MA or serve in a cabinet post. I do think he’d be a disaster as President at this specific point in our history. I actually wanted Romney over McCain (although he wasn’t my first choice in that primary), but believe he’d do more harm than good at this point in time. Perhaps I am wrong, but I have seen nothing offered to persuade me otherwise.

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 10:54 AM

GO NAVY!!

g2825m on October 11, 2011 at 10:53 AM

By the way, I was a bosun’s mate on the sinking Sara – CV-60 and also spent some time on the Nassau

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 10:56 AM

g2825m on October 11, 2011 at 10:45 AM

The problem with these posts is they take a life of their own, and posters insert what they think is the argument.
Go back to the original post, it was from someone who said that Mitt’s father never helped him in any way, that being the son of a powerful political figure doesn’t help.
I pointed out where in many ways, it does help…so when you say “I can see reading your posts that even when facts are presented that you continue to twist or misread things in the way YOU want to see them.” You are talking about yourself and csdeven, devout Mormon’s, who want Mitt to be elected.
Mitt is a RINO, that’s fine, just don’t cast him as a conservative, he resolved that in a debate where he stated he is not…I take him at his word. You take him at his word now…and that is the difference, you believe him now, I believed him then…he hasn’t established his conservative creds because of those flip flops, and major flip flops.
You see him as being honest to you now, and he was honest to his liberal friends in the past…you tell me with certainty that he is now a conservative? Because that is the office he is now seeking? Okay, so he was lying back then? Or just confused.
Now it comes out his RomneyCare was so refined, that Obama embraced it as well…he can say “state rights”, but he campaigned for it, and he embraced it, just like he embraced abortion and even quoted being just like his mother, embracing the rights of women to have abortions…and he didn’t mean medical, he meant at will.
Glad he has “changed” now, now that he is a “conservative”…to you he is a fellow Mormon brother…to me he is a RINO.

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 10:57 AM

I don’t think Romney can beat Obama – here’s why:

1. Romney’s various flip-flops and Romneycare will be easy for Obama to define Romney as a politician willing to say anything to get elected

2. Romney is basically a wuss and won’t go after Obama hard (i.e., just like McCain) – while Obama will have no problem going after Romney.

3. Part of Romney’s appeal to independents, etc. right now is that the press is fairly friendly to him and once he is the nominee, they will turn savagely on him – a la McCain. Romney is running McCain’s campaign over again and is going to have the same results.

4. Romney does not excite the base and will not get the base turnout he needs

5. Romney does not excite the base and will not get the volunteers or donations he needs

6. Romney is not exciting or charismatic and therefore will not excite independents/dems to vote for him (let’s face it, a lot of non-political people vote on personality)

7. Ultimately, Romney is not that much different than Obama – particularly after the primary when Romney “moves to the middle” it will be easy for Obama to make it seem like a choice without a difference and most people would rather stay with the devil they know.

8. this part is unfortunate, but I suspect a lot of evangelicals will have a hard time voting for a Mormon.

I realize that Romney matches up well head-to-head against Obama right now. But Romney is essentially “generic republican” in most people’s minds right now (despite running for president for more than 5 years, which also shows how weak of a candidate he is). When he becomes the nominee and people start paying attention, Obama will have defined Romney and his numbers will go down significantly.

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 10:09 AM

1) It wont matter because what Romney has never flopped on is what will be the deciding issue. Jobs and the economy.

2) I don’t agree, but time will tell.

3) The press will turn on any GOP nominee. The difference is that I believe Romney can reach past their bias.

4) He does not excite the base, but the base hates Obama more than their tepid feelings about Romney. The base will turn out in droves for whomever is the GOP nominee.

5) See #4.

6) Again, the issue will be jobs and the economy and we tried exciting and inexperienced last time. This time the indies will be looking for experience and practical experience.

7) Romney has already moved to the middle because he knows the base will turn out for him. And only ideologues vote for the devil they know. The indies don’t do that and are supporting Romney already.

8) Maybe, but consider that the LDS church led the charge with money and volunteers to get prop 8 passed. Both blacks and evangelicals supported prop 8 and that will be a counter to the bigots like right2bright.

I can see how you would come to the conclusions you have, but I fundamentally disagree with it. I believe the dislike of Obama will lead a lot of people to focus on experience rather than image this time. Just like in 1980.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 10:59 AM

monkeytoe
Romney did not endorse McCain’s bill in 2005; in an interview with the Boston Globe he explicitly refused to endorse it (11).

read these:
http://whyromney.com/
http://www.ontheissues.org/Mitt_Romney.htm
http://aboutmittromney.com/economic.htm

and there are other sites out there with his actual FACTUAL record not what you repeated above that has been twisted and then reported as factual.

He DID NOT support Bush’s Amnesty:
Amnesty
Critics falsely charge that Mitt Romney supported McCain-Kennedy in 2005 and as Governor instituted sanctuary cities. The reality: sanctuary status was instituted on a city level outside Romney’s purview. With a liberal legislature, no bill outlawing sanctuary cities would have passed. Romney did not endorse McCain’s bill in 2005; in an interview with the Boston Globe he explicitly refused to endorse it (11). Romney did say in the same interview that the bill was “reasonable,” but the 2007 bill is very different from the 2005 bill; the provisions Romney most strongly objects to, like the z-visa (12), were not in the 2005 bill. Accordingly, his position did not change when he opposed the 2007 bill, but the bill itself had changed.

Illegal Immigrants
They claim Romney changed his position on illegal immigrants, since he once said that some illegal immigrants should begin a process toward application for citizenship.(14) However, Romney was not proposing that any illegal immigrants should receive a special pathway to citizenship which is not available to people waiting in line in their home countries.

Instead, Romney was proposing that some illegal immigrants, because of criminal history or other circumstances, should be barred from applying for citizenship, while those who are paying taxes and not receiving any government benefits should be allowed to get in line along with people in their home countries. Romney clarified, “I am going to tell them to go home, but they start by beginning the process of applying for citizenship. But I do not believe — or applying for permanent residency. They’re not going to be barred from doing that, but they do not get any advantage by having come here illegally.”(15)

Good nite all and good discussions!!

g2825m on October 11, 2011 at 11:00 AM

Also I know more about economics than you know…

g2825m on October 11, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Gee, if you say so…I guess that settles it. You know what I know?
What a strange statement…

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 11:00 AM

I mean – yeah, dude’s a RINO – but maybe a Tea Party Congress can keep him in check. It’s a better bet than thinking that a man with ZERO political experience can skillfully manipulate Congress to meet his agenda.

HondaV65 on October 11, 2011 at 10:37 AM

I think Cain is a capable and wise person and would not try to govern as a CEO but rather as a statesman. I just want to see him exhibit some staying power before I am convinced he can beat Obama.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Both blacks and evangelicals supported prop 8 and that will be a counter to the bigots like right2bright.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 10:59 AM

Hey little girl…now grow up and show me where I am a “bigot” and calling me a liar.

Honey, you should really try to be more definitive…what lies have I told?
You seem to take umbrage with me and my “lies” and ask me for explanations…and I give them.
So now it is your turn…you tell me what lies, or sit down, shut up, and quit falsely accusing people that you don’t agree with.
This will be interesting, as you fumble for an excuse…

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 10:19 AM

Still waiting…but still no answer…you would rather falsely accuse than apologize?

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Glad he has “changed” now, now that he is a “conservative”…to you he is a fellow Mormon brother…to me he is a RINO.

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Last post for the nite by me…

In all seriousness, Harry Reid is also Mormon but I solely am backing Romney as I believe he is the MOST experienced for what our country is facing at this time.

Look at it as you are the employer seeking to hire an employee to fix a specific need for your store or business. In looking at ALL of the resumes on your desk for your NEEDS at this time you cannot honestly say that Mitt is not the most qualified.

THIS IS THE REASON WHY I am voting for Romney and has absolutely nothing to do with he being a Mormon…so is Reid (I know he is not running), so is Huntsman, etc…

Most LDS members are not voting for Romney because of his religion and will likely agree with me here. We are different than the last election where a certain segment voted overwhelming for Obama because of his color. Mormons can think on their own merits without ANY influence from its leaders as they have specifically said vote for who want we do NOT back any candidate. The Church only comes out on issues (Prop 8) that directly affect the Church’s stances.

g2825m on October 11, 2011 at 11:10 AM

Go back to the original post, it was from someone who said that Mitt’s father never helped him in any way, that being the son of a powerful political figure doesn’t help.

Nice try bigot. You said his jobs out of collage were a result of his dad’s influence. You also said his dad got him deferred from military service. You have no proof of either and you know it. Now you are trying to nuance your bigoted accusations. The extent at which Mitt got help from his dad was that his dad loved him and taught him proper principles. And that, you bigot, has zero to do with religion or future job offers.

You are talking about yourself and csdeven, devout Mormon’s, who want Mitt to be elected.

Again, provide proof that I am a Mormon or stop saying it.

Mitt is a RINO,

Yeah, no kidding. What are you going to argue next? That water is wet?

Now it comes out his RomneyCare was so refined, that Obama embraced it as well…

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 10:57 AM

This is a ploy by Obama to weaken Romney. Romney didn’t embrace Obamacare, and until he does, that is a disingenuous argument designed to give credibility to lies.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 11:12 AM

What her supporters have to do now is look at the presidential
election differently; its not about reform now; it is about
beating Obama. Reform of the kind we yearned for will not happen.

Amjean on October 10, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Which means the election is pretty much meaningless.

ddrintn on October 10, 2011 at 11:00 PM

And you know what is actually worse? The Tea Party worked
and spent millions to elect conservatives to the house, in
particular, and when they got there they did little. Seemingly,
they fell right in line with the rino leadership.

I don’t know if the voters expected too much, if being freshmen
prohibited their power, or if they were blinded by the glitz
of being in Washington. Doesn’t really matter; it is what it is.

It might be better to focus our political energies on electing
conservatives in the house and senate. Hold our nose and vote
for the GOP nominee and hope that some change could come through
the house and senate if we elect more conservatives.

Amjean on October 11, 2011 at 11:13 AM

Also I know more about economics than you know…

g2825m on October 11, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Gee, if you say so…I guess that settles it. You know what I know?
What a strange statement…

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 11:00 AM

I meant to state that I know more about economics that you think I know…its been a long 14 hour day for me… :o)

g2825m on October 11, 2011 at 11:13 AM

1) It wont matter because what Romney has never flopped on is what will be the deciding issue. Jobs and the economy.

2) I don’t agree, but time will tell.

3) The press will turn on any GOP nominee. The difference is that I believe Romney can reach past their bias.

4) He does not excite the base, but the base hates Obama more than their tepid feelings about Romney. The base will turn out in droves for whomever is the GOP nominee.

5) See #4.

6) Again, the issue will be jobs and the economy and we tried exciting and inexperienced last time. This time the indies will be looking for experience and practical experience.

7) Romney has already moved to the middle because he knows the base will turn out for him. And only ideologues vote for the devil they know. The indies don’t do that and are supporting Romney already.

8) Maybe, but consider that the LDS church led the charge with money and volunteers to get prop 8 passed. Both blacks and evangelicals supported prop 8 and that will be a counter to the bigots like right2bright.

I can see how you would come to the conclusions you have, but I fundamentally disagree with it. I believe the dislike of Obama will lead a lot of people to focus on experience rather than image this time. Just like in 1980.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 10:59 AM

I disagree with most of your conclusions also, but as to #8 – that is irrelevant. They provided money on an issue, not a candidate. People were not voting for a Mormon candidate. It is not even remotely the same thing. Indeed, I don’t think most evangelicals would have a problem voting for a Mormon for governor or senator – President is a different thing.

As far as your argument for “experience” versus “image”. Are you really serious that “last time” we did not focus on experience? McCain – military hero, Senator for decades (and not just a Senator, but a leading voice in the Senate) versus Obama was somehow “image”. Yes, I know you are talking about Palin, but she was the VP nominee. McCain was the nominee. And Romney is the exact same mold as McCain, both in political philosophy and in charisma.

So, I just don’t think Romney can win. His only chance – as you imply – is if people dislike Obama enough to vote against Obama. I, for one, don’t want a nominee that hopes Obama will lose. I want a nominee that works to beat Obama. And that is despite all of the other issues I have with Romney. that is a political strategy concern, not a philosophical concern.

As to #7 – what? he has been in “the middle” his entire life. He did not move there. That is the problem. As for indies – they do in fact vote for the devil they know over someone else. That is why incumbents mostly always win in elections for any office. And, as i pointed out, Romney does well in head-to-head matchups b/c he is the safe “generic” republican. Even though he has been running for president for 5 years, most non-political people (and most political people) can’t tell you what he is for or against. Once Romney is defined by the media and Obama – that will change dramatically.

Also, my point about the media was that Romney is operating under the same silly belief that McCain operated under, that the media would continue to treat him fairly after he becomes the nominee. I don’t see how you believe Romney can reach beyond the media when he has no personality or charisma. How do you believe he will do so? he is the epitome of someone whose message must go through the media b/c he is unable to get people to listen to him any other way. Nobody is going to a Romney facebook page or some other medium. he will be wholly dependent on the media to get his message out. And people aren’t going to listen b/c he has no personality. thus he is easy to define by the other team.

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 11:15 AM

In order Newt, Cain, Perry.

I have watched several recent presentations by Newt and by golly he is so spot on! I know people have problems with his decades old marriage issues but please read the Personal Life section of the link and maybe get a better perspective…perfect in love…perhaps not but he’s ever been faithful to the constitution and the best interests of the country. Am also loving CAIn because he is so blunt…I am so sick of the mealy-mouthed Mittens and those like him. Just tell me staright up what you think is wrong and what you think we should do…I’d rather go part way down a path and realize I need to back up a bit and take a side path than never to start walkin in the first place. My dream ticket would be CAIN at the top and Newt as VP. Cain would be the highly visible, highly vocal leader we need and Newt would preside over the senate where he could command a great deal of influence on legislation. The only thing about Perry is the immigration thing. I respect his answer that it is a state issue,even if i disagree with his exact model. He will need to readjust his thinking at the national level. The other thing I like about him is that he publically acknowledge what he thought was a mistake in policy on his part. Shows a certain level of humility…we need that. I have never heard Mitt make such an admission…because he honestly doesn’t see that he has made any mistakes…that could be dangerous.

RedLizard64 on October 11, 2011 at 11:16 AM

Now it comes out his RomneyCare was so refined, that Obama embraced it as well…

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 10:57 AM

This is a ploy by Obama to weaken Romney. Romney didn’t embrace Obamacare, and until he does, that is a disingenuous argument designed to give credibility to lies.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 11:12 AM

What difference does it make whether he embraced it? it is modeled after Romneycare and he endorsed Romneycare. it doesn’t matter what level it was done at – Romneycare is anti-conservative.

Mitt can talk about federalism all he wants, but is it really our position that one can be for liberal/socialist policies on the state level and still claim to be a conservative when running for federal level office? Is that our new definition of federalism for conservatives?

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 11:17 AM

RINO Retread Romney will lose to Obama in the general. No more McCains!

SurferDoc on October 11, 2011 at 11:20 AM

g2825m on October 11, 2011 at 11:00 AM

http://youtu.be/M6_ktWZZmSo

You can use semantics all you want. this is support for amnesty.

“12 million or so here illegally should be able to sign up for legal residency.”

“They have a set period where they sign up for permanent residency” etc., etc.

The 12 million here illegally should be given the opportunity to stay here.

Yes, he says they shouldn’t be given some special consideration to become citizens – but giving legal residency is hardly cracking down on immigration. C’mon.

You can play this word game all day, but Romney’s own words refute you.

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 11:25 AM

A rich/powerful person’s son or daughter can be a good candidate even though helped by their parent to get in that position. It is what that person believes, etc. that matters. I wouldn’t disqualify someone just b/c they came from wealth and privilege.

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 9:39 AM

Romney has plenty to disqualify him before you get anywhere near his silver spoon.

besser tot als rot on October 11, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Bachmann is no more than a useful tool and Cain is on a bookselling spree. God help us.

promachus on October 10, 2011 at 9:41 PM

It shows the character of Cain in “my book”. He is campaigning (1st job) and selling books to pay for that campaign (2nd job)…if/when he wins the nomination, will make for a hell of a testimonial won’t it?

RedLizard64 on October 11, 2011 at 11:26 AM

I find it laughable and frustrating at the same time that the attitude in here is that if we get stuck with Romney as the nominee that we conservatives will just roll over (yet again) and vote for him because we hate Obama so much. It’s his policies and with the Hot Air revelation that Obama consulted with Romney’s advisors on Romneycare it’s the same thing. So it looks like we’ve got good chances on taking the Senate and increasing the House, however, the general electorate will get spooked and give the WH to a democrat instead of a 1 party dominated govt unless we can give them a strong alternative to Obama. Right now it’s Cain seconded by Perry and I will write in a candidate before selling out yet again no matter how bad Obama is. At least with a republican controlled Senate and House we can control him, but with Romney (and his ego) who knows anymore?

mozalf on October 11, 2011 at 11:27 AM

I’m chuckling as the Romneybots now take their turn in the barrel. Kharma, Baby.

SurferDoc on October 11, 2011 at 11:28 AM

SurferDoc on October 11, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Amen, even if I was a supporter I would stand back and watch as turnabout becomes fair play. Or as they tell us in California, Karma is a b!tch!

Cindy Munford on October 11, 2011 at 11:33 AM

I am more and more thinking that conservatives as a whole need to develop some:

N E W T h i n k i n g

RedLizard64 on October 11, 2011 at 11:33 AM

Bachmann is no more than a useful tool and Cain is on a bookselling spree. God help us.

promachus on October 10, 2011 at 9:41 PM

It shows the character of Cain in “my book”. He is campaigning (1st job) and selling books to pay for that campaign (2nd job)…if/when he wins the nomination, will make for a hell of a testimonial won’t it?

RedLizard64 on October 11, 2011 at 11:26 AM

My guess is that Cain jumped in the race to raise his profile and allow him either to get the VP slot (which even he probably thought was a long-shot) or a position in the Admin, or a run for governor or senator down the road and at the same time, sell some books. I don’t have a huge problem with that as lots of politicians do it (Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman, even Bachman in my opinion) and is part of the game, and is also how you become known nationally in the party.

I don’t think he expected to become a 1st tier candidate, but now that he has, is shifting gears to actually try and win. I think that is fair and makes sense. The same way I don’t think Perry originally intended to run, but when the field looked wide open and Obama looked damaged, it made no sense not to run so he jumped in, albeit unprepared. Sometimes you have to simply strike when the iron is hot. A lot of politics is timing.

The question for Cain now is whether he can quickly get up to speed with an organization and fundraising to stay in the 1st tier, while not making any blunders that will knock him out of the first tier. I certainly am open to Cain. Right now I still back Perry as the most conservative viable candidate in the race (despite his warts).

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 11:36 AM

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 11:15 AM

Per #8, Romney had many evangelicals support him in 2008. He will get those endorsements again and probably more because of prop 8.

The people who voted for McCain will vote for Romney…what Romney will do, as is doing per the polling, is pulling away those who voted for Obama to his side. McCain’s ultimate failure was his statement that he wasn’t a economy guy. When the economy crashed, people moved over to Obama because of image and not experience. Romney will not have that problem.

I didn’t imply that he can only beat Obama by Obama losing. I said that the base will turn out because they hate the idea of another 4 years of Obama and ALL GOP candidates get that in their favor. It is a fact that Obama has no record to run on….that fact will work in favor of any GOP nominees. The difference is the enthusiasm of the indies to go vote. Romney and Cain will bring many out who know that voting for a charismatic candidate with no experience was a failure and see the substance of the experience Cain and Romney have.

Per #7….Try a different argument because that one is specious. The indies will not vote in Obama again. They can see the destruction he has brought upon the economy. The proof of that is in the polling that shows they are leaving him in droves. They will stay home if the GOP nominates a candidate that is weak on jobs and the economy. They will come out to vote if we nominate Romney (and possibly Cain).

You will find that Romney is under no misconceptions about the media. That is true for every GOP candidate.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 11:40 AM

It’s really beginning to look like America needs Newt Gingrich.

Freelancer on October 10, 2011 at 11:30 PM

A shout out to you! see my earlier posts (people take the one instance of NEWt out of context which is less aggregious (politically) than the gaffes and mis-policies that a prevelant in the remainder of the field and just write NEWT off…I would ask everyone to just imagine each candidate debating our Constitutional Lawyer president and THINK about who would tear him up and leave him a bleeding quiver mass of baby-flesh as a public repudiation to everything he (Obama) pushes. I can imagine NEWT time after time quoting the Constitution, historical writings, and the Declaration of Independence and Obama either providing more ammunition through his answers or mumble-fumble like Perry (I like him though) did the one debate. Could you imagine as the scales fell of peoples eyes and the entire collective consciousness of the country awakened to the fact the Obama is absolutely CLUELESS!!!!!

RedLizard64 on October 11, 2011 at 11:42 AM

What difference does it make whether he embraced it? it is modeled after Romneycare and he endorsed Romneycare. it doesn’t matter what level it was done at – Romneycare is anti-conservative.

Romney endorsed the states right to have it. He never endorsed an unconstitutional takeover by the federal government. You are on Obama’s side on this. I will now thoroughly reject you as a progressive because you are on the same side as Obama. :-) That statement is as unfair to you as yours is to Romney. You can’t control me and Romney cannot control Obama. This is a ploy by Obama to get you to nominate a candidate of his choosing.

Mitt can talk about federalism all he wants, but is it really our position that one can be for liberal/socialist policies on the state level and still claim to be a conservative when running for federal level office? Is that our new definition of federalism for conservatives?

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 11:17 AM

It is the definition of federalism. Federalism never defined itself as conservative, but rather conservatives have adopted federalism in order to put the federal government in line with the constitution. The fact is that Romney is a federalist, a moderate federalist in truth.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 11:46 AM

It shows the character of Cain in “my book”. He is campaigning (1st job) and selling books to pay for that campaign (2nd job)…if/when he wins the nomination, will make for a hell of a testimonial won’t it?

RedLizard64 on October 11, 2011 at 11:26 AM

If you think Cain is going to make enough on his book to compete in the primary, much less the general election, you don’t understand why he is on a book tour. He is on the tour to get exposure.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Well, if Mitt puts it that way, it’s an easy choice.

molonlabe28 on October 11, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Per #7….Try a different argument because that one is specious. The indies will not vote in Obama again. They can see the destruction he has brought upon the economy. The proof of that is in the polling that shows they are leaving him in droves. They will stay home if the GOP nominates a candidate that is weak on jobs and the economy. They will come out to vote if we nominate Romney (and possibly Cain).

if that were true Romney would be beating Obama by 20 or more points in polls. Your argument is the specious one.

Not sure what you mean by “weak on jobs”. Do you believe the gov’t can “create” jobs?

You again, are basing your belief that Obama can win on 1) the base turning out – not for Romney – but against Obama and 2 – independents not turning out for Romney but against Obama. Again proving my point.

As I repeatedly said – people who don’t follow politics closely say they will vote for Romney in polls right now b/c he is the generic republican. He has high name recognition but nobody really knows his positions and the media has been fairly nice to him meaning he is not a “scary” republican. (And again, the fact that after 5 straight years of running for president, most people know nothing about Romney speaks volumes about him). All of that will change when Obama defines him.

You will find that Romney is under no misconceptions about the media. That is true for every GOP candidate.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 11:40 AM

I guess we’ll have to disagree on that. I see nothing from Romney demonstrating an ability to go beyond the media or run a campaign any different than McCains. You are taking it on faith, I am not.

Romney and Cain will bring many out who know that voting for a charismatic candidate with no experience was a failure and see the substance of the experience Cain and Romney have.

Now that is some funny stuff. The independents who bought Obama’s b.s. are suddenly going to take economic theories, etc. seriously and vote not based on personality. Now, granted, a lot of people will be turned off by the state of the economy. Will it be enough to simply rely on that? I don’t want to find out. That is why Romney is a chancy nominee.

I don’t believe it is impossible for Romney to win. I just think his change is actually much weaker than a strong conservative candidate’s chance would be. Again, Romney’s entire strategy will be to hope people turn out to vote against Obama. That’s not good enough.

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Romney endorsed the states right to have it. He never endorsed an unconstitutional takeover by the federal government. You are on Obama’s side on this. I will now thoroughly reject you as a progressive because you are on the same side as Obama. :-) That statement is as unfair to you as yours is to Romney. You can’t control me and Romney cannot control Obama. This is a ploy by Obama to get you to nominate a candidate of his choosing.

Mitt can talk about federalism all he wants, but is it really our position that one can be for liberal/socialist policies on the state level and still claim to be a conservative when running for federal level office? Is that our new definition of federalism for conservatives?

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 11:17 AM

It is the definition of federalism. Federalism never defined itself as conservative, but rather conservatives have adopted federalism in order to put the federal government in line with the constitution. The fact is that Romney is a federalist, a moderate federalist in truth.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 11:46 AM

The issue is whether or not someone can be a conservative and still support Romneycare on the state level. I argue that you can’t, b/c it is endorsing socialist principals. Explain why I am wrong? B/c it is not at the federal level? Is that really your answer?

I never said he endorsed the Obamacare. That isn’t my point. Please read a little more carefully. I said that if Romney endorsed Romneycare – which is about as anti-conservative a policy as you can get – on the state level – how exactly is he a conservative? In what world does a conservative endorse such a policy?

If a governor of a state endorses socialized medicine for that state – can that governor then claim to be a conservative?

If a governor endorses high, high taxes in a state – can that governor claim to be a conservative?

If a governor endorses extreme debt spending in his state – can that governor claim to be a conservative?

You see, you can’t simply waive the magic wand of “federalism” over choices made while the governor of a state. Those choices reflect your core beliefs. the fact that Romney’s core belief system includes Romneycare means he is nothing close to a conservative.

Thus, it matters not one whit whether he publicly endorses Obamacare. It matters only that he publicly endorses Romneycare. That is enough to disqualify him in my book.

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 11:56 AM

Per #8, Romney had many evangelicals support him in 2008. He will get those endorsements again and probably more because of prop 8.

I hope I am wrong about the evangelical vote. I am concerned about it is all. I do not see how Prop 8 has anything to do with it. voting on an issue and voting for a candidate are 2 very different things. I can agree with the ACLU from time to time, but I would never vote for an ACLU candidate, for instance.

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 11:58 AM

It is the definition of federalism. Federalism never defined itself as conservative, but rather conservatives have adopted federalism in order to put the federal government in line with the constitution. The fact is that Romney is a federalist, a moderate federalist in truth.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Just to clarify – my point isn’t that federalism defines conservatism or even vice versa.

My point is that you can’t do something as anti-conservative as pass/endorse/create Romneycare and then simply say “federalism” and claim you are a conservative. That is not what federalism means. Just because a state has the freedom to do something does not mean that a) it should or b) we should support a governor that does it.

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 12:00 PM

It is clear that Mitt is our guy.

MJBrutus on October 11, 2011 at 5:16 AM

I disagree. I have always believed in the KISS (keep it simple stupid) method.

Romney plan – 59 points (to fix the economy)

Gingrich – 4 major points to fix the fabric of society and government and the economy will fix itself. There is also this

Cain Plan – 1 economic plan (9-9-9) and 10 issue areas (National Security, Spending, Immigration, energy, economy, health care, entitlements, regulation, education, Faith and family)…which I believe he has placed in proper order in relation to the exective brach responsiblities and duties.

By the way when the MSM is against something I am generally for it!

RedLizard64 on October 11, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Mormons can think on their own merits without ANY influence from its leaders as they have specifically said vote for who want we do NOT back any candidate. The Church only comes out on issues (Prop 8) that directly affect the Church’s stances.

g2825m on October 11, 2011 at 11:10 AM

That’s why 96% of them voted for Romney, because it just happens that 96% think alike?
It’s okay to support someone of your own faith…just don’t try to pretend it is not happening…of course individually each one of you have a “reason” other than you are both Mormon…but the total picture says differently….96%, another coincidence, lots of coincidences in Mitts life.

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Still waiting…but still no answer…you would rather falsely accuse than apologize?

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 11:03 AM

yooohooo, csdeven, you accused me of something…now back it up…come on, what, in your faith, is the punishment for falsely accusing someone?
Step up young lady…back up your accusations…

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 12:06 PM

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 12:03 PM

You dont know what your talking about, Im Mormom, I like Mitt, but my parents, also Mormon are firmly Perry. Mormons are like 90 percent Republican in general and very conservative. Last election he was the more conservative choice over McCain and many grew to like him then and still like him now. You wont see Mormons voting for Harry Reid or Huntsman and you will see them all gladly vote for Perry in the general if it comes to that.

nswider on October 11, 2011 at 12:09 PM

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 11:36 AM

it seems we are of similar minds and tastes.

If you think Cain is going to make enough on his book to compete in
the primary, much less the general election, you don’t understand why he is on a book tour. He is on the tour to get exposure.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 11:48 AM

that may be true but the money will help and he seems good enough to be president or “with exposure” someone to tap to help turn arounfd this socialist shipwreck called obamapolicy.

RedLizard64 on October 11, 2011 at 12:11 PM

This is why Obama would DESTROY Mitt in debate for the presidency…

RedLizard64 on October 11, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Then there is this for Obama to draw upon

RedLizard64 on October 11, 2011 at 12:30 PM

I mean – yeah, dude’s a RINO – but maybe a Tea Party Congress can keep him in check. It’s a better bet than thinking that a man with ZERO political experience can skillfully manipulate Congress to meet his agenda.

HondaV65 on October 11, 2011 at 10:37 AM

A well reasoned opinion. It is refreshing to see a non- idealogue using common sense, derived from your own brain, so cogently state a truth. I wish there were more like you here.

Haldol on October 11, 2011 at 12:38 PM

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Your jealousy and bitterness is showing…again. Every time I think you can’t be more pathetic…you prove me wrong.

lovingmyUSA on October 11, 2011 at 12:40 PM

I mean – yeah, dude’s a RINO – but maybe a Tea Party Congress can keep him in check. It’s a better bet than thinking that a man with ZERO political experience can skillfully manipulate Congress to meet his agenda.

HondaV65 on October 11, 2011 at 10:37 AM

the problem with this thinking is believing 1) a majority GOP congress is conservative and 2) that a GOP controlled congress won’t eat a bunch of liberal policy b.s. to support their president a la Medicare Part D and No child Left Behind.

We are better off with a conservative president who doesn’t get his way but keeps congress from lurching left than with a liberal republican leading congress to the left.

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Reagan didn’t hold 40 percent at this point 79-80 Primary season.

In fact, HW Bush beat Reagan in the Iowa caucus.

If your first premis is unsound, the rest of the argument fails.

Jason Coleman on October 10, 2011 at 11:29 PM

Yeah, but this isn’t 1979-80 and there is no Reagan in the field.

ddrintn on October 10, 2011 at 11:30 PM

Ok, then, Nixon wasn’t at 40% in October of 1967 after Romney Sr. and Rockefeller and Reagan got into the race.

The premis of the article is that a candidate who doesn’t hold 40 of Republican primary voters at this point will take the White House.

Reagan and Nixon did exactly that. We can probably go further back, but it’s not necessary, the article is bogus because it fails to posit a truthful premis from the very beginning.

Jason Coleman on October 11, 2011 at 12:43 PM

Romney is the favorite among the main stream propaganda machines. He is Obama lite. (yes pun intended) Barring any major miss steps I beleive Mr Cain will do pretty well. Expect questions that will try to trip Mr Cain up. The moderator is Charlie Rose from PBS no Bias at all is there ?

ColdWarrior57 on October 11, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Your jealousy and bitterness is showing…again. Every time I think you can’t be more pathetic…you prove me wrong.

lovingmyUSA on October 11, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Awwwwww…..cry us a river why don’t cha?

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 1:30 PM

yooohooo, csdeven, you accused me of something…now back it up…come on, what, in your faith, is the punishment for falsely accusing someone?
Step up young lady…back up your accusations…

right2bright on October 11, 2011 at 12:06 PM

You know as well as the rest Of Hot Air knows that you have been bashing our Mormon friends since you showed up here at Hot Air. You are an unmitigated bigot.

And I’m still waiting for you to provide the proof that I am a Mormon.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Romney now being endorsed by Christie. Is Romney or someone paying these candidates to kiss up to him? It makes no sense at all! Geez, this stupid election is so in the can for Romney.

Susanboo on October 11, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Romney is making steady progress on Obama. And I doubt any opponent will get a 20 point lead on him.

The issue of the base turning out against Obama works for every GOP candidate. The indies will turn out for the candidate that speaks to their issues. You will find that the economic woes we are facing now will lead the indies to pay more attention this time.

No, the government cannot create jobs. All the government can do is make sure a job friendly atmosphere exists. That usually means staying the heck out of it.

I don’t think Romney is a dyed in the wool conservative. He is a moderate conservative and his record provides the evidence to that fact. Even though Romneycare (which was heralded by the Heritage Group) is a liberal law, the fact that he realizes it is a function of federalism shows that he will not try to implement it at a national level and will issue waivers for Obamacare and will work for a full repeal. The rest of his record is sufficiently conservative to warrent supporting him. If you’re looking for an ideologically pure candidate, don’t hold your breath, that candidate doesn’t exist. And if he/she did exist, they would lose to Obama because the indies don’t vote for ideological candidates.

What we need is the most conservative candidate that can beat Obama. As of today, Romney is that guy. But things can change.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 1:45 PM

What we need is the most conservative candidate that can beat Obama. As of today, Romney is that guy. But things can change.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 1:45 PM

He is not conservative so can’t be the “most conservative candidate”. I disagree entirely with your assessment of his chances in the general election. You put too much faith that the base is simply going to turn out for whoever is the nominee.

I, for one, simply don’t know if I will be able to pull the lever for Romney as I think he will be worse for the U.S. long-term than 4 more years of Obama would be. And the chances of Romney repealing Obamacare or issuing those waivers is nil. He is b.s.ing you to the nth degree. I don’t trust romney and believe almost nothing he claims he will do if elected. He has demonstrated a willingness to say anything at any time if he thinks it will help him get elected, so why take his word this time?

Moreover, your continued use of the term “federalism” does not get rid of the fact that Romney believed that socializing health care was a good idea. Ipso facto, he is no conservative. Not even moderate. He is slightly right of center with a big streak of big gov’t in him. Why is socializing something good in one state but not good for the country? If the economics allegedly work, it should work no matter the scale. He was for a far, far, far, far, far left program as governor. Further left than anything we have ever seen a republican candidate support and yet we are considering him for our nominee? It is insane.

I’m not looking for a “pure” candidate. Just someone who doesn’t believe in socializing things – whether at the state or federal level. “Federalism” does not cure Romney’s doing this. He went full boogey socialist in MA and was all for gov’t control of healthcare. How does screaming “federalism” change that fact?

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Romney is making steady progress on Obama. And I doubt any opponent will get a 20 point lead on him.

Also, talk about missing the point. You claimed that the independents were already on board with Romney or against Obama, yet most polls show Obama ahead of various candidates or within the margin of error. My point was you are arguing something that is factually incorrect. If you were correct, Romney would be 20 points up in the polls right now over Obama. The fact that he isn’t, disproves your point and proves mine, that independents have not abandoned Obama the way you claimed.

My point went back to why I don’t think Romney is our best chance against Obama (not that I would want him if he were). I pointed out that Romney cannot excite independents or democrats to vote for him. You countered with your assertion that independents were going to or already had abandoned Obama. I pointed out that this was not so presently and that there is no guarantee it would happen. That if independents thought or acted the way you claimed, Romney would already be up significantly more in the polls in head-to-head matchups. We are at 9% unemployment and have been for 2 years, and Obama still is in the game. Thus, simply assuming that our nominee – no matter who it is – is going to win them over is naive at best.

So, you missed my point entirely and countered with something completely irrelevant, but in doing so proved my point. That we don’t know for sure what independents will do and that nominating a stale piece of bread like Romney – who is not that distinguishable from Obama on policy (depending, of course, on what year you are talking about, i.e. romney 2010, romney 2008, romney 2004, or romney 1994) – is not likely to win them over.

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 2:06 PM

is a liberal law, the fact that he realizes it is a function of federalism shows that he will not try to implement it at a national level and will issue waivers for Obamacare and will work for a full repeal.

How is endorsing, pushing, creating a liberal policy a “function of federalism”? Did federalism require Romney to back socialistic policy? Is that it? Why would a conservative governor push a super-super liberal law? What does federalism have to do with the fact that Romney supported the most liberal thing possible for a governor to support?

You want to rely on parts of Romney as Governor’s record that seem helpful and seem conservative but sweep this gaping, humungous liberal/socialist thing under the rug claiming “federalism”. Well, either everything a governor does is covered by “federalism” and therefore irrelevant to running for president (i.e., state budget’s, taxes, regulations, etc) or we are allowed to look at the governor’s record and see what they did as governor.

Which is it? And, how does supporting/creating/endorsing Romneycare demonstrate any commitment whatsoever to conservative principals?

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Which is it? And, how does supporting/creating/endorsing Romneycare demonstrate any commitment whatsoever to conservative principals?

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 2:11 PM

And, if you claim that he thinks it was right for MA but not right for the country – how was it right for MA? How is this incredibly liberal gov’t takeover of healthcare a good idea for MA? How could a conservative have thought that? And why is it not good for the country? Only b/c of the constitutional issue with regard to the individual mandate?

If it is only the constitutional issue, are you saying he will be for other huge socialistic programs that don’t have such constitutional issues? Why not? He sure liked it as governor of MA.

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 2:14 PM

I, for one, simply don’t know if I will be able to pull the lever for Romney as I think he will be worse for the U.S. long-term than 4 more years of Obama would be.

I will say this….IF it looks like we will get a majority in the senate and retain the house, I will be less concerned with an Obama win. BUT, in 2016, when the GOP has restored fiscal sanity to the government, Obama will take credit and along with that, the demrat nominee will also. AND he/she will only focus on the negatives of the GOP legislature and link the GOP nominee to them. With a GOP win in 2012, the GOP POTUS gets the credit and a better chance of retaining the position for a second term. AND we will not be getting progressive justices nominated to the SCOTUS.

And the chances of Romney repealing Obamacare or issuing those waivers is nil. He is b.s.ing you to the nth degree. I don’t trust romney and believe almost nothing he claims he will do if elected. He has demonstrated a willingness to say anything at any time if he thinks it will help him get elected, so why take his word this time?

Hahahaha. Seriously? Exactly in what fantasy are you imagining that in? Romney will govern as a fiscal conservative and issuing waivers for Obamacare and then working for a full repeal with a GOP congress will be a top priority.

Moreover, your continued use of the term “federalism” does not get rid of the fact that Romney believed that socializing health care was a good idea. Ipso facto, he is no conservative. Not even moderate. He is slightly right of center with a big streak of big gov’t in him. Why is socializing something good in one state but not good for the country? If the economics allegedly work, it should work no matter the scale. He was for a far, far, far, far, far left program as governor. Further left than anything we have ever seen a republican candidate support and yet we are considering him for our nominee? It is insane.

Yet the Heritage Foundation praised it.

I’m not looking for a “pure” candidate. Just someone who doesn’t believe in socializing things – whether at the state or federal level. “Federalism” does not cure Romney’s doing this. He went full boogey socialist in MA and was all for gov’t control of healthcare. How does screaming “federalism” change that fact?

Monkeytoe on October 11, 2011 at 1:59 PM

He was not full socialist as MA governor and it wasn’t government controlled healtcare. He used a free market approach to Masscare in spite of the demrat majority and balanced the budget for 3 of his 4 years. Your problem is that you want an ideological candidate. Which may seem principled to you, but in effect is unprincipled. Romney is a moderate conservative and any examination of his record proves that.

csdeven on October 11, 2011 at 2:16 PM

It would be nice if people would stop even jokingly saying that Ron Paul is a good candidate. I don’t know the politically correct way of saying it, but he looks, walks, and speaks like a, ummmm, (mentally challenged person), and he can only carry that ‘The entire country is one big conspiracy’ theory just so far.

stacman on October 11, 2011 at 2:26 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8