A preview of what’s to come if Mitt Romney is the GOP nominee

posted at 8:15 pm on November 28, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Remember that little quiz the Democratic National Committee released a few months ago? It came with its own URL — WhichMitt.com. If you don’t remember it, don’t worry. In the scheme of things, it didn’t particularly matter. (Although, for what it’s worth, since the launch, the site has developed substantially.)

But it was one of the first drips. And the DNC’s latest drop is far more troubling, a true preview of what’s to come if Mitt Romney is the GOP nominee. The Committee today launched a new website to house a four-minute video that lambasts Romney for his chameleon-like character.

“What does Mitt Romney believe?” the video asks, before it highlights Romney’s most notorious opinion shifts. At the end of the spot comes again the core question — and, more importantly, the ominous answer to it: “What does Mitt Romney believe? Whatever will get him elected.”

Unfortunately, it resonates — and all the more so because Mitt Romney’s reputation as a flip-flopper is deserved and has been cemented for some time — – even (or perhaps especially) among conservatives.

The DNC could release similar videos about several other candidates, including Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann, who have all, at one point or another, made contradictory statements. From TARP to personal escapades, from Gardasil to immigration, these guys just don’t always get their stories straight — even if they are some of the most conservative Republicans to run for president in years. But, if perception is reality, Mitt Romney is the prince of flip-flops — and, if the Grand Ol’ Party nominates him, every Republican everywhere had better be prepared to counter the argument that Romney has no core — and will say and do whatever it takes to get elected.

Fortunately, the rebuttal is the same as it was when the DNC released WhichMitt.com. If Romney is the prince of flip-flops, Obama is the king. (See here for a partial list.) That’s cold comfort for any voter who’s looking for actual conviction (including me!), but it’s still an important differentiation to make. And as far as “cores” go, what core I suspect Obama of having is very far to the left of Mitt Romney’s. Please let’s not forget that.

Parting thought: This video does underscore in a big way that the media will have contributed mightily to an Obama win, if, in fact, he scores reelection. By hosting so many debates, the MSM has served the DNC countless clips of quibbles and squabbles that just won’t look appealing or consistent in soundbite form.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Just review the campaign from 2008 with John McCain. It will be the same, but worse, because Sarah Palin will not be involved.
Nominate Romney, lose.

carbon_footprint on November 28, 2011 at 8:19 PM

We need to see, soon, what Mitt is made of. I don’t know what that is. Mitt, do your thing.

Paul-Cincy on November 28, 2011 at 8:20 PM

A preview of what’s to come if when Mitt Romney is the GOP nominee

Fixed.

itsnotaboutme on November 28, 2011 at 8:20 PM

Parting thought: This video does underscore in a big way that the media will have contributed mightily to an Obama win, if, in fact, he scores reelection. By hosting so many debates, the MSM has served the DNC countless clips of quibbles and squabbles that just won’t look appealing or consistent in soundbite form.

Hmmm. The geniuses who run the GOP didn’t understand this? The candidates themselves didn’t understand this? Amateurs.

promachus on November 28, 2011 at 8:21 PM

This is the mild stuff, the “He’s a racist, pedophile, Nazi, baby-killing fascist who eats sauteed kittens!” will come later for the lucky person who wins the GOP nomination.

Bishop on November 28, 2011 at 8:22 PM

Romney wears flip-flops.

Obama is the Imelda Marcos of flip-flops, one suitable to any promise.

ajacksonian on November 28, 2011 at 8:22 PM

Poor Mitt. He literally squirms when it comes to taking a position.

So painful to watch.

AshleyTKing on November 28, 2011 at 8:23 PM

Hmmm. The geniuses who run the GOP didn’t understand this? The candidates themselves didn’t understand this? Amateurs.

promachus on November 28, 2011 at 8:21 PM

And they didn’t even get all of this in the debates, it is going to be ugly, and many thought McCain was bad news just wait.

KBird on November 28, 2011 at 8:26 PM

Obama is the king (of flip-flops). (See here for a partial list.)

Here’s a list of 33 Barack-and-forth flip-flips I made during the last campaign:

http://jgapinoy.blogspot.com/2008/07/barack-and-forth.html

(I grew weary of making the list. I suppose it could be in the 60s by now.)

itsnotaboutme on November 28, 2011 at 8:27 PM

This is such an utter non-issue. The Democrats will forced by their base to give up on the Romney is flip-flopper rhetoric. In their world, all Republicans are evil extremists. Even they can’t sell Romney the moderate flip-flopping extremist.

thuja on November 28, 2011 at 8:27 PM

A preview of what’s to come if Mitt Romney is the GOP nominee

4 more years of President Pantload Golfsalot???

BigWyo on November 28, 2011 at 8:29 PM

O/T
====

@SBSNews
BREAKING: Israeli army says it fired shells into southern Lebanon after rockets landed in Israel overnight http://t.co/Q3twKohf
41 Min.ago
==========

http://www.breakingnews.com/

canopfor on November 28, 2011 at 8:30 PM

If Romney is the prince of flip-flops, Obama is the king.

This. The guy contradicts himself in the same sentence.

John the Libertarian on November 28, 2011 at 8:31 PM

itsnotaboutme on November 28, 2011 at 8:27 PM

After reading your list, I think you have the term “Flip Flops” confused with ‘Bald Faced Lies’.

BigWyo on November 28, 2011 at 8:32 PM

The GOP doesn’t need to go after Obama’s flip-flops they have something far more potent, his actual record as President. If you think more independent voters will worry about Romney’s shifting positions over worrying about having a job I got a bridge to sell you. I don’t think this election will be a cake walk but if this is the best the DNC can come up with I’m starting to like our chances.

lowandslow on November 28, 2011 at 8:33 PM

Defending Romney by trotting out Obama’s flip-flops is a losing argument. You want to replace the guy in office and you defend your candidate by saying he’s no different than what they already have? Romney’s flip-flops go to his credibility as being a vehicle for change. If he cannot offer change then what is the point of voting for more of the same?

sharrukin on November 28, 2011 at 8:33 PM

A preview of what’s to come if Mitt Romney is the GOP nominee

4 more years of President Pantload Golfsalot???

BigWyo on November 28, 2011 at 8:29 PM

Actually, I think his new name is King Putt.

joejm65 on November 28, 2011 at 8:33 PM

True John, BUT the media will be blaring the stuff about Mitt 24/7 while hiding the the stuff about obama as they have been.

Hard Right on November 28, 2011 at 8:34 PM

Democrats are all about the politics of personal destruction. If the target is not a white male, then they get even nastier.

malclave on November 28, 2011 at 8:36 PM

Just review the campaign from 2008 with John McCain. It will be the same, but worse, because Sarah Palin will not be involved.
Nominate Romney, lose.

carbon_footprint on November 28, 2011 at 8:19 PM

Newt is McCain-lite. How did that work out for us last time?

rich801 on November 28, 2011 at 8:36 PM

Cut Mittens some slack,he’s been campaigning for over 7 years!!
(snark)

canopfor on November 28, 2011 at 8:37 PM

voter suppression is an important part of the Axe/Obama strategy…demoralize the enemy (that’s us)

So he’s been in politics for a long time, and there’s been some very complicated issues.

TARP had good points and bad….Backstopping MMF was pretty important.

Remember Bush did a stimulus before barry. If you actually build something of lasting value, something that’s actually needed, government spending is ok. The problem is the Barry Machine provides GRAFT to its voters (bailing out PEU pension funds is not helpful)

Climate change…well, at one point I thought there was something to it (10 years ago)…a lot has changed, a lot has come to light, temperature aren’t going up…Barry is the fruitcake leftist here, the one who can’t change his mind because his money depends no it.

abortion…Romney has a good explanation.

So before we let Axe win, let’s see what this ad says about barry

r keller on November 28, 2011 at 8:39 PM

1) 4 more years of Obama
2) The GOP was for mandates before it was against mandates. Say hello to Obamacare forever.

jhffmn on November 28, 2011 at 8:39 PM

Hard Right on November 28, 2011 at 8:34 PM

Agreed. They’re just trotting out Kerry’s “I voted against it before I voted for it” in a preemptive attack. And sharrukin is right, too. But one of the few potential candidates who has been consistent time and again isn’t running this time around.

John the Libertarian on November 28, 2011 at 8:40 PM

*VIDEO* Bill Whittle On Character
Nov 28 2011
**************

http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/video-bill-whittle-on-character/

canopfor on November 28, 2011 at 6:13 AM

canopfor on November 28, 2011 at 8:40 PM

and btw, this is probably mild compared to what they’ll say about Perry….they’ll have him all dressed up with a white pointy hat with a gun.

And Newt? Axe luvs sex stuff…that’s his favorite, and the Freddie hiring the historian for 1.6M Axe is laughing already

r keller on November 28, 2011 at 8:42 PM

*****************VETTING OVERLOADOVERDRIVE*******************

canopfor on November 28, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Once again defeat from the jaws of victory, and this one hurts, because we had a chance of a lifetime to demonstrate how superior conservatism is to Omama/lib’s utter failure.

neuquenguy on November 28, 2011 at 8:44 PM

and btw, this is probably mild compared to what they’ll say about Perry….they’ll have him all dressed up with a white pointy hat with a gun.

And Reagan made movies with a chimpanzee.

Marcus on November 28, 2011 at 8:45 PM

Newt is McCain-lite. How did that work out for us last time?

rich801 on November 28, 2011 at 8:36 PM

That’s a stretch.

MeatHeadinCA on November 28, 2011 at 8:46 PM

After reading your list, I think you have the term “Flip Flops” confused with ‘Bald Faced Lies’.

BigWyo on November 28, 2011 at 8:32 PM

Could be.
Only Obama knows if he meant what he said in the before-flip positions.

itsnotaboutme on November 28, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Remember that little quiz the Democratic National Committee released a few months ago? It came with its own URL — WhichMitt.com.
==================

Thats it…I’m reporting this to AttackWatch!
(sarc).

canopfor on November 28, 2011 at 8:50 PM

And Newt? Axe luvs sex stuff…that’s his favorite, and the Freddie hiring the historian for 1.6M Axe is laughing already

r keller on November 28, 2011 at 8:42 PM

Yeah, but Newt loves this stuff, too. Newt loves bare-knuckle politics and has been around the block longer. He’ll be fine. :-)

Punchenko on November 28, 2011 at 8:51 PM

I expect Mitt to school Obama on business and economics like no one else in the country can. A country desperate for economic relief will vote overwhelmingly for the clean GOP candidate with no Freddie Mac dirt on his hands (unlike Obama and others).

Basilsbest on November 28, 2011 at 8:51 PM

Does not matter if Obama is the king, as no body hold democrats to the same standard as they do Republicans.

It is not fair, but then again, it is because Americans by and large are deliberate ignorant no nothings that love to have opinions on things they have tiny shreds of information on.

It is going to take someone with charisma to make Americans pay attention and end up knowing something, and Romney just is not that person.

astonerii on November 28, 2011 at 8:54 PM

If you have yet to see this photo of Mitt while he was part of Bain Capital you should look at it.

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2011/11/25/the-unelectable-mitt-romney-part-ii/

The above photo features a younger Mitt Romney (in the center, naturally) when he was part of Bain Capital. Get used to seeing it. It will be on busses and billboards across the nation if Romney wins the nomination. And it will be the image people take into the voting booth on Election Day.

To my way of thinking this would cause him more harm with the general population than the flip flop record would. A picture is worth a thousand words, and Mr. Class Warfare in the WH would use this one. Mitt obviously was not thinking of his political future when he posed for this.

INC on November 28, 2011 at 8:56 PM

I expect Mitt to school Obama on business and economics like no one else in the country can.
Basilsbest on November 28, 2011 at 8:51 PM

Mitt might have the knowledge, but like McCain he does not have the guts to take it to Obama, he is going to be all civility and high road.

neuquenguy on November 28, 2011 at 8:58 PM

Newt is McCain-lite. How did that work out for us last time?

rich801 on November 28, 2011 at 8:36 PM

No, Newt is actually smart, has a vision, and is a conservative. You are confusing the uninspiring McCain with the equally uninspiring Mitt Romney — both of whom believed it was their turn to play president.

Punchenko on November 28, 2011 at 9:00 PM

Yeah, but Newt loves this stuff, too. Newt loves bare-knuckle politics and has been around the block longer. He’ll be fine. :-)Punchenko on November 28, 2011 at 8:51 PM

Sure he will. Just keep telling yourself that. Offering up rehearsed lines before a supportive audience isn’t debating. Watch here as Newt loses a debate to….. Lurch.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7844874520095835803#

Basilsbest on November 28, 2011 at 9:03 PM

You’re not going to believe this, Ted. You know what this evil bastard did? Yes, that’s right. He used borrowed money to take over failing companies. And that’s not all. He fired some of the folks who worked at those companies. Wait, it gets even worse. He restored those companies to profitability. I know, I know. And—to cap it all—he made hundreds of millions of dollars doing it.

Right on – of course that is what you do if you want make a company profitable. These idiots keep bringing up that “Oh my gosh – he fired people!” That’s exactly what needs to happen in the government. We need to get rid of the hangers on and the do nothings and the duplicates and many departments etc.

But the tea party (of which I am a member) will loose this election for us because they don’t like Romney. Of course Newt has done as much changing if not more than Romney.

The Evangelicals will vote for a man who has been fast and loose with his morals, but they won’t vote for a man who has remained untouched by scandal because. . . well you know the answer.

We will deserve the defeat and the loss of our country, but where can those of us, who know what is coming go? Canada?

Bambi on November 28, 2011 at 9:04 PM

“Conservative” Romney supporters don’t have any ground to stand on. Much like how Romney doesn’t stand on any solid ground on any given issue.

This video speaks the truth about him, paid for by the DNC or not. The guy is the definition of a politician. He’s not the only one that can beat Obama, and he does not represent conservative Republic beliefs. Why is he supposedly the best we have?

YoungAmerican on November 28, 2011 at 9:05 PM

Mitt might have the knowledge, but like McCain he does not have the guts to take it to Obama, he is going to be all civility and high road. neuquenguy on November 28, 2011 at 8:58 PM

Not only does Mitt have the knowledge and the guts, his hands are clean.

Basilsbest on November 28, 2011 at 9:05 PM

I expect Mitt to school Obama on business and economics like no one else in the country can.
Basilsbest on November 28, 2011 at 8:51 PM

Mitt can’t even go on Meet the Press and school David Gregory let alone school Obama. Let me see him take on the media — the small potatoes, if you will — and then we will see if he ready for Obama. Until then, Mitt is just another McCain with his pre-packaged talking-points and excessive coaching.

Punchenko on November 28, 2011 at 9:06 PM

Newt is McCain-lite.
rich801 on November 28, 2011 at 8:36 PM

I can’t make any sense of this. How?

rrpjr on November 28, 2011 at 9:10 PM

I expect Mitt to school Obama on business and economics like no one else in the country can.
Basilsbest on November 28, 2011 at 8:51 PM

Just like he did to Ted Kennedy, right?

rrpjr on November 28, 2011 at 9:11 PM

AshleyTKing on November 28, 2011 at 8:23 PM

The Mitt Romney will betray you.

portlandon on November 28, 2011 at 9:13 PM

Sure he will. Just keep telling yourself that. Offering up rehearsed lines before a supportive audience isn’t debating. Watch here as Newt loses a debate to….. Lurch.

Basilsbest on November 28, 2011 at 9:03 PM

You have Gingrich confused with Romney — the same Romney who strapped his Irish Setter to the roof of the family car on a road trip. Mitt is a moron when he goes off script:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1638065,00.html

I’m not voting for another moron, Basil. Sorry. Just take your crap back to NRO and push for Mitt with all the other knuckle-dragging Mitt bots that are currently supporting him.

BTW: I don’t know what you’re talking about since Newt did fine against Kerry — it’s Mitt’s performance against Teddy which is most troubling.

Punchenko on November 28, 2011 at 9:14 PM

Defending Romney by trotting out Obama’s flip-flops is a losing argument. You want to replace the guy in office and you defend your candidate by saying he’s no different than what they already have? Romney’s flip-flops go to his credibility as being a vehicle for change. If he cannot offer change then what is the point of voting for more of the same?

sharrukin on November 28, 2011 at 8:33 PM

Binggggooooooo…that’s exactly why Romney is the most unelectable candidate that could be nominated, regardless of what we’ve been force-fed for the past 3+ years.

ddrintn on November 28, 2011 at 9:15 PM

Will conservatives Go Galt on the MSM?

beatcanvas on November 28, 2011 at 9:16 PM

I guess Massachusetts is the flip-flop factory of the country. Either that or soundbites taken out of context can easily be presented in a way to build a narrative of flip-flops. It’s like Bush’s tarring of John Kerry all over again, except Romney actually has a defense or explanation for most of the “flip-flops”.

Two examples:

1. DNC pretends that Mitt flipped within a few minutes in the debate on illegal immigrants working for him; but as he explained, he himself did not hire illegal workers, the company he employed did, without his knowledge.

2. DNC (and most anti-Romney types) contend that Romney’s health care reform in Massachusetts and his stance on ObamaCare constitute a flip-flop; yet this is explained away quite easily with the fact that one program is federal and the other is a state program.

Unfortunately, rabid Republicans will have aided the Democrats/media in tarring Romney in this manner, come general election. They will trot out one Republican after the other who has chided Romney in the same manner, to build the credibility of the claims. End result: four more years of Obama. Awesome!

Yet, there’s a possibility that this all might backfire on Obama and the DNC. Framing Romney as having been more moderate on abortion, immigration, health care etc. earlier doesn’t help him with conservative voters – but it does make him more edible to the most important independent swing voters.

Combined with the inevitable GOP/Romney campaign to remind voters of all Obama’s flip-flops – ones that he’s actually done while in office, resulting in the abysmal record he’s had so far – I’m not so sure that’s a clear winning strategy.

But the DNC doesn’t really have much else to go on. This is both Plan A (derail Romney’s nomination) and Plan B (general election strategy) for them. As long as they can keep the focus on anything other than Romney’s competence and Obama’s lack thereof, they’ll have it in the bag.

Seixon on November 28, 2011 at 9:24 PM

The only conviction we need is to kick one Barack Hussein Obama’s bohunckus out of office.

Never forget that.

Stepan on November 28, 2011 at 9:28 PM

The Democrats, err, the Media, is again waging the Obama re-election campaign.

If the GOP isn’t keen enough to know how to elect a reasonably fit candidate, at this rate, I WANT to type, “I give up” but it’s just not in me — but I really, really wonder why the Right today is so utterly disheveled and overrun by Progressives, Liberals and the madness of the Left. Too many people have just lost their minds and can’t seem to understand basic definitions, what means what, who is what and why.

Lourdes on November 28, 2011 at 9:32 PM

except Romney actually has a defense or explanation for most of the “flip-flops”.

yet this is explained away quite easily with the fact that one program is federal and the other is a state program.

Seixon on November 28, 2011 at 9:24 PM

Well gosh, there are probably hundreds of people, maybe thousands, who actually care about that.

Most people don’t like those sorts of programs, either federal or state and vote accordingly. The fact that Romney is doing what Obama did on the state level isn’t in fact explained away by your ‘explanation’.

When you have to slice and dice the explanation so finely it gets old real fast. A few such explanations are OK, but after the third or fourth time people come to the obvious conclusion. The same conclusion that they came to with John Kerry, The Prince Of Nuance.

sharrukin on November 28, 2011 at 9:34 PM

President Romney would be vastly an improvement over a second term for Barack Obama. I can’t believe there’s even a contest there as to who is capable of what.

And Gingrich is another McCain, a Progressive. So of course the Left and many of the Independents are rallying behind him: he’ll just be a more effective politician on Leftwing/Progressive goals than is Obama.

But I do think Romney would do a better job with the day-to-day difficulties of the actual job itself than the rest he’s running with/against among the GOP. Huntsman, though he’s not at all appealing on a personal level to me, is actually showing himself to be more conservative on the issues than either Romney or Gingrich, but Gingrich is to the Left of both of them.

Lourdes on November 28, 2011 at 9:36 PM

Seixon on November 28, 2011 at 9:24 PM

Well gosh, there are probably hundreds of people, maybe thousands, who actually care about that.

Most people don’t like those sorts of programs, either federal or state and vote accordingly. The fact that Romney is doing what Obama did on the state level isn’t in fact explained away by your ‘explanation’.

When you have to slice and dice the explanation so finely it gets old real fast. A few such explanations are OK, but after the third or fourth time people come to the obvious conclusion. The same conclusion that they came to with John Kerry, The Prince Of Nuance.

sharrukin on November 28, 2011 at 9:34 PM

Sharrukin, you miss the point there.

It’s not that the thing itself (or, things themselves, the state level vs. the federal level but in your intepretation of that, they’re the same “things” just in different venues), it’s that they’re actually two different “things”.

The “state level thing” is largely an invention of a state legislature, by people elected by other people, all of which by high percentages in that state (Mass.) are mostly Leftwing, Progressive, Liberal, Democrats or Liberal Republicans or Libertarians. Romney while Gov. there didn’t invent or request the thing itself, but he was a signatore of it.

The “federal level thing” is another thing largely crafted and pushed into place by Leftwing/Progressive/Communist/Democrats/Libertarian Moderates (so-called) who excluded “about half” of the legislature from the entire process, AND, which was greatly contributed to by Obama directly or indirectly via his fellows in Congress making it happen.

The “things” themselves are different things. That’s all anyone else is trying to say, though generalized as “public health care” or similar, they’re different when designed and implemented on the state level vs. federal…AND the federal level “thing” is far more profoundly disturbing and far-reaching, does not allow any option for any citizen to move to another state to escape some heavy-handed Leftwing legislture.

I think what has taken place is that personal animosity toward Romney has affected people to the extent that they’re grabbing at general straws to further denigrate him.

I’m not at all a supporter of either “thing” but I think there’re different issues involved in the “state” vs. the “federal” things that are being denied out of animosity about Romney in general.

Romney’s said he’s going to do away with Obamacare, by the way, via whatever means are available to him as President if elected.

While Gingrich, to the contrary, seems to have a track record of voting for and demanding others vote for the “health care” expansions and Liberalism as to federalized health care, etc. And Gingrich is running around proposing his various “alternatives” to current federal agencies that are merely NEW federal agencies. Not a small government guy.

Lourdes on November 28, 2011 at 9:46 PM

The only conviction we need is to kick one Barack Hussein Obama’s bohunckus out of office.

Never forget that.

Stepan on November 28, 2011 at 9:28 PM

Yes.

Lourdes on November 28, 2011 at 9:47 PM

If Romney is the prince of flip-flops, Obama is the king.

This. The guy contradicts himself in the same sentence.

John the Libertarian on November 28, 2011 at 8:31 PM

I doubt Obama even knows what he means by whatever he says. Obama just wants to be king. And party. Play golf. Have friends over, eat lobster, drink martinis, have some beer. Read, use the blackberry, have another party. Big Whoop on that great plane, go to the beach. Be king.

Lourdes on November 28, 2011 at 9:51 PM

You can do the same thing to Newt or Perry if you want. If Romney is the nominee we better support him or we lose the country… I know I will be jumped on for that statement so jump away. Who ever our nominee is we need to get 100% behind him. period.

BobScuba on November 28, 2011 at 9:51 PM

Hugh Hewitt just said on the Hannity rebroadcast that he thinks Romney’s going to be the GOP nominee. That Gingrich is going to (missed Hewitt’s specific word here but something like, ‘water down’ or reduce in popularity).

Lourdes on November 28, 2011 at 9:52 PM

You can do the same thing to Newt or Perry if you want. If Romney is the nominee we better support him or we lose the country… I know I will be jumped on for that statement so jump away. Who ever our nominee is we need to get 100% behind him. period.

BobScuba on November 28, 2011 at 9:51 PM

Yes. I think we all should continue to focus on that. I know I should.

Let’s see, if it’s Huntsman, if it’s Paul…uhhh…

Well, Obama is far worse. So…

Lourdes on November 28, 2011 at 9:53 PM

Newt is McCain-lite.
rich801 on November 28, 2011 at 8:36 PM

I can’t make any sense of this. How?

rrpjr on November 28, 2011 at 9:10 PM

Maybe because what Gingrich actually is is “McCain Intensive.”

Not the Light variety, just more intense than McCain but similar in Progressive nonsense as is/was McCain, same election methods so far used by both of them, predominantly relying on denigrating and chastising GOP voters which is a gross offense this time just as it was when McCain did it (and still does).

Lourdes on November 28, 2011 at 9:56 PM

Romney while Gov. there didn’t invent or request the thing itself, but he was a signatore of it.

Are you seriously arguing that Mitt Romney has nothing to do with Romneycare except for having signed it?

“You know, this I think is either our eighth or ninth debate. And each chance I’ve had to talk about Obamacare, I’ve made it very clear, and also in my book. And at the time, by the way, I crafted the [Massachusetts] plan, in the last campaign, I was asked, is this something that you would have the whole nation do? And I said, no, this is something that was crafted for Massachusetts. It would be wrong to adopt this as a nation.”

Romney’s said he’s going to do away with Obamacare, by the way, via whatever means are available to him as President if elected.

Would he?

In his book, No Apology, he wrote of Ted Kennedy (on page 174 in the hardback edition), “[T]o his credit he saw an opportunity to work in a bipartisan fashion to try an experiment that might become a model for other states.” Three pages later (on page 177), Romney wrote, “From now on, no one in Massachusetts has to worry about losing his or her health insurance if there is a job change or a loss in income; everyone is insured and pays only what he or she can afford….We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country….”

“I keep on scratching my head,” Mr. Obama said at a fund-raising reception in Boston. “I say, ‘Boy, this Massachusetts thing, who designed that?’ ”

In response, Mr. Romney is reminding audiences that Mr. Obama has cast the Republicans as the “party of no,” devoid of ideas. “And yet,” Mr. Romney said in Bedford, “he’s saying that I was the guy that came up with the idea for what he did. He can’t have it both ways.”

He added, “If ever again somewhere down the road I would be debating him, I would be happy to take credit for his accomplishment.”

Not a small government guy.

Lourdes on November 28, 2011 at 9:46 PM

Newt reduced government with welfare reform, and Romney added to the size of government. Newt is a louse but thats all we have left.

sharrukin on November 28, 2011 at 9:57 PM

Not the Light variety, just more intense than McCain but similar in Progressive nonsense as is/was McCain, same election methods so far used by both of them, predominantly relying on denigrating and chastising GOP voters which is a gross offense this time just as it was when McCain did it (and still does).

Lourdes on November 28, 2011 at 9:56 PM

Yet he is eating Romney’s lunch.

Punchenko on November 28, 2011 at 10:27 PM

Everyone knows Mitt’s a flipper, but some of these are unfair and completely out of context. They could have done this fairly, and it would have worked better that way.

Esthier on November 28, 2011 at 10:27 PM

Mitt ’12 is McCain ’08 is Dole ’96.

Newt can win the election. Mitt can’t.

Mitt can’t win because people won’t go to the polls to vote Obama out with Mitt. They’ll go to the polls to vote Obama out with Newt, though.

DarthBrooks on November 28, 2011 at 10:36 PM

sharrukin on November 28, 2011 at 9:57 PM

This. Romney doesn’t flip-flop in the classical sense, saying that he changed his mind on issues – he goes all-in and swears that he never did, said or believed what he did, said or believed in the past.

29Victor on November 28, 2011 at 11:10 PM

Go, Mittens!

His generally Right of Center tendencies are perfectly fine with me against this opponent. I did vote for Bush Sr. against Clinton. I would have voted for Ford over Carter. Nixon over Humphrey. Nixon over Kennedy.

Romney is not perfect by any shot. But, we are re-living the 1970s economic situations with a chance to redeem ourselves electorally. He is clearly the best option in a bad lot.

All the others have flamed-out. Gingrich will not sustain the spotlight. I like Newt, but he’s not the candidate.

Too many, regardless of party, are looking for an alternative to the current POTUS. They’ll be comforted voting for Romney with his warts vs. Gingrich with his.

JoeinTX on November 28, 2011 at 11:51 PM

Lol. Keep going mittens, I’m looking forward to the death of the GOP.

Come on Mitt, you know you, and only you can do it, don’t let Newt foil it.

MadDogF on November 29, 2011 at 12:23 AM

A preview of what’s to come if when Mitt Romney is the GOP nominee

Fixed.

itsnotaboutme on November 28, 2011 at 8:20 PM

Based on what? Are we still operating under the Romney-is-inevitable assumption? Because I don’t see any evidence to support that.

holygoat on November 29, 2011 at 12:37 AM

Unfortunately, it resonates

Unfortunately it might work as Tina seems to have fallen for the ploy. No doubt many anti-Romney folks will embrace this DNC tactic as well.

If I were Obama and the economy continues to tank I wouldn’t want to run against Romney either, an articulate successful capitalist pro-business candidate.

If I were Obama I’d want to run against an old timer entrenched Washington insider who has enriched his bank account by being an entrenched Washington insider who likes the sound of his own voice.

Unfortunately, the GOP voters might be stupid enough to fall for this trap too.

sheryl on November 29, 2011 at 1:12 AM

BTW, Joe McQuaid, the newspaper publisher’s statement when endorsing Gingrich was a sad day for conservatives:

“Obama’s 99% versus the 1%, and Romney sort of represents the 1%.”

And this is supposed to be the paper that is the benchmark of conservative editorializing.

The liberal rhetoric of class warfare has won, when you have a guy that is deemed “important” to conservative politics using DNC/Daily Kos talking points to demonize a Republican candidate.

Also if Gingrich thinks his going to pull away any of Obama’s Hispanic vote with his ‘humane’ immigration stance, he is wrong. McCain tried that and it failed miserably.

sheryl on November 29, 2011 at 1:40 AM

Sharrukin, you miss the point there.

It’s not that the thing itself (or, things themselves, the state level vs. the federal level but in your intepretation of that, they’re the same “things” just in different venues), it’s that they’re actually two different “things”.

The “state level thing” is largely an invention of a state legislature, by people elected by other people, all of which by high percentages in that state (Mass.) are mostly Leftwing, Progressive, Liberal, Democrats or Liberal Republicans or Libertarians. Romney while Gov. there didn’t invent or request the thing itself, but he was a signatore of it.

The “federal level thing” is another thing largely crafted and pushed into place by Leftwing/Progressive/Communist/Democrats/Libertarian Moderates (so-called) who excluded “about half” of the legislature from the entire process, AND, which was greatly contributed to by Obama directly or indirectly via his fellows in Congress making it happen.

The “things” themselves are different things. That’s all anyone else is trying to say, though generalized as “public health care” or similar, they’re different when designed and implemented on the state level vs. federal…AND the federal level “thing” is far more profoundly disturbing and far-reaching, does not allow any option for any citizen to move to another state to escape some heavy-handed Leftwing legislture.

I think what has taken place is that personal animosity toward Romney has affected people to the extent that they’re grabbing at general straws to further denigrate him.

Lourdes on November 28, 2011 at 9:46 PM

Also recall this:
MA Healthcare differed from what Romney wanted/signed

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68606_Page2.html#ixzz1e23x9FNH

“We knew the next governor was likely going to be a Democrat,” said John McDonough, who at the time was the executive director of Health Care For All, a consumer advocate group. “So Democrats in the state decided to put off key decisions around implementation until a new administration came in.”

And in his book “No Apologies,” Romney concedes: “Even the best written legislation is subject to rulemaking and interpretation by political appointees and it can be adjusted by subsequent administrations.”

Another key difference is that the final bill included a “play-or-pay” provision for small businesses, something Romney had been opposed to from the beginning.

The House added the employer mandate provision — fines for small businesses that did not offer health insurance — and Romney subsequently vetoed the measure. The Legislature overrode his veto, and as a presidential candidate, Romney has been able to defend himself on this point.

Additionally, Romney notes in “No Apologies” that expensive insurance mandates like in vitro fertilization and dental care in “low-cost” insurance plans were also added to the final package despite his vetoes.

McDonough said that every stakeholder in the state, including Romney, ended up agreeing on the pillars of the law that are still in place today, but concedes that the law doesn’t reflect exactly what Romney had in mind for the state.

“The key components from Romney’s original proposal to what was in the final law are all there: insurance market reforms, the individual mandate, subsidies, the exchange,” McDonough said. “But yes, the Legislature filled in the blanks, and it’s markedly different than what he had in mind.”

Bottom line who will actually get America back to work faster and the economy turned around? The person that has been doing it for decades – Mitt Romney.

g2825m on November 29, 2011 at 5:54 AM

Ah yes, the bitter Perry, Cain, and St Palin the Victimized worshipers are in fine form in this thread!

rotflmmfao!

csdeven on November 29, 2011 at 7:58 AM

So the point of this commercial is to reinforce the fact that Captain Dumb@$$ is still the Marxist piece of garbage he was 10 years ago, when actively gaining the support of various Sh*tcago Communist/Marxist organizations? That President Toonces is not a flip flopper?

OK.

MNHawk on November 29, 2011 at 8:21 AM

DO NOT, under ANY circumstances, pick your candidate on the basis of what the slime attack will be like. The slime attack will be powerful no matter who the candidate is. It’s what Democrats do.

Regarding Mitt and his flip-flops, the response should be to launch a counterattack, ad for ad, comparing Obama’s various campaign positions. Believe it or not, Obama has been more chameleon-like than Romney. And Romney has the advantage that at least half of the equation is stuff that he actually did, whereas Obama had done nothing at all before being made President.

philwynk on November 29, 2011 at 9:50 AM

Newt is a louse but thats all we have left.

sharrukin on November 28, 2011 at 9:57 PM

Actually, he’s not, and you should stop letting the Democrats describe your candidate for you.

Newt, as Speaker, sustained an all-out assault from the Democrats to remove him from office by abusing the ethics machinery of the House. Seventy-plus ethics charges were filed in a 2 year period against him. None of them were true. All but one were dismissed. The one that stuck complained that he got paid to teach a college course about political history and did not report the payment as a campaign contribution. The IRS spent three years investigating and dismissed this as well; he really did teach the course. He’s a teacher. That’s his job.

Nobody can weather an assault like that who is not fundamentally honest. Newt apparently had sexual issues. So does Bill Clinton, but unlike Clinton, Gingrich is not a sociopath, but is fundamentally honest.

philwynk on November 29, 2011 at 9:57 AM

It is not fair, but then again, it is because Americans by and large are deliberate ignorant no nothings that love to have opinions on things they have tiny shreds of information on.

astonerii on November 28, 2011 at 8:54 PM

I think you meant “know-nothings” moron.

Speaking of know-nothings….

People like you should get no vote.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Apologize.

runawayyyy on November 29, 2011 at 10:02 AM

Newt, as Speaker, sustained an all-out assault from the Democrats to remove him from office by abusing the ethics machinery of the House. Seventy-plus ethics charges were filed in a 2 year period against him. None of them were true. All but one were dismissed. The one that stuck complained that he got paid to teach a college course about political history and did not report the payment as a campaign contribution. The IRS spent three years investigating and dismissed this as well; he really did teach the course. He’s a teacher. That’s his job.

philwynk on November 29, 2011 at 9:57 AM

Thanks for the important reminder. I’ve also yet to see anyone mention the contract with America (70% of which was signed into law by clinton, of all people). Can anyone name one single aspect of it that wasn’t conservative through and through?

To be fair though, I don’t think the part about making congress live under the same laws they pass for the rest of us went far enough. Congress is still exempt from the privacy act of 1974, among others. Wonder why they didn’t include that one.

runawayyyy on November 29, 2011 at 10:08 AM