Romney sticking to his “I’ll outlast everybody else somehow” strategy
posted at 8:40 am on December 5, 2011 by Tina Korbe
Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain and Rick Perry have all received a little love (and by “love,” I just mean attention) at HA this weekend, so I thought I’d remind everybody of another runner by the name of Mitt Romney. For much of this primary season, he’s been the erstwhile frontrunner of a race nobody wants him to win and, every so often, I ask myself, “Why is that again?”
Then, I remember Romneycare and the oh-so-condemning ads that have already come out of the Democratic National Committee. It’s hard to make a case, as Charles Krauthammer recently so brilliantly explained, that Romney’s liberal flips are deviations from an accepted conservative core because he has no signature conservative achievements and the piece of legislation that colloquially bears his name was the blueprint for the least liked liberal legislation of at least the past century. That’s not to say Romney isn’t conservative, but just to say it’s harder to believe he’s a deep-seated conservative than a pragmatist who adapts to whatever election he wants to win at the moment.
Nevertheless, on some level, I think even conservatives within the GOP have assumed that this pragmatist would be the 2012 GOP nominee — and might even have taken some comfort in that fact. After all, as Ann Coulter has pointed out, the guy is adept at tricking liberals — and the prospect of outfoxing Obama on the campaign trail is presumably an appealing one to anybody who’s tired of the Chicago machine and the vexing way in which Obama has adapted and expanded it to fit the national scene. His questionable conservative credentials might have made him unappealing, but his presumed electability made him an acceptable eventuality.
Now, as it appears the GOP electorate might actually select Newt Gingrich as the GOP nominee and as polls show Obama would trounce the white-haired wise guy in at least the swing state of Florida, I can’t help but wonder whether more conservatives than just popular pundits are panicking just a little bit — and wishing Romney would step his game up to the slightest degree.
In case you are among the panicked few, two pieces of evidence that suggest (a) Romney does really, really want to be president but (b) still thinks it’s enough to just out-organize his opponents.
In the first place, according to data supplied by a Republican “keeping a close eye on key media markets,” Romney has spent far more on TV advertising in Iowa and New Hampshire than any of his rivals. National Journal reports:
Romney has purchased another $265,000 in television time in Iowa and New Hampshire over the next week, where his campaign is running its Right Answer ad. The vast majority of that is broadcast television in Cedar Rapids (650 gross ratings points), Des Moines (800 points), Sioux City (450 points) and on WMUR in Manchester (550 points). He also spent $13,000 on Fox News specifically in Iowa.
In the second, his team has doubled down on what The Washington Post calls “below-the-iceberg” organizational details. More from WaPo:
For Romney, a campaign built for distance, not speed, is a change from 2008, when he focused almost exclusively on the early states, thinking he had to light a fire in Iowa and keep throwing wood on it with victories in New Hampshire and South Carolina.
“This campaign strategy is more focused on actual delegates,” said Kevin Madden, a longtime Romney adviser. “It was built to withstand every different candidate scenario . . .with the understanding that what matters the most is having enough delegates to win the nomination.”
Madden is doing his part at home in Washington. The deadline to submit petitions to qualify for the District’s April 3 primary is Jan. 4. For several weeks, Madden and allies have been crisscrossing the city getting registered Republican voters to sign Romney’s petitions. The city requires 296 signatures, but Romney’s team, in keeping with its just-to-be-safe strategy, aims to gather a clean 600.
The Romney campaign claims the latter is evidence that Romney plans to work hard to “earn” the nomination — but, ultimately, organizational strategy is just that — strategy. In other words, it’s not necessarily the sort of “substance” that has vaulted Gingrich to the front of the line. What has catapulted Gingrich to the top is his perceived policy expertise.
At some point, especially in this debate-driven primary season, Romney will have to prove his policy chops. It shouldn’t be hard to do. As just one example, he has proposed the most substantive and arguably most conservative plan for entitlement reform of any of the candidates. But when have you heard him really hammer that home in a debate? As slick a speaker as the guy is, he still hasn’t mastered the debate distillation of his own ideas that would most help to link his name to conservative concepts. Whether he still has time to create a significantly conservative “debate meme” remains to be seen — but, in the midst of buying advertising and tightening organization, he should at least try.
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
Romney’s wait for the media to destroy his opponents with false accusations and slander strategy.
Grunt on December 5, 2011 at 8:44 AM
It’s possible that Republicans may come to their senses and realize that requiring people to pay for their own health care is a more conservative and sensible position than requiring taxpayers to pay for the health care of freeloaders. Republicans will then nominate the man who is conservative in his core and has led a conservative life rather than the undisciplined bloviating supporter of Freddie Mac, AGW, ethanol subsidies and numerous other liberal causes.
Basilsbest on December 5, 2011 at 8:52 AM
It’s like a football team to me. The linemen (GOP candidates) do all the hard, dirty work, but the quarterback (Romney) throws one good pass and it’s all about him.
SouthernGent on December 5, 2011 at 8:53 AM
there’s this too: i wonder if all the other candidates have gotten on primary ballots in not-so-impt states. this matters because: how deflated would wild Bachmann fans be when they went to polls on primary day only to find she wasn’t even on the ballot?
this basic issue shows a serious lack of organization & seriousness of the campaign.
kelley in virginia on December 5, 2011 at 8:54 AM
The man is just as thin-skinned as dear leader…
cmsinaz on December 5, 2011 at 8:58 AM
To bad he isn’t considered Tim Tebow, then he would suck no matter what he did.
Cindy Munford on December 5, 2011 at 8:58 AM
MITT…………….don’t look now but it looks like Cain is going to throw his support to the NEWT.
Mitt is the TITANIC of GOP Presidential politics.
He’s got great publicity.
He’s got a lot of friends in high places on board.
He’s all about the state rooms getting out on the deck first.
And he’s full steam ahead.
He’s also got a iceberg that’s called HIS RECORD that will take him down.
And he’s got the band playing all the way till the end.
Buh bye Mighty Mitt, you were a mighty big looking ship.
PappyD61 on December 5, 2011 at 9:00 AM
Your statement assumes the fact that government should be involved in health care at all, which isn’t evident to a lot of people.
So Romney and Obama have come up with a solution (more government) to problem that was caused by already excessive government intrusion into the market.
The increased government intrusion will invariably lead to more market distortions (i.e. the increases in insurance premiums we’ve seen over the past year) that will clearly require even more government intrusion to solve.
Is there a role for government in health care? Sure, but we’ve already gone so far beyond what’s reasonable that we more government can’t do anything but hurt.
PetecminMd on December 5, 2011 at 9:01 AM
“In case you are among the panicked few…”
I am indeed.
“(a) Romney does really, really want to be president…”
That’s good. Well it’s better than “campaigning” to sell books.
“(b) still thinks it’s enough to just out-organize his opponents.”
If organization was everything, Mitt would probably be chasing the Pawlenty for President steamroller.
David Blue on December 5, 2011 at 9:02 AM
And far less time actually meeting with us and getting to know us to listen to us.
beatcanvas on December 5, 2011 at 9:02 AM
Newt is convinced of his own invincibility so he’s already running his mouth. He will keep talking until he makes that one gaffe that torpedoes his campaign. You can bank on it.
Like this one for example:
“Gingrich: Life Doesn’t Begin at Conception Because That Would ‘Open Up … Very Difficult Questions’” (h/t cnsnews.com)
I still hold out hope Perry will get his act together.
NickDeringer on December 5, 2011 at 9:04 AM
What’s that? Mitt has the best campaign that money can buy?
onlineanalyst on December 5, 2011 at 9:06 AM
I disagree. What has catapulted him to the top are unprincipled GOP voters who dislike Romney so much that even after castigating Gingrich all summer as a belt way insider, they now embrace him as the REAL conservative in the race.
Bwahahahaha!!!
Talk about flip-floppers!
csdeven on December 5, 2011 at 9:06 AM
I keep thinking that if Romney wins the nomination by doing things behind the scenes and waiting for the media to chew up his competition, he’ll try the same thing against Obama, not because he’s reasoned that this should work, but just because holding back has become his habitual strategy.
Aitch748 on December 5, 2011 at 9:06 AM
Four years ago Romney tried to be that handsome business man who whisks the GOP away with romantic dinners at fancy restaurants. The GOP decided to stand by their ornery old War Hero.
This year he’s going for the “man you take home to met your mother, marry and settle down with because even though he’s boring, he’s a lot more safe then any of the other options.” He’s dismissing all his various opponents as meaningless flings his fiance is having due to to cold feet, but is confident in the end the GOP will come back to him.
His campaign song ought to be: “It don’t matter to me” by Bread.
Sackett on December 5, 2011 at 9:06 AM
Yeah! Send this to Obama so he can prove what a CONSERVATIVE he is!!
Government requiring (FORCING) people to buy stuff = LIBERTY!
Talon on December 5, 2011 at 9:07 AM
I’ve posted this before and I will again.
There was a letter to the editor in the paper the other day. I don’t have the author’s permission to include his name, so here is the content:
“So Newt Gingrich considers himself more conservative than Romney. During Jimmy Carter’s presidency Gingrich teamed up with Carter to create the Department of Education, voted to lock up 68 million acres of mineral rich Alaska Land as wilderness, voted against cutting foreign aid by 1 percent, voted to fund the National Endowment of the Arts, voted to transfer 2.2 million acres of Idaho land to wilderness status and was the only Speaker of the House to ever be reprimanded for Ethics charges.
There’s more, but if that qualifies Gingrich as a conservative, then obama is one, too.”
Don’t any of you get it? Romney will be able to get the economy going.
Romney hasn’t done nearly the things that newt has done. Is it newt’s hair, his girth, his infidelity, his flips? What the heck does he have? I know he can spout off, but his overconfidence doesn’t make me want to vote for him.
Don’t get me wrong if he comes through the primaries, I will vote for a cool lemonade instead of obama. Meaning I will vote for newt. But come on – he is not a conservative.
He betrays people who support him, why would he sit on a couch with the witch of the west and not get a clue about how it looks?
Bambi on December 5, 2011 at 9:08 AM
csdeven on December 5, 2011 at 9:06 AM
Oh well. Rasmussen told us that many conservatives would vote for Obama if Palin was the nominee, so it’s not exactly outlandish if people who couldn’t stand Gingrich are nevertheless inclined to pick Gingrich if they think the only alternative is Romney, is it?
Aitch748 on December 5, 2011 at 9:12 AM
NickDeringer: “Newt is convinced of his own invincibility so he’s already running his mouth. He will keep talking until he makes that one gaffe that torpedoes his campaign. You can bank on it.”
Absolutely. But the nightmare scenario is that this doesn’t happen till he’s contesting the general election against Obama.
David Blue on December 5, 2011 at 9:12 AM
Tina, Tina,
Pass on all the strategy, the organizational hype, look at some numbers. I am specifically meaning polls. How can one consider a candidate electable when his numbers constantly sit at around 19-21%? In Florida Gingrich trounced the man by double digits. Romney is repeating the same pattern he had in 2008. He can’t carry the South and lacking that capability he won’t be either the nominee or the President elect.
Those pundits and insiders better consider that Romney may not be the horse to ride. If so, the winner may extract his/her pound of flesh from them with a smile.
Dr. Dog on December 5, 2011 at 9:12 AM
One moe interview like the one with Bret and Mitt may jump up screaming “I hate you, i hate you all”. It is good to have him there in case Newt blows it. Newt needs to dial back the self worship a notch and stay serious.
Southernblogger on December 5, 2011 at 9:13 AM
Sackett: “His campaign song ought to be: “It don’t matter to me” by Bread.”
I’m concerned that it might be the unofficial Tim Pawlenty campaign song, The Overload, by Talking Heads.
A terrible signal,
Too weak to even recognize.
A gentle collapsing,
The removal of the insides.
David Blue on December 5, 2011 at 9:16 AM
In the non-Paulian real world the government is involved in health care. Have you never heard of Medicare and Medicaid? In Mass 8% of the population were uninsured. These people would be treated regardless of coverage because in America people don’t believe you withhold treatment because there is no insurance. The Hospitals asked the government to address the issue of the freeloaders.
Again Republicans should ask themselves what kind of coercion they prefer: the coercion of requiring individuals who can afford it to provide for their own health care or requiring taxpayers to pick up the health care costs of freeloaders?
It’s obvious that most Republicans haven’t given this question an ounce of thought.
Basilsbest on December 5, 2011 at 9:20 AM
You prefer the coercion of the government forcing you to pay higher taxes to cover the health care expenses of people who refuse to pay for their own expenses. And you think that’s a stance for liberty? Give it an ounce of thought.
Basilsbest on December 5, 2011 at 9:26 AM
Too obvious?
Fallon on December 5, 2011 at 9:37 AM
Sorry, misfire on the “strong” tab.
Fallon on December 5, 2011 at 9:38 AM
Does he realize that his strategy to outlast everyone else is how the cockroach did it. Make no noise and only come out when it’s dark and no one else is around to swat you down?
Coakroach versus messiah -stay tuned for the battle of the ages.
Don L on December 5, 2011 at 9:41 AM
Your option amounts to lube or no lube.
I will not vote for Romney.
Talon on December 5, 2011 at 9:41 AM
Tom Coburn came out today to remind voters that Newt is a terrible manager and thanks to the negative experience of serving under him, he cannot support him for President. Newt has very few Congressional endorsements, while Mitt has many. Why is no one talking about Newt being deposed as Speaker, and his managerial weaknesses? I don’t care about the ethics stuff as that was trumped-up kangaroo court stuff, but once the goals of the Contract With America were accomplished (which was borrowed from Ronald Reagan’s policies, but I digress) things went off the rails.
Buy Danish on December 5, 2011 at 9:45 AM
Your option amounts to higher deficits or higher taxes. There is no free lunch.
Basilsbest on December 5, 2011 at 9:47 AM
Who’s asking the government to pay for freeloaders?
Real conservatives don’t think this is a government responsibility.
mockmook on December 5, 2011 at 9:48 AM
Memory slips me, but I am certain that heathcare costs were running at the same rate of inflation as most everything until medicare came along and ever since they been leading the astronomical pack.
I just receive an apnea “nose mask” (via medicare) that I was told would cost $200 bucks to replace. It couldn’t have more than a few bucks worth of molded plastic in it.
My little apnea machine has a GPS (and we worried about Bush’s phone/terrorist intrusion) in it to trace me, and also a sd card to prove to the feds I use it (fair enough – many don’t use them)
Don L on December 5, 2011 at 9:52 AM
We need a Romney/Gingrich debate! We MUST nominate a fighter, and I want to see these two go head-to-head.
sleepingiantsup on December 5, 2011 at 9:58 AM
haha I agree Cindy that no matter what Romney does people will always consider him not conservative…which IMO is wrong. Romney has NOT done hardly any of the things he has purported to have said or done IN THE WAY IT IS REPORTED.
g2825m on December 5, 2011 at 9:58 AM
The fact that so many insiders, GOP or not, hate Gingrich is actually a plus in the eyes of many of us. There are a lot of people in DC who need their toes stepped on, and Gingrich is more likely to do that than anybody else in the race IMHO.
Aitch748 on December 5, 2011 at 9:58 AM
If the system allows for freeloaders – which is the practical result of not requiring people who can afford it to provide for their own coverage – then the health care costs of the freeloaders are picked up by the taxpayers, either immediately or in the form of higher deficits.
Why do you claim to be a conservative when your approach to this issue is the traditional liberal approach?
Basilsbest on December 5, 2011 at 10:00 AM
BuyDanish,
I think this is very telling! The very people Gingrich, IF he is the nominee, would be working with are NOT ENDORSING him. This should be a clue too many people and yet people’s passion to elect someone other than Romney is ridiculous. The VERY PERSON that has the exact experience for what our country needs and HAS PROVEN IT is the guy people on HA snipe about…
Romney’s record is filled with great success in turning around both private and public entities.
g2825m on December 5, 2011 at 10:02 AM
Look at the endorsements and this should be a clue of who Congress is looking forward to working with and who they KNOW can turn this economy around. They do not want to work with a guy that always stuck it to them in the 90′s because HIS way was ALWAYS better. Four of his seven backers come from his home state while Romney’s is from ALL over the country and from Tea Party to moderate Congressman.
2012Presidential@cqrollcall.com.
Mitt Romney (48)
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.)
Sen. Roy Blunt (Mo.)
Sen. Scott Brown (Mass.)
Sen. Thad Cochran (Miss.)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah)
Sen. John Hoeven (N.D.)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Sen. James Risch (Idaho)
Sen. John Thune (S.D.)
Rep. Rodney Alexander (La.)
Rep. Mark Amodei (Nev.)
Rep. Charles Bass (N.H.)
Rep. Judy Biggert (Ill.)
Rep. Rob Bishop (Utah)
Rep. Mary Bono Mack (Calif.)
Rep. John Campbell (Calif.)
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah)
Rep. Howard Coble (N.C.)
Rep. Ander Crenshaw (Fla.)
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.)
Rep. Robert Dold (Ill.)
Rep. Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
Rep. Virginia Foxx (N.C.)
Rep. Jim Gerlach (Pa.)
Rep. Tim Griffin (Ark.)
Rep. Michael Grimm (N.Y.)
Rep. Nan Hayworth (N.Y.)
Rep. Joe Heck (Nev.)
Rep. Wally Herger (Calif.)
Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.)
Rep. Leonard Lance (N.J.)
Rep. Cynthia Lummis (Wyo.)
Rep. Connie Mack IV (Fla.)
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.)
Rep. Patrick McHenry (N.C.)
Rep. Buck McKeon (Calif.)
Rep. Jeff Miller (Fla.)
Rep. Jim Renacci (Ohio)
Rep. Hal Rogers (Ky.)
Rep. Mike Rogers (Ala.)
Rep. Todd Rokita (Ind.)
Rep. Tom Rooney (Fla.)
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.)
Rep. Aaron Schock (Ill.)
Rep. Mike Simpson (Idaho)
Rep. Lamar Smith (Texas)
Rep. Greg Walden (Ore.)
Rep. Ed Whitfield (Ky.)
Rick Perry (14)
Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.)
Rep. John Carter (Texas)
Rep. Mike Coffman (Colo.)
Rep. Mike Conaway (Texas)
Rep. John Culberson (Texas)
Rep. Sam Graves (Mo.)
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Texas)
Rep. Sam Johnson (Texas)
Rep. Kenny Marchant (Texas)
Rep. Michael McCaul (Texas)
Rep. Candice Miller (Mich.)
Rep. Mick Mulvaney (S.C.)
Rep. Steve Scalise (La.)
Rep. Pete Sessions (Texas)
Newt Gingrich (7)
Rep. Joe Barton (Texas)
Rep. Michael Burgess (Texas)
Rep. Phil Gingrey (Ga.)
Rep. Andy Harris (Md.)
Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.)
Rep. Tom Price (Ga.)
Rep. Austin Scott (Ga.)
g2825m on December 5, 2011 at 10:06 AM
There shouldn’t BE ANY government “lunch”.
That’s the difference between Mitt and I. He thinks there should be.
Talon on December 5, 2011 at 10:07 AM
I see that list and I think that Washington views Romney as the least likely to upset the apple cart.
sleepingiantsup on December 5, 2011 at 10:13 AM
Is it lost on you at all that the percentage of those supporting Mitt in Congress looks nothing at all like the percentage supporting him in the base?
Could that have anything at all to do with giving money to campaigns?
That list you put up there only serves to remind me that Mitt spends almost no time with us and a lot of time with a select few. #winning
beatcanvas on December 5, 2011 at 10:14 AM
For unprincipled people it is perfectly understandable why they would support a candidate that they derided all summer long as a RINO Washington insider just because they hate Romney.
csdeven on December 5, 2011 at 10:28 AM
And then they came for the Mitt
tarpon on December 5, 2011 at 10:31 AM
You may not know how many TP candidates he supported with his PAC since 2009. Fact of the matter Romney gave more money (10K) to IA Gov Branstad than ANY other politician for his campaign against Van Plaats…so next time you read information coming from Van Plaats consider the source and WHY he is against Romney.
Romney is a conservative and has our same values. I’ll give you that do not like him that he does not tackle the image issue in the way that I would suggest, however, look at HIS ACTUAL record and he has voted pro-life as a Governor, cut taxes, is and has always been for drilling in ANWR and along coastlines, anti-illegal immigration before it was “hip”, always been for DOMA, etc etc
These are all conservative positions and has signed his name to these pieces of legislation.
The question I have is why so many in the TP movement seem to be running to Gingrich the epitome of GOVERNMENT. Did you know he ran for office his First time in ’73 and was finally elected in ’78! Almost 40 years since he first started to run!!
I promise you that Gingrich is ONLY interested in Gingrich. Listen to those that have been on his staffs and those in Congress on the Committee’s as they all have said they do not like him or HIS STYLE.
Many people in the TP and so-called conservatives (because I believe supporting him goes against what we in the TP stand for) need to WAKE UP to a Gingrich nominee.
g2825m on December 5, 2011 at 10:33 AM
So so true!! I scratch my head with those that cannot stand Romney but will support Gingrich?!!
Look at HIS RECORD for heaven’s sake!
Again Romney’s CONSERVATIVE record:
Reduce corporate tax burden, streamline business regulation.
Implement trade agreements with Columbia, Panama, South Korea.
Issue waivers to states from health reforms approved under President Obama.
Initiate energy resources exploration leases, implement drilling in pre-approved areas.
Cut discretionary federal spending.
Sanction China for unfair trade.
Modernize national defense, oppose military cuts.
Revitalize relationships with allies, especially bolstering Israel; improve America’s standing in foreign policy.
Romney’s record:
Cut taxes in MA – Check
Closed loopholes and raised fees as Reagan did – Check
Voted pro-life bills as GOV – Check
Voted and eased 2nd Amendment bills in MA – Check
Against illegal immigration – Check
Signed bill against Illegal Immigration Recv tuition breaks – Check
Build the complete fence along the border – Check
For Defense of Marriage Act – Check
For Cut, Cap, and Balance – Check
Pro expansion of the military and keeping GITMO open – Check
Drilling in ANWR – Check
Investing in new technologies for oil – Check
Develop energy technology like nuclear or liquefied coal – Check
These are conservative ideas and where the angst comes from I do not know?
g2825m on December 5, 2011 at 10:39 AM
Here is the thing, and I think Tina starts to hit on it talking about how Romney has no conservative victories to assuage voters about his core conservatism: What has Romney ever done for the conservative movement? Seriously, he has no accomplishments to his name that he can point to to rebut criticism of his record of liberalism.
Why should Tea Partiers vote for him? What is the affirmative case for Mitt Romney that doesn’t derisively impugn the electability of everyone else on stage?
Its like a lot of Romney supporters presume that he should be the default choice unless a better argument can be made for someone else. That is clearly not the starting position of Tea Party voters, or the GOP primary electorate at-large.
Lawdawg86 on December 5, 2011 at 10:41 AM
If you believe people who can afford it shouldn’t be required to provide for their own coverage then you obviously do believe in a free lunch – courtesy of the taxpayers. Your position is the traditional liberal position: let the taxpayers pick up the costs of the freeloaders.
Basilsbest on December 5, 2011 at 10:46 AM
Let’s see….RomneyCare = Conservative
NO GOVERNMENT LUNCH = Liberal
I should not be mandated to buy ANYTHING. You got that? ANYTHING.
Not MY health insurance nor health care for someone else.
You get hurt….YOU pay for it. You want insurance? YOU pay for it.
Talon on December 5, 2011 at 10:54 AM
“Following the path of least resistance makes men and rivers crooked”
QED
landlines on December 5, 2011 at 11:28 AM
Medicare and Medicaid are part of the problem. These programs are based on price controls, which distort the market by forcing health care providers to charge less than the cost of the services.
As a result, prices go up for everyone else.
If we let people decide what form of health care and insurance they wanted to purchase, we wouldn’t have these problems. Prices would go down for everyone, and even the poorest among us would be able to afford a combination of catastrophic insurance and the ability to pay out of pocket for common problems.
Other than regulating for safety and efficacy of treatment options, the government shouldn’t be involved at all. That’s the conservative position, and you know what? Up until you dumbass progressives decided to start mucking everything up with government nonsense, it worked.
PetecminMd on December 5, 2011 at 11:34 AM
Lawdawg,
I NEVER have presumed that Romney should be the nominee and neither HAS HE…he just made the statement earlier this week that he has known ALL along that he will have to earn it. :o)
I think Tina is part of the meme of the media that “assumes” he is supposed to be the nominee and I can see how many people have made that leap because of 2008 BUT Romney has not made that statement unlike Gingrich. Romney has always stated “I hope to be the nominee…”
You (and Tina) stated (wrongly in my view) that he has no conservative accomplishments. I disagree. Getting elected and even ASKED by the electorate to come back to MA to help solve their large fiscal issue was an incredible accomplishment! He did this as a conservative by CUTTING taxes, closing loopholes, and making the state business friendly where it was mired in many regulations. He also signed pro-life legislation, he changed and EASED MA gun laws, he signed anti-abortion legislation and embryonic stem cell legislation, he signed legislation against illegals receiving tuition breaks, he allowed his State Police to pick up and turnover illegals to ICE BEFORE that became popular amongst other states, he also came in facing a 3BILLION dollar deficit and left the state with 2BILLION in the coffers…an IMPRESSIVE 5BILLION dollar swing in FOUR YEARS! That is conservative!
So what IS NOT CONSERVATIVE in all of this? He is not a flip flopper that has been painted to the side of candidacy wagon. He has publicly changed his position on abortion back in 2005 but has ALWAYS been personally against abortion.
What Gingrich and others been doing all these years Romney was creating and saving businesses, saving Olympics and the State of MA from utter failure? He was lining his pockets for himself while Romney was out there taking a one dollar salary for each of these positions with Olympics and Governor and trying to help others benefit through conservative principles.
g2825m on December 5, 2011 at 11:36 AM
Its crunch time dipsh!ts- listen up! repeat aloud the words “I’m going to vote Newt because he’s a true conservative!”. If you can do that without vomiting, you are insane. He did the couch session with Pelosi in 2008- that was at the height of the liberal stranglehold on the US. He sold us out 3 fu**ing years ago. He didn’t say “I think humankind may be responsable” he said it was a fact. 3 years ago. With the lady who shoved Obamacare down our gullets. So think about that for a while.
drballard on December 5, 2011 at 11:43 AM
Pete,
while I agree with you in principle, there are those people that are either elderly with no family or church support, where back in the day that was how they were supported before the whole Great Society, and the New Deal and Obama’s attempt at the New New Deal, however these people would need some form of support because we are a moral and just society. However, from there is where I agree with you that first it should be handled by the communities, then the States. the Federal gov’t should NOT be involved in Healthcare, Education, EPA, yada, yada, yada…this is where I believe people misconstrue Romney’s position. On MA Healthcare he was attempting to solve a STATE issue because as Basilbeast, csdeven, BuyDanish, nswider, et al, has been stating, there were many people in his state that were feeding off the trough of “free” healthcare via the MA taxpayers. He was trying to catch those people of his 8 percent that were not insured and SOME who could not afford medical care. Romney reached out to Heritage to help him craft a CONSERVATIVE way to accomplish this through PRIVATE SECTOR and market based principles.
See here:
Healthcare by Heritage Foundation
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2006/01/mitts-fit
and here:
MA Healthcare differed from what Romney wanted/signed
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68606_Page2.html#ixzz1e23x9FNH
This is also what Reagan thought of fees and mandates from those benefiting off the taxpayer:
Reagan: “Good tax policy decrees that wherever possible a fee for a service should be assessed against those who directly benefit from that service. Our highways were built largely with such a user fee — the gasoline tax. I think it makes sense to follow that principle in restoring them to the condition we all want them to be in.”
Reagan: “These taxes and fees will raise approximately $1 billion per year over the next five years, which should provide adequate, stable, and equitable financing for the program. I strongly believe that funds used to pay for the program should be generated entirely through these dedicated sources, not the general treasury.”
Reagan: “The third component of the deficit reduction program involves user fees, or more appropriately, the recovery of costs borne by the taxpayers generally, but that predominantly benefit a limited group of businesses, communities or individuals … it is simply inexcusable and intolerable that yacht owners escape without paying even a small part of the Coast Guard services; or that commercial and general aviation are not paying the cost of the air traffic control system that ensures their safety; or that ship and barge operators do not pay a fair share of the costs of waterways maintained by the Federal Government. Our user fee package corrects these and similar shortcomings in current budget policy and will contribute significantly toward reducing the deficit.”
g2825m on December 5, 2011 at 11:48 AM
Look, I’m not a big BVP fan (running on gay marriage was dumb) but to use Terry Branstad as an example of money given right after you say that Mitt gave money to tea partiers is rich. Ol’ Terry is a lot of things, but close to the tea party isn’t at all one of them. Terry is as establishment Republican as they come. Glad he got elected over Culver, but Terry would break out in hives at a tea party event.
In fact, you kind of prove the point here: Mitt gave money to politicians that he thought would win so that he could collect those endorsements later. Pure and simple. It had nothing to do with the tea party. Mitt hates the tea party (and don’t even try to spin that he doesn’t).
beatcanvas on December 5, 2011 at 12:07 PM
You link a Heritage Foundation position from 2006. Contrast that to what they say now.
http://www.heritage.org/research/projects/the-case-against-obamacare#ref1
How is it that Massachusetts is that much different from the remaining 49 states?
Are the people of Massachusetts so dense that they NEEDED to be told what to do wrt health insurance?
As Mitt digs his heels in on Romneycare, we’re supposed to believe that he is all in on repealing O’care?
I do not care how you all try to spin it. The man signed into legislation nearly the exact law that is O’care. He believes that the government can and should mandate people to buy whatever the government deems necessary. I don’t believe a word that comes out of his mouth.
Talon on December 5, 2011 at 12:15 PM
That should read “….signed into law, legislation that is nearly the exact law…..”
Preview is my friend………..
Talon on December 5, 2011 at 12:17 PM
That’s all super. But what was the result?
By instituting reforms based on more government interference, the cost of healthcare ended up increasing. And it didn’t reduce the use of emergency rooms either.
If they had instituted market based reforms, and put choices back in the hands of consumers, they probably would have been better off. Consumers can’t react to price signals and market forces if everything is hidden from them due to government interference (mandates, taxes, subsidies, etc). So you end up making the problem worse.
If government interference causes a problem, the answer isn’t more government.
PetecminMd on December 5, 2011 at 12:27 PM
Rhetorical question for ya: Is Romney a “Washington insider”? Which one of them was shilling for Freddie Mac? If Newt’s so great at stepping on toes, why didn’t he step on their toes, instead of promoting them, and giving us the preposterous explanation that he was hired as an “historian”? Having Newt as the nominee takes this issue (“Reckless Endangerment”) and “crony capitalism” (paging Palinistas) off the table. Also note that for most of his campaign he was promoting his books, video and Calista. Jamie Dupree (via Neal Boortz) said this morning that every email he got originally was not about his campaign but about selling his product. In this respect he reminds me of Dick Morris who is always hawking his website, and of course, Herman Cain.
+++++++++
In keeping with Coburn’s reservations, here’s an old interview with Rush Limbaugh and Tom Delay which I recall vividly. A key excerpt:
For all his rhetorical brilliance, this is a big problem with how Newt operates. The Presidency requires a governor, with steady leadership skills, not just someone who gives great speeches and overflows with good (and bad) ideas.
Buy Danish on December 5, 2011 at 12:40 PM
Notice all is the same anti-palin posters are the anti-Gingrich posters in this thread?
karenhasfreedom on December 5, 2011 at 12:43 PM
OK Talon (as if thats your real name) Who the hell are you backing at this point? Perry? Sure, he’ll go over in the general like a sh!it brick. If the guy gets twitterpated talking at an R event, he’ll lose bladder control debating Obama. Newt? The conservative stalwart that sat on a couch with Pelosi, and stated categorically that man made global warming is real? Not ” it may be affected by man” or ” more study is warranted”. That Newt? That lent legitimacy to the AGW crowd with Nancy, at the height of her power? Or the Christian Newt that can’t keep his dick where it belongs? Cause, you gotta help me out here- who are you supporting now?
drballard on December 5, 2011 at 12:53 PM
Notice all is the same anti-palin posters are the anti-Gingrich posters in this thread?
karenhasfreedom on Decembe
Palin is irrelevant. It’s Perry, Gingrich or Romney. Who is it gonna be?
drballard on December 5, 2011 at 12:55 PM
Really, the insanity of the Romney-haters is too much. Gingrinch is a loser, fat, serial adulterer. That’s your conservative savior?
drballard on December 5, 2011 at 12:56 PM
Well good doctor ballard,if that is your real name, my personal favorite is and has been Rick Santorum. Yeah…..I know.
I live in NY so I guess I’ll just have to see who is left in the race at that time to decide who I pull the trigger for in the primaries.
In the general, if I can’t vote FOR someone, I WILL vote AGAINST Obama.
Feel better?
But I WILL NOT vote for Mitt Romney in the primary.
Talon on December 5, 2011 at 1:04 PM