Survey USA shows Romney up 15; Update: Suffolk poll shows Romney up … 20

posted at 12:10 pm on January 30, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier today I reported on three polls showing Mitt Romney with leads ranging from 5 to 14 points, depending on the pollster.  I missed the latest from Survey USA, a polling firm that tends to focus on metropolitan and state-wide polls, which conducted a survey over the last three days of 500 likely voters — 35% of whom have already cast an early ballot.  This poll gives Romney his biggest lead yet:

Mitt Romney is poised for a decisive win in Tuesday’s 01/31/12 Florida Presidential Primary, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted for WFLA-TV in Tampa. The victory will give Romney 50 additional delegates, and bring his total to 69, on the march to the 1,144 delegates needed to be nominated by the Republican Party. Because Florida is one of the few “winner take all” states in 2012, the size of Romney’s victory is not as important as in a proportionally allocated state, but SurveyUSA’s final numbers show Romney 15 points atop Gingrich, 41% to 26%.

Romney is ahead in every region of the state. Gingrich draws to within single digits among Evangelicals, pro-life voters, Tea Party voters, and younger voters, but Romney overwhelms with a 25-point advantage among the affluent, a 20-point advantage among the college educated, a 20-point advantage among women, and a 19-point advantage among voters age 50+.

What about a late Gingrich surge, as Insider Advantage predicts?  Survey USA says no dice:

There is effectively no difference between those who have already voted and those who have not yet voted, so a late Gingrich surge is not anticipated.

As in the other internals, Gingrich’s low favorability (+11) seems to be his albatross.  He does better than Ron Paul, who scores an abysmal -11, but it’s only good enough for third place.  Rick Santorum actually wins in this category with a +35, but he is not as well known as Romney, who scores a +30 with higher recognition numbers.  That actually carries over among “very conservative” voters, where Gingrich gets a +25 but Romney maintains a +30, and the situation deteriorates in the other ideological categories. Among the “somewhats,” Romney gets a +32 while Gingrich only scores a +13, and among moderates — who comprise 18% of the sample overall — Romney gets a +30 to Gingrich’s -20.  The red meat carried a price in Florida, apparently.

In this poll, Romney wins the edge among evangelicals 33/28, while Santorum actually finishes below Ron Paul — an interesting result.  Romney also prevails over Gingrich among pro-life voters by seven, 35/28, which indicates that Gingrich’s attack over the last few days on Romney as “pro-abortion” didn’t find its mark.   Romney carries the very conservative vote (32% of the sample) by six, 36/30, somewhats (47% of the sample) by 18 points at 42/24, and moderates by 23 points, 44/21.  Most importantly in terms of tomorrow’s results, Romney wins the 35% of the sample who have already cast their ballots by 16 points, 47/31, and estimates of up to 600,000 early ballots cast would make that a very large lead to overcome, even if there were evidence of a late Gingrich surge.

Update: Via Nate Silver, er … yikes.  Suffolk’s last poll before the vote puts Romney up by 20 points, 47/27, with 32% having already cast their votes.  Romney prevails on immigration 35/25, the economy 50/23, and best campaign 35/15 over Gingrich.  Gingrich won for the “most negative campaign,” 37/31 over Romney.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

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

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

On the night of the SC win I didn’t comment at all. My schadenfreude is only greatest against Obama and his.

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 1:20 PM

At least there’s something we can agree with on that one. Gives me hope that at least some of you guys will rally around the nominee.

Red Cloud on January 30, 2012 at 1:22 PM

People…we deserve to go the way of Greece if our citizens are this stupid and ignorant

magic kingdom on January 30, 2012 at 1:21 PM

The music plays, the tables are laden with goodies, drink is aplenty. Enjoy while it lasts. In more realistic terms prepare.

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Well I can admit defeat. Willard will be the nominee. And just like McCain he will be trounced by the Axelrod / Soros / MSM machine.

Say what you will about Gingrich, one thing you can say for sure is he would have fought back. He may have won, he may have lost, but he wouldn’t have taken it sitting down.

Willard on the other hand will cower in a corner and take a beating on a daily basis.

It will be fun to watch.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Oopsie! Anyone needs more proof that the newly registered Romneybots are Obama’s stormtroopers?

Masih ad-Dajjal on January 30, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Naw. JB aka Roger Waters and The Wall has been around forever. Like herpes, he goes latent for periods after banning.

a capella on January 30, 2012 at 1:23 PM

magic kingdom on January 30, 2012 at 1:21 PM

So apparently you missed the news that your boy Newt thought the individual mandate was a swell idea way back in 2009.

Levin and Beck are going to have to come up with some other way to make Newt look “conservative”, the cover’s been blown on that one.

NoDonkey on January 30, 2012 at 1:24 PM

God you’re thick. I didn’t say that. But you’ve been having mini-orgasms watching the media destroy Newt. When the MSM does it to Willard you’ll be in a uproar crying how unfair the media is.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 1:20 PM

I love how in one breath you accuse me of putting words in your mouth (I didn’t, I merely pointed out that your claim that the MSM would go after Romney in the general is irrelevant, they’ll go after anyone who isn’t Obama), and then put words in my mouth immediately – I’ve never commented on the media and Newt.

But I will say this. Newt is Newt’s worst enemy. He has enough on his plate before bringing the media into it.

Grow a sack, ed.

Red Cloud on January 30, 2012 at 1:24 PM

More good news for the Newt. Man, will this never stop?

YOU GO, NEWT!!!

Newt wins Tea Party Patriots straw poll.

Snip:
“Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich won a straw poll of Florida Tea Party Patriots members held on a conference call Sunday evening, with former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum a close second.

Gingrich, Santorum, and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney all participated in the call. Texas Congressman Ron Paul was extended an invitation, but was unable to attend.

At the end of the call, participants were asked who they would vote for if the election were held today. Thirty-five percent said they would vote for Gingrich, 31 percent for Santorum, 18 percent for Romney, and 11 percent for Paul. Five percent selected none of the above.” ….http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/20120130/pl_dailycaller/newtgingrichwinsteapartypatriotsfloridastrawpoll

timberline on January 30, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Just a reminder – Romney will be running against obama. I actually know people who voted for him, and now they squirm and seem downright embarassed at the mention of his name. They won’t be fooled again. MSM or not.

Paddington on January 30, 2012 at 1:27 PM

But still no different in policy than Obama. He’s a liberal, but he’s a clean and articulate liberal (to steal Joe Biden’s line).

That’s what it comes down to. You don’t want Obama, Obama you want a different version of Obama with an “R” next to his name.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Buddy, I really hesitate to respond to you because you are so unhinged it’s like talking to an Obamabot, but I’ll try. Just this once. I won’t be engaging in a debate with you, though. That’s just a waste of my typing. But since you told me what I “want,” I’d like to tell you why you have no idea what I want. Here goes:

I am a conservative, a far-right conservative. I think the federal government’s role should be pretty much limited to a strong national defense. I would like to see every single cabinet-level agency except defense eliminated. I don’t think Barack Obama is a socialist, I know he is a Marxist. Of course he is. He was steeped in it from birth. Marxism is as natural an ideological state for him as it was for Chairman Mao. I think he’d have people like me tossed in prison if he could, and he would throw away the key. I want him stopped. I want him to lose re-election so the democrat party gets the message that — at least for a few more years — Marxism isn’t selling in the United States. I do not want him to appoint any more Supreme Court justices. One more justice — just one more — and we will get Marxism from our judicial branch for the next 30 years, regardless of who occupies the White House. Just. One. More. Justice. And the game is over.

Mitt Romney is not a Marxist. Not. Even. Close. Judge Bork is heading up his judicial committee. Remember him? He’s kinda conservative, as I recall. Mitt Romney is not anti-capitalist. See, that’s a cornerstone of Marxism — you’ve got to hate people making money in the private sector. Demonize them in the eyes of a large majority of voters? You’ve gone a long way toward the Marxist dream.

And most of all, Mitt Romney can beat Barack Obama. Lots of voters are afraid of Barack. They might not be able to articulate it quite yet, but it is the creeping Marxism they fear. They know there is something not quite right about the things he says, the things he has done, but they do not want to admit to themselves entirely that they pulled the lever in ’08 for a Marxist. It makes them feel stupid, dirty even. So they can pull the lever this time for Romney by telling themselves it is all about the economy — and Romney has a proven track record of turning around failing enterprises. Right now, the United States of America is a failing enterprise.

So, you’re wrong. I do not want Obama-lite. I want Obama gone. That is what must happen first. Obama gone. The other changes I’d like to see will come or they won’t come — from a Republican Congress — but whatever they pass, a Republican president will sign and Barack Obama will veto. I want to make sure this country rejects Marxism — and then we can get about the business of deciding what kind of country we will be going forward.

Rational Thought on January 30, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Willard on the other hand will cower in a corner and take a beating on a daily basis.

It will be fun to watch.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Kinda like McCain did in 2008.

Gawd, what a bunch of jelly bean tossers.

timberline on January 30, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Rational Thought on January 30, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Mega dittoes. What you said.

NoDonkey on January 30, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Yet he holds a 1 point advantage with the TEA Party voters. Go figure.

csdeven on January 30, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Yup, and what’s that say about the voter of the Sunshine State??

over to you Flora DUH!

ToddPA on January 30, 2012 at 1:21 PM

The conventional wisdom suggests that tea party supporters have a “my way or the highway” attitude and Establishment Republicans just want a winner, but the data shows that the opposite is true.

Looking ahead to the Florida primary, 94 percent of tea party Republicans say they will vote for whomever wins the GOP nomination. Only 77 percent of non-tea party Republicans are willing to make the same pledge. This commitment to party loyalty comes even though tea party activists are less convinced than others that Romney is the strongest general election candidate. Similar results have been found in survey after survey in the 2012 primary season.

The pragmatism of the tea party is confirmed by exit polling data conducted for The Associated Press and major television networks in New Hampshire. Among those who support the tea party, 44 percent said the ability to beat President Obama was the most important quality they wanted in a candidate. Nothing else came close. Source

Flora Duh on January 30, 2012 at 1:29 PM

I love how in one breath you accuse me of putting words in your mouth (I didn’t, I merely pointed out that your claim that the MSM would go after Romney in the general is irrelevant, they’ll go after anyone who isn’t Obama), and then put words in my mouth immediately – I’ve never commented on the media and Newt.

Red Cloud on January 30, 2012 at 1:24 PM

I said:

it will be fun watching the MSM destroy him while you and the bots complain how unfair it is.

Then you replied

Like they’d treat Newtie any more fairly? Pfft. Please.

Wanna try again?

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Newt needs to stay in until at least Super Tuesday. I remember the pressure Huckabee was under to drop out which he finally did. It’s all about the delegates and the people, not the stupid Party. Don’t be surprised if Ron Paul does very well in the caucus states.

lea on January 30, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Rational Thought on January 30, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Good Lord. How do you sleep at night with that much blood on your hands from such a savage beating?

You, my friend, are winning. +1

Red Cloud on January 30, 2012 at 1:31 PM

I am a conservative, a far-right conservative. I think the federal government’s role should be pretty much limited to a strong national defense.

Rational Thought on January 30, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Says the guy who is ecstatic about voting for the guy who created Obamacare-Lite, increased taxes by $550M in MA, increased spending by 30% in MA.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 1:32 PM

I said:

it will be fun watching the MSM destroy him while you and the bots complain how unfair it is.

Then you replied

Like they’d treat Newtie any more fairly? Pfft. Please.

Wanna try again?

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Sure, I’ll try again. My assertion that the MSM will not treat Newt any differently than Romney (in that they both will be attacked for opposing Obama) is not putting words in your mouth. It is blunting your argument against Romney by rendering it irrelevant.

So sorry you can’t tell the difference.

Red Cloud on January 30, 2012 at 1:32 PM

you are pushing the guy who WROTE OBAMACARE

magic kingdom on January 30, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Just a small note:
Governors do not write legislation (and neither do Presidents, for that matter).

A minor quibble, to be sure, but it would strengthen your arguments to be completely clear on things like that.

RightWay79 on January 30, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Rational Thought on January 30, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Well-put! That explains why they are so uncomfortable when obama’s name is mentioned and quickly change the subject.

Paddington on January 30, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Sure, I’ll try again. My assertion that the MSM will not treat Newt any differently than Romney (in that they both will be attacked for opposing Obama) is not putting words in your mouth. It is blunting your argument against Romney by rendering it irrelevant.

So sorry you can’t tell the difference.

Red Cloud on January 30, 2012 at 1:32 PM

You made an assumption that I think the MSM wouldn’t attack Newt. That wasn’t even relevant though. My point was you were all for media attacks on Newt and lapped it up. When the MSM attacks come at Willard it will be delicious watching you and the other bots whine about MSM bias.

Get it finally?

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Says the guy who is ecstatic about voting for the guy who created Obamacare-Lite, increased taxes by $550M in MA, increased spending by 30% in MA.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Romney ruled MA with an iron fist, didn’t he? A veritable dictator, who didn’t have to worry about petty things like a Legislature while doing these things all by himself, right?

Red Cloud on January 30, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Paddington on January 30, 2012 at 1:33 PM

You’re confusing them, Levin and Beck barely mention Barry these days.

NoDonkey on January 30, 2012 at 1:35 PM

You made an assumption that I think the MSM wouldn’t attack Newt.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 1:35 PM

No, I didn’t. Pay attention. The fact that they will do it to anyone renders the argument that Romney is a bad candidate because they will do it to him irrelevant.

Red Cloud on January 30, 2012 at 1:36 PM

My point was you were all for media attacks on Newt and lapped it up.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 1:35 PM

No, I wasn’t. So now we can see who’s really putting words in mouths.

This is far, far too easy.

Red Cloud on January 30, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Just a small note:
Governors do not write legislation (and neither do Presidents, for that matter).

A minor quibble, to be sure, but it would strengthen your arguments to be completely clear on things like that.

RightWay79 on January 30, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Romney may not have written it but his advisors – hand picked – did the heavy lifting in creating Romneycare. Those same advisors then went on to work for the White House.

The records, gleaned from White House visitor logs reviewed by NBC News, show that senior White House officials had a dozen meetings in 2009 with three health-care advisers and experts who helped shape the health care reform law signed by Romney in 2006, when the Republican presidential candidate was governor of Massachusetts. One of those meetings, on July 20, 2009, was in the Oval Office and presided over by President Barack Obama, the records show.
“The White House wanted to lean a lot on what we’d done in Massachusetts,” said Jon Gruber, an MIT economist who advised the Romney administration on health care and who attended five meetings at the Obama White House in 2009, including the meeting with the president. “They really wanted to know how we can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a national model.”

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Enjoy your mush everyone. Mush 2012!

Bmore on January 30, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Romney ruled MA with an iron fist, didn’t he? A veritable dictator, who didn’t have to worry about petty things like a Legislature while doing these things all by himself, right?

Red Cloud on January 30, 2012 at 1:35 PM

The records, gleaned from White House visitor logs reviewed by NBC News, show that senior White House officials had a dozen meetings in 2009 with three health-care advisers and experts who helped shape the health care reform law signed by Romney in 2006, when the Republican presidential candidate was governor of Massachusetts. One of those meetings, on July 20, 2009, was in the Oval Office and presided over by President Barack Obama, the records show.
“The White House wanted to lean a lot on what we’d done in Massachusetts,” said Jon Gruber, an MIT economist who advised the Romney administration on health care and who attended five meetings at the Obama White House in 2009, including the meeting with the president. “They really wanted to know how we can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a national model.”

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 1:39 PM

But still no different in policy than Obama. He’s a liberal, but he’s a clean and articulate liberal (to steal Joe Biden’s line).

That’s what it comes down to. You don’t want Obama, Obama you want a different version of Obama with an “R” next to his name.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Buddy, I really hesitate to respond to you because you are so unhinged it’s like talking to an Obamabot, but I’ll try. Just this once. I won’t be engaging in a debate with you, though. That’s just a waste of my typing. But since you told me what I “want,” I’d like to tell you why you have no idea what I want. Here goes:

I am a conservative, a far-right conservative. I think the federal government’s role should be pretty much limited to a strong national defense. I would like to see every single cabinet-level agency except defense eliminated. I don’t think Barack Obama is a socialist, I know he is a Marxist. Of course he is. He was steeped in it from birth. Marxism is as natural an ideological state for him as it was for Chairman Mao. I think he’d have people like me tossed in prison if he could, and he would throw away the key. I want him stopped. I want him to lose re-election so the democrat party gets the message that — at least for a few more years — Marxism isn’t selling in the United States. I do not want him to appoint any more Supreme Court justices. One more justice — just one more — and we will get Marxism from our judicial branch for the next 30 years, regardless of who occupies the White House. Just. One. More. Justice. And the game is over.

Mitt Romney is not a Marxist. Not. Even. Close. Judge Bork is heading up his judicial committee. Remember him? He’s kinda conservative, as I recall. Mitt Romney is not anti-capitalist. See, that’s a cornerstone of Marxism — you’ve got to hate people making money in the private sector. Demonize them in the eyes of a large majority of voters? You’ve gone a long way toward the Marxist dream.

And most of all, Mitt Romney can beat Barack Obama. Lots of voters are afraid of Barack. They might not be able to articulate it quite yet, but it is the creeping Marxism they fear. They know there is something not quite right about the things he says, the things he has done, but they do not want to admit to themselves entirely that they pulled the lever in ’08 for a Marxist. It makes them feel stupid, dirty even. So they can pull the lever this time for Romney by telling themselves it is all about the economy — and Romney has a proven track record of turning around failing enterprises. Right now, the United States of America is a failing enterprise.

So, you’re wrong. I do not want Obama-lite. I want Obama gone. That is what must happen first. Obama gone. The other changes I’d like to see will come or they won’t come — from a Republican Congress — but whatever they pass, a Republican president will sign and Barack Obama will veto. I want to make sure this country rejects Marxism — and then we can get about the business of deciding what kind of country we will be going forward.

Rational Thought on January 30, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Rational…makes a rational post about 99% of Romney supporters. Most of us have this same thinking about Obama and the direction of our country. We Romney supporters are strong conservatives and KNOW what type of man Romney is despite the many mischaracterizations of his integrity and record.

Great post, Rational. +1000

g2825m on January 30, 2012 at 1:39 PM

No, I didn’t. Pay attention. The fact that they will do it to anyone renders the argument that Romney is a bad candidate because they will do it to him irrelevant.

Red Cloud on January 30, 2012 at 1:36 PM

If that was the topic at hand you’d be right. The topic was MSM attacks on Romney. Had nothing to do with whether he is a bad or good candidate. That’s twice you’ve put words in my mouth.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Enjoy your mush everyone. Mush 2012!

Bmore on January 30, 2012 at 1:38 PM

I love my Mush! Don’t diss my peasant food.

haner on January 30, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Just a small note:
Governors do not write legislation (and neither do Presidents, for that matter).

A minor quibble, to be sure, but it would strengthen your arguments to be completely clear on things like that.

RightWay79 on January 30, 2012 at 1:33 PM

This is true in the legal sense. I’m just wondering why Obamacare is called that? I’m sure Obama had no say in the matter. yeah, riiiiight.

timberline on January 30, 2012 at 1:41 PM

g2825m on January 30, 2012 at 1:39 PM

I think another point worth mentioning is that the vast majority of Romney supporters understand that he’s not the perfect candidate, that many of us are not lockstep with him on every issue, but when it comes to the important stuff, the TRULY important stuff, he’s right where we need a candidate to be.

Red Cloud on January 30, 2012 at 1:41 PM

You actually go on left wing sites and mock them?? You might want to go ahead and get a life.

THANKS!!!!!!!!

Jailbreak on January 30, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Hell yea I mock them. I can’t stand idiot liberals who push policy that destroys our country. But whats even worse are ” Republicans ” who push the same liberal policy only to wake up later on to see that they created the mess we are in because they went along with the left instead of standing up to the left.

That would be not so smart fools like you Jailbreak.

magic kingdom on January 30, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Most of us have this same thinking about Obama and the direction of our country. We Romney supporters are strong conservatives and KNOW what type of man Romney is despite the many mischaracterizations of his integrity and record.

g2825m on January 30, 2012 at 1:39 PM

So you’re willing to ignore everything he’s said or done pre 2011 and simply believe what he’s telling you now. That’s what it sounds like.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 1:42 PM

It’s going to be fun watching the MSM destroy Mittens and CDSeven types cry how unfair it is.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 1:15 PM

I’ll only be mad if Mitt doesn’t punch back twice as hard, and I think he will. That’s what pissed me off about GWB. That’s what pissed me off about McCain. I imagine you’ll come back with something along the lines of “Romney only fights hard against Republicans, not democrats,” but it looks like he’s found his game. He’s gonna hit Obama hard — not by calling him a socialist, but by pointing out his many, many failures. Obama wishes Romney was a bomb-thrower — he gets a laugh line from those — but a guy who’s going to build a case showing all of Obama’s incompetencies and pound home his failures? That’s a campaign Obama really wanted to avoid.

Rational Thought on January 30, 2012 at 1:44 PM

The records, gleaned from White House visitor logs reviewed by NBC News, show that senior White House officials had a dozen meetings in 2009 with three health-care advisers and experts who helped shape the health care reform law signed by Romney in 2006, when the Republican presidential candidate was governor of Massachusetts. One of those meetings, on July 20, 2009, was in the Oval Office and presided over by President Barack Obama, the records show.
“The White House wanted to lean a lot on what we’d done in Massachusetts,” said Jon Gruber, an MIT economist who advised the Romney administration on health care and who attended five meetings at the Obama White House in 2009, including the meeting with the president. “They really wanted to know how we can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a national model.”

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 1:39 PM

The fallacy of this post is that the ONE MAN they never called ONCE or met with was Gov Romney himself who met with Heritage for his guidance. Romney has said over and over his model was NEVER meant for a national model ONLY for the constituents he KNEW and was familiar with and what would work for HIS state.

Also recall this by those in Romney’s administration, and likely the SAME people Obama’s folks met, who said 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.”

g2825m on January 30, 2012 at 1:44 PM

but when it comes to the important stuff, the TRULY important stuff, he’s right where we need a candidate to be.

Red Cloud on January 30, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Based on what? His record in MA? Serious question. What makes Romney so great? Not in terms of “he can beat Obama” or “he’s the most electable”. Based on his record, what has he done that you can point to and say, he did XYZ therefore he will make a good president.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 1:46 PM

haner on January 30, 2012 at 1:41 PM

LOL, Don’t worry I’m an undecided, I had one ready if Newt won also.

Bmore on January 30, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Most of us have this same thinking about Obama and the direction of our country. We Romney supporters are strong conservatives and KNOW what type of man Romney is despite the many mischaracterizations of his integrity and record.

g2825m on January 30, 2012 at 1:39 PM

So you’re willing to ignore everything he’s said or done pre 2011 and simply believe what he’s telling you now. That’s what it sounds like.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Angry…I am not IGNORING anything of Romney’s record. HIS ACTUAL RECORD. Not something you THINK it is…Romney is more conservative than YOU and others give him credit for. I have posted on here over and over his ACTUAL record not what some posters say it is which are all twisted facts of his record put out there by the media.

g2825m on January 30, 2012 at 1:48 PM

This “True Conservative Witch Hunt” is getting more than annoying.

When people label Romney supporters as RINO’s or liberals, they are putting me into that category.

Me?! a RINO??!! a liberal??!!!

What the ‘H’???!!??

My natural laid-back and calm demeanor is being severely tested.

Do not… I repeat, DO NOT label me as a RINO or a liberal simply because I have chosen to back Romney for the nomination.

Please forgive my outburst in caps there… it just really bugs me when people question my political beliefs for the sole reason that I am supporting a candidate they hate.

;-)

RightWay79 on January 30, 2012 at 1:48 PM

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 1:46 PM

I’m not going to repeat myself ad nauseum about his record, because I’ve said it all many times before.

Man, I cannot wait to see you at work in the general election. I’m going to lose some weight just from the ab workout I’m going to get from laughing so hard.

Red Cloud on January 30, 2012 at 1:49 PM

I fully expect Romney to LOSE to Obama.

That, my dear friends, is inevitable.

TheRightMan on January 30, 2012 at 12:21 PM

I know you’re a Perry guy, but do you really think Newt could beat Obama?

bluealice on January 30, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Angry…I am not IGNORING anything of Romney’s record. HIS ACTUAL RECORD. Not something you THINK it is…Romney is more conservative than YOU and others give him credit for. I have posted on here over and over his ACTUAL record not what some posters say it is which are all twisted facts of his record put out there by the media.

g2825m on January 30, 2012 at 1:48 PM

…and angreyed said

Romney raised taxes, so did Obama.

Romney increased spending by 30% as governor, so did Obama.

Romneycare = state version of Obamacare

Romney closed power plants in the name of “green” living. So did (and is) Obama.

Both are pro-choice.

Both have appointed liberal judges. In MA, 80% of judges appointed by Romney were Democrats.

They are the same thing.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 12:56 PM

…and then right2bright said this about Mitt

Romney raised taxes, so did Obama.

Romney increased spending by 30% as governor, so did Obama.

Romneycare = state version of Obamacare

Romney closed power plants in the name of “green” living. So did (and is) Obama.

Both are pro-choice.

Both have appointed liberal judges. In MA, 80% of judges appointed by Romney were Democrats.

They are the same thing.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Now, g2825m, is this your idea of Conservatism?

timberline on January 30, 2012 at 1:54 PM

This “True Conservative Witch Hunt” is getting more than annoying.

When people label Romney supporters as RINO’s or liberals, they are putting me into that category.

Me?! a RINO??!! a liberal??!!!

What the ‘H’???!!??

My natural laid-back and calm demeanor is being severely tested.

Do not… I repeat, DO NOT label me as a RINO or a liberal simply because I have chosen to back Romney for the nomination.

Please forgive my outburst in caps there… it just really bugs me when people question my political beliefs for the sole reason that I am supporting a candidate they hate.

;-)

RightWay79 on January 30, 2012 at 1:48 PM

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

timberline on January 30, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Whiny whiny gingbot babies…

ConservativeLaw on January 30, 2012 at 1:57 PM

I want EVERY HA poster to take a GOOD LOOK at Romney’s ACTUAL record!

Romney’s MA RECORD AS GOVERNOR:
Romney repeatedly pushed the state legislature to roll back the state income tax from 5.3% to 5.0%

The state’s unemployment rate fell during Romney’s period, from 5.6 to 4.7 percent.

He also proposed a “tax-free shopping day

Property tax relief for Seniors.

A manufacturing tax credit.

Massachusetts finished 2004 with a $700 million surplus

Finished 2005 with a $500 million surplus. “We have successfully closed the largest deficit in our state’s history without raising taxes,

Romney vetoed the transfer of funds from the contingency account. “One of the primary responsibilities of government is keeping the books balanced,” said Romney “The problem here is not revenues; the problem is overspending. The level of spending which we’re looking at would put us on the same road to financial crisis and ruin that our commonwealth has been down before.” The veto was overturned by the legislature, and all 250 of Romney’s 2006 vetoes were overturned by the Massachusetts Legislature. A common practice by the LIBERAL Legislature.

According to an analysis by the Tax Foundation, The combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts was 9.8 percent in 2002 (below the national average of 10.3 percent), and 10.5 percent in 2006 (below the national average of 10.8 percent)

Romney established and funded the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship Program to reward the top 25 percent of Massachusetts high school students with a four-year, tuition-free scholarship to the state’s public universities or colleges.

Romney also drafted other education reforms, including the recruitment of 1,000 skilled math and science instructors, bonuses of as much as $15,000 a year for top-performing teachers, and new intervention programs for failing schools

He also supported English immersion classes
for students that cannot speak English and opposed bilingual education.

During Romney’s tenure as governor, Massachusetts’ per capita funding for public higher education decreased from $158 to $137

Romney denounced Harvard University of Cambridge, Massachusetts for inviting former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami to speak at the school. Romney ordered all state agencies to boycott the visit by refusing to provide state police escorts and other service typically given to former heads of state.

Romney attempted to block implementation of the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that legalized same-sex marriage in 2003.

Romney instructed town clerks not to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state gay couples, except for those announcing their intention to relocate to the Commonwealth by requiring the enforcement of the “1913 law” (General Legislation, Part II, Title III, Chapter. 207 (Certain Marriages Prohibited), Sections 11, 12, & 13), which prohibits non-residents from marrying in Massachusetts if the marriage would be void in their home state. THIS ONE ACT GREATLY CHANGED GAY MARRIAGE WHICH WOULD HAVE MADE MA THE GATEWAY FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY!

“Like me, the great majority of Americans wish both to preserve the traditional definition of marriage
and to oppose bias and intolerance directed towards gays and lesbians,” Romney said in 2004.

Persuade the U.S. Senate to pass the Defense of Marriage Amendment. On June 22, 2004 he testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, urging its members to protect the definition of marriage. “Marriage is not an evolving paradigm,”

On June 2, 2006, Romney sent a letter to each member of the U.S. Senate urging them to vote in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment.

In 2003 Romney vetoed a bill funding hate crimes prevention

Romney announced plans to file a death penalty bill in early 2005. The bill, filed April 28, 2005, sought to reinstate the death penalty in cases that include terrorism, the assassination of law enforcement officials and multiple killings.

In May 2005, Romney presented a proposal to the Massachusetts General Court to crack down on repeat drunk drivers. Massachusetts had some of the weakest drunk driving laws of any state in the country. Romney called his proposal “Melanie’s Bill” in honor of Melanie Powell, a 13-year-old who was killed in 2003 by a repeat drunk driver.

Romney was the first governor in modern Massachusetts history to deny every request for a pardon or commutation during his four years in office.

In March 2002 during his run for governor, said that, “On a personal basis, I don’t favor abortion. However, as governor of the commonwealth, I will protect a woman’s right to choose under the laws of the country and the commonwealth. That’s the same position I’ve had for many years

He vetoed a bill on pro-life grounds that the bill would expand access to emergency contraception in hospitals and pharmacies. He returned from his vacation house in New Hampshire to veto the bill, because the Lt. Govorner, Kerry Healey would have signed the bill into law. The legislature voted overwhelmingly to overturn the veto and pass the bill into law on September 15, 2005.

Vetoed a Massachusetts bill to fund stem-cell research because the legislation allowed such cloning of human embryos. “I am not in favor of creating new human embryos through cloning,” said Romney, calling the practice “a matter of profound moral and ethical consequence” The state legislature overrode Romney’s veto, with many legislators feeling that stem-cell research will be important in the future to the state’s biotech industry

In February 2005, Romney filed legislation to increase benefits for Massachusetts National Guard members. Working with the state legislature, Romney developed the “Welcome Home Bill” which provides Guardsman with reduced life-insurance premiums and free tuition and fees at Massachusetts universities and community colleges.

The bill also increases daily state active-duty pay rate from $75 to $100, and increases the death benefit paid to families of Guard members killed in the line of duty from $5,000 to $100,000. Additionally, the “Welcome Home Bill” creates a $1,000 bonus for Guardsman and reservists called to active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan since the September 11, 2001 attacks and a $500 bonus for those who were activated for duty elsewhere.

The legislation provides a $2,000 benefit for Gold Star spouses and increases the Gold Star parents’ benefit from $1,500 to $2,000. High school diplomas will also be granted to veterans who dropped out to enlist in World War II, Korea or Vietnam wars. Romney signed the bill into law on Veterans Day 2005.

Voted and eased 2nd Amendment bills in MA
See here: “Massachusetts oldest, largest and premier pro-second amendment/gun rights group, Gun owners` Action League (GOAL) stated:“The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the ‘assault weapon’ ban”

In the Massachusetts Senate elections, 2004 and Massachusetts House election, 2004, Romney campaigned heavily to try to recruit Republican candidates to contest seats.

Romney issued nearly a thousand vetoes as governor, the large share of which were overturned by one or the other of the state houses. “I know how to veto. I like vetoes. I’ve vetoed hundreds of spending appropriations as governor.

After Democrat Deval Patrick succeeded Romney as Governor of Massachusetts, he undid several of Romney’s initiatives, including those related to budget cuts, policing of illegal immigration, and the state’s automobile insurance system. Patrick ran into his own set of difficulties with the public.[192] Patrick’s approval rating was 33% in April 2009, with 49% saying Romney did a better job as governor than Patrick, and at its lowest Patrick’s approval rating reached 22%.

g2825m on January 30, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Romney raised taxes, so did Obama.

Romney increased spending by 30% as governor, so did Obama.

Romneycare = state version of Obamacare

Romney closed power plants in the name of “green” living. So did (and is) Obama.

Both are pro-choice.

Both have appointed liberal judges. In MA, 80% of judges appointed by Romney were Democrats.

Now, g2825m, is this your idea of Conservatism?

timberline on January 30, 2012 at 1:54 PM

That’s all soundbite silliness.
I’m sure there’s a web site out there that purports to give incontrovertible proof of these things.

But the Truth, you will find, is often a bit more complicated.

Each one of those things has it’s own set of facts (quotes, record, etc) which completely debunk the charge.

Which “side” is spinning?
Probably both.

The point is, we’ve been spoon-fed these “charges” by people who are against Romney. You can’t take it at face value.

And you can’t take the pro-Romney position at face value either.

I’ve looked at both the charges and the de-bunking and have been more impressed with the debunking because it gives everything it’s proper context and looks at the big picture.

That picture is that Romney has a Center-Right vision for the country. And that’s why he has my support.

Those who think these charges against Romney’s record are nothing but the Truth can’t seem to see the forest for the trees.

RightWay79 on January 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM

I am completely puzzled over why all these Romney haters fail to realize that we’d 1,000 times better off if Bill Clinton was elected in 2012, as opposed to Obama. I disagree with Clinton on many issues, but he wasn’t purposely trying to destroy American Capitalism. Romney is more Conservative than Clinton, so that’s about a 2,000% improvement over Obama.

ardenenoch on January 30, 2012 at 2:03 PM

That picture is that Romney has a Center-Right vision for the country. And that’s why he has my support.

Those who think these charges against Romney’s record are nothing but the Truth can’t seem to see the forest for the trees.

RightWay79 on January 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM

This sounds like a cult mentality. Are you Mormon?

timberline on January 30, 2012 at 2:09 PM

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

timberline on January 30, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Pithy.
Though this popular mis-quote distorts the meaning of the actual quote.

I think the proper response would have been the “if it looks like a duck” quote.

Don’t mean to sound snobbish, but my BA in Musical Theatre requires me to make sure Shakespeare is quoted correctly.

:-)

RightWay79 on January 30, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Sorry HA readers about the length but I am afraid if I just posted the link 85% would not go to it and I am tired of Romney’s record being portrayed the way it is!

STAND ON MARRIAGE AND ABORTION:
Leading social conservatives in Florida signed on to a letter previously released by nine leading social conservatives praising Mitt Romney’s record as Governor. The full text of the letter is below:
An Open Letter Regarding Governor Mitt Romney
January 29, 2012
Dear Fellow Conservatives:
At the end of last month, nine Massachusetts leaders representing a broad coalition of conservative activists penned an open letter in support of Mitt Romney and outlined his commitment to the values that we hold dear. We felt that the letter that they wrote was very effective in helping many voters understand that Mitt Romney was a pro-life and a pro-family governor and that his record serves as public validation of his commitment to those same policies as President of the United States.
In light of the fact that in the past few days Newt Gingrich has used inflammatory language to mischaracterize Governor Romney’s record on the issues of life and family, we decided to re-release that same letter from those Massachusetts leaders under our own signature.
The full content of the letter is included as follows, and we hope that you will not be discouraged by the destructive campaign tactics of Mr. Gingrich:
December 30, 2011
Dear Conservative Friends:
We hail from a broad spectrum of organizations dedicated to fighting for the pro-family agenda in Massachusetts. As you know, Mitt Romney served as the governor of our state from January 2, 2003 to January 3, 2007. During that time, we worked closely with him and his excellent staff on that agenda.
Some press accounts and bloggers have described Governor Romney in terms we neither have observed nor can we accept. To the contrary, we, who have been fighting here for the values you also hold, are indebted to him and his responsive staff in demonstrating solid social conservative credentials by undertaking the following actions here in Massachusetts. The following is not an endorsement of Governor Romney but our account of the facts to set the record straight.
Staunchly defended traditional marriage. Governor Romney immediately and strongly condemned the November 18, 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) decision that legalized “same-sex marriage” in our state. More importantly, he followed up on that denunciation with action – action that saved our nation from a constitutional crisis over the definition of marriage. He and his staff identified and enforced a little-known 1913 law that allowed them to order local clerks not to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state couples. Absent this action, homosexual couples would surely have flooded into Massachusetts from other states to get “married” and then demanded that their home states recognize the “marriages,” putting the nation only one court decision away from nationalizing “same-sex marriage.”
We do not agree with the claims that Gov. Romney had bogus Party A and Party B marriage licenses printed and ordered Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to perform same-sex “marriages” when asked or be fired. As May 17, 2004 (the SJC’s declaratory judgment date) approached, the Governor’s Office of Legal Counsel issued provisional advisory instructions to the justices of the peace and prepared revised license applications. These executive actions did not result in the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples before May 17. The new policies were carried out only after and as a direct result of the judiciary’s final action in Goodridge on May 17. They did not generate same-sex marriages; that responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
We do not agree with the claims that Gov. Romney issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The governor does not issue marriage licenses in Massachusetts. Only the town clerks can do that. But the governor can issue one-day justice of the peace authorizations to an individual who wants to perform a marriage ceremony but is not a licensed minister, town clerk or justice of the peace. The governor’s office issues thousands of those in a four year term with the only criteria being that the individual doing the ceremony is in good standing and the parties getting married have a valid marriage license.
Worked hard to overturn “same-sex marriage” in the Commonwealth with substantial results. In 2004 he lobbied hard, before a very hostile legislature, for a constitutional amendment protecting marriage – an amendment later changed by the legislature to include civil unions, which the Governor and many marriage amendment supporters opposed. Working with the Governor, we were successful in defeating this amendment.
Provided strong, active support for a record-setting citizen petition drive in 2005 to advance a clean constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The petition drive collected the largest number of signatures in Massachusetts history.
Rallied thousands of citizens around the state to focus public and media attention on the failure of legislators, through repeated delays, to perform their constitutional obligation and vote on the marriage amendment. In November of 2006, Gov. Romney held the largest State House rally in Massachusetts history with over 7000 supporters of traditional marriage.
Filed suit before the Supreme Judicial Court asking the court to clarify the legislators’ duty to vote and failing that, to place the amendment on the 2008 ballot. That lawsuit, perhaps more than any other single action, was by all accounts instrumental in bringing the ultimate pressure on the legislators to vote. The SJC unanimously ruled that the Legislature must vote and the historic vote was taken on January 2, 2007 winning legislative support. This cleared a major hurdle in the three year effort to restore traditional marriage in the Commonwealth.
Fought for abstinence education. In 2006, under Governor Romney’s leadership, Massachusetts’ public schools began to offer a classroom program on abstinence from the faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students. Promoting the program, Governor Romney stated, “I’ve never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventative health practice.”
Affirmed the culture of life. Governor Romney vetoed bills to provide access to the so-called “morning-after pill,” which is an abortifacient, as well as a bill providing for expansive, embryo-destroying stem cell research. He vetoed the latter bill in 2005 because he could not “in good conscience allow this bill to become law.”
We do not agree with the claims that Gov. Romney is responsible for tax payer funded abortion under the Massachusetts health care system. That blame lies solely on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court who ruled in 1981 that the Massachusetts Constitution required payment for abortions for Medicaid-eligible women. In 1997, the Court reaffirmed its position that a state-subsidized plan must offer “medically necessary abortions.”
Stood for religious freedom. Governor Romney was stalwart in defense of the right of Catholic Charities of Boston to refuse to allow homosexual couples to adopt children in its care. Catholic Charities was loudly accused of “discrimination,” but Governor Romney correctly pointed out that it is unjust to force a religious agency to violate the tenets of its faith in order to placate a special-interest group.
Filed “An Act Protecting Religious Freedom” in the Massachusetts legislature to save Catholic Charities of Boston and other religious groups from being forced to violate their moral principles or stop doing important charitable work.
All of this may explain why John J. Miller, the national political reporter of National Review, wrote that “a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting political environment.”
We are aware of the 1994 comments of Senate candidate Romney, which have been the subject of much recent discussion. While they are, taken by themselves, obviously worrisome to social conservatives including ourselves, they do not dovetail with the actions of Governor Romney from 2003 until now – and those actions have positively and demonstrably impacted the social climate of Massachusetts.
Since well before 2003, we have been laboring in the trenches of Massachusetts, fighting for the family values you and we share. It is difficult work indeed – not for the faint of heart. In this challenging environment, Governor Romney has proven that he shares our values, as well as our determination to protect them.
For four years, Governor Romney was right there beside us, providing leadership on key issues – whether it was politically expedient to do so or not.
He has stood on principle, and we have benefited greatly from having him with us.
It is clear that Governor Romney has learned much since 1994 – to the benefit of our movement and our Commonwealth. In fact, the entire nation has benefited from his socially conservative, pro-family actions in office. As we explained earlier, his leadership on the marriage issue helped prevent our nation from being plunged into even worse legal turmoil following the court decision that forced “gay marriage” upon our Commonwealth.
For that our country ought to be thankful. We certainly are.
Sincerely,
Rita Covelle
President, Morality in Media Massachusetts

Gerald D. D’Avolio
Former Executive Director, Massachusetts Catholic Conference

Raymond L. Flynn
Former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See

Professor Mary Ann Glendon
Harvard Law School
Former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See

Kristian Mineau
President, Massachusetts Family Institute

Dr. Roberto Miranda
COPAHNI Fellowship of Hispanic Pastors of New England

James F. Morgan
Chairman, Institute for Family Development

Joseph Reilly
Former Chairman of the Board, Massachusetts Citizens for Life

Thomas A. Shields
Chairman, Coalition for Marriage and Family

Note: The signatories are all acting as individual citizens, and not as representatives of their respective organizations. Organizational affiliations appear for identification purposes only.

From Florida:
As leaders and members of Mitt Romney’s Social Conservatives Coalition, we are proud to support Governor Romney for President. We are confident of his pro-life and his pro-family commitment. Our nation is in great need of leadership on these issues, and we believe Mitt Romney to be the right leader for our cause.
Truly Yours,
The Honorable Rachel Burgin
State Representative; Awarded the 2011 “Susan B. Anthony Young Leader Award”; 2012 Sponsor of the Abortion Clinic Regulation Act

Marili Cancio
Member of the Christian Family Coalition Finance Committee

The Honorable Daniel Davis
State Representative; 2012 Sponsor of the “Fetal Pain” Bill

The Honorable Anitere Flores
State Senator; 2007 Citizens for Science and Ethics Legislator of the Year for her fight against the public funding of embryonic stem cell research; 2009 Sponsor of the Ultra-sound Option Bill

Adam Goldman
Member of the Board of Directors for the James Madison Institute; 2009-2010 Vice-Chair of Florida Right to Life

John Giotis
Headmaster for the School of the Immaculata; Tampa Bay Director for the 2008 “Yes4Marriage” Campaign

Ryan Higgins
Business Manager of Hope Children’s Home, a Tampa-based Christian orphanage; Vice-Chair of the Hillsborough County Children’s Board

Nancy McGowan
Twice commissioned Respect Life Coordinator for the Diocese of St. Augustine; State Steering Committee of Social Conservatives for Rubio

Vicki Mullins
Appointed by Governor Jeb Bush to head up abstinence education in Florida; Program Director for My-Choices.Net

Pat Neal
Past Chairman of the Board of the Christian Coalition of Florida; Chairman of the Board of the Faith and Freedom Coalition of Florida

Leslie Steele
Served as Deputy Communications Director for Governor Jeb Bush; lead Communications Consultant for the 2008 “Yes4Marriage” Campaign

The Honorable Dave Weldon
Physician; Former Congressman; 2001 Sponsor of the Federal legislation to ban human cloning

Note: The signatories are all acting as individual citizens, and not as representatives of their respective organizations. Organizational affiliations appear for identification purposes only.

g2825m on January 30, 2012 at 2:11 PM

This sounds like a cult mentality. Are you Mormon?

timberline on January 30, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Nope.
A born-again, bible-thummin’ Southern Baptist, sir. Have been all my life.

(Well, not technically ALL my life… but at least since I was 6 when I became saved).

RightWay79 on January 30, 2012 at 2:13 PM

bible-thummin’

That would be “thumpin” of course.
Typing too fast…or something.

RightWay79 on January 30, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Now, g2825m, is this your idea of Conservatism?

timberline on January 30, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Timber…
Jus because you quote angryed and Rightman does not make their “FACTS” facts.

I went to the MA record and that is what you see above as well as those the WORKED with Gov Romney side by side for FOUR years. I will take what they say as FACT over what Angry and Right, who do not like Romney, every day of the week and have NEVER worked with Romney.

g2825m on January 30, 2012 at 2:21 PM

“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.”

g2825m on January 30, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Dude, I hate to be the one to tell you this, my Mittbot friend: when you have to write an enter exegesis on how Romneycare and Obamacare differ and why Willard really isn’t at fault and it takes up several paragraphs of text-you’ve already lost the issue to Obama.

Romney takes Health Care off the table. The rest is just “a rising tide lifts all yachts” with Romney.

Obama will beat Romney like a gunny sack against a bulkhead wall.

victor82 on January 30, 2012 at 2:22 PM

g2825m on January 30, 2012 at 2:11 PM

I’m a Romney supporter but what makes you think an anti-romney person is going to read the entire thing posted hera as opposed to links.

gerrym51 on January 30, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Rational Thought on January 30, 2012 at 1:27 PM

The best I’ve read in these comments today!

Here! Here!

uhangtight on January 30, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Rational Thought on January 30, 2012 at 1:27 PM

The best I’ve read in these comments today!

Here! Here!

uhangtight on January 30, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Agreed.

That was the best political smackdown I’ve seen in a while.

RightWay79 on January 30, 2012 at 2:35 PM

I know you’re a Perry guy, but do you really think Newt could beat Obama?

bluealice on January 30, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Never mind what the pundits and almost everyone assumes.

Obama is going to be tough to beat.

Not while he has the liberals/communists/socialists/black/union/dead vote in his corner.

I once rated the electability of all our candidates as follows:

Perry > Gingrich > Huntsman > Romney > Santorum = Bachmann > Paul

Gingrich has a better chance against Obama because he does not turn off the base. In a polarized election, he stands a chance.

Huntsman at least had a conservative and successful governing record he could point to.

Romney? What exactly does Romney bring to the table? I still cannot for the life of me figure it out and his supporters will rather insult us as dumb hicks and rubes than explain to us what his strengths are.

I say again: Romney will lose to Obama and it won’t be close.

TheRightMan on January 30, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Is the base stupid or is the electorate stupid?

aloysiusmiller on January 30, 2012 at 2:43 PM

It was like listening to Karl Marx, except female and more stupid.

Jailbreak on January 30, 2012 at 1:13 PM

I didn’t think that was possible! St Palin the Victimized has finally permanently be-clowned herself. And her worshipers follow right along.

lol

csdeven on January 30, 2012 at 2:45 PM

The state’s unemployment rate fell during Romney’s period, from 5.6 to 4.7 percent.

Finished 2005 with a $500 million surplus. “We have successfully closed the largest deficit in our state’s history without raising taxes,”

g2825m on January 30, 2012 at 2:00 PM

LOL. The national rate fell by a bigger percentage than in MA. Pre-Romney MA’s rate was below the national rate. Post Romney, Ma’s rate was above the national rate.

No new taxes…. but $550M in new fees. You say tomatoe, I say tmatoh.

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Romney? What exactly does Romney bring to the table? I still cannot for the life of me figure it out and his supporters will rather insult us as dumb hicks and rubes than explain to us what his strengths are.

I say again: Romney will lose to Obama and it won’t be close.

TheRightMan on January 30, 2012 at 2:38 PM

As a fellow dumb hick and rube (I live in Alabama), I would just like to point out that not only are Romney’s strengths manifest, but people have been making the case for him from day one.

Those who do not like Romney (usually because someone else has convinced them that he is some kind of RINO or liberal) simply are choosing to ignore his strengths.

Here are a few:
He’s got a ridiculously conservative 59-point economic plan that gets us back on the right track AND shrinks the federal government

He’s been attacking Obama since day one, and has only had to shift focus recently in order to take out his current opponent.

His relentless attacks on Gingrich show that he is willing and able to take the gloves off and he will not “play nice” with Obama.

His record (when looked at honestly, and not through Mitt-hate Colored Glasses) is relieably Center-Right.

He stands the BEST electoral chance of beating Obama. The numbers don’t lie.

RightWay79 on January 30, 2012 at 2:50 PM

The forthcoming angryed meltdown is going to be EPIC, and worth the price of admission.

Red Cloud on January 30, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Angry Ed has been in meltdown mode for weeks. I am concerned for anyone within a 30 meter diameter when his head explodes.

csdeven on January 30, 2012 at 2:51 PM

ToddPA on January 30, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Ahhhhh…..I see we have another St Palin the Victimized worshiper who is still 8utthurt because his savior betrayed him. We’ve had told you people since last spring that Palin was simply fleecing you for your rent money until she had to actually announce her intentions.

So we were right and you were wrong, and that you think your opinions have any credibility at all is a subject of much knee slapping hilarity at HA.

csdeven on January 30, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2012 at 1:15 PM

You know as well as I that when the Palin worshipers cease their insane rants on Hot Air, the Palin insults will cease also.

They simply provide entirely too much comic relief to ignore. lol

csdeven on January 30, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Newt now talking in Tampa on C-SPAN3 and says new polls released in las hour shows Gingrich and Romney tied at 35%

GO NEWT!!!

timberline on January 30, 2012 at 3:00 PM

The forthcoming angryed meltdown is going to be EPIC, and worth the price of admission.

Red Cloud on January 30, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Angry Ed has been in meltdown mode for weeks. I am concerned for anyone within a 30 meter diameter when his head explodes.

csdeven on January 30, 2012 at 2:51 PM

I said you guys won. Willard is the nominee.
We all lose in November.
It will be delicious watching as Mr. Electable loses.

Here’s some fun polling…

Rasmussen Reports 1/27 – 1/29 1500 LV 47 41 Obama +6

LOL.

Enjouy….

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Yup, and what’s that say about the voter of the Sunshine State??

over to you Flora DUH!

ToddPA on January 30, 2012 at 1:21 PM

It says that when certain TEA Party folks around here start speaking as if all of the TEA Party vote in one monolithic group, they are just speaking out of their @sses.

Please notice how you insult other TEA Party folks who don’t toe the TEA Party line that you establish. The St Palin the Victimized worshipers do the same thing. One single criticism of her is received with the same condescending attitude that you just exhibited.

THAT is the reason for the non stop Palin criticisms. You give it, you get it right back.

csdeven on January 30, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Will Willard lose worse than McCain? 8 ball says….maybe.

Rasmussen Reports 1/27 – 1/29 1500 LV 47 41 Obama +6
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 1/22 – 1/24 RV 49 43 Obama +6

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Will Willard lose worse than McCain? 8 ball says….maybe.

Rasmussen Reports 1/27 – 1/29 1500 LV 47 41 Obama +6
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 1/22 – 1/24 RV 49 43 Obama +6

angryed on January 30, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Hmmmm USA Today and CBS show a tie and ABC shows him up by 2.

Such a tool .

CW on January 30, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3