New Romney ad: Who’s going to drive you home tonight, Michigan?

posted at 4:50 pm on February 14, 2012 by Allahpundit

A visual reminder to the locals that he’s got a Michigan automotive pedigree that Senator Sweater Vest can’t match. Surprised to see him so positive here? Don’t be. The attacks are coming:

The Pennsylvania Republican will “be defined by two things,” the [Romney] advisor said.

The first is a comparison to Barack Obama: “He’s never run anything,” said the advisor. The Pennyslvanian’s experience is limited to roles as a legislator and legislative staffer. “The biggest thing he ever ran is his Senate office,” he siad.

The second is a challenge to Santorum’s Washington experience.

“They’re going to hit him very hard on earmarks, lobbying, voting to raise the federal debt limit five times,” said the advisor. “The story of Santorum is going to be told over the next few weeks in a big way.”

I don’t know. Lack of executive experience and Beltway insider-ism are two different things, but when you’re pushing them both simultaneously, I wonder if they won’t inadvertently cancel each other out. The attack on his experience is essentially an argument that he’s too green to run the ferocious federal machine efficiently … except that, as a two-term senator, he actually knows how the federal machine works better than Romney does. I think they’re better off trying to tear him down for being a big-spending RINO — and indeed, that attack’s coming too.

You’re also starting to see closer scrutiny of Santorum in conservative media commensurate with his national surge. Go read Philip Klein on RS’s “big-government parochialism” — when it came to steel tariffs, blocking “right to work” laws, and of course earmarks, he was a true blue Pennsylvanian — and Conn Carroll arguing that Santorum’s paternalism makes him a (shudder) “David Brooks Republican” prone to government social engineering efforts. (Er, can the mastermind behind RomneyCare really make that argument?) An interesting thought experiment: If, if, if we end up in a brokered convention with most delegates split between Romney and Santorum, would RS’s paternalistic streak tip Ron Paul’s delegates towards Mitt? Remember, Romney and Paul are on good terms and Paul’s said in the past that he likes the fact that Mitt has a business background. Santorum, as a passionate culture warrior, will alienate libertarians more than Romney will — unless Mitt lets Santorum drag him so far to the right on social issues that he’s not only compromised in the general but potentially compromised among moderates and libertarians if/when this becomes a two-man race. He’s not going to out-social-con Santorum so I don’t know why he bothers trying. Hit him on his fiscal heresies, over and over.

According to Rasmussen, Santorum now leads in Michigan by three among likely voters. That’s good news for Romney given yesterday’s hair-raising PPP poll putting the margin at 15. The bad news is that Santorum’s base seems to be more committed than Romney’s is, and the really bad news is that the more Gingrich becomes an afterthought in these races, the greater the risk that his money will dry up and he’ll be forced to drop out. Byron York sees Arizona and Michigan as a pair of one-on-one contests between Mitt and Newt and Mitt and Rick, respectively, but if Romney’s destined to lose in Michigan, I wonder if he’d actually prefer to lose in Arizona too in order to keep Gingrich in the game. Anything he can do to stave off the consolidation of the conservative vote is good for him; his nightmare scenario, I think, is that Santorum wins big in Michigan on February 28 while Newt gets crushed in both states, whereupon Gingrich is suddenly a nonfactor the following week on Super Tuesday while the press is buzzing about Santorum. Even the Romney Super PAC death star would be tested by that.


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 4 5

The numbers are from the Nevada SOS.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 14, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Link?

joana on February 14, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Romney’s idiot strategists blew SC, which was unfortunate, and then CO, which was inexcusable.

matthew8787 on February 14, 2012 at 6:28 PM

LOL, keep believing that the CO loss was due to “strategic error”.

I live in CO. Every single political ad I heard on the radio was for Romney. The Romney campaign sent me half a dozen pieces of direct mail. The week before, the day before AND the day of the caucus, I got called by a Romney volunteer. They even offered me a ride to the caucus presinct.

The point is; Romney spent a ton of money on ads & organization in Colorado. Their embarrassing loss was cannot be explained away by lack of effort or strategic mistake.

Just fact it; Romney is an awful candidate. Heck, Santorum even managed to win several heavily mormon counties in Western Colorado. That speaks volumes of how uninspiring Romney is as a candidate. He has a huge cash and organizational advantage, yet he underperforms time after time.

Norwegian on February 14, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Well my dad had to attend a dinner with Mikhail Gorbachev many years ago. Feel free to use it against me.

JPeterman on February 14, 2012 at 6:29 PM

That’s not how it works under communism(I know I’m from Cuba), if you’re dad forced to attend why would anyone hold that against him?

Mitt’s dad voluntarily attended.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 14, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Link?

joana on February 14, 2012 at 6:49 PM

http://nvsos.gov/

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 14, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 14, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Viva Cuba libre!!!

Schadenfreude on February 14, 2012 at 6:51 PM

This is all recycled adulation: first it was evangelical Perry ( until people got to know his incoherent-rambling/immigration-loving ways—flameout!), second was evangelical Cain (until people got to know his lying/cheating/limited knowledge ways—flameout!), third was evangelical Gingrich (until people got to know his nasty, temperamental/petty/influence-peddling ways—flameout!), and now catholic Santorum (until people get to know his bigoted/big-spending/pro-union/earmark loving ways—and then, he too, will flameout!) So many people want an anti-Romeny….because they are bigoted, anti-Mormons! (But will blame it on his non-conservative ways, until their dying breath—as if the others are really conservative—so much hypocrisy!)

Oracleforhire on February 14, 2012 at 6:51 PM

I wouldn’t bring up Ron Paul’s name in the same statement with the word “earmarks” if I were his supporter…

Archivarix on February 14, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Yep. They’d best let that mess just die away.

slickwillie2001 on February 14, 2012 at 6:52 PM

If 17% of Rs voted for Reid, they deserve the fool fully. So does their progeny. Now, Huntsman’s family supported the fool. That should tell you that religion had something to do with it.

Schadenfreude on February 14, 2012 at 6:19 PM

To be fair, Reid is very unpopular among Mormons in NV.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 14, 2012 at 6:54 PM

To be fair, Reid is very unpopular among Mormons in NV.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 14, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Good to know. Still stunning, if the % is correct, and also the Huntsman family financial support of him.

Schadenfreude on February 14, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Rick Santorum’s Voting Record is NOT CONSERVATIVE. IN fact, if you read through this list and you THINK Santorum is conservative AT ALL, you’d be a fool!

Don’t let Ed Morrissey mislead you into voting for a POSEUR:

Santorum was a serial earmarker, requesting billions of dollars during his time in the Senate, and not reversing his position on earmarks until he was out of Congress in 2010. As recently as 2009, Rick said, “I’m not saying necessarily earmarks are bad. I have had a lot of earmarks. In fact, I’m very proud of all the earmarks I’ve put in bills. I’ll defend earmarks.”

Santorum voted for H J Res 47 Debt Limit Increase Resolution

Santorum voted to raise the national debt ceiling five times

Santorum voted for the 2005 highway bill that included thousands and thousands of wasteful earmarks, including the Bridge to Nowhere.

In fact, according to Club for Growth, “in a separate vote, Santorum had the audacity to vote to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.”

Santorum voted for CAFTA, which removes duties on textile and apparel goods traded among participating nations, resulting in nearly ALL textile companies leaving the South.

Santorum voted for Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (though he now says he will repeal it), which imposes job-killing federal regulations on businesses.

Santorum voted against the National Right to Work Act of 1995, which would have repealed provisions of federal law that “require employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment.”

Santorum voted for taxes in the Internet Access Tax Bill

Santorum voted for HR 3448 – Minimum Wage Increase bill, which allows punitive damages for injury or illness to be taxed, allows damages for emotional distress to be taxed and repeals the diesel fuel tax rebate to purchasers of diesel-powered automobiles and light trucks.

Santorum voted to confirm President Bill Clinton’s nomination of Alan Greenspan to be chairman of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System for a fourth four-year term.

Santorum voted for Medicare prescription drug benefit known as Medicare Part D, though critical of it now. It is the largest expansion of entitlement spending since President Lyndon Johnson, which now costs taxpayers more than $60 billion a year and has almost $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities, according to Club for Growth.

Santorum voted in 1997 to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, “which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouse’s wrist,” according to a press release from Dudley Brown, executive director of the National Association for Gun Rights.

Santorum voted in 1999 for a bill “disguised as an attempt to increase penalties on drug traffickers with guns … but it also included a provision to require federal background checks at gun shows,” again according to Dudley Brown’s release.

Santorum “came to anti-gun Arlen Specter’s defense in 2004 when he was down in the polls against pro-gun Republican Pat Toomey. Specter won and continued to push for gun control during his years in the Senate,” per Brown.

Santorum voted with Barbara Boxer in 2005 on the Gun Lock Requirement Amendment

Santorum voted for the Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill and then flip-flopped and voted against it in S 1805 – Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill

Santorum voted against HR 2356 – Campaign Reform Act of 2001

Santorum voted for an amendment to the Communications Act of 1934 that requires television broadcast providers to give their lowest rates to political candidates.

Santorum voted for HR 1 – No Child Left Behind Act

Santorum sponsored legislation to force companies to pay laid off workers benefits.

Santorum worked for an increase in funding big government programs like Head Start.

Santorum voted for taxpayer money to go to Pennsylvania families for their heating bills.

Santorum introduced and co-sponsored big government health-care bills.

Santorum voted for HR 796 – the protection of abortion clinics

Santorum actively supports the Global Fund, which was created by the United Nations to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, but also “channels a large portion of its funds through Planned Parenthood’s affiliates around the world and through a British group Marie Stopes International (the largest chain of abortion mills in the UK, with 66,000 abortions a year.)… to operate in Cambodia, Fiji, Bangladesh, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Burma, Kenya, Tanzania, and other countries,” according to the pro-life Gerard Health Foundation that provides millions of dollars to pro-life groups.

Santorum boasted of teaming up with Joe Lieberman, Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton in his 2006 political ad for re-election to the U.S. Senate, which he lost to Democrat Bob Casey Jr. by the largest margin of victory ever for a Democratic Senate nominee in Pennsylvania and the largest margin of victory for a Senate challenger in the 2006 elections.

Santorum opposed the tea party and its reforms in the Republican Party and conservative movement just a couple years ago saying, “I have some real concerns about this movement within the Republican party … to sort of refashion conservatism. And I will vocally and publicly oppose it.”

Holy Crap!

http://race42012.com/2012/02/13/chuck-norris-trashes-rick-santorum/

mountainaires on February 14, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Ouch! Now that’s one stat we haven’t heard the Palinphobes/Anglephobes/ CODphobes talk about much. I wasn’t even aware of it, if it’s true.

ddrintn on February 14, 2012 at 6:27 PM

A lot of “moderate Republicans” threw a hissy fit here in NV and voted for Reid.

And like I said above a lot of elected Rs campaigned for Reid.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 14, 2012 at 6:57 PM

http://nvsos.gov/

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 14, 2012 at 6:51 PM

I know the site url. I was asking for a link to those numbers.

joana on February 14, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Link?

joana on February 14, 2012 at 6:49 PM
http://nvsos.gov/

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 14, 2012 at 6:51 PM

What say you. joanna?

katy the mean old lady on February 14, 2012 at 6:58 PM

What say you. joanna?

katy the mean old lady on February 14, 2012 at 6:58 PM

I beg your pardon?

joana on February 14, 2012 at 7:00 PM

portlandon on February 14, 2012 at 6:30 PM

For at least the third time…..

Who are you to deny someone the right to give up their rights?

csdeven on February 14, 2012 at 7:01 PM

reinvent yourself much, Mitt?

DBear on February 14, 2012 at 7:02 PM

I know the site url. I was asking for a link to those numbers.

joana on February 14, 2012 at 6:57 PM

You can’t click on the NV Federal Races 2010?

Here: http://www.nvsos.gov/soselectionpages/results/2010STatewideGeneral/ElectionSummary.aspx

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 14, 2012 at 7:03 PM

I don’t understand why Mittbots are so surprised. He really is living up to the title of “Candidate of last resort”.

mike_NC9 on February 14, 2012 at 7:03 PM

I couldn’t vote in 2000 (underage).
..
Raquel Pinkbullet on February 14, 2012 at 6:45 PM

..so young and so much passion! You and AngryEd have a lot to look forward to being so clueful (opposite of clueless) and so young. Goo for you, young lady!

And welcome to the fight. I feel this country will eventually fall into good hands.

The War Planner on February 14, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Drat!

Goo == good, of course.

The War Planner on February 14, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Santorum voted against HR 2356 – Campaign Reform Act of 2001

Holy Crap!

mountainaires on February 14, 2012 at 6:57 PM

So a vote against McCain/Feingold (HR 2356) is now a bad thing according to the Mittbots??? I thought your guru Mittens keeps saying McCain/Feingold it is a disaster? But I guess if it helps a manufactured & misleading argument against Santorum, it’s O.K.

LULZ @ Mittbots like “mountainaires”…

Norwegian on February 14, 2012 at 7:07 PM

People do not give up their rights.

Sure they do. Look at the US Constitution. The people gave up certain rights to the federal government.

RomneyCare was not voted on by the public.

portlandon on February 14, 2012 at 6:42 PM

First, the polling then, and now, still shows huge broad based support for Masscare.

Second, in our representative form of government, the people don’t vote on individual issues. That would be a pure democracy and would lead to tyranny.

Third, the MA constitution allowed for Masscare.

Forth, if the people of MA decide they don’t want Masscare, they can amend the constitution or vote in candidates that will repeal it.

Fifth, anyone who doesn’t like the fact that the constitution of MA was given the right to implement Masscare, they can move to a different state.

Those are just the first of many major differences between Masscare and Obamacare.

Thanks for finally answering the question.

csdeven on February 14, 2012 at 7:09 PM

You can’t click on the NV Federal Races 2010?

Here: http://www.nvsos.gov/soselectionpages/results/2010STatewideGeneral/ElectionSummary.aspx

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 14, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Sure I could – I did.

I’m sorry if this wasn’t clear: I want the link to those numbers you claimed that came from the NC SOS. – that Reid got 17% of the republican vote, for example. You keep posting links to other stuff. I hope it’s not on purpose. I’m sure your next will be to the page with those breakdowns. I’ll keep asking.

Thanks in advance.

joana on February 14, 2012 at 7:09 PM

So many people want an anti-Romeny….because they are bigoted, anti-Mormons! (But will blame it on his non-conservative ways, until their dying breath—as if the others are really conservative—so much hypocrisy!)

Oracleforhire on February 14, 2012 at 6:51 PM

You may be correct. Time will tell as Santorum fades like the rest have. The bigot-speak will be their last flailing attempt to exorcise their derangement on Romney’s soul.

csdeven on February 14, 2012 at 7:12 PM

mountainaires on February 14, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Dadgum. Next time, why don’t you just cut and paste “War and Peace”?

kingsjester on February 14, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Who are you to deny someone the right to give up their rights?

csdeven on February 14, 2012 at 7:01 PM

For at least the 4th time….RomneyCare was not voted on by the people of Mass. They did not vote to give up their rights.

I know you’re thick, but just how thick?

portlandon on February 14, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Sure I could – I did.

I’m sorry if this wasn’t clear: I want the link to those numbers you claimed that came from the NC SOS. – that Reid got 17% of the republican vote, for example. You keep posting links to other stuff. I hope it’s not on purpose. I’m sure your next will be to the page with those breakdowns. I’ll keep asking.

Thanks in advance.

joana on February 14, 2012 at 7:09 PM

You said 11% of Rs vote went to Reid. It’s 17%
And the breakdown on independents was Angle 48-44% It was 48-40.

Not really that much of a difference. I showed you were to find it 3 times. I am not going to keep re-posting.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 14, 2012 at 7:17 PM

portlandon on February 14, 2012 at 7:17 PM

The people who wrote the MA constitution did that. Living in MA means one agrees to live under that constitution. That is in fact giving up that right to the state. So as you can see, you have no right, by MA state constitution, or by an inalienable right from God, to tell others how they manage their God given rights.

csdeven on February 14, 2012 at 7:20 PM

You said 11% of Rs vote went to Reid. It’s 17%
And the breakdown on independents was Angle 48-44% It was 48-40.

Not really that much of a difference. I showed you were to find it 3 times. I am not going to keep re-posting.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 14, 2012 at 7:17 PM

You said you got your numbers from the NV SOS site.

I asked a link.

You didn’t provide it – you kept trying to deflect the question posting links to other stuff.

You were lying. Those numbers don’t come from the NV SOS. You probably made them up or got confused.

The difference isn’t large – but my numbers are correct and yours were just made up. You should have admitted that instead of going with the silly claim the numbers came from the NV SOS.

Anyway, you now have the correct numbers. Use them instead.

joana on February 14, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Anything he can do to stave off the consolidation of the conservative vote is good for him

This statement is based on a false premise.

VorDaj on February 14, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Link?

joana on February 14, 2012 at 6:49 PM
http://nvsos.gov/

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 14, 2012 at 6:51 PM

What say you. joanna?

katy the mean old lady on February 14, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Still wondering, dear?

joana on February 14, 2012 at 7:34 PM

The Mittbots v. Gingbats v. Santgelicals.

VorDaj on February 14, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Reid got the vote of 11% of the republicans, not 17%.

Angle won independents 48%-44%, not 40% (a very poor showing for a midterm in Nevada – a generic R candidate would have trucidated Reid amongst Indies).

joana on February 14, 2012 at 6:32 PM

God you’re a moron. And if that 11% had voted for Angle, she would have won. Point is the super duper extreme radical Angle won indies and she lost because RINOs didn’t vote for her.

angryed on February 14, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Rick Santgelical.

VorDaj on February 14, 2012 at 7:37 PM

mountainaires on February 14, 2012 at 6:57 PM

So funny.

You are right about one thing Rick is not the perfect candidate he is for more Government than conservatives like.

However Mitt is the biggest spender in this race. He never saw a tax he did not like nor a fee that should not be increased. He was consistently a liberal moderate just like his dad for 40 long years. Then this election conversion to conservative in 2005.

The real Mitt was prior to 2005
The Real Mitt is the biggest supporter Planed Parenthood has. After all he got they free Abortions in Mass for most women only $100 even if you are filthy rich.

The Real Mitt is the biggest supporter GLBT coalition ever had he only promissed civil unions but fought tooth and nail and achieved Gay Marriage.

The Real Mitt is the best friend Gun Restriction people ever had he highly restricted guns in Mass.

The Real Mitt loves Obama. Listen to this ad where he praises Obama for rescuing GM.

The Real Mitt is absolutely in love with every lobbyist in Washington DC.

The Real Mitt is a career politician. He has been running for office just as long as Santorum but lost his first race. He has run for President as his full time job for seven years now. Just ask any establishment politician Mitt is the man. They love him because he will deliver for them.
Why do they not like Santorum if any of this were relevant?

You are right people like Mitt persuaded Rick to pretend to be liberal and he lost big time in a very bad election for Republicans generally but particularly in Pen. He admits he made mistakes unlike Mitt who will not even admit his ultra liberal record.

Steveangell on February 14, 2012 at 7:38 PM

So many people want an anti-Romeny….because they are bigoted, anti-Mormons! (But will blame it on his non-conservative ways, until their dying breath—as if the others are really conservative—so much hypocrisy!)

Oracleforhire on February 14, 2012 at 6:51 PM

You may be correct. Time will tell as Santorum fades like the rest have. The bigot-speak will be their last flailing attempt to exorcise their derangement on Romney’s soul.

csdeven on February 14, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Obamabot: If you don’t love Obama you are racist

Romneybot: If you don’t love Romney you hate Mormons

Romney = Obama
Romney sycophants = Obama sycophants

angryed on February 14, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Oracleforhire on February 14, 2012 at 6:51 PM

His mormonism is a non-issue for me. What is an issue is this guy has no core.

Santorum is running ads in MI now. Saw the first one today. It is an ad featuring himself, not carpet bombing his competitors.

I saw an ad against Pete Spend It Not Hoekstra just after the Santorum ad. A conservative named Clark Durant, who I have never heard of, is equating Hoekstra and Stabenow as one in the same, voted to increase debt ceilings as well as voted for the bailouts, etc. Durant also was critical of the chinese ad done by Hoekstra.

Looks like we are up for some good times in Michigan. However, I don’t understand the Senate ads right now. We are only voting for the GOP primary on the 28th.

karenhasfreedom on February 14, 2012 at 7:39 PM

God you’re a moron. And if that 11% had voted for Angle, she would have won. Point is the super duper extreme radical Angle won indies and she lost because RINOs didn’t vote for her.

angryed on February 14, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Reid fixed this election. That is why he won. People even went to jail over this election for election fruad. It was rampant.

Guess that should be expected in a State that votes in Casinos.

Steveangell on February 14, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Make that, we are only voting for the Presidential GOP primary on the 28th, nothing else is on the ballot in Michigan.

karenhasfreedom on February 14, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Stupid Mormons (95% perhaps) vote for Romney because he is Mormon.

Stupid Evangelicals (some) vote against Romney because he is Mormon.

Stupid way to decide.

I am Mormon but see evil every time I look at Romney or McCain.

Mormons think GOD will talk to them when he does not do so some are quite willing unknowingly to listen to Satan.

Steveangell on February 14, 2012 at 7:47 PM

The earlier post dissecting Santorum’s congressional voting record is the tip of the iceberg. This is why the GOP should NEVER nominate a senator for president (Dole, McCain, Santorum), because no matter how well-intended, these voting records (which include all types of procedural votes) can be distorted and picked to pieces by the Dems and the MSM.

Nominating Santorum spells disaster against Obama.

matthew8787 on February 14, 2012 at 7:49 PM

The attack on his experience is essentially an argument that he’s too green to run the ferocious federal machine efficiently … except that, as a two-term senator, he actually knows how the federal machine works better than Romney does.

Picked up on that, too, I see.

Santorum has experience. It’s just different from Romney’s experience. He has less executive experience, but more experience dealing with legislative issues and federal law. In some ways, his experience is better than Romney’s.

Unfortunately for Romney, executive experience pushing through Romneycare is not a selling point. Neither is his political experience in a very liberal state.

Ultimately, I really doubt Romney’s executive experience will help him that much. It would be different if his executive experience was of accomplishing conservative goals, but it wasn’t.

tom on February 14, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Who’s going to drive you home tonight, Michigan?

Probably whoever has the biggest beer goggles. After years of being driven hard and put away wet by generations of career unionist Democrats, Michigan is one ugly gal these days.

Happy Nomad on February 14, 2012 at 7:52 PM

I know that fact. Why exactly would I refute it? I have no idea what’s the point you’re trying to make. I mean, Sarah Palin? Did I mention her? Are you sure you wanted to reply to me?

joana on February 14, 2012 at 6:48 PM

You were asked to acknowledge that Sarah Palin’s family was union based; her parents were teachers and her husband and brothers were Union, and remain union members.

Thank you for your reply.

You are now dismissed.

Key West Reader on February 14, 2012 at 7:56 PM

If you are a former senator and Washington insider and want to be POTUS, you’re a perfect fit. – Santorum supporter.

csdeven on February 14, 2012 at 7:57 PM

If you’re a former governor and Washington outsider, you aren’t fit to be POTUS. – Santorum supporter.

csdeven on February 14, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Ultimately, I really doubt Romney’s executive experience will help him that much. It would be different if his executive experience was of accomplishing conservative goals, but it wasn’t.

tom on February 14, 2012 at 7:51 PM

You would be wrong.

At 20 years old Romney became Co-President of the French Mission when the Presidents wife was killed in an auto accident. Mitt suceeded in every executive position he had. Doing that at 20 was impressive. The Gays thought they had little chance of Civil Unions Mitt got them Gay Marriage. Ted Kennedy saw no path to Government run insurance Mitt got that and even got it for the nation through Obama.

It is Mitts ability as an executive that scares me the most. Obama is stupid IMHO but not Mitt. If only Mitts heart were conservative it would be great but it it not. The pre 2005 liberal moderate Mitt is the Real Mitt.

Steveangell on February 14, 2012 at 7:59 PM

The Pennsylvania Republican will “be defined by two things,” the [Romney] advisor said.

What, Santorum is suddenly “He who cannot be named” in the Romney camp? It’s stupid to refer to your leading opponent as “the Pennsylvania Republican” as if the idiots propping up Romney are so above the fray they don’t even know who is running against the Obama-like Mr. Romney. It comes off as elitist as the candidate himself.

A much more human way of doing this would be for the staffer to explain how the Romney campaign would be for them to explain that Governor Romney differs from Senator Santorum in these key areas…… Or…. voters should be concerned about these aspects of Senator Santorum’s record [insert aspects] and here is why Governor Romney is the better choice…….

But to repeatedly call Santorum the Pennsylvania Republican is absurd.

Happy Nomad on February 14, 2012 at 7:59 PM

God you’re a moron. And if that 11% had voted for Angle, she would have won. Point is the super duper extreme radical Angle won indies and she lost because RINOs didn’t vote for her.

angryed on February 14, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Classy as always. Can you try to avoid that sort of childish name-calling when replying to me? Thank you.

She didn’t win because the margin with Indies was too small, 4% with that electorate was bizarre. Reid’s margin with Rs was normal. In fact, 11% of the republicans voted for Reid… as well as 18% of conservatives. So your RINO theory is a bit odd – it was the other way around. The most telling number is that Angle only won college graduates by 2% – Reid won non-college graduates by 12. In a midterm in Nevada, that’s just awful. Republicans can’t win in these states without the votes from the middle-class-to-wealthy suburbs.

I don’t think Angle’s problem was being radical or extreme. Rand Paul or Mike Lee didn’t have any problems with that narrative. The problem was that she’s a nutty who believes in e-mail chains about black helicopters or the sharia law plus wouldn’t shut up about non-economic issues – which lead to those college educated whites voting republican at a much lower proportion than expected.

joana on February 14, 2012 at 8:00 PM

I thought the Ad was good. I hope he just goes positive from now on. Leave it to those nasty PACs to point out Santorums record in Washington and lack of executive leadership.

Natebo on February 14, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Wait, no puppy! Romney needs a puppy to show how much of a regular guy he is!!

(Just make sure he has the puppy in the car with him, not in a pet carrier strapped to the top of the car…)

tom on February 14, 2012 at 8:00 PM

I know that fact. Why exactly would I refute it? I have no idea what’s the point you’re trying to make. I mean, Sarah Palin? Did I mention her? Are you sure you wanted to reply to me?

joana on February 14, 2012 at 6:48 PM

You were asked to acknowledge that Sarah Palin’s family was union based; her parents were teachers and her husband and brothers were Union, and remain union members.

Thank you for your reply.

You are now dismissed.

Key West Reader on February 14, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Again, I think you wanted to quote to someone else/are confusing me with someone else. I don’t think I even mentioned Sarah Palin.

joana on February 14, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Santorum doesn’t have “different” executive experience – he NO executive experience.

Santorum is further wrong when he asserts that, “we aren’t electing a CEO.” As a matter of fact, we are. The president is the chief executive authority in the nation – as written in Article II of the Constitution.

Wrong, Rick.

matthew8787 on February 14, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Ultimately, I really doubt Romney’s executive experience will help him that much. It would be different if his executive experience was of accomplishing conservative goals, but it wasn’t.

tom on February 14, 2012 at 7:51 PM

You would be wrong.

At 20 years old Romney became Co-President of the French Mission when the Presidents wife was killed in an auto accident. Mitt suceeded in every executive position he had. Doing that at 20 was impressive. The Gays thought they had little chance of Civil Unions Mitt got them Gay Marriage. Ted Kennedy saw no path to Government run insurance Mitt got that and even got it for the nation through Obama.

It is Mitts ability as an executive that scares me the most. Obama is stupid IMHO but not Mitt. If only Mitts heart were conservative it would be great but it it not. The pre 2005 liberal moderate Mitt is the Real Mitt.

Steveangell on February 14, 2012 at 7:59 PM

I get that all Mitt accomplished was liberal goals. And it’s an excellent point that he gave the liberals things that they wanted, but couldn’t get from the liberal politicians. Kind of like how Nixon gave the environmentalists the EPA, and gave the Keynesians wage and price controls.

I still missed the part where Romney accomplished conservative goals as an executive.

What good is an effective executive who keeps accomplishing the wrong things?

tom on February 14, 2012 at 8:04 PM

I don’t think Angle’s problem was being radical or extreme. Rand Paul or Mike Lee didn’t have any problems with that narrative. The problem was that she’s a nutty who believes in e-mail chains about black helicopters or the sharia law plus wouldn’t shut up about non-economic issues – which lead to those college educated whites voting republican at a much lower proportion than expected.

joana on February 14, 2012 at 8:00 PM

WH

Key West Reader on February 14, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Seriously, would you buy a used car from this guy? Romney is a ridiculous as obama.

Pork-Chop on February 14, 2012 at 8:06 PM

The problem was that she’s a nutty who believes in e-mail chains about black helicopters or the sharia law plus wouldn’t shut up about non-economic issues – which lead to those college educated whites voting republican at a much lower proportion than expected.

joana on February 14, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Come on.

Splain it to us lucy!

Key West Reader on February 14, 2012 at 8:07 PM

The problem was that she’s a nutty who believes in e-mail chains about black helicopters or the sharia law plus wouldn’t shut up about non-economic issues – which lead to those college educated whites voting republican at a much lower proportion than expected.

joana on February 14, 2012 at 8:00 PM

H.E.H.

You mad?

Key West Reader on February 14, 2012 at 8:10 PM

People like Palin though never had that luxury, so Romney shouldn’t get it either.

ddrintn on February 14, 2012 at 5:18 PM

People like Palin didn’t have the courage to even run. Plus, it’s very telling that you’re equating the attacks on Romney in a primary with the attacks on Palin during a general election.

joana on February 14, 2012 at 5:25 PM

How about attacks on Palin when she wasn’t running for anything?

/This is your brain on Mittdrugs

tom on February 14, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Santorum will have a tough time running on the deficit considering his record as a senator.

Looking at his record, can anyone name a single accomplishment where Santorum was on the right side of the public debt/government deficit issue? He’s always been spend, borrow, spend, borrow and spend some more.

joana on February 14, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Point man on welfare reform in the Senate. Helped produce a balanced budget in the Clinton administration.

Romney’s problem is that it’s hard to convince people he’s a conservative, when we can see he’s not.

tom on February 14, 2012 at 8:15 PM

One thing I will say about csdeven, she has been consistent in her support of Mitt, for years…the shame is she is doing what others are paid to do.

right2bright on February 14, 2012 at 5:29 PM

That’s a she? Didn’t know that.

angryed on February 14, 2012 at 5:32 PM

She is a proud military Mom.

Except when she he is a proud military Dad.

Which I think is on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

I would be certain of it if I were more obsessive.

tom on February 14, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Mitt should have a dog riding on top of the car.

BHO Jonestown on February 14, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Mitt should have a dog riding on top of the car.

BHO Jonestown on February 14, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Crack Me Up. LOL

SparkPlug on February 14, 2012 at 8:23 PM

How about attacks on Palin when she wasn’t running for anything?

tom on February 14, 2012 at 8:12 PM

They were a disgrace, that’s why I defended her.

Point man on welfare reform in the Senate.

tom on February 14, 2012 at 8:15 PM

You’re talking about the deal Dole&Santorum cut with Clinton and the Democrats killing the efforts of the conservative wing of the GOP to pass a true welfare reform?

Do you remember how that deal was received by movement conservatives?

If that makes Santorum a conservative, Dole was Reagan on steroids.

joana on February 14, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Conservatives are consolidating around Santorum.

Mitt is lapping toilet water out of the bowl.

SparkPlug on February 14, 2012 at 8:23 PM

joana has Mitt for brains.

SparkPlug on February 14, 2012 at 8:24 PM

joana has Mitt for brains.

SparkPlug on February 14, 2012 at 8:24 PM

hey that was a unilateral, unprovoked, illegal, preemptive, attack without UN approval.

SparkPlug on February 14, 2012 at 8:26 PM

But Reagan had 4-5 core beliefs and didn’t run against Carter. He ran for himself and to right the land. The rest followed, 44 states, and then 49 in the next round.

Why would anyone wish to follow Obama or Romney?

Schadenfreude on February 14, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Other than the abortion issue none of Reagan’s stances were social. He fought against communism, sought a simpler tax code that got rid of special exemptions, and return of American power.

Tater Salad on February 14, 2012 at 5:46 PM

War on drugs?

Reagan was strongly supported by social conservatives, and wildly vilified for his support from Moral Majority. He also was planning on eliminating the Department of Education, which was another thing social conservatives really liked.

The thing is, there was no great divide between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, nor should there be.

Romney, like McCain before him, has dismissed social conservatives as unworthy of attention. I don’t expect it to work out for him any better than it did for McCain.

You don’t win elections by treating the base with contempt.

tom on February 14, 2012 at 8:35 PM

She is a proud military Mom.

Except when she he is a proud military Dad.

Which I think is on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

I would be certain of it if I were more obsessive.

tom on February 14, 2012 at 8:20 PM

And except when he or she is being bluegill. I don’t believe bluegill has any offspring (yet).

cynccook on February 14, 2012 at 8:39 PM

joana has Mitt for brains.

SparkPlug on February 14, 2012 at 8:24 PM

hey that was a unilateral, unprovoked, illegal, preemptive, attack without UN approval.

SparkPlug on February 14, 2012 at 8:26 PM

wow, you are basically talking to yourself now and replying to your own posts…I am pretty sure this pathology has a name…

jimver on February 14, 2012 at 8:39 PM

right2bright, you wonder why folks get nasty? It’s bullsh!t like you. You can bitch all you want about Romney’s religion. How would folks react if we started talking about catholicism like you constantly whine about mormonism? See, thats why ALL conservative should whine about people like you. You’re a leftie that is too stupid to know you’re a leftie. I couldn’t care less about magic underwear, transubstitution, snake handling, papists, or who’s Jesus is better- it’s about the rights of all Americans to take part in our great experiment. You see everything through your view of who you think is God’s favorite. Hey, howsabout you let God figure that out? Shut up and debate using salient facts

drballard on February 14, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Oh, my, the resident Mormon decides to attack…as usual.
You mean get nasty like csdeven saying she wonders where Jesus hangs his skin suit when he is God? You mean that kind of nasty?
You can’t say anything about Catholicisim (btw, I always respect the religion by capitalizing it) that hasn’t been said…I attack the fools who attack me and my religion.
You can’t be “indignant” when you are part of the fight…I never called you any names, you seem a little uptight:

Oh, by the way right2bright, f@ck you and the horse you rode in on.

You only see what you want to see:

As much as I bash the originators of the Mormon faith, one still must judge a movement by their results…and the Mormon’s have done tremendous work in our society…along with teaching Christian’s that it doesn’t come easy, you have to study the word…steel sharpens steel.
There are few more faithful to their religion as Mormon’s and as individuals I have great respect, great admiration…and indeed I think Mitt would be a great VP, a great cabinet member, I have said that even during his last campaign. He had to prove himself, and he has not…but we all have faults, I want him in an advisory role because of his experience and obviously brilliant intellect…but he is not ready to be the most powerful leader in the world.

right2bright on February 14, 2012 at 11:41 AM

I have been consistent, my son’s best man was a Mormon at his wedding, he is like a son to me…he and his family converted to Christianity not long ago, but regardless, before that we had a great and loving relationship, since he was 7 years old…I choose who to attack, I attack mean people, and you are mean spirited, and you do not represent your faith with any dignity, therefore you are fair game.

Csdeven humiliated my Lord, and you expect us Christians to allow that? You think you can attack and not have us defend ourselves? Is that what they teach you in your stake? You can say whatever you like, and than hide behind some kind of made up indignation?

Yeah, go ahead and try to sell that I am a liberal, tell that to Illario Pantano, I was one of his top money raisers last election…tell that to the Republican party here in NC.
Your hatred for Christians shows through each of your posting as you falsely accuse me of things I have never done or am…but you are right about one thing, I don’t care what faith someone is, when they are deny their faith, like you and Mitt, than you are a detriment to a honorable faithful people and you should be called out for it.

right2bright on February 14, 2012 at 8:39 PM

You don’t win elections by treating the base with contempt.

tom on February 14, 2012 at 8:35 PM

but we all know that you win them by treating moderates and indies with contempt…

jimver on February 14, 2012 at 8:41 PM

The best approach to use against Santorum is that he is not a real conservative on most economic issues, specifically including tax rates, and advocates special tax treatment for select industries. Rick is certainly no supply sider.

matthew8787 on February 14, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Santorum supported tax cuts to stimulate the economy. Romney opposed them.

Looks like Santorum is a supply sider, and Romney is not.

Here’s the problem Romney is going to have attacking Santorum. Romney’s record is always worse.

And it’s going to be very, very hard to hide that fact.

tom on February 14, 2012 at 8:45 PM

cynccook on February 14, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Surprise, surprise. Actually no surprise there. Is that mean?

Bmore on February 14, 2012 at 8:46 PM

I figured Romney had a driver not driving himself. Only the little people like most of us drive our own cars. So now he says Santorum has no experience? I think being a Senator in DC to know how Congress works did pretty well for getting Obama elected.

Santorum is not tied to K street like Romney either where Romney holds fundraisers with lobbyists. Who is the insider? Someone who gets donations from the K Street lobbyists or someone who served in the Senate? I would rather have a Senator then someone beholding to the K Street lobbyists and Wall Street where Romney is getting his money just like Obama.

PhiKapMom on February 14, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Santorum is not tied to K street like Romney either where Romney holds fundraisers with lobbyists. Who is the insider? Someone who gets donations from the K Street lobbyists or someone who served in the Senate? I would rather have a Senator then someone beholding to the K Street lobbyists and Wall Street where Romney is getting his money just like Obama.

PhiKapMom on February 14, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Hahaha, so funny.

Are you aware that Santorum is a lobbyist? I mean, it’s the man’s job.

Plus, have you ever heard of the K-Street project and Santorum’s role in it?

joana on February 14, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Judging from a page I saw at the “Daily Paul”, Ron Paul doesn’t like Santorum very much. I wonder if he’ll run ads against him in Michigan:)

Buy Danish on February 14, 2012 at 8:55 PM

mountainaires on February 14, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Your concern is almost … breathtaking.

tom on February 14, 2012 at 8:55 PM

jimver on February 14, 2012 at 8:41 PM

jimver, I thought we reserved contempt for the liberals. Did I miss something?

Bmore on February 14, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Go 25% RINO Santorum 2012!!!! Man… Copy & Paste is so easy too…

U bet… With all the RINO’s left in the race… Got to go with the least RINO of them all… I’ll take a 25% RINO over a self described “progressive & moderate” democrat any day…

Santorum – Social Conservative about 25% RINO but constant with his views… And would give Obama a great fight on ORomneyCare & Religious freedoms…

Gingrich – 50% RINO with to much baggage & ready to mimic liberal dogma if it helps him win…

Paul – Talks a great monetary game but has a blind spot the size of a 777 when it comes to keeping us safe at home… And now seems to be a shill for Romney… He will attack Newt & Santorum but Mitten’s is fine by him…

Romney – I don’t want to offend RINO’s by calling Romney one… Romney’s core values shift by location & by goal… He is build on the same mold as Kerry… He will wait for the dust to settle before he will give u his opinion on something… Just ask the House in 2011′s debt ceiling debate… The only thing he will severely support & protect to the death is MANDATES….

No one can say that Mittens is to the right of Santorum or Newt on anything… He has never been… They only way one can believe that is if u discard everything & anything he did in MA as Gov.

He is a car salesman trying to sell u a car that no one has ever seen…. I will severely vote for Sweet Asteroid of death before I vote for ORomneyCare Salesman…

Y314K on February 14, 2012 at 8:58 PM

jimver, I thought we reserved contempt for the liberals. Did I miss something?

Bmore on February 14, 2012 at 8:56 PM

you didn’t actually, I did…the sarc tag :-)…

jimver on February 14, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Point man on welfare reform in the Senate.

tom on February 14, 2012 at 8:15 PM

You’re talking about the deal Dole&Santorum cut with Clinton and the Democrats killing the efforts of the conservative wing of the GOP to pass a true welfare reform?

Do you remember how that deal was received by movement conservatives?

If that makes Santorum a conservative, Dole was Reagan on steroids.

joana on February 14, 2012 at 8:23 PM

I’m talking about the only welfare reform like it ever passed in the history of the nation.

You can always find some group disappointed because they wanted more. But Clinton vetoed it 3 separate times before he signed it.

Did Romney ever do anything half as conservative?

Don’t bother answering. The tragedy is that we already know the answer.

tom on February 14, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Gawd,I almost thought Mittens was going to have The Cars playing in the background in da video ad!!

canopfor on February 14, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Are you aware that Santorum is a lobbyist? I mean, it’s the man’s job.

joana on February 14, 2012 at 8:54 PM

He is? Could you provide a link proving that he is a registered lobbyist?

Thanks, I just know you would never lie to make a point…you are always so sure of your facts, that I will assume that if he is not registered you were purposely lying about Rick.

right2bright on February 14, 2012 at 9:09 PM

You don’t win elections by treating the base with contempt.

tom on February 14, 2012 at 8:35 PM

but we all know that you win them by treating moderates and indies with contempt…

jimver on February 14, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Most do it by securing their base first, then reaching out to moderates and independents where they can find common ground.

Then we have those who want to skip that whole “securing the base” business and jump straight to trying to win moderates and independents.

AKA, losers.

Such as Dole and McCain. And soon, Romney.

tom on February 14, 2012 at 9:10 PM

jimver on February 14, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Cool, I was worried for just a second. Lol

Bmore on February 14, 2012 at 9:10 PM

I have not read thru the comments to see if this has been asked.

Does anyone know of Mitt’s old address in MI and the price of the house he grew up in?

Some commenter at AoS once proposed a meetup where every commenter buys a house just to have a block party.

I would be so down for something like that if I did not have to pay the back property taxes to the city for my $25 house.

F15Mech on February 14, 2012 at 9:10 PM

I’m talking about the only welfare reform like it ever passed in the history of the nation.

You can always find some group disappointed because they wanted more. But Clinton vetoed it 3 separate times before he signed it.

Did Romney ever do anything half as conservative?

Don’t bother answering. The tragedy is that we already know the answer.

tom on February 14, 2012 at 9:06 PM

I’m talking about Santorum, not Romney. But maybe you can ask that to Santorum: he thinks Romney was a great conservative. I’d say that Romney’s hundreds of vetoes on spending bills are certainly more reassuring than Santorum’s hundreds of votes for spending bills. But maybe that’s just me.

Btw, what was your opinion of Dole? He was the author of that welfare reform compromise with the left with Santorum and he was more conservative than Santorum on unions, right-to-work, earmarks, trade, medicare, etc.

joana on February 14, 2012 at 9:14 PM

The only thing romneycare is good at is strapping is dog Seamus in a carrier on top of his car for 12 hours on a trip from Boston to freakin Canada, then seeing brown liquid rolling down the window, pulling into a gas station, hosing down the car, the carrier and the dog. Then strapping the dog back on top of the car.

True story. If Romneycare was going 65MPH for 12 hours I don’t know how his dog didn’t die. I hope the dog got back at him and took a dump on him.

Not only is romneycare a socialist, he’s inhumane!

Danielvito on February 14, 2012 at 9:14 PM

True story. If Romneycare was going 65MPH for 12 hours I don’t know how his dog didn’t die. I hope the dog got back at him and took a dump on him.

Not only is romneycare a socialist, he’s inhumane!

Danielvito on February 14, 2012 at 9:14 PM

But the dog did survive and dogs have been subjected to much worse with no effects when they travel to the North Pole.

F15Mech on February 14, 2012 at 9:28 PM

earlgrey133 on February 14, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Bleak in Michigan? Where the heck were you, Highland Park in February? I can show you places in my state 10 months out of the year that rival anything in the U.S.

8 weight on February 14, 2012 at 9:29 PM

I’m talking about the only welfare reform like it ever passed in the history of the nation.

You can always find some group disappointed because they wanted more. But Clinton vetoed it 3 separate times before he signed it.

Did Romney ever do anything half as conservative?

tom

Yes, he did. He signed Romneycare. Didn’t you know that’s one of the most conservative pieces of legislation ever passed? Plus, he supports a minimum wage that rises automatically. Also conservative, apparently.

Santorum, on the other hand, only voted to increase the minimum wage a few times allegedly, and he voted for Greenspan, a Reagan appointee. These two things make him just like Obama, lol.

xblade on February 14, 2012 at 9:30 PM

I’m talking about the only welfare reform like it ever passed in the history of the nation.

You can always find some group disappointed because they wanted more. But Clinton vetoed it 3 separate times before he signed it.

Did Romney ever do anything half as conservative?

Don’t bother answering. The tragedy is that we already know the answer.

tom on February 14, 2012 at 9:06 PM

I’m talking about Santorum, not Romney. But maybe you can ask that to Santorum: he thinks Romney was a great conservative. I’d say that Romney’s hundreds of vetoes on spending bills are certainly more reassuring than Santorum’s hundreds of votes for spending bills. But maybe that’s just me.

Btw, what was your opinion of Dole? He was the author of that welfare reform compromise with the left with Santorum and he was more conservative than Santorum on unions, right-to-work, earmarks, trade, medicare, etc.

joana on February 14, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Since Santorum was actually a member of the legislature that was responsible for passing a budget — you know, where you decide what to spend, this is about as stacked a “comparison” as you can contrive.

But you have to contrive and cherry-pick. It’s the only way to try to pass Romney off as what everyone knows he isn’t.

Santorum cut taxes. Romney raised taxes by calling them fees. Romney distanced himself from conservatives in Congress, and from Reagan, but now tries to pretend he was one all along.

Romney’s pandering to abortion by pretending to be pro-life, then pretending to convert to pro-life when he wanted to run outside of Massachusetts was disgusting. It is also of a piece with this campaign to spin Romney as more conservative than actual conservatives who accomplished actual conservative goals.

Hillary Clinton couldn’t pass HillaryCare for all he was worth.

Obama only did it by the barest of majorities, taking in 10 years of revenue to 6 years of payouts so he could pretend it was revenue-neutral, and then pushing it as a budget reconciliation so he could bypass the Senate filibuster.

But Romney did it outright.

Yet here you are pushing Romney as so much more conservative than Santorum or Gingrich.

You’re taking on the same characteristics as Romney himself. And I don’t trust you any more than I do Romney.

You want an argument to vote for Romney? I’m seeing more and more reasons why Obama is less objectionable. And I never thought that could happen.

tom on February 14, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Yes, he did. He signed Romneycare. Didn’t you know that’s one of the most conservative pieces of legislation ever passed? Plus, he supports a minimum wage that rises automatically. Also conservative, apparently.

Santorum, on the other hand, only voted to increase the minimum wage a few times allegedly, and he voted for Greenspan, a Reagan appointee. These two things make him just like Obama, lol.

xblade on February 14, 2012 at 9:30 PM

The voice of reason. You have pulled me back from the brink.

All Hail Lord Romney!!

tom on February 14, 2012 at 9:33 PM

karenhasfreedom on February 14, 2012 at 7:39 PM

I’m disappointed Pete is taking that ad down. The truth hurts Dummy Stabenow apparently. Pete needs to increase name recognition on my side of the state and that ad was doing just that.

8 weight on February 14, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Does anyone know of Mitt’s old address in MI and the price of the house he grew up in?
F15Mech on February 14, 2012 at 9:10 PM

His childhood home in Palmer Park, a formerly ritzy area of Detroit, was torn down about 2 years ago. Houses in Detroit used to be glorious.

8 weight on February 14, 2012 at 9:42 PM

tom on February 14, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Great analysis Tom.

8 weight on February 14, 2012 at 9:43 PM

I want him in an advisory role because of his experience and obviously brilliant intellect…but he is not ready to be the most powerful leader in the world.

right2bright on February 14, 2012 at 11:41 AM

I’d be a bit more reserved about the ‘most powerful leader in the world’…probably even less so in the next 4-12 years…but then I guess it depends what the yardstick is…But, apart from that, I am just curious, if Mitt with his experience and brilliant intellect (your words, not mine) could only be a VP or an advisor, because, according to you, he is not ready to be POTUS (not sure what you mean by that)…then who is? ready that is, from the current GOP field…I shall ad that my question is mostly rhetorical, yet curious as for what your answer might be…

jimver on February 14, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Does anyone know of Mitt’s old address in MI and the price of the house he grew up in?
F15Mech on February 14, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Romney was not a child of the coal mines. His dad did not work on an assembly line at one of the big three in Detroit.

I have no problem with candidates for office who are among the elite. The jug-eared traitor in charge now never attended public schools (except for when he was in Indonesia and supposedly a Muslim). Romney grew up as the son of an automotive industry executive and popular governor of Michigan. Past is not prologue. Romney has to defend himself despite the fact he grew up in a world most of us were barred from.

Happy Nomad on February 14, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Our country faces problems with the effects of decades of largesse from the federal treasury and ever-increasing federal regulations that combine to oppressively burden the taxpayer at the same time the taxpaying base is aging and shrinking. These threaten to bankrupt the country. At the same time, standards of personal morality, integrity, and civilized behavior have been steadily declining as long as I have been watching. Our current chief executive, with the compliance and consent of Congress and trample the Constitutions as much as he dares and can get away with while promising yet more taxes and more regulation, as enforcement of existing laws and regulations becomes more lax and more selective.

Romney is not my ideal candidate and his political beliefs are not as conservative as mine, but then, neither were Ronald Reagan’s. Based on what I have seen of Romney since I first became aware of him about 30 years ago, I do believe he is better qualified to be President than anyone else running this cycle.

The behavior of some of Romney supporters here (and elsewhere) it not to their, or their candidate’s credit. That being said, the strength and venom of the “Anybody But Romney” faction here bothers me. There is a great deal of hatred expressed here for Romney’s supporters, who are regularly derided as “mittbots” and accused of being paid shills and worse as if no one who calls himself conservative could possibly genuinely support Romney in preference to either Gingrich or Santorum. Perhaps I should not be dismayed, but I am.

Confutus on February 14, 2012 at 10:27 PM

Confutus on February 14, 2012 at 10:27 PM

Nah, I wouldn’t spend too much time on it. Just call the really hateful ones out when ever and where ever you see them.

Bmore on February 14, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5