Republicans in Washington need to stop acting like Democrats, says … Mitt Romney

posted at 9:00 pm on February 16, 2012 by Tina Korbe

It was a veiled swipe at Rick Santorum and a bit rich coming from him, but Mitt Romney is right: Republicans in Washington do need to stop acting like Democrats.

At the business roundtable in Monroe, Romney did not mention surging rival Rick Santorum at the roundtable, but his critique echoed the charges he’s been leveling at Santorum in their pitched battle to win the Feb. 28 primary in the state where Romney grew up.

When the GOP held majorities on Capitol Hill, he said, “Republicans started earmarking like crazy. Republicans spent too much money, way above the rate of inflation. Republicans didn’t send programs back to the states. Republicans didn’t eliminate programs, we added programs. We were doing exactly what the Democrats have done. And we can’t keep doing that.”

He had to ruin it, though, with this:

By contrast, said Romney, “I’m going to Washington not as the next step in my political career, because I don’t have a political career. My life was spent in the private sector.” He said he would make Midwestern states, including his home state of Michigan and neighboring Ohio, into destinations for entrepreneurship and innovation.

Come again? I knew Mitt Romney was running on his private-sector experience — situational competence and all that — but I didn’t know he now claims he hasn’t had a political career. What was his 2008 campaign then? His run as the governor of Massachusetts? His bid for the Senate?

Yuck. He’d be better off to stick to his reminder to voters that Republicans have betrayed conservatives in the past and they’re liable to do so again. Then again, that also just reminds voters that his all-purpose excuse for his every past misstep is, “But, but — I was the governor of Massachusetts.”

The bigger question (and my exit question) is this: What will it take for Republicans in Washington to act like Republicans — or, better yet, conservatives?


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

Is alternate universe Santorum looking in people’s bedrooms?

batterup on February 16, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Naaa Santorumnate wouldnt be looking into peoples bedrooms. Plus he’d be dressed in pink and looking absolutely fabulous.

Sultanofsham on February 16, 2012 at 9:52 PM

On Hannity’s radio show today, Santorum talked about his vote in favor of NCLB. He said he was sorry that he voted for it,but that it was Bush’s big signature program, and he thought that he should support it for that reason.

Leadership and principled conservatism in action.

Priscilla on February 16, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Bluray on February 16, 2012 at 9:20 PM

So? The guy made all his own money… outside Washington, even giving his inheritance away. And he’s NEVER voted to increase the national debt ceiling in order to spend more of OUR money.

Murf76 on February 16, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Republicans and conservatives are only using each other. And they are both doing it wrong.

Cindy Munford on February 16, 2012 at 9:56 PM

I am now convinced, more than ever before, that there are people here that don’t want Obama to lose. They would rather have someone who is pure (as if anyone running is pure) than win the election. It is recipe for disaster. Romney is a perfectly acceptable candidate. It appears he would be the strongest candidate against Obama. However, people here are at pains to distance themselves from Romney even when he says something that needs to be said. There are people here that are still defending Gingrich despite the fact that the American people have made it clear, they won’t vote for him because of his obvious flaws. Santorum, who is a nice guy but seems to be running more for class President rather than President of the US, has a world of difficulties should he be the nominee. There was a reason he lost by 18 points in PA in 2006. His social views are simply unacceptable to independent voters who are critical to the ability to beat Obama. Furthermore, he not so conservative on economic matters based on his Senate record. It leaves us with Romney and I think people here should lighten up if they really want Obama defeated. Romney may even pick Santorum as his VP which wouldn’t be a bad idea but sooner rather than later in my opinion. The point is stop whining about Romney and focus on the real problem at hand: Obama

jake22 on February 16, 2012 at 9:56 PM

The bigger question (and my exit question) is this: What will it take for Republicans in Washington to act like Republicans — or, better yet, conservatives?

Santorum losing by 10-15% in November?

EricW on February 16, 2012 at 9:59 PM

On Hannity’s radio show today, Santorum talked about his vote in favor of NCLB. He said he was sorry that he voted for it,but that it was Bush’s big signature program, and he thought that he should support it for that reason.

Leadership and principled conservatism in action.

Priscilla on February 16, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Puh-leez! You thought that Bush was a constitutional conservative right along with most of the rest of us, Prissy (and by “the rest of us,” I mean me too).

gryphon202 on February 16, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Romney is a perfectly acceptable candidate.

jake22 on February 16, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Oh. Well. Glad that’s been settled on behalf of all the rest of us, then.

stop whining about Romney

Rich, creamy irony. Like nougat!

Kent18 on February 16, 2012 at 10:02 PM

And he’s NEVER voted to increase the national debt ceiling in order to spend more of OUR money.

Murf76 on February 16, 2012 at 9:55 PM

No, but the country had to borrow the cash to fund his earmarks and give Massachusetts their RomneyCare subsidy.

flyfisher on February 16, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Actually, it is the Romney people that are like flies. A new batch every day. The people who do not like Romney are much more likely to have been commenting on this site for years, daily.

astonerii on February 16, 2012 at 9:32 PM

So….I’ve been a member long before Michelle left…Oh and I like Romney and comment as many like me have.. See. Already you don’t know what you’re talking about.

rich801 on February 16, 2012 at 10:03 PM

On Hannity’s radio show today, Santorum talked about his vote in favor of NCLB. He said he was sorry that he voted for it,but that it was Bush’s big signature program, and he thought that he should support it for that reason.

Leadership and principled conservatism in action.

Priscilla on February 16, 2012 at 9:53 PM

At least he admitted he made a mistake unlike Romney and his huge mistake = Romneycare.

JPeterman on February 16, 2012 at 10:05 PM

Priscilla on February 16, 2012 at 9:53 PM

I thought y’all loved good loyal party guys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuFe9_BCvXY

Cindy Munford on February 16, 2012 at 10:05 PM

And out comes the Romney haters…….Like flies to honey.

rich801 on February 16, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Don’t you mean bees?

idesign on February 16, 2012 at 9:29 PM

No.

rich801 on February 16, 2012 at 10:05 PM

The MittBots sure are thin-skinned.

SparkPlug on February 16, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Heh. Remind you of anyone else?

Lanceman on February 16, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Newt?

SparkPlug on February 16, 2012 at 10:06 PM

jake22 on February 16, 2012 at 9:56 PM

So, shut up and back Gov. Romney is you message?

Cindy Munford on February 16, 2012 at 10:06 PM

devastating: RICK SANTORUM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBAMACARE // ROMNEY WORKED TO FIGHT IT

Drunk Report on February 16, 2012 at 9:09 PM

DO BOT CLICK THIS NUT. I did by mistake and got a worm that froze my computer.

katy the mean old lady on February 16, 2012 at 10:07 PM

On Hannity’s radio show today, Santorum talked about his vote in favor of NCLB. He said he was sorry that he voted for it,but that it was Bush’s big signature program, and he thought that he should support it for that reason.

Leadership and principled conservatism in action.

Priscilla on February 16, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Uh. Ted Kennedy’s signature program. Santorum knew that, even if you (we) didn’t.

egmont on February 16, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Romney is a perfectly acceptable candidate. It appears he would be the strongest candidate against Obama.

jake22 on February 16, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Yeah the Realclear Politics average sure shows that, or maybe not. 2.3 difference? I’m not seeing it.

Sultanofsham on February 16, 2012 at 10:09 PM

Actually, it is the Romney people that are like flies. A new batch every day. The people who do not like Romney are much more likely to have been commenting on this site for years, daily.

astonerii on February 16, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Good news for Romney if he has a new batch of supporters everyday here, people are finally wising up.

1984 in real life on February 16, 2012 at 10:09 PM

Come again? I knew Mitt Romney was running on his private-sector experience — situational competence and all that — but I didn’t know he now claims he hasn’t had a political career. What was his 2008 campaign then? His run as the governor of Massachusetts? His bid for the Senate?

Tina, you didn’t know that 1994 didn’t happen? That 2008 didn’t happen? That he was never Governor of Massachusetts (in fact, Massachusetts is just a figment of our imagination)? That he hasn’t been running for President since God was in gade school? You are supposed to only remember that he was a businessman.

Bitter Clinger on February 16, 2012 at 10:09 PM

gade=grade

My fat fingers

Bitter Clinger on February 16, 2012 at 10:10 PM

katy the mean old lady on February 16, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Thanks for the heads up.

Cindy Munford on February 16, 2012 at 10:12 PM

I am now convinced, more than ever before, that there are people here that don’t want Obama to lose.

I certainly don’t want Obama, but Romney has to start relaying the conservative message much better.

Romney is a perfectly acceptable candidate. It appears he would be the strongest candidate against Obama. However, people here are at pains to distance themselves from Romney even when he says something that needs to be said.

jake22 on February 16, 2012 at 9:56 PM

And again, he needs to start relaying the conservative message of ” a white guy who is looking after every penny and dime.” Everything else is nonsense and everyone knows it.

Obama is a spendthrift and needs to go in November.

I had to laugh tonight when I saw that GM just made record profits and is passing out bonus’s, all on the backs of the US taxpayer. If they had to pay the money back they owe, they’d still be a loser. Same with Chrysler. They still owe the money to the US taxpayer DESPITE what the lame stream media would have us believe.

DevilsPrinciple on February 16, 2012 at 10:12 PM

It appears he would be the strongest candidate against Obama.

jake22 on February 16, 2012 at 9:56 PM

… or… well… NOT, actually:

But it’s harder for Mr. Romney to make a case on electability when his favorability ratings are net-negative with the electorate as a whole and with independent voters specifically.

Kent18 on February 16, 2012 at 10:13 PM

It appears he would be the strongest candidate against Obama.

jake22 on February 16, 2012 at 9:56 PM

What are you looking at?

egmont on February 16, 2012 at 10:16 PM

I don’t know if Romney is stronger against Obama. I know that is what the talking heads and other Romney supporters are saying. Maybe they are right, or not. I don’t think they have any better predictive powers than the rest of us. Rather than tell me what perspective they want me to believe, why don’t these elite –gasp, even GOP elite– commentators and all, just give me the facts and let me make up my own damn mind who is more electable or not.

Please note: The last time we listened to the talking heads about who should be the nominee and why they are better in the general over a more principled candidate, we got McCain, and Dole. Two huge losers.

Weebork on February 16, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Good news for Romney if he has a new batch of supporters everyday here, people are finally wising up.

1984 in real life on February 16, 2012 at 10:09 PM

Nothing says support like paydays.

astonerii on February 16, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Uh. Ted Kennedy’s signature program. Santorum knew that, even if you (we) didn’t.

egmont on February 16, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Damn straight I knew it. But Bush took it and ran with it, maybe you didn’t know? In any case, I’m just saying what I heard Senator Rick say. He neglected to mention Teddy.

Priscilla on February 16, 2012 at 10:28 PM

I read the title, saw the picture, and instantly thought …

HYPOCRITE!

DannoJyd on February 16, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Nothing says support like paydays.

astonerii on February 16, 2012 at 10:24 PM

CAUSE HE’S SO RICH AMIRITE? GOP 2012 – We have class warfare now too!

1984 in real life on February 16, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Damn straight I knew it.
Priscilla on February 16, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Yep. #1 reason after DHS that I lost all faith in Bush.

egmont on February 16, 2012 at 10:36 PM

We don’t want no one with stupid private sector experience. We want a career politician!

EddieC on February 16, 2012 at 10:40 PM

And out comes the Romney haters…….Like flies to honey.

rich801 on February 16, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Don’t you mean bees?

idesign on February 16, 2012 at 9:29 PM
No.

rich801 on February 16, 2012 at 10:05 PM

W A S P S !

KOOLAID2 on February 16, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Romney needs to quit acting like a Republican.

The weasel has no shame.

they lie on February 16, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Name calling? Sounds more like a liberal talking point.

rich801 on February 16, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Yeah! Be nicer to weasels.

29Victor on February 16, 2012 at 11:10 PM

So says the guy who’s signature accomplishment was the blueprint that the Dems used to ruin our country.

RedRobin145 on February 16, 2012 at 11:20 PM

A survey by match.com finds that conservatives have better sex.

The people who are likely to resort to the web to find a partner would be conservatives. Just saying.

Isserley on February 16, 2012 at 11:20 PM

*Choke* *Cough* *Cough* Who said that, lol, Willard has a sense of humor.

Anyway, I will vote for him over Obama if he is the nominee. I am sorry to say it people, but you need to understand King Obama is just mandating and creating czars. I don’t care who takes the primary, he needs to go. Even if we keep the House and take the Senate, will spinless hacks in leadership have the nerve to impeach the first black president, I think we all know the answer!

Africanus on February 16, 2012 at 11:29 PM

Come again? I knew Mitt Romney was running on his private-sector experience — situational competence and all that — but I didn’t know he now claims he hasn’t had a political career. What was his 2008 campaign then? His run as the governor of Massachusetts? His bid for the Senate

Liberals lie all of the time. I thought you knew that Tina.

DannoJyd on February 16, 2012 at 11:29 PM

Once a DC insider, always a DC insider

FlaMurph on February 16, 2012 at 11:30 PM

I still don’t get why people consider Romney sort of like a Democrat. Romney care was not a program he dreamed up and instituted. It was an attempt to SCALE BACK a program that was dreamed up and about to be instituted by the legislature that was so popular, he couldn’t stop it. There was no possible way for him to stop it. He at least got them to buy some changes, that was the best he could do.

People act like medical care mandates in Mass. was his idea. The original idea from the legislature was to completely eliminate private health insurance and go with state health insurance. He clobbered that at least and said if they are going to mandate insurance at least give the people a choice of private insurers and not have the government take it over.

He got as much as he could get under the circumstances he was in. An idiot would have vetoed the bill, had the legislature override the veto, and give the state pure government medical care. That would have been a very dumb move. It would have retained his cred as a “conservative” but it would have been worse for the people of Mass. He did the right and “conservative” thing on Romneycare.

crosspatch on February 16, 2012 at 11:38 PM

CAUSE HE’S SO RICH AMIRITE? GOP 2012 – We have class warfare now too!

1984 in real life on February 16, 2012 at 10:36 PM

No, he is creating lots of new temporary low paying jobs, and keeping Hot Air and other web sites in extra advertizing cash.

astonerii on February 16, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Perry, Cain, and Gingrich are wiped out for various weaknesses.

Now it’s likable and well spoken Santorum who is continuing to be the same man he has always was who is the only choice left for the non-Romney wing.

But Romney is harder on Mexicans than Perry.

And Romney has less lust in his heart than Cain.

And Romney runs nastier false ads than Gingrich can deal with.

So what will Mr Cardboard Man have to pretend that pretend he is better at than the Sinister Senator Santorum?

There is always Romney’s hard hearted non-empathy. Oh yeah, and he loses elections while not cracking a third in the GOP polls this year.

jimw on February 17, 2012 at 12:43 AM

jake22 on February 16, 2012 at 9:56 PM

false canard. We’re not seeking pure, we’re seeking 80% or better alignment with our principles. Newt and rick pretty much sit right at 80%. Romney on the other hand sits at about 50 while McVain sits at 10%.

To whit, RomneyCare is worth minus 10%. Indexing minimum wage to inflation by law is worth another minus 5%. By the time I’m done, some of the old school dems rank higher than Mitt.

That simple and the reason he only excites about 25% of the GOP.

AH_C on February 17, 2012 at 12:45 AM

I don’t want to be a wet blanket but I don’t think either man can win. The media is not going to report anything negative about Obambi from now till election. I believe the American people want free goodies and are just too lazy to go out and find work. The parasites outnumber the producers, we need to just focus on the Senate and hold the House. Obama is going to flood the Supreme Court with socialists who will eventually deem the Presidential term limits as unconstitutional. therefore Obama will be in for another 2 or 3 Terms. I hope it won’t happen but this country is full of mindless drones

Conservative4ev on February 17, 2012 at 12:47 AM

I am now convinced, more than ever before, that there are people here that don’t want Obama to lose. They would rather have someone who is pure (as if anyone running is pure) than win the election. It is recipe for disaster.
jake22 on February 16, 2012 at 9:56 PM

I’med afraid that you may be right. Some of these folks have let the success of 2010 go straight to their heads.

ghostwriter on February 17, 2012 at 12:49 AM

false canard. We’re not seeking pure, we’re seeking 80% or better alignment with our principles. Newt and rick pretty much sit right at 80%. Romney on the other hand sits at about 50 while McVain sits at 10%.

To whit, RomneyCare is worth minus 10%. Indexing minimum wage to inflation by law is worth another minus 5%. By the time I’m done, some of the old school dems rank higher than Mitt.

That simple and the reason he only excites about 25% of the GOP.

AH_C on February 17, 2012 at 12:45 AM

Everything that you said may be true, but he will sign the legislation that the Republican congress sends over.

ghostwriter on February 17, 2012 at 12:51 AM

Everything that you said may be true, but he will sign the legislation that the Republican congress sends over.

ghostwriter on February 17, 2012 at 12:51 AM

It’s easy to look valiant when you’re out to get Oboobi, but look at their track record back when Dubya was signing the bills Congress sent. Or how another him never vetoing a bill until his final year an the couple that he did veto were so trite, I can’t even recall them.

You’re putting your faith in boehner and McConnell to send Mittness good bills while he’s out calling for indexing minimum wage.

Or consider this. If SCOTUS upholds ObamneyCare, just what is he going to lead Congress to do? And when he asks for another half trillion to fix holes in our safetynet. As others have noted, when caught unawares by a question that he hasn’t vetted, the first thing that comes out is a liberal response. Nope, I can’t accept a 50%er. Ill have to vote 3rd party or write in a conservative, ie some one like Sarah et al and hope another 30%+ voters feel the same way as I do. That right there will deny a mandate to whoever wins and forces the top to reform or die before 2014.

AH_C on February 17, 2012 at 1:10 AM

The bigger question (and my exit question) is this: What will it take for Republicans in Washington to act like Republicans — or, better yet, conservatives?

Santorum Romney losing by 10-15% in November?

EricW on February 16, 2012 at 9:59 PM

FIFY.

Myron Falwell on February 17, 2012 at 1:18 AM

I’med afraid that you may be right. Some of these folks have let the success of 2010 go straight to their heads.

ghostwriter on February 17, 2012 at 12:49 AM

No, we flat out don’t want the failure of 2008 to revisit itself.

Myron Falwell on February 17, 2012 at 1:29 AM

By contrast, said Romney, “I’m going to Washington not as the next step in my political career, because I don’t have a political career, [because I keep losing elections].

It just had to be said.

tom on February 17, 2012 at 2:25 AM

I still don’t get why people consider Romney sort of like a Democrat. Romney care was not a program he dreamed up and instituted. It was an attempt to SCALE BACK a program that was dreamed up and about to be instituted by the legislature that was so popular, he couldn’t stop it. There was no possible way for him to stop it. He at least got them to buy some changes, that was the best he could do.

People act like medical care mandates in Mass. was his idea. The original idea from the legislature was to completely eliminate private health insurance and go with state health insurance. He clobbered that at least and said if they are going to mandate insurance at least give the people a choice of private insurers and not have the government take it over.

He got as much as he could get under the circumstances he was in. An idiot would have vetoed the bill, had the legislature override the veto, and give the state pure government medical care. That would have been a very dumb move. It would have retained his cred as a “conservative” but it would have been worse for the people of Mass. He did the right and “conservative” thing on Romneycare.

crosspatch on February 16, 2012 at 11:38 PM

So Romney is just like Aaron?

I didn’t make that golden calf for the people to worship. I just threw the gold in the fire, and out came this calf!!

About as plausible.

tom on February 17, 2012 at 2:29 AM

It’s easy to look valiant when you’re out to get Oboobi, but look at their track record back when Dubya was signing the bills Congress sent. Or how another him never vetoing a bill until his final year an the couple that he did veto were so trite, I can’t even recall them.

Spot on.

You’re putting your faith in boehner and McConnell to send Mittness good bills while he’s out calling for indexing minimum wage.

You’re right again. The situation really sucks,

Or consider this. If SCOTUS upholds ObamneyCare, just what is he going to lead Congress to do? And when he asks for another half trillion to fix holes in our safetynet. As others have noted, when caught unawares by a question that he hasn’t vetted, the first thing that comes out is a liberal response.

Yep, I’m still with you; stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Nope, I can’t accept a 50%er. Ill have to vote 3rd party or write in a conservative, ie some one like Sarah et al and hope another 30%+ voters feel the same way as I do. That right there will deny a mandate to whoever wins and forces the top to reform or die before 2014.

AH_C on February 17, 2012 at 1:10 AM

You just lost me. This last paragraph suggests that Jake’s pessimistic view on things might be right. Fifty percent is better than Obama. If we lose this election, I don’t see there being any going back. As it is, rolling back some of these things will be extremely difficult (we’ll probably never get rid of Obamacare in its entirety).

ghostwriter on February 17, 2012 at 4:04 AM

What was his 2008 campaign then? His run as the governor of Massachusetts? His bid for the Senate?

Please Tina, use your crystal ball and tell us what Romney would have done had he won in 94. Would have still run for governor of MA? Would he still be serving in the senate?

Unfortunately for you Tina, the facts of Romney’s record don’t match the imaginary life you have created for him. Romney is a fixer. He started Bain, left and was asked to come back and saved it from failing (salary..$1). He left and saved the Olympics (salary..$0). He then turned around the fiscal problems facing MA (salary $1). He implemented Romneycare as a FISCAL solution (rather than as an experiment in social engineering) to the problem created when Reagan signed EMTALA into law.

In each and every case, Romney did what he went out to do and then left. It is completely rational to believe that had he won the senate in 1994, he would have served and then left. As governor of MA, he solved the issues he set out to solve and then left. The ultimate challenge for him will be to help solve the problems facing America.

So why don’t you knock off the shallow one dimensional evaluations of Romney and start looking at the man for what he is (the most fiscally conservative candidate since Reagan) and not what the Romney haters say he is?

csdeven on February 17, 2012 at 4:05 AM

People act like medical care mandates in Mass. was his idea.

crosspatch on February 16, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Medical care mandates began when Ronaldus Maximus signed EMTALA into law.

The fact the Romney haters choke on is exactly what you said. To put a finer point on it…..Romneycare was not an experiment in social engineering as Obamacare is. But rather was, as you succinctly pointed out, a fiscal solution to a failing liberal experiment in social engineering. Well, there was some social engineering….he wanted all the citizens of MA to take SOME responsibility for their own health care insurance. I think encouraging self reliance (to a small degree) is much better than giving them a handout with no personal responsibility on their part.

csdeven on February 17, 2012 at 4:17 AM

If you want a difference between Mitt and moderate Democrats (at least at the elected level) I can give you one: Mitt will repeal Obamacare.

alchemist19 on February 16, 2012 at 4:10 PM

(we’ll probably never get rid of Obamacare in its entirety).

ghostwriter on February 17, 2012 at 4:04 AM

ROMNEY 2012:
Q: “What are the specifics of my campaign platform?
A: “What day is it today?”

Kent18 on February 17, 2012 at 4:19 AM

ROMNEY 2012:
Q: “What are the specifics of my campaign platform?”
A: “What day is it today?”

Kent18 on February 17, 2012 at 4:19 AM

What precisely did you prove by quoting me selectively as you did?

ghostwriter on February 17, 2012 at 4:32 AM

Medical care mandates began when Ronaldus Maximus signed EMTALA into law.

csdeven on February 17, 2012 at 4:17 AM

Wow! I did not know that, (although I suppose that I should have known…

ghostwriter on February 17, 2012 at 4:35 AM

What precisely did you prove by quoting me selectively as you did?

ghostwriter on February 17, 2012 at 4:32 AM

Evidently, an inability to read for simple context.

Kent18 on February 17, 2012 at 4:35 AM

So why don’t you knock off the shallow one dimensional evaluations of Romney and start looking at the man for what he is (the most fiscally conservative candidate since Reagan) and not what the Romney haters say he is?

csdeven on February 17, 2012 at 4:05 AM

On what basis do you make that assertion?

ghostwriter on February 17, 2012 at 4:37 AM

Evidently, an inability to read for simple context.

Kent18 on February 17, 2012 at 4:35 AM

Yes, on your part, I’m sure.

ghostwriter on February 17, 2012 at 4:38 AM

On what basis do you make that assertion?

ghostwriter on February 17, 2012 at 4:37 AM

I look at what ideology he has used to solve all the problems he has tackled. It is always (so far as I have found) fiscal conservatism.

Our other candidates have supported fiscally conservative issues, but none (except Perry) have ever implemented it as a executive in charge. Even then, most of our candidates have dabbled in social engineering (Medicare Part D, etc).

I apologize if my context was not clear. I see nothing in Romney’s past to cause me to think that as POTUS, he would vary from a lifetime of fiscal conservatism as the solution to solve what ails Washington.

csdeven on February 17, 2012 at 5:09 AM

(we’ll probably never get rid of Obamacare in its entirety).

ghostwriter on February 17, 2012 at 4:04 AM

I think Obamacare will go away because the SCOTUS will strike it down. If they do, Romneycare is off the table as a tool against Romney (I believe they will call it a states rights issue).

I do agree that there are many issues that Obamacare addresses that will probably tough to get rid of. But they will be implemented through an entirely different law.

One issue I think is a trap for us to get into is this push to allow the purchasing of insurance across state lines. As soon as that happens, the commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate it. At that point, progressives have an argument to try and implement universal healthcare again. They will have a constitutional argument to make because the purchasing of insurance across state lines affects the entire country. Now maybe I am missing something because I have not read or heard anyone addressing it. At any rate, I think it should be discussed before we go nuts pushing for it.

csdeven on February 17, 2012 at 5:20 AM

What precisely did you prove by quoting me selectively as you did?

ghostwriter on February 17, 2012 at 4:32 AM

That he is 5 years old?

csdeven on February 17, 2012 at 5:21 AM

I don’t care what you say now, Slobama. You are, in fact, a progressive and you’re dead to me. Even if you were resurrected I don’t vote for zombies or people who believe they can aspire to godhood.

swinia sutki on February 17, 2012 at 5:46 AM

people who believe they can aspire to godhood.

swinia sutki on February 17, 2012 at 5:46 AM

As a child, did you aspire to be an adult, or did you want to remain a child? God created the family unit in which adults create children and then teach the children the rules governing life. They do this to bring the children to the point where they are their own adults and become parents themselves. God uses the same exact system for his creations as he set up for us.

And don’t forget that God’s first commandment to Adam and Eve was to start a family. THAT is how important the family is to God.

csdeven on February 17, 2012 at 5:54 AM

Tina…that selectively naive of you to take what was apparent to most of us in this statement about he does not have a political career.

Romney’s ACTUAL service in Gov’t: 4 years

Santorum’s ACTUAL service in Gov’t: 16 years

Gingrich’s ACTUAL service in Gov’t: Since Moses

Paul’s ACTUAL service in Gov’t: Same as Gingrich

Romney’s point was that MOST got was that ONE, he has NOT served in DC like ALL the other candidates, TWO, his plans are to return back to the PRIVATE sector after his 4-8 years as POTUS!

g2825m on February 17, 2012 at 6:19 AM

Please Tina, use your crystal ball and tell us what Romney would have done had he won in 94. Would have still run for governor of MA? Would he still be serving in the senate?

Unfortunately for you Tina, the facts of Romney’s record don’t match the imaginary life you have created for him. Romney is a fixer. He started Bain, left and was asked to come back and saved it from failing (salary..$1). He left and saved the Olympics (salary..$0). He then turned around the fiscal problems facing MA (salary $1). He implemented Romneycare as a FISCAL solution (rather than as an experiment in social engineering) to the problem created when Reagan signed EMTALA into law.

In each and every case, Romney did what he went out to do and then left. It is completely rational to believe that had he won the senate in 1994, he would have served and then left. As governor of MA, he solved the issues he set out to solve and then left. The ultimate challenge for him will be to help solve the problems facing America.

So why don’t you knock off the shallow one dimensional evaluations of Romney and start looking at the man for what he is (the most fiscally conservative candidate since Reagan) and not what the Romney haters say he is?

csdeven on February 17, 2012 at 4:05 AM

What is interesting csdeven with all of these “attacks” on Romney is that there has been this perception that has been painted about Romney that those here on HA BELIEVE without examining his ACTUAL record in MA and his incredibly SUCCESSFUL PRIVATE career.

Just as in 2008 when all conservatives saw what was coming economically we spit into the wind with the ONE GUY that had ACTUAL experience to fix America’s financial crisis and went with McCain. Now we are faced with an even DEEPER hole because we elected a community organizer who had no executive experience AND we are about to elect another person on OUR SIDE with NO EXECUTIVE experience and someone that has spent the majority of his adult life in Congress voting on bills! We also are taking our eye off the ball of JOBS and making sure we elect someone that agrees with us on abortion and contraceptives, What?!! The problems our country faces have nothing to do with this. Unbelievable!

Also where does Congress think it receives its “revenues”, taxes to you and me, from? Businesses, large and small across America. Who is the ONE PERSON that has spent ALL of their career except for four years in the Private sector? Romney. I think we should wake up and get a clue real fast or it is Obama for another four incredibly destructive years against our Constitutional rights.

g2825m on February 17, 2012 at 6:30 AM

The bigger question (and my exit question) is this: What will it take for Republicans in Washington to act like Republicans — or, better yet, conservatives?

They won’t. The Republicans in Congress who consistently vote on principle are few and far between. The only thing that will fix this is to clean house and amend the Constitution so it’s no longer possible to spend decades on Capitol Hill.

IMO, one Senate term and two House terms are more than enough for anyone.

Will that ever happen? Hell, no. The corruption is too entrenched on both sides of the aisle, and too many Americans depend on big government and/or directly benefit from the corruption through everything from entitlements to special tax breaks.

DRayRaven on February 17, 2012 at 6:37 AM

They won’t. The Republicans in Congress who consistently vote on principle are few and far between. The only thing that will fix this is to clean house and amend the Constitution so it’s no longer possible to spend decades on Capitol Hill.

IMO, one Senate term and two House terms are more than enough for anyone.

Will that ever happen? Hell, no. The corruption is too entrenched on both sides of the aisle, and too many Americans depend on big government and/or directly benefit from the corruption through everything from entitlements to special tax breaks.

DRayRaven on February 17, 2012 at 6:37 AM

DRay…
I have always promoted the “Twelver” you receive either 2 Terms as a Senator, 6 terms as a Representative, or 3 terms as a Governor of a State. If the people continue to like you then you can run for a different office i.e. Senator to Rep., and the people will still have their agency to vote for you if they like you for an add’l 12 years. However, if you cannot get policies accomplished in 12 years then you need to GET OUT and go back to the private sector. No more sitting in DC for 20,30, 40 years!

g2825m on February 17, 2012 at 6:43 AM

WOW! That’s the first thing Romney has said that I am in full agreement with! Spot on this time.

GFW on February 17, 2012 at 6:52 AM

First and foremost, our goal is to get Obuma out of the White House. The only thing I have against the Anti-Romney establishment is this: All of you look disingenuous. From the beginning of this campaign, many moons ago, it went something like this…Palin, Palin-she is going to take us to the promise land! Er, we mean, Perry, Perry!! Er, we mean, Cain, Cain!! Er, we mean Gingrich, Gingrich! Er, we mean, Santorum, Santorum!! I will vote for whomever is our nominee-can’t wait for this primary process to be over-sick of it!

Static21 on February 17, 2012 at 6:55 AM

Who is the ONE PERSON that has spent ALL of their career except for four years in the Private sector? Romney. I think we should wake up and get a clue real fast or it is Obama for another four incredibly destructive years against our Constitutional rights.

g2825m on February 17, 2012 at 6:30 AM

+1

csdeven on February 17, 2012 at 7:04 AM

Romney had a perfectly good focus group tested lie developed by his staff about how he wants “Republicans to stop acting like Democrats”.

Then he completely blows it by trying to make up another lie about not having a career as a politician.

WhatNot on February 17, 2012 at 7:34 AM

Who is the ONE PERSON that has spent ALL of their career except for four years in the Private sector? Romney.

g2825m on February 17, 2012 at 6:30 AM

That is only because he lost (or ran away from) every election except one.

WhatNot on February 17, 2012 at 7:37 AM

Who is the ONE PERSON that has spent ALL of their career except for four years in the Private sector? Romney.

g2825m on February 17, 2012 at 6:30 AM

Thats because Romney has a horrible record of winning elections

liberal4life on February 17, 2012 at 7:47 AM

“The bigger question (and my exit question) is this: What will it take for Republicans in Washington to act like Republicans — or, better yet, conservatives?”

If the humiliations of 06/08 didn’t do it, if the second chance of 2010 didn’t do it, there’s little hope for today’s GOP.

SAMinVA on February 17, 2012 at 7:49 AM

And don’t forget that God’s first commandment to Adam and Eve was to start a family. THAT is how important the family is to God.

csdeven on February 17, 2012 at 5:54 AM

Nice swerve there, but I didn’t say anything about the family. If you are a Mormon I expect you to support and defend those beliefs. I am not and I find many of those beliefs odd at the least and scary at worst. Still, Mitt’s religion is #47 on the list of why I won’t vote for him. He’s got 46 other issues to clear up before we even get to that. He hasn’t even tried to clear up numbers one through five. His strategy is to be the last (R)standing and I expect it will work for him as well as it did for McCain. And he hasn’t even got Palin around to draw conservatives to him.

swinia sutki on February 17, 2012 at 8:13 AM

It is becoming painfully obvious that we need third party, republicans will only pay lip service to conservatives.
Once elected, even in a landslide like 2010 they will go back to the old ways.

ouldbollix on February 17, 2012 at 8:17 AM

The dirty truth is there is barely a gnats eyelash of aq differnce between them.
The dems put in Obmacare so the GOP can get votes while pretending to want to repeal it.

They are two sides of the same double-headed coin – you be the good guys and we’ll be the good guys too.

Don L on February 17, 2012 at 8:18 AM

And he hasn’t even got Palin around to draw conservatives to him.

swinia sutki on February 17, 2012 at 8:13 AM

er…or, anti female and pro-choice, money is God, folks….

Don L on February 17, 2012 at 8:21 AM

I will vote for whomever is our nominee-can’t wait for this primary process to be over-sick of it!

Static21 on February 17, 2012 at 6:55 AM

Yup, party above principle and the Nation. That’s how we got to this stage of political decay, or haven’t you noticed that principle and character are no longer even discussed…

Today we demand “electablility” and “intelligence” or “nice hair” or “debating skills” are what matters….all the signs of some fairly famous 20th century dictators.

Well Mussolini was bald, but…

Don L on February 17, 2012 at 8:29 AM

The bigger question (and my exit question) is this: What will it take for Republicans in Washington to act like Republicans — or, better yet, conservatives?

Never happen all politicians are exactly alike since the all crawl out of the same slimy rancid pool of wretchedness. Lying greedy power mad scumbags all, there is zero difference between either moribund political party, they both search for the same outcome, maximize power for themselves and grab as much filthy lucre as possible. If you think one group of lying liars is better then the other YOU are the problem.

Your Mamma loves me on February 17, 2012 at 8:36 AM

I think Obamacare will go away because the SCOTUS will strike it down. If they do, Romneycare is off the table as a tool against Romney (I believe they will call it a states rights issue).

I do agree that there are many issues that Obamacare addresses that will probably tough to get rid of. But they will be implemented through an entirely different law.

One issue I think is a trap for us to get into is this push to allow the purchasing of insurance across state lines. As soon as that happens, the commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate it. At that point, progressives have an argument to try and implement universal healthcare again. They will have a constitutional argument to make because the purchasing of insurance across state lines affects the entire country. Now maybe I am missing something because I have not read or heard anyone addressing it. At any rate, I think it should be discussed before we go nuts pushing for it.

csdeven on February 17, 2012 at 5:20 AM

That’s an interesting thought that I hadn’t considered. I always thought that the push to allow purchasing of insurance across State lines was misguided, because there isn’t a lack of competition in health insurance markets that I can see; their profit margins seem way too narrow to suggest the exercise of monopoly power. Health care costs are out of whack, because demand is too high as a result of the price mechanism not being allowed to operate.

Personally, I don’t ave a problem with the Feds regulating the insurance market. I’m not sure that universal health care would be a likely outcome from allowing interstate purchases of health insurance.

I hope you’re right about SCOTUS. Tribe’s ruling on Obamacare worried me quite a bit. He might be going a significant rollback of jurisprudence on interstate commerce, but that seems too good to be true (and I’m skeptical that Roberts would go along with that).

ghostwriter on February 17, 2012 at 8:42 AM

Yup, party above principle and the Nation. That’s how we got to this stage of political decay, or haven’t you noticed that principle and character are no longer even discussed…

Principle only gets you so far. You can be super-duper-principled, but completely ineffective and irrelevant if you aren’t willing to make tradeoffs. At some point you have to compromise if you are going to get anything done.

ghostwriter on February 17, 2012 at 8:44 AM

You just lost me. This last paragraph suggests that Jake’s pessimistic view on things might be right. Fifty percent is better than Obama. If we lose this election, I don’t see there being any going back. As it is, rolling back some of these things will be extremely difficult (we’ll probably never get rid of Obamacare in its entirety).

ghostwriter on February 17, 2012 at 4:04 AM

In times like this, we have to be bold. Timid halfway measures only put off the inevitable.

What if the 1/3 of the colonials were too afraid to risk their all to fight king George because 1/3 of the others were stout supporters of the king and the rest were neutral?

How about when a few decided, over slavery, that it was time for the Whigs to go away because they were neutral? In less than six years, Lincoln was POTUS and head of the brand new GOP. And that was over something they found morally unjust, but not something that personally affected their own liberty and well being.

And here we stand as progressives are about to make their great leap forward to strangle the constitution and everything that made us exceptional. And we’re so afraid of them that we’d rather vote for a half solution, than use the one tool we have to make DC stand up and listen. Stop this assault on liberty and stop picking our pockets. Read the DOI and see if every one of those statements don’t apply to us now.

We need to change the course, not timidly get by. Say Mittness wind, if he doesn’t fundamentally change DC the donks will be back in four to six years as they campaign on his failures.

If just 1/3 of Americans can coleasce around one conservative candidate or write-in, we can indeed turn around this year, even if we don’t win the WH.

AH_C on February 17, 2012 at 8:48 AM

It is becoming painfully obvious that we need third party, republicans will only pay lip service to conservatives.
Once elected, even in a landslide like 2010 they will go back to the old ways.

ouldbollix on February 17, 2012 at 8:17 AM

A third party is pointless. It doesn’t solve the underlying problem that conservatives aren’t a majority (or even a plurality of the electorate. As long as we need the moderates to get to a majority, we’re always going to be stuck making compromises. That is the fundamental nature of our system.

ghostwriter on February 17, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Pot meets kettle

liberal4life on February 17, 2012 at 8:54 AM

crosspatch on February 16, 2012 at 11:38 PM

I’ve been arguing that line for months. Too many people here are so stuck on ideological purity that they don’t realize that when people govern, trying to promote the principles of an extreme political minority in a specific area, they have to make pragmatic sacrifices in order to implement the most important facets of the ideology. I’ve had certain people tell me he should have simply resigned as opposed to signing the bill when he was in office.

Let’s ignore the implications of what that would have actually meant in the real world with all of the bureaucratic aspects the legislature was trying to pass, let’s just focus that his signature wouldn’t have been on the bill, hurray!

Onto the point of the article, even if he had won the senate seat in 1994, that would have meant 14 years as a politician at this point if he lost the presidential bid in 2008(compared to 19 in the financial private sector). This would still have made him not a career politician. Regardless, he didn’t win the seat, and spent the remainder of that time participating in the private sector. Dealing with what-ifs isn’t really relevant when qualifying “career” titles.

This is of course opposed to Santorum who has been deeply involved in either politics or lobbying right outside of law school. Huh…that sounds familiar. But hey, an inexperienced senator with a law degree who has direct ties with lobbying and believes in the importance of federal government regulation has worked wonders for us so far for the last four years. Might as well get us another one. He served a whole additional term!

Kriggly on February 17, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Then again, that also just reminds voters that his all-purpose excuse for his every past misstep is, “But, but — I was the governor of Massachusetts.”

That is not an excuse for him supposedly moving to the left. It is an explanation that he actually moved the discourse of the entire state to the right of where it otherwise was. Why is everyone oblivious to this? The alternative to Romney care was NOT no reform. It was single payer and the elimination of health insurance companies in the state.

Resolute on February 17, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Then he completely blows it by trying to make up another lie about not having a career as a politician.

WhatNot on February 17, 2012 at 7:34 AM

You are a liar.

csdeven on February 17, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Mitt will govern the US just as he governed Mass. Does he leave the stage after every speech and do a face palm?

Kissmygrits on February 17, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Seriously, this post was written as if someone held a gun to Tina’s head and made her write something that might look good for Romney.

Priscilla on February 17, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Still, Mitt’s religion is #47 on the list…

swinia sutki on February 17, 2012 at 8:13 AM

Then why bring it up?

I never said I was a Mormon. I have studied their faith and I have several friends that are. Your aversion to men becoming as God makes no sense when the nature of God’s family is compared to the nature of the human family. You should feel comfort at the fact that your God loves you so much, that he will endow you with the exact attributes that he has. It isn’t a religious tenet. It makes sense on it’s own.

csdeven on February 17, 2012 at 9:20 AM

At some point you have to compromise if you are going to get anything done.

ghostwriter on February 17, 2012 at 8:44 AM

+1

The greatest document (the constitution) of this country was created through compromise.

csdeven on February 17, 2012 at 9:22 AM

never said I was a Mormon. I have studied their faith and I have several friends that are. Your aversion to men becoming as God makes no sense when the nature of God’s family is compared to the nature of the human family. You should feel comfort at the fact that your God loves you so much, that he will endow you with the exact attributes that he has. It isn’t a religious tenet. It makes sense on it’s own.

csdeven on February 17, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Some people find that kind of idea to be blasphemous, and in direct contradiction to the First Commandment. It’s probably just best to leave that one alone, don’t you think?

ghostwriter on February 17, 2012 at 9:23 AM

ghostwriter on February 17, 2012 at 9:23 AM

It would probably be best to leave it alone.

BUT :-), I don’t see how “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” is contradictory to my theory. We don’t replace our Fathers when we become Fathers ourselves. As a matter of fact, I have found that my father became much smarter as I got older. ;-) I am still trying to catch up.

csdeven on February 17, 2012 at 9:40 AM

I know I’m going to sound like a broken record, but to get Republicans, in Washington, to act like conservatives it’s going to take Newt. It may also take some new leadership because Boehner and McConnell aren’t acting anywhere close to conservatives.

bflat879 on February 17, 2012 at 9:52 AM

In the sense that he has never made a single penny from either state or federal taxpayers, he is NOT a career politician.

Santorum and Gingrich got filthy rich off tax payer and lobbyist dollars. Mitt Romney earned his in the private sector.

You really do not see the difference?

Elizabetty on February 17, 2012 at 10:00 AM

When I read a Tina Post the only thing that comes to mind is her Glaring Naivety…

Critic2029 on February 17, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3