Santorum: Romney more of an Occupy Wall Street candidate
posted at 12:45 pm on February 25, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
We must be getting close to Election Day in Michigan for the Republican presidential primary. How do I know? Rick Santorum has begun to attack Mitt Romney on a more personal level, while Romney has begun to woo the Tea Party in the final few days. First, Zeke Miller at BuzzFeed reports on Santorum’s offensive against Romney — and Ron Paul:
Sen. Rick Santorum struck a sharper tone on the campaign trail today, criticizing Mitt Romney for questioning his conservative values and calling him an “Occupy Wall Street adherent.”
“It’s absolutely laughable to have a liberal governor of Massachusetts say that I am not a conservative,” Santorum said, attacking Romney’s tax plan. “We have a candidate for president who is campaigning as an Occupy Wall Street adherent.”
“He doesn’t understand how America works any more than Barack Obama understands how America works,” Santorum said, about Romney’s plan to cap wealthy individuals’ ability to deduct charitable contributions.
Santorum continued to insist that Ron Paul and Romney are colluding against him, and told the crowd that Paul was “no conservative.” How effective will this new messaging be? Paul is hardly an afterthought in Michigan, and Santorum seems to be falling into the same trap as Gingrich did with Romney. Going negative undermines his own message and will pull down enthusiasm for Santorum as an alternative to the ever-attacking Romney. Santorum needs to focus on himself and less on attack lines against his opponents, or he may find that the voters attracted to his campaign by his positive qualities will start to disperse once those qualities get less emphasis.
Romney spent his day trying to connect to Tea Party activists in the GOP grassroots. Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard writes that Romney had mixed results:
If Romney sought to identify with these conservatives by speaking to their values, he did not pander on policy. He stayed after his speech and took several questions. His host promised they “wouldn’t be too bad,” and they weren’t. The most aggressive was this one: “There’s no greater immediate threat facing our country than the rapidly increasing federal debt. We now have an antiquated tax code that needs to be scrapped. Just tinkering around the edges of this monster will not save our country. How will you rewrite the tax code to a flatter, fairer tax that encourages production and keeps capital in this country?” Romney proceeded to politely describe his tax plan—which most certainly does not scrap the tax code and, while far preferable to anything coming from the White House, might accurately be described as tinkering.
That, at least, was the impression of Linda Williams, who owns the Heavenly Acres pet cemetery and crematorium. “It was weak,” she said. “He’s got to stop talking like a politician. He’s got to be stronger.” She left a supporter of Rick Santorum.
So did Phil Stargell, a local activist and radio host. “Tea Party people—there are a lot of entrepreneurs and small business owners,” he said, looking out from under the brim of a baseball cap that read “Jesus Inside,” in a logo resembling that of computers with “Intel Inside.” “You have to try to work with them and get them to the point where they can bring this country back because they’re the ones that’s going to bring this country back. That’s what I like about the Fair Tax and even Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. You have to get rid of the income tax.”
And that could be part of the problem: Policies that many in the Tea Party regard as too cautious, the Romney campaign sees as bold. Last week, the campaign used that word—“bold”—to describe its tax plan in at least 22 separate press releases to reporters.
Ironically, that’s a criticism that Newt Gingrich has of both candidates in Michigan: a lack of transformative boldness in their plans. Gingrich isn’t competing in Michigan, however, and neither is Ron Paul. The tax plans of both Romney and Santorum have some admirable strengths, and are light-years ahead of what has passed for economic policy in the US for the last three years. The race in Michigan, though, will probably come down to who can connect better with voters — and based on today’s efforts, it still looks like a toss-up.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
Sigh: Indiana man faces possible jail time for nursing bald eagle back to health
GOP: Yeah, about that “relatively minor” and completely underhanded carbon-rule change…
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: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6
Rick is teetering toward qualification for the Minister of silly walks with this kind of nonsense.
profitsbeard on February 25, 2012 at 7:16 PM
It’s too bad Santorum is religious. He could have been president if he hated God and babies.
Dr. Tesla on February 25, 2012 at 7:17 PM
.
You would think that, wouldn’t you?
.
But I don’t. And I’m not going to, either.
listens2glenn on February 25, 2012 at 7:19 PM
Which means…?
Ann Coulter couldn’t possibly lie and try to spread propaganda. No, not Ann!
MeatHeadinCA on February 25, 2012 at 7:19 PM
Americans like the underdog . . . except when they don’t.
jan3 on February 25, 2012 at 7:20 PM
I actually Ann is kind of schizo, she has her alternative reality on Romney, and I think she sincerely believes he’s everything she says he is. This isn’t a knock on people with schizophrenia as my brother has that and it is a real problem.
Dr. Tesla on February 25, 2012 at 7:22 PM
That’s true, they prefer the cookie cutter candidates, or at least the ones who appear that way, b/c let’s face it, Obama would have been an underdog/radical in a sane world.
Dr. Tesla on February 25, 2012 at 7:23 PM
Well, he does have a more extensive skill set than Reagan. Who knows?
jan3 on February 25, 2012 at 7:24 PM
If you say so, he doesn’t’ strike me as a thinker.
Dr. Tesla on February 25, 2012 at 7:25 PM
Reagan would have owned Romney. No contest.
Dr. Tesla on February 25, 2012 at 7:27 PM
If Romney has this awesome skill set, why does he need National Review to hold his hand and prop him up and tell him how to fake out conservatives. :)
Stupid question? :)
Dr. Tesla on February 25, 2012 at 7:30 PM
Ha ha.
From a 1975 interview with Reagan:
I’d love to know what reading Mitt has done with all the time he’s had since 2008.
INC on February 25, 2012 at 7:31 PM
There are some people tough on Romney at National Review, like MIchael Walsh, Andrew McCarthy (although he still claims Romney would make an excellent “CEO” which seems to ignore the fact that if Romney has the wrong political philisoophy or none at all, he won’t be a good CEO) and Steyn has become increasingly more critical of Romney after being more anti-Gingrich than anything.
Dr. Tesla on February 25, 2012 at 7:34 PM
What’s Mitt done at all since 2008? This guy hasn’t even had a job and he doesn’t even show up on calbe news to weigh in on the issues of the day. He seems to have little interest in politics for a guy who wants to be the top politician in the country.
Dr. Tesla on February 25, 2012 at 7:36 PM
Gallup.
ddrintn on February 25, 2012 at 7:37 PM
I’m pretty sure I said “skill set”. Is that what you think reading classical economists is?
jan3 on February 25, 2012 at 7:42 PM
He’s given speeches. I think he’s spent his time networking within the GOP when he should have been doing some reading and thinking.
INC on February 25, 2012 at 7:43 PM
I was contrasting skill set with the skill of knowledge. Which it is, but people seldom consider it as such.
Good reading requires thinking and analysis about why. And Romney seems short on that.
INC on February 25, 2012 at 7:46 PM
Anyone remember when Reagan, In His Own Hand was published?
and
INC on February 25, 2012 at 7:47 PM
Does it matter? Are you going to vote for Obama when Romney wins the nomination? Most of the rabid Santorum supporters here sound like they are and I wouldn’t be surprised if they did. Some even admit it. Kind of like how Most Catholics voted for Obama in 2008.
Nothing you say really has any substance either. You seem to just spout off a bunch of fallacies without really analyzing what you’re saying. Santorum whines about the media, and bashes them, but then goes on every Sunday morning talk show and cries like a little baby about being a victim of Romney, the big meany. Oh, I forgot playing the victim-persecution card is what religious whackos like Santorum do best.
1984 in real life on February 25, 2012 at 7:50 PM
IMO if Romney had spent some time reading, thinking and writing (because writing really does make you an exact man), then in 2011 & 2012, he could have done some things other than carpet bombing his opponents.
He would have been fluent in conservative ideas and instead of pointing to Olympics and business over and over again as the reasons why he should be elected, he could have made the case about why conservative ideas are the best (if he really believes that).
But he didn’t and he isn’t. So he hasn’t been able to close the deal.
INC on February 25, 2012 at 7:55 PM
Knowledge may contribute to a skill, but it’s not a skill itself. I don’t know what Romney reads, but I’d guess you’re right that he probably doesn’t read classical economics or political theory. It hasn’t hurt him though.
jan3 on February 25, 2012 at 7:57 PM
And some Romney supporters have said they will vote for Obama if Santorum is the nominee. So there’s people on both sides who whine about taking their ball and going home, oh well.
I like Santorum better than Romney and I think Romney has a worse chance of being elected, but lets be real here. Newt, Mitt, Rick, Mitch Daniels, Palin, whoever..Any of them would be better than the socialist in the White House. Most people know that.
You have to see the irony in whining about people whining though, right?
BakerAllie on February 25, 2012 at 7:59 PM
See my comment immediately above yours.
That’s how it’s hurt him. And that’s how he could have benefited himself and the country.
INC on February 25, 2012 at 8:00 PM
Santorum was given a huge opportunity to step up and show that he is the guy who can lead conservatives and Republicans. All he had to do was not let Romney own him in the Arizona debate.
Not only did he fail to do that, but he let Romney own him easily, and with attacks that could have been blunted with even a modicum of politcal and rhetorical skill….which he doesn’t have.
As a Romney supporter, I have often been chagrined at Mitt’s unforced errors. But Santorum makes Mitt look like a political genius.
Priscilla on February 25, 2012 at 8:01 PM
Or, he could have just listened to Beck, Rush and Hannity like Santorum did.
jan3 on February 25, 2012 at 8:02 PM
Wrong. Besides the usual campaign talk, Romney only went nasty after Gingrich released that 20 minute ad attacking him with leftist class warfare. He destroyed Newt after that.
After Santorum won the 3 meaningless states, he started attacking Romney non stop, I remember his “Are we really going to nominate this guy?” BS to the media. So Romney fired back. Before that, he never ran a single negative ad against the Vest.
Santorum secretly loves the media because they’re all rooting for him. Idiots like Rush know that an Obama landslide in November keeps his ratings high, same with Hannity. Pissed off social cons eat up whatever these hacks whine about, and they know it. The typical leftist outlets like the NYT, etc. all want him to win too because Obama will eat him alive, and they can continue putting on the kneepads for him to please their reader base.
1984 in real life on February 25, 2012 at 8:03 PM
I don’t think that Rush is an idiot, and I’ve developed a grudging respect for Hannity…..otherwise, I think you’re absolutely right.
Santorum is really a fake, like Ron Paul said. And I am defintitely not a Paul fan.
Priscilla on February 25, 2012 at 8:08 PM
That’s a virtual echo of the conventional wisdom during the Reagan administration. Bush 41 wasn’t the only one who mocked the idea that tax cuts would raise more revenue. We were treated to plenty of people saying the exact same thing about Reagan’s proposed tax cuts.
But look who was right.
The Bush tax cuts were very modest, but they stimulated the economy when it badly needed it.
It appears talk-radio ignorance is smarter than you are.
The real scam is tax hikes. They’re always promised to close the budget gap, but the moment the government gets more money, they just spend it. Then the tax hikes start depressing the economy, and we’re told that we’re taking in less revenue and need to raise taxes again.
tom on February 25, 2012 at 8:16 PM
You seem to be confusing tax rates with tax revenues. Since many times, cutting the tax rate can bring in more tax revenues, your “simple concept” is inapplicable.
This is a simplistic approach common to how liberals tend to view businesses. They seem to have a real problem understanding that capitalists often lower prices to sell more product, ultimately bringing in more money.
tom on February 25, 2012 at 8:29 PM
True.
tom on February 25, 2012 at 8:32 PM
You equate tax rate cuts to deficit spending, showing an obliviousness to the difference between tax rates and tax revenue. The fact is that you can often raise more tax revenue by cutting the tax rates.
Because of your mis-definition of tax rate cuts as deficit spending, you misinterpret Reagan as a Keynesian. That misinterpretation is your own mistake.
When you wind up classifying both Reagan and Obama as Keynesians, that should be a clue that something is wrong in your methodology.
This seems to be a popular misunderstanding among Paul supporters. I find that ironic, since many of them are constantly explaining to the rest of us that Ron Paul understands economics better than any other politicians.
tom on February 25, 2012 at 8:41 PM
How many times will we hear this particular lie repeated, ie. Romney only went nuclear on Gingrich after Gingrich attacked Romney. Maybe the idea is to repeat the lie enough until people believe it, ala Joseph Goebbels.
Gingrich led in Iowa until Romney’s forces launched millions of dollars in negative ads against him. That is Romney’s M/O. As soon as an opponent rises to the level of challenge, he carpet bombs them with false and misleading ads, which they cannot effectively counter due to the insufficiency of their resources.
Romney is a ruthless political opportunist, and his supporters routinely lie in order to provide cover for him.
Sounds to much like Obama to me. Think I’ll take a pass.
ariel on February 25, 2012 at 8:52 PM
I am afraid that you are the one who cannot seem to understand basic economics. I’ve never said you cannot raise more tax revenue by cutting tax rates. Neither has joanna, for that matter. Of course you can.
Unfortunately, if you fail to cut spending, and still have deficits, you have to borrow to fill the gap. That borrowed money will have to be paid back later, either through taxes or through money printing, which debases the currency, and is just another tax.
Public expenditure increased under Reagan, and while the deficit shrank from 6% of GDP to 2.9%, a deficit is still a deficit. The national debt increased from 997 billion to 2.85 trillion during Reagan’s tenure, and the U.S. become the world’s largest debtor nation.
That money has to be paid back, and the only way it can be paid is through taxation or money printing, which is taxation by another name. Or should we just repudiate our debt, like some third world rat hole?
Had Reagan cut back expenditures to the point where the increased revenues resulting from the tax cuts produced a balance budget or a surplus to be used to pay back debt, that would have been classical liberalism. He didn’t.
Reaganism was just gussied up Keysianism, with tax cuts and military spending inducing the deficit stimulus, instead of transfer payments to unions and other members of the dependent class, as in the Obama version. Reaganomics at least had the benefit of working, as the tax cuts left money in the real economy, and military spending has a much greater ancillary effect on the civilian economy than financing welfare moochers cigarette habits. But it is Keysianism just the same.
Mr. Arkadin on February 25, 2012 at 9:49 PM
Btw, tom, I’m with you. Tax hikes are always a scam. But tax cuts without a concomitant cut in spending are also a scam. And while the deficit spending created by the tax cuts is stimulative, that boom is always followed by a bust, putting you back at square one, with the added burden of more debt. There is no free ride.
Mr. Arkadin on February 25, 2012 at 9:59 PM
I’m a Mittbot. However the negative ads against Gingrich started in
Iowa when Romneys superpac and Ron Paul ran many ads about Newts baggage. I am not sure if he rany any under his own Name.
Then in SC when Newts superpac ran the Bain ad is when it went into total warfare.
I think that the most effective negative ad run so far was the anti Newt ad with Tom Brokaw and NBC news.
gerry-Mittbot
gerrym51 on February 25, 2012 at 10:48 PM
Mitt, the Occupy Wall Street candidate!?
Colluding with Ron Paul!?
This does not project confidence. This doesn’t
even project worry. This projects wild desperate
flailing. I predict it won’t help.
Confutus on February 25, 2012 at 11:10 PM
Funny how the ABR’s are fine with negative ads as long as they are ads attacking Romney personally. Ed and Tina thought that the mudball ad was just hysterically funny, and didn’t object to the 25+ minute dishonest hit job on Romney/Bain by Gingrich’s PAC, other than to say that Newt shouldn’t attack “capitalism.”
But Romney attacking Gingrich for being forced out of the Speakership(true) or sanctioned for ethisc violations (true) or bringing up the fact that Santorum’s voting record belies his recent postures (true)?? Oh, no, no, no …we can’t have that. The only negative ads that are “good” are ads that attack Romney.
Really, it wouldn’t annoy me half as much if the hypocrisy were not so blatant. Santorum’s been out there all day whining about a Paul-Romney conspiracy, rather than offering his position on issues. That’s positive?
Priscilla on February 25, 2012 at 11:14 PM
I
Greetings gerry-Mittbot.
I commend you for your honesty. You will certainly sway more people to your cause with open and honest discussion of Romney’s strengths as well as his weaknesses, as opposed to misrepresenting the facts and insulting those who would engage in that discussion.
In all fairness, the Brokaw ad was somewhat typical of the misrepresentation I refer to. Gingrich was later cleared of all the ethics charges, except one, and that on a technicality whether two classes he taught could be considered tax exempt because of their potential political nature. The fine he paid was simply the expenses accrued by the state for the investigations launched against him.
Yes you heard that right. Gingrich had to pay the costs incurred by the state for investigating some of the 84 false ethics complaints filed against him. Gingrich had to pay for the executioners rope, so to speak. Sounds a lot like what happened to Palin.
Even so, thanks for setting the record straight about Iowa.
ariel on February 25, 2012 at 11:35 PM
In the interest of fair-what happened is what Newt AGREED TOO.
the abuses he used to take down Jim Wright came back to haunt Newt.
Newt had and has issues still. his own campaign is being audited because of money he paid himself from his campaign.
I stated when negative ads started and done by who.However 0 percent of the Bain ad was proven to be untrue.
All four of the candidates (and their superpacs ) have run ads that have had some germ of truth.
its just that Newt has far more baggage and is easier to attack.
Santorum is getting there.
gerrym51 on February 25, 2012 at 11:51 PM
I missed a digit. 80 percent of bain ad proven untrue and given 4 pinnochios(i got that from newt 0
gerrym51 on February 25, 2012 at 11:53 PM
Ahhhh…the president of the Tinfoil Hat Brigade regurgitates once again.
Don’t you have some spamming, trolling, or a conspiracy theory to obsess on?
csdeven on February 25, 2012 at 11:53 PM
Hey troll! Hows your grammy treating you this week? Did she make you take care of your hygiene routine, or did you put it off for another week?
csdeven on February 25, 2012 at 11:55 PM
Bla, bla, bla……
Just keep on complaining about the contempt you perceive while you spew your contempt on every comment you make.
csdeven on February 25, 2012 at 11:57 PM
True. But ironically enough, you’re the Keynesian (probably a neo-Keynesian), not me.
I’m extremely skeptical about most stimulative fiscal policies in the long run, be it via spending or tax cuts financed with deficit.
Not all tax structures are born equal. I do believe there are some rearrangements that can be made that promote growth quite a bit – that’s why I’ve defended a flat rate and eliminating the corporate income tax (that’s how this conversation started). The “tax cuts pay for themselves” thesis? We have a wealthy corpus of empirical evidence and theoretical work showing there are no reasons to believe in it, in spite of the tendency of many Republican politicians to keep repeating it, much to my chagrin. We should leave this type of economic obscurantism to the democrats.
It’s just much easier, politically, to cut taxes than spending. The problem is that by focusing on taxes and not spending, we’re allowing politicians to keep pretending they’re fiscally conservatives when they’re anything but that. This was particularly evident and serious during the Bush years.
joana on February 25, 2012 at 11:58 PM
And they didn’t string him up on a spit? I think Romney is your best chance. Santorum’s sweatervest is getting a bit too tight. He only speaks to very few, even in his own party.
BedBug on February 26, 2012 at 12:08 AM
I have been asking myself this ever since Mitt declared himself a candidate..He was on the verge of irrelevancy
congma on February 26, 2012 at 12:30 AM
Only 29 Republicans voted against formally reprimanding Gingrich for his ethical conduct, which passed overwhelmingly.
Why is that, if he did nothing wrong?
Why was he thrown out by conservatives if he was such a great Speaker?
If he were such a great and “transformative” Speaker, why have so few of those who served with him endorsed him?
The revisionists want to pretend Gingrich was something he was not (as does Gingrich). The FACT is that after the initial 100 days of the 1995 House session where most of the Contract items were voted upon as promised, Gingrich was an erratic and ineffective Speaker who spent his time pitching new ideas he would never follow up on, getting publicity for himself, and trying to bargain away the Contract gains for some “grand deal” with the Democrats.
The capital gains cut, welfare reform, and the balanced budget were all the products of excellent committee work which Gingrich had nothing to do with at all – except for providing distractions and hindrances.
He was a great back-bench leader of the attack on the Democrats, and led us to the 1994 victory (aided by the House Bank scandal), and deserves credit for that. The rest of his claims are pure bunk.
Look it up.
Adjoran on February 26, 2012 at 12:39 AM
No, it isn’t a toss-up. Your man Santorum is receiving a great deal of scrutiny and a great deal of criticism and he isn’t holding up very well, and it’s costing him support. He was dramatically ahead in Michigan just a few days ago, now he isn’t. Why not? He can’t stop complaining.
Santorum claims there is an agreement between Romney and Paul not to attack each other. Okay, let’s concede there is. So what? Insofar as I know, there’s no rule anywhere that says each primary candidate must give equal time to criticism of all other candidates. Does Santorum expect a referee to be lowered by a crane into the center of the ring and force Romney to attack Paul, Paul to attack Romney?
Santorum’s coming across as whiny and thin-skinned. Any day now he’ll start going on about the unfairness of it all, just as we saw with Gingrich. Fair? Who said anything about American politics is fair? If Santorum can’t take the heat now then there’s no way he’ll hold up in the general election campaign, should he win the nomination. You guys stop being mean to me! just doesn’t sound like a man who is up to the challenge.
troyriser_gopftw on February 26, 2012 at 1:08 AM
Think about what you just wrote, for a minute.
Gingrich delivered a GOP Congress for the first time in 40 years, defeated Hillarycare, balanced the budget for the first time in ages, accomplished welfare reform.
He was then kicked out by the people who became the 1998-2006 GOP Congress. Can you not think of any reason those people might have disliked him? Are you sure it’s because they were just too conservative to accept such a Speaker?
I’d prefer the 1994-1998 Gingrich Congress any day.
joe_doufu on February 26, 2012 at 1:17 AM
Santorum’s speaking in tongues now. What he’s saying makes absolutely no sense.
claudius on February 26, 2012 at 2:25 AM
Wow – does any one know where those magical gold tablets are? Oh and where did I park one of my purdy caddies? Questions for your man Romney. And you all say he’s the one huh? He’s the one alright – the one that will lose like Dole and MCCan’t.
Fuquay Steve on February 26, 2012 at 3:58 AM
Good luck with your man Romney – after the scorched earth policy of his and his followers (as evidenced by the comments here) the r’s will lose not only in the Presidential, but congressional elections. You people ought to be ashamed of your despicable treatment a righteous individual. But you know no shame. Arrogant a*****es.
Fuquay Steve on February 26, 2012 at 4:02 AM
Can’t you just take one for the team? That’s what Righteous Rick™ would do!
Wait a second, if we added in an earmark to every vote for Romney, would he get your vote? I promise it will fund a bridge somewhere.
1984 in real life on February 26, 2012 at 5:06 AM
That’s a deal breaker. Now if it funded a bridge nowhere we could talk turkey :-)
He’s one of those children who doesn’t want to be left behind.
MJBrutus on February 26, 2012 at 6:56 AM
I’ll bet that he didn’t brush his tooth before bed.
MJBrutus on February 26, 2012 at 7:00 AM
So, was Santorum lying THEN, or is he lying NOW?
At an Americans For Prosperity-sponsored tea party rally here Saturday, Rick Santorum trumpeted his connections to the working class by attacking President Obama’s plan to make college more accessible to Americans.
The crowd laughed and applauded wildly. But the last time Santorum ran for public office — his ill-fated 2006 Senate reelection campaign — he was right there with Obama, running on his promise to make college more accessible to all Pennsylvanians.
But during Santorum’s 2006 Senate campaign he touted his “Commitment to Higher Education.”
From the web archive:
Here in Troy today, Santorum’s take on the importance of making college more affordable was a little different.
mountainaires on February 26, 2012 at 8:09 AM
I am so disgusted with these GOP candidates! They are supposed to show us why they are the best candidates with best ideas how to defeat Obama. Unfortunately, so far they all showed me what “small” and “petty” individuals they are. None of them care about the country, all they care about is themselves. They all make me want to throw up. This election is about saving this country from becoming a socialist state under Obama dictatorship. So far, the best idea these mental midgets have been able to come up with is “wah, wah, the other GOP candidate did this or that 5years ago and thet is why you should vote for me.” Please, tell us what you will do to defeat Obama, what you will do to restore this country. STOP WORRYING ABOUT THE OTHER CANDIDATES! Just show me that you have better ideas than the other guy, not that you are just a little less disgusting than the other guy. Because that is all you do right now!
chairman1057 on February 26, 2012 at 8:24 AM
Define “boldness”? Because if I remember correctly, that word was used gratuitously to elect our latest President. See where that got us?
What we need is someone with a plan that can actually pass Congress to get our economy and job growth on the right track. Now. We don’t need more grand experiments in the midst of this crisis.
I would call Romney’s plan (and others not necessarily seeking a wholesale re-write) the right medicine for the ailment. Following that metaphor, we can seek stronger long-term preventative medicine when we are stabilized.
I understand people’s desire to enact serious re-writing of the tax code. But that needs to be done in a gradual manner which ensures a smooth transition and the ability for businesses to understand how those changes will affect them. The last thing we need right now is another period of uncertainty.
Marcus Traianus on February 26, 2012 at 8:27 AM
The wonderful AZ Governor Jan Brewer is endorsing Mitt Romney!
GO MITT!
bluegill on February 26, 2012 at 9:59 AM
MITT, The Obama empty suit/blank canvas of the gop.
Progressive, Big government loving Bush clone.
WAIT until the left starts on him full steam. By the time the election is here there will be OWS protests everywhere people vote if it looks like Mitt might win.
Just what we need gop, a 4th Bush Term.
PappyD61 on February 26, 2012 at 11:03 AM
This meme that Romney is “like Obama” is straight from the Obama camp. Anyone who uses it is either an Obama operative or a total moron.
Dark Star on February 26, 2012 at 11:06 AM
ATTENTION MITTBOTS….
In his own words, he’s a “PROGRESSIVE”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu0zQRUCDlM
PappyD61 on February 26, 2012 at 11:07 AM
Is this is a joke?
Let me phrase it so the non-arrogant assholes can understand it..
1. Barack Obama, the current President, needs to be defeated.
2. Barack Obama, along with his puppet master, George Soros, will spend roughly 1 billion dollars this election.
3. Most of that money will be spent on advertising and mass mailing.
4. Obama cannot run on his record.
5. Obama will have to go negative.
6. The advertising and mass mailing (from 3), will be negative (from 5).
Those are facts. Now that we have established facts, lets look at what you said, and analyze.
If Rick Santorum’s campaign cannot handle .03 of what Obama will spend, and cannot be a viable candidate under those circumstances, what makes you think he will win against Obama and his 1 billion campaign?
As I have said numerous times, Santorum allows the focus to shift from Obama, to positions that many independents (the people you need to win to be president) will oppose.
With the depressed turnout (which often accompanies negative campaigns), and Santorum’s inability to attract independents, he will lose the election and will lose down-ticket races (in non-arrogant asshole speak, that means Obama will be President and Democrats will have the House and Senate).
Now, with Romney, negative ad’s don’t effect him as much. That means he can withstand a 1 billion campaign. In addition, he is better at raising money, so he can level the playing field. He attracts independents. He wont allow Democrats to shift focus from Obama to himself, and he gives Republicans a chance to win.
The result with Romney is that Republicans will keep the House and win the Senate, even if Obama remains President (which is also very unlikely).
So, the conclusion is politics is a dirty business. And its not about mistreatment of Santorum. It is about winning. And Santorum has proven that he cant win, he wont win, and that is just the way it is. In a perfect world, is Romney’s strategy fair and honest? No. But, is that the strategy Obama will use? You can bet every penny you have on it. And because of that, Romney is the best candidate to engage Obama at his own game.
milcus on February 26, 2012 at 11:08 AM
Inevitable.
:-P
V7_Sport on February 26, 2012 at 12:00 PM
FTFY.
MelonCollie on February 26, 2012 at 1:05 PM
Nope, I’m not confusing tax rates with that revenues. I think you’re just parroting that line.
You are thinking about the Laffer curve and optimization of revenue collection. It’s all irrelevant. It doesn’t really matter if the government raises x with a tax rate of y or raises z with a tax rate of w: in the end, the simple concept that even a caveman would understand, is that every single cent of spending will still be paid by the taxpayer.
A know-nothing like you accusing me of being simplistic in taxation issues is quite amusing though.
joana on February 26, 2012 at 1:40 PM
hahaha
csdeven on February 26, 2012 at 1:43 PM
You keep confusing things. Maybe you should try to read a book or some of the papers I linked instead of learning your economics from illiterate radio talk-show hosts.
First, no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that the tax cuts would pay for themselves or that they did it. That’s just a myth. Liberals started saying it and now clueless conservatives repeat it not understanding their mocking themselves.
Second, during the Reagan administration, federal revenues per capita climbed from $3,460 in 81 to $4K in 89 (inflation adjusted). As a percentage of the GDP though, they declined 1.2% during those 8 years. And Reagan raised taxes 10 times – if you don’t factor that, then the decline in revenue was more evident.
Not that there’s a problem with this: one needs to be completely idiotic think that maximizing government revenue is some sort of conservative position.
The idea that the Bush tax cuts paid for themselves is beyond ridiculous. As I’ve said multiple times, not even the man who designed them believes in such a thing anymore. Look at this study from the Heritage foundation:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/11/a-dynamic-analysis-of-the-2001-and-2003-bush-tax-cuts-applying-an-alternative-technique-for-calibrating-macroeconomic-and-microsimulation-models
The tax cuts only recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.
I can tell you who was right:
Under Reagan, the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2,052 billion in 1988, a three times increase.
Under Bush, the
SocialistCompassionate Conservative with a VP who became famous by saying “deficits don’t matter” (too bad people in Greece, Spain, Italy and Zimbabwe were listening to him), the public debt increased from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008.And Obama, another tax cutter, managed to overperform the idiot who preceded him and grew the debt $5.7 trillion in 3 years.
Do you know who’s going to pay that money? The taxpayer. With this or that tax rate. The tax revenues – the money politicians take from the wealth producer’s wallet – will need to be higher than what they’d need to be because they wouldn’t control spending.
A fiscal conservative isn’t someone who cut taxes. Even Obama can do that. A fiscal conservative is someone who cuts spending because that’s what really matters for current and future taxpayers. Borrowing’n'spending like those 3 did and do is just a trick.
joana on February 26, 2012 at 2:02 PM
Your points are well taken. Historically, the nation’s debt burden has been stable when the government spends about 20% or less of GDP. While the form of taxation does matter, as a rule of thumb, over 20% spells big trouble. PBHO, of course, has been spending at about 25% of GDP!
MJBrutus on February 26, 2012 at 2:31 PM
Yes. The government was never able in the last 50 years to take away more than 19% of the GDP from the economy – except for a couple of years in the economic boom of the 90s when it reached 19.9 percent, 19.8 percent and 20.6 percent in 3 years (producing the surpluses). And rarely that percentage dropped below 17.5% of the GDP.
This happened regardless of the multiple tax cuts, raises, restructuring that happened all these decades. New taxes were created, others disappeared, some rates were cut violently, etc., and in the end, not much really changed. Funny how it works.
joana on February 26, 2012 at 3:36 PM
Actually Ann not schizo at all. She is entertaining and provocative and as much of an attention whore as Palin.
She has endorsed several candidates now and emphatically stated that they were the only solution if America is going to avoid armageddon.
She’s bombastic to the point of becoming parodical. At least Palin plays that down a bit because she knows she hasn’t got the brainpower to make it stick.
CorporatePiggy on February 26, 2012 at 3:48 PM
I absolutely recall when Newt and Perry started their Bain attacks on Romney, that Rick Santorum had joined in the chorus but only at the very beginning. He quickly changed his tune as soon as Newt and Perry took it on full time and started backing off on Bain attacks. I cannot find anything online reporting that RS did so but I truly remember it. It may not be online due to the fact that when the Bain attacks started, Santorum was at the very bottom of the polls, almost an afterthought. I do believe he saw that Newt and Perry were causing damage to themselves and quickly stopped the OWS rhetoric. So, IMHO, Romney would be considered the complete opposite of “OWS adherent” as RS claims. Once again, give Rick a big hanky cause he’s whining again. Between Rick being the victim of media attacks, then Romney attacks, then the Romney-Paul tag team attacks – what’s next Rick? Just how will you survive the Obama-Media-Left onslaught? Look to Romney, he takes it all in stride!
BabysCatz on February 26, 2012 at 4:45 PM
Does “Occupy Wall Street adherent” mean anything?
That might work against Paul or even Newt who are echoing a small part of OWS, but Romney?
Wasn’t it a month ago Romney was getting hit for being the 1% capitalist type?
What am I missing? I mean, aside from GOP candidates talking about OWS as if it’s a real movement with a clear message.
contrarytopopularbelief on February 26, 2012 at 4:49 PM
I don’t often agree with this woman, but in this case, she nails it.
Obama’s Dream: To Run Against Rick Santorum
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-dream-to-run-against-santorum/2012/02/24/gIQAD9VfYR_story.html
mountainaires on February 26, 2012 at 5:14 PM
The only candidate that could run hard enough was Newt. I was behind him early. A few things put me off. But I could read and listen to him for days.
Rick is a great person living a faith in God we should all admire.
Your article’s was the best. Have a Catholic Republican just mention contraception in this female controlled country and in this context and you are dead.
The media who never bothered O about killing living infants will run wild.
IlikedAUH2O on February 26, 2012 at 6:08 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6