Romney: Very conservative voters might not be with me now but they will be in November

posted at 7:47 pm on March 14, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via RCP, the key bit comes at around 3:40. This is his whole strategy in a nutshell and I still can’t decide whether to admire him or loathe him for it. He doesn’t care if you trust him. He doesn’t care if his rallies leave you flat. He doesn’t care if pulling the lever for him reduces you to dry heaves in the voting booth. He cares about two things: 1,144 and 270, and he’s likely to achieve at least the first thanks to hard work, careful planning, and the great good luck of having extraordinarily weak competition. Those qualities — high energy, fortitude, diligence, not needing to be liked — could be huge assets in a president if he applied them to enacting a worthy policy agenda, starting with entitlement reform. But I don’t think he’d use them to policy ends; he’d use them to position himself for re-election by pandering to centrists, which means no meaningful entitlement reform or anything else. He’s telling you right here why he’d be such a risk in office to the right. When push comes to shove, you’ll always hold your nose and vote against the Democrat, no matter how annoyed at him you might be. And he knows it — and he doesn’t care. He doesn’t need his base to like him. That’s a recipe for squishiness.

And yet:

Mitt Romney leads the pack in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. He’s also the second pick for enough Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich supporters that if one of them dropped out, Romney would remain the frontrunner.

Romney has the backing of 38 percent of Republican primary voters in a Fox News poll released Wednesday. He’s followed by Santorum at 32 percent, Gingrich at 13 percent and Paul at 12 percent…

In a straight two-way matchup, GOP primary voters prefer Romney to Santorum by 49-44 percent

Meanwhile, a 58-percent majority of primary voters would rather nominate a candidate who is more likely to beat President Obama, even if the candidate is not a true conservative. Less than a third — 31 percent — would pick the true conservative who might be less electable.

Romney actually leads Obama by nine points on the question of who’s best equipped to manage the economy, but head to head overall O leads by four. The key data point:

That’s a nice trend for Mitt, but again — he doesn’t care either way. The magic number is 270. If it all comes from column two instead of column one, hey.

Here’s his interview today with Megyn Kelly. Watch for the part where she asks him whether Newt should drop out; Romney, who I think is benefiting considerably from Gingrich’s perseverance notwithstanding the poll data above, conveniently has no opinion. There’s a fun exchange on the mandate at the very end too, but that’s because of the old clip Kelly chose to torment him with. In that same vein, via BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski, watch the second one below on the vagaries of “ultimate conservatism.”



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 8 9 10 11

I don’t know why I’m wasting my time with you, since your obviously being paid to write here. I’ve yet to meet a single person in real life that supports Romney. Everyone else, even Huntsman, but never anyone pro-Romney. Not since ’08, at least. You simply can’t exist outside of the internet. You are either being paid to pretend to like Romney, or you are a sophisticated computer program trolling the blogosphere.

Buckshot Bill on March 15, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Another card-carrying member of the tinfoil hat brigade. By “real life” are you referring to your anonymous friends in the RPG world?

cicerone on March 15, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Dongemaharu on March 15, 2012 at 8:42 AM

I doubt he cares if he wins or loses. He seems very much like McCain in that respect. He just wants the Nomination. Gets him in the history books. Who would want to be president these days, anyway?

This way, if the base doesn’t show up, he can blame them for his loss instead of admitting that he was a democrat running as a republican. You can tell his campaign and his supporters in the media are planning to blame his loss to Obama on the base being too bigoted to vote for a Mormon. They’ll never admit that a genuinely conservative candidate would win, probably in a landslide. If they admitted that now, they’d have to support a conservative in 2016, and Jeb Bush isn’t a conservative.

Buckshot Bill on March 15, 2012 at 8:48 AM

I just don’t know. Anyone running for office isn’t necessarily brave or noble, which a lot of people here say. It completely depends on their motivation, and with people like Romney, I have reason to suspect….it’s just to be President. Same for, and especially, Clinton and Obama. Obama doesn’t even seem that interested in governing. I mean yeah, he wants a leftist country, but spends most of his time playing golf, at celebrity parties or on vacation. Care about a budget? Naaah. He’s in it for the adoration and tribute. Healthcare is just a legacy issue with him. He, like most libs, don’t actually care about poor people.

Romney is a much better man than Obama, but his rhetoric is so all over the place you don’t know where he’s coming from. He’ll say anything to anyone. So I’m not sure if the nomination alone is enough. Probably believes he can win in November, and hell, why not be President? It’s not like he has to do a great job or even get re-elected.

He genuinely doesn’t give a rat’s a$$ about the base and actually assumes that if he can get enough fence sitters to vote for him, conservatives will have no choice. It may or may not be true.

Dongemaharu on March 15, 2012 at 9:21 AM

RPG world?

cicerone on March 15, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Hmm. That’s a pretty good name for Afghanistan these days.

But seriously, I work at a hospital, in a pretty heavily republican area. No one I know personally is pro-Mitt. Lot of pro-Newt folks around, but the gals seem to prefer Santy for some reason. A few months back the gals all liked Cain, if I remember correctly.

Buckshot Bill on March 15, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Some language questions here, not meant to be rhetorical, but I want to know what you think.

I think I know what a true conservative is, but you can help. True would be, born that way, true in the way you live your life (like Gingrich and the multi affairs is away from true conservative values, right?) and not deviating from some set of true principals while in office. What definitions would be used here for conservative practices in office?

And Very conservative. What is the difference between True conservative and very conservative?

And Libertarian, could you mind telling me how libertarian is conservative…fiscally? constitutionally, and how it differs.

What is meant by “capture the heart and soul of the conservative movement?” is that like being an idol or a charismatic leader?

I can’t engage in the topic today because I am reading that I am not a very conservative or a true conservative if I have voted for Romney. I am more conservative than Gingrich by one of these definitions and at least as conservative as Santorum and I have not voted for him because he lacks executive and economic experience. I also think if people think Mitt is boring, Rick is a dull boy left for last. So that is my opinion, but I really wonder about the definitions and the word play. Why do the other campaigns want to marginalize other republican voters like this?

Fleuries on March 15, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Name this person

*Installed the biggest HC mandate in his responsibilities history. Pure sociolism
*Appointed THE most liberal judges
*Raised fees, fines and taxes
*horrible in job creation
*spent more time on vacation in office than working
*had more democrats in his administration than republicans
*His party suffered loses in his mid term elections

If you guess Obamasatan, you would be wrong, it’s good old willard romneycare!

Thanks, GOP crap establishment for giving us this piece of sh*t!

Danielvito on March 15, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Not sure why anyone thinks Romney should pander to people who refuse to vote for him anyway. He has a path to the nomination without appealing to voters for whom reason does not matter.

He is correct. These people are not voting for Obama. And if they dont vote, that reinforces that Romney should not have tried harder to get these voters at the expense of moving too far to the right (which makes him less appealing to moderates and Reagan Democrats).

To govern you need to win and then be able to appeal to a broad coalition of elected representatives. How long before “very conservative voters” understand that basic concept?

milcus on March 15, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Fleuries on March 15, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Gingrich actually has some conservative cred from his leadership days, but he’s also on the record offering big government solutions on various issues. This is a big problem, because we don’t know how this will transfer to the White House. As for his personal life, well any Christian would say we’re all sinners. Frankly, I don’t know enough details about it to judge(nor do I freakin’ want to know), and many of the horror stories about him I hear everywhere are in fact not true, so this isn’t much of an issue with me.

True conservative is a phrase I hear mostly from RINOs and such, so it’s mostly just an insult. You’ll have to ask them what it means, but the answer is probably knuckle-dragging flyover redneck or someone without an Ivy League edumacation. Well, that’s my snarky answer, in any case.

I think what “very” or serius conservatives might be looking for is a conservative who has displayed a deep understanding of ….conservatism, through words and actions. Consistent words and actions. They don’t have to be lifers. Many famous and well regarded conservatives came to it later in life, and that’s just fine, so long as they show, again, a deep understanding of conservatism through consistent words and actions.

Dongemaharu on March 15, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Not sure why anyone thinks Romney should pander to people who refuse to vote for him anyway. He has a path to the nomination without appealing to voters for whom reason does not matter.

How frail the man who confuses opinion for reason.

We aren’t going to save the full scale attack upon America and freedom with an unprincipled, neutered bean counter.

Don L on March 15, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Great. Uhm, I do in fact know how to spell “serious.” (slaps forehead)

Dongemaharu on March 15, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Name this person

*Installed the biggest HC mandate in his responsibilities history. Pure sociolism
*Appointed THE most liberal judges
*Raised fees, fines and taxes
*horrible in job creation
*spent more time on vacation in office than working
*had more democrats in his administration than republicans
*His party suffered loses in his mid term elections

If you guess Obamasatan, you would be wrong, it’s good old willard romneycare!

Thanks, GOP crap establishment for giving us this piece of sh*t!

Danielvito on March 15, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Let not your heart be troubled, there’s still time to stop this train wreck! Get out and vote in your primaries and vote against Romney with the same intensity that he seems to assume we’re saving for Obama. That’s what I intend to do when it’s our turn. He may be ahead in delegates but he may not get enough if we’re as crafty and wily as he and his goons are out there and stop him. I want the strongest, well-rounded conservative candidate in this bunch to put against a weak democrat incumbent. Not a 1-note, rich one buying his way to the top.

mozalf on March 15, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Great. Uhm, I do in fact know how to spell “serious.” (slaps forehead)

Dongemaharu on March 15, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Yup, “serious” isn’t that a satellite radio company?

Don L on March 15, 2012 at 9:56 AM

We aren’t going to save the full scale attack upon America and freedom with an unprincipled, neutered bean counter.

based on the problems the country has we do NEED A BEAN COUNTER

gerrym51 on March 15, 2012 at 9:59 AM

I think a lot of conservatives moderate republicans are not happy about the way that Sen. Sanctimonious Santorum, Gingrich and much of the conservative media are joining forces with the liberal media to forestall the launch of a national campaign to defeat Obama.

bluegill on March 15, 2012 at 4:51 AM

FIFY. You are not a conservative, just a moderate republican with a couple of conservative tendencies.

The liberal media wants Romney because they believe Oboobie will flay the white fat cat. They and the moderate republicans do not want a real conservative that will attack the out of control spending, perks and law-making.

If you see a problem and your first instinct is to make a law or fix the existing, then you might be a progressive.

If you see a problem and your first instinct is to look upstream for possible unintended consequences of older laws that needs elimination, you might be a conservative.

Mittness always wants to tinker on the margins, (fix the safety net to make it stronger????) therefore he is a CINO.

AH_C on March 15, 2012 at 10:00 AM

What a pompous freak.
No, Willard, we real conservatives have NO intention of voting for you.
SIX years on the stump and MILLION$ of OPM aint buyin’my vote.
We need a MAN to lead the “free world”, not a military-dodging patriarch of a military-dodging family who puts their cult above their country.
The dimunition of what constitutes a Christian (and a ‘conservative’) continues unabated.
I’d sooner vote for a Scientologist. Saaaaaaay
Is John Travolta available? At least he can pilot Air Force One. A two-fer! Vincent Vega has a 747 license – for more things than one. (wink)
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on March 15, 2012 at 10:00 AM

How frail the man who confuses opinion for reason.

We aren’t going to save the full scale attack upon America and freedom with an unprincipled, neutered bean counter.

Don L on March 15, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Can Romney haters be honest with themselves – you have no clue how Romney would govern. You have never seen him as an elected official when he did not have a legislature comprised of 85% democrats.

It gets a bit annoying listening to how bad Romney is, and how he will govern, from people who simply have no clue what he would do as president. And I know Romney supporters dont have that answer either, but at least Romney supporters are willing to give him a chance and dont claim he is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

There is no logic or reason that has been given by the anti-Romney crowd that comports to reality or reason. Literally every argument that I have read and heard against Romney can be debunked in 4 sentences or less. Yet for the anti-Romney crowd, they refuse to listen (when they conveniently brush off all of Rick Santorum’s many flaws). So why should Romney continue to make the case to people who refuse to listen and that he will never win over anyway?

milcus on March 15, 2012 at 10:02 AM

To those who despise Santorum because he is “Big Government” due to some of his votes in the Senate and yet you are willing to hold your nose and vote for Romney, what is the difference between these two?

Santorum holds his nose voting for a bill; you hold your nose in the voting booth to vote for Romney. It would seem to be the same reasoning.

Therefore – to not vote for Santorum because he is “Big Gov” and yet you are willing to vote for Romney are either the pot calling the kettle black or you are just being hypocritical.

PuritanD71 on March 15, 2012 at 10:08 AM

you have no clue how Romney would govern
milcus on March 15, 2012 at 10:02 AM

…This seems like a big problem to me.

Dongemaharu on March 15, 2012 at 10:11 AM

milcus on March 15, 2012 at 10:02 AM

I have experience in knowing how romneycare will govern. I voted for romneycare in 2002 for Gov.. He ran as a liberal, but I figured he’s a businessman and couldn’t be as bad as the democrat. Boy, was I wrong, He was 1,000 times worse.

*Romneycare
*Raising taxes $500 million plu
*47th out of 50 states in job creation
*In 2006, his last year in office, he was out of state campaigning for prez 212 out of 300 days
*Had more dems than rep in his administration
*appointed THE most liberal judges
*Practically having public intercourse w/ted kennedy & john kerry daily
*lost GOP state senate & state rep seats in his mid term

He was a total unmitigated diaster. Debunk anything I said in the above.

By the way, he didn’t run for re-election because he would have lost in a landslide, then after burdening us w/romneycare and destroying our health care system he moves out of state.

THAT IS EXPERIENCE, YOU ARE TALKING OUT YOUR AZZ WITH NO UNDERSTANDING OF HOW HE GOVERNED.

Danielvito on March 15, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Hey Mitt. You are already doing enough to make me think about staying home this November if you get the nomination. Stop doing more or I just might.

He must like the taste of his own feet.

NotCoach on March 15, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Romney can’t beat Obama.

lea on March 15, 2012 at 10:20 AM

…This seems like a big problem to me.

Dongemaharu on March 15, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Well, you don’t know how any person running for public office will govern.

You don’t know how Santorum would govern. You don’t know how Newt would govern. Most people just make assumptions based on perceptions.

So, I am not sure why the standard for Romney is complete certainty before you can support him.

milcus on March 15, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Can Romney haters be honest with themselves – you have no clue how Romney would govern. You have never seen him as an elected official when he did not have a legislature comprised of 85% democrats.

So I guess the same applies to Santorum as well, right?

Your argument demonstrates the problem people have with Romney. He is not willing to defend conservative principles. How did Gov. Christie of NJ get his stuff passed through a Dem legislature? If Christie can and Romney can’t, what does that say for Romney?

We know exactly how Romney will govern, stick the ole finger in the wind, see what direction it is blowing and join the crowd. No Thanks.

PuritanD71 on March 15, 2012 at 10:23 AM

you have no clue how Romney would govern…

milcus on March 15, 2012 at 10:02 AM

…This seems like a big problem to me.

Dongemaharu on March 15, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Yeah, a little consistency would’ve helped.

Fallon on March 15, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Karl Mangus is my hero!

Pragmatic on March 15, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Romney just said on a live FOX interview that Obama is a nic guy-just in over his head. ARRRRRRGGGGH

catwrangler on March 15, 2012 at 10:27 AM

I doubt he cares if he wins or loses. He seems very much like McCain in that respect. He just wants the Nomination. Gets him in the history books. Who would want to be president these days, anyway?

Buckshot Bill on March 15, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Oh, I completely disagree. I think he wants very much to win the Presidency.

He’s just not going to kiss the a$$ of your Tea Partiers / “true conservatives” to do it, as you want him to. I can respect him for that.

Vyce on March 15, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Romney just said on a live FOX interview that Obama is a nic guy-just in over his head. ARRRRRRGGGGH

catwrangler on March 15, 2012 at 10:27 AM

OUTRAGE upon OUTRAGE.

Seriously, as has been explained to you before, most of America doesn’t like fire-breathing idealogues.

Let me express that to you again: YOU might LOVE red-meat, bomb-throwing conservatives like Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin, who gleefully call Obama a socialist or what-not.

MOST of America does NOT like that. Like, at all.

So Romney is going with the safer, though less satisfying to YOU, strategy of just, politely, calling Obama a “well-meaning”, but incompetent, buffoon. When you want Romney to call Obama a diehard socialist who’s ultimate goal has always been the destruction of the Republic.

Vyce on March 15, 2012 at 10:32 AM

*nice

erg. I even previewed. more coffee.

catwrangler on March 15, 2012 at 10:33 AM

milcus on March 15, 2012 at 10:02 AM

I have experience in knowing how romneycare will govern. I voted for romneycare in 2002 for Gov.. He ran as a liberal, but I figured he’s a businessman and couldn’t be as bad as the democrat. Boy, was I wrong, He was 1,000 times worse.

*Romneycare
*Raising taxes $500 million plu
*47th out of 50 states in job creation
*In 2006, his last year in office, he was out of state campaigning for prez 212 out of 300 days
*Had more dems than rep in his administration
*appointed THE most liberal judges
*Practically having public intercourse w/ted kennedy & john kerry daily
*lost GOP state senate & state rep seats in his mid term

He was a total unmitigated diaster. Debunk anything I said in the above.

By the way, he didn’t run for re-election because he would have lost in a landslide, then after burdening us w/romneycare and destroying our health care system he moves out of state.

THAT IS EXPERIENCE, YOU ARE TALKING OUT YOUR AZZ WITH NO UNDERSTANDING OF HOW HE GOVERNED.

Danielvito on March 15, 2012 at 10:13 AM

The fact that you call him Romneycare takes away any credibility that you think you have. It’s not clever, it’s just annoying.

And based on what you wrote, you might have voted for him, and lived in the state, but you have no clue of what being the governor in MA, the most liberal state in the country, means.

As for a response, here we go:

1. Better Romneycare enacted with an 85% Democratic legislature, than Patrickcare, also enacted with an 85% Democratic legislature. That is something you, and other’s like you, dont get (or refuse to get). And, even if it is a bad bill, he did it on a state level, with the support of the people he represented (which in MA is mostly democrats).

2. This is non-sense.

3. You cannot argue this.

4. And what does this show? That he was running for President? As long as the job gets done, I dont get why the guy has to physically be in the state every day.

5. It’s a democratic state. It shows that he is open to working with the other side to get things done, that he values everyones opinion, and that he is pragmatic. And again, it’s a democratic state.

6. Non-sense for many reasons. 1st, he appointed many right-wing judges. But again, in a liberal state it is a trade-off. To get republican judges you have to grease the wheels, and give democrats something too.

7. This is a useless comment.

8. Again, its a democratic state. If you go against democrats, you motivate them to come out and defeat you.

So, your response shows you have no grasp of what being a republican in a democratic state, with a democrat controlled legislature, means.

I get that in your fantasy world, Romney could have, and should have, governed as though he was in Utah. But that simply could not have happened.

milcus on March 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Can Romney haters be honest with themselves – you have no clue how Romney would govern. You have never seen him as an elected official when he did not have a legislature comprised of 85% democrats.

milcus on March 15, 2012 at 10:02 AM

And you don’t understand how we might have a problem with this??? If the country decides to elect Romney but counterbalance him with a Democratic Congress, he’ll give away the store.

And it sounds like Danielvito has a pretty good clue how Romney would govern, and it doesn’t exactly inspire confidence:

I have experience in knowing how romneycare will govern. I voted for romneycare in 2002 for Gov.. He ran as a liberal, but I figured he’s a businessman and couldn’t be as bad as the democrat. Boy, was I wrong, He was 1,000 times worse.

*Romneycare
*Raising taxes $500 million plu
*47th out of 50 states in job creation
*In 2006, his last year in office, he was out of state campaigning for prez 212 out of 300 days
*Had more dems than rep in his administration
*appointed THE most liberal judges
*Practically having public intercourse w/ted kennedy & john kerry daily
*lost GOP state senate & state rep seats in his mid term

He was a total unmitigated disaster. Debunk anything I said in the above.

By the way, he didn’t run for re-election because he would have lost in a landslide, then after burdening us w/romneycare and destroying our health care system he moves out of state.

THAT IS EXPERIENCE, YOU ARE TALKING OUT YOUR AZZ WITH NO UNDERSTANDING OF HOW HE GOVERNED.

Danielvito on March 15, 2012 at 10:13 AM

With a record like that, letting President Destroyer have his final four years in office doesn’t sound so unthinkable if the only alternative is Romney.

Aitch748 on March 15, 2012 at 10:37 AM

OUTRAGE upon OUTRAGE.

Seriously, as has been explained to you before, most of America doesn’t like fire-breathing idealogues.

Let me express that to you again: YOU might LOVE red-meat, bomb-throwing conservatives like Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin, who gleefully call Obama a socialist or what-not.

MOST of America does NOT like that. Like, at all.

So Romney is going with the safer, though less satisfying to YOU, strategy of just, politely, calling Obama a “well-meaning”, but incompetent, buffoon. When you want Romney to call Obama a diehard socialist who’s ultimate goal has always been the destruction of the Republic.

Vyce on March 15, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Can you say, John McCain or Bob Dole, GHW Bush for that matter?! The American people want a fighter and not an arrogant ceo, like Donald Trump in this case, who is used to buying people – and not always succeeding or with good results. It’s the Kiss of Death and we’re working to prevent this!

mozalf on March 15, 2012 at 10:39 AM

So I guess the same applies to Santorum as well, right?

Your argument demonstrates the problem people have with Romney. He is not willing to defend conservative principles. How did Gov. Christie of NJ get his stuff passed through a Dem legislature? If Christie can and Romney can’t, what does that say for Romney?

We know exactly how Romney will govern, stick the ole finger in the wind, see what direction it is blowing and join the crowd. No Thanks.

PuritanD71 on March 15, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Yes, the same applies to everyone.

As for Christie, New Jersey is a lot less liberal than MA, and the state legislature is much more balanced then MA.

However, Christie built a lot of goodwill through compromise. It’s a game of give and take. A lot of what no one talks about is Christie working on a lot of issues with the Democrats. By giving them certain things, he creates political capital, that he then leverages in things that are important to him.

That’s how it works when the legislative and executive branch are not occupied by members of the same party.

And while Romney might do things to infuriate conservatives if he is president, I think a Santorum presidency would surprise you for looking very similar. A lot of what Santorum wants is DOA, and to do much of what he will need to do, he will need to work with Democrats.

milcus on March 15, 2012 at 10:40 AM

So now Mitt’s detractors are “fire breathing ideologues” for not thinking that Mitt Romney is conservative. That’s the sad part of this whole mess. Mitt is doing at least as much to damage movement conservatism by changing the definition of “conservative” as Obama is doing by being anti-conservative.

gryphon202 on March 15, 2012 at 10:41 AM

With a record like that, letting President Destroyer have his final four years in office doesn’t sound so unthinkable if the only alternative is Romney.

Aitch748 on March 15, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Except that is not his record. It’s a biased, cherry-picked, and mostly incorrect interpretation by someone who simply does not like Mitt Romney because he voted for a Republican in a liberal state, and the guy did not govern like Ronald Reagan because he simply could not have.

milcus on March 15, 2012 at 10:43 AM

So Romney is going with the safer, though less satisfying to YOU, strategy of just, politely, calling Obama a “well-meaning”, but incompetent, buffoon. When you want Romney to call Obama a diehard socialist who’s ultimate goal has always been the destruction of the Republic.

Vyce on March 15, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Too bad for his inconsistencies with this in the primaries.

I guess what worked for McCain will work for Romney….opps never mind!

PuritanD71 on March 15, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Ye Gods. We are doomed.

SMOD 2012

Spliff Menendez on March 15, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Ye Gods. We are doomed.

SMOD SCOAMF 2012

Spliff Menendez on March 15, 2012 at 10:44 AM

We don’t deserve the merciful and painless SMOD.

gryphon202 on March 15, 2012 at 10:48 AM

I rarely post on here, or anywhere, but everytime I read that Romney and the people who support him are unprincipled I respond by saying that the extreme right wing (or is that “true” conservatives”?) are not the only ones with principles.

Paddington on March 15, 2012 at 10:48 AM

I rarely post on here, or anywhere, but everytime I read that Romney and the people who support him are unprincipled I respond by saying that the extreme right wing (or is that “true” conservatives”?) are not the only ones with principles.

Paddington on March 15, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Indeed. Socialism is a principle. “Win at all costs, results be damned” is a principle. “Conservatism is outdated” is a principle. There are few people that are genuinely unprincipled, and we usually call them sociopaths. Whatever you want to say about Mitt Romney, he knows exactly what he is doing. He is no sociopath.

gryphon202 on March 15, 2012 at 10:51 AM

milcus on March 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM

You have no fu*king clue what your talking about. Typical mittbot. I LIVED IN MA. WHEN ROMNEYCARE WAS GOVENOR. IT WAS ROMNEYCARE, NOT THE DEMOCRATS IN 2004 THAT WANTED TO COVER EVERYONE THAT WAS UNINSURED. THE DEMOCRATIC SENATE LEADER WANTED ONLY TO COVER 50% OF THE UNINSURED.

Do you freakin understand that, romneycare was to the left of the democratic state legislature. Do you get this. Stop with the lies. Romneycare was all him, he concieved it and implemented it. He owns it!!!!

Your responses of “nonsense” of him raising taxes plus $500 million, being 47th out of 50 states in job creation, appointing liberal judges etc., is typical of you tools. Those are all FACTS for his goverening.

God, you hacks are hopeless!

Danielvito on March 15, 2012 at 10:51 AM

So Romney is going with the safer, though less satisfying to YOU, strategy of just, politely, calling Obama a “well-meaning”, but incompetent, buffoon. When you want Romney to call Obama a diehard socialist who’s ultimate goal has always been the destruction of the Republic.

I bet the “nice guy over his head” irritates Obama more-because he know its TRUE.

LOL

gerrym51 on March 15, 2012 at 10:52 AM

The Dictator Mindset:

Constitution? I Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Constitution! — Sanctimonious Santo

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/216093-santorum-says-puerto-rico-must-adopt-english-as-official-language-if-it-wants-statehood

mountainaires on March 15, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Danielvito on March 15, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Daniel-since I live in mass. also-I believe your blood pressure is rising.

You tend to slant things a bit.BUT,your entitled to YOUR opinion.
It’s just not MINE.

LOL

gerry-mittbot-thinks daniel needs some zyprexa

gerrym51 on March 15, 2012 at 10:56 AM

I really hate these threads,..

All these words, and not a damn thing new said, besides another round of You suck.. no YOU suck.. NO YOU SUCK,.. NO YOU SUCK HARDER…

Just vote and let it go.. nobody is convincing anybody else at this point.

mark81150 on March 15, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Danielvito on March 15, 2012 at 10:51 AM

You are an unhinged person.

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 10:58 AM

gryphon202 on March 15, 2012 at 10:51 AM

I’m not sure they are principles, but I think you know what I meant. But if I was unclear, how about….Those in the extreme right-wing are not the only ones who follow a code of conduct in their lives that is considered admirable by most of the Western world.

Paddington on March 15, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Sh*t Santo Says:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RakkpnfQV0&feature=youtu.be

mountainaires on March 15, 2012 at 11:01 AM

THE DEMOCRATIC SENATE LEADER WANTED ONLY TO COVER 50% OF THE UNINSURED.

Do you freakin understand that, romneycare was to the left of the democratic state legislature. Do you get this. Stop with the lies. Romneycare was all him, he concieved it and implemented it. He owns it!!!!

Danielvito on March 15, 2012 at 10:51 AM

This is correct. The senate bill was much more modest than either the House bill or Romney’s plan, and was arguably the most conservative of the three. Most importantly, it did not have either an individual or an employer mandate.

Just Sayin on March 15, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Danielvito on March 15, 2012 at 10:51 AM

God, you hacks are hopeless!

New campaign slogan HACKS FOR ROMNEY

lol

gerry-mittbot-hack

gerrym51 on March 15, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 10:58 AM

To mittbots, facts makes a person unhinged.

Do you deny that romneycare as governor

*Implemented the largest HC mandate in state history, also, that he was the first governor ever to cover everyone’s HC
*That he raised taxes plus $500 million
*That he appointed liberal judges
*That he was 47th out of 50 states in job creation. Gov. palin was 2nd
*That he lost republican seats in his mid term elections in state senate/house of reps.
*Had more dems than rep. in his administration
*That his last year in office spent 212 out of 300 days campaigning for prez., while we were paying for his security, staff, expenses

Deny any oth this

Danielvito on March 15, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Hey, I consider myself from the Limbaugh wing of the conservative party. I’ll vote & donate to which ever clown comes out of this fight, but I would like it to be known.. Im not impressed with the fighting in this quest. Any Romney started it with Newt. Newt needs to get out, so Santorum & Romney can fight it out. And BTW.. can someone tell Paul to go home, the game is over.

mmcnamer1 on March 15, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Grrrr. Mitt drives me crazy. He should not assume that we will support him in November. No one likes to be taken for granted.

dmn1972 on March 15, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Danielvito on March 15, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Daniel, I think you’ve run out of negatives to say about Romney.

Why don’t you try raising positives about Rick and Newt.

Then after that I expect the negatives about Rick and Newt

gerry-mittbot-Daniel don’t forget your zyprexa

gerrym51 on March 15, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Grrrr. Mitt drives me crazy. He should not assume that we will support him in November. No one likes to be taken for granted.

sounds like my wife

lol

gerrym51 on March 15, 2012 at 11:11 AM

So now Mitt’s detractors are “fire breathing ideologues” for not thinking that Mitt Romney is conservative.

No, that’s not what I said. You tend to like to mischaracterize the arguments of others, particularly when you don’t agree with them. I suppose it makes it easier for you to then dismiss them, without actually addressing them.

I said you Tea Party / true con types WANT a fire-breathing idealogue.

Well, most of America does not.

That’s the sad part of this whole mess. Mitt is doing at least as much to damage movement conservatism by changing the definition of “conservative” as Obama is doing by being anti-conservative.

gryphon202 on March 15, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Please. The people doing the most damage to movement conservatives these days? Are the movement conservatives. You drone on and on about “principles” but can’t really decide which principles you strictly want to follow. Yet you also set up some rather severe purity tests for your politicians, and as a result, those politicians have come up wanting, time and time again, leaving you with no one individual to rally behind. You’re not terribly good at building people up, just tearing people down.

Vyce on March 15, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Sorry Romney, but I’m voting for the Constitution Party again this election. I was talked out of voting for Perot my first time in ’92, I voted for Dole even though I didn’t think he was a good candidate, voted for Bush both times (even though I had serious reservations the 2nd time), and decided in 2008 that I was tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.

The question is, if Obama loses, will he leave?

cebj25 on March 15, 2012 at 11:12 AM

I never click on any of Romney’s interviews and I haven’t heard one of his primary speeches, mainly because I can’t stand that phoney expression he always has on his face or the sound of his voice. If he’s the nominee, I just don’t know if I will even vote, and I haven’t missed a vote since Reagan. There has to be a reason the Republican Party keeps putting up these moderate/liberal candidates, and the only reason could be power and money in the way of corruption.

lea on March 15, 2012 at 11:13 AM

gerrym51 on March 15, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Don’t get me wrong. I’ll vote for him if I have to, but I won’t like it and he just keeps on making it harder and harder.

dmn1972 on March 15, 2012 at 11:14 AM

This is correct. The senate bill was much more modest than either the House bill or Romney’s plan, and was arguably the most conservative of the three. Most importantly, it did not have either an individual or an employer mandate.

it also had no way to pay for it

gerrym51 on March 15, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Danielvito on March 15, 2012 at 10:51 AM

let’s first step back and discuss the history of the individual mandate. It all started with a piece of legislation passed in 1986 by a Democratic House and a Republican Senate and signed by Ronald Reagan, called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA. (EMTALA was passed as part of a larger budget bill called the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, or COBRA, which is best known for allowing those who have lost their jobs to continue buying health insurance through their old employer’s group plan.)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/02/07/the-tortuous-conservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/

mountainaires on March 15, 2012 at 11:14 AM

If Romney, with his eleven to one spending advantage, manages to buy a slight plurality of delegates, we will have the worst RINO candidate that money can buy.

idesign on March 15, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Sanctimonious Santo:

HE WAS FOR IT BEFORE HE WAS AGAINST IT

http://thelibertyblog.org/2012/01/20/rick-santorums-negatives-part-9-individual-mandate-for-it-before-he-was-against-it/

mountainaires on March 15, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Yes, he’s just ‘in over his head’ that will be our epitaph;

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/03/lets-face-it-he-hates-us-obama-in-1990-were-going-to-reshape-mean-spirited-and-selfish-america/

narciso on March 15, 2012 at 11:18 AM

You’re not terribly good at building people up, just tearing people down.

Vyce on March 15, 2012 at 11:11 AM

And how am I supposed to feel about Mitt Romney when he assures his big-ticket donors that the plebes will line up behind him when the rubber hits the road? You call that building people up? I call it taking your base for granted.

If you can actually debate my assertion that Romney is damaging the “conservative” brand by changing the definition of the word, that’s fine. But if all you’re going to do is say I must be wrong because I’m saying something negative about Romney, you’re on shaky ground trying to convince me that voting for him is a good idea.

gryphon202 on March 15, 2012 at 11:19 AM

If Romney, with his eleven to one spending advantage, manages to buy a slight plurality of delegates, we will have the worst RINO candidate that money can buy.

Romney had all this money advantage back in september. Santorum knew this then. It seems disingenous to claim a Romney money advantage now. wasn’t Romney ALWAYS going to have a money advantage.

gerrym51 on March 15, 2012 at 11:19 AM

it also had no way to pay for it

gerrym51 on March 15, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Interesting. Can you please provide a comparison of sources and uses of funds for both plans so we can see how much better-financed Romney’s plan was?

Thanks.

Just Sayin on March 15, 2012 at 11:21 AM

We know exactly how Romney will govern, stick the ole finger in the wind, see what direction it is blowing and join the crowd. No Thanks.

PuritanD71 on March 15, 2012 at 10:23 AM

♫♪ Ding Ding Ding ♫♪

Sums it up for me. Thanks.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on March 15, 2012 at 11:22 AM

mountainaires on March 15, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Ok, then admit romneycare in 2004, took it to the extreme step of covering everyone- sociolism. From wikipedia

“In November 2004, political leaders began advocating for major reforms of the Massachusetts health care insurance system to expand coverage. First, the Senate President Robert Travaglini called for a plan to reduce the number of uninsured by half. A few days later, the Governor, Mitt Romney, announced that he would propose a plan to cover virtually all of the uninsured”

By the way, the dem travaglini who wanted to cover half the uninsured is currently in jail, he’s a crook. Romneycare, wanted to be more liberal than a democratic crook.

Danielvito on March 15, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Sorry Romney, but I’m voting for the Constitution Party again this election. I was talked out of voting for Perot my first time in ’92, I voted for Dole even though I didn’t think he was a good candidate, voted for Bush both times (even though I had serious reservations the 2nd time), and decided in 2008 that I was tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.

cebj25 on March 15, 2012 at 11:12 AM

I know the feeling, but I got inoculated against “protest” votes in the general by not voting for Reagan.

I had been a fervent and outspoken Reagan disciple from the age of 12 and just missed out on the 1980 election. But by my first Pres election in 1984 he had violated enough campaign promises–and he didn’t need my vote anyway–that I voted Constitution.

Only afterward did I realize that I will never again have another opportunity to vote for such a great President, and I missed out on the one I had.

So I vowed I will never again make my vote in the general a protest vote. My vote for Newt in the primary was disgusting enough, but at least a protest vote in a primary sends a message. A protest vote in November is a waste vote.

rwenger43 on March 15, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Danielvito on March 15, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Facts are stubborn things:

Fact: Romney did not raise taxes as Governor of Massachusetts. He did raise fees–so that taxpayers didn’t have to pay for services they did not use. Ronald Reagan was a strong proponent of fees. Gov. Rick Perry is also a strong proponent of fees.

In truth, Romney repeatedly proposed tax cuts, which were shot down by the Democratic MA legislature, starting as soon as he began to turn around the economy, prompting the liberal Boston Globe to complain after Romney’s first year in office, “The first signs of life appear in the Massachusetts economy and the governor calls for a $225 million tax cut.”(10) Some communities in MA chose to raise property taxes at the local level which Romney had no control over (7).

Some critics claim that Romney’s cuts in state spending forced local communities to raise their taxes, but the fact is they were under no obligation to raise taxes. Romney also closed loopholes in existing tax law, allowing the state to collect taxes from those who had been using schemes to reduce income reported on state tax returns (8).

Some critics falsely assert that Romney raised capital gains tax rates. In truth, the tax increase was enacted before Romney was elected governor but took effect during Romney’s term after having been tied up in court for several years(9). Critics are unable to point to any tax increases from Romney, and Romney fought for tax cuts and did get some tax cuts enacted.

http://www.whyromney.com/index.php#10

mountainaires on March 15, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Interesting. Can you please provide a comparison of sources and uses of funds for both plans so we can see how much better-financed Romney’s plan was?

actually I only have my recollection at the time being a msss. resident myself.

the senate plan was less ambitious but was basically paid out of state coffers.

the house/romney agreement had the individual mandates.Romney vetoed employer mandate.

gerry

gerrym51 on March 15, 2012 at 11:26 AM

and decided in 2008 that I was tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.

cebj25 on March 15, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Maybe it will help if you don’t look at them as the lesser of two evils.

Try voting for the better of two crooks.

rwenger43 on March 15, 2012 at 11:26 AM

The record reflects that Romney did NOT RAISE TAXES as Governor. He raised fees; in that way only those who used services paid for them, not all taxpayers. In fact, Romney pushed for TAX CUTS as Governor of Massachusetts. Ronald Reagan was a strong proponent of fees, and Gov. Rick Perry is also a strong proponent of fees in Texas.

Boston Globe complained after Romney’s first year in office, “The first signs of life appear in the Massachusetts economy and the governor calls for a $225 million tax cut.”

http://www.whyromney.com/index.php#10

mountainaires on March 15, 2012 at 11:28 AM

and decided in 2008 that I was tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.

wouldn’t voting for Romney be the lesser of 2 evils

gerrym51 on March 15, 2012 at 11:29 AM

I can only speak for myself. I have no idea how any of these guys will perform as President. No one here has anything other than a calculated guess. I do know this, any vote not for the Republican candidate IS a vote for Obama. I lived through this twice with Ross Perot. Even if there’s no third party, a non-vote is a plus vote for Obama.

I will vote for roadkill before I vote for Obama. Even with a RINO we have a chance to keep actual Communists off the Supreme Court. Nothing in life is a guarantee, except that to not vote against Obama is to vote FOR him.

TugboatPhil on March 15, 2012 at 11:30 AM

wouldn’t voting for Romney be the lesser of 2 evils

gerrym51 on March 15, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Only if you’re talking Romney Vs. Obama, and Romney DOESN’T have the nomination wrapped up yet.

gryphon202 on March 15, 2012 at 11:32 AM

LOATHE the great white hope of 0bama. I AM a conservative, and I STILL see NO reason to pull the lever for 0bama lite.

Maybe I’ll do what the RonPaulBots did in 2008. Maybe I’ll vote for the real thing.

0bama 2012: Four more years!

DannoJyd on March 15, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Aitch748 on March 15, 2012 at 10:37 AM

If you believe those lies, then you’re dumber than dirt. That is not his record. If you just want to stay stupid, it’s your right. But if you want to know the facts–with documentation–you can start reading:

http://www.whyromney.com/

mountainaires on March 15, 2012 at 11:35 AM

actually I only have my recollection at the time being a msss. resident myself.

the senate plan was less ambitious but was basically paid out of state coffers.

the house/romney agreement had the individual mandates.Romney vetoed employer mandate.

gerry

gerrym51 on March 15, 2012 at 11:26 AM

My recollection is a bit different, but I could be wrong. The Senate plan was definitely less ambitious – which in my mind is a good thing, given the monstrosity we ended up with. But as I recall it was also largely funded by additional federal matching funds, as it moved additional populations not previously covered under the Medicaid waiver (covered instead under 100% state expense) into the Medicaid program. The only other “new” revenue source that I can recall was additional funds from the Tobacco settlement. But again, I could be wrong.

The only thing I will give Romney credit for was working with the House to significantly weaken the employer mandate, as you noted. That was key. What I don’t give him credit for was having agreed to go along with the weak mandate (which he did) in order to get the thing passed, and then vetoing it. He really angered a lot of people with that move. It contributes to the sense that some people have that he can’t be trusted.

Again, this is just my recollection.

Just Sayin on March 15, 2012 at 11:40 AM

I am being force fed a crap sandwich. And I will not accept it. Sorry Rombots.

gryphon202 on March 15, 2012 at 11:41 AM

mountainaires on March 15, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Your right facts are to tough to lie about. I was wrong, Romneycare didn’t raise taxes $500 million, he raised taxes $740 million while governor

In fact, Romney increased taxes by $309 million, mainly on corporations. These tax hikes, described by Romney apologists as “loophole closures,” totaled $128 million in 2003, $95.5 in 2004, and $85 million in 2005. That final year, Romney proposed $170 million in higher business taxes, the Boston Globe reports. However, the Bay State’s liberal, Democratic legislature balked and only approved an $85 million increase.

“Tax rates on many corporations almost doubled because of legislation supported by Romney,” Boston Science Corporation chairman Peter Nicholas explained in the January 6, 2008 Boston Herald. Also, Romney raised the tax on subchapter S corporations owned by business trusts from 5.3 percent to 9.9 percent — an 85 percent hike.

“Romney went further than any other governor in trying to wring money out of corporations,” the Council on State Taxation’s Joseph Crosby complained.

Romney also created or increased fees by $432 million. He was not dragooned into this by greedy Democratic lawmakers; Romney himself proposed these items. In 2003 alone, Romney concocted or boosted 88 fees. Romney charged more for marriage licenses (from $6 to $12), gun registrations (from $25 to $75), a used-car sales tax ($10 million), gasoline deliveries ($60 million), real-estate transfers ($175 million), and more. Particularly obnoxious was Romney’s $10 fee per Certificate of Blindness. Romney also billed blind people $15 each for discount-travel ID cards.

While Romney can take credit for a $275 million capital-gains tax rebate, property-tax relief for seniors, and a two-day, tax-free shopping holiday, he also must take responsibility for signing $740.5 million in higher taxes, plus that $85 million in business taxes that he requested and legislators rejected.

“Romney did not even fight higher death-tax rates,” notes former California State Assembly Minority Whip Steve Baldwin, a Romney critic. “When the (Massachusetts) legislature considered this issue, Romney’s official position was ‘no position.’ This echoed Barack Obama’s ‘present’ votes in the Illinois State Senate.”

As Romney drained his constituents’ pockets, the Public Policy Institute of New York’s Cost of Doing Business Index rated Massachusetts in 2006 as America’s fourth costliest state in which to practice free enterprise. The Tax Foundation dropped Massachusetts from America’s 29th most business-friendly state to No. 36. The Tax Foundation also calculated that, under Romney, Massachusetts’ per-capita tax burden increased from 9.3 percent to 9.9 percent. In real dollars, the Romney-era per-capita tax burden grew by $1,175.71.

As if impoverishing his own taxpayers were not bad enough, Romney’s March 5, 2003 signature raised taxes on non-residents retroactive to that January 1. Perpetrating taxation without representation, Romney’s law declared that, “gross income derived from… any trade or business, including any employment,” would be taxable, “regardless of the taxpayer’s residence or domicile in the year it is received.”

Consequently, according to data furnished by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, between 2002 and 2006, New Hampshire residents who work or do business in the Bay State shipped Massachusetts $95 million above what they paid when Romney arrived. The average tax paid by New Hampshirities to Massachusetts grew by 19.1 percent, from $2,392 in 2002 to $2,850 in 2006.

One intersting point in the article, it was the liberal democratic legislature that prevented romneycare from raising taxes even more!

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/mitt-romney-raised-taxes-by-740-million-while-he-was-governor-of-massachusetts/

Danielvito on March 15, 2012 at 11:41 AM

gerrym51 on March 15, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Just Sayin on March 15, 2012 at 11:40 AM

BTW, I like having an actual exchange of thoughts and ideas instead of the bickering that we see too often here. Thanks for the good conversation. :-)

Just Sayin on March 15, 2012 at 11:43 AM

New Study: Romneycare Cost Massachusetts 18,000 Jobs

0bama lite? Bet on it!

DannoJyd on March 15, 2012 at 11:44 AM

What specific issues separate “Conservative” from “Very Conservative”? Being against the murder of babies makes one “extreme”? Believing that the family has to do with having and raising children? Are these the voters Romney is dismissing as unimportant?

I’m thinking that Romeny, Rove, Coulter, etc. etc. are making it very clear that there is no room in the Republican Party for “very” conservative voters. There’s no room for Palin, no room for Gingrich, no room for Santorum. Our voices are the destructive ones apparently, even though Romney et al are the voices which are using the tactics of personal and absolute destruction against any and all comers, which now include Sarah Palin.

You know, I can’t think of even one politician with whom I agree 100% of the time or whom I believe is beyond criticism. The Grand Old Party used to be the Party of civil debate and disagreement. Unlike the Democrats, we welcomed intellectual exchanges and getting into the weeds with an issue. With the advent of Romney, anyone not in lock step are idiots, morons, extreme—the exact same names the Democrats call us.

I’ve been an active Republican for over 45 years. Even during the Rockerfeller fights, conservatives were considered an essential part of the Party. No more. Under Romney, the big tent only includes liberals, independents and moderates. No conservatives welcome.

A party not big enough to include Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich is simply not big enough for me.

Portia46 on March 15, 2012 at 11:47 AM

As for Christie, New Jersey is a lot less liberal than MA, and the state legislature is much more balanced then MA.

Problem is that Christie stood up to the teachers’ unions and was able to rally the people on his side to vote for the needed legislation.

On the other hand, Romney never did.

PuritanD71 on March 15, 2012 at 11:50 AM

You have no fu*king clue what your talking about. Typical mittbot. I LIVED IN MA. WHEN ROMNEYCARE WAS GOVENOR. IT WAS ROMNEYCARE, NOT THE DEMOCRATS IN 2004 THAT WANTED TO COVER EVERYONE THAT WAS UNINSURED. THE DEMOCRATIC SENATE LEADER WANTED ONLY TO COVER 50% OF THE UNINSURED.

Do you freakin understand that, romneycare was to the left of the democratic state legislature. Do you get this. Stop with the lies. Romneycare was all him, he concieved it and implemented it. He owns it!!!!

Your responses of “nonsense” of him raising taxes plus $500 million, being 47th out of 50 states in job creation, appointing liberal judges etc., is typical of you tools. Those are all FACTS for his goverening.

God, you hacks are hopeless!

Danielvito on March 15, 2012 at 10:51 AM

This is when you know you won an argument. When the other guy starts cursing and ranting.

If you live in MA, go enroll in any college and take a course on how government works in your state.

Very little of what you said is a fact. And any truth to what you said is conditioned on circumstances.

And until you realize what dealing with a state legislature that is comprised of mostly liberals does to legislation, discussing Romney’s record in MA with you is a waste of time.

milcus on March 15, 2012 at 11:53 AM

That’s it Flip, let your SMUGNESS show for all to see.

I can’t wait to vote for you. NOT!(Try NEVER.)

RedRobin145 on March 15, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Problem is that Christie stood up to the teachers’ unions and was able to rally the people on his side to vote for the needed legislation.

On the other hand, Romney never did.

PuritanD71 on March 15, 2012 at 11:50 AM

You are right. But without getting the necessary votes in the legislature, he could have never made the necessary reforms. He was able to accomplish that because he crafted a working relationship with Democrats and gave in on other issues.

In MA, the people will never be on on his side because it is a liberal state. And even if they are, the legislature is so much more liberal, that working with them was very difficult.

There is simply no chance Romney could enact anti-union legislation in MA.

milcus on March 15, 2012 at 11:57 AM

I will vote for roadkill before I vote for Obama. Even with a RINO we have a chance to keep actual Communists off the Supreme Court. Nothing in life is a guarantee, except that to not vote against Obama is to vote FOR him.

TugboatPhil on March 15, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Right on!

It’s a shame some people haven’t gotten this cudgel to the head yet. We have ONE united goal: To beat Obama. No matter how Mitt’s detractors blather on, he’s the best shot we’ve got to realistically achieve that goal.

Slainte on March 15, 2012 at 12:03 PM

@ milcus.

You make some good points, but you lapse into the same flawed assumptions about non-Romney supporters that you decry in the non-Romney’s, and the same BS pro-Romney rhetoric that all his supporters use. A few points.

1. There is a difference between Mitt “pandering” to people whom he knows won’t vote for him, and crapping all over them.

2. You wrongly shove all anti-Romney’s into one category: haters who won’t see the flaws in their candidate. That is NOT true of myself and a lot of anti-Romneys. I see flaws in all the candidates, and few differences between them. I don’t like any of them. Romney’s biggest supporters here do exactly what you claim his opponents do, gloss over his flaws, and attack his opponents.

3. How hypocritical of you to say someone has no credibility for referring to Romney by a nickname, when all I see here is crap like Sweater Vest Rick and serial adulterer Newt from the folks on YOUR SIDE.

4. I voted for Santorum in the primary because I don’t trust Mitt to govern as a conservative. No, I don’t KNOW how either of them would govern, but I can look at Mitt’s record in MA and his statements, and there are two red flags that jump out at me. The first is Romneycare. Like it or not, that is a huge black mark on his record. I do not trust him to do what he says he will do about Obaacare. The second is his flip-flops, but particularly the one on abortion. He clearly has a history of telling voters what he thinks they want to hear, in order to get elected. That is why I don’t trust him, and, YES, I realize all the candidates do that to some extent, but Mitt seems much worse.

5. Santorum has some votes I don’t approve of, but overall he has a pretty strong conservative rating, and I have no reason to believe his irrational haters who screech about him wanting to legislate his morality on the country. He has also, contrary to his haters, talked about his own ideas to fix our fiscal problems, and he has not “talked about nothing but social issues.” His detractors just pretend he hasn’t.

JannyMae on March 15, 2012 at 12:11 PM

To beat Obama. No matter how Mitt’s detractors blather on, he’s the best shot we’ve got to realistically achieve that goal.

Slainte on March 15, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Isn’t that what the insiders also said about McLame? Why, YES IT IS!

Damn shame you folks won’t be able to blame Sarah this time.

DannoJyd on March 15, 2012 at 12:14 PM

It’s a shame some people haven’t gotten this cudgel to the head yet. We have ONE united goal: To beat Obama. No matter how Mitt’s detractors blather on, he’s the best shot we’ve got to realistically achieve that goal.

Slainte on March 15, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Soooooooooo
You’d sell your soul for an election victory? Is that all it takes?
I feel sorry for MittBots and their aversion to reality. Willard’s “core beliefs”, are science fiction.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on March 15, 2012 at 12:14 PM

I feel sorry for MittBots and their aversion to reality. Willard’s “core beliefs”, are science fiction.

Karl Magnus on March 15, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Don’t waste your pity on the RonMeBots. They worked HARD to lose their relevance today just as do Liberal Democrats.

DannoJyd on March 15, 2012 at 12:25 PM

A party not big enough to include Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich is simply not big enough for me.

Portia46 on March 15, 2012 at 11:47 AM

I am being force fed a crap sandwich. And I will not accept it. Sorry Rombots.

gryphon202 on March 15, 2012 at 11:41 AM

After McCain we said never again. Some of us meant it.

Night Owl on March 15, 2012 at 12:32 PM

McCain didn’t lose in 08 because he was insufficiently conservative, he lost because he was a Republican. The country had Bush fatigue, we had a lot of people excited about “making history” with Obama, and the economy tanked 6 weeks before the election. Reagan reincarnated would have likely lost that one.

Not so sure about that last part. McCain was up in the polls for a while, until the economy tanked. Ironically, had McCain chosen Romney as his running mate rather than Palin, he would have had someone close to him who could give good advice on the economy, and help articulate it to the electorate. That may have been enough to get him over the finish line. Palin started out an asset, but proved once again that while it is great to have the base excited, an excited base doesn’t necessarily translate into electoral success. Palin didn’t lose the election for McCain – he, and his inept advisors must take the blame for that. But she didn’t help. Romney may have helped.

Mr. Arkadin on March 14, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Yeah, that ticket would have generated all kinds of excitement.

Romney was probably the only candidate less likely to attract voters than McCain.

tom on March 15, 2012 at 12:34 PM

I will vote for anyone who runs against the lefts’ messiah and I am extremely conservative.

BillCarson on March 15, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 8 9 10 11