A Perspective From a Romney Supporter
posted at 7:56 am on January 27, 2012 by Rovin
Green Room Guest Post
In a effort to promote a “positive atmosphere” about the Republican Primary Candidates, (instead of shredding Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment), I thought it would be refreshing to publish a few “guest post” here in the Green Room who would offer a more positive perspective of their preferred candidate. Comments and constructive criticism are welcome.
The Mitt Riff, or why we will be okay if Mitt Romney survives the 2012 GOP primary gauntlet and becomes our nominee.
In two words: Moderate conservatism. One can argue that the totality of the heresies Mitt has committed against conservatism make him unfit to carry the conservative banner against Obama. As for the heresies, you would probably be dead on. They are there, so I won’t argue their existence, but rather will argue why they aren’t as bad as are perceived and in the end why they shouldn’t unduly concern conservatives.
I will not take the time to list them all but rather the positions I feel are the most problematic.
1) Romneycare. Even though Romneycare is an anathema to conservatism, Romney did not implement it as an experiment in social engineering as Obamacare was. It was an attempt to deal with a fiscal issue facing the state concerning the way it was spending federal dollars. They had to develop a plan to spend it differently in order to continue to receive it. The coalition that supported the law was varied and bipartisan. Romney could have opted for a true single payer plan had he been so inclined. Especially in the blue state of MA. But he presented a plan based on fiscal conservatism.
The constitution of the state of Massachusetts allows for the mandate, which is in complete harmony with the tenth amendment. The governor has promised to waive, defund, and then repeal Obamacare and return the responsibility to the states. His commitments to the tenth amendment restrictions on the federal government make his promise entirely believable.
2) Bain Capital. The criticisms by “conservatives” on his time with Bain are baffling. All data indicates that all his dealings were entirely legal and ethical. As a venture capital entity, Bain must make money for their investors. And Bain outperformed the market in that area. 70% of the businesses they invested in were saved from default. Many went on to be very successful entities that now employ collectively over 100,000 Americans. By contrast, the market achieved roughly a 50% rate of success.
The Obama machine is certainly gearing up to face Romney. The OWS protests were fueled by class warfare rhetoric that is parroted by prominent democrat politicians. Romney is the 1% and he will be portrayed as a walls street fat cat. I believe that except for his mishandling of the tax return issue, he is establishing a narrative that will counter the negative view the country in general has toward the wealthy. First, he is knowledgeable on the workings of the free market and has explained how these entities are improving the lives of everyone in this country. He promotes the idea that he wants all Americans to become wealthy and that opportunity comes through freedom and responsibility. He doesn’t talk down wealth creation for the masses.
3) Lack of passion. This is probably the only thing holding Romney back from running away from the field and winning the nomination with the rest of the states. It is clear he is a technocrat. A very useful trait for a president, but not a good trait for a politician. Even though he is by all personal accounts a kind, thoughtful, and compassionate man, he comes off as aloof and unable to relate to the common man while he is politicking. A person is either born with the ability to connect with strangers or must acquire the skills by practice. Romney is unmistakably in the latter category. I have no advice for him except to cease trying to manage his every word as technocrats are wont to do. He projects his attention to detail onto all people and feels and misspeak on his part will be a huge issue. This simply is not the case. I myself am somewhat of a technocrat and when Romney said in the Ingram interview that the “economy was getting better”, I nearly came unglued! I figured the media would hang that around his neck like a millstone for weeks. But it was over in just a few days. I think he should be more open with what he really feels and cease trying to be the “perfect” politician.
The last issue is his debate performances. It is widely agreed that he has been very steady and consistent. This is good until you become boring. And Romney has become predictable reliable and predictable banal. He has moments of brilliance as was evident in the debate Monday night. He showed that he can be forceful, pointed, and very effective. But he also has moments when he is inexplicable clumsy. But the good moments outweigh the bad and that has been a consistent trend. I believe that the drive that is part of his nature is what has helped him become a better candidate as this primary season has progressed and will be the drive that overcomes his weakness in relating to people and having more passion in the general sense.
In conclusion, the governor has a rare quality that is overlooked in people who are successful. He is in the same league with as the star athletes, musicians, and other who excel, in that they make it look so easy that we forget how difficult it really is. His drive to succeed has made him successful at nearly every endeavor in which he has begun. He survived a head-on automobile accident, graduated from Harvard, was recruited right out of school, started Bain Capital, saved the Olympics, and became the moderate conservative governor of a blue state in which he accomplished a lot for the citizens. He has spent his entire life outside of Washington and except for the associations all politicians need from Washington, he is the antithesis of the DC insider. His credentials as a fiscal hawk are impeccable and that is what we need in these troubling times. His character is beyond reproach, he is honest, and is a devoted husband and father. A deeply faithful man who I believe is guided by principles that are sorely lacking in our elected officials.
Short of Ronald Reagan rising from the grave, Mitt Romney is the only candidate we have who exhibits the ability to combine knowledge, experience, grace, honor, and the discipline that we need in our next president, whose job it will be to extricate us out of the abyss Barack Obama has propelled us into with his Marxist social engineering policies. For these reasons I say to my fellow conservatives….
Fear not…..for faith precedes the miracle.
(Note: The author has requested to remain anonymous at this time)
Update: I was still asleep this morning and must have been prospecting—Perspective is the correct term—thanks……Rov










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
Dreck! Essentially the same arguments that Obama supporters had on 08, “he speaks so well.” Liberal is add liberal does and better be sent to Hell by a liberal D than liberal R. F Romney.
traye on January 27, 2012 at 8:09 AM
Liberal is as liberal does.
traye on January 27, 2012 at 8:10 AM
Is it allowed to use a certain four letter word in a Hot Air, or Hot Air-related post? Well, here goes: NICE post.
I agree with everything you write. More important, if people on the right side of the political spectrum are serious, if loathing the Democrats and Obama is actually grounded in principle, and love of the United States as an exceptional, free-market place, then Mitt Romney be at least a serious challenger to Obama, and the only one who can win.
And really, at least on paper, has there ever been anyone this well-equipped to be President?
We must not forget that it’s not only Republicans who vote in a general election. No one else comes close as being conservative, and yet capable of getting non-Republican votes. It will be nearly impossible for the DeMSM to turn Romney into a Stupid Evil Uncaring Republican. They will try, but the fear-mongering will fail. The Democrats and the MSM may even be significantly destroyed in the process.
Wow. What a roller coaster week!
ParisParamus on January 27, 2012 at 8:18 AM
Do you mean “A Perspective?”
A prospective is kind of like what a mutual fund is giving you when they send you a prospectus.
DRayRaven on January 27, 2012 at 8:27 AM
With regard to the first point, it is a distinction without a difference. Romneycare is not ennobled because his intentions were good.
As to the rest, yes I understand what is being said, and I agree with the points being made. However, the sine qua non of a successful President is the ability to inspire. That’s what made Ronald Reagan a legend and consigned George H.W. Bush – arguably the most qualified man, in terms of education and experience ever to run for President – to the lower half of the Presidential League Tables as a one-term mediocrity. A Romney presidency will be the Bush second-term that never was. And for that reason I can’t support him.
potkas7 on January 27, 2012 at 8:43 AM
Romney’s espousal of “socialized medicine” takes Obamacare off the table as a club to beat Obama with. Strike one.
Romney’s support for Global Warming puts Crap and Trade front and center, right where Wall Street wants it. Bonuses generated from carbon trading will supplant mortgage backed securities in fueling Wall Street’s addiction. Strike two.
Ah,yes, a Romney nomination and all is right with the world if your a Democrat and he’s challenging Obama for the Democrat nomination. Conservative he isn’t. Strike three.
More like “no batter here.”
Jayrae on January 27, 2012 at 8:45 AM
With all due respect, this is mere regurgitation of ‘conventional wisdom’, namely that of the right wing of the MSM.
These are the same genii whose failures culminated in the election of Barack Hussein Obama.
Basically, all of ‘conservative’ media is right now engrossed in (a) propping up Romney, (b) trying to see who can make the cutest or most clever criticism of Obama and (c) turning out irrelevant goobledygook. Meanwhile, the left media has organized a disciplined effort to discredit whomever the GOP nominee will be.
It never friggin fails; the left brings chess to the right’s checkers.
Our media is a joke.
Our academia/intelligentsia is a joke. (Good ideas, but for the life of them, they cannot get results, like taking over universities. So their stuff remains theoretical, ineffectual and worthless.)
Our political leadership is a joke.
Our cultural leadership is a joke.
I used to think the only part of the right that wasn’t a joke was the rank-and-file. But given how we continue to patronize, praise and listen to the failed public face of American conservatism, I am beginning to reconsider that thought.
avgjo on January 27, 2012 at 9:15 AM
Changing to an independant today. Period.
MontanaMmmm on January 27, 2012 at 9:24 AM
It boils down to one simple question for me: Has Mitt Romney made his case that he will follow the constitution as our founders, its framers, intended? NO. Then again, have any of the Republican candidates made that case to me? NO. No grandiloquence or long expository posts required.
gryphon202 on January 27, 2012 at 9:25 AM
We’re screwed no matter who we nominate (as none of them are solid). So, we might as well have a candidate who is easy on the eyes, even if he doesn’t connect with us. Got it.
Fallon on January 27, 2012 at 9:30 AM
I’d remain anonymous too if I’d written this drivel.
MontanaMmmm on January 27, 2012 at 9:32 AM
I’m seeing a lot of people here who are not impressed with the ” but Mitt is the most electable” meme, and that kind-of restores my faith in my fellow man!
bigmike on January 27, 2012 at 9:43 AM
Hmmmm… so all the Mitt-Hate form the HA comment pool spills over into the Green Room comments too. Sad.
I will keep fighting the good fight and pointing out that we shouldn’t be savaging ANY of our four hopefuls at this point. It’s time to band together behind each of them.
I agree with your points, Mr. Anonymous Poster.
Though the level of mitt-riol here at HA is confoundingly high, I refuse to give up hope. Perhaps one day, those of us who don’t hate and fear Mitt may just be able to convice at least a few of the anti-Romneyites that he is not Satan incarnate.
RightWay79 on January 27, 2012 at 9:58 AM
Though the level of mitt-riol here at HA is confoundingly high, I refuse to give up hope. Perhaps one day, those of us who don’t hate and fear Mitt may just be able to convice at least a few of the anti-Romneyites that he is not Satan incarnate.
RightWay79 on January 27, 2012 at 9:58 AM
Have you read many of the comments from his supporters?
I have tried to give him a look, but then read nasty comments from his fans on HotAir, his advisors and final nail “Healthcare is nothing to get angry at”. If you are trying to “convince” us, your sure not doing a very good job of it.
MontanaMmmm on January 27, 2012 at 10:06 AM
Hey MontanaMmmm, Haven’t you heard, please remain calm, all is well, all is well./
bigmike on January 27, 2012 at 10:15 AM
…the hell?
MadisonConservative on January 27, 2012 at 10:17 AM
I think you mean “perspective.”
SWLiP on January 27, 2012 at 10:21 AM
“Faith precedes the miracle.” You gave yourself away with that Spencer W. Kimball line. I too am Mormon but am not a Romney supporter. I am extremely disheartened by Romney’s use of “agency” as an excuse to be pro-choice. And now I see other posters who are clearly LDS using the same reasoning to excuse Romney’s pro-choice position (Elder Oaks had a great talk in the 90′s that debunked this false logic).
However, your post makes some good points. Since Romney is likely to be the nominee at this point, I am trying to overcome my disgust and find a silver lining. It is true that Romney, for all his faults, is apparently a good man who wants to do the right thing. The question is: what does he think the right thing is?
One of my biggest pet peeves with him is his willingness to be absolutely brutal to any Republican who stands in his way, but then he talks all milquetoast about Obama.
Romney seems to suffer a little bit from what I call “Mormon niceness.” That is, wanting to have charity for our fellow men so that we often don’t see, or choose not to see, when they are bamboozling us. We also see our faith as making us different, so we subconsciously look for ways to fit in. This can lead us into accepting faulty premises like global warming, because we both want to fit in and we aren’t skeptical enough. (I’m not just using Romney as an example, but people from my own family who tend to be more liberal LDS).
One other thing: Romney’s belief in the individual mandate accepts a paternalism that is very consistent with how things operate in our church. However, what may be appropriate for church is not appropriate for the government. In other words, it is appropriate (in my view and I’m sure in yours) that the church have certain standards of behavior for the privilege of entering the temple. But telling people what to do (especially with their money), and applying it to all citizens in the manner in which the individual mandate does, is simply tyranny. Mitt excuses it, as every liberal does with their positions, because it’s for a good cause (notwithstanding the bad outcomes and unintended consequences).
I hope that Mitt can win in November, that he doesn’t go so squishy that he offends the base and makes independents wonder what the difference is between Obama and himself. I also hope that he can learn from this election and begin to grasp true conservative principles, and that he will learn to stop excusing himself for positions he made in the past and own up to them. I hope he has enough fortitude to push for the hard and at times unpopular things that will be necessary to get our country back again. I hope, because that’s all I’ve got left.
I know Gingrich has many flaws. But where Newt really got me was when he said that by the time the plane touches down in Chicago (with the Obamas on it), 40% of the Obama administration will be dismantled. I wish, so badly, that Mitt could give me that kind of assurance. For now, all I get from him is that maybe he will tinker around the edges, but he doesn’t want to do anything too unpopular. Please Mitt, please roll it back. Promise to roll it back, give me specifics on how you will do it and all will be forgiven and I will vote for you and even support you.
Galadriel on January 27, 2012 at 10:22 AM
I have issued a challenge to the proMitts on many conservative blogs for them to give us 5 reasons to vote for Mitt, with the caveat that “he is a R” is not reason.
NONE have taken up the challenge.
traye on January 27, 2012 at 10:32 AM
No The author meant Prospective – they’re trying to sell us something & it’s expected to come about – it’s inevitable.
batterup on January 27, 2012 at 10:33 AM
That’s great. You didn’t address the real issues I have with Romney.
I don’t trust him.
It is my conclusion, from looking at his record and actions that he will say whatever is necessary to get elected and will backstab conservatives if he thinks it is in his interest. His “conversion” to pro-life is but one of the myriad of examples of this and it is likely the one I find most damning. He touts his pro-life position, but the entirety of his record is one of pro-abortion. Now he wants me to believe his word over his actions, just as is the case with all his other “heresies.”
I’m sorry, I’m not voting for the Republican version of Obama. PERIOD.
makattak on January 27, 2012 at 10:34 AM
A lot of the things that the opposition has listed as crimes against conservatism are sound bite journalism.
In Massachusetts, and even the Northeast, you will have news clips of Romney or other republicans answering journalist and constituent questions that are framed a lot like the same questions we don’t like shoved down our throat in the MSM debate formats.
What are you going to do to stop the gridlock in Washington Mr. Romney Mr. Romney, the republicans are causing gridlock in Washington.
Poor Mr. Romney says: I have worked with democrats before, Mr. Ponytailed man, I had an 85% democrat legislature when I was governor, and I had to veto 800 bills they passed.
Headline: Romeny says he can work with democrats.
Not: Romney Vetos 800 democrat bills.
The writer here is correct about the mandate for insurance in MA. It is not a mandate that you take government insurance or a mandate that the state provide socialized medicine. Rick Santorum is obviously not reading the 80 page bill, so that he can use the argument in his campaign. This is sad, because I like Rick a real lot.
A lot of people in MA are unhappy with the grip that democrats have on our insurance choices today, but they were not set up that way by Mitt Romney, there were a lot of ways to satisfy the insurance requirement in his plan, the idea was that the exchange would identify levels of insurance that people could afford, and some would get a credit towards it, and some could have health savings accounts, and you would not need to buy an expensive plan.
The democrats and Obama care coming in over the top has ruined the mini plans everywhere. Our legislature has trumped Obama care’s 750K coverage requirements, with their own $2 million plans because they felt the mini plans were not “cadillac” enough. They are ruining what Romney wrought, and simpering all the way to the bank on it, saying Romney did it. Kerry and Duval Patrick have received their own Corn husker kickback to turn people who pay for their own private plans under Romney, into Medicaid recipients, because that is what Obama care does to the Romney private insurance scheme.
Why did they need to cover everyone in MA? Because on a regular basis, the liberals here trot out referendum questions which ask if everyone should have medical coverage, and the sheeple here continually would vote for Universal health care, or referendum questions that ask, Should everyone be covered by medical insurance. It was voted for and Dukakis tried to implement it, and that was why the drone on that subject when Romeny came into office. Because ten years later, it had not been figured out.
They wanted single payer Euro style health care in MA and they continued to vote for it, so they thought, over and over again (in spite of most people having coverage!) Romney showed them they did not need single payer to cover 8% of people, and he did it in 80 pages.
I personally don’t think we needed the mandate, just some incentive for the insurance companies to come up with some plans you could buy if you were not looking for a two million dollar policy (which is what the insurance companies sold the big employers.) There was nothing to buy, because no one shapes a product for 6-8% of the population when they are already making a lot of money.
The Mandate language was to satisfy the universal coverage demand from the rabble in MA.
And at first, you simply lost a personal deduction on your state taxes, which if you didn’t pay for insurance, then why would you merit a deduction.
Then it was a $200 penalty. Now they want to charge $900. Romney is long gone. Is there a lesson? Democrats will ruin anything nice you do for them, and blame you.
And one more caveat on seeming to be liberal on abortion. Romney came from the private sector to save the MA economy when it was crashing. He came ready made, a CEO for hire, and he knew he wasn’t being hired by liberal MA to fix their abortion problem. Why would he waste his precious time, and not get the fiscal job done? so, he says he is not here to touch “your precious abortion rights,” or fix your morals. CEO for hire. He did a good job. Why would anyone conservative ever run for governor of a liberal state? Romney could either fix the economy here or get nothing done, and a lot of people felt fixing the economy was the thing.
It reminds me that after the Tea Party victory, and the shooting in AZ the congress convened, and as soon as the financial fixes were put on the table at the House of Representatives, someone put a stupid $300 million dollar savings into the budget bill concerning Planned Parenthood, Washington D.C. shut itself down over “Women Will Die.” And the Tea Party, not something that ran as primarily intending anything pro life, and not educating the public at large about the corruption at Planned Parenthood, could not get anything done.
Mitt Romney walks the walk in his life of family and pro life, five sons and sixteen grandchildren, if you send the support to Washington to move the wheels on pro life, a president can do something. If you don’t, don’t blame Mitt Romney. He will have to support and defend the Constitution as it is.
Fleuries on January 27, 2012 at 10:34 AM
I know you were being sarcastic, but I am not calm, I have 2 children that I am scared to death will not have much of a free future.
MontanaMmmm on January 27, 2012 at 10:39 AM
I can’t get excited about what I don’t know, and I haven’t a clue how Romney would govern. I don’t believe that he will repeal ObamaCare. I don’t believe that he’ll advocate for personal freedom. I don’t believe he’ll fight to shrink the government – he never signed off on the Strong America pledge. He stiffarmed tea partiers but said that he wants to be president of the 99%.
But, um, nice fluff piece.
beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 10:44 AM
Moderate conservatism = Liberal. No thanks.
HopeHeFails on January 27, 2012 at 10:53 AM
I think this is the key.
I’ve actually seen Romney quotes posted from people who don’t like him where a supposed black mark is put in bold… and yet, if you actually read the “whole” quote it completely negates the charge. And that is when the positive parts are right there for all to see.
Imagine the spin that can be put on quotes taken completely out of context.
That’s why I don’t understand why people who consider themselves to be Conservative are choosing to be Obama allies by spreading these half-truths.
RightWay79 on January 27, 2012 at 10:53 AM
By supporting the sensible Tea Party-backed candidates and doing his part to make 2010 happen?
RightWay79 on January 27, 2012 at 10:56 AM
Tea Partiers: grassroots group of ordinary citizens concerned about the nation’s spending and debt, who mobilized around the country to peacefully urge our nation’s politicians to set our fiscal house in order.
Candidate: a person running for political office, who often receives money and support from those who expect politician favors later.
Get the difference? Or do I need to define “endorsement” for you as well?
beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 11:13 AM
If I wanted the perspective of someone who supports socialism, I’d go talk to a Wall Street occupier.
Bonus points for being too spineless to sign even your internet handle to this shameless drivel, btw.
Armin Tamzarian on January 27, 2012 at 11:18 AM
Well, that was snarky.
What exactly was our collective purpose as Tea Partiers (yes, I count myself as one)?
What were we trying to do?
Influence public policy, yes?
What is the sensible and most effective way in which we do that in this country?
Make sure that we elect people who represent our concerns.
Mitt helped get good candidates elected. Candidates who represented the views of tea partiers.
RightWay79 on January 27, 2012 at 11:42 AM
This is used for ALL the candidates. Many of the posters on HA cannot give reasons to back their candidate. They can only give (or make up) propaganda against the other ones.
If I post that Romney would make a good president because he would appeal to more Independents, someone would tear him down with the “dog on top of the car” thing (which has no bearing on his qualifications for President).
If I post that Gingrich would make a good president because he has a record of conservative voting, someone would call out his divorces (which only about 20 other presidents have been guilty of) or his ethics violations (which he was cleared of, every single one).
If I post that Santorum would make a good president because he is the most conservative, someone would make cracks about his religiosity or his late child (no one’s business, IMO).
If I post that Paul would make a good president because he would bring us back to fiscal soundness, I would be the one attacked.
Great way to vet the candidates.
annexwcp on January 27, 2012 at 11:43 AM
poppycock. how can anyone argue that the same model can be either a fiscally conservative plan or a marxist social engineering plot?
obama could have opted for a true single payer plan as well, had he been so inclined, but he presented a plan based on… fiscal conservatism, right?
sesquipedalian on January 27, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Resourceful and enlightening comment there AT. I suppose if the author called itself “Concerned Conservative” or any other name, you’d be more inclined to supply us all with some drivel of your own? Perhaps an objective retort would be beyond your capabilities.
Rovin on January 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM
Here is an article with warts and all on healthcare in MA, which starts around Mitt Romneys governorship.
http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-30/lifestyle/29600244_1_health-care-mitt-romney-individual-mandate/2
That is the premise of the Romney plan, that the money was being spent by government anyway. It is not 2000 plus pages of taking over health care by the federal government, like Obama is doing. When Obama says he is doing what they did in MA, it is not what Romney did, it is what liberals in MA do, and hiding behind Romney.
Fleuries on January 27, 2012 at 12:32 PM
I was part of the last registration after lurking for years. This is my first HOTAIR/Greenroom comment. Allow me to give a little background. Conservative. Active in Republican politics for 3 ½ decades; having been a delegate to our state convention every time but one in that period. The one time I missed was the year I lost a son and did no politics at all. I have been elected to a delegate slot to National once. I have run a presidential campaign in my county.
In this goat rope that we are calling a Primary Season, I have been asking one question from every Romney supporter I can find, and not one will answer. Romney has been a professional politician for 20 years; as both a candidate and 4 years as a governor. That in itself is not bad, because you don’t just come out of nowhere to run for President. However, can anyone name any one issue in all that time where Willard Mitt Romney took a conservative position and stood his ground without ending up happily collaborating with the Left? Any issue, any position.
I am retired now, after a career as a Peace Officer. In fact, mostly as a line level supervisor. I evaluated a lot of people, both as a supervisor and on hire/promotion boards. One key rule: Past performance is one of the best indicators of future behavior.
There is absolutely nothing to indicate that Romney will seriously oppose Obama to win the election if nominated. He will make Bob Dole look like Hulk Hogan in comparison. Nor is there any indication anywhere in his life history that he would resist the Left, even if in office, let along push back.
The establishment of the Republican Party, which I call the Institutional Republicans, is talking out of both sides of its mouth. Yes, this is a critical election [I believe it is far more serious and critical than most do.] where Obama and the Left must not only be stopped; but we have to push them back immediately if the nation and Constitution is to survive.
At the same time, it is insisting on forcing a candidate against the will of the party. A candidate who is detested by 2/3 of the party; and from current appearances will NOT be able to rally more than a bare majority of the party to his candidacy if nominated. That is a sure formula for electoral defeat. A candidate whose collaborations with the Left are legion and explained away as they “aren’t as bad as are perceived” as a rallying point. A candidate who has never fought hard against anything the Democrats have done, and whose Primary campaign is aimed at attacking the conservative base of the party whose nomination he feels entitled to.
In the General Election, he is going to run Left. While he won’t be singing the Internationale, he knows the words and can hum the tune. Looking at the facts of the situation, and not the rhetoric, the Institutional Republican Party has no desire to win the Presidency. They are getting along quite well, thank you, as things are now; with power and wealth, but no real responsibility. They are deeply concerned with seeing that they maintain dominance and power over the conservative base that makes up most of the Party and who would break their “iron rice bowls” if they got half a chance. So long as they keep their power and wealth, as far as they are concerned the country and its people are expendable.
If the Institutional Republicans force Willard Mitt Romney as the nominee, it proves one thing. In this time of national crisis, they are at best profoundly un-serious about protecting this country as a Constitutional Republic. At worst, they are collaborators in its destruction.
On the first day that our county clerk is open after the nomination of Romney, if such comes to pass, I and my family will appear there and change our registration from Republican to Unaffiliated. It will take a while, because the staff there are going to be picking their jaws up off of the floor. And in that case, if electoral politics still hold relevance after Obama’s re-election on November 6, I will be working and hoping for a “Ripon, Wisconsin” moment and the rise of a Patriot Party.
Subotai Bahadur on January 27, 2012 at 12:37 PM
All the candidates are politicians so I don’t trust any of them. Now, who could you possibly stand having as President? Remember, none are perfect and only four are available to choose from. (Obama is not a choice, Obama is not a choice, repeat again and again…) I hate to see us make the Dems and Obama’s job easy.
HoosierStateofMind on January 27, 2012 at 12:41 PM
Obama could not have opted for single payer. He went with the individual mandate because he knew single payer would not pass.
So he went for the individual mandate in a program that is so screwed up he knows it will fail miserably, with costs spiraling wildly out of control. The People will not be willing to give up their ‘entitlement’ (they never are), and single payer will be left as the only politically viable alternative.
We saw the strategy with student loans. Screw up and hamstring and marginalize the private sector so thoroughly that it really is failing to add any value above what a government run program would do, and then switch the program to being directly government run.
fadetogray on January 27, 2012 at 12:57 PM
No. Reduce public policy. Big difference.
The Tea Party doesn’t want to argue how government is implemented. It simply wants less government, which means less intrusion, less spending, less taxes, and more freedom.
Romney wanted nothing to do with the tea party. He only wanted the endorsements of its candidates when he thought that they would win.
He’s no small government guy. He wants to have substantial say in how government is implemented, not reducing the amount of government that’s implemented.
beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 2:19 PM
I remember an exchange a few days ago between a couple of the Mormons where one said he/she would get something out in the Green Room. If anyone’s interested in finding it, it’s out there.
I don’t remember the article to which it was attached, but I do remember it was one of those frequent incidents where the Mormons did one of their pile-ons. It was mean, involved name calling and the level of debate amounted to “you’re stupid”.
I have spent my entire life in the Republican Party. I do not worship Newt but I am fully cognizant of his abilities and faults and he was not my first choice but he was at the top of my list. I was doing a very serious evaluation of all the candidates when I joined the HA crowd and had fully intended to support Romney if he were the nominee. Within that time period, the Mormons have told me and anyone else who had problems with Mitt that our vote didn’t matter and we’d better not try to steal any reflected glory when Mitt became the greatest President since Lincoln. Then the establishment did their unfair pile-on while Mitt’s mafia spent 10s of millions of dollars in personal attacks. Their mission is to utterly destroy Newt as a human being. It’s exactly like what the establishment and their trolls did to Sarah Palin. Look up the word “fascism”. That’s what Mitt and his army are practicing.
I’ve spent four years being told I’m a racist, a redneck, a drooling moron because I opposed Obama’s policies. I drove to Washington to join others who opposed the stimulous, the 20% across the board increase in all federal non-military programs and Obamacare. I’ve been accused of shooting Gabby Gifford and wanting to kill old people.
Mitt’s minions use precisely the same verbiage to attack anyone who supports someone other than Mitt. Then they add to the insult by telling us we must line up and shut up and not act like “children in a play yard”. They have no problem mocking anything Christian or sacred to Christians, including Jesus, Himself.
Mitt is one mean honcho, and with all Newt’s faults, I’ve never heard anyone describe him as vicious. I refuse to be part of any facist effort. Romney’s people are elitists who belittle and demean people who may have dirt under their fingernails or enjoy Nascar. Disgusting, small-minded, judgmental hypocrits who believe the measure of a man or a woman is their clothes and job.
I will not go there. The “conservatives” out to pillory Gingrich are a mob I will not join. They did it to Palin, to Backmann, to Cain, to Perry.
Santorum won the debate last night. He literally chewed old Mitt up and spit him out as regards Romneycare. He also administered a much needed reprimand about the politics of personal destruction.
And for those of you who think Mitt is going to carry the day because the independents will luv him, you’d better do your homework because the deluge on what this man believes is coming. I heard a caller bring it up just yesterday on a Washington, D.C. talk radio show. Start at utlm.com and click on any subject in the index.
Portia46 on January 27, 2012 at 2:25 PM
Jay Ray: Exactly what do you think we have in Massachusetts, when you talk about socialized medicine?
We have gourmet, private medicine here. It is the complete opposite of a euro style plan, it is also not interfered with by government…not yet.
For the last 5 years the liberals have been in control, and they have moved in directions that are more like Obama Care. But that has little to do with Mitt Romney.
Can you define socialized medicine? When Romney supporters look at Obama Care we see hijacking of medical decisions and a track that forces many people to CHOOSE the government plan. In MA, so far, there is no government plan except the same Medicare that is available all over the country.
Fleuries on January 27, 2012 at 5:38 PM
Portia, utlm.com is no more. Perhaps you mean utlm.org? Mitten’s Mormonism is a serious problem, even if the GOP establishment doesn’t think so. Frankly, when the deluge starts it will make Ron Paul look the model of sanity. It will remind of the old westerns when the bad guy pulls his Colt and tells his patsy to dance than shoots at the patsy’s feet. anyone that seriously thinks that Mitten’s record as Mass Gov, combined with his Mormonism does not make him a very problematic candidate is smoking meth. Just the record as Mass Gov is enough to sink him.
Nah. Nominate Mitt, and you’d better hope we can hold the house, take the Senate and then put decent men in as speaker and majority Leader. While I think we are sunk already, we might, just might be able to pull things out as happened in the post ’95 period during Slick Willy’s misrule.
Quartermaster on January 27, 2012 at 9:24 PM
Well-said, “anonymous”:)
Buy Danish on January 27, 2012 at 11:47 PM