What is Mitt Romney doing in the Republican Party? (Although a better question might by why has the Republican Party strayed so far to the left that a guy like Mitt Romney could be its standard bearer…)
Everyone knows the story of Mitt Romney. He ran Bain Capital and financed a number of new businesses and helped rescue others. True, he and Bain failed a few times, but Bain Capital did what it was supposed to do, which is make money for its shareholders. At the end of the day Bain Capital was a net plus in that it actually produced prosperity (and jobs) for a significant number of people, and that accomplishment cannot be obviated simply because they could not rescue every firm they took a position in.
In 1994 Romney sought to unseat Ted Kennedy from the US Senate but lost as Kennedy pilloried him for lacking core (political) convictions. The fact that he had difficulty establishing a coherent message didn’t help. He lost badly. In 2002 he headed west to manage the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. By all accounts he did a tremendous job and accomplished the financial equivalent of a perfect game, making the Olympics profitable for the host city.
Then of course there was his stint as governor of one of the bluest states in the union, Massachusetts. Like Scott Brown, a Republican in Teddy Kennedy’s neighborhood can be expected to be a RINO, and Romney certainly fit the bill. On a variety of issues both social and economic Romney was… shall we say purple in his approach. But at the end of the day he was more conservative than his predecessor in one of America’s most liberal states.
Add to that the fact that he’s a good looking guy with a great family and he seems like a poster child for putting Barack Obama in the unemployment line. It’s claimed he’s the Republican who can deliver Massachusetts and other key states like as Pennsylvania, Florida and probably Ohio and Nevada.
The problem is, he won’t.
When conservatives stand by conservative ideals, when conservatives clearly and coherently articulate the conservative principles of limited government, fiscal restraint and low taxes, they win. Not sure? In the three Reagan elections (counting Bush-41 in ’88 as an extension of Reagan’s policies) the GOP garnered 54% of the popular vote and beat the Democrats by an average of 11.9%. Contrast that with the elections since Reagan, beginning with Bush 41’s second run. Over the course of those five elections, the GOP has garnered an average of 44.4% of the vote while the Democrats earned an average of 48.3%. The GOP went from an average of 11.9% ahead to an average deficit of 4.4%. That is a 15 point swing in the wrong direction. What’s the difference? Solid conservative vs. milquetoast moderate. Unfortunately Mittens Romney is an extension of that milquetoast strategy.
Ominously, while 2012 may be the most important American election in a century, the two candidates seeking the White House are not going to be particularly distinguishable to voters – if we assume Mittens gets the nomination. Everyone knows that Barack Obama is a statist with socialist & populist instincts. Romney, in slight contrast, may be a capitalist, but on government policy he’s not enormously different. He supported the government’s TARP bailouts of the banks, he regularly plays the populist card of middle class tax cuts while arguing for increasing taxes on the rich, and of course there is RomneyCare, his signature achievement in Massachusetts that was literally the blueprint for the thing he rails against at every whistle-stop event: ObamaCare. Then there is his 59 point tax plan which does little to streamline the tax code and of course penalizes those earning over $200,000 a year. Finally there is his bizarre suggestion last week that the minimum wage should be indexed to inflation, something even our Socialist in Chief has not suggested. (Is it possible that the financial genius Mitt has no clue about how actual economics work?)
At this critical time when the United States is so clearly heading down the road to perdition what the country needs is someone to stand up on the biggest soapbox he can find and sing the praises of the capitalist system and make a clear and articulate argument for small, constitutional, limited government. We need someone to inspire and challenge the American people to throw off the yoke of the nanny state and pick themselves up by their bootstraps and in doing so become the economic vanguard of the world once again. Unfortunately, what we get instead is a GOP candidate who is in many respects largely indistinguishable from his statist, redistributionist opponent.
There is an old saying that you can’t fight something with nothing. In the case of Mitt Romney the GOP is hoping to fight the omnipresent government type Obama with the slightly less onerous, big government type Romney. Conservatives despise Barack Obama and they would likely turn out to vote if the GOP were to trot out Mickey Mouse to run against him. They won’t require the GOP to light a fire under them to get them to the polls. The middle sea of “moderates” on the other hand won’t respond to nothing. If the mass of largely disengaged Americans who are not political junkies finds that there is little or nothing to distinguish the candidates from one another then they will likely remain on the sidelines and not bother to vote. In a tight race intensity is the key to success. As such, Romney is a losing candidate. As can be seen by the fervency of the not-Romney elements of the GOP, the anemic turnout in Florida and Romney’s canned speeches and uninspiring debate performances, Mitt Romney is incapable of stirring the animal spirits of the base, never mind the general public.
Barack Obama is salivating at the prospect of facing off against Mittens. Knowing that Romney is incapable of articulating or defending strong conservative principals or even inspiring his own party – never mind the muddling middle – Obama can do what he does best: demagogue Republicans (up and down the ticket) and inspire his base with populist platitudes that are like blood in the water to the left. The result will not only be another four years of Barack Obama, but it will likely mean something of a bloodbath in the down ticket races as well, from the House to the neighborhood dog catcher.
Mitt Romney may be the candidate who finally puts an end to a Republican Party that has outlived its usefulness and ushers in a truly conservative Tea Party driven party. One might wish that GOP good riddance. The only question is however, will the United States as we know it survive another four years of Barack Obama so that there’s something left for the Tea Party calvary to come to the rescue of?
See author page
The method of choosing a nominee desperately needs to be changed, or the GOP needs to abandon the facade of championing smaller government. The RNC should have been out encouraging better candidates to run and steps should be taken if possible to limit the impact of campaign spending during the nominating process, as a private organization rather than a part of the government, why couldn’t the party limit expenditures?
One popular meme within the GOP that I take exception to is the “businessman” model for POTUS. The purpose of a businessman is to increase the size and revenue of the business; well, I think the federal government has been run like a business (a failing one perhaps, but still a “business”) for way too long. Hoover was a much more accomplished “manager” than Romney, who’s up for Hoover II as we suffer through Carter II?
The intended role of the POTUS isn’t to win popularity contests, or sponsor legislation, or, for that matter have an agenda other than enforcing the laws of the land, commanding the military and promoting the positive image of the United States. This may be called the “executive” branch, but it in no way makes the POTUS the “manager” of the United States.
Vince Well written as always. I ask again. Why isn’t Sarah in this race as the alternative to Romney? Gingrich has never been a good alternative, merely the last person standing, Or is he? Watch Santorum in Minn.(possible win) and Col.(strong 2nd to Romney) today. Gotta love his tenacity.
Gingrich obviously trying to hold on till Super Tues 3/6 where he gets some wins. MUST win Ohio.Not on ballot in Virg. Foolish mistake.
If as appears likely,Newt goes 0 for Feb.,is there enough left for a S.T. win in Ohio and a follow up in Texas?
The problem is that the clown car of republican candidates represent the people who call themselves republicans — when they look at them they see themselves and it is not pretty. As you sow, so shall you reap.
Anybody but Obama is good enough for me and a whole lot of folks, get onboard
How about Hillary then, Ralph. Better chance of beating Obama and can go toe to toe with him in fundraising.
pffft…
@JustAl: #1,
. . . . “I think the federal government has been run like a business (a failing one perhaps, but still a “business”) for way too long.”
. . . Sorry JustAl, not so. From experience, the most effective method of managing budgets and profitability, is through ‘Zero Base Budgeting’. I think that you would be hard pressed to find a single government of any level anywhere that uses this method of management.
Bureaucracies bloat and Congress has no will to trim. Bureaucratic empires grow and government manager salaries increase proportionally.
No government is run like a business.
The MSM onslaught on conservatives, and in support of Obama is well beyond embarrassing.
The media is preparing the election campaign debate over Obama’s tromping on The Constitution by denigrating the document with rather extreme language.
The New York Times: “The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights. The commitment of some members of the Supreme Court to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning in the 18th century may send the signal that it is of little current use to, say, a new African nation. And the Constitution’s waning influence may be part of a general decline in American power and prestige.”
The MSM has wandered into vile and obnoxious territory that seems well beyond the pale. “. . . may be part of a general decline . . .” Huh ? ? ?
Take some responsibility, Conservatives! Rather than beating up Romney, why not beat up the guys/gals who should have run, but didn’t. Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain were out of their league. If a truly qualified conservative, without the unfortunate baggage of Gingrich, had run, he’d be in the lead now and he’d go on to win.
I mean, you couldn’t come up with a decent candidate to take on a President with an approval rating and economy sitting at levels unprecedented to get a first term President re-elected?
You are all (you as a movement) just sitting around waiting for the Messiah. Then you blame the men in the arena (homage to Teddy Roosevelt), when they are the only ones out there, putting their career lives on the line, while all the qualified “true conservatives” sit on the sidelines, playing it safe.
You want to know who to blame for whatever happens in the next 4 years? Blame the “true conservatives” who didn’t have the fortitude to go out and do battle.
Maybe cut Mittens a bit of slack. He’s the man in the arena. Be respectful of the effort, at least.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@James Raider:
They hate the Constituion and have no respect for it. In fact they rightly understand it is what has been stopping them from their statist utopia.
Generally, leftists think they should be allowed to pick and choose what rights everyone else has. For themselves, they expect “special” rights.
lARRY SAYS “True Conservatives who didn’t have the fortitude to go out and do battle are to blame for what happens in the next four years” No guts no glory
You’ll blame the uneducated voters and the MSM but to quote Jimmy B. “Hell I know, it’s my own damn fault.”
@Richard Wheeler:
You and Larry both act like the attacks that will be seen from liberal/progressives towards the GOP nominee will be benign and “in the spirit of competition”. It’s quite possible, and probable, that conservatives such as Sarah Palin didn’t want their families subjected to the hateful attacks they knew would be coming. Palin, for instance, has already experienced such attacks, like those about who really is the father of Bristol’s child, and even to the point of having a noted literary hack moving in next door after having stated he is writing a book about her.
Meanwhile, Obama has the MSM at his back to viciously attack anyone who even looks at his family wrong, something the GOP candidate won’t have. And, you, Rich, have displayed such antics yourself here at FA with your comments regarding Newt’s current wife. So please, don’t give us the line that it’s OUR fault if the GOP nominee isn’t up to the standards we’d like to see.
‘Coalition of the Unwilling’ …
Snerd
C’mon, John. If politics is a contact sport, then Presidential politics is war. I don’t for a moment accept the insinuation that gutter politics is the exclusive purview of the Left. There are gutters on both sides of the street and they are just as deep and just as dirty. Look at what GW Bush’s people did to John McCain in the 2000 South Carolina primary.
Romney’s got guts and the requisite fire in the belly. So has Obama. So did Hillary. Not so much Mitch Daniels and Jeb Bush and Christie and Ryan and Palin and whomever else you wish was on the ballot.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@JustAl:
“… The RNC should … limit the impact of campaign spending during the nominating process, as a private organization rather than a part of the government …”
Ah yes, if a policy is good when implemented by the (R)z, it is bad if implemented by Gub’mint. Goodness is not a function of doing the ‘right’ thing, it’s a function of who’s doing it. Now where have I come across that before, eh!?
Snerd
Larry Again well put.For any,including John G., to suggest Obummer and Moochele haven’t suffered the slings and arrows of an extremely nasty right wing press and media are disingenuous at best,liars at worst.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
“… I mean, you couldn’t come up with a decent candidate to take on a President with an approval rating and economy sitting at levels unprecedented to get a first term President re-elected?”
Correct, Larry. You couldn’t.
Why would no legitimate mo(D)e(R)ate, and no legitimate Bag(R) (although I don’t know who the latter would be), show up!? If it’s ‘The economy stupid’, why did the (R)z choose to run stupid?
Did they all see Obama as unbeatable? Or did they look at the GOP and realize it is so divided between the Big $$$ Establishment and the Bag(R)z, there is no way to win the nomination and the general election too?
Or maybe the (R) nomination is only for the truly ‘ambidextrous’ … like a Massachusetts-mo(D)erate, flip flop-(R), Mormon representing the religious right … or like a serial adulter-(R), endorsed by a serial harass-(R) and an inside(R), who’s so inside he’s outside and a former Speak-(R) so corrupt his own party tossed him from office, who’s now running on (R)ighteous indignation …
Even the (D)z couldn’t screw it up this bad. The real question … What happens to the Bag(R) – Big $$$ Establishment money wings of the GOP, after they loose in 2012. I am just guessing here, but I don’t think it’s, “And they lived happily ever afte(R)” …
Snerd
Larry, you exaggerate your hyperbole. No one is “waiting for the Messiah”. I believe your side has that one wrapped up. Isn’t your wait over, the earth is healing and the waters parted? LOL
Those of us who will not accept the abomination of running Romney as the face of conservatism had no problem with others on the stage, even tho a compromise. Bachmann sunk herself. Cain was sunk by the trial-by-media assault, as was Palin in 2008. Newt may succumb to the same, but shows more fortitude to stand up to the attacks. Santorum is still standing, but he has yet to be tested by the GOP establishment and media, and Romney’s SuperPAC assaults. Prior to this, he was never considered a threat to the coronation.
Run Newt or Santorum, and my vote is secured… even tho I am compromising. Neither are my Messiah. But at least they have some relationship to conservatism.
Romney is one of you.
If winning is the only goal for the “Party” and their faithful, let’s skip the posturing. I’ll take Hillary over Romney. If pseudo conservatives are willing to play the prostitute just for a WH decor change, you might as well go for the gold. Hillary would get a large amount of the Dems and, combined with the GOPers who will vote for whomever the Party runs, Obama would be toast against the PUMAs, the moderate GOP and the Party faithful. Hang… you all would probably change party affiliation, patting the GOP on the back for their political spiritual revival.
And why should I give Romney credit? He’s a failed pol for federally elected office, and has been attempting to be a career politician ever since. Ran for Congress in 1994 against Kennedy (learned his lesson…), took the MA Gov job in 2002 instead of attempting to take on America’s monarchy again in 2000. Came out of the Governor’s mansion and started immediately running for POTUS in 2008, and is still here.
As Newt correctly pointed out, the only reason Romney is (laughably) an “outsider” is because he’s failed at his constant attempts to be an “insider” for the duration.
I don’t believe Romney runs for the good of the country. Romney perpetually runs for the good of Romney. It’s important to note that Romney never attempted for a lesser job, beneath his self-perceived abilities. He didn’t run for a State legislative job, and went straight for Congress. When that didn’t work, he went straight for the Governor’s mansion. When Kennedy’s seat became available, he wasn’t interested… he set his sights on the top dog job.
But I don’t think you’ll get any argument that most of us aren’t thrilled with those that did step forward, and wished that others would have. They have their reasons, and we can only select from what’s on the menu. Out of that, 6 out of 10 were more than acceptable to most of us.
This still goes to the same above. While we are all less than enthused about the line up, there are some acceptable compromises choices there for the more than half who are decidedly anyone-but-Romney.
Of those anyone-but-Romney voters, a good portion have thrown in the towel now – before the battle is any where close to being over – assuring the GOP that they’ll vote for Romney.
And why should the Party, assured of the sheeple’s support, even care that another candidate is preferred? They have no incentive to hone a candidate that is appealing to the base, and will go with their own choice instead.
Therefore those I blame for a Romney coronation are those who gave away the power of the voters. If the Party knew that a candidate was completely and utterly unacceptable to the majority of the base – as easily seen with Romney – they wouldn’t be pushing the Godfather of O’healthcare and mandates. They cannot win if they do not have the base.
But if the base promises them unquestionable blind support, no matter who, the game is over. The Party no longer has to listen to the base. They’ve won.
This was our only opportunity to make the GOP hear the base… and the Party faithful have sounded the horns of defeat before the war was over. For that, I will not forgive them.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I never said that gutter politics is the exclusive domain of the left, Larry. My point is that some people, not driven primarily by the lure of power, can, and do, put other things more important to them above that. My example of Sarah Palin is quite apt, here, as there is ample evidence of the viciousness of the attacks that cross the line into personal territory. It may very well be that Romney just feels that his family will be largely immune to such attacks, and that is fine.
And the main point that the above points to is that it isn’t OUR fault, meaning conservatives, as to why there is an alleged RINO running for the GOP nomination. Your other points in your comment #8 have merit, but I just think you discount too much the effect of gutter politics on people, and that some people just don’t want to engage in it.
@Richard Wheeler:
Wheeler has a point. I think the Obama admin has learned the lesson from the (R)z rather well. Play the victim … and particularly the political the victim of the MSM and its unfair attacks.
If Obama had any ballz, he’d stand up in front of the MSM tell them what he’s really going to do, just like that (R)epublican, Dirty Harry would and then the (R)z would at least respect him … errr … Wait a minute! … errr …
Snerd
@James Raider: You obviously missed the portion of my post in parenthesis. And I think you’ll find plenty of business that do not adhere to “Zero Based Budgeting”. I stand by my statement. For too long the emphasis of those in the oval office has been to expand government (grow the business), and squeeze more money out of the people (increase revenue).
The Constitution isn’t a business model, the country isn’t a business, we don’t need a “manager”, we need a leader.
@Richard Wheeler:
Please stop with the moral relativism, Rich. I never said that Obama’s family didn’t have personal attacks leveled at them. I mentioned Obama, and the MSM, because that is a very powerful persuasion to people to not engage in such activity, knowing the MSM will excoriate them, which they have. The GOP, given the MSM’s political leanings, do not enjoy such a benefit. And please don’t equate FoxNews to CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN. It isn’t even a close contest concerning the biases.
Go ahead and call me disingenuous, or a liar, Rich.
Only Gingrich can win. The media and East coast establishment are flailing away trying, with some success to destroy his campaign. Newt has warts. Lots of warts. But as a candidate he will get up on his hind legs and fight. He will fight Obama, and the media.
Romney will kiss Obama’s butt, and the MSM will cheer him for his “maturity”. Next year at this time we will be sitting around watching Obama dismantle the Consitution…wondering why we did not nominate a fighter.
I see it clearly.
@johngalt, I believe what Larry was referring to for blame was conservative candidates that didn’t step up to the plate… not the anti-Romney voters. I can’t disagree that disappointment runs high for candidates we would have preferred to see, and decided to wait it out for what may be a more cushy POTUS gig in better times.
Believe me, except for those that are too new… such as West and Rubio… or those that haven’t finished what they are working on now … Jindal… I’m dsappointed not to see Ryan or DeMint not take a stab. Palin, I think, knew that her presence would not be beneficial this election. My biggest problem with her is not giving a solid endorsement to the anti-Romney candidate of her choice when it may have made a difference. Even now, with a half hearted Newt endorsement, she still tends to give all points on some part of their platform. This makes me think that Palin has become a “Party” person. And that’s sad to see.
rich, on the other hand, may have to clarify himself further. It’s my impression – and I could be wrong – that he interpreted Larry’s observation as blaming we who are
“cocksure, unyielding.uncompromising,infallible”…. er, demonstrating our strength of convictions.Then again, rich is a self-admitted pot stirrer, an Obama devotee, and the best example of what a GOP candidate will face from opposition voters with predictable slurs as above.
@MataHarley:
I know what Larry was referring to. My points to him were simply about why some candidates, who we conservatives might have wanted to see run, didn’t. I am not sure that even with a perfect family that I would want to subject them to the meat grinder awaiting the eventual GOP nominee. Larry did, however, admonish us conservatives to “Take Responsibility” for whoever the GOP nominee is. In my opinion, there is a stark difference between liberal/progressives and conservatives when it comes to support. Liberal/progressives tend toward blind support of whoever their party trots out, while conservatives tend to look at the negatives surrounding the GOP’s various candidates, and score them accordingly. And yes, it can be seen as conservatives doing this almost to a fault, however, for me, I won’t compromise those values I regard the highest. Rich and others can compromise their “values” all they want, even to the point of defending the indefensible at times. I won’t do it.
As for Rich, he is a pot-stirrer, that is true. And he does it with pseudo-drive bys, never really responding to a discussion, instead relying on his poor wit to lighten some otherwise nasty comments. His comments about Newt’s wife have been amongst the worst I’ve seen on FA.
John G. Are you referring to wife #3/mistress#2 vs wife#2/mistress#1 vs wife#1? Where’s my scorecard when I need it? What horroriffic untruths did I unleash against the lovely Callista?
J.G. My unsettled beef with you is the relative political clout Fox has vs. Your annointed MSM. We also won’t agree on who is more fair and balanced or when their news stops and opinion begins.
Mata Like Larry I was referring to potential candidates, not Conserv. voters.
Thanks for the clarification, as it relates to Larry’s comment above, rich. This, however, doesn’t negate your quoted and linked insult directly to those of us, not willing to embrace the aberrant Romney. So this doesn’t absolve you completely. LOL
Mata Would never expect or want Complete absolution.
A thought– Perhaps my left leaning barbs can help steel faithful Conserv. commentators and candidates against “le deluge” that,as you suggest, is assuredly to come.lol
rich, the “le deluge” of insults has never stopped as long as there have been two distinct political sides of the fence. It’s my contention that we conservatives are far more used to being verbally spit on. We are, after all, the usual recipients of the accusations of being heartless, racist, soul’less, hate granny, yada yada yada.
You guys? No so much. Ya’ll are so thin skinned that whenever anything happens, you race to Congress to demand some sort of law to protect you from getting your sensibilities offended.
Still a sad commentary on your life, tho. Really, I mean that. Never having been around those with convictions in your almost seven decades. Dang… What the heck did you have for role models growing up?
Ain’t it interesting how words you overtly intended as insults… i.e. “cocksure, unyielding, uncompromising and infallible” – only describe one who is sure of their base beliefs, and will not alter them to accommodate for lesser principles. Please note, I took them as your intent, and not as how I view those words in context to my surety of my own belief system.
Those adjectives are a positive when it describes one who refuses to seize or steal his neighbor’s property or life, or when used to describe a confident individual, content in their self evaluation.
There are times to be unyielding and uncompromising. Cocksure is not always based on a shaky foundation. And infallible indicates an inherent honesty when describing someone who has no ill-intent to deceive or mislead another.
What I found most interesting is that you chose these words specifically to demean such stalwart devotion to one’s beliefs… whether societal or political… and tossed them out as the ultimate insults. And why? Because you don’t agree with the belief system. Therefore you demean admirable traits because you don’t like the individual’s conclusions.
Like I said… sad commentary. Makes me wonder if you’re quite weak in your own belief system… constantly living in a world of grey and never feeling sure enough to give 100% commitment to anything in particular (save, perhaps, your own family and circle of friends) ’tis a pity that you’ve not spent time around those so very confident in their belief system.
You say you go to church. Do you consider your pastor’s beliefs of being unyielding and cocksure to his faith a negative? Does his presentation of his sermons as infallible and uncompromising to his basic faith offend you?
Or do you only apply these words as insults to your political opposition in the nation?
Honestly, rich… the most “infallible, cocksure, unyielding and uncompromising” I’ve ever seen you to be is only when attempting to tear down your political opposition. The rest of the time, you appear quite milquetoast, willing to take your marching orders from your political party. Even that seems “borrowed”, so to speak.
It’s really too bad you can’t apply some of those traits to your own individual thinking more often – as you seem capable of doing when it comes to government regulations, Congress, the GSEs and the housing collapse etc – and see that generally the truth lies somewhere in the middle. And it would also be nice to see you have enough independent thought left in you to admit that your party leadership are not as “infallible” as they claim to be.
We conservatives do just that, as has been noted above by quite a few. We do not take marching orders, outside of military service, kindly or laying down. We conservatives tear our own party leaders and their flaws apart, and do not reward them with blind loyalty on everything they do… well, at least a large amount of us. Obviously, as we can see, there are blind loyalists around. Yet you, on the opposite side, believe that being a “yes man or maam” is a superior characteristic.
Baffling. And downright scary. I think they made a movie about that… Stepford Wives.
Has this story about how Romney sped into action and used private resources to find and save the life of a friend’s kidnapped daughter gotten any coverage?
Seems Romney’s sort of a ”man-of-action,” to me.
But I’m sure the media is doing it’s darndest to make Romney seem ”uninspiring.”
oh my… I’d say the sub headline says it all… “…It’s the pro-Romney viral email the campaign wants you to see—…”
Also in your article, following the story?
Seems like Romney’s sort of a “man of opportunity and exploitation” to me.
The best thing that Romney could bring to his campaign is to revamp the US welfare system in the shadow of the Mormon welfare system… you work for your benefits and care. But then, has Romney ever presented the Mormon “take care of their own” system for public consumption? Pity.
That’s because Romney runs for Romney… not the nation.
Nan That is a GREAT story I’ve not seen that truly says alot about the MAN he is. Thanks
Semper Fi Enjoy the returns.
Mata That’s one hell of a sermon you just unleashed. Some of the stuff like being a “yes man” I found pretty bizarre,
Let me simply say my life has been great. Thank you
I have a beautiful loving wife.
A great relationship with my Savior
Incrededibly good health
The good fortune of having travelled the world
The great honor to have served my country in time of need as An Officer Of Marines.
Got no complaints.
@MataHarley:
Interesting self-editing, Mata.
You must hate Romney so much you have partial blindness or something else is really behind your selectivity.
For instance, you wrote:
Would it have been SO hard to add the rest of the sub-headline?
It is only this:
I didn’t add this myself, but there is a small link in the article to Politifact.com.
There, the story is fact-checked.
The meter is pegged against the TRUTH side of the TRUTH-O-METER.
You don’t have to like Romney to please me.
Heck, far as I’m concerned you can like whoever you want.
Vote for whoever you want.
Politik for whoever you want.
As a TEA partier I agree with the vast majority of TEA partiers: we will vote for whichever Republican gets the nomination.
As a Californian my vote in the primary is practically irrelevant.
Of course it’s a genuinely moving story, Nan G. It’s also a politically exploited story by the guy you like so much.
It’s an old story, that’s been regurgitated by the Romney campaign in every election he’s had since it happened.
Does this make Romney more likeable as a man? Sure. Does it make him more likeable as a candidate? Hang no. Not when he pulls it out of his old bag of tricks at every opportunity for political gain.
I’d say that most of us would rally to our friends, neighbors and relatives needs when the time comes. That’s a very American trait, as our charity/support for those suffering from natural disasters shows. But I’d also say that most would be relatively humble about those endeavors, and not seek to use them for political capital.
BTW, my vote is also worthless in Oregon. This state will go for Obama, and my vote – not matter what Mickey Mouse I write in – will just be one more for a tally of popular vote in a a state election.
@MataHarley:
Mata, I like ’em all…..except for Ron Paul.
My checks have gone out to a number of them here still and also a few who are gone by the wayside.
I will continue to support my personal fav until or unless he is eliminated.
Then I will not just vote for but also financially back whoever our party nominee is.
Well, Nan G. I agree that I will continue to support not only my political fave, but everyone but Paul and Romney, until it’s down to the last man. After that, “Party” affiliation means nothing to me. Principle affiliation, however, does.
Well, count that “found it bizarre” two ways. I find you viewing strength and convictions of principles as a negative, “bizarre”. Interesting that you dodged my main point… using those words describing strength of convictions when it came to your pastor. I guess I have my answer.
Mata The adjectives I used are OBVIOUSLY not negative when used in the pursuit of noble goals. To suggest I feel otherwise is crazy.Kinda like Anticsrocks suggesting I don’t understand his sarcasm.
You must think I’m stupid.
Re my Pastor Paula with whom I work closely serving communion and feeding the homeless. GREATLY admire her convictions;her intelligence and her compassion and hands on caring for the needy in our community
She is pluralistic in her acceptance of all religions.
Btw Truly a liberal and a Progressive in her political views
Thus my point that when you, personally, don’t give your good housekeeping stamp of approval on an individual’s “goal” being “noble” , you find such strength of convictions a negative.
Hypocritical much? ooops, I see that antics just nailed you on the same obvious observation… LOL
No. I don’t think you’re stupid. But evidently you think we, who hold these convictions, are. As well as unworthy of your respect for our strength of convictions.
Let me translate your hypocrisy, since you so love to tell everyone how I feel.
You think that if anyone has strength of convictions, and they agree with you, that’s tremendous.
If, however, you don’t agree with them, they are stubborn, obstinate, and an obstruction – and any dedication they have to their own beliefs is to be mocked and demeaned.
Rich, thy credibility is zero.. just like your hero in the WH.
@Richard Wheeler: You said about Gingrich:
The foolish mistake was the state GOP changing the rules mid-stream.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You talk as if “we Republicans” can sit around some table in a smoke filled room and decide who is running. Is that what Democrats do?
With the vile nature of attacks leveled at anything and anyone with an (R) after their name, it is no wonder that it is difficult to get folks to run. I know you would never run as a Republican, but putting that aside, would you want every minute aspect of your life sifted through by a cutthroat, blood thirsty media that behave like sharks who smell blood in the water?
I sure as hell wouldn’t.
As for Cain and Bachmann not being up to the challenge, that is hogwash. Cain was evidently such a threat that Axelrod launched attacks on his credibility via made up sexual misconduct allegations. As for Bachmann, the MSM had a hissy fit when they found out she suffers from Migraine headaches. If there was any area that they weren’t up to the challenge, it would have been in their ability to raise funds for their campaigns. Not sure how Cain was sitting financially, but Bachmann left because of money.
I really think that this crop of GOP candidates were head and shoulders above what we had 4 years ago. Other than Fred Thompson, there weren’t even any Conservatives then. This time around, we are talking about restructuring the tax code, making government smaller and drastically cutting spending.
You think what you want, you always do regardless of the facts, but as for me, I have a bit more hope in our cause and think that we will do fine. I do not want Romney, but our best hope in the case that he gets the nomination is for control of the Senate and a bigger majority in the House to pull him to the right of center.
(R) DECAY IS ACCELERATING!
% of State Population voting for Republicans
18.85% New Hampshire
12.85% South Carolina
8.76% Florida
4.19% Missouri
3.97% Iowa
1.29% Colorado
0.87% Minnesota
Snerd
I agree with most of your article. This is quite an overstatement, however.
No matter what the names of the parties are, there is a lot of money and power at stake. So, let’s say, over a period of 30 years, we establish a viable “TEA Party” (it isn’t going to happen, but let’s just go with it). What makes you think it will be any less susceptible to the same corruption and Republican establishment problems that we deal with today?
The idea that we will somehow change the United States if we can establish a TEA Party or a Constitutional Party or whatever, is ludicrous. Even if such a thing could occur–and it won’t–corruption is a part of life…it does not disappear with a new party name.
That approach is juvenile; and any such party would, at best, just siphon off votes of conservatives to a party that will eventually die off.
How many electoral votes did H. Ross Perot get? Zero??? All Perot did was siphon off votes so that Clinton could win. Do you even recall the name of his party?
Right now, Democrats are setting up a third party on all of the 2012 ballots in the states and I guarantee you, they will find whatever conservative wants to have a vanity run, and, sadly, there are people here who will vote for this candidate.
Did H. Ross Perot teach the Republican party a lesson?
We simply live in a nation where the two party system rules; the way the electoral college is set up, no 3rd party candidate will ever get more than 10 delegates; and the only function of a 3rd party candidate will be to siphon off votes from the person he is most similar to.
I know that many of you hate Romney. I don’t blame you. Many of you have little or no respect for Romney. I don’t blame you for feeling that way either. He’s kind of a weasel and not nearly as noble as McCain was. But you have to get over it; and get over your emotional tizzy. Reelecting Obama is not going to fix anything. Reelecting Obama will not reenforce conservative principles or make our country better.
People–conservatives–sat home because McCain was our standard-bearer last time. So, did the Republican party learn a lesson? Did they realize, “We’d better not run another moderate this time.” Of course not!
We had a great conservative in this race–two of them at least–and we abandoned both of them. Right now, we have some okay candidates, Newt and Santorum. They may or may not get the nomination.
Hannity yesterday pointed out that there are two steps in an election. (1) you get your candidate–a Republican–elected and then (2) you make sure he does what you want, and if not, you throw a fit. So many people here seem to want to do #1 only if it is their candidate. If it’s Romney, we will have to do both, because we know that Obama and the Democrats will not respond to TEA party demonstrations. It is at least possible and probably likely that Mitt will.
@JustAl:
We have had some of the best candidates ever run in these past few years on the Republican party ticket: Allen West, Marco Rubio, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Bobby Jindal, Ted Poe, Paul Ryan, and many more.
Furthermore, we are actually talking about important issues: tax reform, entitlement reform, controlling Washington spending. Paul Ryan’s budget was unprecedented. Who else in the history of the United States has ever said, “Mr. President, here is our budget, because you have no clue as to what you are doing.”
We may not get the best guy at the top of the ticket. So what? Should our approach be to whine and act as if the 3rd party will somehow fix things?
Trying to set up some kind of a right-wing utopia is no better than what our nutty friends on the left do.
We live in a world and a country where many things have been established. We want a conservative Republican more than we want a moderate one; and we should want a moderate Republican more than we want a liberal socialist Democrat.
How I wish that Reagan or Coolidge were on the Republican presidential ticket every 4 years, but that just is not going to happen. Sometimes, we end up with a Romney, Bush or McCain. These are imperfect men, they are not as conservative as we would like, but they are so much better than their Democratic alternatives. Could you imagine a Kerry or a Gore presidency? We know how bad it can be under Obama; how reelecting him can somehow be seen by any conservative as a good strategy or a good teaching lesson for the Republican party is beyond me.
Our best approach is to get a Republican first, and then we push that Republican in the right direction.
@Gary Kukis:
Point of order: None of the people you list have been nominated as a candidate for the presidency, which, if I’m not mistaken, is the subject of this thread.
Yes, the GOP has been “talking” for years, and your point is?
I completely disagree, our best approach is to offer an alternative to the dems, for all of his weaknesses, even “W” was to the right of Mittens. If you continue to plant the GOP flag “in the center” while the Dems plant theirs at the left edge, guess where the political landscape has shifted to?
Shine it all you want, Mittens is a weak candidate, and not what we need.
@Richard Wheeler:
One, as I don’t have Mata’s incredible ability to bring back the old comments, at this moment, all I can say is that some of the comments you made about Newt’s current wife, in my remembrances, weren’t kind and had nothing to do with the actual politics. If you want to deny that, go ahead. You have made other comments here at FA, in the past, about conservative women that cross the border to being just plain nasty.
As for your second part, in #25, you said;
It isn’t MY “annointed” MSM, Rich. Nor have I ever denied the overall leanings of FoxNews. Certainly, with the many opinion oriented shows, such as Hannity, on Fox, along with election day and speech/debate day teams consisting of conservatives, the lean to the right is present. However, if one boils down the news itself, and only the news presented, Fox is more to the center than the other media news tv and newsprint is. And, considering that other media, the MSM, leans heavily to the left, I believe I can honestly state that the bias in the MSM to the left is greater than Fox is to the right. But yes, we certainly won’t agree on that.
johngalt, rich wheeler’s references to Ms. Newt were about how he doesn’t believe she is “beautiful”, and a few snippy remarks about “bejeweled fingers”. Correct that they had nothing to do with politics, and were to mock her appearance, and to attempt to portray her, I guess, as some sort of gold digger.
Loved watching Mittens lose big time last night… especially in Colorado, where he was so very confident. oops….
@JustAl: Well, here’s my question: am I the only one who is disappointed with pretty much the entire GOP lineup here? Romney isn’t a world-class candidate, but it goes to show that neither are any of the others. Gingrich is a major crybaby who can’t get his act together and blames everyone but himself for his own actions, Santorum has an okay moral/family life, but hasn’t grasped the traditional conservative support to as great of an extent, unless somehow at least the conservative vote unites behind him, and Romney has provoked Gingrich way too easily, but his problem is his extended delay on whatever so-called “enlightened” plans he has. They’re all terrible, but Gingrich IMO, is merely the worst, and if he at least gets a clue, or gets forced out by a long line of succeeding losses to the other two, perhaps the remainder can duke it out and perhaps we can see a loss by a small margin of the popular vote, and maybe get some of the states we lost in 2008 to the blue.
Mata and J.G. My opinion of Callista is she’s robotic in appearance, rather Stepford like. The bejeweled relates to the hundreds of thousands in jewelry a proud Newt has admittedly bestowed on his wife. No gold digger ref. Big Deal
Romneys’ and Gingrichs’ losses last night assure a long primary season.Santorum is not leaving and will raise more money from his stunning trifecta. A win for him in upcoming Mich. would be huge. Ohio primary winner on S.T. will assume the lead.
Other than Rick, most helped were BHO and R.P. who’ll fight on in his inimitable way.
Let me correct that for you. The most helped were all voters, wanting any one but Romney. He’ll have to recall his invitations to the coronation… it’s been postponed.
@Joe Fixit: @Joe Fixit: Joe, there is always disappointment, but I agree this time there’s more than enough, my money is on Romney as worst, I know too many people from that part of the country that are just, exactly like him, nice folks, but not who I’d elect.
Gary K listed some great people, many of whom it would be a pleasure to vote for. I think those who only want to “win” and those who only want to win if it “means something” could be brought together in my dream situation; no clear winner after the first round of voting at the convention followed by the drafting of Allen West from the floor. Such an historical event would light a fire under the GOP base that the media’s skin would literally peal off. Get him a running mate like Ryan, two relative new comers, both articulate in their defense of conservative, limited government, and watch the panic. Neither of these guys occupy the per-registered fields of fire the media have plotted. In my opinion, they would be absolutely unstoppable.
But, of course, it’s just a dream. Just like watching the professional politicians jostle each other is just an act, sort of like professional wrestling, it could just as easily been Mitt, or even Rick, on the couch with Pelosi, because to them it’s just a game.