The American Spectator : Is Mitt Romney the New Nelson Rockefeller?

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 6.14.11 @ 6:17AM

Okay, let's just call him Nelson Romney from now on!! Talks like a Rino, acts like a Rino, he's probably a Rino!!

chuck| 6.14.11 @ 7:14AM

How about Nelson Dole McRomney? Like Newt once said of Dole "tax collector for the welfare state.

Can't we get a real conservative, please?

Alan Brooks| 6.14.11 @ 9:06AM

Real conservative?? what are you, some sort of subversive? wash your mouth out with soap!

Alan Brooks| 6.14.11 @ 9:57AM

...your name is being forwarded to HUAC, and Mueller at the FBI.

Shamus| 6.14.11 @ 11:10AM

Willard M. Romney is not a real conservative?

Alan Brooks| 6.14.11 @ 11:16AM

conserving WHAT? what is being conserved in the year 2011?

Alan Brooks| 6.14.11 @ 1:37PM

BTW, what happened to dee see? if only he would see the photo of Rockefeller and start salivating:

"Rockefeller-Meghan Marshack eugenics Trilateral Commission new world order IMF red China ALAN WATT [of course]..."

Dennis L Thompson| 6.15.11 @ 3:39PM

Hmmn..a man that balances a budget by cutting 341 social programs against an 85 % liberal legislature, cuts taxes, takes a state from 50th in unemployment to 11th.. If that isnt Conservative... then there isnt any he is what I said to Mr Lord, the slanderer:
Jeffrey,
Would you like to compare Ronald Reagans record to Mitt Romneys as Governors? You are very intellectually dishonest. Very much so... here is Reagans records and I like Reagan ok?

Was once a pro-choice liberal who helped elect one of the most liberal Presidents we've ever seen
While Governor, signed into law a tax increase that is one of the largest for a state in our nation's history
Inherited a massive deficit, but actually increased spending to the tune of doubling his state's budget
Signed one of the most liberal abortion laws in the country into law(though regretted it later on)
state funding for public schools increased 105% in his tenure
Signed welfare reform that helped relieve the caseload, but also increased benefits by 30%
Expanded his state's medicaid system which was the largest in the country
Signed some of the first tailpipe emission standards into law in his State
Tax witholding was introduced during his tenure as Governor

These are just some of the things on his record as Governor and there are other stories about his beliefs such as being rumored to support the Brady Gun Law, rumored to want to disarm our nuclear weapons and more. However, there are mitigating factors within his record that a reasonable person could understand. He attempted to cut his state's government spending by 10% across the board, but then had to restore some of the funding because some of these agencies were cut as thin as it was with the budget. He fought for tax cuts several times(and won a couple battles such as with property and inventory tax cuts), but was outnumbered by the leftist house and senate of his state.

What did Mitt do? Remember against an 85% liberal legislature

He actually balanced a 3 billion dollar state budget deficit by cutting 341 social programs with no new taxes
Boston Globe - Romney is the kind of leader we need - Dec 14, 2007
He took the state from 50th in uneployment to 11th in one term.
Boston Globe - A little perspective - Apr 25, 2003

You lie about Global Warming. He is not for cap and trade:
“I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control. I do not support radical feel-good policies like a unilateral U.S. cap-and-trade mandate. Such policies would have little effect on climate but could cripple economic growth with devastating results for people across the planet.” -- Mitt Romney No Apology, p. 227
and more:

*Cap and Trade legislation would be disastrous for our economy.
*The earth’s climate has been constantly changing throughout its history.
*We should not take extreme measures when we are unsure of human role in global warming.
“In 2004, Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg gathered ten of the world’s leading economists, including three Nobel laureates, in what he called the Copenhagen Consensus. He asked them prioritize the greatest problems faced by humankind. They w...ere not asked to determine which problems were the most severe, but rather to rank the most severe global challenges according to the coast and benefit of overcoming them… Astonishingly, spending money to prevent global warming came in last. Why? To reduce global temperature even by a very small amount requires enormous investment. Achieving the Kyoto objectives, they reasoned, would cost $150 billion a year and only delay the global temperature that would otherwise have been reached in the year 2100 by six years.” -- No Apology, p. 228-229

He comes out and says yes man may have some part, he says that there is no way to measure it and that things like cap and trade would be a disaster. So in essence he didn't alienate anyone and he also took a stance of no cap and trade.... so what do you want Mark? Here is Mitt fully answering the questions and he handles this well. He by this can get people who think it exists to realize there is no way to measure the input from man. He is smart the way he handles this.
and in his words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
.....r_embedded
You are not honest Jeffrey Lord

teliason| 6.16.11 @ 2:53AM

Couldn't have said it any better myself Dennis. Romney is a solutions--get-it-done kinda guy, but Am Spec will never do any reporting like you just did. They are the "real" conservatives and you their litmus test is quite stringent... They and their minion commenters want to shove unqualified candidates down our throats who have no chance of winning.

Rob| 6.21.11 @ 11:36AM

Agreed Teliason and Dennis. Dennis, your post is right on. Romney is only a liberal to people like the author because they want him to be, not because of his record.

play nice| 6.14.11 @ 1:25PM

"Nitt"?

carnot| 6.14.11 @ 3:08PM

too much hyperventilating. By historical standards his poll numbers are weak for an early front runner. plenty of time for better candidates to surface.

Cosmo| 6.15.11 @ 1:51AM

Amazing how liberals fall into personal scandals:
Rockefeller, Edwards, Kennedy, Weiner, Schwartzenegger, Gore, DSK, Clinton, Barney Fwank, Spitzer, etc.

RCV| 6.15.11 @ 4:22PM

Amazing how conservatives and Republicans fall into personal scandals: Roy Ashburn, Mark Sanford, John Ensign, Larry Craig, David Vitter, Newt Gingrich, Marc Foley, Dan Burton, Henry Hyde, Stom Thurmond, Rudy Guiliani, Bob Packwood, etc.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.14.11 @ 6:22AM

At least he's no Maverick. The Republicans nominated McCain who wasn't a Rockefeller or a Reagan or much of anything else. "I'm suspending my campaign," the Maverick stated as he headed to Washington to spend more taxpayers money.

By comparison Romney looked ever the professional during last nights debate. He never sweated and although his answers were sometimes less than profound, they were sincere.

Romney's stance on climate change is cause for concern but maybe he's the best the Republicans have got. Unless anyone else comes out of the woodwork he looked like the best candidate last night.

Gingrich stumbled badly on the immigration question and he's through. The rest of the candidates were decent but they'll have to show more to get past Romney.

shamus| 6.14.11 @ 11:11AM

A maverick is a head of cattle (or in John McCain's case a bum steer).

Groad| 6.14.11 @ 3:51PM

Capt McQUeeg is/ was and will remain an establishment DC insider RINO. After all, he grew up on the VA side of the Potomac.

TrueBlue| 6.14.11 @ 5:19PM

Newt has been around too long for me to want to vote for him anyway.

As for Romney, how can you say he was the best person there? His stances on healthcare and global warming alone disqualify him from being able to run as a Republican IMO. We need to get rid of these cursed RINOs and force them all to switch to the Democrat party where they belong (and obviously enjoy so much).

teliason| 6.16.11 @ 2:56AM

And who would be your choice TrueBlue?

Dennis L Thompson| 6.15.11 @ 3:40PM

check Romneys record as Gov verses Reagans, much better and both in liberal legislatures

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.14.11 @ 6:23AM

At least he's no Maverick. The Republicans nominated McCain who wasn't a Rockefeller or a Reagan or much of anything else. "I'm suspending my campaign," the Maverick stated as he headed to Washington to spend more taxpayers money.

By comparison Romney looked ever the professional during last nights debate. He never sweated and although his answers were sometimes less than profound, they were sincere.

Romney's stance on climate change is cause for concern but maybe he's the best the Republicans have got. Unless anyone else comes out of the woodwork he looked like the best candidate last night.

Gingrich stumbled badly on the immigration question and he's through. The rest of the candidates were decent but they'll have to show more to get past Romney.

Wayne | 6.14.11 @ 11:57AM

That stand on AGW is enough to lose my vote. What Romney is is a Big Government Republican. He just plans to take your rights away with fewer people, that's all.

Dennis L Thompson| 6.15.11 @ 3:43PM

Pretty Ridiculous Wayne...how is balancing a budget from a 3 billion a year deficit and cutting 341 social programs big Government...and with no new taxes, all in an 85% liberal state.

STATE DROPPED NEARLY 25% IN TAX-BURDEN RANKINGS:

During Governor Romney's tenure from 2003-7, Massachusetts dropped from 13th to 17th in national tax burden rankings. Gov. Romney created the 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 budgets (and slashed spending in the existing 2003 budget as soon as he entered office). Massachusetts' combined state and local tax burden was the same in 2007, the year he left office, as it was in 2003 when he took office, at 9.9%. However, he cut taxes while city and county governments within the state raised them, which caused a small bulge in the tax burden in the years in between but ended the tax burden at the same level in the year of his final budget as in the year he entered office.

This improvement in tax burden rankings occurred while Massachusetts experienced the worst economic situation in the nation and had the highest ratio in the nation of democrats controlling the legislature, a veto-proof 85%, whose leadership stated intentions to raise taxes. (See record survey above and Taxes/Fees link above for details.)

Contrast that with other fmr. governors considering a 2012 presidential run:

• Tim Pawlenty. Minnesota's tax burden increased 1/2% during his tenure, from 9.8% when he took office in 2003, to 10.3% in 2009 (the latest year data is available), changing his state from the 17th most taxed state to the 7th most taxed state in the nation.

• Mike Huckabee. Arkansas' tax burden increased 0.7% during his tenure, from 9.3% when he took office in 1996, to 10% when he left in 2007, changing his state from the 33rd most taxed state to the 14th most taxed state in the nation.

• Sarah Palin. Alaska's tax burden increased 0.9% during her tenure, from 5.4% when she took office in 2006 to 6.3% when she left in 2009, maintaining the ranking of the state with the lowest tax burden in the nation.

• Charlie Crist. Florida's tax burden increased 0.4% during his tenure, from 8.8% when he took office in 2007 to 9.2% in 2009 (the latest year data is available), changing his state from the 36th most taxed state to the 31st most taxed state in the nation.

TaxFoundation.org - State-Local Tax Burdens, All States - 1977-2009

john-john| 6.14.11 @ 6:46AM

Great read -- a refresher as to why we have the term, "Rockefeller Republican." What would be interesting to this reader is this: can you or your other readers comment on how Richard Nixon was also a Rockefeller Republican? After Nixon's time on the Un-American Activities Committee, he laid low for Ike's two terms. By the time he became President, he was ending the gold standard, signing the Clean Air Act & the Endangered Species Act, empowering the EPA with near-dictatorial powers over private property; opening trade to the Red Chinese; practicing detente rather than deterrence with the Soviets; and generally expanding the Great Society begun under LBJ. Nixon was no friend of conservatives -- not one bit.

JimP| 6.14.11 @ 7:48AM

What you say is absolutely correct. Nixon also imposed wage and price controls in the early seventies to control inflation. Of course it didn't work. Once he removed them inflation took off again but at an even faster rate. Nixon had not answer for the economic woes we suffered back then and neither did Jerry Ford. Both were Rockefeller Repubs. Nixon was an ardent anti-communist and was hated by the lefties with the intensity that 'W' was hated by them. Otherwise Nixon was pretty much a disaster domestically. The entire 1970's were awful from an economic perspective. The nader being Carter's four years.

JimH| 6.14.11 @ 8:19AM

There is a certain type of Republican who is only too willing to use the power of the state. They just think that they can do it more efficiently and for better purposes than the Dems. Progressives sit on both sides of the aisle, and the one’s in the GOP are the more dangerous because conservatives have to often been willing to cut them some slack for the sake of party unity.

Wayne | 6.14.11 @ 12:00PM

Agree completely. I see a Romney as the worst case scenario. A Republican who seals the socialistic policies of Obama into stone.

Dennis L Thompson| 6.15.11 @ 3:45PM

Wayne you complete lack of understanding is a worst case scenario
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics - Massachusetts
(retrieved November 2008)

While jobs were shrinking by the thousands each month in Massachusetts when he took office [16], by the time he left office, "the state had attracted hundreds of new companies and added [a net total of] 60,000 new jobs." [17] It takes time for pro-growth policies to effect the economy, but before the end of his first year in office the job losses had stopped, and in his remaining time in office 81,000 new jobs were created. [18] The people in the state benefited not only by increased employment and not having their taxes raised, but they also saw tax cuts by the governor. As the following article pointed out:

“He cut capital gains taxes, benefiting well over 150,000 residents. Thousands more are currently benefiting from new jobs in the biotech field because of Romney's manufacturing tax relief and because he made the investment tax credit permanent. Thousands of Massachusetts families saved their hard-earned dollars when Romney enacted sales tax holidays. Seniors are benefiting from property tax relief proposed and signed into law by Romney. Our honorable veterans and National Guard members have several new tax breaks because of Romney's belief that they should be taxed less. Commuters can now deduct expenses for travel because Romney believes they shouldn't be penalized for helping increase commerce.”

Boston Globe - Romney is the kind of leader we need - Dec 14, 2007

Wayne | 6.15.11 @ 5:38PM

Yes, I completely fail to see how Romney can attack ObamaCare, since he has already supported the same thing in Massachusetts. Yes, I completely fail to see how his stance on Global Warming can counter Obama's EPA rules and Cap and Trade taxes.

As far as jobs, I am not stupid. They went up all over the country in the same time period. It had nothing to do with Romney.

As a veteran myself, I think the idea of giving special benefits to any group of people is something DEMOCRATS are fond of doing. But they must just take from everyone else to compensate. We didn't fight to get special treatment.

Henry Drummond| 6.14.11 @ 7:10AM

Look at Britain, where they elected a Conservative in Name Only - gutted National Defence, billions squandered on foreign aid to Third-World psychopaths - America, for the sake of all humanty, don't go the same way!

Intelligent Design| 6.14.11 @ 7:32AM

If Romney is the Republican nominee, we would get four more years of Obama. Four more years of Obama would destroy the United States.

Bruce| 6.14.11 @ 11:38PM

Absolutely agree. My fear is that Romney WILL be the chosen one by the Repub elite. The only thing that might temper my resistance to voting for him would be if Bachman was the choice for VP, and even then ....
It's my opinion that Romney on the Repub ticket would give us another 4 years of the Usurper - which the Republic clearly cannot stand.

Dennis L Thompson| 6.15.11 @ 3:48PM

Yeah right. I want to be nice here but Romney took a liberal state and fixed its unemployment from 50th to 11th. Balanced its budget by downsizing government and no new taxes. How about Reagans Record? Suck on this because this is what happened...What a Rino he was huh?

Was once a pro-choice liberal who helped elect one of the most liberal Presidents we've ever seen
While Governor, signed into law a tax increase that is one of the largest for a state in our nation's history
Inherited a massive deficit, but actually increased spending to the tune of doubling his state's budget
Signed one of the most liberal abortion laws in the country into law(though regretted it later on)
state funding for public schools increased 105% in his tenure
Signed welfare reform that helped relieve the caseload, but also increased benefits by 30%
Expanded his state's medicaid system which was the largest in the country
Signed some of the first tailpipe emission standards into law in his State
Tax witholding was introduced during his tenure as Governor

These are just some of the things on his record as Governor and there are other stories about his beliefs such as being rumored to support the Brady Gun Law, rumored to want to disarm our nuclear weapons and more. However, there are mitigating factors within his record that a reasonable person could understand. He attempted to cut his state's government spending by 10% across the board, but then had to restore some of the funding because some of these agencies were cut as thin as it was with the budget. He fought for tax cuts several times(and won a couple battles such as with property and inventory tax cuts), but was outnumbered by the leftist house and senate of his state.

Purpleguy| 6.14.11 @ 7:34AM

I read this article until I read "Wait a minute. There is great danger in following this path toward Government intervention.'" - Whether you talking to Resolution Trust Corporation, the Americans for Disability Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the firing of Air Traffic Controllers for striking, or the Terry Schiavo debacle, all under Republican presidents, Republicans are NOT small government people. They just want the government to exercise it's authority over us in different ways than do Democratic presidents. But they are the same, just their priorities are different.
A Libertarian is closer to the small government ideal.

George True| 6.14.11 @ 8:45AM

Wow! For once I actually agree with much of what you said. You are right, the typical Republican is NOT a small government advocate. This is what the Tea Party is about - first and foremost getting people nominated in GOP primaries who truly are for smaller government and lower taxes. But there is an entrenched ruling class on both side of the aisle who are addicted to power for its own sake. If you understand this Purpleguy, then at least in this regard you "get it", and we have some common ground.

W| 6.14.11 @ 10:59AM

Purp, are you for a libertarian, limited government?

W| 6.14.11 @ 10:59AM

Purp, are you for a libertarian, limited government?

Drunken Sailor| 6.14.11 @ 2:53PM

Your pretty close to the mark Purp. The Republican party elites are not small goverment people. They have strayed from the Republican roots. That is what people on this site and the Tea Party have been screaming about. We want a smaller goverment, period. End of Story.

victor| 6.15.11 @ 2:35AM

PurplyGay:
" the firing of Air Traffic Controllers for striking, "

Hey, PG why don't you stop lying?
I thought this canard died long ago:

"On August 3, 1981 the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay and a 32-hour workweek. In addition, PATCO no longer wanted to be included within the civil service clauses that had haunted it for decades. In doing so, the union violated a law {5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p.} that banned strikes by government unions."

The strike was ILLEGAL and they deserved to be fired.

Dennis L Thompson| 6.15.11 @ 3:49PM

Libratarians are spineless jokes with no barriers

Melvin| 6.14.11 @ 7:35AM

As much as many of us would like Romney to be the antithesis of Obama, I think Conservatives would be disappointed.
In some ways yes, Romney isn't Obama, but in many ways they are similar. It was noted that Romney looked oh so Presidential, well the same thing was said about candidate Obama. He was even compared to Christ.
When I see Romney, I see Globalist. Mr Lord is correct, Mitt Romney is a card carrying establishment Rockefeller Republican. He can't help it. In order to advance as a Republican politician he had to become a establishment Republican. Romney is no Conservative, he has Conservative ideas, but his core values are Country Club Blue Blood Establishment Republican.
We as Conservatives/Republicans have to think out of the box and out of our comfort zone. I make it no secret that I am a Herman Cain supporter. Herman Cain is the antithesis of establishment Republicans and Liberal Socialist Democrats.
I got my thong in a was yesterday when Gov. Perry of Texas was described as good looking and lean. Same is said about Romney. I dunno maybe it is just a peeve of mine, but have we become so shallow that many are basing on who they should vote for based solely on looks? Then if this is the case, then we should just go to New York during fashion week and watch the parade of models and then from the runway we can pick the next President of the United States, doesn't matter if they know anything, what is important to coin a phrase of Paris Hilton, "They just have to look Hot."
Unfortunately my gut feeling with Mitt Romney is, that he is not the one who is going to send shock-waves through the establishment Republicans or the Social Democrats.
And we need to stop calling Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Conservatives. They have Conservative traits but their core values are establishment, it isn't their fault that is the way that the Republican Party trained them to be.
But it won't be the first time Country Club Blue Blood Establishment Republicans ruined a candidate, and it probably won't be the last.

Dennis L Thompson| 6.15.11 @ 3:57PM

You obviously do not understand what conservativism is. You like Herman Cain? The guy so much for Civil Rights? That legislature is not conservative. He is a failed politician turned talk show host. Mitt ran a state with an 85% legislature that was liberal. Balanced a deficit budget of 3 billion by cutting 341 social programs and no new taxes. Took them from 50th in unemployment to 11th. 1 term in politics, the rest in the business world.
Herman Cain is a good man, but I have only seen him sidestep most questions and speak in platitudes. On the other hand, Mitt Romney has a b ook out with ideas and has already put his plans out there. One is a wannabe, the other is a doer. Mitt in his lifetime has created 340,000 jobs from his companies and from his one term as a politician. herman Cain couldnt even win a seat in Ga

vb| 6.14.11 @ 7:39AM

How many of these things could Nixon have done without the support of Congress? It's easy to get fired up about presiedential candidates, but we can't neglect local races.

Michael Tomlinson| 6.14.11 @ 7:55AM

vb good point!

Jack in Wi.| 6.14.11 @ 7:39AM

The whole debate was dominated by Ron Paul and his ideas. The rest of the candidates were taking their lead from him. That is why the debate was good it. It was about the issues Ron has been talking about for 35 years. The candidate for this party will be Ron Paul or someone who convincingly talks like him or we won't win. People are sick of endless wars and endless bailouts of the elites. Even the questions from the audience sounded like they were written by Ron. I loved the ones about the troops home and closing all those bases over seas.

Westie| 6.14.11 @ 10:42AM

Jack I agree that the only participant that spoke with certitude & passion about ideas was Ron Paul!
I was actually surprized that the rest were like 6 bowls of the same porridge. Nothing but pale Repubs. This group needs Palin to bring the fire!

SpiralArchitect| 6.14.11 @ 1:28PM

Paul = Isolationism + mass emmigration

Exit the world stage militarily?

You are serious?

Only question remaing...who gets us first?

Communists or Fanatics

Jack in Wi.| 6.14.11 @ 5:02PM

Nonsense: The world can defend itself and pay for that defense too. The Cold War has been over for 20 years. the military should have been downsized and brought home then. Lets defend America and Americans only. This country has carried a burden that should have been liquidated decades ago. There is no more money for foreign aid or foreign adventurses

TrueBlue| 6.14.11 @ 5:24PM

I agree with that on the European side, but not over in Asia. The US being there is the only reason it's not all China yet.

Bruce| 6.14.11 @ 11:44PM

Why concern yourself with Asia, when China already owns a large percentage of American debt? And if you care to hear about "Project 60", it will only get worse under the Obama/Democrat-Marxist regime.
http://commerce.idaho.gov/news.....idaho.aspx

TrueBlue| 6.15.11 @ 11:16AM

It's only a matter of time before they decide they do not need our purchases to run their economy. That'll be about the same time they think they have an effective war machine. The sooner we pull out of the region, the sooner they'll think they're good to go.

They start a war to conquer the region, flood the market with the US cash they've stockpiled, our economy tanks, and we can't do anything to get out there to stop them because all our local facilities are closed and we're too busy trying to recover. Nobody will want to go halfway around the world if we don't have anything in the region in that situation (granted it's a worst case scenario). The majority of the country doesn't have the same mentality it did that led us to go defend our allies in WWI and II, and they sure as heck wouldn't if we actually hit a second Depression.

China's entire history is about them conquering territory any time they thought they could do so. Their mentality hasn't changed just because they no longer have a monarch, Communism is just another dynasty. When dealing with a foreign country, people need to stop thinking like Westerners.

JimP| 6.14.11 @ 7:41AM

Thanks for the history refresher Mr. Lord. Another terrific column, IMHO. Much of what you recounted I had forgotten. I have relatives in upstate NY. Back in the 1970's they educated me about the "Rockefeller dollar". It was a one dollar bill folded in two lengthwise. The purpose was to demonstrate the diminished buying power they enjoyed under Rockefeller's tax policies. Up there they had barns that were maintained like the Rockefeller mansion, but their houses were allowed to deteriorate into hovels so as to depress the value and avoid the high property taxes.

We need Romney like we need Obama part deux.

Bak Tun| 6.14.11 @ 11:13AM

I believe that's Obama part Duh.

Dennis L Thompson| 6.15.11 @ 3:58PM

Jeffrey Lord hasc to totally misrepresent facts to have a good article? More like he has an agenda and doesnt care if he is not truthful in doing so.

fmm| 6.14.11 @ 7:44AM

Wonderful expose; hope many people read and understand this. Romney as president would be a disaster for the country. Pawlenties "Obamneycare" reference is right on on more matters than just health care.

Larry| 6.14.11 @ 8:02AM

Anyone considering voting for Mitt Romneycare in the primaries should remember two words- Scott Brown.

Tom| 6.14.11 @ 8:19AM

BINGO!

LarryK| 6.14.11 @ 2:05PM

How about "Not just NO , but HELL NO!"

Mimi| 6.14.11 @ 8:05AM

Think....Does the Tea Party want a nominee WHO
wants to "Trim the Hedges " of BIG GOVERNMENT ?? Heck ..NO !
I begged them to JOIN the Republican party so they could VOTE in the PRIMARIES...I say again... DO IT ! The idiot left has over stepped their bonds...The country (center-right) has totally had it....And are SCARED to death, the way things are going and literally petrified at the re-election of Obama. CONSERVATISM is IN....and we are not going to put up with anyone half-hearted....We are waiting for the REAL -DEAL!

Bumr50| 6.14.11 @ 8:20AM

Well - since there's no "President Rockefeller," I sure hope so!

Teflon93| 6.14.11 @ 8:44AM

I have yet to find one Romney supporter who is a conservative in any sense of the word. Scratch beneath the thin skin and it's liberalism to the bone.

Old Soldier| 6.14.11 @ 8:53AM

HW Bush, Dole, McCain, and Romney are all Rockefeller RINO’s.

1. None of them have any philosophy or political ideology under the hood. Everything is subject to compromise and debate. They are completely untrustworthy.

2. Therefore, they become Dem-lites. The Democrats want a 10% tax hike – so they fight it down to 5%. The Dems want to expand Medicare massively – so the Rino’s fight for slightly less expansion. The Dems want pay-offs to their special interests – so the Rino’s compromise and get tax-payer cash for their groups too… It’s runaway government slightly slower.

3. HW Bush’s broken tax promises, Medicare Drug-Benefit, the 2008 Stimulus Package, RomnetCare, etc…

4. They are unable to contrast themselves against liberals. Reagan was able to draw clear distinctions between himself and his opponents. McCain stood up there and agreed with Obama – just slower and slightly less.

5. If the GOP establishment rams through Mitt Romney – I walk away from the Republican Party.

LarryK| 6.14.11 @ 8:59AM

Hey RNC,

If it's Mitt,
come the election, I will sit!

Bruce| 6.14.11 @ 11:46PM

Obama supporters thank you. Me - not so much.

Bruce| 6.14.11 @ 11:50PM

On this, the distinction between Repub/Conserv and Dem/Libs is clear and shows why they often win dustups. They unfailingly rally around WHOEVER the Dem candidate is, no matter who - believing that ANY Dem/Lib is better than any Repub/Conserv. As long as Conservs are split by fiscal-social issues and keep up this mantra of "if not MY guy-it's nobody!" we will continue to lose to usurpers like Obama and Lib scumbags, be it Congress or the President.

Mark Jeffery Koch| 6.14.11 @ 9:04AM

A Mitt Romey/Marco Rubio ticket would win Florida, Pennsylvania and perhaps Ohio for the Republicans. Jewish voters are angry with Obama and would vote for Romney and Hispanic voters will vote for a Vice President Rubio with the same fervor Blacks voted for Obama and Hispanics are the largest minority group in America. A Romney/Rubio ticket would make the 2012 race very, very close and that is only if young voters and African American voters turn out for Obama in the same numbers they did in 2008.

Most of my Jewish friends are very disenchanted with Obama but will not vote for Paul, Cain, Gingrich, Palin, or Bachman but they will vote for Romney and even if Obama received 60% of the Jewish vote, down from 78% in 2008, combined with a viable Hispanic running mate Obama will be a one term President.

Dan Hirsch| 6.14.11 @ 9:55AM

Leaving us with RomneyCare? Cap and trade? Green energy intitatives? Mitt is a panderer. He stands up in front of an audience and then tells them not what they need to hear, but what they want to hear. Reagan stood up and told you exactly what he thought. You might not agree with him, but you knew what he thought and what hew would do. He was a politician Americans trusted because he spoke straight and kept his word.

Mitt doesn't speak straight, just listen to him explain Romneycare.

There is one ex-governor who has pretty clearly demonstrated plain speaking followed with up with principled action. Her 13,000 e-mails pretty conclusively prove it.

MJK, the objective here is not to win an election, it is to save the Constitution. Running an absolutely see-through RINO, your guy Mitt, will be an unmitigated disaster. He'd lose to Obama.

All the polling being done right now is of no consequence - most of the electorate is not even thinking about this race yet. But one thing is for sure, the man in the street knows that our little President is in way over his head and is the problem.

Remember that Reagan polled 10 pts below Carter in mid October 1980. Carter conceded before California's polls closed. Cali couldn't save him!

Now is the time to listen to the candidates and talk to everyone you know about how the country must get back to a smaller, Constitutional government. This will yield the best results for us all.

Nolite me conculcare!

Mark Jeffery Koch| 6.14.11 @ 10:18AM

Independents, Jews, and Hispanics are not going to vote for a social conservative. If your main concern is adhering to the lunacy of Palin, Paul, Santorum, and Bachman Obama will beat them all (including Gingrich) in a landslide. Gingrich's nasty side came out in the debate when he tried to lecture the moderator and when he has his nasty moments he will turn off most Republicans as well.

Ronald Reagan was not a social conservative and did nothing to advance the agenda of the far right but talked a good game. All you get by adhering to far right principles is watching the Democrat sworn in on the Capital steps.

The bottom line is do you want a Republican in the White House? If you want to denigrate someone as a RINO who believes there is a problem the world has with global warming and climate change - which is a scientific fact, who believes that having fifty million people without medical insurance is something America cannot continue to ignore while allowing the insurance companies to get away with murder - literally, by denying coverages to people who currently pay for insurance, and someone who does not rant and rave against the liberals but wants instead to get the economy back on track and put people back to work then, fine, adhere to your right wing principles and plan on the 2016 election because you won't win in 2012. 30% of Americans are conservative, 30% are liberal, and 40% are independent. Americans also want someone who will secure our borders and not utter empty
threats about expelling twenty million mostly law abiding people who are here cleaning toilets, working in hospital kitchens, and mowing lawns and doing the work no other American wants to.
And, by the way, with Social Security and Medicare going broke, I welcome 2o million people paying taxes to help those systems become solvent rather than deporting them.

If you want to win an election and get most of what you want then you vote for a middle of the road Republican. Trust me....there will not be a President Santorum, Palin, Bachman, Gingrich, Paul, or Cain in 2012. I'd rather have a moderate Republican in the White House in 2012 than Obama for four more years. The country cannot afford four more years of our leader going around the world apologizing for America's behaviour and throwing our allies in France, Britain, Israel, Poland and the Czech Republic under the bus, giving unions exemptions from the horrendous ObamaCare, and having America lead from behind. Romney or Obama in 2012?
The choice should be obvious, so called RINO or not.

George True| 6.14.11 @ 10:53AM

"...the lunacy of Palin, Paul, Santorum, and Bachman."

Really? Really!?! You consider it lunacy to advocate for lower taxes and smaller, less intrusive government? Because that is what all of these have in common. So you would actually prefer the ruling class status quo of higher taxes, bigger government? What you call a middle or the road Republican is actually liberal-lite. Instead of actually solving any of the problems besetting our republic, they would merely rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. Your self-identification as a conservative seems dubious to me.

By the way, there are not and never were 50 million Americans without health insurance. That figure was pulled out of thin air by the Democrats. It has been debunked many times. The real number is about 15 million, or about five percent of the population. Is this a problem? Sure is, but not one that requires the government to forcibly and illegally take over the entire health insurance and health care markets.

Also, I am aware of NO insurance companies who are able to deny coverage to policyholders and get away with it. Just the suggestion of it would have the state insurance commissioners all over them like flies on you-know-what. There are instances, fairly rare, where insurance companies rescind someone's policy for out-and-out insurance fraud. Here in Arizona, HealthNet was heavily investigated several years ago for allegedly denying coverage to their insureds. When it was all over, it was obvious that it was much hysteria over nothing. Out of about 250,000 insureds, they had rescinded the policies of several dozen policyholders for blatant, provable insurance fraud.

Michael Tomlinson| 6.14.11 @ 11:57AM

Reagan, granted was not as good a social conservative as W, but had he been blessed with a Republican Congress on social issues he’d have had more in common with the fearless George W. Bush than just talk. Those who praise Reagan and bemoan George W. Bush (probably many of the same ones who tell pollsters they approve of Obama personally) know little of the former’s record in the White House and how it shaped the latter’s policies and agenda. As for Hispanics they are socially conservative – if we can shape our message on border control and illegal aliens with less hyperbole and antipathy they will soon be a solid voting Republican bloc. (Marco Rubio will be on the short list for Vice President whoever the nominee is if they’re serious about winning.)

While I’m not supporting Romney in the 2012 primaries he was absolutely right when he stated any of the Republicans on the stage in NH would be a better President than Barack Obama. Despite the reporting of how hard it is to beat a sitting President that illustration is flawed. It is only hard to beat a sitting Republican President. Since FDR Bill Clinton is the only Democrat charlatan to be elected to a second term and it was his good fortune to have had a Republican Congress or he’d have easily been the second coming of Carter and the proto-Obama.

As for Party affiliation 35.6% are Republicans, 34.0% Democrats, 30.4% Unaffiliated. This is our year to win not only the White House, but solid majorities in Congress. We can squash the Democrats and reverse the entire failed Obama agenda and that should be our mission as conservatives in 2012 whoever gets the nomination.

Wayne | 6.14.11 @ 12:05PM

As soon as you called AGW a scientific fact, you lost all credibility.

emo| 6.14.11 @ 9:44PM

Middle of the road Republicans LOSE LOSE AND LOSE AGAIN. You had your way in 1976, 1992, 1996 and 2008.

You cant have it both ways: Cap and Tax, Obamcare and getting the economy back on track. The economy will never get back on track with the positions you think the GOP should take

Mark Jeffery Koch| 6.14.11 @ 3:09PM

"the objective here is not to win an election, it is to save the Constitution"

Please! I would rather have a moderate Republican choosing the next Anthony Kennedy to be a Supreme Court Justice than I would want to have Obama choose another Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I would rather have a President Romney embrace our allies France, England, Israel, the Czech Republic and Poland instead of throwing them under the bus and I would rather have an experienced businessman who knows how to create jobs be our President than a community organizer whose heroes are Reverand Wright and Bill Ayers. You can't save our beloved Constitution if you don't win. If the objective here is not to win an election then save your energy for 2016. I say win in 2012 and save the conservative purity litmus test for another time.

carnot| 6.14.11 @ 3:10PM

maybe. then again...vote a more conservative Republican slate to the House and Senate and Romney can be boxed in.

emo| 6.14.11 @ 9:39PM

""MJK, the objective here is not to win an election, it is to save the Constitution.""

While I dont support Romney, you cant save the constitution without winning

Bruce| 6.14.11 @ 11:53PM

"MJK, the objective here is not to win an election, it is to save the Constitution."

Which clearly illustrates my point. How exactly do you save the Constitution if you don't first win the damned election?

Teflon93| 6.14.11 @ 10:00AM

Wasn't McLame supposed to win those last time?

Michael Tomlinson| 6.14.11 @ 12:10PM

Did you stay home in '08 or vote for Obama? Both lame.

Teflon93| 6.14.11 @ 9:15PM

I held my nose and voted for McLame simply because Palin was on the ticket.

Now you can vote for Bachmann or Palin or Cain or whichever honest-to-God CONSERVATIVE wins the GOP nomination.

Sheila| 6.14.11 @ 10:40AM

Mark Jeffery Koch says: Romney is good for the Jews. What's good for the Jews is good for America. Therefore nominate Romney. Genuine conservatives, as opposed to right-liberals, respond: No, no, and no.

play nice| 6.14.11 @ 1:35PM

Let's make 2012 an election, not a Miss America contest.

Casey Abell| 6.14.11 @ 9:05AM

Man, Romney must have done real well in the debate. He's scaring the bejabbers out of people. Now we got an aide to the tax-raising, deficit-spending, immigration-amnesty-signing, Iran-arms-selling Reagan trying to make Romney into Lord Voldemort.

Funny thing: all the fear and trembling may be wasted. Romney remains a weak frontrunner who could easily be taken down by an insurgent candidate from the right. After the first debate, the fave-of-the-hour for conservatives was Cain. Now it seems to be Bachmann. Whatever. Fact is, Romney remains very vulnerable to a challenge from the right.

So relax, guys. You don't have to scream RIIIIIIIINNNNOOOOOOOOO in abject terror every time Romney's name is mentioned. He may well not be the nominee.

carnot| 6.14.11 @ 3:11PM

ummm....yup!

dadfly| 6.14.11 @ 5:03PM

nah. he sucked. he even looked physically weak, gaunt. the problem is the R-collective press declared him the winner. that leads to the suspicion that the fix is in (as it was with mcccain).

Michael Tomlinson| 6.14.11 @ 9:08AM

Will it take another former Democrat to pull a Ronald Reagan in 2012 -- Rick Perry?

For those who know so little about Reagan he was an FDR New Deal Democrat who loved it when Harry Truman gave Republicans hell. Then he came to his senses and became a Republican. As Republican Governor of California he raised taxes and signed the most liberal abortion law in the nation that set the stage for the moral outrage of Roe v. Wade. He was always an open border's politician as he proved with blanket amnesty and citizenship for illegal aliens.

Yes Rick Perry supported Al Gore when Gore was a conservative James Antle III Democrat. Did Perry make mistakes as Governor of course, but if we look back to Reagan as Governor and President Perry could follow in his footsteps.

As a US Air Force veteran Perry unlike Obama would not tear down the US military and he’d obtain Congressional support before going to war. Under Perry’s stewardship, during the jobs killing Obama administration, Texas has created more jobs than the rest of the US. Significant tort reform that has losers paying court costs this has blocked the ALCU, labor unions, environmental extremists and other Democrat special interest groups from killing jobs. He signed into law eminent domain legislation to protect property owners from state and local governments seeking to obtain private property and allows property owners in some cases to buy back their land if it is not used. Perry signed the bill into law voter ID legislation that requires Texans to show photo identification to vote. Perry signed into law pro-life legislation that requires women seeking an abortion to first get a sonogram. Under Perry Texas has balanced the books each biennium and slashed spending to reconcile the numbers. The libertarian leaning CATO Institute over his years in Austin give him an average of 60 and he get an A+ from the NRA.

Here is a quote from the Governor that shows the kind of steel he’s made of: "Abolishing sanctuary cities in Texas, using the federal Secure Communities program and ensuring that only individuals who are here legally can obtain a valid Texas driver's license sends a clear message that Texas will not turn a blind eye to those breaking our laws." It may not be as monumental as “Tear down this wall Mr. Gorbachev,” but it is pretty damn good.

St. Thor| 6.14.11 @ 9:25AM

If the Republicans are stupid enough to nominate Romney (a distinct possibility given their death wish), then there will be a third party candidate.

Michael Tomlinson| 6.14.11 @ 9:49AM

Then you've reelected Barack Obama.

Any Republican would be better than Obama as everyone on the NH stage stated in one form or fashion.

Teflon93| 6.14.11 @ 10:01AM

Umm, no---you have. By nominating Mitt Romney, the latest "My Turn" RINO.

Notice how it's never a conservative's "turn" in the GOP?

Michael Tomlinson| 6.14.11 @ 10:20AM

Romney is not a shoe in far from it. This primary season could be totally different and despite the polls both "my turn next" candidates (Romney and Palin) might be shocked to find GOP primary voters want fresh blood. But a thrid party hands Obama the White House w/ roughly 40% of the vote with the Republican coming in a close second and the third party Obama savior a distant third.

Michelle Bachmann nailed it he's a one term President, but if you like Obamacare, double digit unemployment, double digit inflation, a falling dollar, skyhigh energy prices and national humiliation then go for a failed third party and make Obama's nightmare come true.

Teflon93| 6.14.11 @ 11:00AM

Except that the same garbage was spewed in 2008 with McLame. The only reason I held my nose and voted for The Maverick was Sarah Palin on that ticket.

The key to 2012 will be conservative turnout. Conservatives will not turn out for Mitt Romney, yet another RINO foisted upon us by the GOP's insane blue state first primary schedule.

Teflon93| 6.14.11 @ 11:01AM

If RINOs want Obama out so badly, they can hold their noses and vote for a conservative for once in their lives.

Michael Tomlinson| 6.14.11 @ 12:02PM

Clearly you prefer Obama and his policies. I think that's the definition of a RINO.

Teflon93| 6.14.11 @ 12:51PM

I prefer conservatism. Which makes me a conservative.

Try it---you might like it.

St. Thor| 6.14.11 @ 1:43PM

Whine and name call all you want. The fact still is that if the Republicans are stupid enough to nominate Romney, there will be a third party led by serious people.

emo| 6.14.11 @ 9:48PM

We're always told we have to support the RINO. High time "they" supported a conservative

Michael Tomlinson| 6.14.11 @ 12:22PM

Teflon 93 Reagan was the "my turn next" Republican in 1980 (seond to Ford in '76). When my father pulled the lever for Goldwater it was for a conservative. George W. Bush despite the Democrat media inspired fantasy pushed by many self-identified "conservatives" was a conservative.

In the current crop of candidates the majority are conservatives -- Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Pawlenty and Santorum. Romney is a right of center moderate and Paul is a liberalterian.

All, even Paul, would be head and shoulders better than Obama and if you can't see that you and those like you are self-destuctively obtuse.

Teflon93| 6.14.11 @ 12:52PM

Except Reagan wasn't, which was why Nelson Rockefeller factored in at all.

You might recall that Gerald Ford tried to sell Reagan that he "needed" him as his Vice President. This is what the RINOs of the day believed.

No different than what you believe now.

Michael Tomlinson| 6.14.11 @ 1:18PM

Of course Reagan was the "my turn next" candidate in 1980 after losing the nomination to Ford. At least that follows your paranoid "logic" of how it works in the GOP.

When he won in '80 Reagan ignored Ford and Nelson Rockefeller was irrelevant. Your point is irrelevant too.

Exactly I'm still loyal to the basic ideas laid out by Barry Goldwater and clarified by Reagan. Unlike you and others I don't let the media or the fad of the day tell me how to think.

Teflon93| 6.14.11 @ 2:07PM

Barry Goldwater didn't lay out those ideas, Brent Bozell did. He simply updated Burke for the present day in so doing.

Reagan didn't need the ghostwriter---his conservatism was to the bone and highly-principled.

In 1980, Rockefeller was still quite influential. You may recall the RINO John Anderson running 3rd party to split the vote against Reagan at the behest of the Rockefeller Republicans.

Mitt Romney is the media's choice for 2012. Just as McLame was in 2008.

Keep biting that worm, Michael---surely there can't be a hook in all of them.

PolishKnight| 6.14.11 @ 10:04AM

To paraphrase the deja vu saying:

It's McCain all over again...

Let's try this philosophical question: Imagine... if Bush I had lost his election bid right after Reagan due to his voodoo economic statements and a clear moderate stance and we got stuck with Michael Dukakis. It would have gone pretty much the way we see today. Then... we got a conservative candidate.

Imagine... No Bill Clinton 1992 to 2000. No Obama. And most importantly, NO Bush's 1988 to 1992, and no GW 2000 through 2008.

No invasion of Iraq. No 911. No Iraq/Afghanistan wars. No waiting 2 hours to take a domestic flight.

The American people being dumb enough to vote Obama, that's understandable. Maybe it will take them a few election cycles to "get it." But if republican primary voters want to put another McCain in, then maybe a second time is the charm. Let's keep letting the crazy leftists in until they get it. In the meantime, NorthEast, enjoy the $10 gasoline and heating oil.

Old Soldier| 6.14.11 @ 10:19AM

I was a big Pete DuPont fan in '88. HW Bush was a huge dissappointment.

Michael Tomlinson| 6.14.11 @ 10:31AM

The lose to win scenario you envisage was tried in 2006 and 2008 look where it got us. Time to do what Barry Goldwater told us and grow up.

You've got to wonder how many of you people are really Democrats pushing the same BS, swallowed by just enough conservatives, that gave us Reid-Pelosi in '06 and Obama in '08?

Wayne | 6.14.11 @ 12:07PM

Not it would be the GOP, by leaving a gaping hole on the right who would be re-electing Obama.

Michael Tomlinson| 6.14.11 @ 12:28PM

Obviously, you're one of those who left a gaping hole on the "right" and gave us Reid-Pelosi-Obama. I've always said Obama and the Democrats owe folks like you a debt of thanks.

Teflon93| 6.14.11 @ 12:54PM

And I've always said the RINOs sell year-old meat claiming it's fresh. McLame put an end to your whole narrative in 2008, remember? Ideal RINO candidate, beloved by the Left Wing Media and Beltway Republicans, bipartisan, and got his @ss handed to him by the most left wing and inexperienced presidential candidate in history.

Michael Tomlinson| 6.14.11 @ 1:24PM

McCain won the nomination, because of folks like you who no doubt swallowed Chuck Schumer's propaganda about the profligate GOP Congress and helpded Democrats take Congress in 2006. Lose to win "conservatives" made it inevitable that much of the GOP base would panic and reach out for what they thought was a safe bet -- McCain. Who shot himself in the head by refusing to go after Obama and allowing his staff to undercut Palin in public.

Teflon93| 6.14.11 @ 2:10PM

McCain won the nomination because Democrats voted in open primaries particularly in RINO states and because too many conservatives got suckered once again by RINOs claiming he was the only "electable" candidate. Mind you, that field included Romney.

McCain didn't go after Obama because RINOs don't like conflict---they believe it frightens moderates. McCain's staff was RINO to the bone and undercut Palin because she was not.

Wayne | 6.15.11 @ 5:43PM

The GOP by running McCain gave us Obama, with of course help from George Bush who was a disgrace in 2008. He should have fired Paulsen, and not have bailed out the banks and GM (abandoning capitalism to save capitalism - what nonsense).

dadfly| 6.14.11 @ 5:04PM

then you better work hard to get rid of romney, hadn't you.

PolishKnight| 6.14.11 @ 9:55AM

The claim that Reagan wasn't a pragmatic politician is false. There are many instances of Reagan selling out: Amnesty for illegals (this has set a precedent that is now the foundation for the massive influx of illegals thinking another one will eventually be passed), tax hikes, and nominating a feminist for the Supreme Court. Plus, he never faced down affirmative action.

Reagan's unintentional legacy was to create so-called neo-cons who advocated never cutting taxes (but letting the government spending increase in the hopes that debt. limits would curtail growth. That hasn't worked out) and aggressive foreign policies. Even as leftists gnash their teeth over the money "wasted" in Iraq and Afghanistan, they fail to realize that they have largely enjoyed a free reign to do as they please in domestic policy as the right largely fights (and loses) Stalingrad issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

While the end of the cold war was a marvelous achievement, it has also allowed the left to rewrite history to pretend that the USSR wasn't "really" socialist and has even helped fuel a renaissance in socialist economic policies. Leftists now can promise the faithful that they're building a new Sweden (even as their methods are unlike Sweden in any way.)

OK, back to the present: McCain was an extension of the Bush legacy: A southwestern, moderate politician who played ball with the left even as the media pretended otherwise. He was supposed to be the Bush's "third term". If GW could win 2 terms back-to-back despite hysterical leftist opposition, then McCain was viewed as a sure thing.

That doesn't apply to Romney. For starters, Obama has already beaten a moderate Republican. It could happen again. I would personally consider staying home election night. Do you hear that moderates?

Sadly, the primaries take place in the NorthEast and liberal regions and it's part of the primary system to nominate "winnable" RINOs since those are candidates that they (the first primary voters) want to vote for. Then the rest of the country goes through primaries holding their noses and pretending to like the candidate, in decreasing numbers, until he's nominated. Then the NE moderates are shocked and even angry when the conservatives don't turn to vote for their candidate. McCain's daughter's outrage was a perfect example of this. She said that the voters who stayed at home were dirt and she was shocked that they weren't on her side. Er, that's why they didn't show up, dear.

Dan Hirsch| 6.14.11 @ 10:09AM

PK,

Reagan's amnesty for illegals was a case of him failing to apply his bromide 'trust but verify' to Congress. The deal was, give us amnesty for 2 million and we'll close the border. Congress did not deliver the second half of the deal, as they have always behaved as Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown to kick. Reagan should have insisted on secure borders, then amnesty. But he trusted Congress more than he trusted the Soviets - his bad.

Your suggestion that the fall of the Soviet Union saddled us with neo-cons is quaint. Neo-cons are small price to pay for the freedom of Eastern Europe, aren't they?

As to conservatives staying home in '12 because their favorite isn't the candidate, I say, better put an Obama-Biden '12 bumper sticker on your car and an Obama-Biden '12 sign in your lawn or window so your neighbors will know who you supported.

STAYING HOME IS NOT AN OPTION!

I really do not care for Mr. Romney's policies or principles, but if, God forbid, he's the candidate I'll work for him. He'd at least fire the Czars and appoint someone besides Constitution trashing communists to the bench. His Justice Department would have to be more colorblind than the black racists at DOJ today...

PolishKnight| 6.14.11 @ 10:59AM

And how is a "deal" for "closing" a border any less an act of a political pragmaticism? If someone breaks into your house and starts grabbing things, do you compromise with him that he can keep the stuff he already stole if he locks the front door?

I agree with you about lucy's football: Closing the border is a total red herring but even beyond what you just proposed. As long as illegal immigration is largely legal via multiple amnesties, it will be impossible to close. It's like trying to end the war on drugs by cracking down on smuggling.

Of course, the neo-cons are a small price to pay for the freedom of Eastern Europe. I was just making a "quaint" observation. That's all.

Regarding my "favorite". I never said I would stay home because my favorite wasn't on the ballot. I just insist that a candidate be on the ballot I can stomach. If you feed me Bush/McCain orphan gruel election after election, don't be surprised if I decline seconds or thirds. Indeed, that's lucy and the football in a nutshell isn't it?

"Charlie! Just kick this football and we'll get you your agenda NEXT election. Don't be unreasonable!"

Next election, same thing. And the same thing. Since Reagan, not a single conservative on the ballot. Just orphan gruel that we vote for after the worst of the worst leftists is in power. If you go for Romney, whose to say he won't stink, leftists will sneer "Well, your candidates aren't even conservative so how can you hate leftism? And ALL the problems your president has is due to "deregulation" and conservativism and all the good stuff, due to liberalism. So good going!"

Be warned. I may just stay home.

BackToBasics| 6.14.11 @ 5:53PM

I think that Reagan must have known that Democrats would not close the border. He just didn't want to fight for this cause. As I've said before, I respect Reagan who had many strengths, but he also had several weaknesses which others have pointed out already.

But I cringe just a little when I keep hearing talk show hosts rave about getting someone like Reagan again. He was the best we could get in 1980 but in truth we need someone stronger than Reagan in 2012. The "EQUIVALENT" to the 1986 amnesty he signed, tax increases in 1986, 2 weak Supreme Court justice picks, not fighting the GATT trade (outsourcing) agreement treaty and the precursor to NAFTA as well as stopping Obamcare will ALL have to be taken on THIS TIME, if the Republican candidate wins.

That's going to take some grit, to say the least! But it will be absolutely necessary or we are Greece II and worse.

BackToBasics| 6.14.11 @ 6:11PM

So, in keeping with the article, in other words Romney won't cut it. Bachman is talking the talk.

And I might add that NAFTA I and II were precursors to granting China Most Favored Trading Partner status in 1998 (through inclusion to the WTO. Congress/Senate said their human rights record did not warrant this but they caved. That was a HUGE mistake too as we are finding out more and more. Too late to overturn that but we can implement many policy changes to limit the job and manufacturing losses brought about by GATT, NAFTA, WTO- China, not drilling for oil, excessive taxation, illegal and overdone legal immigration, etc., etc., etc.

Bruce| 6.15.11 @ 12:00AM

"STAYING HOME IS NOT AN OPTION!"

+1

Doctor Right| 6.14.11 @ 10:12AM

If we elect a Republican who's only committed to "reining in the excessive growth of Government", we're done.

Romney apparently does NOT understand: That;'s only Step 1!

Step 2 is to slay the beast!!

If we have a Republican in the White House and control both Houses of Congress (a very real possibility), we need to:

1. Repeal ObamaCare
2. Require a super-majority (2/3rds) for ANY future Tax Hike
3. Defund the EPA, DoE, DoEd, DHHS, etc.
4. Radically reform the IRS
5. Re-affirm the 10th Ammendment
6. Begin some SERIOUS investigations into how the Democrat Party is funded

...and that's STILL only the beginning.

I see damn few people in the GOP-field of pretenders with the cajones to follow this path.

Romney? Never.
Huntsman? Who???
Gingrich? Half-measures, at best...
Pawlenty? Maybe...
Cain? Probably...
Bachman? Likely.
Palin? Definitely.
Perry? Absolutely (please Rick...do it!)
Paul? Cuckoo...

PolishKnight| 6.14.11 @ 11:17AM

The simplist thing for a conservative president to do with the most bang for the buck would be to demand the DOJ investigate so-called affirmative action for violating the civil rights act of 1964. Affirmative action was a loophole at the time designed to address "historical discrimination" by certain companies and institutions. Most companies that now practice it never engaged in such discrimination (since they were founded after the 1964 civil rights act) and justify it via "diversity" which has nothing to do with the act. It's totally illegal.

Leftist whites who continue to vote democrat due to a dream that they can somehow create Sweden II are in denial that their party is now little more than a white male bashing reverse Jim Crow entitlement program. Pull that rug out from under them and see what happens.

Maxwell| 6.14.11 @ 11:18AM

Doctor, I'd only add one item to your list, that is pack the courts all the way up and to the Supreme Court!

Mimi| 6.14.11 @ 7:34PM

Heh Doc., GOOD POST ! Do you really think that Perry is the top of the Conservative list? You need to share what you know!

Bruce| 6.15.11 @ 12:01AM

"STAYING HOME IS NOT AN OPTION!"

You forgot the First, Second, and Fourth - for a start.

Bruce| 6.15.11 @ 12:03AM

"Re-afirm the 10th Amendment"

You forgot the First, Second, and Fourth - for a start.

Tom B| 6.14.11 @ 10:22AM

When I was a young guy back in the sixties my whole relation was all democrats (mostly unionites). There were only two Republicans in the whole relation, my grandfather and myself. He was a Rockyfeller Republican and I was and still am a Goldwater Republican. We use to argue like crazy. Mitt is just like his father George, just another RINO.

PolishKnight| 6.14.11 @ 1:18PM

TomB, your story brings back to mind the old days when I remember my unionized parents watching episodes of "All in the Family" on (cable) TV.

In hindsight, it's interesting that while that show was popular with the left and right alike, the so-called Reagan Democrats had no idea that they were being bashed and made fun of. They actually AGREED with Archie even as the left was using him as a strawman to kick down.

Today, these union manufacturing and service workers are in retirement. The left has quietly pushed younger such workers under the bus in leau of support from welfare recipients and government "party" members.

I have to confess, I really like it when Hillary hung out in Scranton and scarfed down kielbasa and pivo and bowled a decent game. Poor saps. She's still as commie as ever and they don't know it. But at least she knows how to hang out with the masses.

solo| 6.14.11 @ 10:22AM

Without gaining a 60 seat majority in the Senate, no President will be able to roll back a single thing the "Obamessiah" has done to this country.

And a candidate Romney is not exactly going to have conservatives falling over themselves in getting to the polls.

I think I'll just stay home and get drunk.

One way or the other, if Romney wins the nomination, America loses.
And let's not kid ourselves. The rest of the republican field is weak. Very weak!

We need Rick Perry in this race and we need him right now!

George True| 6.14.11 @ 11:52AM

I would not consider Herman Cain to be weak by any means.

carnot| 6.14.11 @ 3:20PM

BS. a lot of his initiatives can be defunded.

Kristal| 6.14.11 @ 10:36AM

Hey, Mr. Lord, what’s the big idea?

How dare you tell it like it is about the Mitt Romney salient?

I didn’t watch the debate, but given what Pawlenty has recently said about growth and the positive Reaganesque nature of his rhetoric, I was acutely wondering how he would express his ideas---and, he reminds me of an old junior high, very lame, joke:

You come up to some guy, and ask, “Want to fight, bub?” If he says, “Yes”, you respond that “He’s around the corner”.

That’s our Tim Pawlenty!

I say---watch out for Michelle Bachman. Michelle, ma belle, sont des mots qui vont très bien ensemble

Jeffrey Lord| 6.14.11 @ 11:08AM

Kristal...

I met someone over the weekend who was astonished to say she had to explain to a younger sort who John, Paul, George and Ringo were.

Obviously...it wasn't you!

Michael L. Hauschild| 6.14.11 @ 12:59PM

(Pope, the), 41-43, Ringo?

Cris Worth| 6.14.11 @ 11:09AM

Now the stage is set for a Rockefeller/Goldwater rematch circa '12 Romney/Tea Party. What flesh and blood character supported by the Tea Party will take on Romney for a fight to the finish for the Republican nomination? Not Pawlenty, he struck a chord with Obamneycare but flopped last night. So who? A dark horse unknown to us? If it comes down to Romney/Obama the future is gloomy, the last vestige of a constitutional republic fades into the darkness. Can anyone save us?

RichTex| 6.14.11 @ 11:15AM

Christopher Ruddy has written that Mitt Romney would be the choice the Republicans should make if they wanted a candidate who could win a close race against Obama. And, that’s probably correct. However, if a true conservative were nominated instead, the race wouldn’t be close, and the Republican would win by a large, possibly landslide, margin.

My choices for the Republican ticket from among the currently announced candidates, based primarily on ideology but also from a campaign strategy viewpoint, would be Michelle Bachmann for president and Herman Cain for vice-president. This ticket abolishes the whole “re-elect the historic president” argument, which is about the only thing Obama has going for him among the majority of the population.

PolishKnight| 6.14.11 @ 1:13PM

The "weak conservative in a close race in a democrat" argument has now been discredited by McMaverick. Here's why: Any race that's "close" will have the media turn up the heat on the flaws in the republican and label him an "extremist". What this means is that...

The close win of GW Bush in Y2K was due not to GW's attractiveness as a "moderate" candidate but rather Al Gore's obvious unlikability. In other words:

Moderate Republicans don't "win close elections". They take elections that a conservative would have easily won and make them "close".

Al Adab| 6.14.11 @ 11:30AM

He is indeed the heir of the Rockefeller/Romney/Scranton etc. wing of the GOP. They are the problem with the party and have been since the days when the opposed the Conservative Movement at its' founding. Electing Romney will not be enough to turn us from our current course and that will be a disaster. Why allow the "Moderate" Republicans to gain ascendancy simply to watch our nation fall into disrepair and ultimate falure? It is the Left that should reap the blame for what is happening not the GOP.

Michael L. Hauschild| 6.14.11 @ 12:22PM

I'm afraid it is much worse, Mitt Romney is the old Mitt Romney. RomneyCare, Global Warming, RINO, runner up to McCain, has been trying to cling to the former glory and power. He has hardly ever "won" anything, just a rich guy trying to get important.

Michael Tomlinson| 6.14.11 @ 12:38PM

That's why all those on here acting like he's already won are self-deceived proving he's created a "winning myth" easily swallowed by the gullible or those easily swayed by media hype.

Michelle Bachmann had a good night and now she's up. Why? Media hype. Take a deep breath and relax the first primary is months away and there are more Republicans looking at jumping into the race.

Louis Tully| 6.14.11 @ 12:40PM

MB is merely Willard's stalking horse, designed to pull votes from Palin.
Not gonna work. Palin's people are waiting, patiently.

Michael L. Hauschild| 6.14.11 @ 12:57PM

Very perceptive Louis. Like today for instanace some of "Palin's people are going fishing.

Michael Tomlinson| 6.14.11 @ 1:30PM

Michelle Bachmann's a legitimate candidate on her own. She's no one's stalking horse. She has a solid record, she's charismatic, attractive, has guts and is willing to put her money where her mouth is. A very impressive and credible candidate.

Those who are creating this cult of personality around Sarah Palin are too much like the Obama disciples.

Teflon93| 6.14.11 @ 2:12PM

There's no need to create a cult of personality around Sarah Palin--she has personality aplenty, unlike Romney, whom none of the other GOP candidates can even stand.

It is a sad statement that the ballsiest and best candidates in the GOP prospective field are the women.

TrueBlue| 6.14.11 @ 7:11PM

Hell, just run 'em both, who cares which is the Pres and which is the VP nominee. I'd vote for pretty much anyone that isn't a DemLite anyway. The whole dang political elite ruling class bs needs to stop.

Bob Grant| 6.14.11 @ 11:22PM

Well put. Bachmann is a working woman's version of Sarah Palin.

She's more seasoned on the current pressing issues as she sits on many committees. She's already had confrontations with Obummer.

Meanwhile, Sarah Twitters (or Fritters) away her time.

The campaign has passed her by.

Bob Grant| 6.14.11 @ 11:18PM

Waiting, patiently? ...Heh, Heh, too funny.

All of this cocky talk by her followers about Sarah having some master genius plan waiting to be unleashed at just the right time is laughable...and dangerous because it's delusional.

Hugh or Laura, take your pick| 6.14.11 @ 12:38PM

This is an outrage! Mitt Romney is no liberal. He's a true conservative...

Al Adab| 6.14.11 @ 1:11PM

Obviously your education in the meaning of Comservative is lacking. Study up before you place the candidates on that spectrum. There is no activist Conservative.

Michael Tomlinson| 6.14.11 @ 1:34PM

Hugh or Laura he's a right of center moderate. His defense of Romneycare and man made global warming are anything, but conservative.

Still he'd be a better President than Barack Obama and did support some good conservatives in 2010 like Nikki Haley long before Sarah Palin jumped on her winning bandwagon.

JimmyT| 6.14.11 @ 1:34PM

Thank you for pointing out the fact he NEVER said anything about reducing the size of government.

Teflon93| 6.14.11 @ 2:13PM

And yet reducing the size of government is THE most pressing issue of the day. We are bankrupt. America is simply over if we don't shrink the Leviathan this time.

Instead, Romney wants to expand government even further.

Tom B| 6.14.11 @ 1:40PM

Polishknight.....beware there are a lot of meatheads out there!!!!!

Dr J| 6.14.11 @ 2:38PM

The answer to the title of this article is No. Although some good points are made, reading the transcript of the debate yesterday and a close look at the candidate clearly shows that Romney is a conservative.

When Reagan would go on TV before he was president, I would listen to him and say "This guy should be the president"! Reagan did not dissapoint. I have the same impression of Romney.

If Romney is fortunate enough to make it to POTUS, I have the feeling that his presidency will far outshine Reagan's.

Old Soldier| 6.14.11 @ 2:49PM

Huh. When I saw Reagan, I thought "this guy believes what he is saying and has a backbone." When I see Romney, I think the exact opposite - why I don't trust him at all.

Al Adab| 6.14.11 @ 3:28PM

Apparently it's all about appearance, style over substance, if Dr. J. finds in Mitt a RR. Does the fact that they share few, if any, policy commonalities mean anything? I'm with you
Old Soldier, he's not to be trusted.

George S| 6.14.11 @ 4:58PM

Ronald Reagan:

"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it."

Governor Romney:

“I know this is going to get a lot of conversation, but the health of the people in Massachusetts is more important to me than the health of my political prospects.’’

Senator Ted Kennedy to Gov. Romney:

"You may well have fired the shot heard round the world on health care in America. I hope so."

Wanna reconsider your definition of conservatism and that reference to Reagan?

e cowan| 6.14.11 @ 2:54PM

'Is Mitt Romney the New Nelson Rockefeller?'
Good question. And the answer is : YES!!!!!!!
If the RINOs who run the national committee are able to inflict this guy on the GOP - then Obama has little, or nothing, to worry about.

My Girl Friday| 6.14.11 @ 3:48PM

Mitt Romney will be unable to forge votes from true Mormon's because of his stance on gay marriage and abortion. Mitt Romney like Harry Reid, throw their Mormonism under the bus when it gets in the way of their career goals. If he would surrender and undermine his faith on these two core principles, he will undermine the American people (conservatives). I have already advised Romney's campaign to take me off their solicitation list. Not one red penny. I am sending my money to Jim DeMint's Conservative Fund. At least I know Jim DeMint will not spend my hard earned money on any Dark Horses and will invest in Conservative Senate Candidates.

martin j smith| 6.14.11 @ 4:13PM

Why in heckfireon Saturn does CNN be the producer of this debate ? I think its important to consider other options for the future ? Next As for Romney and others in future debates they should be CONFRONTED on their way of leading the country. What do YOU believe in and how will you fix the economy ? Then lets get to issues of each candidates problems such as Romney and his list of NONOS that must be confronted. Then Let Romney et al respond and let the voters decide.

TrueBlue| 6.14.11 @ 7:15PM

Unfortunately it's always various liberal organizations that run those debates, so the questions always get loaded to try and make their chosen person look the best. Of course they tried their hardest to make Romney look good, the left WANTS him as the Republican candidate because they know they can beat him!

dadfly| 6.14.11 @ 4:48PM

romney is a liberal democrat. he'll never get my vote. he's actually more dangerous then obama because he's the leader of the rino 5th column, behind our conservative lines.

dadfly| 6.14.11 @ 5:08PM

btw, thank you for this article. we all need to work hard to wake "the anybody with an R voter" to the insideous threat romney and his collective represent.

voted against carter| 6.14.11 @ 6:28PM

ROMNEY is a RINO.

Otherwise known as a stealth democRAT.

No thanks.

Bob| 6.14.11 @ 7:03PM

Go Romney, I hope he does win the Republican nomination. A Romney nomination will split the Stupid Party into a million pieces. The GOP nominates a man who can't win his home state in the general election, now that's stupid.

TrueBlue| 6.14.11 @ 7:17PM

It'd be just like nominating McCain again, the very definition of insanity to expect different results.

Realdeal1a| 6.14.11 @ 8:30PM

Oh well all I can say is like father like son, and
uncle Rocky?

emo| 6.14.11 @ 9:51PM

Romney is going to have a serious problem with his LDS membership. As late as 1978 (when Romney was a 31 year old ADULT), the LDS preached racial inferiority of blacks. This nearly 15 years after the Civil Rights laws passed in the mid 1960s. Don t think this wont be an issue should Romney be the nominee

Doug NYCGOP | 6.14.11 @ 10:00PM

Romney did not endorse Dede Scozzofava in D23 - a factual error the author needs to retract.

Levin and Rush are either lazy or intentionally distroting Romney's views on Global Warming. If Mr. Lord want's to cull one line from Romney's book to make a desperate point, he is either just as lazt or just as intentionally intellectually dishonest.

Please print Romney's ENTIRE statement and views on GW.

In terms of HC, did Mr. Lord ever conrast the plan the Democrats, which controlled 90% of MA, were planning to put in, until Romney came along.

No. No to all of the above.

Just lazy.

Bob Grant| 6.14.11 @ 10:15PM

If Romney's only questionable stance was Romneycare, he would be unbeatable because this could be explained away as a failed state experiment. His stance on the environment, however, is a killer because it cements the idea that his inclinations are to move to the center-left. His politically motivated flip flop on abortion and his vague immigration stance makes him non-viable as a republican candidate.

Kingofthenet| 6.14.11 @ 11:23PM

The kind of 'Conservatism' you Hardcore people like is UNELECTABLE, so you have to either outright LIE or sugarcoat it in 'Compassionate Conservatism', but why 'sellout'?I think you guys should just join the Libertarians which you closely ally with or create a 'third' party,instead of grumbling about RINO'S. I personally would have FAR MORE respect for you if you all just laid your 'Vision' on the table and get your respectable 10-20% of the votes, and go home.

Dacron Mather| 6.15.11 @ 2:08AM

Does Lord's dark vision presage his turning into a Republican In Brain Only ?

Dennis L Thompson| 6.15.11 @ 3:28PM

Jeffrey,
Would you like to compare Ronald Reagans record to Mitt Romneys as Governors? You are very intellectually dishonest. Very much so... here is Reagans records and I like Reagan ok?

Was once a pro-choice liberal who helped elect one of the most liberal Presidents we've ever seen
While Governor, signed into law a tax increase that is one of the largest for a state in our nation's history
Inherited a massive deficit, but actually increased spending to the tune of doubling his state's budget
Signed one of the most liberal abortion laws in the country into law(though regretted it later on)
state funding for public schools increased 105% in his tenure
Signed welfare reform that helped relieve the caseload, but also increased benefits by 30%
Expanded his state's medicaid system which was the largest in the country
Signed some of the first tailpipe emission standards into law in his State
Tax witholding was introduced during his tenure as Governor

These are just some of the things on his record as Governor and there are other stories about his beliefs such as being rumored to support the Brady Gun Law, rumored to want to disarm our nuclear weapons and more. However, there are mitigating factors within his record that a reasonable person could understand. He attempted to cut his state's government spending by 10% across the board, but then had to restore some of the funding because some of these agencies were cut as thin as it was with the budget. He fought for tax cuts several times(and won a couple battles such as with property and inventory tax cuts), but was outnumbered by the leftist house and senate of his state.

What did Mitt do? Remember against an 85% liberal legislature

He actually balanced a 3 billion dollar state budget deficit by cutting 341 social programs with no new taxes
Boston Globe - Romney is the kind of leader we need - Dec 14, 2007
He took the state from 50th in uneployment to 11th in one term.
Boston Globe - A little perspective - Apr 25, 2003

You lie about Global Warming. He is not for cap and trade:
“I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control. I do not support radical feel-good policies like a unilateral U.S. cap-and-trade mandate. Such policies would have little effect on climate but could cripple economic growth with devastating results for people across the planet.” -- Mitt Romney No Apology, p. 227
and more:

*Cap and Trade legislation would be disastrous for our economy.
*The earth’s climate has been constantly changing throughout its history.
*We should not take extreme measures when we are unsure of human role in global warming.
“In 2004, Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg gathered ten of the world’s leading economists, including three Nobel laureates, in what he called the Copenhagen Consensus. He asked them prioritize the greatest problems faced by humankind. They w...ere not asked to determine which problems were the most severe, but rather to rank the most severe global challenges according to the coast and benefit of overcoming them… Astonishingly, spending money to prevent global warming came in last. Why? To reduce global temperature even by a very small amount requires enormous investment. Achieving the Kyoto objectives, they reasoned, would cost $150 billion a year and only delay the global temperature that would otherwise have been reached in the year 2100 by six years.” -- No Apology, p. 228-229

He comes out and says yes man may have some part, he says that there is no way to measure it and that things like cap and trade would be a disaster. So in essence he didn't alienate anyone and he also took a stance of no cap and trade.... so what do you want Mark? Here is Mitt fully answering the questions and he handles this well. He by this can get people who think it exists to realize there is no way to measure the input from man. He is smart the way he handles this.
and in his words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded
You are not honest Jeffrey Lord

Gary | 6.15.11 @ 5:58PM

Very scathing article about Romney. In many ways I think it is unfair, but the perception is certainly out there about Mitt, and he is not doing enough to squash it.

Lori| 6.16.11 @ 1:07AM

Jeffrey Lord distorts and twists Romney's positions and wholly ignores his record. Romney is a conservative and governed as one. He ran largely on conservative principles in Massachusetts and after winning kept his campaign promises. There is nothing in his record that would indicate he would suddenly become Rockefellerish. Nonsense! Even the individual mandate was considered conservative at the time because it required personal responsibility. It wasn't until Obama tried it at the federal level (unconstitutionally) that it plummeted in support by conservatives. Its really remarkable how so many can ignore the conservative things Romney did as governor. Turned around the budget and cut spending, fought against embryo farming and so-called same sex marriage, contracting with immigration to train his state troopers, etc, etc, etc. But I suppose if you are predisposed to like a rival candidate, then none of this would count. Which begs the question, why bash Romney and distort his record when propping up a rival would have the same effect and might not even require such stretching of the truth? Unless that rival was Obama.

John| 6.16.11 @ 3:00AM

I actually find Romney right now to be in a similar situation to Nelson Rockefeller v2.0 -- the Rockefeller who basically ran against his own "Rockefeller Republican" image when he won his third term in 1970 against the inept Arthur Goldberg. That was also the same year James Buckley won the NYS Senate race on the conservative line, with Charles Godell (the NFL commissioner's dad) hung out to dry as the Rockfeller Republican on the ballot.

Nelson suddenly became a reborn "law and order" governor, with the Rockefeller drug laws and the crackdown at Attica as part of his third term agenda. Didn't work -- his image was already cemented among conservatives, who were midly amused by the new anger he stirred among liberals, but never believed that the conversion was more than a political stunt. That's where Romney is right now -- he's modified some of his positions from his time as governor, but hasn't gotten most of the core conservaties in the GOP to buy into the idea that it's more than just political posturing. It's not as bad a situation as Rocky -- he doesn't have whole movement opposing conservatives in the party named after him -- but it does mean Mitt needs to hope like McCain in 2008 that the field of candidates to his right remains fractured enough to keep conservatives from coalescing around one single opposing candidate in the primaries.

Bee Yond| 6.16.11 @ 6:52AM

----NOT a Romney fan (banker bailout traitor etc.)
BUT we must say, you're doing him NO favors
given what we NOW know about the Rockefellers, the Soviet Union, the cultural subversion of America, the enabling of MAO TSE TUNG
(ie genocide 'friendly' praises) ----AND, as ever,
their ghastly, central, and utterly sinister role
in promoting the destruction of our sovereignty
(they fund 'LaRaza' and 'Reconquista') -----and
EUGENICS...

mzk| 6.20.11 @ 2:18PM

Nixon was actually a Conservative in belief, he just couldn't put it into practice. One should remeber that back then it WAS the establishment that was considered conservative, as opposed to the anti-establishment leftists (and the MSM).

P.S. Rockerfeller did have his moment, when he gave "the finger" to a protester. It's been claimed he was just addicted to using (our) money to solve problems, understandable for someone who inherited wealth.

He was a (thank heaven) disappearing type of Republican, the country-clubber.

mzk| 6.20.11 @ 2:20PM

To "KingoftheNet". I assume that's why Reagan lost to Carter?

weddingdresses | 6.29.11 @ 5:32AM

----NOT a Romney fan (banker bailout traitor etc.)
BUT we must say, you're doing him NO favors
given what we NOW know about the Rockefellers, the Soviet Union, the cultural subversion of America, the enabling of MAO TSE TUNG
(ie genocide 'friendly' praises) ----AND, as ever,
their ghastly, central, and utterly sinister role
in promoting the destruction of our sovereignty
(they fund 'LaRaza' and 'Reconquista') -----and
EUGENICS...

The American Spectator

Special Report

Is Mitt Romney the New Nelson Rockefeller?

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (176) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 6.14.11 @ 6:17AM

chuck| 6.14.11 @ 7:14AM

Alan Brooks| 6.14.11 @ 9:06AM

Alan Brooks| 6.14.11 @ 9:57AM

Shamus| 6.14.11 @ 11:10AM

Alan Brooks| 6.14.11 @ 11:16AM

Alan Brooks| 6.14.11 @ 1:37PM

Dennis L Thompson| 6.15.11 @ 3:39PM

teliason| 6.16.11 @ 2:53AM

Rob| 6.21.11 @ 11:36AM

play nice| 6.14.11 @ 1:25PM

carnot| 6.14.11 @ 3:08PM

Cosmo| 6.15.11 @ 1:51AM

RCV| 6.15.11 @ 4:22PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.14.11 @ 6:22AM

shamus| 6.14.11 @ 11:11AM

Groad| 6.14.11 @ 3:51PM

TrueBlue| 6.14.11 @ 5:19PM

teliason| 6.16.11 @ 2:56AM

Dennis L Thompson| 6.15.11 @ 3:40PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.14.11 @ 6:23AM

Wayne | 6.14.11 @ 11:57AM

Dennis L Thompson| 6.15.11 @ 3:43PM

john-john| 6.14.11 @ 6:46AM

JimP| 6.14.11 @ 7:48AM

JimH| 6.14.11 @ 8:19AM

Wayne | 6.14.11 @ 12:00PM

Dennis L Thompson| 6.15.11 @ 3:45PM

Wayne | 6.15.11 @ 5:38PM

Henry Drummond| 6.14.11 @ 7:10AM

Intelligent Design| 6.14.11 @ 7:32AM

Bruce| 6.14.11 @ 11:38PM

Dennis L Thompson| 6.15.11 @ 3:48PM

Purpleguy| 6.14.11 @ 7:34AM

George True| 6.14.11 @ 8:45AM

W| 6.14.11 @ 10:59AM

W| 6.14.11 @ 10:59AM

Drunken Sailor| 6.14.11 @ 2:53PM

victor| 6.15.11 @ 2:35AM

Dennis L Thompson| 6.15.11 @ 3:49PM

Melvin| 6.14.11 @ 7:35AM

Dennis L Thompson| 6.15.11 @ 3:57PM

vb| 6.14.11 @ 7:39AM

Michael Tomlinson| 6.14.11 @ 7:55AM

Jack in Wi.| 6.14.11 @ 7:39AM

Westie| 6.14.11 @ 10:42AM

SpiralArchitect| 6.14.11 @ 1:28PM

Jack in Wi.| 6.14.11 @ 5:02PM

TrueBlue| 6.14.11 @ 5:24PM

Bruce| 6.14.11 @ 11:44PM

TrueBlue| 6.15.11 @ 11:16AM

JimP| 6.14.11 @ 7:41AM

Bak Tun| 6.14.11 @ 11:13AM

Dennis L Thompson| 6.15.11 @ 3:58PM

fmm| 6.14.11 @ 7:44AM

Larry| 6.14.11 @ 8:02AM

Tom| 6.14.11 @ 8:19AM

LarryK| 6.14.11 @ 2:05PM

Mimi| 6.14.11 @ 8:05AM

Bumr50| 6.14.11 @ 8:20AM

Teflon93| 6.14.11 @ 8:44AM

Old Soldier| 6.14.11 @ 8:53AM

LarryK| 6.14.11 @ 8:59AM

Bruce| 6.14.11 @ 11:46PM

Bruce| 6.14.11 @ 11:50PM

Mark Jeffery Koch| 6.14.11 @ 9:04AM

Dan Hirsch| 6.14.11 @ 9:55AM

Mark Jeffery Koch| 6.14.11 @ 10:18AM

George True| 6.14.11 @ 10:53AM

Michael Tomlinson| 6.14.11 @ 11:57AM

Wayne | 6.14.11 @ 12:05PM

emo| 6.14.11 @ 9:44PM

Mark Jeffery Koch| 6.14.11 @ 3:09PM

carnot| 6.14.11 @ 3:10PM

emo| 6.14.11 @ 9:39PM