-
Romney’s Best Defense: The Truth About Romneycare
March 6, 2012 | 42 comments
-
Obama’s Strategy of Silence
September 12, 2011 | 90 comments
-
Jagged Little Pills
October 28, 2008 | 1 comment
-
Devilish Details
June 17, 2008 | 1 comment
The Right Prescription
Mitt Romney’s Achilles’ Heel
He simply has to come clean on Romneycare.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s narrow win in the Iowa caucuses and his lead in the New Hampshire primary could catapult him to the GOP presidential nomination, but if he is to have any hope of gaining favor with conservative voters to get elected in November, he must escape the chains of Romneycare.
Romney has been unwilling to repudiate the health reform he signed into law in 2006, complete with the hugely unpopular individual mandate. The latest Associated Press-GfK poll shows only 15 percent of the American people think the government should have the power to require citizens to purchase health insurance or pay a fine.
That’s what Obamacare will do — barring a Supreme Court repudiation — and that’s what Romneycare already does.
In a November interview on Fox News, Romney got testy when anchor Bret Baier asked him, “Do you think a mandate, mandating people to buy insurance, is the right tool?” Romney replied, impatiently, “What we did in Massachusetts was right for Massachusetts. I’ve said that time and time again.… This is not a federal plan, it’s a state plan.”
Romney is stubbornly defensive about his universal coverage law, poking a finger in the eye of Republican voters who rightly see it as the platform for President Obama’s takeover of health care. John McDonough, who helped design both Romneycare and then Obamacare, said the federal law is “Massachusetts with three more zeros.”
Democratic pollster Patrick Caddell is among those insisting the health law will continue to be a huge issue in the 2012 election. Romney’s defenses just aren’t convincing, and as a result, voters distrust him on what he would do next in this crucial area. There is a way out of this box for Romney, but first, let’s look at some examples of his current strategy and why it isn’t working:
• Repeal and Replace — with Romneycare? In the October 11, 2011 debate, Romney said: “…we all agree about repeal and replace. And I’m proud of the fact that I’ve put together a plan that says what I’m going to replace it with.”
He says he wants to repeal and replace Obamacare, but then he says what he would replace it with is Romneycare! No wonder voters are worried. Does he really mean that he wants to use Massachusetts as a model for his “replacement” plan?
• Waivers for the states. Romney has said repeatedly that one of his first acts as president would be to “put out an executive order granting a waiver from Obamacare to all 50 states.”
But Romney can’t use an executive order to wipe out a massive new federal entitlement program and its huge taxpayer subsidies for health insurance, a vast expansion of Medicaid coverage, the Medicare rationing board, $550 billion in new and higher taxes, $575 billion in cuts to Medicare, and federal mandates on individuals, businesses, and the states to comply with the law. These are all part of the federal health overhaul law and simply cannot be waived by executive order.
The Congressional Research Service sent a letter to Sen. Coburn in November confirming this. “A President would not appear to be able to issue an executive order halting statutorily-required programs or mandatory appropriations… [or blocking] an agency from promulgating a rule that is statutorily required by PPACA,” the CRS concluded.
So Romney’s campaign slogan is calling for an action that simply would not be legal. Waivers are not a solution and, in fact, might well detract from the ultimate goal of repealing Obamacare and replacing it with a genuine free market alternative.
• Mimicking Obama. When Romney says he wants to give states more discretion in implementing Obamacare, there is very little daylight between his position and President Obama’s.
The president has said Congress should pass legislation to accelerate the provision in the law that would allow states more flexibility in implementing the health law starting in 2017, arguing Congress should move the date forward to 2014. That is precisely Romney’s position. Not much room for debate there.
• Individual mandate affects everyone. Romney seems especially proud of the individual mandate requiring all residents to have health insurance as “the ultimate conservative idea.”
About the Author
Grace-Marie Turner is president of the Galen Institute and a co-author of Why ObamaCare Is Wrong for America (Broadside/HarperCollins, 2011).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (207) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Grace-Marie Turner
More Articles From The Right Prescription
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/06/mitt-romneys-achilles-heel
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Consternated Conferences
- Hannah and Her Friends
- Screwtape Talks Turkey
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Quartermaster| 1.6.12 @ 6:54AM
Romney is not serious about repeal.
The POTUS does not need anyone's permission to end a program that is not authorized by the constitution. He can do it with an EO and turn to other important things.
At the bottom line, however, the problem is the American people themselves. They have become lawless and the government at all levels reflect this fact. We have always had the choice, as Ben Franklin put it, of being ruled by God or by tyrants. The choice was made over 10 years ago to be ruled by tyrants.
If Romney is the nominee, welcome to 4 more years of increasing tyranny under the Obummer. Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin.
Jack in Wi.| 1.6.12 @ 7:58AM
Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich mean more of the same, more wars, more foreign aid to criminals and kleptocrats, more bailouts for the rich, and more loss of civil liberties for the rest of us.
Obama will be re-elected overwhelmingly against such a field. He will claim to have ended the Iraq war, gotten Bin Laden, and is bringing the troops home from Afganistan. How do you beat that with a chickehawk, investment banker like Romney? Obama will blame the financial crisis on people like Romney and Republican obstructionism. It worked 4 times for FDR and Truman. I suppose the elites of the party are going to campaign against Michelle Obama's fat ass. That is about the only serious thing they have going for them.
Ron Paul has surged to 24% of the vote in New Hampshire, in the latest Zoby poll after Iowa. Independents can vote in New Hampshire. They gave people like Pat Buchanan, John McCain, and Gene Mc Carthy a lot of votes as maverick candidates.
Ron Paul for Sanity, Peace, Prosperity and Liberty. All the rest are more of the same or worse.
Crassus| 1.6.12 @ 10:30AM
Didn't take you long, did it?
SUBVET| 1.6.12 @ 11:12AM
JACK........you must change your name to.....Judas Iscariot.
You may post your views it is your GOD given right but we all see through you just like Jesus knew he was about to be turned in ..... HE also knows your heart.
How much Gold did you get............?
Clint| 1.6.12 @ 1:37PM
Who Is This Cat, Mittens Romney?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1wPrsEP2nc
George S| 1.6.12 @ 5:03PM
Is the prospect of future war, initiated without the consent of congress, your only concern about what is going on around you? What if Obama promises not to send our military anywhere if reelected?
Purp| 1.6.12 @ 12:52PM
that choice was made over 150 years ago by the first Republican President.
Quartermaster| 1.6.12 @ 6:45PM
That's what I meant. I don't know why the 5 didn't make it and, alas, I didn't read the post before I clicked submit.
Grzmlyk| 1.6.12 @ 3:10PM
Yup.
Romney will be the Dems' best friend.
And I agree completely - Another quote attributed to Franklin occurred when he was walking out of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. A woman asked him, "well, doctor, do we have a republic or a monarchy?"
He replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."
We haven't kept it. We've thrown it away with contempt. There is no Constitution anymore - it's just a word. There is no rule of law anymore - it's whatever the State, abetted by the mainstream media and egged on by activist "judges," tells us it is.
And that's based on nothing but either what makes liberals feel better about themselves or else what is going to enrich them or give them more power.
Romney will prove to be an utterfly feckless, go-along-to-get-along statist.
rhoetus| 1.8.12 @ 11:40AM
Romney = McCain
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.6.12 @ 7:05AM
The article glosses over the fact that during his time as governor, Romney vetoed 800 bills, and 707 vetoes were overridden.
In fact, when Romney vetoed a bill which called for a raise in the minimum wage, even the Republicans in the state turned against him and that veto was overridden.
Romney's claim that forcing dead beats to buy health insurance is a conservative concept may have some truth, since Heritage was one of the first ones on board for the concept.
The real question is what's the solution? Massachusetts is a liberal state where the program has been implemented in a liberal fashion.
Since many of the controls Romney tried to introduce were thrown out, it would be easy for Romney to claim it's not Romneycare after all but what was left after a liberal legislature finished with it.
To keep needling Romney because he's not conservative enough is ridiculous. Even Reagan wasn't that conservative when you look at his actual record.
The Republican Party could worse then Romney and in fact they did in 2007, nominating a complete idiot, John McCain.
Romney should stick to his guns and give out the facts. The facts leave many gray areas which will show he tried to institute controls on the plan but they were vetoed.
In the meantime he's an accomplished leader, the only one in the field.
Timothy L. Pennell| 1.6.12 @ 8:48AM
I love ya Bill, but I gotta go against ya on this one.
Yes. Heritage was on Board for Single Payer. But, you don't hear them singing its' praises, these days. Do ya?
"Since many of the Controls Romney tried to induce were thrown out"....That's why you don't do it. Because, Administrations come and go. One day, you've got a Republican. The next day, you've got Deval "Free Car" Patrick.
That's a FACT.
Single Payer was the MODEL for Obamacare.
That's a FACT.
Romneycare is BANKRUPTING Massachusetts. And, in record time, I might add.
That's a FACT.
You mention that the Republicans nominated "A complete Idiot" in 2007 - John McCain. The same John McCain who has just thrown his support to Mitt Romney. So, Mitt now has the full support of an "IDIOT".
And, as far as him being an "Accomplished Leader"? I don't see it. The only accomplishments I know of, from his time in Massachusetts, are Bankrupting the State with the Mother of all Obamacares, and his ability to Nominate Liberal Judges, because it was easier, that way.
On top of all that, I don't trust ANYONE who will do ANYTHING to get what they want. He was behind the Herman Cain deal. He spent MILLIONS, to destroy Newt Gingrich. And, as soon as Santorum became a threat? He started going after him, with both barrels. I don't like it. And neither did CHRIST.
"What does it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and lose his immortal soul?"
Indeed.
Purp| 1.6.12 @ 12:53PM
You mean Heritage are flip-floppers too? Wow.
TrueBlue | 1.6.12 @ 1:54PM
Nope, examined the facts, realized it was a mistake, and withdrew the idea and support for it. That's what ThinkTanks do, look at the options, try to get all the facts, and propose new ideas based on those options. Politicians are welcome to do that too, however they generally have a consistent habit of voting one way repeatedly on the same issue based on public opinion at the time, rather than facts.
Purp| 1.7.12 @ 12:11AM
So why do you think Romney flip-flopped on immigration, healthcare, etc. ?
Timothy L. Pennell| 1.7.12 @ 7:55AM
Because he's a Weather Vane, and you're a Douchebag.
Mimi| 1.7.12 @ 8:19PM
Boy Tim...we think alike!!! I didn't know about the Herman Cain stuff. He killed Newt...with a smile and a wad of money....Not good! We should not support the 11th Commandment siners!
wodiej| 1.9.12 @ 5:33AM
well said. Romney is also still making big profits from Bain capital where he needlessly put hundreds of steelworkers out of good paying jobs. The 27 min. clip will be released soon. Romney is not the saint some may think so that makes him just like the rest of us.
Spoonman| 1.6.12 @ 9:51AM
Bill, having lived next to that rathole called taxachusetts for many years I agree with you. Romney was elected in a democrat/liberal commonwealth and got their state budget under control - he beat a liberal democrat for the governorship. For any Republican to do that in one of the most liberal places in the country was a miracle. I've met the man and I believe that he will work his butt off to dump Obamacare and to get the economy moving. Its time for our fellow conservatives to quit beating up on him and join together to WHIP obama and propel Republicans to a significant majority in the Senate and House - otherwise the Country as it's existed for 235 years will be gone.
Occam's Tool| 1.6.12 @ 3:10PM
Look, folks, Mitt loves this country while Obama hates it. Let's get that out of the way. It does really matter.
That being said, Santorum is more Conservative, and a better legislative maneuvering guy. I prefer Santorum to Romney, but I'm not gonna demonize the guy. If a bill abolishing Obamacare were to appear on Romney's desk, do you really think he'd veto it, or sign it? Why doesn't anybody ask him that question, because that's the one that counts.
W| 1.6.12 @ 4:06PM
The key is electing senators and congressmen to approve such a bill so Romney or Santorum will sign it. If we do not have the Congress to pass the bill the the law will remain on the books. Romney can issue executive orders granting waivers to all 57 states, but the next president can rescind those executive orders. The law must be repealed.
Purp| 1.7.12 @ 12:12AM
No, Obama doesn't hate America - you do, since you won't support your President.
carnot| 1.7.12 @ 12:41AM
like you supported Bush?
bahahahahaha
carnot| 1.7.12 @ 12:41AM
5 trillion in 3 years! yup.....he surely does love America!
W| 1.7.12 @ 1:05PM
Purp
According to your logic all the Dems who did not support Bush hate America.
You did not support Bush so you hate America, correct? Or is not supporting the president equal to hating America only when the president is a Dem?
RCV| 1.7.12 @ 1:07PM
It was a pretty inane comment, but no more inane than saying that President Obama "hates America".
Margie| 1.7.12 @ 2:35PM
When you love someone, you don't treat them bad.
Nick| 1.7.12 @ 5:18PM
Margie,
"When you love someone, you don't treat them bad."
You mean like calling me vile cuss words and names, and other calumnies? Something that I never do to you.
According to you, treating people "bad" is precisely how you show your love for them.
I see this as a major contradiction. And not what Christ preached in His Gospel.
"So put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander." - 1 Peter 2:1
God Bless!
Margie| 1.7.12 @ 6:12PM
Nick,
I apologize to you, for in anger, because of your insidious remarks to me, I used foul language.
It is NOT something I normally do, and when provoked, I have responded in kind. It is what you seem to glory in, your provoking and my reaction to same.
Like you say about the Pope, he's only human.
But I will ask you to forgive me for it, if you will?
Nick| 1.7.12 @ 7:50PM
Margie,
Of course, I accept your apology. You are forgiven, by me, immediately after I read such comments. As I've told you many times, it is water off a duck's back, and, no matter how hard you try, you can't hurt me with these outbursts.
I don't know to what "insidious" remarks you are referring. Nor, do I know what provocation I have committed, to which you have "responded in kind".
I use sarcasm in my comments to you. This is not an attack, even though you always take it as such. I never call you names or use vile cuss words against you. I never call you a liar or scumbag, like you repeatedly do to me.
I will admit that my sarcastic remarks do cross the line sometimes, when I don't pause and reflect on what I have written. I definitely need to stop and ask the Holy Spirit if my comments are appropriate, more often, before I hit the submit button.
So, for those times that I have crossed the line, and provoked you to anger, I am truly sorry. Please, forgive me. When we provoke others to anger, on purpose, this is a sin against Charity.
As I tell my fellow Catholics, here, constantly, I want to be part of the Church Militant, not the Church Belligerent! Again, I'm sorry for any provocation I have caused.
I am only interested in sharing in the Word of God, proclaiming Christ Crucified, and praising God as much as I can.
May you, Victor, and your whole family have a very prosperous New Year.
God Bless!
Margie| 1.7.12 @ 11:49PM
Nick,
I forgive you.
Now, why did you do it again when you said in the other thread that I "pull Luther out from under the bus in order to attack the Catholic church."
If that's sarcasm, I don't like it, because it's not true.
I don't need Luther to attack false teachings.
And I never threw him under the bus, to begin with, either.
So, let's be honest, ok?
I'd like to know though, why it is when I posted all about how the Popes were totally unbiblical, so proving it with the writings I posted from Martyrs Mirror and it was proven so according to the Bible~ why is it that you reject the truth?
Do you think you cannot reject the false teachings because you'll be damned by GOd or something? Because you won't be. Jesus wants you to know the Truth and to serve it, and He IS the Truth.
Also, if you think there is too much taking over here of space concerning this issue, as many of your friends here do, I've posted my e mail addy for anyone to talk someplace else.
Maybe we should start a website of our own. Now, there's a thought!
Anyway, I'm just into God's Truth, according to His Word.. I don't hate anybody, even though you guys try to paint me that way.
Happy New Year to you too.
Margie| 1.7.12 @ 11:50PM
Again, my email is:
wehavetoomuchstuff@gmail.com
Nick| 1.8.12 @ 3:50PM
Margie,
"Now, why did you do it again when you said in the other thread that I 'pull Luther out from under the bus in order to attack the Catholic church.'"
Because, I wrote that comment, in the other thread, before I made it to this thread and, subsequently, replied to you. I admit that the Luther comment was more of a dirty-dig, than it was sarcasm. I apologize.
"And I never threw him under the bus, to begin with, either."
My only point was that you embrace Luther's theology when it's against the Catholic Church, but, you then reject it, when it disagrees with your theology. This is cafeteria theology, picking and choosing which doctrines are good, based solely on if they agree with your own beliefs. Luther believed he was only following the Bible, too.
"I'd like to know though, why it is when I posted all about how the Popes were totally unbiblical, so proving it with the writings I posted from Martyrs Mirror and it was proven so according to the Bible~ why is it that you reject the truth?"
How does posting quotes from Martyrs Mirror prove, or disprove, anything in the Bible? MM is not inspired. Plus, I've shown numerous times how this book praises Ignatius, Irenaeus, Origen, and Tertullian. You don't agree with these praises, so, you must admit that MM is not inerrant, correct?
Also, when you copy and paste 10 - 15 paragraphs from MM, I can't possibly list and refute all of the errors contained therein. But, I have shown, using only Scripture quotes, both the primacy of Saint Peter, and his See, and Apostolic Succession.
"Do you think you cannot reject the false teachings because you'll be damned by GOd or something?"
No. I don't believe that these teachings are false. So, there is no reason to reject them. When I post a verse from Scripture, and then, give the Catholic explanation and interpretation of the verse, and you disagree with it, this does not mean that I, or the Church, am a liar. It just means that we disagree, that's all.
I disagree, strenuously, with RCV's stance on homosexuality and the inerrancy of the Bible. But, I don't think he is a liar. I just think he is mistaken. And, I pray that the Holy Spirit shows him the truth. Along with myself! I get things wrong all the time.
"Jesus wants you to know the Truth and to serve it, and He IS the Truth."
I completely agree with you, 100%!
"Maybe we should start a website of our own."
If I did that, I would never get anything done! Just answering some of your objections has lead me to blow 2 -3 hours researching the answer, many, many times! (As I tend to get side-tracked with, "Ooooo! That looks interesting.")
I don't believe you hate anyone, Margie. And, I know how easy it is to let others get under my skin, and write things I shouldn't. I just need to remember to pray before I hit submit. When I follow this advice, I more often than not, end up heavily editing my comments, or, just hit cancel reply. Which is for the best.
God Bless!
Margie| 1.8.12 @ 6:08PM
"My only point was that you embrace Luther's theology when it's against the Catholic Church, but, you then reject it, when it disagrees with your theology."
Untrue. And I have no theology but the Bible.
If ANY person's teachings aren't in agreement with the Bible, I don't accept them.
Something you should be doing.
And besides, what are you talking about that I supposedly disagree with about Luther??
So, your premise is twisted.
As to RCV being a liar, that is what I call someone who lies. I don't enjoy having to do so. When someone is blatantly lying about what I believe and why I believe it, that's what I call them, and Papists are the ultimate WORST.
And you have proven no such thing as to Popery, but the Word of God has no such teaching.
And the book, Martyrs Mirror is a factual history of the history and Martyrdom of Bible believing Christians throughout many centuries, how they were hated and tortured and killed, first by the Romanists and then by the Roman Catholic Papists and their filthy murderous minions, and this Religion has never repented of the false teachings to this very day that LED them to commit these murders.
And no matter what you say, you can't change the truth.
When Jesus returns, the false teachers of this modern day who still have not repented from these Apostate and unbiblical teachings, and still lead astray millions of souls by them, along with those who killed the Bible believing Christians, will get their reward:
"For men have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink. It is their due!" Rev. 16:6.
Nick| 1.9.12 @ 12:35AM
Margie,
"If ANY person's teachings aren't in agreement with the Bible, I don't accept them."
Fine. Don't accept them. Just don't insult me and call me a liar when I disagree with your interpretation, okay?
"And besides, what are you talking about that I supposedly disagree with about Luther??"
Luther venerated Our Lady. He believed the title Theotokis, i.e., God Bearer, or, Mother of God, was a Biblical doctrine. He also believed in the Blessed Virgin Mary's Perpetual Virginity and Immaculate Conception.
Finally, Luther believed in the doctrine of the Trinity.
Have you changed you mind about these teachings? Then my premise is not "twisted".
"As to RCV being a liar, that is what I call someone who lies."
I was not attesting to RCV's veracity concerning your ongoing battle with him. I have no idea who is being truthful, or not, because I haven't read all of your posts, nor his. I was only hoping that, in the same way that me and RCV can disagree on points of Scripture and remain cordial, that you and I could do the same.
"And no matter what you say, you can't change the truth."
What about what MM says about Saints Ignatius and Irenaeus? And Origen and Tertullian? Is this the truth?
"Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Look to yourself, lest you too be tempted." - Galatians 6:1
Margie| 1.9.12 @ 1:16AM
"Fine. Don't accept them. Just don't insult me and call me a liar when I disagree with your interpretation, okay?"
I don't HAVE an interpretation. The Words of God speak for themselves.
I don't need a Pope or the Vatican to explain them for me.
Thank God for the Christians who gave their lives in order to bring them to us in spite of the murderous Popes and their despicable minions.
And when you do lie about what I believe or try and make me out to be a liar, or a dishonest person I'll say you're lying.
And your premise IS wrong, because I don't "throw Luther under the bus."
I'm not a student of Martin Luther's or a disciple of his. I'm a Christian, and that means I believe every Word of God as written in the Bible. If Martin Luther believes something that is unbiblical, just because I say it's unbiblical, doesn't mean I'm throwing him under a bus.. it means I'm serving the Truth.
And whatever he believed, he still played an excellent part in history in going against the murderous Popes.
So, your premise IS still wrong.
And frankly, I'm tired of playing word entrapment games with you.
I can't even really stand talking to you anymore, and that's the truth.
Nick| 1.9.12 @ 1:59AM
Margie,
"I don't need a Pope or the Vatican to explain them for me."
You needed me to explain the word Kephas to you, remember? How's that research going, by the way?
"And when you do lie about what I believe or try and make me out to be a liar, or a dishonest person I'll say you're lying."
Unfortunately, for you, I never do any of those things. So, it is inappropriate and wrong of you to call me a liar.
"And your premise IS wrong, because I don't 'throw Luther under the bus.'"
I apologized for writing that, remember? But, the premise is still correct.
"I'm not a student of Martin Luther's or a disciple of his."
I never claimed that you were. You were the one who asked, "And besides, what are you talking about that I supposedly disagree with about Luther??" Remember?
I just answered your question.
"And whatever he believed, he still played an excellent part in history in going against the murderous Popes."
This is a perfect example of cafeteria theology. Thank you, for expressing it so clearly.
"And frankly, I'm tired of playing word entrapment games with you."
You may be playing games, but, I'm only interested in correcting the historical record and sharing the Gospel of Christ.
Or, is this just another way of saying that you can't defend Martyrs Mirror's praise of Catholic saints?
"I can't even really stand talking to you anymore, and that's the truth."
I thought that I was forgiven. That lasted less than a day.
Bummer!
Oh well, maybe some day.
I still love you as a sister in Christ, Margie.
God Bless!
Nick| 1.9.12 @ 12:38AM
And, one more thing:
"And you have proven no such thing as to Popery, but the Word of God has no such teaching."
I have given you this response, several times:
"And I tell you, you are Kephas, and on this kephas I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Matthew 16:18-19
"I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to arouse you by way of reminder, since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things." - 2 Peter 1:13-15
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." - 2 Thess. 2:15
"Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands [...]." - 2 Timothy 1:6
"Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us." - 2 Timothy 1:13-14
"You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." - 2 Timothy 2:1-2
Margie| 1.9.12 @ 1:21AM
You prove no such thing.
There are no Popes in the Bible, no bloodline from Peter, and Peter wasn't "the first Pope."
You Papists have twisted the Scriptures for Centuries.
The truth:
OF THE UNGODLY AND FALSE CHURCH, WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE CHURCH OF GOD, AND THE ORIGIN, PROGRESS AND SUCCESSION OF THE SAME THROUGH ALL TIMES
http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs007.htm
Nick| 1.9.12 @ 2:04AM
That's the Word of God, Margie.
You can't argue with that.
No bloodline from Peter?
Who teaches that? Certainly not the Catholic Church, sorry.
God Bless!
Mimi| 1.7.12 @ 8:28PM
Margie....You are a GEM..and so human! I understand you ...I had two sisters that were burned by the Catholic Church too! They both lived good christian lives...one as a Catholic the other as a Babtist..Cie la vie!!! (thats life!)...love ya,,,MIMI
Margie| 1.7.12 @ 11:39PM
Mimi, thanks! You know I adore you. :^).
YOU are pure gold. You have patience and don't get wrapped up like I do.. to a fault some say. But I only care about the Truth.. and I'm stubborn, and I don't give up.
That's called bigotry and hate by those who hate the Truth.
Hey, I saw your post over in the blog about Newt in N.H. and how you went to the townhall mtg. I was typing you a note and my 'puter messed up.
I was going to tell you I thought it pretty awesome that you got to see Newt in person. I know a lot of people will say, OH. but Newt is such a such and such! But, I don't care. I think it's pretty neat. I mean, he IS running for President, and it DOES matter.
I was going to also say, thanks for that report.
I missed most of the debate because I had to tend to my crazy hound dog who was acting up and bit my husband.
He got to watch most of it so I asked him who won? He said he thought Newt did.
I'll have to watch it again if I find the time.
Timothy L. Pennell| 1.8.12 @ 8:55AM
Of course he does. Read his books. It's in his DNA. His Communist/Atheist Mother, his Marxist/Muslim Drunk of a Father. His Communist Maternal Grandparents. His Communist 1st Mentor. His Marxist 2nd Mentor. Louis Farrakhan, the Black Panthers, Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Khalid Rashidi. You can even through "Her Majesty" the Wookie. Old FAT ASS, herself - Michelle Antoinette. She, of the Sack of Potatoes in the back of her pants, fame, the Bow Legs, and the Omnipresent sense of SHARED SACRIFICE, as she jets around the world, in the MOST EXPENSIVE Private Jet, in the world, on one Multi-Million Dollar Vacation, after another, using OUR MONEY to pay for it.
"Men shall know you by the company you keep." JESUS CHRIST.
We know him.
He HATES this Country.
Now, GFYourself.
rhoetus| 1.8.12 @ 4:31PM
Timothy: McCain is a chump for not pointing these things out during his campaign. The media is worse than just fellow-travelers they are cult members - blind to reality.
The Big E| 1.6.12 @ 12:05PM
A Mitt Roney nomination equals a Barack Obama re-election. It's as simple as that.
Yes, the Republican party could do worse than Mitt Romney - after all - Ron Paul is running. And frankly, I would be willing to give Romney a pass on Romneycare if he said, "Hey, they were going to pass something worse, I couldn't do anything to stop it, so I did what I could to minimize it's negative impact." But instead, he takes pride in it.
We already have a President who takes pride in the government seizing control of healthcare, I don't see the benefit of replacing him with another.
And as for his comment that the "Individual Mandate" is a conservative idea - that just proves more than anything I can think of that Mitt Romney simply does not understand conservative principles, and therefore is not a conservative.
We already have a President who thinks the government has the power to force people to purchase a product or service - i.e. - the individual mandate - they do not necessarily want or need, I don't see the benefit of replacing him with another.
Plus there is the problem of Romney's electability. Yes, I said it. I simply don't think Romney can beat Obama, and as I laid out yesterday, I think the results from Iowa in light of the facts on the ground prove that. Romney does not energize the base, and will not attract independents the way some people claim simply because he does not provide a sufficient contrast to Obama,
I think Obama is itching to run against Romney. He knows he can beat Romney easier than the others (other than Paul), and he knows Romney is a manager, and an incrementalist, and not someone prone to make radical changes in existing infrastructures, which means that when the Dems eventually regain power (and they will) the structure they put in place under Obama will still be there.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.6.12 @ 12:59PM
Yes, I see it clearly now. Romney who has never affixed his name to any federal authorizing legislation, as opposed to all the other candidates who have signed onto big government again and again, hasn't got a chance.
The Big E| 1.6.12 @ 2:45PM
I don't want to have go back and cut and paste what I wrote yesterday, so I encourage you to find in posted on Ross Kaminsky's article about "Santorum's Time in the Sun," but from a purely electoral perspective, the results in Iowa show that Romney is the least likely Republican (possibly aside from Ron Paul, who has no chance of getting the nomination anyway) to beat Obama in November.
The FACT is that over the last four years Romney has spent millions of dollars and countless man-hours organizing and campaigning in Iowa, yet garnered six FEWER votes than he did in 2008, despite the FACT that the Republican base is far more energized now than it was then. The FACT is that he only won by 8 votes over an ex-Senator from a distant State who got clobbered in his last election and who was nowhere in the polls just a few days prior. The FACT is that every time one of the conservatives either drops out or drops down, Romney picks up NO additional support in the polls, and on a national basis, cannot seem to get above 25%, even as the field begins to winnow out. The FACT is that no Republican can defeat Obama if he does not have a motivated base willing to donate their time, energy, and money to their campaign. The FACT is that one of the, if not the, primary issue to motivate the Republican base right now to get out and work is repealing Obamacare, and the FACT is that - rightly or wrongly - Romney has no credibility with the base on that issue, and indeed, may be the ONLY candidate with no credibility on that issue.
The ONLY conclusion which can be drawn from these FACTS is that a majority, even a large majority, of Republicans want someone - nay, almost anyone - else as their nominee. They are NOT energized by a Romney candidacy, and as a result, will NOT devote the time, energy, and money necessary to get him elected. Because so many Republicans are disenchanted with Romney, not only will many not put forth sufficient effort if he is the nominee, some may also take the disastrous route of initiating a third party candidacy. Either way, the odds of Obama being re-elected if Romney is the nominee go up dramatically.
Ergo, a Romney nomination equals an Obama re-election.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.6.12 @ 6:02PM
And this is the same group of Republicans who salivated over John McCain when it was obvious he was a total loser and had no chance whatsoever.
If those are your only merits in deference to a choice they make no sense on that basis alone.
rhoetus| 1.8.12 @ 11:42AM
If both George HW Bush or his sonny boy had vetoed 800+ bills we wouldn't be as deep in this mess.
It's the spending, regulating stupid.
Carol| 1.6.12 @ 7:06AM
Nice try American Spectator.
Rush warned him the day before he announced that he should denounce Romneycare.
So what does the elitist liberal from MA do where he gladly signed the bill making sure insurance rates went higher for the state of MA - he bragged about it saying it was the right thing to do.
If you think Romneycare is going to repeal Obamacare you may as well think Obama is going to repeal it himself.
Anthony| 1.7.12 @ 12:09PM
Good point Carol. Don't you just love the picture accompanying this article, with that bastard Ted Kennedy smirking down on Mittens McWillard?
Not hard to figure out what that POS was thinking; another R fool doing our bidding!!!
The way I see it now folks, it's any R candidate but that ole Brown Shirt Ron Paul and Mittens McWillard.
JimP| 1.6.12 @ 7:27AM
It's too late for him to renounce Romneycare. In fact it's too late- about 16 years- for him to be pretending he has any conservative impulses. We know he doesn't. He has NO conservative policy achievements or proposals while governor of MA, which is his acid test. None. Zero. Romney is to the left of the Bushes, who can't stand conservatives.
Appleby| 1.6.12 @ 7:30AM
Romney's problem is that he comes across as the son of your Jewish Mother's best friend, the bland, ordinary, hard-working stiff that all mothers think their daughters ought to marry -- and whom both your mother and his mother constantly throw in your face. He may be the most wonderful husband material you will ever meet, but the constant presence of him in your face as your mother and his mother urge the match makes you hate him. In fact, at times you find yourself considering running off with the mailman just to get away from him.
The American People have made it pretty clear over the last 10 years that Mitt Romney is not their choice of husband, and Momma should already shut up about him and move along.
vb| 1.6.12 @ 8:23AM
Meanwhile the daughter is dating egotistical blowhards, guys with no relevant job experience who spend their time criticizing McDonald's for the consisteny of their mayonnaise, guys with limited job experience who show no interest in broadening their experience before trying to be CEO. Daughter can criticize Momma, but she should also question her own criteria for choosing a mate.
Appleby| 1.6.12 @ 8:33AM
I agree -- but as long as Momma keeps throwing him in her face, daughter will not do so. Momma should shut up already and give daughter a chance to make her mistakes and compare them to Romney for herself. It takes a longer time than most mothers think, for daughter to find a way of saving face by making the choice her mother wants her to make -- and when she does, Momma should have the good grace not to throw THAT in her face too.
JimP| 1.6.12 @ 8:45AM
Amen, Appleby. It's this tendency on the part of mother's that make kids want to "throw mama from the train".
W| 1.6.12 @ 8:50AM
The daughter ends up divorced with three kids chasing her ex for child support, and borrowing money from mom.
Meanwhile the nice Jewish boy graduated from med school, is a neurosurgeon, and pays to send his three children to college, law school, and med school.
But why listen to your mother,what does she know, right? Vote for Obam, the politcal equivalent of the fun guy, and we are 15 trillion in debt, 10% unemployment, ignore the constitution, but hey it sure is fun watching him give those speeches.
Occam's Tool| 1.6.12 @ 3:12PM
Or a psychiatrist....;)
Occam's Tool| 1.6.12 @ 3:13PM
You know, I had that happen to me a couple of times, the several years later effect. Funny how the girls always remembered me, when I had forgotten about them...
W| 1.6.12 @ 3:42PM
Absolutely a psychiatrist!
At the risk of being labeled a sexist, this may be the reason that Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc. did not provide the right to vote to women ("daughters") in our Constitution. If they are going to choose a tattood.................over a nice jewish pre med student, then................
Clint| 1.6.12 @ 7:35AM
We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges.
These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges , Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....
The Tea Party Rebellion Is On The East Coast
L. Ross| 1.6.12 @ 11:05AM
Clint:
I am trying to help here. Seriously.
I am good friends with a couple of Ron Paul supporters in my squadron. They are good dudes, but a little off on the conspiracy theory side of the world. I figure that you are pobably much like them only on steroids.
If you wish to encourage support for Ron Paul, you need to quit insulting every who is not a Ron Paul supporter. It does nothing for Dr. Paul, it does nothing to gain support for your causes, it does nothing but piss off the people you should be trying to influence and it makes you sound like you wear a tin-foil hat.
Try to answer the topics the article is discussing. Try framing a response that Dr. Paul would have for this situation in a rational fashion devoid of name calling.
For example: "Dr. Paul, as a physician, is very familiar with the challenges of our healthcare costs outstripping inflation each and every year. He knows that the free market is the solution to this problem, not more government intervention. His support for medical savings accounts will directly involve citizens in maximizing the value of their health car spending, thus lowering costs over all. Only Dr. Ron Paul is qualified to solved this increasingly challenging problem.
Of course I don't believe that Dr. Paul is qualified to solve this problem, as like BHO, his solution to out of control entitlement costs is to gut defense, but if you stay on topic and give RATIONAL reasons to vote for your chosen candidate, you may change some minds.
By the way, Ron Paul is NOT A TEA PARTY CANDIDATE. Hermain Caine was a Tea Party Candidate. Michelle Bachman was a Tea Party Candidate. Sarah Palin would have been a Tea Party Candidate. Please quit sullying the Tea Party by associating it with Ron Paul.
Clint| 1.6.12 @ 12:49PM
I Don't Need Your Help, Sport.
I'm A Member Of The Valley Forge Tea Patriots Of The Tea Party Patriots. Two Of Our Founding Organizers And Most Of Our Members Support Dr.Ron Paul.
" Tea partiers in two camps: Sarah Palin vs. Ron Paul
Tea party activists are divided roughly into two camps, according to a new POLITICO/TargetPoint poll: one that’s libertarian-minded and largely indifferent to hot-button values issues and another that’s culturally conservative and equally concerned about social and fiscal issues.
The survey, an exit poll conducted by Edison Research at the massive Tax Day protest on the National Mall, found that the attendees were largely hostile to President Barack Obama and the national Democratic Party — three-quarters believe the president “is pursuing a socialist agenda.”
Yet they aren’t enamored of the Republican Party as an alternative. Overall, three out of four tea party attendees said they were “scared about the direction” of the country and “want to send a message to both political parties.”
Palin, who topped the list with 15 percent, speaks for the 43 percent of those polled expressing the distinctly conservative view that government does too much, while also saying that it needs to promote traditional values.
Paul’s thinking is reflected by an almost identical 42 percent who said government does too much but should not try to promote any particular set of values — the hallmarks of libertarians. He came in second to Palin with 12 percent.
When asked to choose from a list of candidates for president in 2012, Palin and Paul also finished one-two — with Palin at 15 percent and Paul at 14 percent. "
The Tea Party Rebellion Moves Into The East Coast.
JimP| 1.6.12 @ 2:39PM
"There you go again", Clint. Only 75% of the TPers on the Mall were hostile to Obama and the Dems? What were the other 25% doing there then? Of course they/we aren't enamored with the GOP, that's why we call ourselves Tea Partiers, because the GOP is dominated by the Rockefeller types who are part of the problem. Nevertheless the Tea Party working within the GOP sent a whole bunch of new Congress critters to DC last November with 'R's after their names. Not one new Congress critter is a Libertarian. The Founders were libertarians. That was before there was such a thing. The Founders were liberals. Classical liberals in today's vernaculer. Reagan was largely a libertarian, but he was a conservative. The Founders, Reagan et al were not/are not Paulbots or libertarians. Just because people hold some views that are the same as libertarians in this era does not make them libertarians per se, nor Paul bots. You can have whatever kind of Tea Party you want in Valley Forge or anywhere else. But you don't speak for all Tea Partiers, and L.Ross described you accurately. You are a Paulbot stereotype: rude, immature, selfcentered and generally an obnoxious @$$. You guys are the OWS of the political right/GOP. Paul supporters generally do Dr. Paul more harm than good.
A.J.| 1.6.12 @ 3:13PM
Paul supporters generally do Dr. Paul more harm than good.
Thats the big secret, in the end its about THEM not any candidate. The candidate is the excuse for the soap box sociopathic political lecturing of their OWN agendas, not the candidate!
A.J.| 1.6.12 @ 4:30PM
Heres our boy Clint:
http://www.facebook.com/people.....1129661768
Dick Nome| 1.8.12 @ 4:39PM
Valley Forge TPP disavow being linked to Clint.
L. Ross| 1.7.12 @ 7:16AM
This is the first rational thing I have read from you. Well done. By the way, I always try to be polite with you. Why must you always be insulting? It diminishes you.
rhoetus| 1.8.12 @ 4:59PM
Before Roe v Wade "moral issues" were not a dividing line factionalizing sub-groups of conservatives and libertarians. These wedge issues are a Red Herring! We need to stand together and work for the re-establishment of our limited government under our Constitution. If we don't we shall be destroyed by the Statists.
martin j smith| 1.6.12 @ 7:43AM
Romney's achilles' heel is Romney himself and Romney Care is but one element. At this point with Obama clearly outside the law and doing Anti-constitutional stuff we cannot afford an opponent who is not very different if WE WANT TO SAVE THIS COUNTRY. For me Romney becomes MORE UNACCEPTABLE daily especially watching Obama's dictatorial moves.
If voters want to save Free Market Capitalism Romney is not the man.
Mimi| 1.7.12 @ 8:39PM
Martin...When he denied Reagan that did it when he spent 4 million killing Newts chances that really did it! Now I get sick just seeing his face.....He's not NICE!
rightasrain| 1.6.12 @ 8:12AM
It's ironic that Romney has flip-flopped over everything but the one thing he should have flip-flopped over. He's had so many chances to recant but now it's just too late. He's painted himself into this corner with his pathological defense of the indefensible and now must suffer the consequences.
Indy| 1.6.12 @ 8:18AM
How much Federal taxpayer money has been spent to prop up RomneyCare? It would be interesting to see by year how much was spent. I recall when Obama took office, even more was spent, I think as part of a tool to prop it up in order to get ObamaCare passed. If Federal taxpayer money had not been used, MA would have to either raise state taxes or reform the program. Obama could not let RomneyCare fail, he needed it to get his bill through Congress.
To me another problem for Willard which I have only seen in the WSJ is his postion on a VAT. Voters need to know, does Willard support a VAT? So far, his squishy position is he hasn't ruled it out which to me means he supports it.
teflon93| 1.6.12 @ 8:21AM
He's not serious about repealing Obamacare.
Romney is a Rockefeller Republican with all the usual progressive statist instincts. He would need to be dragged kicking and screaming to conservative policies and then would do the bare minimum while claiming he was powerless---just as he did with Romneycare's taxpayer funded abortions and with gay marriage. "My hands are tied" will be the refrain.
Romney will also never put forth conservative jurists who might return things to their Consitutional scope, chiefly because he doesn't know any.
vb| 1.6.12 @ 8:24AM
Why then has he sought advice from Robert Bork among others?
JimP| 1.6.12 @ 8:48AM
Unknown, but a good question. Nevertheless, Romney's long record speaks for itself, which means we need one of the other GOP candidates.
Al Adab| 1.6.12 @ 10:28AM
Romney is the old school, establishnment, accomodationist republican party that Conservatives have followed to defeat time and again. Is there any reason to follow them once more? Specifically, what would be the difference between a Romney administration and a second Obie administration except for the speed of statism?
Those who simply choose to manage the beast better accept the legitimacy of the beast. What we need are those dedicated not to greater efficiency to to making government smaller, less expensive and less intrusive. Who among the field is dedicated to that?
Mimi| 1.7.12 @ 8:41PM
WE need to take our 70% and leave !
teflon93| 1.6.12 @ 11:29AM
You may not be aware of it but Bob Bork's "grown" in his dotage.
The Big E| 1.6.12 @ 12:11PM
To provide himself cover from attacks by conservatives.
I may seek advice from a skilled financial manager who tells me exactly what I need to do to eliminate my debt and grow wealth. The fact I sought such advice doesn't mean thing if I go on spending like a drunken sailor.
Paul from SA| 1.6.12 @ 12:29PM
Exactly. Cover. To deceive people.
Bob Miller| 1.6.12 @ 8:26AM
It's important for our candidates not to concede on important points. This week I heard Romney say on the radio words to the effect that Obama was a good person and was not damaging the economy deliberately. Says who?? Someone had better describe Obama and his activities and goals in an absolutely truthful manner.
Al Adab| 1.6.12 @ 10:31AM
Bob:
Perfect example of what is wrong with the old school. The once patriotic DEM party is long gone. We have a party of The Left which sees its own country as guilty of crimes against humanity and of having too much wealth. They fully intend to reduce American influence and American wealth in order to assuage that guilt.
Quartermaster| 1.6.12 @ 6:57PM
The patriotic part of the Dems started infiltrating the Reps in the 70s. We know them as Neoconservatives.
rhoetus| 1.8.12 @ 11:47AM
And Nixon Republicans.
Clint| 1.6.12 @ 8:35AM
Who Is This Cat, Mittens Romney?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1wPrsEP2nc
bill| 1.6.12 @ 9:30AM
Tournament: GOP Primary Baseball
Venu: USA
Team " Romney vs The Tea Party
Pitching: The Tea Party
Hitter: Mitt Romney
1st strike: Romney supported abortion
2nd strike: supported gay marriage in MA
3rd strike: passed RomneyCare in MA
Status: Romney retired, he's out of the game
bill| 1.6.12 @ 9:37AM
Romney will win NH because he was the governor of neighboring state, MA. He''ll have hard time convincing SC voters about his stance on abortion, gay marriage, and RomneyCare, and will lose in SC to Rick Perry. Santorum cannot win in SC because his fiscal policy is outdated. Perry has a bold plan on overhauling the broken Washington and fixing the current fiscal crisis. SC voters will embrace Perry because he's an outsider and is electable.
After SC, FL will be up for grab. Perry will edge Romney in FL, because Perry has the southern heritage while Romney is a MA moderate. After winning FL, Perry will clinch the GOP nod.
Obama will be a one term president.
rhoetus| 1.8.12 @ 11:49AM
Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr won NH in 1964 after he lost to Ted Kennedy in 1962. No one has heard from him since. Romney = HC Lodge Jr
VonMisesJr| 1.6.12 @ 9:54AM
The Provisional Personhood and Annulment of the Constitution Act (PPACA) looks more and more like it is also the choice of the liberal Republican Establishment. Boehner would not defund it, and Romney will not commit that he will not simply tweak and rename ObamaCare to RomneyCare 2.0.
But as per the article today questioning Santorum's staying power, DC and NYC do not understand most of America. I have been to SC several times, and these people love their freedom. Florida is abundant with seniors who, if ObamaCare stands, relegate their lives to a death panel. And then all those states have primaries where the federal government is suing them for immigration or health care, or ignoring the federal ruling to resume oil drilling. Do you expect that they will coalesce behind a statist like Romney.
I think the DC and MSM talking points are badly mistaken. Romney cannot get over 25% outside of the Northeast, and when the field narrows; he will fall to the remaining candidate from the heartland.
bill| 1.6.12 @ 10:17AM
GOP Primary Results:
NH: Romney
SC: Rick Perry
FL: Rick Perry
GOP nominee: Rick Perry
President: Rick Perry
Paul from SA| 1.6.12 @ 12:42PM
Whoop!
black knights 1802| 1.7.12 @ 7:37AM
That's if he can remember where the White House is.
bill| 1.6.12 @ 10:25AM
Romney can be defeated in SC. Please read the report from CQ.
A new Rasmussen survey in South Carolina finds Mitt Romney just edging Rick Santorum in the GOP presidential race, 27% to 24%, followed by Newt Gingrich at 18%, Ron Paul at 11%, Rick Perry at 5% and Jon Huntsman at 2%.
"Things remain fluid in South Carolina, however, with nearly half the state's primary voters (48%) saying they still could change their minds. Just 41% are certain already of how they will vote. Those certain of their vote include 62% of Paul's supporters, 51% of Perry's backers, 50% of Romney voters. Just 43% of Santorum voters and 36% of Gingrich supporters are locked in at this point."
A new American Research Group poll shows Romney leads with 31%, followed by Gingrich and Santorum tied for second with 24% each
bill| 1.6.12 @ 10:46AM
Bad news for Romney lovers:
Vote counters said typo gave Romney extra 20 votes.
That means Santorum won the IA Caucus by just 12 votes over "alleged" winner Romney.
Romney got away with that. He may win in NH, but he will collapse in SC and FL.
Evangelic Christian conservative voters will stop Romney and Obama, by all means.
Rick Perry will win in SC and FL.
Al Adab| 1.6.12 @ 12:43PM
bill:
Can he carry those states plus Ohio in the general this November?
bill| 1.6.12 @ 12:58PM
Rick Perry will win in a landslide and carry 48 states, excluding IL and D.C..
KennesawJack| 1.6.12 @ 1:20PM
Obamarx carries HI, CA, OR, WA, IL, MD, NY, VT, CT, MA, and RI. The rest are ours.
bill| 1.6.12 @ 2:54PM
Mark Kirk won Obama's old senate seat in IL in 2010 midterm election, Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's old senate seat in MA in 2009, the gubernatorial contests in CA , CT, and IL were stole by the big labor unions, otherwise they all belongs to GOP column.
If Rick Perry on the ticket GOP will carry all the states except CA, CT, MD, HI, and IL.
That will be good enough for Obama's retirement.
Al Adab| 1.6.12 @ 3:11PM
Harry Reid was "re-elected" in Nevada by theft. You don't think they intend to do more of that?
Somehow we need to carry FL, NC, VA and Ohio. I'm hoping our guys can deliver PA, but I won't bet on it.
Paul from SA| 1.6.12 @ 3:42PM
I think the Dems are busy behind-the-scenes planning the biggest district-by-district, state-by-state voter cheating system ever devised.
Union members were already paid and now owe Obama a favor. They will work for him.
bill| 1.6.12 @ 4:14PM
We will overwhelm them in the precincts, and they will have no chance to stealing the election. We are the majority, those liberals are just some minority clan.
bill| 1.6.12 @ 12:38PM
The Obama administration and his big labor allies unleased a barrage of smear campaign the so-called "recalled election" against WI governor Scott walker, who reformed the public sector reforming and making it more efficient and transparance, fixing the state budget and creating thousands of jobs, we can no longer stay in the side line, it's time to stand up against Obama's tyranny and poer grab, help defend Gov. Scott Walker, donate his election campaign against big labor's multi million dollar smear campaign to oust him.
RGA must help Gov. Walker hold on to his office.
Do not let Obama and his big labor win this battle.
We must act now.
Paul from SA| 1.6.12 @ 3:23PM
Scott Walker is a genuine leader and needs nationwide support to fight the nationwide union campaign against him. I enjoy keeping up with Wisc. news....
bill| 1.6.12 @ 4:18PM
Thanks Paul,
WI is the semi-final for the 2012 residential election. we must win this battle. GOP must step up its efforts to help Gov. Scott Walker keep his job. RGA must help him with resources and organization. Gov. walker desperately needs our help. Big labor unions vow to spend millions of dollars to oust him from the office. We must stop those big labors, and protect Gov. walker. Time is running out. I donated his campaign. I urge all conservatives to partner with us.
Stop big labors, Stop Obama!
Al Adab| 1.6.12 @ 6:16PM
The court in WI allowed the namesd of Mickey Mouse and Adolph Hitler to remain on recall petitions as they carried a Wisconsin address. Can you say corruption boys and girls? Harry Reid stole his re-election in Nevada. With the White House at stake do you really think they will do less?
bill| 1.6.12 @ 7:02PM
It's a blue print for the 2012 Presidential election, and I am predicting a widespread voter fraud and intimidation in the polls.
Paul from SA| 1.6.12 @ 12:41PM
ObamaCare will be off the table as a campaign issue if Romney is the GOP candidate.
Romney will be the easiest candidate for Democrats to destroy. Romney will be portrayed as a:
-progressive (Romney's own words describing himself)
-corporate raider, corporate destroyer
-Wall Street selfish, rich, fat, cat. Not millions, but hundreds of millions.
-not even richest 1%, more like 0.01%
-pro abortion
-pro gay rights
-pro amnesty
-pro global warming
-pro cap and trade
-anti Reagan
-flip flopper
-anti Christian
-Mormon cultist
-pro individual mandate for h-insurance
-wants to keep some parts of ObamaCare
Romney is claiming he changed from a progressive to a conservative. What will he say and believe tomorrow?
bill| 1.6.12 @ 12:58PM
I agree with you 110%.
Wayne| 1.6.12 @ 12:42PM
I think his Achilles heel is that he was born into the 1 percent. He is out of touch with the rest of us. I can see why it is obvious Obama wants him as his opponent. I can see the 99 percent against Romney ads already.
Paul from SA| 1.6.12 @ 3:21PM
I think it's more than just being out of touch.
There's something suspicious about a man who is worth near a half billion dollars who wants to be president. Why not spend the money to improve America?
I think he's a lot like Jean Kerry. They both thought they were destined to be president (because of their superiority).
Paul from SA| 1.6.12 @ 12:45PM
Romney stated he does not want to repeal all of ObamaCare, that we should keep the good parts.
Romney stated he wants to repeal all of ObamaCare.
Did he really change his mind or did someone on his staff tell him to lie?
JimP| 1.6.12 @ 2:47PM
And I wonder what the "good parts" are? Of course Mitt didn't tell us. Like Obama, it's a blank slate upon which each voter may project his own fatasies about getting a "good" 'freebie' that benefits him at someone else's expense.
Tim| 1.6.12 @ 1:31PM
The problem with Romney is that he comes from a global universal taught
As a Morman his very being requires that he believe in world missions and conversions
to their truth!
While most religions do the same thing, the difference with modern Mormans is that they put their religion first and a particular country second.
Catholics were similar but that changed many years ago.
Hence--Romney care or one world Government under Mormans would fall in line with how they believe.
Pretty simple.
steve| 1.6.12 @ 10:53PM
Right, you are simple. I mean you are a simpleton to make such generalizations. What year did Catholics become patriots and put our country first?
RCV| 1.7.12 @ 1:09PM
1776
Doug| 1.6.12 @ 2:43PM
Simple question before voting for Mitt: What would Mitt do with a Democratic Congress?
If you feel comfortable with your answer then by all means vote for Mitt. But if, like many I talk to, you think that he would be steamrolled by Reid, et al then maybe Mitt isn't the best choice.
And that Democratic Congress might not show up until the 2014 mid terms.
bill| 1.6.12 @ 3:05PM
After Nov 4, 2012, Obama is going back to Kenya while Huntsman is fleeing back to China, as refugees, and Mitt Romney is going back to his old job-Wall Street.
Rick Perry will be at the 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for his new job.
Al Adab| 1.6.12 @ 3:16PM
bill,
Whether or not Perry should be the guy, the simple truth is prejudice against Texas would prevent his election. To most voters the accent sound like NJ or NY does to you guys.
bill| 1.6.12 @ 4:22PM
Al Adab,
that's what they said about Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Rick Perry is the most viable candidate in the GOP field. Obama is scared of Perry. Obama launched a billion dollar campaign to destroy Perry, and that's why Perry is trailing in the poll. TX is the base for GOP. We lose TX, we lose America. Perry will revive, rebound, and win the GOP nod.
Obama will be a one term president.
RCV| 1.7.12 @ 1:10PM
Pssst -- Ronald Reagan wasn't from Texas. He was a (oh no!) Californian.
Ken Royall| 1.6.12 @ 3:34PM
Romney is the nominee. Your column is useless.
bill| 1.6.12 @ 4:23PM
Romney is the nominee of Democratic Party, not GOP.
somnolence| 1.6.12 @ 4:31PM
I suppose Romney could take a cue from Obama and boldly repeal Obamacare during congressional recess, reaffirming the strength of the 10th Amendment. He would be an automatic folk hero to multitudes.
somnolence| 1.6.12 @ 4:33PM
The 10th Amendment does provide for the states to impose such a program. It clearly doesn't for the feds.
bill| 1.6.12 @ 4:45PM
A Conservative Manifesto:
To help win the 2012 election and defeat Obama, I propose my 18 points plan:
1. Ban abortion in all 50 states
2. Ban same sex marriage in all 50 states
3. Legalize guns in all 50 states
4. Pass the BBA
5. Abolish Dept. of Education, Energy. Interior, Commerce, EPA, and HUD
6. Abolish the public sector unions (SEIU, teachers' union)
7. No more aid to Pakistan, Palestine, Egypt
8. Increase cooperation with Israel
10. No more cuts in the defense budget
11. Help build the military industrial complex
12. De-fund the planned parenthood
13. Repeal ObamaCare and the Dodd-frank Bill
14. Give waiver to all 50 states on NCLB
15. Mandate a term limit on lawmakers (in the senate and House of Representative)
16. Deport all illegals
17. Mandate the E-Verify system in all 50 states
18. Prohibit hiring and harboring illegals in all 50 states.
I hope all conservative voters will embrace my plan and help America save from liberals.
Mike | 1.6.12 @ 10:51PM
The sound of crickets .........
George S| 1.6.12 @ 4:56PM
I wonder if Romney is waiting for SCOTUS to bail him out? It would be the ultimate in stupidity to turn around and denounce RomneyCare, but a ruling that the mandate is unconstitutional will essentially relieve him of the burden of defending it. But of course, that is risky; GWB thought the same thing when he signed McCain-Feingold to kill two birds with one stone -- kill the bill without having to pick a fight with McCain.
Paul from SA| 1.6.12 @ 5:30PM
Deroy Murdoch has a devastating article posted at NRO that explains some of Romney's tax hikes while gov of Mass. It's devastating. Romney even raised taxes on blind people.
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....oy-murdock
Why is this being reported just now? Hello... Ann Coulter, Karl Rove, Dick Morris, Michelle Malkin, Rich Lowry, Sean Hannity, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, etc. and the rest of the RINO Romney lovers... why have none of you not conducted any research or journalism and reported this ?
I wonder if the people of Iowa knew anything about this?
We still know more about Sarah Palin's children than we know about Romney's time as governor.
It's going to be a very bad year....
Paul from SA| 1.6.12 @ 6:09PM
The article was set for posting on Monday, but I saw it and read it. Now it's gone.
POST American| 1.6.12 @ 8:42PM
----IN FACT he has many heels---
---PRO 'A--bore--shun'
-----PRO open borders
------PRO carbon taxes (20% on everything)
--------PRO 'Banker Bailout' and USURY 'values'
----------Original architecht of Obamacare
------------ANTI 2nd Amendment
--------------PRO NAFTA and GATT
-----------------SILENCE on EUGENICS
There's your man!
------'SUB-Mitt ROME--knee'!
john dubose| 1.6.12 @ 8:45PM
When he was governor, Romney faced a Liberal Democrat legislature with overwhelming power. Anything short of 100% state control of medical care was a triumpth of political skill. I personally much prefer another candidate, but this criticism of him is bogus. If he becomes president, he will end Obamacare. That is all Republicans need to know.
Paul from SA| 1.7.12 @ 11:07AM
Please read that Deroy Murdock article at NRO.
Romney proposed tax hikes so large that even the Democrat controlled state legislature had to reduce them.
Mike| 1.6.12 @ 10:09PM
I thought by "come clean" you would argue that Romney tout where he got the ideas for Romneycare -The Heritage Foundation.
somnolence| 1.6.12 @ 10:23PM
I boldly predict that Rick Perry will be lucky to break 5% in S.C. It will be a two man race, Romney and Santorum essentially all the way to the Convention after Florida. Both Romney and Santorum will get more than 25% of the vote in S.C. and Florida. Perry, Gingrich, and Huntsman will throw in the towel by then. Paul will remain for awhile, breaking 15% in a few of the remaining states, but it will really be over for him also. The Convention brokering will be quite interesting.
Paul from SA| 1.7.12 @ 11:12AM
It's becoming clear that Santorum is not a small gov't politician. In fact, he voted many, many times to raise spending and taxes and the size of gov't. There's more bad stuff to come. He'll be gone soon like the others.
Romney will be chosen much like McCain.
TeaPartyPatriot4ever| 1.6.12 @ 10:31PM
Mitt Romney is the antithesis of Ronald Reagan and Reagan Conservatism !!
The Patriotic American Reagan Conservative Tea Party movement is ready and able to support and fund, Newt and or Santorum, or any other qualified authentic Conservative candidate, to defeat that hypocrite lying 2 faced liberal Republican Party establishment RINO Romney, at any and all costs, period.!!
Mass. is the home of Liberalism, Ted Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, and Mitt Romney.. so why would be any self respecting conservative, ever support, let alone vote for a liberal Mass. politician.. which is beyond any and all comprehension, common sense, logic, reason, and conservative sanity.
Any real patriotic Reagan Conservative American, would never support, let alone vote for, a liberal Mass Republican party establishment RINO elitist lying hypocrite, like Romney.. The only reason Romney is up in the polls, is because of his superpac funding campaign ads, that tell lies, deceive, distort, and subvert the facts and truth, about everything.. But they never tell the people what Romney did in Mass, raise taxes, increase big govt spending, for his all of obamacratic welfare entitlement programs, and his State Socialized forced mandated inferior and substandard medicine program, aka, Romneycare, and what he says he will not do, release his income tax records, e-mails and official records as Mass. Gov.
A glass of Orange Juice would be better than Romney.. A vote for Romney, is a vote for Liberalism and RINO Hypocrisy.. Romney is the epitome of liberal cronyism, deception, deceit, hypocrisy, and Republican party establishment elitist arrogance..
Tea Party Nation Founder: ‘The Tea Party Will Never Rally Behind Mitt Romney’
Tea Party Nation’s Judson Phillips appeared on Monday’s Martin Bashir and boldly declared, “The Tea Party will never rally behind Mitt Romney.”
“Never!” Phillips reiterated. “I think I told you this before, we’ve done surveys on our site where it shows one third to one half of the Tea Party members will not vote for Mitt Romney if he is the nominee in the general election — which is probably going to encourage Team Obama to send out people to vote for Romney in the primaries. But Iowa is the first step in this whole process. A week from now we will be talking about New Hampshire, two weeks from now, we’ll be talking about South Carolina and three weeks from now we will talk about Florida.”
“In all the national polls, Newt Gingrich is still right up there at the top,” Phllips added. “He does well in South Carolina and Florida, of course, the other good news that will be coming out of this is at least one candidate is going to dropout. Since the conservative vote is so fragmented right now, whoever drops out, presumably Bachmann, her supporters are going to somewhere. Hopefully from my point of view, it will be Newt. Wherever they go, they’re going to help one of the conservative candidates.”
Phillips later said as the race goes on, we will see “this coalescing and it will be around Newt Gingrich. It will happen. Eventually it will send Mitt Romney to the showers.”
unquote-
I, and millions of other Tea Party Reagan Conservatives, completely agree with Mr. Judson Phillips.!!
martin j smith| 1.7.12 @ 7:48AM
I think given the crucial nature of the 2012 election and the dire consequences of Obama winning a second term that the following happen--though it may not--:Gingrich should stay in but focus on attacking Romney. Perry should drop out unless in the next month or so he shows some uptick. He too should support Santorum as will Gingrich for his attacks on Romney. That of course leaves Huntsman and Paul.( with Romney still in of course ). But here is another slant that should be put out: A question to Romney: Do you want to win the election and be the President or not ? And, what makes you a better choice than Obama ? This puts him on the line to deal with Romney Care. There is the deal breaker if pushed hard enough. That is what is needed NOW!!!!!!!!
Anthony| 1.7.12 @ 9:51AM
Mittens now has an additional problem; John McCain.
Like many of you, I got an email from McCain yesterday calling me "friend". In addition to him taking this liberty, McCain tells us it is now time for us to choose our nominee, after one caucus, one that Mittens apparently lost to Santorum.
I despise McCain. He gave us Obozo. Despite this, I held my nose, gave this egotist money, voted for him, and even campaigned for him, because we knew Obozo was and is an exisential threat to America.
McCain did not have the decency to slink away after hishanding Obozo the presidency, no that this huge ego who continues to wreak havoc o us with the rest of his R establishment.
So, I replyed to McCain's email. Needless to say there was no means of replying, my response never went through. So typical of these folks.
So Mittens, learn this; I will not campaign for you, nor will I send you money. I might vote for you, but that's about it.
We need to rid American of the entire McCain class of establishment Rs, that means you as well Mittens.
martin j smith| 1.7.12 @ 10:01AM
McCaine's endorsement to me means that the Republican establishment does not care about winning or as Rush Limbaugh has suggested do not even believe they can win. That is the Leadershit that the republican party has. No thank you !!!!!!!!!!
I want a candidate who says they want to win and defeat Obama. That is one requirement among others. Romney lacks that. So do Paul and Huntsman --Paul is in a quanndry because his foreign and national security polcies are exactly
Obama's, Romney has Romney Care among other things and Huntsman does not know which Party he is in. That cancells three out.
carnot| 1.7.12 @ 12:54PM
Limbaugh has also stated...multiple times....that any of the Republican candidates are a better option than Obama.
rhoetus| 1.8.12 @ 11:54AM
Limbaugh only has to sell advertising. The Bush family killed the Reagan Revolution.
Anthony| 1.7.12 @ 10:02AM
Sorry folks, computer problems.
I ment that sentence to read, No, this huge ego continues to wreak havoc on us, along with the rest of the R establishment.
And the Obozo threat is existential.
Mittens and McCain need to go!!!
carnot| 1.7.12 @ 12:59PM
these threads are so comical for their myopia.
is America predominantly Liberal/Progressive? No. Yet those people are running the show in large measure. why is that? because they make tactical concessions in service of their larger, longer-term goals. Republican/Conservative/Libertarian puritanism is a fine spirit to harbor in one's heart. But it's a mindset completely detached from reality and strategy. The war is won by a series of campaigns connected to an over-arching strategy.
what's more important...losing a short-term puritanical battle or winning the long-term war?
Anthony| 1.7.12 @ 4:41PM
Carnot it is you that misses the point. The left make no tactical concessions, they march steadfastly forward with the MSM and the other pillars of corruption giving them cover when they misstep. They are not divided.
We, on the other hand, do not have an over-arching strategy, as you put it, because we are divided into two basic camps, moderates and conservatives.
There can be no over-arching strategy for us as long as this division remains. So we now face another Groundhog Day repeat of 08 with Mittens McWillard.
How about the R establishment rally around a political concept that 32 years ago produced the greatest conservative victory as well the strongest and most vibrant America in decades?
That over-arching strategy was called Reagan Conservatism!!
carnot| 1.8.12 @ 1:16AM
wrong. once one moves beyond the largely abstract gibberish of poorly articulated first principles (the reality is most don't live to their professed standards) the problem is a lack of shared goals. moderate or conservative...the primary goal ought to be retiring Obama next Nov - that is the number one prerequisite to preserving what freedoms we have left....and job opportunities...we have left. What I see on these threads is Olympic quality spitballing. unproductive. undisciplined.
Limbaugh is correct....any of these candidates is preferable to Obama. Excising the real threat is the first priority. why are so many locked into their essentially puerile notions of "my candidate or I'm picking up my toys and going home"?
I can't see myself in the foxhole with 90% of the people posting - they'd cut and run the moment circumstances didn't satisfy their occluded emotional needs.
Osamas Pajamas| 1.7.12 @ 1:07PM
The RonmeyCare / OhBummerCare "individual mandate" is --- literally --- a government gun pointed at the head of the American citizen who refuses to obey it. Who paid for this gun? Not the government --- the taxpayers arm the government against the American people. The RomneyCare / OhBummerCare dictatorship is evil --- but we taxpayers arm them agian and again and again, every time we pay taxes to them. I'm in favor of gun control. Disarm the government. Arm the people. Sit down and order a pizza. Justice will be coming to town.
Osamas Pajamas| 1.7.12 @ 1:08PM
I think McCain wants OhBummer to win --- so he endorsed Romney.
Kevin| 1.7.12 @ 2:00PM
It isn't just Romney Care. It's everything about this man and his life.... he is Obama's ticket to four more years.
somnolence| 1.7.12 @ 2:26PM
THIS Reagan conservative WILL vote for Romney in the fall with no reservations if he is the nominee. BTW Reagan had Iran-Contra as a black mark, so he wasn't Mr. Perfect either. I guess the GOP can either be determined to win or shut up.
somnolence| 1.7.12 @ 2:28PM
I also notice the people in Arizona rejected Hayworth big-time. Or has anyone forgotten?
rhoetus| 1.8.12 @ 11:56AM
We still have McCain RINO- CINO Senator Asterisk.
Dick Nome| 1.8.12 @ 4:51PM
Senator McCain-Feingold, the two term incumbent had his first serious challenger in JD Hayworth. He spent $25MM with the he full force of the Establishment Rebublicans behind him to trash JD. McCain morphed into a conservative for the primary and the general election and is now back to his old 'progressive' self. JD Hayworth was a good candidate. I am a big JD HAyworth fan and make no excuses for it either.
somnolence| 1.7.12 @ 2:36PM
As long as members of Congress retire with $174,000 a year pensions for life, and NONE of the current candidates DARE address this, they, or no one else on this page, has a valid argument about "Romney being in the one percent". Add those pensions to perks and lobbying privileges and it is even more. The naivete on this page is breathtaking. NONE of these people, repeat NONE, have anything in common with most of us when they collect this EXTRAVAGANT pension. We are their employers, not the other way around, serving as modern day vassals.
somnolence| 1.7.12 @ 2:56PM
BTW how many of you know that Romney rejected his salary as Governor of Massachusetts? Same with his pension, I'm sure. How many of the rest on that stage tonight can say that? Hmm? Being set up EXTRAVAGANTLY every year of your life, whether after one term or ten terms won't cut it, especially if you didn't merit it.
martin j smith| 1.7.12 @ 2:59PM
Carnot: I think while it may be true that any of the Republican Candidates would do a better job than Obama that is not saying much about every one of them. I have no favorite but I DO NOT WANT A LOSER. Mcain waa loser and Romney is a chip off the old block. Huntsman0loser,Paul-forget him --not a serious candidate. So I winnow the field to Newt,Santorum and Perry as far as ones I would be will and to a certain extent with apprehension but less so than the other three musketeers who I do not like at all.
somnolence| 1.7.12 @ 3:27PM
Gingrich is the biggest Washington insider of them all. If he is the nominee he will get my vote, but never my support.
rhoetus| 1.8.12 @ 11:57AM
Could be worse: Santorum or Romney.
Anthony| 1.7.12 @ 4:20PM
We can nitpick our remaining candidates all day long and all this will do is insure an Obozo victory. Again I'll say, other than Ron Paul and Mittens Mc Willard, any of our remaining candidates will do the job.
Think of the 3 a.m. analogy, if the phone rings, Gingrich, Santorum,and Perry 's first instincts will be conservative. What more can we ask for?
And with our help, we will move a R congress in the right direction as well.
That said, if our nominee is Mittens McWillard, I will vote for him.
And woe to any egotist that attempts to go 3rd party. We will hit them where it hurts the most. That means you Ron Paul and you Donald Trump.
Clint| 1.7.12 @ 5:31PM
" Pay close Attention to Romney’s appointment of Walid Phares to chair the Middle East and North Africa working group of his Foreign Policy and National Security Advisory Team. Mr. Phares currently serves on the board of ACT! For America, a lobbying group that Politico described as being part of an "effort to transform anti-Islam crusading into a mainstream lobbying effort". He has stated that global jihad is already in progress and within a short period of time jihadists will have ten million suicide bombers ready to wreak devastation on the West. To beat jihadists he is a strong proponent of preemptive strikes and “putting our allies’ forces on existing and new battlefields.”
We Are Being Set Up By The Israel Firster RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges.
These Are The Israel Firster RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges , Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....
The Tea Party Rebellion Is On The East Coast
John Stuart Mill| 1.8.12 @ 3:00PM
Why do you hate the Jews so much?
Dick Nome| 1.8.12 @ 4:03PM
He's an anti-Semite.
somnolence| 1.7.12 @ 6:43PM
John McCain destroyed Hayworth. Now if you have any reservations about McCain ask the good people of Arizona why.
Dick Nome| 1.8.12 @ 2:55PM
Capt McQueeg ran a 'civil' campaign against Obama and got his ass kicked. Had he run a down in the dirt nasty campaign like he did against JD Hayworth (oh, and Mr Campaign finance reform spent $25MM as well) he might have beaten the Oborg. Nah, McCain has to reach across the aisle, but he kicks fellow Republicans in the groin.
somnolence| 1.7.12 @ 6:47PM
Part of this mess started when Reagan granted amnesty. Face it, it isn't the same world as 32 years ago. Stop living in a time tunnel. I voted for Reagan both times, but when Iran-Contra broke it was all I could do to watch his explanation on television. It is time to stop deluding ourselves and trying to reach for something that really never was and never can be.
Anders13| 1.7.12 @ 7:56PM
Romney is the unelectable candidate because he cannot defend conservatism.
The Dims have sacrificed all their political equity for the last three years of legislative achievements; all they have left is ideology. They know that if they lose to a conservative that they could be stuck in a very deep political hole for as long as two decades. Everything is on the line. The 2012 election will be a face off between conservatism and progressive liberalism. Romney has no conservative political record; NONE!!! He talks the talk but he walks on quicksand. His business success will count for little. There are billionaire leftists who dwarf Romney and support Obama. Other candidates like Perry, Santorum, and Gingrich have actual conservative political accomplishments. All Romney has is campaign rhetoric and his liberal governorship. Romney will be shredded by the main stream media that supports him now. He may be just another straw candidate.
carnot| 1.8.12 @ 1:21AM
the MSM is gonna to try to shred ANY Republican candidate. that's not a disqualifier.
you're focused on the wrong thing. the objective, for ANY Republican candidate, is to shred Obama.
John Stuart Mill| 1.8.12 @ 2:59PM
Exactly -- I'll take Romney to head the ADMINISTRATION of laws, while Congress does the LEGISLATION including repeals.
The latest shenanigans by Obama's EPA and NLRB show that Congress has DELEGATED FAR TOO MUCH POWER TO THE ADMINISTRATION. Ron Paul is right on this: It's time to take it back.
The Scorched Earth should come from Citizens United groups ... THANK GOD.
So no, I'm not worried about Romney as head of the Administrative Branch. At least he appears competent....
Old Blevins| 1.7.12 @ 9:01PM
It is not too late for Mr. Romney to denounce Romneycare......as long as he does it during the primaries. A simple rose-colored glasses view from my vantage point is for Mr. Romney to declare that Romneycare was a well-intentioned state iniative, and that the plan failed, and that a national expansion of Romneycare will fail as well. He could even spin this mistake into a POSITIVE...he learned from the state plan that Obamacare is a budget-buster. He has to make this clear during the primaries. If he waits until he wraps up the nomination, then it will appear to be a hollow appeal to the GOP conservative base. Heck, I might even toss my total support to him if he denounces Romneycare as a mistake during the primaries...my vote is still up grabs.
carnot| 1.8.12 @ 1:24AM
tough decision eh? vote for Romney (if he is the candidate) and swallow hard....or raise the middle finger to the higher need...and assist returning Obama to office.
I'm not a thrilled with Romney either. but he is infinitely the better option when lined up against Obama.
carnot| 1.8.12 @ 1:27AM
lest we forget...Romney can be jettisoned in 2016.
John Stuart Mill| 1.8.12 @ 2:54PM
And Congress makes laws. We need the White House and either:
1) 60 GOP votes in the Senate, OR
2) the stones to pass repeal of all-things-Obama at once, under Reconciliation
AND DON'T FORGET -- THE GOP NOT SELLING OUT TO BIG GOVERNMENT ... AGAIN!!!
Ounceof Logic| 1.8.12 @ 7:37AM
Romney's "Achilles Heel" is that the Media has assumed him to be the leader since Day One. He has been spared the scrutiny and ridicule that destroyed most of his challengers. That kid-glove treatment will end the day he gets the nomination.
Tom| 1.8.12 @ 8:00AM
Romney can't be the nominee or the Republicans will lose. He is neutered in his arguments about Obamacare due to Romneycare and will be painted as a man out of touch with the American people, who is worth over $250,000,000 and owns five houses. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, can point to the fact he was Speaker when we last balanced the budget, he is the author of the Contract with America, and he is the man who led Republicans to a majority after 40 years of Democrat rule. He also is a master of the legislative process and therefore will know the correct buttons to push in Congress to get things done, which Romney doesn't. Romney will have to learn that on the job, which we DON'T need again. I notice Newt, since he got a little more aggressive about the inaccurate mean spirited ads which have been run against him, is starting to tick back up in the polls. Go Newt!
Tom| 1.8.12 @ 8:03AM
One other thing...Newt will shred Obama in a debate. He holds a world view that allows him to see both the forest and the trees. He sees the big picture and the details, and that's unusual. It's because he has an IQ about 100 points higher than Obama. He is the one that Obama truly fears, which is why the media has been trying to destroy him.
Dick Nome| 1.8.12 @ 3:50PM
In the long run, debates don't mean squat in the campaign.
jdcarmine| 1.8.12 @ 9:48AM
I support Romney. I also like Santorum on many of his insights regarding personal responsibility and the value of a strong family rather than Obama's Social Worker Army for true American progress. But Santorum is too bound by his Catholic roots particularly his anti-gay rhetoric, whereas Romney seems to focussed on the primary objective of defeating that fine sounding hollow reed instrument, Mr. Oboe. The question is whether or not a Santorum as VP would hurt or harm Romney's chances in the general election. It would alienate the liberals but they are not going to vote Romney no matter what. But would he draw the Democratic-leaning (YES MANY EXIST) Evangelicals back toward the right??
RedWhiteandBlue| 1.8.12 @ 10:15AM
I am an idependent voter and have been for over 30 years. I see little difference in the two major parties despite their empty rhetoric. Should Mitt Romney win the nomination, I for one will stay home on election day. There is little difference between the President and the Govenor, no contrast. I predict another 4 years of Obama's incompetence.
John Stuart Mill| 1.8.12 @ 2:52PM
On November 6th many traitors will stay home and help Obama ....
Dick Nome| 1.8.12 @ 4:00PM
Dopes like you are part of the problem. Being 'Independent' you don't or can't vote in the primary andthen bitch about the candidates. So stay home and let the Liberals screw you instead of standing for something. BTW, there those of us who do not believe both parties are the same and we are working our asses off to rescue this country from the Marxists. People like you piss us off and are no help.
Pete| 1.8.12 @ 9:10PM
Gee, I guess you just convinced him to vote for Romney.
adumbrate| 1.8.12 @ 10:41AM
another Achilles' Heel is he CANNOT CONNECT -
Newt is the only chance of winning. He is the only coalition candidate.
NdiliMfumu| 1.8.12 @ 11:06AM
The Affordable Healthcare Act of 2010 (AHCA) has four parts (modifying the rules of the HC insurance market, establishing HC Insurance exchanges, expanding Medicaid to virtually all the poor in every state, and mandating all individuals to purchase HC insurance or pay a fine).
The US Supreme Court, however, will make its decision about only the last of these. The first three parts of the law have been consistently upheld in every appellate court and are NOT properly before the US Sup. Crt.; so, the US Sup. Crt. cannot strike them down.
On the merits of the individual mandate, the issue is NOT whether the government at any level can force people to eat broccoli; rather, it's whether the government can require deadbeats to cover the cost of their healthcare instead of foisting that on the rest of us. Since all of us will use health services, often at great expense, and especially in the last months of our lives, it behooves us as a society to require that everyone maintain healthcare insurance coverage. The "deadbeats" are those who propose to "self-insure", meaning, who refuse to make adequate provision for their current and future healthcare expenditures. Note that the law does not require the purchase of any particular form of HC insurance, only that everyone shall purchase some adequate coverage or, where they cannot afford it, shall instead rely on the public programs (e.g., Medicaid).
While conservative ideologues rebel with disgust at the thought that government can and should have a meaningful role in our lives beyond foreign relations and the national defense, the AHCA represents precisely that kind of government intervention in interstate commerce envisioned by Adams and Madison, when they and the other Founding Fathers agreed the 10th Amendment.
John Stuart Mill| 1.8.12 @ 2:45PM
False! No Severability Clause means it all goes down with the Mandate....
John Stuart Mill| 1.8.12 @ 2:51PM
Oh oh PLEASE. You know nothing of the Founders' intent based on your stupid statements.
The primary motivating force to write the Constitution in the first place was TRADE WARS among the former Colonies. The 10th Amendment was a Prime Motivator for getting the States to all buy in and replace the Articles of Federation.
It was all about COMMERCE -- not this nonsense you assert: Regulation of a product -- health insurance -- THAT ISN'T EVEN SOLD ACROSS STATE LINES.
Hanging justification on "health services" is precisely the "inference upon inference" that the Lopez case (and Raich) EXPLICITLY REJECT.
I'll take SCOTUS' interpretation of original intent ... and hope for some fatal PID outbreak if they FAIL IN THEIR DUTY TO THE LAW.
It's clearly Un-Constitutional. Read their anemic brief....
@Britt| 1.8.12 @ 11:41AM
Why do 'intelligent' people intentionally continue to take things out of context? Oh, yeah to be deceptive and advance their agenda... Ever pay attention to the fact that Romney passed most of his legislation (incluing Romney care) with an 85% Democratic State Legislature. Which, means almost every bill that winds up tweaked and passed can do so without the possibility of Governor veto. Its incredible ANYONE could get something done in these circumstances. He had no option, but to compromise AND he was serving the desires of HIS state. Isn't that what we Republicans want - states rights? Mass healthcare is largely popular in their state - sooo who cares about Romney care??? Its a non issue in a federal election, except for idiots who continue to try and create one out of context...
rhoetus| 1.8.12 @ 2:09PM
@Britt:
Considering the make up of both Mass. and the US Congress I will give a pass on the "success factor" of both Romney and Paul regarding their respective sponsored bills that were actually passed into law (something Bill O'Reilly is to daft to understand).
What is their political philosophy? What do they advocate? Ron Paul stands for our limited government under the restrictions of the US Constitution.
John Stuart Mill| 1.8.12 @ 2:44PM
I care about one thing: ROMNEY STANDS FOR KICKING OBAMA OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.
The Congress will pass the laws, as always -- and Romney will sign them. Obama will not.
Case closed. All out for the GOP nominee in 2012!!!
~ JSM, registered Libertarian
rhoetus| 1.8.12 @ 11:59AM
Anyone except a convicted felon will beat Obama in 2012.
Spartanfan| 1.8.12 @ 12:21PM
Grace-Marie Turner:
Stop helping this Elite Establishment Tool... He will be just as much of a disaster as Obama...
I'm telling every single one of you Republicans out there...
If Mitt is your nominee, I STAY HOME...
John Stuart Mill| 1.8.12 @ 2:42PM
Thanks, traitor.
Staying home is 1/2 a vote for Obama, traitor.
Pete| 1.8.12 @ 9:07PM
Now that is uncalled for. If Romney loses because conservatives don't vote for him, blame the GOP, not those unwilling to vote for someone they like.
Dick Nome| 1.8.12 @ 2:48PM
Do that jerk and you won't have to worry in '16. There won't be an election or at least one that matters. All us Republicans and Tea Party activists will be in re-education camps.
martin j smith| 1.8.12 @ 2:05PM
Carnot--If Romney is the nominee I will hold my nose and vote-not for him but for his line as NOT OBAMA. I think Romney should be told by millions of voters that if really wants more than just the vote--real support --he better chow real change from Obama
rhoetus| 1.8.12 @ 2:11PM
And hope that he appoints another Thomas or Scalia to the Supreme Court?
Pete| 1.8.12 @ 9:06PM
Romney would form a coalition with the Democrats against the tea party conservatives and maintain as much of Obama's big government laws as possible. He will only try to do it more efficiently.
John Stuart Mill| 1.8.12 @ 2:40PM
Has anyone else read the Obama DOJ brief filed with SCOTUS...? I have, and re-read the Raich decision that it draws on heavily -- Scalia's concurrence, no less.
Well. THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE. The brief is actually kind of pathetic, and too clever by half. A full read of Scalia's opinion in Raich reveals CLEARLY his logic will conclude the Mandate is UnConstitutional.
So ... Romney running having "Done LEGAL health reform tailored for Massachusetts" versus Obama having "Passed ILLEGAL health measures that were struck down by SCOTUS"...?
I'll take Romney on that one.
Pete| 1.8.12 @ 9:04PM
The mandate may be the constitutional problem with socialized medicine, but it is still socialized medicine.
rhoetus| 1.8.12 @ 3:14PM
Mrs. Turner: If I were President I would refuse to enforce any law that I viewed as "Un-constitutional".
Margie| 1.8.12 @ 6:31PM
John II:
If you're around, Happy New Year to you and yours!
MissouriConservative| 1.8.12 @ 11:09PM
We have many who do not understand the broad powers reserved to the states under the Constitution. The state mandate in Romneycare is legal and conservative if one holds the Constitution a valid document.Jame Madison who knew it well stated "If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained."The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
The ability of a state mandate to purchase or acquire goods goes back to at least John Hancock, who signed legislation in 1781"That that Part of the Militia of this Commonwealth commonly called the Training-Band, shall be constituted of all the able bodied Male Persons therein, from Sixteen years old to Fifty ... each and every Officer and private Soldier of said Militia, not under the Control of Parents, Masters or Guardians, and being of sufficient Ability therefor, in the Judgment of the Selectmen of the Town wherein he has his usual Place of Abode, shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good Fire-Arm, with a Steel or Iron Ramrod, and a Spring to retain the same, a Worm, Priming-Wire and Brush, and a Bayonet fitted to his Gun, a Scabbard and Belt here for, a Cartridge-Box that will hold Fifteen Rounds of Cartridges at least. Six Flints, one Pound of Powder, Forty Leaden Balls fitted to his Gun, a Haversack and Blanket, a Canteen sufficient to hold one Quart. And if any Officer or private Soldier shall neglect to arm and equip himself as aforesaid, for the Space of Sixty Days after Publication of this Act, he shall forfeit and pay a Fine of Five Pounds; to be recovered by Action of Debt in any Court proper to try the same, by the Clerk of the Company to which the Delinquent belongs...."
Even Reagan fully understood the scope because he too was a state governor. He said "The nature of our constitutional system encourages a healthy diversity in the public policies adopted by the people of the several States according to their own conditions, needs, and desires. In the search for enlightened public policy, individual States and communities are free to experiment with a variety of approaches to public issues." (October 26, 1987)
As governor of Massachusetts, Samuel Adams practiced his unsurpassed understanding of states’ rights, a concept he personally crafted. Adams signed into law what could be considered the first Massachusetts insurance mandate: a program requiring residents of each town in the state to create pools of funds to be dispensed for the care of any resident of the town who should happen to fall into pauper status.
Actually the healthcare issue becomes an advantage when you dig into it.
http://www.patheos.com/Resourc.....-2011.html
Controse| 1.9.12 @ 1:48AM
I can't for the life of me understand why Romney's opponents don't make this their one and only anti-Romney issue. Just harp on it every time Romeny's name comes up. ObamaCare, child of RomneyCare, must be totally repealed and soon. Since Romney refuses to repudiate RomneyCare he should convince us all he is not serious about becoming President.
wodiej| 1.9.12 @ 5:41AM
The saddest part of all of this is that there even has to be a debate over Romney being the best choice. He obviously isn't. He's nothing more than a blueblood in a suit. I'll take Gingrich and his trips down many rocky roads which he has survived well over Romney any day of the week.
sweeterjan| 5.29.12 @ 2:02AM
. In this environment, Santorum's doubling down on religious and cultural issues may actually be a quite shrewd strategy. Leaving Romney to contend for moderate votes with Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman -- who has staked his entire campaign on New Hampshire -- and leaving the libertarians to Texas Rep. Ron Paul, Santorum seems prepared to maximize his appeal to social and religious http://www.vendreshox.com/nike-shox-r2-c-7.html conservatives. And if such conservatives are less numerous here than in Iowa, their percentage of the GOP primary electorate is probably greater than Santorum's current poll standing in the Granite State.