The American Spectator : Mitt Romney's Chance for Glory

Text Size

Political Hay

Mitt Romney's Chance for Glory

By Burton Folsom, Jr. & Anita Folsom on 1.20.12 @ 6:08AM

It's imperative that he continue avoid committing his father's mistake.

Let's set the stage for a story about Governor Romney, the candidate for president. The Gallup poll showed him in the lead to win the Republican nomination. Another poll showed him beating the incumbent Democratic president by eight percent. Then, before the New Hampshire primary, Governor Romney made a slip of the tongue, an off-the-cuff statement. Some of his conservative critics pounced on him. The media repeated the "gaffe" endlessly. And Governor Romney lost the Republican nomination.

That's right Governor Romney lost the Republican nomination, and the presidency -- to Richard Nixon. That's Governor George Romney, the governor of Michigan, the father of Mitt, and the front-runner for the Republican nomination in 1968. The Gallup poll and Harris poll had him beating Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. Then, in 1967, George Romney explained his increasing opposition to the Vietnam War: "When I came back from Vietnam, I'd had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get." Brainwashing? As Rep. Robert Stafford (R-Vt.) said, "If you're running for the presidency, you are supposed to have too much on the ball to be brainwashed." Romney looked weak and flustered. The press played up Romney's naïveté, and Nixon soared in the polls. Romney, far behind, dropped out of the Republican race.

Mitt Romney has often followed in his father's footsteps. Just as George Romney was the president of a business (American Motors) before launching his run for governor of Michigan, Mitt was president of Bain Capital before running for governor of Massachusetts. George Romney was held in contempt by Republican conservatives because he refused to seriously back Barry Goldwater for president in 1964. Mitt Romney, in a similar vein, supported socialized healthcare in Massachusetts and has earned conservative ire ever since.

But Mitt has explained away his healthcare plan with finesse, and has even promised to dismantle Obamacare if he is elected president. What's now in focus is his off-the-cuff statement that he likes to fire people. In context, Mitt was describing how he likes to have many health care providers because the competition gives him the choice of firing an inept provider. Romney said, "I like to be able to fire people who provide services to me." Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry have alleged such a statement is callous in a time of job insecurity. Perry, who is now out of the race, has called Bain Capital a "vulture capital" company that fired people and shipped jobs overseas to make money, not to improve America. The media has also been on the attack in the run-up to the South Carolina primary. Will such a "gaffe" sink the son as it did the father?

No, Mitt Romney can overcome his remarks, and even gain from them. Father George had no strong comeback from his "brainwashing" comment. He appeared ill-informed, and the more he talked about it, the worse it got. As for Mitt, the attacks on Bain give him the chance to make the case for capitalism in a way that makes it clear he is the one to rescue the U.S. from its current economic stagnation. At one level, he can say that firing President Obama, and his czars, and many bureaucrats as well, is the first step to recovery.

More than this, he can describe his actions at Bain. As a venture capitalist, he bought distressed companies, reorganized them, sometimes fired people, sometimes went overseas, and, as a last resort, shut some down. But he also transformed some companies, like Staples and Sports Authority, into spectacular successes. Overall, according to the Wall Street Journal, he more than doubled his investment from $1.1 billion to $2.5 billion on 77 deals. That turnaround is what the U.S. needs today.

What should Mitt do? Seize the initiative. Explain that expanding overseas usually means expanding at home. According to a 2004 study by Dartmouth economist Matthew Slaughter, for every job a multinational corporation expanded overseas, it added two at home. The rising tide floats all boats -- and we need a rising tide, not redistribution. As for firing people, that is sometimes essential in a successful capitalist economy. One hundred years ago, carriage makers had to be fired, or laid off, and many worked for Henry Ford making cars. Twenty years later, icemen had to be fired, so they and others could be reemployed making refrigerators. Button makers got the boot because others began making zippers. Cars, refrigerators, zippers, and much else that we value came into our lives because those making inferior products were fired to create more opportunity for the new and better. As Ross Kaminsky points out in "Creative Destruction, Properly Understood," the old jobs were gone forever, but the new jobs improved our nation and improved opportunities for living here. Sure, not all Americans win in venture capital businesses, but most do.

Will Mitt be like his father? If he is, President Obama will better be able to brainwash Americans about "predatory capitalism" and the need for higher taxes to redistribute wealth. But if Mitt takes charge and defends the system that made his family and his country great, he will in the process help make America great again.

About the Author

Burton Folsom, Jr. is professor of history at Hillsdale College and author of New Deal or Raw Deal? (Simon & Schuster, 2008). His new book, co-authored with Anita Folsom, is FDR Goes to War: How Expanded Executive Power, Spiraling National Debt, and Restricted Civil Liberties Shaped Wartime America (Simon & Schuster, 2011).

About the Author

Anita Folsom works at Hillsdale College and is co-author of FDR Goes to War: How Expanded Executive Power, Spiraling National Debt, and Restricted Civil Liberties Shaped Wartime America (Simon & Schuster, 2011).

Letter to the Editor View all comments (50) | Leave a comment

Clint| 1.20.12 @ 6:39AM

We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.

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 In South Carolina.

Jack in Wi.| 1.20.12 @ 7:05AM

Mitt, like his father and mother, is a liberal Republican. He can't change his spots, it is in his genes. His father was the most honest of the 2. He built up a small car company to compete against the big 3. He employed many thousands of wisconsinites and other Americans. He also was blunt and to the point. No one can say that about Mitt. He will say what it takes to get elected even if it means flip flopping from one day to the next.

Jim | 1.20.12 @ 1:20PM

Some of you are missing the point. Our ONLY aim should be to nominate whomever can beat Obama. No other issue even comes close. You can surmise that Romney will be too liberal in the White House, but you KNOW Obama is and will be. Don't let the perfect (which none of the Republican wannabes are) be the enemy of the good.

Alan Brooks| 1.20.12 @ 1:21PM

I remember when Romney used to spar against Reagan. Reagan came off better; but, then, which war did Reagan serve in? He was age thirty in 1941, he could have served in the Big One if he'd wanted to.

Crassus| 1.20.12 @ 5:46PM

Reagan served in the Army during WWII, dispstick. He was in the Army Air Corps but was disqualified from combat duty because of a punctured ear drum despite volunteering for it on at least three occasions.

Clint| 1.21.12 @ 3:17PM

" The New Hampshire Gazette

The Chickenhawk Hall Of Shame.

name:
Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich
rank:
Chickenhawk First Class with Distinguished Fleeing Cross
date-of-birth:
June 17, 1943
home state:
Georgia
missed opportunity:
Vietnam War
preferred activity:
Attending grad school
occupation:
Congressman

A virtuoso in the art of hypocrisy, the former Speaker of the House now claims the Vietnam War was a splendid idea, but at the time he opposed going himself. Newtie also speaks highly of morality, but as a serial adulterer he doesn't want to get too close."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is In South Carolina.

Clint| 1.21.12 @ 3:18PM

" The New Hampshire Gazette

The Chickenhawk Hall Of Shame

name:
Willard Mitt Romney
rank:
Chickenhawk First Class with Distinguished Fleeing Cross
date-of-birth:
March 12, 1947
home state:
Michigan
missed opportunity:
Vietnam War
excuse:
None to speak of
preferred activity:
Trying to talk people into becoming Mormons
occupation:
Climbing ambition's greased pole

When your daddy's a Governor and a Cabinet Secretary, it's amazing how your odds of being drafted diminish."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is In South Carolina.

Dick Nome| 1.22.12 @ 9:54AM

Alan, you are a JO. Ronald Reagan was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the Officers Reserve Corps of the Cavalry on May 25, 1937. Assigned Troop B, 322nd Cavalry at Des Moines, Iowa. Being over 30 he was not combat qualified. and he served in WWII 18th AAF Base Unit" in Culver City, California at the Request of Major General Carl Spaatz and produced over 400 Trianing films for the AAF. He was discharged with the rank of Major.

Lyneuss Fields| 1.20.12 @ 1:22PM

Let's get around to the real story here, which is the miscount that happened in Iowa's caucus. What's obvious now is that it was never inevitable Romney would win the Republican nomination. Since The Iowa Republican Party is responsible for their ballot box, they really should get their act together.

Dick Nome| 1.22.12 @ 10:10AM

Iowa wa a caucus and essentially a straw poll. No delegates were elected.

finkleman| 1.20.12 @ 7:28AM

Mitt is a phony-baloney and we all know it.
His daddy groomed him for this day, but we aren't fooled.

rhortus| 1.20.12 @ 7:46PM

His daddy- George- said he was "Brainwashed" by the general sin Viet Nam.

c.j. acworth| 1.20.12 @ 7:32AM

Romney doesn't need to avoid his father's mistakes, he has enough of hie own to worry about. But then, so does the rest of the bunch. (sigh)

Ivan Ivanovich| 1.20.12 @ 7:48AM

Boy, there are sure a lot of Obama trolls here. But anyway I liked George Romney and I like Mitt. I couldn't understand that brainwashing slam agaist George when it happened. Haven't we all been brainwashed at one time or another. Some are and never even realize it. Proof 97% of blacks voting for Obama.

florin| 1.20.12 @ 9:37AM

Strange isn't it - conservatives dislike Romney because he is rich and perhaps because he is a Mormon? Yet they slobber over gingrich who is a narcissistic smooth talker, adulter...here the difference between the two. When Romney's wife was diagnosed with a serious illness, Romney held her and comforted her and promised his love and support through it all - as opposed to gingrich who dumped his wives, had mistresses and one night stands (even in his car in his driveway with people coming and going) - gingrich claims credit for anything good and blames others if something doesn't work out. He has the symptoms of a bi-polar personality...he is totally and completely self-absorbed, claiming that rules are made for little people, so he didn't bother to follow the rules in Virginia to get on the ballot and whined when they would not let him bypass the rules - Virginia didn't realize that gingrich is a magnificent person and rules don't apply to him...gingrich is no conservative...gingrich is a 'gingrichive' - he has no core principles except to himself and to his desires...what other person running for president was made to sign a 'morality pledge' saying he wouldn't commit adultery any more? gingrich will always be a progressive and will always show more deference towards dems./liberals...watch his face when he blasted Paul Ryan's budget proposal as right wing social engineering, as bad as left wing social engineering...total disdain/contempt...he is a dangerout man...and I hope the persona he has created for himself is broken through so people can see him for what he is - before it's too late.

Al Adab| 1.20.12 @ 10:41AM

florin:
It is neither his wealth nor his sect which Conservatives find unapetizing about Mitt. It is rather simply the fact that he represents the accomodationist GOP,an activist wing than adheres to government programs and government intrusion even in the face of the basic Conservative tenaent of making government smaller, not simply managing it better.

Gingrinch issues are well known and he too takes an activist position on many issues even while approaching them from a Conservative perspective. Where is the candidate who eschews government activism and intends to downsize even at the cost of popularity? SC and FL are critical to electoral success (and electoral votes) in November. Without those electoral votes and the ones of VA and Ohio, no GOP nominee will prevail. The person who can carry those states is the perason we must find, flawed or not.

JimH| 1.20.12 @ 8:36AM

His father's mistake? I though you meant the Gremlin. Though I guess that came out after he left AMC.

sjccoach| 1.20.12 @ 8:49AM

Another set of CINOs for Romney. Romney has never explained away his healthcare plan with finesse. He has bragged about it as an accomplishment. It is the forerunner of Obamacare. Romney is Obama lite. If nominated he will lose to the real Obama in a landslide. He is a bigger RINO than McCain and he will be a bigger loser than McCain in the general election.

Dai Alanye| 1.20.12 @ 10:36AM

"Mitt has explained away his healthcare plan with finesse..."

I suppose that is true if one considers it *finesse* to repeat the mantra, "Romneycare good, Obamacare bad," followed by, "States good, Federals bad."

I'm also curious about the claim of Mitt's having transformed Staples. Was Bain Capital the only investor in Staples? What portion of Staples' capital resources was supplied by Bain? If less than 100%, who else is able to claim credit, and to what degree?

After all, we know that Mitt exaggerates just a teensy bit.

Harry the Horrible| 1.20.12 @ 11:48AM

If ALL I knew about Romney was his business expertise and his Mormonism, I'd have no problems voting for him.

But, between RomneyCare, and host of other liberal actions in the People's Democratic Republic of Massachusetts, his business achievements are irrelevant. We KNOW how he'll govern.

Heck, the fact that he got elected governor of the "Bluest" state in the Union is enough to cause me to vote for someone else.

bill| 1.20.12 @ 9:28AM

Mitt Romney will lose to Newt Gingrich. History sometimes repeats.

Mike Constition| 1.20.12 @ 9:30AM

If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you were not racist (as so many of you did), you must vote for anyone else in 2012 to prove you are not a total idiot.

Dai Alanye| 1.20.12 @ 10:37AM

The Republicans who voted for Obama last time are mostly voting for RonPaul this time. It's a fact.

Jim | 1.20.12 @ 1:23PM

Of course. They're both loons, and I guess some like that in a president.

Mike Constition| 1.20.12 @ 9:31AM

And Romney will do just fine.

Al Adab| 1.20.12 @ 10:15AM

Mitt continues to make the same mistake his father did. George and Nelson Rockefeller opposed the Conservative movement as it began. I have seem nothing from Mitt to indicate that his policies are any different from the wing of the GOP his father represented. To even attempt to define Mitt as a conservative belies his entire career.

W| 1.20.12 @ 1:12PM

Al Adab
It appears a choice between Mitt, Newt , or Rick.

Rick has consistent social conservative beliefs on marriage and abortion, but he believes in using government like GWB. He supported McCainFeingold, the No Child Left Behind Education Law, the Prescriptions Drug bill, and most of the expansion of government under Bush.
Newt has great ideas, led 94 win of the House, accomplished much as the Speaker, but missed a great opportunity to do more by his foolish mistakes leading to his ouster and fine. He is the best speaker and debater.

Mitt has moved from pro choice to pro life, as did Reagan and Bush 41. He is the best executive of the three and would do the best job on the economy and budget. He needs a conservative VP. But he is not a movement conservative like Goldwater or Reagan, but who is.

We have three candidates, each with strengths and weaknesses, but no clear cut all around conservative. All three would be the same on foreign policy and the war on terrorrism. All three will attempt to reduce taxes and the deficit because we have no choice but to do it.
Any of the three is a major improvement on Obama.

Pats over Ravens. Giants over Niners.

Al Adab| 1.20.12 @ 2:57PM

Well W:
It looks like your analysis is pretty spot on. Even I have to admit than any of the three are preferable to Obie-one. It is the tendency toward activist governing that concerns me although again, any of them would be less inclined than the current President.

What so manmy of us seek is truly the person who would dedicate his adminstration to "reducing the size" of government and ending federal intrusion into both the States affairs and the Peoples' lives. That person would be a movement Conservative. There are many in Congress and around the country who are such, but do we have enough time remaining in the life of this nation for them to emerge?

I was sorta hoping for Ravens because of Michael Oehr so we'll see how it goes. I have no dog in the fight as I remain housed safely away from professional football.

W| 1.20.12 @ 4:08PM

Al Adab
We need to elect conservatives to Congress who will cut taxes because that is the only way to reduce government intrusion in our lives. We have to cut taxes so that there isn't the money there to spend.

We don't need anymore compassionate conservatives or conservatives who want government to push their social agendas.

The Tea Party is a good start, and we need more like that. I don't think one man as president is the answer although it would be great to have BarryG or Reagan. I am optimistic because we have no other choice.

If Ron Paul was smarter and had a rational foreign policy he would have done much better with his domestic agenda to cut spending and taxes. Instead he talks about that the world hates us because we bomb all the countries as if we just do that for no reason.
I hate Baltimore because they are now the Steelers' top rival.

W| 1.20.12 @ 4:43PM

P.S. The GOP has not Tom Brady, or Bradshaw, or Montana, or Saubach running. So we need a team effort..

Al Adab| 1.20.12 @ 5:23PM

W:
Your PS is exactly right. Who should be Team Captain? Congress (and court appointments) are of course the real issue. The proper Congress would get the proper legislation passed and a GOP Pres WOULD sign them. Mostly it is a matter of repeal not new activist programs or compromises with the enemy.

I'll check the scores and we'll talk Monday.

Doug| 1.20.12 @ 10:39AM

No, we don't need Mitt to apply his "venture capital" skills to the US. What is he going to do? Re-organize the worse divisions (states)? Break up the Union and sell of underperforming assets (Sorry, Chicago you are not pulling your weight)? Maybe he will lay off some directors (congressmen) and appoint new ones?

Mitt's skills and weaknesses are not what America needs. America needs a strong spokesman for smaller govt, less spending and reforming entitlements. Based on experience Gingrich far outshines Mitt in these areas.

Crassus| 1.20.12 @ 11:15AM

More and more, I believe it's all a set-up. The Republican establishment is throwing the race to Obummer by offering up lightweight Mittenz Romney. They're willing to concede two terms to this Marxist scumbag in order to run Jeb Bush in 2016. RuPaul is the nuclear option. If the polls show Mittenz ahead of the Bummer then Paul will run as a third party candidate in order to assure the Bummer a second term.

Pete| 1.20.12 @ 11:34AM

I remember George Romney and his hatred for Goldwater. And what ever happened to American Motors?

Dick Nome| 1.22.12 @ 9:34AM

AMC was absorbed by Chrysler.

Stefan Stackhouse| 1.20.12 @ 11:59AM

I never did understand that "brainwashing" thing. The truth is, if you were buying the line that the LBJ administration and their media cheerleaders were pushing up through 1967, you were indeed being brainwashed. George Romney was just telling it like it actually was.

If we had just provided assistance to S. Vietnam but did not attempt to fight their war for them, we would have a much different view of that entire history today.

One does wonder how different things might have been if it had been George Romney rather than Richard Nixon who won in 68. No Watergate. Probably something like "Vietnamization" on a seriously speeded up timetable, and maybe not the later bombing campaigns. But maybe not an opening to China, either.

Crassus| 1.20.12 @ 5:53PM

Definitely no Watergate either but Romney might have been a one-termer because the Dems would have put up a much stronger candidate than McGovern in 1972. Gerald Ford never would have made it out of the House and Jimmy Carter would have remained an unknown Southern governor. Let's say that Hubert Humphrey was the Dem nominee in '72 instead of McGovern and defeated Romney whose administration was steady but unspectacular. Humphrey, dying of cancer, steps down in '76 after one term leaving Ted Kennedy to takeover the reins of the Democratic Party. He faces Ronald Reagan in the general election in a clash of the titans.

RJ| 1.20.12 @ 1:09PM

It looks like the Costa Romney is taking in a lot of water during its inevitability cruise. Romney just is not good at defending himself and hasn't been able to demonstrate conviction on important issues.

alphadoc| 1.20.12 @ 1:55PM

The reason for the mistrust of Romney's evasiveness on the wealth question is the gut-level suspicion conservatives have that this man for all his good qualities is an elitist, privileged person who gained his vast wealth through his advantaged background and that this is consistent with how he governed, as an elite who knows what is best for other people. Thus he appears to be the perfect oligarch and not to be trusted.

He is afraid of this perception on the part of the voters and has no way to defend from it because it is true.

Although private equity clearly plays an important role in the economy it does not follow that Mr Romney some example of virtuous capitalism that benefits everyman. I know many colleagues from the Ivy league privileged world and they did not go from Dartmouth or Princeton or Harvard to the massively-lucrative venture capital firms or to I-banking positions on their own talents alone but gained access to opportunities that are that are closed to talented others. The current nexus of big money players and our corruption in government is hotly resented by voters on both sides of the spectrum and Mr Romney is too tight with the players to be trustworthy.
I, for one, as as member of the professional 1% in this country who works and who pays nearly 50% of my income in taxes would trust him a hell of a lot more if he could embrace a tax reform plan to lighten the load on us working stiffs from the wage slavery we endure while he skates by with 15%.

Cpm| 1.20.12 @ 3:21PM

Mitt's "advantaged background" amounts to one generation, because his father, the aforementioned George Romney came from poverty and built his fortune.

David| 1.20.12 @ 4:39PM

Santorum is our best hope. He simply does not have the baggage that Gingrich does and he has a thorough command of the issues. So, here are his positives again.

Hey folks, this is information on Santorum from RedState. It was published on January 6, 2012.

I keep telling everyone to get behind Santorum now - support him with five bucks. Forget Perry and Huntsman and Gingrich and Paul. Santorum can win - and win as a conservative.

The following is From RedState.

Here are his ratings from when he was in Congress:

American Conservative Union — 88%
National Right to Life Committee — 100%
Americans for Tax Reform — 95%
National Tax Limitation Committee — 92%
U.S. Chamber of Commerce — 88%
League of Private Property Voters — 94%

Now remember, this is Santorum’s House ratings, in a DEMOCRAT district. How many Republicans in Democrat areas vote this conservative? Kirk? Snowe? That’s conviction! Santorum is NOT a ‘big government conservative’ but an across-the-board mainstream conservative with a solidly conservative voting record, albeit marred with the support for earmarks and some spending bills that many Republicans in Bush eara fell prey to.

Yet another source that looks at Santorum’s record is Jen Rubin, who likewise absolves Santorum of the phony claim that he is a big-government conservative:

“While in Iowa, Texas Gov. Rick Perry tried to begin a line of attack on Rick Santorum claiming that the former Pennsylvania senator is a big-government conservative. That attack seems poorly thought through (shocking, I know from such a meticulous campaign) for several reasons.

First, Santorum is to the right of Perry in some important ways. Santorum opposed the Troubled Assets Relief Program; Perry wrote a letter on the day of the Senate vote urging Congress to pass legislation to avert a meltdown. Santorum, as we saw in the debates, is likewise to the right of Perry (and Newt Gingrich, for that matter) on immigration.

Indeed, Santorum’s supposed deviations from conservative orthodoxy are similar those of his rivals. He voted for earmarks and highway funds. Gov. Perry took the money. Santorum voted for Medicare Part D; Gingrich lobbied for it, and Perry said in a debate that he wouldn’t repeal it.”

“And finally, Santorum has put together an aggressive spending reduction plan. He’s for the balanced-budget amendment. He’s embraced Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform plan. He’s in favor of Social Security reform, against energy subsidies, for privatizing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and in favor of repealing Obamacare. The guy is no liberal when it comes to spending taxpayer money. Is he to the right of Gingrich? Yes. To the left of Ron Paul? Yes. But so are most GOP voters.”

Where Santorum deviated from the conservative line, like his vote on NAFTA and his support for earmarks, he was doing the exceptional thing, and those deviations were in most cases catering to his constituents. But UNLIKE most Northeast Republicans, that ‘catering’ did not extend to abandoning conservative principles again and again. They’ve been the exception to the rule that Congressman and Senator Rick Santorum held. With his support for lower taxes, prolife and profamily policies, conservative Judges, for balanced budgets and entitlement reform, against McCain-Feingold, for school choice, against TARP and Frank-Dodd. Rick Santorum has had a solid and mostly consistent conservative voting record.

Santorum further has a solid and conservative agenda for President. Romney timidly talks of getting spending maybe down to 20% of GDP. Rick Santorum fully supports the Republican balanced budget amendment that caps spending at 18% of GDP. He wants lower tax rates for all, going to a 10%/28% two tier tax rate and lowering corporate tax rates.

While Gingrich criticized the Ryan roadmap, Santorum embraced it. Newt supported Medicare Part D, supported at one time healthcare mandates, and supported all the Bush programs that conservatives object to in Santorum’s voting record. Romney has gone further of course, embracing not just TARP, but healthcare mandates and failing to even fully criticize the Obama stimulus spending. Only Gingrich or Santorum will wage a campaign that fully challenges Obama’s whole agenda and actually works to repeal it. Newt has pegged Mitt Romney rightly as a Massachusetts moderate, but Newt is not without flys in his ointment either, from global warming to embracing Hillary, Pelosi and Al Sharpton (!) at various times in attempts to ‘reach across’ bipartisanly.

The bottom line is that between Newt, Santorum, and Romney .. Santorum is the one who is most fiscally conservative and who will have the most fiscally conservative administration as President.

Both Newt and Santorum are conservative. Just not perfect conservatives. For those who say that Santorum is not a ‘true conservative’, I would argue simply that if an 85% ACU rating and leadership on conservative issues in Congress for almost 2 decades is not enough, you will NEVER find a ‘true conservative’ in the Presidential field.

For the rest of us without that fine a filter, yes, Rick Santorum is a ‘true conservative’. Conservatives will be happy with his SCOTUS picks, his support of our military, his support for life, his tax reform and entitlement reforms, his pro-energy policies, his economic growth agenda, his fiscally responsible budgets, and his appeal to get America working again.

rhortus| 1.20.12 @ 8:17PM

I'd support a balanced budget amendment If and only IF we repeal the 16th amendment and replace it with a national retail sales tax.

POST American| 1.20.12 @ 9:36PM

---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------

"Notice, once again, as the campaign
approaches, the REAL issues 'disappear'."

And with the unchallenged passage of the
unspeakably UN-American, US Constitution
overturning NDAA2012 ----you too may soon
be 'disappearing'.

------------------------WISE UP!-------------------------

--------------------------FAST!----------------------------

POST American| 1.20.12 @ 11:01PM

--------------------KEY INFO P.S.----------------------

One and all ----DO CHECK OUT!

'The Internet Wars Have Begun'
Infowars
(latest video)

-----Devastating

-----------------------ESSENTIAL----------------------

Salt Lake Ken| 1.20.12 @ 11:02PM

I have been a fervent supporter of Romney's up to this week. This Cayman Island story even to financial novices smells like a rat. It doesn't matter what reality is at this point, the perception-Cayman Islands/Tax dodge-automatically. Romney's evasive answers on this issue and his tax returns have been sickening. The amount he has in these banks grows by the hour. Blind Trust-does anybody really believe that? The story from Romney's camp keeps changing by the hour therefore it is time for Mitt Romney to drop out of this race and full audit done on his finances. I can't say stupidity but maybe chutzpah but in reality arrogance something he inherited from his father. Though this has nothing to do with his religion other than donations from Bain this will bring on a backlash against Mormons and as a citizen of Salt Lake City and a member of Romney's church this worries me.

Dick Nome| 1.22.12 @ 9:30AM

You are full of crap. If you knew anything about taxes, capital gains are taxed at 15%. Why should Romney apologizefor that. Democrats in congress get rich by insider trading and a tax rate of 15%. Earned income is another thing entirely. Ask Senator Lurch of Massachussetts.

rhortus| 1.22.12 @ 10:36AM

Anyone calling for an audit of Romeny's tax returns on this issue is either an idiot or thinks that the government should tax everyone with impunity. Are we all tax-slaves now?

Martin Owens| 1.21.12 @ 7:31PM

Ayn Rand, in her later writings, characterized the elder Romney: bamboozled, out- maneuvered, ambushed and manipulated by the LBJ machine : as " a soft shelled thing". As in terms of pitying something that just didn't have the backbone for the fight ahead.

Like father like son.

POST American| 1.22.12 @ 11:34PM

-----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE-------------------

--Unaccountable capstone USURY

-----Globalist TREASON

--------FULL spectrum police state surveillance

---------------BOTTOMLESS EUGENICS

And 'SUB-Mitt' 'ROME---knee'
like 'New 'IT' 'Getting-RICH'
----------------------------------is of them.

-----------------MAKE NO MISTAKE------------------

hwebb| 1.29.12 @ 12:51AM

Wow. There's nothing you people wont do to try and shove this liberal republican down our throats. You really want me to forget that it was Romney who authored Government forced Healthcare on the people of his state and continues to defend it while you call Newt Bill Clinton?????? Are you on crack? I think I'll take my chances with the candidate that actually governed as a conservative, not the one, as he called himself back in 2002, a PROGRESSIVE. I mean my god man. He actually said "I wasn't with Reagan Bush, I was an independent at the time of Reagan, Bush" WAKE UP MAN!!