The American Spectator : Romney Explains Why He Can't Beat Obama

Text Size

Political Hay

Romney Explains Why He Can’t Beat Obama

By David Catron on 1.30.12 @ 6:08AM

“It’s not worth getting angry about.”

Most media coverage of last Thursday’s GOP debate has focused on the war of words fought by the two front runners, but the crucial exchange of the evening didn’t occur between Gingrich and Romney. The most telling moment of the debate was the latter’s response to Rick Santorum’s eloquent explanation of Obamacare’s importance to the GOP’s strategy in the general election and why giving Romney the nomination would be tantamount to surrendering the high ground on health reform: “Folks, we can’t give this issue away in this election. It is about fundamental freedom.” The former Massachusetts governor responded with the usual rote talking points, which Santorum vehemently rejected. Romney then uttered the most revealing words of the debate: “First of all, it’s not worth getting angry about.”

Most Republican voters, and more than a few independents, would disagree. Romney apparently didn’t notice that the hundreds of thousands of people who showed up at the nation’s capitol to protest the impending passage of Obamacare were pretty angry. In fact, after the law was passed over their vehement objections, a significant portion of the voters were so outraged by the back-room skullduggery used to pass “reform” that many Democrats were actually afraid to hold town hall meetings and face their own constituents during the run-up to the 2010 midterms. Moreover, despite the many whoppers told by the President’s accomplices in the media about the “anti-incumbent mood” of the electorate, the drubbing the Democrats received in that election was obviously driven by voter indignation about being force-fed Obamacare.

And the anger remains. That is why Obama’s recent State of the Union address contained only three references to his “signature domestic achievement.” This is, as Michael Barone puts it, “the strongest evidence possible” that the President sees Obamacare as “a millstone around the neck of his campaign.” Thus, he and his minions will not have missed the significance of Romney’s prissy rebuke of Santorum’s passionate plea not to “give this issue away.” They no doubt recognized it as a Freudian slip betraying Romney as a man without real convictions, and realize that this is the source of his countless flip-flops. In the art of politics, as in the art of war, the key to victory is knowledge of one’s enemy. Having cut their political teeth in Chicago, the President’s men know a trimmer when they see one and what it takes to defeat him.

The only real difference between Romney and Obama’s long-ago-vanquished opponents is that the Chi-town pols were less amateurish. Romney’s reversals of position have been so frequent and transparently self-serving that a moderately intelligent preschooler could see through them. Health reform is Exhibit A. When running against Ted Kennedy for the Senate in 1994, Romney represented himself as the champion of a free market health system: “I do not believe in a government takeover of the healthcare system.” After becoming Governor of Massachusetts, however, his position changed so radically that he signed a health reform law that later became the model for Obamacare. Now, he claims to oppose Obama’s version of the plan, though the two laws are identical in all important respects.

Romney would also have us believe that he will repeal Obamacare in its entirety. He has made this claim in virtually every Republican debate. During his exchange with Santorum on Thursday, for example, he phrased it thus: “It’s bad medicine, it’s bad for the economy, and I will repeal it.” Predictably, this differs from what he said immediately after the law was passed: “I hope we’re ultimately able to… repeal the bad and keep the good.” It also conflicts with what his people are saying even now. During a recent interview one of Romney’s most important advisors said, “We’re not going to do repeal… but you will see major changes… You can’t whole-cloth throw it out. But you can substantially change what’s been done.” This is no more than the President and the Democrats themselves have promised.

Romney’s affinity with Democrat positions has not been limited to health reform, of course. He has, for example, often agreed with them on Second Amendment rights. While running for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002 he repeatedly stated that he supported that state’s tough gun laws. And, in 2004, he famously signed into law a ban on so-called assault weapons and even certain types of shotguns. By the time he had begun his first presidential campaign, however, his views had “evolved.” In a 2007 speech to the NRA, he declared, “I support the Second Amendment as one of the most basic and fundamental rights of every American.” During his current bid for the presidency, Romney has dodged gun control questions in the debates and his campaign website offers no hint as to his position du jour.

Perhaps the most egregious of Romney’s one-eighties have involved abortion. He has changed his position on that issue at least three times. During the 1994 Senate race against Kennedy he said, “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.” In 2001, however, he published a letter in The Salt Lake Tribune in which he wrote, “I do not wish to be labeled prochoice.” If the “evolution” had stopped there, many would accept what could well have been a genuine change of heart. But when he ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002 he declared, “I will protect the right of a woman to choose under the law of the country and the laws of the Commonwealth.” Now, for purposes of his current presidential campaign, he’s again “pro-life.” How he avoids vertigo while executing so many pirouettes is anyone’s guess.

Presumably, Romney would admonish us that his about-faces are “not worth getting angry about.” That may be the one thing he really believes. What he and his supporters in the GOP establishment don’t get, however, is that real voters take these things very seriously. Those who vote based on abortion and gun rights are justifiably angered by politicians who make promises about which they forget the day after being elected. When Rick Santorum’s tone during last Thursday’s debate betrayed annoyance at Romney’s health care contortions, it was because he actually cares about the threat to basic liberty presented by Obamacare. It’s not an easy thing for a man of genuine principle to tolerate an opportunist like Romney, who obviously sees the issue as just another lever that he can use to hoist himself into public office.

It will, however, be very easy for Obama and his creatures to exploit Romney’s flip-flops in the general election. They will make sure the voters understand that these reversals reveal Romney as just another unprincipled politician willing to say anything to win the election. That the President himself is cut of the same cloth won’t matter. The reporters and bloggers whose job it is to point that out will be dutifully reciting White House talking points. One wonders if, after his resultant loss in November, Romney will find this “worth getting angry about.”

About the Author

David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and consulting with hospitals and medical practices. He has an MBA from the University of Georgia and blogs at Health Care BS.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (220) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.30.12 @ 6:19AM

It was an interesting moment in the debate and Romney explained it well. His naysayers will never accept any explanation.

What was more interesting is that no one has ever bought up Santorum's top down management style with big government, big pork but most of all "Ta Da" federal health care.

If anyone has the experience to speak about federal health care it's Santorum.

This incident show you how weak some in the press are due to lack or research, or others because many in the media dread a showdown between a complete anti-American charlatan like Obama compared to someone who understands America like Romney.

Further, when Romneycare passed, many organizations including Heritage (Who now disavows it) and politicians (Like Gingrich who now disavows it), were all on board.

There are many valid differences between Obamacare and Romneycare. The most glaring is that Romneycare actually made for the proliferation of private health care. Obamacare will destroy it and quickly, ironically killing of Romneycare in the process.

Here's Santorum's voting record, so easy to discover:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/201.....-santorum/
NEA

Voted for taxpayer funding of the National Endowment for the Arts.
Voted against a 10% cut in the budget for National Endowment for the Arts.

Defense and Foreign Policy

Voted to require that Federal bureaucrats get the same payraises as uniformed military.
Voted against requiring Congressional authorization for military action in Bosnia.
Voted to give $25 million in foreign aid to North Korea

Nominations
Voted for Richard Paez to the 9th Curcuit (cloture)
Voted for Sonia Sotomayor, Circuit Judge
Voted for Richard Holbrooke to be Ambassador to the UN

Labor
Voted against National Right to Work Act
Voted against Real of Davis-Bacon Prevailing union wages
Voted for Alexis Herman to be Secretary of Labor
Voted for mandatory Federal child care funding
Voted twice in support of Fedex Unionization
Voted against allowing a waiver of Davis-Bacon in emergency situations.
Voted for minimum wage increases six times here here here here here and here

Guns

Voted to require pawn shops to do background checks on people who pawn a gun.
Voted twice to make it illegal to sell a gun without a secure storage or safety device
Voted for a Federal ban on possession of “assault weapons” by those under 18.
Voted for Federal funding for anti-gun education programs in schools.
Voted for anti-gun juvenile justice bill.

Reform

Voted for funding for the legal services corporation.
Voted twice for a Congressional payraise.
Voted for the Specter “backup plan” to allow campaign finance reform to survive if portions of the bill were found unconstitutional.

Immigration

Voted against increasing the number of immigration investigators
Voted to allow illegal immigrants to receive the earned income credit before becoming citizens
Voted to give SSI benefits to legal aliens.
Voted to give welfare benefits to naturalized citizens without regard to to the earnings of their sponsors.
Voted against hiring an additional 1,000 border partrol agents, paid for by reductions in state grants.

Taxes
Voted against a flat tax.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for Medicare prescription drugs
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to fund health insurance subsidies for small businesses.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an $8 billion increase in child healh insurance.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an increase in NIH funding.
Voted twice for internet taxes.

Welfare
Voted against food stamp reform
Voted against Medicaid reform
Voted against TANF reform
Voted to increase the Social Services Block Grant from $1 billion to $2 billion
Voted to increase the FHA loan from $170,000 to $197,000. Also opposed increasing GNMA guaranty from 6 basis points to 12.
Voted for $2 billion for low income heating assistance.

Jack in Wi.| 1.30.12 @ 6:49AM

Romneycare, Newtcare, and Obamacare are all about indivigual mandates. I think it is possible that Romney will beat Obama, based on how the economy is doing, but Obama has to be the favorite. He is going to running as the peace candidate who is bringing the troops home from Afganistan, has ended the Iraq war, and got Osama Bin Laden. How is Mitt going to counter that? He also will destroy Mitt on all his flip flops. Mitt and Barack are more of the same, more loss of civil liberties, more big goverment, more bailouts for their favorites, more bankruptcy for the rest of us. Neither one will cut the overseas empire to any extent or any other program. Ron Paul is the only one to have seen these disasters coming for decades and has offered a real program for Peace, Prosperity and Liberty.

PCC| 1.30.12 @ 8:04AM

Except in times of war, the re-election of a president is about one thing only: the economy.

If unemployment in October 2012 is below 8%, or is at least trending down decisively, Obama will win.

Everything else, most especially gun control, abortion, flag burning, prayer in schools, etc., etc., is just a bunch of hot air.

Nixon was obsessed that LBJ would pull a peace rabbit out of his hat in 1968 to deny Nixon victory (and so he used Anne Chennault to scuttle secretly the Paris Peace Conference).

The GOP should likewise beware of a "wag the dog" scenario being concocted by Obama to start a drone war in Iran, Somalia or some other theatre to rally the electorate around the flag come election day.

Purp| 1.30.12 @ 8:59AM

Lest anyone forget - we are STILL at war - or don't we care anymore?

Teaghan| 1.30.12 @ 9:09AM

No Purp, we haven't forgotten but this prez likes to start secondary wars "for democracy".
And he is just the kind that would do a "wag the dog" to retain power.

MikeG| 1.30.12 @ 7:44PM

We are not at war. Obama ended all the wars and closed Gitmo.

old white guy| 1.30.12 @ 9:49AM

unemployment U6 is over 16%. i wish people understood this. not 8% double 8%.

WalkingHorse | 1.30.12 @ 12:48PM

shadowstats.com estimates the actual unemployment rate at something north of 20%. If one were to employ the inflation rate estimation used c. 1980, the inflation rate estimator at the same site is above 10%.

Rivenburg| 2.2.12 @ 4:20PM

A, are we to believe the unemployemnt numbers currently out?
I dont, and you shouldnt.

B, what war are we in?
NAME IT.

C, we're SO screwed this election is a joke. With GOP pushing romeny, we are looking at another GOP toss of the towel into the ring. Florida is PACKED with liberals voting in the republican primaries not to mention TWICE once in NY or NJ and once in FL.
LIBERALS ALWAYS PICK THE GOP RUNNER THESE DAYS.
The GOP rank & file HATE romney.

coal carrier| 1.30.12 @ 7:03AM

What you have cited in your post is exactly why I will not vote for Santorum. And what the article has cited about Romney is why I will not vote for him. Both of these guys are consummate politicians who will say and do anything to get elected. If either of these two phonies is nominated, Obama will be a shoe-in.

In my humble opinion.

Appleby| 1.30.12 @ 7:15AM

Shoo-in. Not shoe-in.

It begins to look more and more as if the only chance America has is a major revolution before the Republican Convention.

coal carrier| 1.30.12 @ 7:39AM

Thank you for the literary critique.

SouthernGent | 1.30.12 @ 4:32PM

Why do people always, always respond like this when corrected? It's either right, or it's wrong. I would assume you would prefer to be right. But I could be assuming too much.

Occam's Tool| 1.30.12 @ 5:27PM

Correct away on me, Appleby. I'm always willing to learn something.

Mark in MD| 1.30.12 @ 8:44AM

Simply stated, coal carrier is an idiot. If his guy is not the nimniee he will not vote thereby giving Obama the victory. And then he will 'blame' someone else for the state of our country just like a democRAT. Grow up idiot. Your guy might not win the nomination and my guy might not win the nomination. So what. If Charles Manson was the republican nominee, I'm voting for him. And that is all that matters this time around.

Purp| 1.30.12 @ 9:00AM

the reason Obama will win is because the Republicant.

Teaghan| 1.30.12 @ 9:13AM

Absolutely Mark! My silly daughter, 32, says if Newt is the nominee, she will throw her vote away on a write in because Newt is a cheater. Her liberal feminist college teachings won't let her do otherwise.

Shock Nagasaki| 1.30.12 @ 11:28PM

"her liberal feminist college teachings"...I highly doubt she'd be voting for any GOP candidate with that background.

scotchieguy| 1.30.12 @ 9:55AM

Calling people "idiots" doesn't make your point any stronger. It just makes you sound petty.

Mark in MD| 1.30.12 @ 10:55AM

Petty or angry, I don't care. This is too important of an election to sit this one out. Full disclosure: I voted for Romney in the 2008 primaries(was living in FL at the time) and obviously he didn't win the nomination. I am an adult and I recognize that I don't always get what I want so I did the responsible thing and voted McCain. Was McCain the staunch conservative we all want? No. But I voted McCain anyway. I didn't pout and sit home because my guy didn't win. If you are going to sit out this time because your guy didn't win, especially with what we know now and where we are headed, than I'm sorry but you are either immature or simply an idiot. No other way to say it.

Kyle| 1.30.12 @ 2:09PM

We're the childish ones for not wanting to vote for two retread Republicans like Gingrich and Romney? I started voting in 2000 and was raised as a Republican. Our votes over the last 20 years have been very destructive to the party. I.e. George Bush and McCain. The party does not mean anything when the leadership in both are part of the same class of political patricians conservatives supposedly oppose. I'd rather Obama as we know how to corral him as opposed to Romney or Gingrich which if the past several administrations have been an example, a moderately R will either lose or if he wins betray the conservatives and accelerate Obama's Bush policies under the guise of compromise. Glittering prizes and endless compromises shadow the illusion of integrity. Thanks Geddy Lee. Ron Paul 2012

Occam's Tool| 1.30.12 @ 5:30PM

No, Kyle:

"But glittering prizes and endless compromises
Shatter the illusion of integrity."

That's the actual version of the Rush song. Your version makes no sense, like Ron Paul's views on Iran getting the bomb.

Atreidies| 1.31.12 @ 10:31AM

Are we supposed to invade EVERY nation with a bomb? Or every nation that might get one? What happens if we are no longer the super power, and the current super power decides WE shouldn't have nukes? Have you actually thought your policy through? Can we afford ANOTHER war in the Middle East? Is going to Iran even really about nukes? Google "trans afghanistan pipeline" and "iran india pipeline". Once again, we are being duped, and dopes like you are hook, line, and sinker.

Ralph | 2.16.12 @ 1:23PM

When you started to vote in 2000, what do you mean that you were raised as a Repulican? By that I am asking you (since you started to vote in 2000). Could you not figure out who to vote on your own? By listening to the positiions by both parties and what they stand for? Instead of just taking the word (of your parents on the issues)? That is why our Country is so screwed up. They just vote for a candidate because their parents or other family member is voting that way. That is not the American way. YOU have to vote your concience, not someone else's. Don't you understand that? You have to listen to all the issues by both parties and then vote. That way will let you know that your vote will count for somehing to you and you are not just doing it to please someone else. That vote can change your live to make it better or worse, depending what YOU decide is right for you, not someone else!!! And, no you do not know how to corrall Obama,, because you have no idea of your own to make that statement, only thing you have is someone elses opinion to go by.

Doug| 1.30.12 @ 3:52PM

So why won't Romney supporters admit that they will suck it up and vote for Newt if he wins the nomination? Or is it only non-Romney supporters that are supposed to hold their nose?

SouthernGent | 1.30.12 @ 4:33PM

Because, it won't happen like this.

MikeG| 1.30.12 @ 7:45PM

I'll hold my nose and vote the the Newt.

Uomo Del Ghiaccio| 1.30.12 @ 7:46PM

I haven't decided who I will vote for yet, but I have eliminated Newt Gingrich.

I personally feel that Newt Gingrich would be as bad as Barrack Obama except that he would also usher in an era of arrogance that would result in the Republican's losing both the House and the Senate.

Any of the other Republican's I could vote for and support in the General Election, but voting for Newt Gingrich would be against my ethics.

Krink| 1.30.12 @ 6:51PM

So in other words, you threw your vote away because you voted for McCain.

Chinese Lantern | 3.4.12 @ 10:05PM

So in other words, you threw your vote away because you voted for McCain. I'll hold my nose and vote the the Newt.

Jeremiah Smirking| 1.30.12 @ 7:18AM

Bill, you're full of it, and a bore to boot. THAT LINE from Romney should be THE campaign ad against him and the turning point of the primaries. But it might not be, because Romney shills and trolls (but I repeat myself) are hellbent on losing to Obama.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.30.12 @ 7:36AM

Boredom is a state of mind. Facts are indisputable and if facts bore you, that's a sign of a weak mind. In the meantime here's some more of the Santorum record:

Waste
Sponsored An amendment to increase Amtrak funds by $550 million
Voted to use HUD funds for the Joslyn Art Museum (NE), the Stand Up for Animals project (RI) and the Seattle Art Museum’s Olympic Sculpture Project (WA)
Voted to increase spending on social programs by $7 billion
Voted to increase NIH funding by $1.6 billion.
Voted to increase NIHnding by $700 million
Voted against requiring that highway earmarks would come out of a state’s highway allocation

Spending and Entitlements
Voted to make Medicare part B premium subsidies an new entitlement.
Voted against paying off the debt ($5.6 trillion at the time) within 30 years.
Voted to give $18 billion to the IMF.
Voted to raid Social Security instead of using surpluses to pay down the debt.

Health Care
Voted to allow states to impose health care mandates that are stricter than proposed new Federal mandates, but not weaker.
Voted twice for Federal mental health parity mandates in health insurance.
Voted against a allow consumers the option to purchase a plan outside the parity mandate.

Education
Voted to increase Federal funding for teacher testing
Voted to increase spending for the Department of Education by $3.1 billion.
Voted against requiring courts to consider the impact of IDEA awards on a local school district.

Dai Alanye | 1.30.12 @ 2:27PM

Here are Santorum's ratings during his sixteen years 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%
Even the Club for Growth gives him 77%, higher than the average Repub Senator.

Either those organizations are mistaken or someone is engaging in distortion.

MikeG| 1.30.12 @ 7:47PM

He voted for McCain Finegold, No Child Left Behind, Iraq war, and anthing else Bush wanted.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.1.12 @ 5:59AM

Bravo.

George S| 1.30.12 @ 10:26AM

What are the "valid" differences between ObamaCare and RomneyCare? You listed a few dozen reasons for the case against Santorum; how about a few dozen valid differences?

Republicans took advantage of the Tea Party (whose anger was not motivated by a single one of the writs against Santorum) to take over the House. The promised spending cuts of 100 billion turned into 30 billion over several years. Did you get angry about that? Romney says he will repeal ObamaCare. Boehner said he would cut spending. Technically, he was correct. Problem is: we cannot have ObamaCare technically repealed.

Romney is saying whatever it takes to be President. Ergo, he will say whatever it takes to remain reelectable once in office. Question is: will he listen to the Tea Party (the People) or will he tell us it's not worth getting angry about.

Mimi| 1.30.12 @ 11:52AM

The Bishops of the Catholic Church is angry at the Obama EDICTS Which gives them one year to start killing BABIES at their Hospitals.
They believe it IS WORTH getting angry about!
They sent Letters to one fourth of the electorate via 1/29/2012 Catholic Mass On the failure of the Obama Administration to deny Religious FREEDOM! They are drawing a line in the sand,...and NOT COMPLY !!!

megapotamus| 1.30.12 @ 5:48PM

Yes, one wonders how the actual architects of Romneycare have been so misled. And why is it that the instant Christie was drafted as a Romney surrogate he declared any comparisons to be symptoms of clinical insanity? Screw you, Bill. I will never vote for Romney or Newt. Yes, Santorum also suffers from the general disease of Frugal Socialism. And Bachmann as well. The consensus has been for an unsustainably expanding socialism for a century or more. And everyone in office for any length of time is complicit. Yes, this includes Ron Paul. There is no plausible plan or person out there with any notion of reining in government in any regard.

Margaret| 1.31.12 @ 2:17AM

Excellent article in American Thinker "The Republican Establishment's Strategic Blunder" by Steve McCann

http://www.americanthinker.com.....under.html

W| 1.30.12 @ 10:49AM

I did not take Romney's comment as Mr.Catron did. Santorum was talking fast, loud, and angry which is his natural style, nothing wrong with it. I have seen Rick do it numerous times in Pa. Romney was just telling him to lower the rhetoric and discuss it. Rick and Mitt have different styles and personalities. How you go from this to the conclusions of Mr. Catron just tells you who Catron supports. He sees and hears what he wants to see and hear.

joanne| 1.30.12 @ 3:50PM

I totally agree. It is funny how different people interpret words. I heard what you heard-that Rick should lower his tone. No one is more furious at the dems for shoving this down our throats.(healthcare), but I am quite assured that Romney WILL decisively shut it down, unless the Supreme
Court does it for us. Obama, the wanna be king has got to go.

megapotamus| 1.30.12 @ 5:51PM

Romney will do NOTHING to Obamacare except change its name. He is such a fraud it is truly depressing and astonishing so many people are taken in. Is simple name recognition all this is about? He INVENTED Obamacare. Man, this is a disaster.

Uomo Del Ghiaccio| 1.30.12 @ 7:53PM

There is a huge difference between "ObamaCare" and "RomneyCare".

"ObamaCare" is a Federal Program which affects the entire country.

"RomneyCare" is a "State Program" and only affects the citizens of that specific state.

What the citizens of a specific state negotiate for their state are not the business of people who are not citizens of their state and what works for one state may not work for another.

If a citizen does not like the laws of their state they can always vote with their feet and move to another state where they agree with the laws.

When the Federal Government makes a law it applies to the entire country and we are unable to vote with our feet.

Austin Jim| 1.30.12 @ 8:11PM

Unless there is major turnover in the Senate, the healthcare reform will not be repeal. Remember that it took 60 votes to enact the legislation. Currently, there are 51 Democratic senators. The GOP might make a 3 or 4 gain in 2012, but they're not going to win more than that. The best case scenario (for republicans) is that a President Romney will work out a compromise with the senate democrats. Romney might spin the compromise as "repeal" but a lot of it will still remain.
These republican candidates know that and they're just saying what you want to hear.

obadiah| 1.30.12 @ 8:34PM

Obamacare gives many billions to big pharma and to the insurers, who will get millions of new slave insureds. Republicans are not going to deprive such persons of their government-mandated profits.

Karen| 1.31.12 @ 10:37AM

I totally agree! Words interpreted incorrectly!

Dai Alanye | 1.30.12 @ 2:18PM

It's revealing that Romney's foremost advocate on this forum now sees Rick Santorum as the chief opponent, even having to go to RonPaul for distortions of Santorum's record.

That's understandable, because Santorum is a strong campaigner while Romney is a surprisingly weak one. It's a plain fact, observable by any but the most biased, that without huge funds of money Romney would never have gone anywhere in politics -- never would have been elected governor, never would have made a splash in 2008, wouldn't have carried so much as New Hampshire this time around.

All Mitt's success has been due to swamping the opposition with money, but against Obama's huge war-chest his funds won't be large enough. In the general election Romney won't be electable.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.30.12 @ 6:05PM

That was his voting record and it's easy enough to verify unless you're simply a whiner. Since it is his voting record it's not a distortion. To call it a distortion is a distortion.

somnolence| 1.30.12 @ 6:26AM

For all your flowing words, Mr. Catron, Romney won the exchange clearly in the long run against Santorum on healthcare. For all your explanations, health care at the state level doesn't abrogate the 10th Amendment; at the federal level it clearly does.

VBMax| 1.30.12 @ 8:30AM

Of all Romney's arguements for Romneycare, this is the one that has validity and can be used in the general election against Obama. But I don't know if Romney has the intellectual muscle to argue it successfully.

rance| 1.30.12 @ 10:35AM

Romney does not give a twig about the 10th Amendment. It does nothing in the general election. Santorum's point was valid. Your argument is insipid just like Romney.

c. j. acworth| 1.30.12 @ 6:54AM

This election should be a slam-dunk for the Republicans, yet they are in very real danger of losing. Here in NH I voted for Perry. Now that he's out, I'll have no choice but whichever non-conservative the party heaves up. Time to focus on the House and Senate, and the other downstream races.

Vern Crisler| 1.30.12 @ 9:27AM

Personally, this time around I think we should punish the Republicans by writing in Sarah. If Republicans are going to offer up moderate candidates as their nominee, then there's no use being a Republican. Let's just concentrate on voting for conservatives in the House and Senate, and leave the presidency to Obama.

c. j. acworth| 1.30.12 @ 1:06PM

I have a lot of sympathy for your point, Vern, but this election is too important to just leave it to Obama. Don't forget the Supreme Court; who do you want picking replacements for Thomas and Scalia? A true conservative president we will not get this time, we have to grit our teeth and just vote ABO. And keep praying for the country.

Vern Crisler| 1.30.12 @ 2:22PM

That's what I was saying about McCain four years ago.

MikeG| 1.30.12 @ 7:49PM

Palin had her chance but she quit as governor to make money. She knew she is not qualified.

coal carrier| 1.30.12 @ 7:09AM

If Romney had won against Teddy Kennedy, he would be in the Senate voting like the bookends from Main.

John Daniel| 1.30.12 @ 7:10AM

Romney is the Republican the Washington Post wants, precisely because Obamacare is merely Romneycare writ large. We are doomed.

coal carrier| 1.30.12 @ 7:22AM

When Romney ran in Massachusetts he stated that if an underage girl can not get permission from her parents for an abortion, she can go to a Judge and have the parents overruled. Yeah, that’s the kind of thinking I want coming from the Oval Office.

Uomo Del Ghiaccio| 1.30.12 @ 7:59PM

I find it amazing that Newt Gingrich is permitted to change his positions over the years back and forth, but Mitt Romney is not allowed to become more and more conservative over the years.

I personally had some liberal views while in college and have become more and more conservative as I have aged. This is a similar pattern with most people and people who claim that they haven't are probably lying anyway.

Mimi| 1.30.12 @ 7:25AM

With his money, Romney has cleared the field...Newt is hanging in and has bounced back twice....and so far has cost Mitt about 20 MIL!
Eventually if Mitt can't come up with a knock-out blow ....maybe he'll run out of Money!
It's a shame....Question , Do WE let him buy the Presidency....will we be able to HONOR the President who gets away with this? Wake -up America....Wake -up retirees from Florida...Does Obama care and those PANELS who will decide if those many life saving choices available to you now will be there for you....Yes , Santorum was so right...we can't give away this issue....Get to the polls tomorrow.....vote Conservative ...your very Life may depend on it!!

VonMisesJr| 1.30.12 @ 8:24AM

Mimi, this reminds me of the political carrer of BHO. He only won when he could clear the field. He used dirty tricks like unsealing permenantly sealed divorce documents or other dirt that came out at the last minute. And Romney is like BHO in that he is the Republican version of a "blank slate." He is a miracle man. He can be anything you want him to be, since he as taken both sides of every argument at least once.
Note to Florida Seniors: Vote for Mitt and I will not feel sorry for you when they give you a pill instead of a hip operation. As my dear mother used to say, "you made your bed, now lie in it."

joanne| 1.30.12 @ 3:57PM

And what on earth do you think Obama is doing to us-beyond healthcare.
To our economy, our entire country dear is TRANSFORMED under this madman. I would vote for a shoe over him.Wake up.
I love my country,,,and don't need a socialist making us over to a banana republic. Stay home on election day...please.
jerk

megapotamus| 1.30.12 @ 5:55PM

You are the jerk, joanne and quite an ignoramus. Romney is as much a socialist as Obama. Depending on the year you chose you can find a Romney to the LEFT of Obama as he was on the mandate. What you REALLY don't need is a socialist making over this country with YOUR proud connivance. This is where we are, people. Romney is Obama. Obama is Romney. Newt is no better and loonytoons to boot. Santorum is barely plausible. He's the only shot. No Romney. No way.

MikeG| 1.30.12 @ 7:51PM

Yeah, your'e right Von. Mitt has been attending Reverend Wright's Church of What's Happening Now for twenty years, and palling around with the terrorrist Billy Ayers, and getting into good schools because of his race,

martin j smith| 1.30.12 @ 7:30AM

So tell me Mr Catron: Why has the Republican Party Elites been pushing a guy who supports a plan that will certainly drag us into Socialism and fracture the Republican Party permanently ? Or is this the plan ?

Chalkdust| 1.30.12 @ 8:32AM

Because the 'extreme" views of both political party mean very little to the elite of either political party. They have the money, influence and lack of morals to sidestep the consequences of their actions as long as the prevailing political view of the "leadership" remains 5-10 degrees either side of top-dead center.

The issues that mean a great deal to the unwashed masses; 2nd amendment, medical care, public schools, illegal immigration, taxes, unemployment, unchecked outsourcing and price of fuel do not disturb the elites. But they are very much interested in public figures they can control. Old Newt is one that can't be controlled, nor can he turn off the stream of ideas pouring forth from that big brain.

Ward Bond| 1.30.12 @ 9:12AM

Mr. Smith, I think the reason the Rep.Elites are hell-bent on Romney is because, to them, this election isn't about us, it's about them. Their positions of power and money. I think they are honestly more afraid of the Tea Party movement than they are of obama and what he will do to the country. They don't mind being "The Loyal Opposition".It means they get a piece of the pie.To the Romney people, please give me a reason to support him, not just what's wrong with Newt and Santorum.

Butch| 1.30.12 @ 3:35PM

You nailed my belief exactly, Ward. As long as there is a ruling political class, even the "designated losers" get wealthy and connected. The Tea Party threatens the Democrat socialists, all right, but it also threatens the whole idea of a ruling political class. It IS about them: their survival.

Great handle--Wagons Ho.

Ward Bond| 1.31.12 @ 12:37AM

Butch,thanks.I use Wardel's name as a tribute to one of the finest actors of Hollywoods golden age and also a great hard nosed consevative.He hated communisum and despised Khrushchev. I don't think he would of liked obama much either.

martin j smith| 1.30.12 @ 7:39AM

Newt and Santorum I hope stay in the race till the convention,smash Romney and make it very difficult for Romney.

Nemo| 1.30.12 @ 7:46AM

As G. K. Chesterton wrote of a hollow, convictionless politician:

"And dead is all the innocence of anger and surprise."

Mimi| 1.30.12 @ 8:54AM

Thanks for that....you nailed it !
There is plenty of excitement with Newt and definately surprises. Willard is repetative and same old, sameold and boring.
Newt has touched the soul of America, our love of country and anger at what is now being done to our liberty!

Maxwell| 1.30.12 @ 7:58AM

A few weeks ago I brought up the Second Amendment views of both Mittens and Chris Christie and one of the posters here on Spectator was not happy. Thought it was futal that private citizens would go against the those in power. My law firm of Wilson, Brown, Baer & Springfield do not agree.

I also find it interesting that Mitt states "It's not worth getting angry about" and Christie not joining the suit against Obama Care.

VonMisesJr| 1.30.12 @ 8:19AM

Christie also had to be dragged kicking and screaming to oppose RGGI, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initative that is the Northeast "Trap and Enslave" legislation. Christie is not who he pretends to be.

Maxwell| 1.30.12 @ 8:40AM

Von, you are right, I should have added MMGW. Thank you!

martin j smith| 1.30.12 @ 8:10AM

What I hope Newt does is a two prnoged attack: One on Obama one on Romney.

Mark in MD | 1.30.12 @ 8:24AM

All of this Republican in-fighting is all sickening to me. I personally don't really like or get behind any of the candidates, but it is not a vote 'for' election. This is a vote 'against' election. There is nothing that will keep me out of the voting booth this November. In fact, November can't get here soon enough. Point is, no matter who the eventual nominee is, I'm voting for him. And that is all that matters right now. What disturbs me is all this talk of - If Romney wins, I'm not voting - If Gingrich wins I'm not voting, etc. Disgusting childish behaviour. Sounds more like a Dem who is not getting his way and will just go home and take his ball with him. Get with - vote 'against' Obama. Who cares who the 'for' ends up being.

VBMax| 1.30.12 @ 8:36AM

I think there may be a substantial number of trolls on political sites trying to cut down the vote by pretending to be who they are not. I will arrive at the voting booth on a gurney if need be to vote for the Republican nominee.

squalis| 1.30.12 @ 10:06AM

You would be healthier than many of the Dem voters in that instance.

JoshInHB| 1.30.12 @ 11:59AM

And it is idiots like you, in both parties, that have enabled the current political environment.

VBMax| 1.30.12 @ 12:15PM

Boy, aren't you the clever one.

JoshINHB| 1.30.12 @ 3:43PM

Mindlessly voting for any party guarantees that they won't change.

VBMax| 1.30.12 @ 4:12PM

There's nothing mindless about the absolute necessity of getting rid of Obama. Sorry you don't see it that way.

joanne| 1.30.12 @ 8:14PM

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!
What are some of you going to do ..stay home? and let Obama win???
I just don't get it.

Chalkdust| 1.30.12 @ 8:43AM

Maryland dude.....I like the vetting process, the bloodier the better, but I agree with your central point.

Purp| 1.30.12 @ 9:03AM

People who don't care who wins shouldn't be allowed the vote. That's just plain un-American, and very un-patriotic. Thought you were Republican?

Mark in MD| 1.30.12 @ 9:12AM

I wish you were not allowed to vote as I am 100% positive you vote for the magic 'D' each and every time without a thought as to why. I take that back. I'm sure the depth of your reasoning is - democrats are the good guys and republicans are the bad guys and I'm smart because I vote for the good guys.

junkyard infidel| 1.30.12 @ 1:40PM

mark, your analysis of perp and those like him/it is almost correct. in more simplistic terms, they have the thought process of a dung beetle !

Dai Alanye | 1.30.12 @ 2:40PM

ABO!
Anybody But Obama needs to be our mantra. If Joe Biden were to win the Repub nomination I wouldn't hesitate to give him my vote.

Kyle| 1.30.12 @ 2:43PM

Giving people a hard time because they realize that only Paul has any moral compass and telling us we are stupid for not voting the party line because somehow we're supposed to have a seething hatred for Obama, is intellectually dishonest and part of why we are always picking the lesser of two evils. Every single President over the last 30 years, including Reagan, has to some degree or another, given us bigger government. Try talking about the issues and not so much of your hatred for Obama who is only doing what he is allowed to get away with. RON PAUL 2012.

Matthew Quigley| 1.30.12 @ 8:31AM

Simply stated: Romney gets foisted on the electorate, there will be NO Republican Party at the end of 2012. Obama gets reelected, there will be NO United States in 2013.

That's what we risk and that's what we face. Like it or not. We can't afford the lesser of two evils anymore, and this time, there is not a lesser. There just is evil. Look HARD at Romney's record. If ANYONE claims his record is conservative, that person is either stupid or lying.

What we need this time is someone who has the balls and the fire to fight not just the Marxocrats, but also the Republicalists. I honestly don't think there is anyone running who has that kind of brass...we need someone who is focused on restoring the Constitution at home and won't suck up to our enemies overseas. I just plain don't see that very clearly in any of the candidates who have made it this far...Paul would pay jizya and justify it on grounds that it hurts the Fed...Gingrich would expand most elements of the federal government while claiming that restored the Constitution...Santorum would do both and be Ward Cleaver about it...and Romney would just carry on what hussein is doing because he agrees with it.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm ready for a real revolt against these scumbags.

VBMax| 1.30.12 @ 8:41AM

"...but I'm ready for a real revolt against these scumbags"

It's too late for this election but getting behind the Republican nominee, whoever he may be, will buy us another 4 years to get our ducks in a row for the next election.

emilio lizardo, phD| 1.30.12 @ 9:16AM

The GOP couldnt get their ducks in a row to line up against the weakest incumbent and sorriest president in the last century. What makes you think it'll be any different in 4 years? The GOP is the party that trots forth losers like Dole and McCain, that is when they're not running this country into the ground with POS like the Bushes. It's over. Mittens wins the nomination and gets shellacked by Obama. As far as the presidential election is concerned, The RNC has thrown in the towel, yet again, in the vain hope of winning the House and Senate and more gridlock and status quo in DC. We'll see if this country can withstand another 4 years of Obama.

VBMax| 1.30.12 @ 10:12AM

I should have been more clear...I'm a Tea Party guy and in favor of a 3rd party if this election's outcome doesn't reverse the decline.

Mimi| 1.30.12 @ 9:01AM

Matt...Scumbags ?....I don't agree when it comes to NEWT...he has nothing to lose he'll shake it up BIG-TIME...It's in his DNA !

Purp| 1.30.12 @ 9:04AM

You need some serious help if you believe your first 2 lines.

Tim the Enchanter| 1.30.12 @ 4:54PM

Likewise, Burp, or Purp, or whatever it is you call yourself- YOU need serious help if you believe ANY of the "floaters" you've been dumping on this blog.

Boar Hunter| 1.30.12 @ 3:52PM

All those lemmings voting for Romney because he is better(?) than Obama should remember that the Obama administration has now padded the Federal Government with thousands of Marxist/Communist /Socialist's and their friends.

If I opened a hamburger restaurant and served borsht (Beet soup popular in communist countries) in place of burgers, how long would I be in business? If Romney is such a hum-dinger of a businessman, why does he fail to understand that if he keeps trying to sell me borsht and calling it a hamburger I will no longer patronize his establishment.

I am tired of the weak willed, whiners that comprise much of the Republican party today telling me to be patient, hamburgers made from an excellent soy by-product will soon be available! What part of "I want a hamburger" is ambiguous or vague? It is these same spineless cowards who gave us McCain and now Romney who is McCain without a war record. Romney LOST to McCain!

I have to vote? Why? Give me one good reason to support Romney? Is he going to save us from Obama care with Romney care? The Romney camp has already stated Obama care will not be overturned. Why would they try? Romney is obviously of like mind on the issue which is a death knell for our country. The Republicans continued attempts to pull off this Jedi-mind trick of forcing conservatives to vote for Borsht because it is all that is available is not acceptable to me and I vote to stay home.

I find it depressing beyond belief that in their cowardly absence of conviction, the Republican party has probably succeeded in destroying the country. Do I blame Obama? No I do not. He told these idiots what he was going to do and then did it. The Republicans stood by and never said a word against Obama. We got exactly what America asked for.

Republicans stood by and allowed the people of the United States of America to elect the most vile and reprehensible man imaginable to the office of president. They were silent as a man who was born the bastard child of a communist mother, who was mentored by communists and those who love communism throughout his useless dope smoking life was raised to the highest office in the land.

Republicans who are eviscerated for their religious convictions never found the courage to voice concern about Obama's ties to and continued love affair with Islam. We elected a president who is friends with an admitted anti-American communist and a terrorist. Guilty as sin, free as a bird. We elected a president who was supported by the Blank Panthers and attended their lets all go kill some white babies rallies. We elected a president who spent twenty years attending a viciously anti-American, racist church. The issue of Obama's dealings with criminals like Rezko and Rod Blagovovich (who cares how he spells his name) was of no concern. Cowards, the Republicans stood by and have watched as Obama rammed Obama care down the throats of the American people. Cowards they stood by and watched the dismantling of America by this anti-American, anti-Christian, dope smoking, communist who would be king. Time after time the Republicans caved on budget issues and stood idly by as Obama spent generations of American's into poverty they will never escape from. Now the same cowards who brought all this about want to berate me for not supporting them? I do not get along well with evil and I believe people who do allow evil to flourish. By continuing to vote for the "lesser of two evils" we are still supporting evil and I for one am withdrawing my support for it.

The Republican party can, with all due respect, kiss my hairy white ass. Until such time as I can buy a hamburger I will eat at home.

Occam's Tool| 1.30.12 @ 5:35PM

Somehow, I think that when the repeal of Obamacare bill is laid on Mitt's desk after passing House and Senate, he isn't going to veto it. What's the percentage for him?

VBMax| 1.30.12 @ 6:12PM

Right, because he wouldn't want to be a one-term president.

Mark in MD | 1.30.12 @ 8:34AM

Another follow up: I'm also sick of all these idiot pundits tellings us why Romney can't win or why Gingrich can't win, etc. It's all so depressing coming from so-called conservative journalists and it's everywhere. Not just here on Spectator.
I wish these idiot pundits would start writing articles that tell us why Romney 'will' beat Obama, or why Gingrich 'will' beat Obama, etc. But they won't because, after all, they are like all the children out there whining about this or that all because their guy is not the current front-runner. Disgusting!

Iska Waran| 1.30.12 @ 9:14AM

Maybe it's because it's looking like they would all lose to Obama but for differing reasons. Watching this election is like watching a train hit a car stuck on the tracks. It takes an eternity, but the outcome is already determined.

PS. Government workers at the Bureau of Lies & Subterfuge put out the unemployment figures. Think they'll have their thumb on the scale when it comes to telling us the U3 unemployment figure for October?

Nancy in NC| 1.30.12 @ 9:21AM

We wouldn't need anyone to tell us that Obama is a dead duck if half the country wasn't depending on the state for their livelihood. People always vote their wallet.

The big corporations that get government welfare will vote for Obama, and the peons that depend on government welfare will vote for Obama. They are afraid that the GOP will cut their benefits. You will see lots of ads with Romney or whoever the nominee is pushing granny off the cliff, again.

Thanks to government education few are able to think for themselves. They believe the crap put out by the MSM. The George Soros' and Warren Buffets' will make sure Obama has plenty of money to persuade the useful idiots that Ozero will cure all the ills of the world in the next four years.

This may well be the last election. Anyone that believes this is a Constitutional Republic anymore and there is such a thing as the rule of law is surely asleep at the wheel. We are a fascist oligarchy, and only remnants of liberty remain.

Kyle| 1.30.12 @ 2:24PM

Some of us younger Ron Paul supporters are just too mature to completely compromise our values so we can be "mature" in the eyes of the media and other republicans. We've decided its either a vote for liberty or tyranny and only Paul offers real changes. We all know who(s winning the war of ideas on the right and that's Ron Paul.

Tim the Enchanter| 1.30.12 @ 4:57PM

Mark- they are engaging in Self-Fulfilling Prophesies

Occam's Tool| 1.30.12 @ 5:38PM

Obama's a puking filthy punk. The way to beat him is to aim for the nads as soon as possible, and keep it up. I am surprised Gingrich hasn't simply said---"Mitt, you can wallow in negative campaigning against me if you want. I'm going after our true opponent, and you can follow me or not. We need to focus on beating Obama. Nothing else matters. We'll let the voters decide which of us can beat Obama, but I'm going to give my best shot as to why I can beat Him."

That would wrongfoot the Mittster pretty well.

Tom| 1.30.12 @ 8:53AM

I'll say what I said in another post. Hold the presses! There seems to be a late surge to Mr. Gingrich. The two most recent polls show a seven point lead (PPP) and just a five point lead (Insider Advantage, rounded up from 4.6). Insider Advantage, it should be noted, was the poll which first showed the late break to Gingrich in South Carolina. It was first derided as an outlier, but proved to be true. I think there is going to be a huge swing to Mr. Gingrich. People are realizing Mr. Romney is trying to buy the election and really doesn't have any ideas to speak of. Mr. Gingrich has ideas, which is what we need. I know he was ridiculed for his moon colony idea, but I thought it was visionary. I don't have space here, but if you want to read why go to : http://realsolutionsfortoday.b.....yond.html. At any rate, Gingrich is the right guy to beat Obama. Romney isn't. It's that simple.

VBMax| 1.30.12 @ 8:59AM

Unfortunately, early voting and absentee ballots have been cast here in Florida favoring Romney, prior to any late surge potential by Gingrich.

Purp| 1.30.12 @ 9:05AM

Moon colony? Yeah, with all that surplus we have, right?

Teaghan| 1.30.12 @ 9:21AM

Was that not THE DUMBEST comment to come out his his mouth? Our nation is headed toward an economic trainwreck and he's talking about colonizing the moon?
Go back to writing books and your helmet head wife, Newt.

squalis| 1.30.12 @ 10:11AM

As an ultimate vision, I find it a lofty goal. But by 2020? That's what got me.

Occam's Tool| 1.30.12 @ 5:45PM

Well, if you don't aim high, you'll never hit your target.

By the way, the Chinese don't think the way purp and Teaghan do....if you want them at the top of a gravity well with no way to deal with it, be my guest...rocks, thrown from the top of the gravity well, go boom with no radiation when they hit.

Occam's Tool| 1.30.12 @ 5:43PM

Teaghan, purp: either of you guys live in Hurricane country? Yes or no. If you do, what American governmental program gives you advance warning of Hurricanes?

Now, Moonbase. Exploration, Newt knows, always pays off multifold. For example, solar energy technologies can be tested there, as can new nuclear technologies. The advances in airtight engineering longterm of a moonbase would have fantastic potentials for clean rooms. Farming techniques maximizing the use of water, necessary for a moonbase, would be incredibly useful in making our deserts bloom.

Does low G result in life extension long term?

Newt is only visionary to people who think everything's been invented. In the late 1800s, what would Galveston residents have given for satellite weather tracking?

Mimi| 1.30.12 @ 9:06AM

Thanks for the sign of hope...It will be a shame if he loses by a few votes...because of winner takes all.

Judy| 1.30.12 @ 9:08AM

I took this as Romney saying to Santorum, "You don't have to speak to me in an angry tone." Santorum's demeanor throughout the debates has come across as angry because he has had to fight for speaking time. Substance is not an issue for either candidate, just a matter of style.

Iska Waran| 1.30.12 @ 9:18AM

BS. Style is substance. SNL is already parodying Romney's robotic behavior. And what's up with his "mom jeans"? He'd be better to make light of his image and wear an ascot.

Teaghan| 1.30.12 @ 9:22AM

Well, they ain't as bad as obama's mamma jeans and I bet Mitt can throw a baseball like a guy!

rance| 1.30.12 @ 10:55AM

They, Obama and Romney, both support "men" that cannot throw a baseball like a guy!

POST American| 1.30.12 @ 9:17AM

--Putting the capstone cardboard
to one side----

"People are NOW being told ---you
HAVE NO RIGHTS because you're
country is bankrupt. They're begining
to roll that out here too."

UH, like we said, RED Chinese boots
on the ground across America BY 2020
---maybe 2015 ----WHEN WE GO INTO
final, USURY planned Globalist receivership.

-----THAT'S WHY they aren't afraid.

----------That's WHY they giggle, even as they
take apart the country. Eeven as they know
---you know.

SUB-Mitt ROME-knee/ TTT-Rick Santorum
New 'IT' Getting-RICH/

"Since the days of 'Play-dough' and
'PIE-tha--gore--us' in ancient Greece,
we've been the 'ITs. The REAL 'ITs'.
NOT the 'New 'ITs'."

SO----KEEP following them capstone Globalists
---SAP OPS and Rockefeller EUGENISTS!

Keep a goin----

Porn -n' football ---n' franchise slum wampum!

---------------------------JUST KEEP ON GOIN'!

Tim the Enchanter| 1.30.12 @ 5:00PM

Huh?

L. Skywalker | 1.30.12 @ 9:21AM

"Ron Paul will save us. Ron Paul will save us. This is a recording ... Ron Paul will save us. Ron Pual will save us. This is a recording ..."

R2D2

Dmac| 1.30.12 @ 9:22AM

This articel fails to point out where Romney is consistant. He's consistant in his support of Internationalism. He's consistant in his beleif that its a good thing to lay off your neighbors so you can put more money in your bank account. He's consistant in his beleif that open borders are okay. Lastly, he's consistant in not being consistant with his views from one elction to the next.

lotek| 1.30.12 @ 9:30AM

Purp,do your homework before being a parrot.Newt said 90% or more funding will come from private investors.

rance| 1.30.12 @ 11:00AM

Saying something reguarding a government program does not make it so. Look at Fannie and Freddie. Oh, Newt worked for one of those.

Vern Crisler| 1.30.12 @ 11:23AM

Newt did not work for Freddie or Fannie. He got money from them, just like Romney.

Doug| 1.30.12 @ 4:01PM

Newt sold consulting services. I thought conservatives supported capitalism.

Do you think Mitt cxan "restructure" America and sell off the underperforming units?

Boar Hunter| 1.30.12 @ 5:32PM

I thought we did away with slavery?

Dave| 1.30.12 @ 9:38AM

A Freudian slip is a "slip of the tongue", i.e., you say something you didn't mean to say, but that you actually believe. In this case, Mr Romney certainly believes that "it's not worth getting angry about." It would've been a Freudian slip if Mr Romney had said, "It's worth getting angry about".

Second: "Romney's affinity with Democrat (sic) positions..." [s/b 'Democratic']

Tim the Enchanter| 1.30.12 @ 5:02PM

Dave: a "true" Freudian slip will also have a sexual connotation, as Freud was a bit of a pervert.

Kingofthenet| 1.30.12 @ 10:22AM

or to put it more succinctly:
Malone: You said you wanted to get Capone. Do you really wanna get him? You see what I'm saying is, what are you prepared to do?
Ness: Anything within the law.
Malone: And *then* what are you prepared to do? If you open the can on these worms you must be prepared to go all the way. Because they're not gonna give up the fight, until one of you is dead.
Ness: I want to get Capone! I don't know how to do it.
Malone: You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way! And that's how you get Capone. Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that? I'm offering you a deal. Do you want this deal?
Ness: I have sworn to capture this man with all legal powers at my disposal and I will do so.
Malone: Well, the Lord hates a coward.
[jabs Ness with his hand, and Ness shakes it]
Malone: Do you know what a blood oath is, Mr. Ness?
Ness: Yes.
Malone: Good, 'cause you just took one.

Nick099| 1.30.12 @ 10:27AM

Well-written. Well reasoned. Well done! Finally a piece of work that does not buy into the inevitability of Romney as nominee. Romney has far too many fatal flaws in addition to his lukewarm record on everything dear to a Conservative.

Look up Damon Corp and Romney. Then talk about integrity and honesty. Romney lied on Thursday at the debate. He stated he never was involved in Medicare when the truth is Damon Corp, a company he directed, was fined $119 million in the largest Medicare Fraud case in Massachusetts history. He hid the facts from potential buyers and the federal government while fixing the problem in-house. Sold the company, Bain made $12 million. Romney made $450k. The new owner Corning reported the violation to the feds.

That´s Romney folks.....Mr. squeaky-clean man of integrity!!!!! Ha!!

cicero| 1.30.12 @ 10:29AM

The Republican establishment really wants Mitt, just like they really wanted Dole and McCain, and Bush One. The real party to watch is the Tea Party, the guys on the ground. If Mitt wins the nomination, the Republican Party will cease to exist within two election cycles, and a third party, dominated by the real working class will take its place.
There is never a perfect candidate, as all men/women are flawed. No one is qualifiedd for the Presidency, except in retrospect. However, at this point in our history, we need someone who can fight OUR battles, and make this country "safe for democracy". That is not the candidate who runs on the premise that it is his turn. Newt may be a little out there, but if I ever got into a dust up, I would rather have him on my team than Mitt. Gingrich/Santorum in 2012.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.30.12 @ 11:06AM

cicero,

I'm an old fart. Probably won't see "two election cycles".
It is really important to me to turn this ship around NOW...for my posterity.

I'm willing to lay down my life to that end.

Romney is simply a wimp. He doesn't have the courage...or inclination...to spin the wheeel hard a-starboard.
Yet...
Obama is committed to drive us right off the falls.

I'm also committed to Jim Demint's conservative Senate commitee.

russel| 1.30.12 @ 11:07AM

Right C ., for all intents , ' Republican ' only exists in DC now . Romney is a NE blueblood who no doubt rubs elbows with whoever is having a party that night , regardless their party . Their REAL party is the elitist , moneybags , power party . They could give a sh!t about the people of this country , the Tea Party , which will assume the mantle of opposition to the socialist party if Romney is nominated . We got stuck with an RNC " my turn " loser with McCain . Republican will go the way of the Whits if we get another . Or maybe just on principle .

Tim the Enchanter| 1.30.12 @ 5:05PM

russel- I think you meant "Whigs"

Bill| 1.30.12 @ 11:05AM

Romney is a "New England moderate liberal big government RINO."
-Romneycare
-abortion
-gay marriage
-gun control
-climate change
Romney can run but he cannot hide the truth.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.30.12 @ 11:12AM

^eah, Bill and russel,
but why does Romney want to go to cocktail parties? As a Mormon, he cant drink whiskey...or even coffee...

What a drag.

Bill| 1.30.12 @ 12:01PM

Romney is funded by his Mormon friends and using his "Mormon Trickery" to win in FL, just like the "NH purchase." Bad news!
It ain't over yet!
Gingrich vowed to take the fight all the way to the convection with the help of "constitutionalists conservatives" and the Tea Party, mocking Romney's "money-bomb" and "negative ads."
Romney will be like Gerald Ford, cannot beat Obama because Romney is a "New England big-government RINO."

CalGTR| 1.30.12 @ 6:02PM

Seriously, Mormon Trickery? Wow.

If Romney wins the nomination, he will surprise many. He's far more conservative than given credit for. Look how he lives his personal life - following conservative ideals all along the way. Do you really think that if Romney had been governor of Texas or Utah that he would have run the campaigns, or framed issues the same way he did in MA? The ONLY way republicans win anything in MA is to do what Romney did, and that's assure the liberals that he means them no harm, won't seek to overturn abortion laws, and so forth. Even then, Mitt did the right thing when the stem cell issue crossed his desk. As a candidate for the entire US, he's obviously not framing things the same way he did in MA, and I absolutely do believe what he's selling. I would have loved to have seen any number of other candidates throw their hats into the ring, but they didn't, despite lots of pleading from many of us. So, we have who we have. Of course, those of you that want Rick or Newt or Ron will not back Romney at this point, but if Mitt should win the nomination, give him a chance. He would in no way resemble BHO, and will jam on the brakes of our runaway spending. Seriously, there is not a doubt that Romney will get our fiscal outlook back on track. We CANNOT throw away votes on third party candidates or simply stay at home. The stakes are waaay too high.

VBMax| 1.30.12 @ 6:17PM

Totally agree

Conserdude| 1.30.12 @ 11:23AM

There is no doubt Romney is a flip-flopper. That may be an argument to favor Santorum, but not Gingrich since he has more than his share of flip-flopping. Oh, and Barack Obama has flip-flopped plenty himself, along with broken promises, so the Republicans have plenty of their own ads to run.

As for the don't-get-angry jab by Romney toward Santorum, I would not read too much into this. Yes, Romney lacks passion, but I think this tactic was more designed to exploit a Santorum problem in the debates of raising his voice and coming off as an annoyance early on.

Vern Crisler| 1.30.12 @ 11:26AM

To borrow a line from Ronald Reagan, Romney flip-flops so fast it's like reading Playboy magazine while your wife turns the pages.

Kyle| 1.30.12 @ 11:58AM

Is it not painfully obvious that Ron Paul is the only candidate that is not bought and paid for? Romney or Gingrich have ZERO chance of beating Obama. In fact, if either of these two get nominated, all the work Ron Paul's campaign has done to expand the Republican base will be for nothing, as probably half of these new Republicans will be rightfully pissed and stay home. Actually, it will he the right thing to do because we can isolate Obama, but if one of the big government republicans wins they will be harder to isolate and will bring us more wars, bailouts and status quo bipartisan legislation similar to those bills passed over the past generation in DC. Ron Paul 2012.

Vern Crisler| 1.30.12 @ 12:09PM

Personally, I think the anarcho-Paulistas should leave the Republican party, which has enough problems without compounding them by associating with Sarah-haters, Rush-haters, Buckley-haters, Reagan-haters, Lincoln-haters, Washington-haters, or America-haters.

Occam's Tool| 1.30.12 @ 5:46PM

Oh, Paul's bought and paid for, all right...by CAIR.

RedInDenver| 1.30.12 @ 12:20PM

Polling Data: Monday, January 30, 2012

USA Today/Gallup GENERAL ELECTION

Candidate __ Obama __ Republican __ Spread
__Romney ____ 48 ______ 48 _________ Tie
__Paul ______ 49 ______ 46 _______ Obama +3
__Santorum __ 51 ______ 43 _______ Obama +8
__Gingrich __ 53 ______ 41 ______ Obama +12

Rick| 1.30.12 @ 12:22PM

You need to slow down dring whatever it is you're drinking! This is the dumest story I 've read this year...LOL

Newt/Cain/Palin Launch new theme song: We're just a Swinging!

megapotamus| 1.30.12 @ 6:05PM

Dume indeed.

Bill| 1.30.12 @ 12:39PM

Romney's "Blood Money"

Romney spent $15 million in FL, while Gingrich spent only $3 million.
Mormons are banking on Romney, hoping that he 'll capture the GOP nod and beat Obama in 2012.
It ain't happen.
Romney will be derailed after the FL Primary, where he will have to face more conservative voters in NV, CO, MN, AZ.
No Country for RINO!

RedInDenver| 1.30.12 @ 12:51PM

Blood money??? So, if spending money on a political campaign is blood money; you're pointing to Romney, rather than Gingrich just because Romney happens to have spent MORE?

Strange term; illogical argument.

Bill| 1.30.12 @ 1:31PM

Romney hid his money in Cayman Island to lure the IRS, and that he wants to be the POTUS makes him to be the "New England Liberal Clown RINO."
We're not gonna repeat 2008, it'll be 1980, all over. DEFEAT ROMNEY!

David| 1.30.12 @ 12:51PM

We had better get behind Santorum, now, with our words and our money.

Try imagining what the dems and liberal media can say about Romney and Gingrich. Try imagining how similar they are on several important issued when compared with Bam Bam. Try imagining all of Romney's political baggage, and Newt's political AND personal baggage.

Now, try imagining what they say about Santorum. Oh no, he supported Specter. Oh no, he voted against the National Right to Work Act as senator of PA (and now says as prez he WILL support a national right to work law.

Come on folks, Santorum has been the adult in this race.............period.

Vern Crisler| 1.30.12 @ 1:01PM

I repeat for the nth time, Santorum has no leadership or governing experience. His presence in this race is dividing the conservative vote, so he needs to pull out before it's handed over to a RINO.

VBMax| 1.30.12 @ 1:17PM

I think Santorum could figure out how to lead and govern effectively. He just can't be elected this time.

megapotamus| 1.30.12 @ 6:07PM

It is WE who have the relevant experience. Both Newt and Mitt have records of leadership and they ain't good. On this Santorum is at worst a blank slate.

Christopher C| 1.30.12 @ 6:07PM

Two front runners, two trailers.

Mitt Romney - Tweedledee to Obama's Tweedledum. On substance, based on their respective records, where, oh where, is the difference.

Newt Gingrich - does the man have any consistency to him at all, other than the desire always to be the center of attention?

Ron Paul - the only candidate with what would appear to be the necessary willingness to cut very large chunks from the federal government. But that is combined with such a deluded series of attitudes (you can't seriously call them policies) about foreign relations that he disqualifies himself.

Rick Santorum? Well, I think he could be taken at his word that Obamacare would be repealed. In its entirety. And unless that step is taken, there will be no more United States in its traditional form. Foreign policy? Feels okay to me. The only thing he's lacking is the sense of looming fiscal catastrophe. Even so, he would appear to have a record of knowing how to craft small-c conservative solutions to very large policy problems (welfare reform in particular, and legislative experience of that type is as useful as some executive experience, IMHO).

Settling on Romney because he's a "turnaround specialist" as I heard a Florida R primary voter say is nonsense. Sorry folks, as imperfect as some keep maintaining Santorum is, he's currently the only credible and responsible R nominee to take on that disgusting man presently in the White House.

David| 1.30.12 @ 1:22PM

Okay Vern, you keep repeating that f_cked up line.

Now, have you been to Wikipedia to read his resume?

Simple question Vern, yes or no?

Vern Crisler| 1.30.12 @ 2:02PM

I take it back that Santorum has had NO leadership experience. According to Wikipedia, he was once "Chairman of the Republican Party Task Force on Welfare Reform."

It also says he was a director of some think tank department. I guess these things give him the necessary governing experience for such a job as the presidency of the United States. Gosh, maybe it's even better than Governor or Speaker of the House. It's more than Obama had, after all.

Also, according to Wikipedia:
"In 1993, Santorum was one of 17 House Republicans who sided with most Democrats to support legislation that prohibited employers from permanently replacing striking employees."

abcvoter| 1.30.12 @ 1:25PM

No, that's really not ALL it's about. It's about the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and a state's rights. That's really ALL it's about. Also, all the libs are taking that "angry" phrase out of context. Romney meant it's not worth getting angry in the debate about it. Romney's a level-headed debater. Santorum shows more anger when debating. He has from the beginning -- not getting a fair amount of questions, etc. It's just a difference in debating style. That's what the comment was about.

David| 1.30.12 @ 1:34PM

U.S. House of Representatives (1991–1994)In 1990, at age 32, Santorum was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives to represent Pennsylvania's 18th congressional district, located in the eastern suburbs of Pittsburgh. He scored a significant upset in the heavily Democratic district, defeating seven-term Democratic incumbent Doug Walgren by a 51%-49% margin.[21] During his campaign Santorum repeatedly criticized Walgren for living outside the district for most of the year.[22] Although the 18th District was redrawn for the 1992 elections, and the new district had a 3:1 ratio of registered Democrats to Republicans, Santorum still won re-election with 61% of the vote.[23]

In 1993, Santorum was one of 17 House Republicans who sided with most Democrats to support legislation that prohibited employers from permanently replacing striking employees.[24] As a member of the Gang of Seven, Santorum was involved in the exposing the members of Congress involved in the House banking scandal.

U.S. Senate (1995–2007)TenureSantorum served in the United States Senate representing Pennsylvania from 1995 to 2007. From 2001 until 2007, he was the Senate's third-ranking Republican.[25] He was first elected to the Senate during the 1994 Republican takeover, narrowly defeating incumbent Democrat Harris Wofford 49% to 47%. The theme of Santorum's 1994 campaign signs was "Join the Fight!" During the race, he was considered an underdog, as his opponent was 32 years his senior.[26] He was re-elected in 2000, defeating U.S. Congressman Ron Klink by a 52%-46% margin.

In 1996, Santorum served as Chairman of the Republican Party Task Force on Welfare Reform, and contributed to legislation that became the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. Santorum was an author and the floor manager of the bill.[7] In 1996, Santorum endorsed moderate Republican Arlen Specter in his short-lived campaign for president. Reporters have observed that though Santorum and Specter differed on social policy, Specter provided him with key political staff for his successful run in 1994.[27]

Legislative proposals
Santorum, Sen. Arlen Specter, and Rep. John Murtha watch President George W. Bush sign the Flight 93 National Memorial Act.Religious freedom and ideological diversitySantorum sponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA) with U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-MA).

In 2003, Santorum and fellow Republicans heard from Hillel, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Zionist Organization of America about combating anti-Semitism in American colleges.[28] Santorum drafted language on "ideological diversity," which Race & Class magazine suggested was tantamount to "policing thought."[29] Inside Higher Ed suggested that he was pandering to David Horowitz and had no deep-seated position on the legislation.[30]

Teaching of evolution and intelligent designMain article: Santorum Amendment
Santorum added a provision to the 2001 No Child Left Behind bill that would have promoted questioning of the theory of evolution in public school science classes and required the teaching of intelligent design along with evolution.[31][32] The bill, with the Santorum Amendment included, passed the Senate 91-8[31][33] and was hailed as a victory by intelligent design theory promoters.[34][35][36][37] Before the bill became law, however, scientific and educational groups successfully urged the conference committee for the bill to strike the Santorum Amendment from the final bill. Intelligent design supporters in Congress then preserved the language of the Santorum Amendment in the conference committee report of the legislative history of the bill.[34][35][36][37][38] The Discovery Institute and other intelligent design proponents have repeatedly invoked this report as proof that Congress intended that the teaching of intelligent design should be required in public school science classes.[39][40]

In 2002, Santorum called intelligent design "a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes."[41] By 2005, though, he had adopted the Teach the Controversy approach.[42][43] He told National Public Radio, "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom. What we should be teaching are the problems and holes ... in the theory of evolution."[44] Later that year, Santorum resigned from the advisory board of the Christian-rights Thomas More Law Center after the Center's lawyers lost a case representing a school board that had required the teaching of intelligent design.[45] Santorum, who had previously supported the school board's policy indicated he had not realized that certain members of the board had been motivated by religious beliefs.[45] Santorum critics claimed he was backtracking from his earlier position because he was facing a tough reelection fight for 2006.[45] When asked in November 2011 about his views on evolution, Santorum stated that he believes that evolution occurred on a tiny, micro level.[46]

National Weather Service Duties ActMain article: National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005
Santorum introduced the National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005[47][48] which would have prohibited the National Weather Service from publishing weather data for free to the public where private-sector entities performed the same function commercially.[49] The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association was galvanizing support to lobby against the bill,[50] but it never passed committee.[50] The motivations surrounding the bill were controversial, as employees of AccuWeather, a commercial weather company which is based in Pennsylvania, donated $10,500 to Santorum and his PAC.[51] The liberal advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington subsequently listed Rick Santorum as one of its "most corrupt politicians", citing the bill as one of several reasons.[52] In support of the bill, Santorum criticized the National Weather Service in September 2005, saying its evacuation warnings for Hurricane Katrina were "insufficient".[49][53][54]

Fuel tax creditIn February 2006 Time Magazine described a synthetic-fuel tax-credit amendment that Santorum added to a larger bill as "a multibillion-dollar scam" that benefited "a small group of the politically well connected."[55] A Santorum aide said a reason the senator pushed the amendment was because it could lower the price of coke which was "important to the steel industry, which employs thousands of Pennsylvanians..."[55]

Foreign policySantorum is a supporter of the War on Terror and shares the views of neoconservatives and the Bush Doctrine in regards to foreign policy. He says the war on Terror can be won and is optimistic about the U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan for the long-term.

He sponsored the Syria Accountability Act of 2003, which required Syria to end all engagement in Lebanon and cease all support for terrorism. He originally wanted to go further with the bill, asking for the United States to create economic sanctions on Syria if it did not do so.[56] In June 2006, Santorum declared that weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) had been found in Iraq.[57] Santorum's declaration was based, in part, on declassified portions of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command.[58] The report stated that coalition forces had recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions that contain degraded or vacant mustard or sarin nerve agent casings. The specific weapons he referred to were chemical munitions dating back to the Iran–Iraq War that were buried in the early 1990s. The report stated that while agents had degraded to an unknown degree, they remained dangerous and possibly lethal.[57] However, officials of the Department of Defense, CIA intelligence analysts, and the White House have all explicitly stated that these expired casings were not part of the WMDs threat that the Iraq War was launched to contain.[59]

In 2005, Santorum sponsored the Iran Freedom and Support Act, which appropriated $10 million aimed at regime change in Iran. The Act passed with overwhelming support. However, Santorum nevertheless voted against the Lautenberg amendment, which would have closed the loophole that allows companies like Halliburton to do business with Iran through their foreign affiliates.[60] He said Iran was at the center of "much of the world's conflict" but was opposed to direct military action against the country in 2006.

Santorum said in July 2006 that "Islamic fascism rooted in Iran is behind much of the world's conflict, but he is opposed to military action against the country", in a speech where he "also defended the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay."[61] Santorum indicated that "effective action against Iran" would require America's fighting "for a strong Lebanon, a strong Israel, and a strong Iraq."[61]

On September 7, 2006, Santorum outlined his views on foreign policy in an op-ed piece for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and discussed Islamic fascism, closing with a rallying cry:

[...] the fight against Islamic fascism is the great test of our generation. Leaders are obliged to articulate this threat and to propose what is necessary to defeat it. That is my purpose, and our national calling. The American people have always rallied to the cause of freedom once they understood what was at stake. I have no doubt that they will again."
—Rick Santorum[62]
Santorum was one of only two senators who voted against confirming the nomination of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. Santorum stated that his objection was to Gates's support for talking with Iran and Syria, because it would be an error to talk with radical Islamists.[63]

In 2006, Santorum introduced the term "Islamic fascism", while questioning "his opponent's ability to make the right decisions on national security at a time when 'our enemies are fully committed to our destruction.'"[64]

A supporter of enhanced interrogation, he said in 2011 that John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war, did not understand how the process works.[65]

Party leadership
Santorum, 2005In a 2002 PoliticsPA feature story designating politicians with yearbook superlatives, he was named the "Most Ambitious".[66]

As chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, Santorum directed the communications operations of Senate Republicans and was a frequent party spokesperson. He was the youngest member of the Senate leadership and the first Pennsylvanian to hold such a prominent position since Senator Hugh Scott was Republican leader in the 1970s.[67][68] In addition, Santorum served on the Senate Agriculture Committee; the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; the Senate Special Committee on Aging; and the Senate Finance Committee, of which he was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security and Family Policy. He also sat at the candy desk for ten years.[67][68]

In January 2005, Santorum announced his intention to run for Senate Republican Whip, the second-highest post in the Republican caucus after the 2006 election.[69] The move came because it was presumed that the incumbent whip, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, had the inside track to succeeding Bill Frist of Tennessee as Senate Republican leader.

K Street ProjectAlthough some sources indicate that Santorum played a key role[70][71] in the K Street Project, Santorum has denied any involvement,[72][73] and in January 2012 The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" concluded that "we can’t prove definitively whether or not Santorum collaborated on the K Street Project," saying that it "depend[ed] on how you define the initiative."[74]

Dai Alanye | 1.30.12 @ 2:56PM

Santorum's ratings during his sixteen years 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%

Frank Natoli| 1.30.12 @ 1:50PM

This is a great article, but most regrettably we manifestly do not live in a rational universe, hence all of Mr. Catron's facts and reasoning are for nought. How else could "intelligent" people find all kinds of "objective" reasons why Gingrich is not "electable" and Santorum is not "electable" and Perry is not "electable" and Bachmann is not "electable", etc., und so weiter, ad nauseum?

I think this morning I discovered the answer to my rhetorical question above. Reading Andrew Roberts' superb new "Storm of War". He describes an incident where Primo Levi, a chemist and Italian Jew, who survived Auschwitz, who one winter day opened a window on his hut and reached for an icicle, dreaming of the luxury of some fresh water, only to have the icicle knocked from his hand by a Totenkopf guard. In reply to Levi's query, the guard replied "hier ist kein warum", which for those of you who didn't take German means "here there is no 'why'".

With abject apologies for terribly stretching the context, the more I look at the present political "reasoning", who is electable, who is not, who is good for America, who is not, the more I conclude "hier ist kein warum".

Who Knows?| 1.30.12 @ 2:23PM

If a lion is chasing you, it is appropriate to feel fear, and run for your life.

Just so, anger is absolutely justified, as the perfect PUSH BACK emotion, when confronted by something that endangers you. And, make no mistake about it, Obamacare is the current dagger aimed at the heart of America—individual freedom.

So, for Romney to tip his inner child feeling about anger is most---APPROPRIATE!

It’s too bad the political system is so broken, circa 2012, for the GOP to avoid throwing up Mitt to take on BHO. It feels like 2000 all over again, only this time the political stakes are so much higher.

Perhaps the only relevant question, assuming Romney is able to beat Obama, is---will he really repeal Obamacare? Will he, if not in words, then in actions---or non-actions---admit Romneycare was wrong?

That old Nazi philosopher, Martin Heidegger, certainly had one thing right---humans are really into CARE!

Maybe I’ll change my moniker from “Who Knows?” to “Who Cares?” Anybody care?

Actually, beneath the whole healthcare imbroglio rests a more primal notion---moral hazard.

I wonder how many people even know what that means?

We are buried in such an unremitting flow of WORDS, filling every waking hour, it seems, that it’s as if the word-sphere has taken over. That is, confusion reigns, and the inevitable result is that most people resort to childish and/or infantile behavior---acquiescing to the sexy and seductive advertising is so much easier than being responsible for oneself.

When it comes to health care---to wit, taking CARE of one’s very own body---the truth is always and already simple: the chooser is responsible. All the third-party payer insurance crap is Moral Hazard on ignorant stilts!

Isn’t it BODILY obvious that the first level of learning, which should always be engaged, is how to keep the body healthy and alive? Shouldn’t a wise person pay close attention to what they eat, and keep tabs on what results in bad outcomes, and therefore eliminate the culprit?

Say you eat peanuts, and the next day you’re constipated. Maybe the first time you don’t get the connection. But, shouldn’t you, sooner than later, hopefully, get it—and stop eating peanuts?

Well, as the body---which needs to be taken care of, because where else are you going to live?---constantly changes over the years, a really MORAL person would take responsibility for himself, continually refining food intake, so as to enhance its condition. In my own case, it regularly amazes me to recall how much I hated carrots, when a youth, and how NOW at close to 70, it is so sweet a taste to slowly chew and transform them into ME!

Ah, Americans are hopelessly brainwashed, at least that famous 99%. They DESERVE whatever comes of all the CARING about Obamacare and Romneycare---since moral hazard is alive and well, permeating and swallowing them all.

Peter A. Sagi| 1.30.12 @ 2:42PM

What Rick Santorm said: "Folks, we can't give this issue away in this election. It is about fundamental freedom" is simply not true at all. A an accurate analogy would be convicts on a chain gang complaining about getting a heavier, second set of chains, whereas the fundamental issue would be their status as convicts.

What I am getting at is the most fundamental issue with Obamacare, and that is who it applies to and/or how you got it to apply to you.

The truth of the matter is that Obamacare only applies to those who use a Social Security Number on the job. The Social Security Administration will admit, IN WRITING if asked, and respond in kind, email or snail mail, that "having and using a Social Security Number is not required to live OR WORK in the United States." The IRS readily admits on their website that their form W-4 is a "VOLUNTARY withholding agreement." If you are being forced to sign a form W-4 on the job and therefore use an SSN, that is the policy of your employer and NOT the result of any law. Use an SSN on the job and you incur liability for not only FICA, but Medicare tax, federal income tax, state income tax, local income tax, and pretty soon Obamacare. No SSN use, no liability incurred for ANY of those noxious taxes.

"We The People" should pass a law of our own ... that any "employer" who refuses to hire without an SSN will no longer be allowed to keep his plate glass or his front teeth.

Pete

Bill| 1.30.12 @ 2:45PM

Romney Lost in FL! Where is my Blood Money!

Lance Sterling| 1.30.12 @ 3:07PM

I never thought in my lifetime I'd consider myself intellectually superior to the assembled GOP intelligentsia, with their, in my opinion, brain-dead support of "Slick" Mitt Romney... I might sip a beer in celebration!!!

Giarretti| 1.30.12 @ 3:33PM

Ok Sheeple. Stop for one minute and think for yourselves. If you were hiring someone for a job, would you want someone who had experience related to the job you were hiring them for or someone who had experience in another field? Romney did great as a consultant, venture capitalist, and in leveraged buy outs. BUT that does NOT translate to the government and the Presidency. As CEO, he gave orders. As President you have to work with a lot of other people. As a business person you want to grow business. We should be shrinking government. A business man should hire people. Government should create an atmosphere for business growth and then get out of the way. NOT micromanage. We don’t need a manager. So many of the things that are supposedly an asset for Romney are the same things Obama is trying to do now. Don’t believe the hype. Romney is NOT the best candidate. His own supporters have said one of the reasons they support him is they can manipulate him. (Ann Coulter on Sean Hannity radio show 01/06/2012) He will be a weak President who won’t push for change if he can manage to beat Obama which I doubt.

Ken Royall| 1.30.12 @ 3:43PM

Starts with a dishonest headline and goes downhill from there. Romney was commenting on Santorum's demeanor which is quite awful and unappealing.

In a choice between Obama and Romney you have one guy who won't repeal ObamaCare under any circumstances and another who says he will. You pick the guy who promises to repeal it obviously. The rest is just chatter.

The entire debate is not going to rest on ObamaCare anyway. The economy is the main issue and Romney will shine there. This is getting repetitive and old real fast.

brum joe| 1.30.12 @ 4:02PM

Romney is going to shine on the economy? Will this be before or after they run those ads showing him saying the US auto industry should be allowed to disappear?

megapotamus| 1.30.12 @ 6:13PM

That was the one principled stand he seems to have ever made and yet it seems plain that this was also a focus-grouped exercise in differentiation. There is nothing inside this man. If Bush was an empty suit this guy is just an emptiness.

Gregory Fossedal| 1.30.12 @ 3:48PM

Cogent piece; thanks.

Sadly, the Republican Party seems ready to do what it did in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008... nominate an insipid elitist who can't articulate the magic of the markets, community standards, and human freedom, because, well, at the end of the day, he doesn't really believe in them.

They're just buzzwords -- tools, to gain power.

Even so: The fault, dear Brutus, lies not with our stars, but with ourselves. It's time for the conservative movement to look in the mirror, and make a change.

Regards to Bob, Wlady, and the crew...

Gregory Fossedal

CalGTR| 1.30.12 @ 6:11PM

Hilarious. Now Mitt doesn't really believe in the free market system, or community standards, or human freedom. Some of you are completely immune to truth. Support your guy - fantastic! But do you really need to simply make stuff up about the other guy to justify your thoughts?

Tom| 1.30.12 @ 3:54PM

A simple solution to all Santorum supporters--switch your vote to Newt and stop Romney!

brum joe| 1.30.12 @ 3:59PM

Wherever you are on the healthcare debate it's hard to argue that the fact that Romneycare is in all particulars exactly the same as Obamacare effectively immunises Obama against any attacks over this issue. This isn't going to be the central issue by any means but to the extent it figures in the campaign Obama is in the clear.

CalGTR| 1.30.12 @ 6:18PM

The 10th amendment alone is a huge playing card. It's a simple argument, and one that will make sense to a lot of people. "Romneycare" in MA did not result in the creation of a massive new federal bureaucracy, and did not force the entire nation to march to Washington's beat. MA can repeal or change their health care system as they see fit, but with Obamacare that wouldn't be possible. The simple fact of moving a Romneycare-like system to the federal level automatically means fundamental changes to the program - they are different beasts altogether due to the shear scope and permanence of a national system. It's a great argument, and will enable Mitt to attack Obamacare. Does everyone here really think Mitt is lying when he says he'll give waivers to every state to stop Obamacare? I believe he'll do it.

Name Withheld| 1.30.12 @ 4:04PM

The author is from the University of GEORGIA. That explains everything about this silly article taking a non-issue and trying to make it into a convincing argument pro Gingrich. Want the truth? Romneycase versus Obamacare is only one of many issues that would come up in the fall, hardly the most important, and would be very different in a general election than a Republican race.

Ted Peters| 1.30.12 @ 4:20PM

Hey... he was a northeastern politician. If he were a Southerner, he'd have to flipflop back to the left to win. Get over it. He's a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

Peter| 1.30.12 @ 4:29PM

As if Gingrinch has not flip-flopped a million times. As if he hadn't most recently dubbed Paul Ryan's entitlement reform plan "right-wing social engineering."

Me, I'm most interested in getting a Republican in office who is competent and can focus on the economy while also being strong on national defense and consistent in foreign policy.

Romney has demonstrated that he will (mostly) govern as a conservative, be flexible enough to actually govern (which even us conservatives must remember requires compromise, not of principles but on policy), and can attract enough of both the base and the broader electorate to be electable.

on HC Romney will find a way to explain what he did in Mass. and I myself can quickly come up with a number of ways to do so. The most important thing is to know that he will address the unsustainable entitlements we have and will pull back enough on Obamacare that it doesn't tank the economy.

On gun control I can see no choice he had other than to say he would uphold Mass. laws. He never said he would somehow try to take away gun rights.

On abortion he is ultimately no different than Reagan or W. Neither ever tried to extensively curb the rights given by Roe v. Wade and I doubt any president or congress would really try. The issue is one where persuasion is necessary to make women make better choices, not one that can be legislated away. Perhaps evangelicals would accept allowing states to make their own individual laws but I expect a majority of women would object and it would hurt the GOP for a long time to come.

Let's get real already. What Romney has said about Gingrinch in relation to his inability to get endorsements from any significant number of prominent Republicans or anyone who worked closely with him in the past is absolutely, undeniably true. If each of us is honest about our own lives and those we know and have worked with, we would have to admit that this fact speaks volumes about a person's character and leadership qualities. It's down to Gingrich and Romney and reality says one or the other must be the candidate. Reality suggests to me that Romney would make the better candidate of the two. Period.

Stopobamacarenow| 1.30.12 @ 4:31PM

What each of these Republican presidential candidates needs to be asked is if they are willing to risk a governmental shutdown if they don't get a clean, simple and complete bill repealing Obamacare. The one who demonstrates total commitment to repeal by stating that not one social security check will be paid, not one medicare check will issue, not one F-15 will fly, and carriers with thousands of sailors will idle in the ocean will probably get the most primary votes. It is the whole game. Obamacare is so antithetical to limited government constitutionalism that it must be clearly and unequivocally extirpated from the statute books. The candidate who shows HOW he will remove it will get the most enthusiasm, support and votes and will lay down the brightest of markers for the next Congress.

Peter| 1.30.12 @ 4:32PM

Gregory, The GOP could also do what it did in 2010 and nominate candidates like those who lost in Nevada, Delaware and NY. I'd rather pick someone who has a better chance at winning. The situation the nation is in demands it.

Todd P. | 1.30.12 @ 4:39PM

Sorry, Newt, you are GONE baby, gone!! No wonder ALL of the polls show you losing to Obama. Gingrich is a DELUSIONALLY self-important blowhard. Did he really believe he could make it to the White House with his SECOND mistress on his arm??........

Simon Templar| 1.30.12 @ 4:45PM

If you have not figured it out by now, I am going to tell it to you straight.

It is time. It is now or never.

Money bomb everyone but Romney and start raising hell. It is time to get off the pot, get off the fence and pick someone but Romney or he will continue to devide us and he will win the nomination by a small margin. This election is just not about Obama, it is about the elite in DC that seems to know and believe that it is in charge and not YOU. Whoever has the greatest voter turnout of those candidates that are not Romney, we must get behind NOW!

We have to stop this whining, live with the next best alternative to THIER candidate. Conservativism itself is at stake here. Let us put down the swords and join together.

Let's roll!

Paul '52| 1.30.12 @ 4:48PM

It' s funny how you want us to listen to a guy 'cause he's got 20 years in health care finance,

yet not a word about how, for the overwhelming majority of these 20 years the health care plan that's been passed was a Conservative-Heritage-GOP plan.

and not a word of how it came to be that when the act was passed all of a sudden it's a "Socialist" plan,

backed by Obama,

and his "creatures."

Yeah, this is real serious stuff.

Kady| 1.30.12 @ 4:52PM

One wonders how many times a person has to say "I will repeal it" before it sinks in to everyone.

The issue is off the table. One hopes, FOR THE SAKE OF THE PARTY, that Florida ends this thing, and the GOP/Romney guns can retrain themselves on Obama instead of continuing this circular firing squad.

I am disappointed that a conservative couldn't win this nomination, but we have to go to war with th army we have, not the one we want.

john dubose| 1.30.12 @ 5:02PM

Romney was probably as conservative as it was possible to be in the Peoples Republic of Mass.
and get elected to anything.

If he can get into the White House he will be way more conservative than Obama. Elected Republicans from all over understand where the electorate is. That is why they support him. That is the ugly truth.

Rob| 1.30.12 @ 5:17PM

The writer lost all credibility when he said, "the two laws are identical in all important respects."

David, step out of your box for a minute and reread the constitution and bill of rights. The most important respect is that what Romney did was at the state level, what Obama did was at the federal level. That is a HUGE difference, and really the only one that matters.

Ask yourself this: if Romney would have vetoed healthcare in Mass., what would have happened? Geez, wouldn't have the 85% Democractic legistalure have overriden the veto? Isn't it better that he worked with them to make it the best he could instead of letting them write it all themselves?

B| 1.30.12 @ 6:21PM

Mr. Catron, your characterization of Obama's health care bill and the nation's response are embarrassingly ill-informed. You may be correct in your assessment that Romney's stance on the issue is similar to Obama's, but that misses the point. I hate to get political here, but you seem to be blinded by the same anger that fueled the protests at Democrats' town hall meetings last year (for the record, as you well know, Democrats were afraid to attend these meetings out of concerns not for their political beliefs but for their safety, considering how radical conservatives made repeated physical threats). This is a anger directed at a misconception of Obama and what he has done - an involuntary rage toward any Democrat or Democratic principle no matter the actual facts, no matter how beneficial his policies may be. He could declare that the sky is blue and people like yourself would disagree and call him a liar. It's saddening. I hope your future commentary would consider a more respectful tone toward "Obama and his creatures" and recognize their impressive contributions to our society, as much as people like yourself try to undermine them.

David| 1.30.12 @ 7:05PM

Does anyone really think Newt or Mitt provide a greater contrast with the boy than Santorum does?

They, along with Bam Bam, supported the Wall Street bailout, promote global warming baloney, and probably most important, they support the individual mandate for health insurance which is what conservatives are so upset with and is the reason for the Tea Party coming into existence.

Wake up people. I am not asking you to forget the "electability" crap. What I am asking is you to look at the situation and realize that it IS Santorum who is the most electable. He IS the most conservative and he DOES provide the greatest contrast with Bam Bam.

Santorum opposed all three.

Santorum has never been accused of being a flip-flopper like Romney. Santorum has never been accused of having a "strange" (to be nice) personality like Newt. Santorum does not have the personal baggage that Newt has.

David| 1.30.12 @ 7:13PM

Rob, I can appreciate Romney's position. Personally, I don't care whether Romney did it at the state level and NOW CLAIMS he would not at the federal level. What Romney did is no different than all the criticisms against Perry for mandating the vaccines for all teenage girls here in Texas. He got no pass for DOING IT AT THE STATE LEVEL.

Next, Romney's own campaign manager has recently said that they would keep the parts of Obamacare that are good and FIX the bad parts. I do not trust Romney when he says he will repeal it.

Last Romney's own advisors on Romneycare met multiple times with Bam Bam's people to structure Obamacare. There will be no distinction in the electorate's mind as to what Romney did and what Bam Bam did. And it is failing in MA........big time.

A government mandate is a government mandate.

David| 1.30.12 @ 7:16PM

Peter, Santorum is the embodiment of what you require in a president.

Blondshag| 1.30.12 @ 8:24PM

ROMNEY and OBAMA seem to be democrat...the same.

ROMNEY is very negative and a different type of GOP. If the GOP pick was ROMNEY.....I could not vote for ROMNEY.

GUESS it would be OBAMA.

---------------

YOU GO - NEWT GINGRICH!

Fraser Mason| 1.30.12 @ 9:01PM

I think editorial energy would be better directed at debating the value for money Americans get for spending $8,400 per capita on health care when other nations produce better results with far less expenditure. Also, many Americans might be surprised to know that government funds 45% of health care costs, which means that on a per capita basis the public sector in the United States actually puts more per capita dollars into health care than is the case in many countries with so called socialized health care systems. Obamacare did little to shift any of these fundamental parameters.

PCP Smoker| 1.30.12 @ 9:08PM

It's a good piece. Do remember that GOP voters have the blindfold on. GOP Central and DC Conservatives have stated their preference, and besides, Newt Gingrich hated Ronald Reagan and called him a communist scumbag. On with Romney we go. One to defeat we go.

SHEILS| 1.30.12 @ 9:26PM

I WATCHED AND THOUGHT ROMNEY WAS REMINDING RICK NOT TO GET SO UPTIGHT IN HIS APPROACH TO THE SUBJECT. HE WAS COMMENTING ON RICK'S (ALL TOO OFTEN) ANGRY DEMEANOR.

PCP Smoker| 1.30.12 @ 9:41PM

INSTEAD OF COMMENTING ON RICK'S POINT, HE WOULD RATHER COMMENT ON HIS ANGRY DEMEANOR. IT WAS A TRICK AND ONLY IDIOTS, LIKE YOU, FELL FOR IT.

snappy11| 1.30.12 @ 10:01PM

What's so awful about the health care law? That insurance companies can't cancel people when they get sick? That people can't be turned down for preexisting conditions? That ALL children now have insurance? That all people will have insurance in 2014 so they won't wait and go to the ER, costing more? That the "doughnut hole" is gone for seniors in the prescription drug law so they don't have to pay thousands between certain monetary amounts? That small businesses can band together to get cheaper insurance? It seems Republicans are against all these things.

POST American| 1.30.12 @ 10:41PM

"NOTICE once again, as the real
campaign approaches ----the REAL issues
'disappear'."

And with NDAA 1021 -----you too may be
-------------------'disappearing'-----------------

-----TICK ----tick ---tick ---tick

We're running out of time America---------

tick ---tick ---tick ---tick ---tick ---tick

---------------------------TICK!---------------------------

Damian| 1.30.12 @ 10:49PM

It isn't worth getting upset about. Romney has addressed this issue perfectly. He said his first act on day one will be to make all 50 states exempt from Obamacare. Next question.

Frankie| 1.30.12 @ 11:08PM

Or is that all 57 states, they wouldn't let me go to Alaska and Hawaii

TrueHawk| 1.30.12 @ 11:29PM

The author of the article is spot on. Romney is an offense to social conservatives and we will not vote for Obama-lite. We will take our chances on the Obama we already have and hope to win in 2016. Romney is too vindictive and meanspirited in his tactics and he has aligned himself with the old school losers like Rove and Dole and McCain. We tea partiers will vote third party or sit it out.

Karen| 1.31.12 @ 10:38AM

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Facer| 1.31.12 @ 1:05AM

I'm not angry. I'm not a democrat. But Obamacare has been a lifesaver for my family, particularly the part that got rid of the vile "pre-existing condition" crap that endangered one of my children.

Frankie| 2.1.12 @ 3:53PM

Obmacare was not the only answer. No one was saying health care reform wasn't necessary. Just that this radical government takeover was unnecessary. Another power grab from the most power hungry I've ever seen. God bless your child.

MissouriConservative| 1.31.12 @ 1:53AM

Two things should more than worry. 1.) Obama reelection and 2.) coattails that give him control of the congress. Well respected Larry Sabato breaks down the races with Obama, Gingrich and Romney. It shows that if we are to avoid the two scariest scenarios, we must nominate the most conservative who can beat Obama AND that other candidates can feel good about being on the ticket with.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/

MissouriConservative| 1.31.12 @ 1:57AM

In July 1996, the 14-year-old daughter of Robert Gay, a partner at Bain Capital, had disappeared. She had attended a rave party in New York City and gotten high on ecstasy. Three days later, her distraught father had no idea where she was. Romney took immediate action. He closed down the entire firm and asked all 30 partners and employees to fly to New York to help find Gay’s daughter. Romney set up a command center at the LaGuardia Marriott and hired a private detective firm to assist with the search. He established a toll-free number for tips, coordinating the effort with the NYPD, and went through his Rolodex and called everyone Bain did business with in New York, and asked them to help find his friend’s missing daughter. Romney’s accountants at Price Waterhouse Cooper put up posters on street poles, while cashiers at a pharmacy owned by Bain put fliers in the bag of every shopper. Romney and the other Bain employees scoured every part of New York and talked with everyone they could – prostitutes, drug addicts – anyone.

That day, their hunt made the evening news, which featured photos of the girl and the Bain employees searching for her. As a result, a teenage boy phoned in, asked if there was a reward, and then hung up abruptly. The NYPD traced the call to a home in New Jersey, where they found the girl in the basement, shivering and experiencing withdrawal symptoms from a massive ecstasy dose. Doctors later said the girl might not have survived another day. Romney’s former partner credits Mitt Romney with saving his daughter’s life, saying, “It was the most amazing thing, and I’ll never forget this to the day I die.” This man has priorities straight!

Sonny119| 1.31.12 @ 4:58AM

If Romney were to be the Nominee, he Romney as well as Obama, would be laughing so hard inside themselves, as to the ridiculously absurd amount of ease it is to fool these American voting people.. which doesn't bode well for the American electorate as a whole..

In fact, Romney and Obama would not even need to have any debates, as they would have nothing to disagree about. In fact, I wouldn't be if Obama asked, and Romney accepted, to be Obama's VP in this coming election, if he should lose to Newt, and he will, the GOP ticket as US President.

Sonny119| 1.31.12 @ 5:01AM

In fact, Romney and Obama would not even need to have any debates, as they would have nothing to disagree about. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama asked, and Romney accepted, to be Obama's VP in this coming election, if he should lose to Newt, and he will, the GOP ticket as US President.

stephen didovich| 1.31.12 @ 7:32AM

some of you commentors for ron paul, its not
going to happen you want to credit obama for
finishing off BIN LADEN all on GW Bushs intelligence not from leading from behind.Obama
does not deserve reelection but may get it because of the stupidness of the voting public

Kenneth| 1.31.12 @ 11:17AM

I'm certain you mistranslated Mitt's comment. Since Santorum's not accepting Mitt's reply, Mitt did not want to argue about it because his response was not being accepted and wanted to get on with the debate.

common_sense| 1.31.12 @ 1:54PM

The author is rehashing Romney's old positions from decades ago, and trying to sell it as his current positions. All intelligent people can evolve with time. I was a democrat party supporter in my 20's, and now support republicans. Does that mean I am still a democrat? Heavens no!

Terry Holmes| 1.31.12 @ 2:36PM

I haven't decided who to support, but if Romney doesn't start emphasizing what is on his OWN WEBSITE (e.g., each state is the best judge of how to handle any h/c reform, medical liability reform, etc.) and thus countering the attack that Obamacare--forced on the whole country (except for cronies/unions) and "Romneycare"--designed for a liberal-minded state, are the same, then he will lose the general election.

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel | 1.31.12 @ 9:55PM

The last couple of weeks leading up to the Florida primary vote have been most telling about Romney and Karl Rove and Matt Drudge type buddies.

Romney has proven he will stoop as low as any politician will go to destroy another Republican candidate. Should he be successful in being the GOP nominee, Romney and his Republican country club establishment kind, will have to reap the sorry results of having alienated some of the GOP Conservative base.

I would not be surprised that a significant percentage of this base will not vote for Romney as a payback for having him shoved down their throats as the milquetoast nominee. And, part of the scenario of them not voting for the Mass. moderate, will be that he lacks a clear difference from Obama. But, that should not matter for the GOP establishment, because Romney will [supposedly] deliver all those coveted Independents to achieve victory in the 2012 general election. The Karl Roves and Ann Coulters won't be happy with anything less than another John McCain.........

jstwndring| 2.2.12 @ 2:48AM

A Romney Presidency would mean Obamacare is here to stay. Everything this guy says absolutely screams that he's a Democrat, and yet, we're considering him as our party's nominee. We are indeed the party of stupid.

Steve| 2.2.12 @ 10:56PM

Romney is Mormon. No can do. Anyone who admits to that belief system is unfit to be president.

Newt is a lizard. No can do. Plus he's fat, and a cheat.

Sanatorium, I mean Santorum... Well, either way you don't wanna go there.

Ron Paul is too old, wears poopy suits, and he's a little crazy. But I agree with 95% of what he says.

So, to me it's Ron Paul or Obama.

Oh yeah, a mitt is something that catches balls.

LoisLane| 2.22.12 @ 8:10AM

In the end, it doesn't matter.
There is no perfect candidate.
Anyone But Obama.
I would vote for a pink ceramic soap dish before I'd ever vote for Obama.
Wouldn't you?

Tenn SLim| 2.28.12 @ 9:56AM

Repeal of ANY Law, requires Congressional action, sub committees, procedural processes, actual voting and finally signing by the Pres.
Our best hope for eliminating the Obamacare law, is the Supreme Court decison re mandates this summer.
I have really no hope that the Obama care law will ever by fully elminated due to the entanglments already in place. There are some aspects that the Health Care industry alread supports, hence the peice meal process Romney supports.
The Chaldean Hand has written.
Semper Fi

Bane | 5.31.12 @ 8:08PM

Thought this website was funny. It says that Romney may be the Bane of Existence using a pun involving Bane and Bain Capital.

mobielgeheimen | 6.12.12 @ 3:32AM

May the best win! It does not matter!

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|54 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|46 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|29 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|70 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|10 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|17 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|20 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|102 comments

The Spectacle Blog

James Gandolfini, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 9:13PM

An Alternate History of the Syrian Civil War

John Tabin | 6:13PM

Peter Wehner Responds

Jeffrey Lord | 5:39PM

CBO Gives Ammunition to Immigration Reform Supporters

Jordan Gonzalez | 5:28PM

Obama Addresses Nuclear Reduction, Climate Change

Claire Healey | 5:07PM

Elbert Guillory: ‘Why I Am a Republican’

Patrick Ryan | 10:13AM

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 9:47AM

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

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

By George Neumayr

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

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

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

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?