-
New World Order?
March 1, 2012 | 74 comments
-
Wade and Nancy
November 9, 2010 | 23 comments
-
National Patronizing Radio
October 22, 2010 | 126 comments
-
Good News
September 24, 2010 | 39 comments
-
A Referendum, Not an Election
September 14, 2010 | 75 comments
Political Hay
The Last Republican?
Friedrich Nietzsche was right about Mitt Romney.
The earth has become small, and on it hops the Last
Man, who makes everything small. His species is ineradicable as the
flea; the Last Man lives longest.
— Nietzsche
So it seems it will be Mitt. And good thing he won’t be offering his main rival the second spot on the ticket. “Mitt & Newt” sounds like the name of a comedy act or a network sitcom. Not right for something epic or tragic. Which is to say… not right for the times. Not even close.
When you think about this election — and you must, there is no escaping it — you wonder if it is not just the same old, same old. Is this just another “most important election of our lifetimes,” or something, actually, a little more important than that? Is it business as usual or are we entering a pre-revolutionary phase of history when, soon, nothing will be the same again?
Who knows? But to ask the question is to point out how unfit Mr. Romney may be to lead during these times.
To begin with, he has never given any indication that he even understands, or appreciates, the mood of these days. You can listen to Mr. Romney debate or speak for hours (some have, poor souls) and never get the feeling that he senses the fear, the uncertainty, and the outright dread that is loose in the land. People, millions of them, are not merely frightened; they are terrified.
Mr. Romney’s message of assurance?
“I’ll fix things. Trust me, I’m a businessman.”
An example of Mitts’s insouciance would be that line about how the health care mandate isn’t something to “get angry about.”
Nah. Geeze, man. Chill.
And on the existential (sorry, only word that will do) choices about just how much government the nation can afford and how much debt it can endure (or visa versa), Romney has never exhibited the slightest sign that he appreciates what a big deal it is. Nothing, he seems to believe, to get your knickers in a twist over. He’ll fix it. He’s a businessman.
Mr. Romney has captured the Republican flag and will carry it into battle this Fall. If he loses, those people who believed devoutly that the times require something more than a standard-issue Republican for whom all things political are negotiable and to whom there is no dispute that cannot be settled by compromise … those people will be saying, “Never again.”
They will have seen it before and one suspects they will be finished with a party that repeatedly sends out for slaughter candidates who do not represent their beliefs, positions, and ideas with conviction. If it is about common ground and compromise, they will say, then the hell with it and leave the Republican Party to people who consider it a boast to say, “I could work with Teddy Kennedy.”
If, on the other hand, Mr. Romney wins, what then? Does anyone expect that when he gets to Washington and starts running the government like a business, entitlements will reform themselves, the deficit will shrivel on its own accord, and Leviathan will shrink to a size where it can be domesticated and housebroken? Has Mr. Romney demonstrated, ever, any convictions regarding the proper size and the rightful powers of the government? Does anyone believe he shares the fear millions feel about government power and their angry indignation at its arrogance and overreach? His overriding sentiment about government seems to be that it would be nice if he were in charge of it … so it would be run (all together now) like a business.
In short, does anyone think that Romney will ride into Washington next January determined to tame the town… or die trying?
Mr. Romney’s aim will almost surely be to take Washington on its own terms and try to “make it work.” Whatever anti-Washington sentiments he might express during the campaign, the odds are they will be discarded and forgotten within weeks of his taking the oath of office in a replay of George H. W. Bush and “read my lips.” The people who voted for Romney in the belief that he would take on Washington will be patronizingly told by the political class that “Governing is not the same as campaigning.”
Letter to the Editor View all comments (386) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Geoffrey Norman
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/03/the-last-republican
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- Nuts to Nutter
- Self-Righteous Republic
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Clint| 2.3.12 @ 6:37AM
Trumped Up Romneycare.
Donald Trump,
" I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on health.We must have universal healthcare. "
Mittens The Cat Is On Trump's Head.
Jack in Wi.| 2.3.12 @ 7:04AM
If he wins he will be another Bush. If he loses he will be like McCain and Dole. What is going to happen to improve the governence of the country?
The Republicans are a minority party. Bush could not get the majority or even pluality of the vote in 2000. In 2004 the Republicans got a small victory against an eastern liberal by getting every vote out by pushing referendums on gay marriage. The only thing that got McCain to 46% was Sarah Palin getting out the base vote. Since 2008 at least 4 million of McCain's voters have gone to their eternal reward and have not been replaced.
Why should any young voter, independent, disaffected Democrat, or libertarian, paleo conservative Republican want to go out and vote for Mittt? It truely is Ron Paul or ruin. I expect the campaign to be about personalities and not issues. The country is sinking and the 2 Goldman Sachs candidates Obama and Romney have nothing to offer but war, Obamomney care, loss of civil liberties, bailouts for the rich, inflating the money supply, and continuing bankruptcy.
Just Tom| 2.3.12 @ 7:33AM
The campaign will be about whether people want another 4 years of Obama. If they do he wins, if they don't he loses. The problem is not the campaign, the problem is what happens afterwards. My best and only hope is if ROmney indeed wins there is also a Republican Congress and he does not have the guts to veto reasonable and needed reform. That is of course a Republican Congress is competent to craft such reform.
vtwin| 2.3.12 @ 10:53AM
“US Jobless Rate Falls to 8.3 Percent, a 3-Year Low” -- New York Times
“Unemployment Drops to 8.3%; Payrolls in US Jump 243000” – Bloomberg News
Sure, but where is his super-long birth certificate?
Boar Hunter| 2.3.12 @ 11:28AM
Via Zero Hedge:
"A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that’s not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation. As for the quality of jobs, as withholding taxes roll over Year over year, it can only mean that the US is replacing high paying FIRE jobs with low paying construction and manufacturing. So much for the improvement."
The Big E| 2.3.12 @ 11:41AM
A record 1.2 million people left the workforce last month. Workforce participation is now at a 3o year low.
That, from the Government's Bureau of Labor Statistics
8.3% is just the percentage of those out of work who haven't yet given up looking for a job. So if they can just figure out a way to make even more people give up hope of ever finding a job, the number will go even lower.
Wouldn't that be great?
vtwin| 2.3.12 @ 11:59AM
The nation was losing jobs at a rate of 750,000+ months during the end of Bush’s second term in office. Last month under Obama the nation added 243,000 NEW jobs. That’s 1 million jobs per month improvement. Is it not?
Simon Templar| 2.3.12 @ 12:17PM
The ACTUAL RATE of unemployment is 23 percent, jerk offs. Statistics have been just realease by the government that contain the whole figure not just those currently on unemplyment insurance. Those that have given up looking for work are not counted in the 8.3 percent, for example. God, we really are hopeless when people can not even get this right. Idiots.
Anthony| 2.3.12 @ 7:38PM
1.2 MILLION Americans dropped out of the labor market last month. 200,000 found jobs, that's a net loss of ONE MILLION JOBLESS, and Obozo, the whores in the MSM, along with Obozo's trolls cite this as great news.
Hell, if this keeps up, we'll be riding around on tricycles, like vtwin.
Pat Leath| 2.3.12 @ 10:01PM
Mr Templar, congratulations! Are we expected to accept this crass subterfuge by the BLS? The media goons are praising this "great news", and it is a blatant lie. Numbers do not lie. Data is specifically being manipulated for Obama and his thugs by the BLS. Playing with numbers to garner votes is totally unacceptable. People are desperate, scared, despondent and they have stopped looking for jobs. Don't these poor people count in the calculations from the BLS or are they simply an inconvenience? Is Obama saying that these people do not exist? I love America. It is however, getting harder and harder to truly believe in this country because of greed, paranoia and lies from our government officials .
The Big E| 2.3.12 @ 3:11PM
The nation was losing millions of jobs a month at the end of the Bush term, in large part, because in November 2008 the nation's business owners woke and found the country had elected a pure Marxist to the White House, and thus began laying people off in record numbers to minimize the damage their businesses would suffer in the desolate times ahead.
And no, when the country adds 243,000 new jobs, but a record 1.2 million give up looking for work at all, I don't consider that an improvement, and if you do, then you're deluding yourself.
vtwin| 2.3.12 @ 4:16PM
They musta’ saw that Marxist comin’ for a long time cause Bush’s Great Recession became in December 2007!
The Big E| 2.3.12 @ 5:08PM
Actually vtwin, if you bother to check your facts, which I know is anathema to any liberal, you will find that the unemployment rate under Bush NEVER rose above 7% till AFTER the election of Obama.
jstwndring| 2.3.12 @ 5:50PM
Yes. And guess who took over Congress in '07? The Democrats. And, guess what they promised back then? First, they promised to let the Bush tax cuts expire, meaning the cost of doing business was going to increase. Second, they put on "show trials" where they took evil CEO's to task for daring to make a profit. Of course, everyone knows that the nobly-minded work for free. They also threatened to socialize various industries. Lastly--well, not really lastly, but I tire of typing--they refused to lift the oil-drilling ban that would further reduce the cost of living in general. Only after significant pressure from House Republicans, did the Democrats relent and lift the ban which resulted in an immediate drop in the price of oil and ultimately, a drop in price at the pumps. But, I can see how the simple minded just shout out, "It's George Bush's fault!", since he was president.
Bob | 2.4.12 @ 2:48PM
The ONLY thing that counts is that the country elected a Socialist who was going to "fix" things and bring Hope and Change. In three years he accomplished NOTHING and now is touting a "WPA" style program out of the FDR playbook to improve the situstion. It didn't work then (the war ended the recession) and won't work now.
BCanuck| 2.5.12 @ 6:17AM
WWII did NOT end the Depression (recession). Private sector employment did not recover until after the war. No war has ever helped the economy. Spending money and consuming resources to build things and then blow them up or sink them to the bottom of the ocean, is destruction and waste. What's the ROI on a tank?
But you're absolutely right, FDR's 'programs' did nothing for the economy, like you said, it didnt work then and it won't work now.
Cpm| 2.3.12 @ 6:30PM
Six months after Obama's election the company I worked for for 30 years took a panicked look at the new political/business landscape and decided to close one of their manufacturing plants. One was in Texas, the other in Illinois. Guess which one they pulled the plug on? The one with the high taxes, record deficit and pro-union, anti-business orientation. When Obama had one priority -jobs- he instead embarked on his economy wrecking agenda. Romney is not that tone deaf.
TrueBlue | 2.3.12 @ 4:45PM
Umm, no, because with over 900,000 people no longer even trying to find work that takes your 243,000 "NEW" jobs to at LEAST 657,000 people last month alone that gained NOTHING.
150k per month is the "government approved" number of jobs required per month simply for replacement, this number includes seasonal work by the way. so, 243k-150k = 93k above replacement, and STILL doesn't account for the people who dropped out. That'd be 800 THOUSAND+ just fyi.
Ziggy Stardust| 2.3.12 @ 11:55PM
Yep, as soon as the Democrats took control of congress in 2006 the wheels came off the bus. Funny how nobody seems to like or even remember that fact
Bob | 2.4.12 @ 2:50PM
Amen!!
John Magurn| 2.4.12 @ 9:25PM
NOT!
Seek| 2.3.12 @ 1:55PM
But why did they leave the workforce? A lot of attrition is due to the phenomenon known as motherhood.
life5678| 2.3.12 @ 4:02PM
Seriously? You're not trying to funny? Motherhood is a constant, they leave and come back to the labor force at the same rate, if they don't come back it's bc they lost their job and are now unemployed. Just in case you were actually serious.
vtwin| 2.3.12 @ 4:20PM
If Motherhood is a constant how you do explain the Baby Boomer phenomena?
Seek| 2.4.12 @ 10:22AM
Rates of female labor force attrition vary over time. Many young and employable women do have children. And for those in low-skilled and semi-skilled jobs, many choose to drop out of the labor force for several years rather than return after several months of maternity leave, especially if married. Fact: Married women are about 10 times more likely to voluntarily leave the labor force than single women.
I don't deny the reality that there are many men too discouraged to look for work. This is tragic. But the idea that the "real" unemployment rate in this country is somewhere near 25 percent is simply preposterous. Funny, but nobody here complained about all those discouraged workers during the Bush years. I wonder why.
Just in case if you were wondering if I was serious.
TrueBlue | 2.3.12 @ 4:48PM
This is true, the numbers do not account for those leaving the workforce for motherhood, only one problem, in the majority of those cases the women only go on maternity leave and do not actually quit their jobs. Those women are not counted as unemployed and never hit the counter for non-participant. The number you were looking for is retirees, whose numbers still do not account for the majority of those no longer participating, according to the DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. The very people keeping track admit it, take off the blinders.
Bemused| 2.3.12 @ 8:20PM
And maybe retirement?
Occam's Tool| 2.3.12 @ 12:10PM
8.3% is still horribly, horribly high. And, my dear friend, t'will get worse, not better.
DRed| 2.3.12 @ 1:52PM
It might. But it's been getting better for 23 consecutive months. Want to make a bet on what happens next month, Occam?
Boar Hunter| 2.3.12 @ 2:04PM
Occam my dear friend!
Let me begin by thanking you for your kind words the other day. With 7 or 8 hundred posts concerning the column at issue, I did not think you would ever read what I wrote concerning my gratitude for your kind and gracious whack on the head. I do always appreciate your input and will give it the consideration it merits, which is to say that your argument may weigh heavily enough to change my mind.
Is it not utterly amazing that the libs are cheering and praising Obama for an 8% unemployment rate when they excoriated Bush when his numbers were at 5?
I'm sorry for even posting a response to vtwin. It's useless arguing with the insane and all I accomplished by responding to the communist troll vtwin was to cause Simon to blow a vein out of his Templar.
With my sincere apologies to Simon; Simon you are absolutely correct and I did not mean to in any way trivialize the extent of the lies told my this administration. I am aware that if the same "formula" for calculating unemployment that was used under Bush, was used to measure Obama's success, the number 23% would be a much more accurate, yet still conservative estimate.
I once thought reason and facts would win the day with these liberals, that the truth would prevail. Now I understand that you cannot hope to win an argument with stupid people, particularly those in the class of educated idiot comprising those like vtwin who base their beliefs on emotion and defend them with lies.
jstwndring| 2.3.12 @ 6:01PM
Actually, I hope you continue to respond to the willfully ignorant. Not because you will win them over, but, because your posts may sway people who would otherwise believe the lies being repeated by these true believers in collectivism. I never respond to these people expecting them to concede defeat. I just hope someone more open minded may read and at least consider that not everything that went wrong from 2001 to 2008 was George Bush's fault.
Alan Brooks| 2.4.12 @ 9:10PM
"not everything that went wrong from 2001 to 2008 was George Bush's fault."
That is similar to writing not everything that went wrong from 1977 to 1980 was Carter's fault- of course not.
But who misses either Carter or Bush?
Bemused| 2.3.12 @ 8:23PM
Yes Boar Head, and once I was naive enough to think that reason and facts would win the day with conservatives with regards to Climate Change science. Fool I was.
Tea Party Jim| 2.3.12 @ 8:36PM
Fool you ARE, if you still believe in "climate change".
Bemused| 2.3.12 @ 9:22PM
Call me conservative in the old fashion sense, but I still respect the due diligence of the scientific method, and am still waiting for someone to cite me the one peer-reviewed study (and I don't care if it's from a pro-mining geology publication) that shows that there hasn't been an increase in temperatures, or that the recent increase in temperatures is due to anything other than human carbon emissions.
chester arthur| 2.3.12 @ 9:54PM
Even better,cite one peer reviewed study that didn't use the juggled figures created out of wishful thinking,new temperature stations in asphalt parking lots,and flawed computer models to show that their has been human caused global warming.
jlrlee| 2.4.12 @ 8:53PM
Please google climate cooling and you will see numerous articles, some from true believing countries in Europe, that, in fact, the earth has been cooling for the last 15 years. Also, NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Anthony| 2.3.12 @ 4:17PM
The U-6 unemployment rate is 15.5%. This is the real unemployment rate, not the phony b.s. numbers coming out of Obozo's Labor Department, cited by the NY Times, which lost another $30 M last year, YES!!
The good news is California will be bankrupt before the NY Times.
The bad news is Obozo's birth certificate is in the bag on the back of your tricycle, vtwin.
You better be nice to us 1%s, we just might loan Calf some money when it runs dry of cash in March.
We wouldn't want all you lefties in Calf. riding tricycles, like you vtwin.
denise| 2.3.12 @ 5:57PM
Thank God for Obama that the republicans took over the house in 2010, or the rates would be 15%
Zak Klemmer | 2.5.12 @ 5:52PM
The unemployment numbers are manipulated with seasonal adjustments and removing large numbers of people from the rolls. Anything to make the President look good?
fckewe| 2.7.12 @ 5:51AM
Don't forget record corporate profits in 2010 and oh My!!! all done without that "bi partisan promise to america" the RED menace leaders give as a preamble to every stagnation/obstruction bill they pass and stockpile for those soundbite moments!!
Mark Crawford| 2.3.12 @ 3:53PM
Oh God. This is the nonsense that has propelled Romney in the first place. This election is about ideas, pure and simple. Romney doesn't get that and never will because it is contrary to his background and philosophy as a businessman who has succeeded through the art of the deal. As for the Republican congress, there are 87 conservatives and 130 politicians lead by the incompetent Boehner who has been outmanouvered at every turn, so I am afraid that your best and only hope is in need of adjustment.
denise| 2.3.12 @ 6:16PM
Completely agree, we need to keep sending conservative at the ground level and then wrestle control away bit by bit.
Notice how Obama is taking credit for the small bit of recovery taking place, which not one republican or President candidate is mentioning the fact that one year ago the house changed hands.
fckewe| 2.7.12 @ 5:54AM
The RED menace doesn't want you to remember that they ALMOST put us in bankruptcy to the WORLD again! ALL for headlines. Any group of people who gather to foment the destruction of an elected government IS guilty of sedition. If they are Elected officials themselves who band together, they are guilty of TREASON! it's why Obama kept Gitmo open. ~S~
janvones| 2.4.12 @ 12:46AM
Utter nonsense. This isn't about Obama versus whatever stuffed shirt we have who is not Obama. It is about reversing course or not. Romney will not reverse course. I will vote third party or Obama before I ever vote for a Romney ticket.
merlin| 2.5.12 @ 6:57PM
I will probably do the same. If you are going to hell in a handcart at 60 mph, and Romney slows you down to 40, he hasn't helped you much.
Then, after four year of Romney people with some justice will say there is no difference between Republican and Democrats. Unfortunately lots of people equate conservatives and Republicans.
Ted| 2.3.12 @ 7:59AM
"If he wins he will be another Bush."
No, he'll be worse. He'll be another Obama; it just won't be as obvious. With Romney we'll get to the same place as we will with Obama. The trip will be slower, and that's about the only significant difference.
Hell, if it's Mitt v. Barack, we might as well vote for Barack.
Vern Crisler| 2.3.12 @ 10:12AM
I'm laughing at all those National Review conservatives who were trashing Newt and praising Romney. Now they have Romney-remorse. They are disappointed in his vapidness.
NR writers and AmSpec's sunshine conservatives remind me of the battered housewife. Despite how much she is abused by her husband, she continues to believe he really loves her and that someday she can "change" him before it's too late.
Not going to happen, NR and AmSpec writers. You've made your bed with the sanctimonius snake Romney; now you can't go bed-hopping just because you've realized your guy is a just an uninspiring schmuck.
Vern Crisler| 2.3.12 @ 1:46PM
I'm reposting this again, and also violating my rule about keeping it short, but I think it's necessary to be a little longer in this post.
A couple days ago Quin Hillyer cited an article of Jennifer Rubin's to prove she wasn't in the tank for Romney. It said in part, "Romney, for some Republicans [Rubin, actually], is the most mature and viable contender to go up against President Obama. But he makes himself unpalatable to the base [us] and to even more moderate voters [like her] by playing it too cute by half. In other words, he leaves open a spot in the race for a bold, reasoned and constructive Republican reformer [Santorum?]."
This is friendly criticism from a supporter of Romney, not snarky criticism. It's like Newt's criticism of Reagan, a friend badgering a friend to do the right thing.
The next article is supposed to show she supported Santorum. However, she uses Santorum as a way to criticize conservatives like Perry, and to make herself out to be oh-so-reasonable compared to those "talk-show" type conservatives:
"And while he remains a long shot to win the race, he actually has something to teach the party, the conservative punditocracy and his competitors about how a conservative can make progress and not simply mouth talk-show rhetoric. It’s not every candidate who has something to say that is worth listening to."
In Rubin's world, one is only worth listening to if one criticizes conservatism. Real conservatives like Newt and Perry need not apply. She is only praising Santorum because he is a "long shot" and she doesn't have to worry about his actually winning. If he ever came close, she'd be talking about his "hard corners" or "hard right" positions.
The next article praised Santorum, but then ended with Romney boosting:
"As for Romney, he showed a bit more verve, but he’s not, in contrast to 2008, trying to be someone he’s not. He’s the business guy. He’s the middle-of-the-road Republican. He’s the responsible internationalist. It’s not all that thrilling, but it may just be the best the GOP can do this time around."
In another article, notice how Rubin contemptuously dismisses conservatives as the "hard right":
"The hard right had every chance to select a more principled and ethical conservative. But Rick Santorum simply wouldn’t do, you see. The hard right, or at least the screechiest faction of it, doesn’t really want a viable, consistent conservative. Lacking the ideal conservative (who doesn’t exist anyway) they’d rather have a standardbearer as angry and vitriolic as they are, who will surely crash and burn, leaving them to grouse about the GOP “establishment” and the “socialist” president."
You see why she prefers moderate Mitt? Because in her angry and vitriolic way, she is telling us she doesn't really like conservatives, too "angry" and "vitriolic" for her. That's why we regard her as part of the old, dead Republican establishment. She, like Peggy Noonan, has sold her political soul in order to impress her liberal friends in Washington.
These Establishment Republicans and socialist wannabees, by trashing Newt and pushing that snake Romney, have virtually guaranteed Obama's reelection.
Hetta| 2.3.12 @ 3:41PM
This article and your comment are complete and total bunk. What right do you have to tell Jennifer Rubin or anyone for that matter that they aren't conservative? Many of us conservative republicans are tired of the talk shows telling us who is conservative and who is not. Newt Gingrich is better at spouting talk show rhetoric than anyone , so of course he must be more conservative than Romney.
Some of us conservative Republicans was someone who can put two thoughts in their head together. We want some who is not a great performer or who is best at acting conservative. Some of us want some who actually works, not a celebrity. That is why we choose Mitt Romney.
Romney is crummy at campaigning. He is crummy at feeling your pain. He can't and he doesn't. He is a crummy actor on a phony stage called "Presidential Campaigns". He inspires no one. All of these things are true.
What Mitt Romney can do is solve a problem. He knows how to fix things, because he has done it time and time again. When the SL Winter Olympics went looking for someone who could clean up the mess they turned to Romney. At the time Romney was known as the turn around King in his business. His reputation was beyond reproach. And it was all true. Some of us want the King of Bain and not the King of the Best Lines.
We have Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich out there tearing down everything Romney accomplished, because they are gifted orators who can convince you they can feel your stupid pain. They know exactly what words to use to persuade you.
Romney doesn't have that. He is a technocrat who believes we need the best and brightest minds to solve our problems. He believes problems can be solved by technical expertise and not by politicians. I believe that too, which is why I voted for Romney.
life5678| 2.3.12 @ 4:13PM
Well put. Let's not forget to mention that Romney did not take 1 penny for his work at the Olympics, or as Governor or in many of the charitable positions of leadership he has volunteered for. He is super smart and a tenacious problem solver. Exactly what we need.
jstwndring| 2.3.12 @ 6:19PM
Yeah, we need Republican-branded socialism, not Democrat-branded socialism.
(rolls-eyes)
Every-single-thing Romney does screams that he is a socialist. We already got one. Why not just vote for Obama?
Bemused| 2.3.12 @ 8:34PM
Maybe because countries with universal healthcare, regulated financial sector, strong government run education and a price on carbon are currently outperforming America, be it with regards to poverty rates, lifespan, material wealth, educated population, or any other major indicator. Case in point: Australia, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany.
Yes America does have the lead on other indicators, be it military spending, obesity, percentage of population living under the poverty line or in hunger, the amount of energy required per unit of GDP, or the amount of money corporations do donate to political parties.
Tea Party Jim| 2.3.12 @ 8:44PM
RRRRRRRight! That's why there are so many immigrants clamoring to enter Sweden< Denmark, etc. If they are so great, how come YOU don't live there?
Get a life!
Bemused| 2.3.12 @ 9:26PM
You really don't have an idea how many immigrants are clamouring to get into Sweden or Denmark do you?
Incidentally a recent global survey showed that most people in the developed world would emigrate to socialist Australia if given the choice. The only people who had America as there number one choice were the Indians.
fckewe| 2.7.12 @ 6:07AM
Because it would invalidate the entire RED menace party's heirarchy. It would be admitting that a not only did a ghetto monkey halfbreed do better at Harvard then they did, but as a black rookie wiped the snotty snooty noses of Conservative White America with his stinking black big city ass AT THEIR OWN GAME!!!
And not only that! he did it by being decent and all those other things Conservative White American Family Values pretend to be.
Vern Crisler | 2.3.12 @ 6:47PM
Hetta, I don't know whether your post is a satire, or not, expecially given the title of the main article.
You say,
"[Romney] is a technocrat who believes we need the best and brightest minds to solve our problems. He believes problems can be solved by technical expertise and not by politicians. I believe that too, which is why I voted for Romney."
The concept of the Last Man, which is what the article alludes to, describes men and women who are petty and satisfied, promoters of technological rationality and bureaucracy, and who are unable to dream great dreams. This is a perfect description of you and your candidate, Hetta.
Francis Fukuyama said of the Last Man:
"Agreeing on ends, men would have no large causes for which to fight. . . . A dog is content to sleep in the sun all day provided he is fed, because he is not dissatisfied with what he is."
My comments about Rubin stand. She is a sunshine conservative, one that cannot be counted on when the going gets tough (as with Romney, too). All you have to do is read her own words to realize this.
But then you have to stop sleeping lazily on the front porch waiting to be fed; you have to start thinking before you can start dreaming.
Sheila| 2.3.12 @ 10:42AM
Well said, Ted. Now comes a plethora of pejoratives from all those "conservatives" that frequent TAS, castigating you as a secret liberal, a self-hater, or merely stupid. They are rah-rah-repukes, damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead into oblivion. The destination doesn't matter, just as long as someone with an R after his name is in office. They and the rest of the sheeple will relax, assured their country is in good hands. They get the government they deserve, and the rest of us must endure it as well. Decline and fall.
aware| 2.4.12 @ 6:49PM
Yes.
Mountain Man| 2.3.12 @ 12:20PM
Romney is "Obama-Lite".
jstwndring| 2.3.12 @ 6:20PM
^^This.
BCanuck| 2.5.12 @ 6:26AM
If it's Mitt vs Barack you might as well vote for Gary Johnson.
Gary Johnson was a popular and successful two-term Republican Governor that cut taxes and balanced the state budget. Gary Johnson vetoed 750 bills in two terms including 200 of 424 bills in his first 6 months of office. He was re-elected by a wider margin for a second term than his first run.
Simon Templar| 2.3.12 @ 12:12PM
Hey Jack OFF from Wisconsin,
Could you please explain the following for a poor old stupid conservative like me. While you are at it maybe you could get Clint's attention away from his sycophant worship of Ron Paul and get him to join in the chorus and explain.
As the Republican presidential race goes on, front-runner Mitt Romney and long shot Ron Paul are said to be forging a “strategic alliance between establishment and outsider.” The Romney-Paul alliance “is more than a curious connection,” The Washington Post reports. “It is a strategic partnership: for Paul, an opportunity to gain a seat at the table if his long-shot bid for the presidency fails; for Romney, a chance to gain support from one of the most vibrant subgroups within the Republican Party.”-Newsmax
As I always suspected you and your neo liberals are NOT conservatives but Trojan horses. So, it seems your argument above is the crap and bullshit that all of us here have been saying for over a year. Truly amazing. Apparently, your Ron Paul has a lot more in common with a northeast RINO progressive than you thought.
Looking forward to the insane back pedaling and new load of shit you will produce.....
Clint| 2.3.12 @ 5:46PM
I Could Tell Ya, But Then I'd Have To Kill Ya, Templer.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Flyin' Over Templer's House, In Black Helicopters.
Simon Temlpar| 2.3.12 @ 6:22PM
Just as I thought, no answer...
Sorry to disturb you, you can go back to jacking yourself off to sexy pictures of your man boy, Ron Paul.
Clint| 2.3.12 @ 9:09PM
Uh Oh !
More Queer Talk From Bibi's Israel Firster Boy Toy, Simon Temlpar ( Formerly Simon Templar ).
Looks Like You're An Israel Firster Crybaby. Squiggy.
" In advance of Saturday's Nevada caucus, tonight Ron Paul sits down with Piers Morgan at Planet Hollywood's Koi in Las Vegas. In an intense and revealing interview, the Republican from Texas addresses a wide-range of issues, including his reaction to Mitt Romney's recent comment about the poor.
The GOP candidate went on to say that he doesn't believe Romney really doesn't care about poor people, but actually, it's his views on finance that are the true issue: "I think the problem is he's a victim of his own economic theories, rather than him being cold and heartless."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Nevada.
BCanuck| 2.5.12 @ 7:10AM
Ron Paul forging strategic alliance with Romney? Hmm... Ron Paul's been in (and out of) Washington for 35 years voting AGAINST guys like Romney. Ron Paul has had the same stump speech for 35 years ranting and raving against nearly everything Romney stands for (or seems to stand for). Ron Paul who wouldnt accept Medicare or Medicaid money in his medical practice is now forming a 'strategic' alliance with the guy who brought Obamacare to MA.? It's so 'strategic' it makes no sense at all.
You dont have to like Ron Paul to understand that Ron Paul will never endorse Romney - ever. Ron Paul supporters see Romney (or Newt) as only marginally better than Obama. Ron Paul holds the record for being on the short end of 434:1 votes in the House and supporters that are only slightly less committed to principles than the candidate himself, will then go out and pull the lever for Romney (or Newt)? Not a chance.
If Ron Paul does not win the Republican nomination 90% of his supporters are GONE! The day after the convention the Paulistas will be supporting Gary Johnson or working on a write-in campaign. In reality, Romney and Newt have a vision for the size and scope of government quite similar to Obama and won't get a thing from Ron Paul or his supporters - and deservedly so.
fckewe| 2.7.12 @ 6:14AM
I couldn't work 35 years ago and it can't work now. i DO like the idea about spending defense money DEFENDING AMERICA... at the borders and ports of entry. I also like his idea for imploding the world economy with the Gold Standard. If he doesn't think paper dollars have value, then why doesn't his campaign practice what he preaches... and only accept gold as a contribution?
Steve| 2.4.12 @ 2:04AM
Romney may be bad, but there's no way he'll be as bad as Bush, Jack.
Joe| 2.4.12 @ 5:38AM
The Republicans are a minority party when they abandon conservatism and attempt to be Democrat lite. Nobody wants diet soda when they can have the real thing. Conservatives are 40% of the electorate, but many of them are not Republicans. Instead of understanding the reasons why they turn off independents, the Republicans are obsessed with appealing to moderates. Moderates are not independents.
For those lacking a definition:
Moderate = someone who believes that whenever there are two opposing points of view, the correct answer is somewhere in between. If one person says 2+2=4 and another says 2+2=6, the correct answer must be 5. To the moderate, that's wisdom.
Independent = someone who despises politicians of both parties, doesn't trust any of them, and has little use for ideology. They want to see leadership and hear a convincing argument for why someone should be elected. They want to see Washington shaken up and reformed.
If the electorate really functioned the way the Beltway thinks, there is no way Ronald Reagan would have ever been elected president. Instead, he won two landslides.
Augusta| 2.5.12 @ 10:33PM
Really? Ron Paul or ruin? Ron Paul never wanted to be president - he just wants to promote his ideas, and running for office gives him the biggest forum. That's why he has run before. Besides - do you know he made a deal with Mitt??? I'm not kidding my friend - it's true. Ron Paul is just as much of a sell-out as anyone else. Here's the article about it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....story.html
vtwin| 2.3.12 @ 10:47AM
With Trump’s endorsement Romney proves he is a party UNITER; finds common ground with fellow son of inherited wealth.
TrueBlue | 2.3.12 @ 4:59PM
Trump is an amusing guy, but he has filed for bankruptcy more than anyone else I can think of. Romney has a 20% failure rate, and we're supposed to expect things to get better with him? He's already proven all of his far left leanings with Healthcare, Gun Control, and Abortion. Liberals can be successful businessmen too, corruption is an awesome thing, just look at Buffett and Soros.
Anthony| 2.3.12 @ 6:03PM
As much as I dislike Trump, his wealth was self made. He and Romney have had their share of failures, like all folks who actually attempt to accomplish something, unlike Obozo and his brain-dead minions, like vtwin, with a 100% failure rate.
Ah yes, first California going belly up in March, then the NY Times in July, let's hope Obozo and the left go belly up in November.
2012 looks to be a great year afterall.
jlrlee| 2.4.12 @ 9:07PM
A little genealogy copied from MakeMyFamilyTree.com. The Donald Trump family, including the three eldest Donald Trump children, Ivanka, Eric and Donald Trump Jr, proudly takes its place in United States history as the true self made American royalty. The current patriarch, starts the Donald Trump biography by descending from a long line of successful business entrepreneurs that together, sharing the trump surname, over time built the Trump family empire, now called the Trump Organization. Donald Trump's father, Fred Trump, used a strong German work ethic lay the foundation for the Trump family tree to earn world class business success as United States real estate developers. The home of the Trump family empire is in the Trump Tower located on 5th Avenue. The Trump Tower houses high end retail shops, residential units, and the headquarters of the Trump Organization all under its majestic high rise roof. Like the family, the Trump Tower is a national treasure found in New York City.
After Donald Trump's grandfather emigrated from Austria in the late 1890s, he realized the American dream and started a restaurant which allowed him to invest in real estate. Continuing this Trump family success, Frederich Trump formed the Trump Organization.
Now, as the fourth child of five in the Frederic (Fred) Trump family, Donald Trump has expanded the operations of the Trump Organization to include casinos in Atlantic City and other entertainment vehicles.
fckewe| 2.7.12 @ 6:20AM
Trump's wealth is all governmental bailout!!!! not in cash, but in the restructuring and excusing of debt through bankruptcy, with deliberate calculation and abuse of the relief bankruptcy affords mismanagement.
No citizen can understand how they pay for Trump's failures by allowing the tax write off's of all those intentional defaults. All those creditor's get to write off and take as a deduction the moeny that TRUMP scammed from 'partners'. Almost as insidiously as Romney did at Bain.
Bemused| 2.3.12 @ 8:38PM
Sorry, you've lost me, how is it that Buffet and Soros are corrupt (specific examples please for each), while the fabulous Koch Brothers are not?
Tea Party Jim| 2.3.12 @ 8:50PM
We'll trade you: we'll give you Soros and Buffet's wacky ideas about taxes (Whew!) and world-wide governing advantages, if you can tell us why the Koch Bros. are pilloried for (1) making money and (2) expressing free speech. We're waiting for an answer.............................
fckewe| 2.7.12 @ 6:22AM
I'd love Buffett to exercise some free speech, but he is not the RED menace scum that Koch holders esteem so much.
fckewe| 2.7.12 @ 6:22AM
or are you a Koch worshiper?
Alan Brooks| 2.3.12 @ 11:33PM
"Mitt & Newt"
Mutt and Jeff
Frick and Frack
Mack and Meyer
Abbott and Costello
Laurel and Hardy
Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.
So vote Obama-Biden next November.
Alan Brooks| 2.3.12 @ 11:37PM
"Mittens The Cat Is On Trump's Head."
Mitt-Newt ticket would equal Tom and Jerry.
Colin Foy| 2.5.12 @ 6:25PM
Yes! The Washington and republican political establishments get their man. Happy days again for the two faced sad sack Mitch McConnell and cry baby John Boehner. Won’t have to contend with those constitution loving tea party types come January 2013. Things will finally get back to normal! Dingy Harry Reid must be laughing his butt off right about now. And Nancy, you can order another round of neuron poisoning Botox injections you insane stupid bitch. Government mandated health care is here to stay no matter who wins. Teach your children to speak Chinese and Spanglish, study up on the Koran, trillions more in debt on the way. And our big gay military can continue the important work of making the world safe for Islam. The corrupt American political ruling class (And the folks who pay for them) wins again! What a pathetic joke.
Colin Foy| 2.5.12 @ 6:32PM
If you thought John McCain knew how to kiss liberal commie democrat ass wait till Willard hits DC. This guy knew how to play patty cake with the Kennedy's to get what he wanted.
They've groomed him well.
Lmajito| 2.3.12 @ 6:53AM
Heck no!...Mitt has no idea on how to negotiate the viper's pit that awaits him in DC.
Government isn't a 'bidness'. Bidness is about profits, and in present day America, at all costs and damned be the consequences...that is until you get 50 million citizens below poverty line and suddenly you realize...geez where did all the manufacturing went?
Government is about service, to the citizens....when a hurricane destroys NO, who do folks expect to come? Not the Bain capital's business...Staples and such but FEMA and the feds...they don't show and you end up like GWB, being blasted at the slow response....ditto for the BP spill in the Gulf...folks were not waiting for business to take the lead...as a fact, all of the business involved began pointing fingers at each other with some ceos going to sail boat events...
So much for running government like a business...it ain't going to work...wait until Mitt runs against the wall of opposition in congress....what's hes going to do...issue an exec order mandating that all agree with him or he'll do like in Mass, and agree to what the congress wants? So much for leadership....we'll get more of the same...
The key this year are both houses of congress, which btw, Newt clearly pointed out yersterday...thats the key not the guy in the oval office
life5678| 2.3.12 @ 4:20PM
Huh? what a jumble of non-sense. It's not about profits, it's about supply and demand, always has been and always will be. Romney understands that better than most, far better than Obama. No wonder you're a Newt fan.
Bemused| 2.3.12 @ 8:42PM
Demand? Your coming close to treason my friend. Remember that true Republican ideology is all supply-side (lower corporate taxes, give job creators more money), rather than demand-side (as in the brave new world, companies only hire when they have lower taxes, not when the poor have more money and increase demand for goods).
Tea Party Jim| 2.3.12 @ 8:53PM
You are right. Seems to me we tried a "bidness"-man in office once before....his name was Carter. What a wonderful result that was!
fckewe| 2.7.12 @ 6:25AM
Actually, the bidnessman was Harry Truman. Carter was a farmer. Reagan was an actor. Bush and his spawn were also businessmen, spy business and failed business respectively. Which explains EVERYTHING!
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.3.12 @ 6:57AM
If there is any panic in the air, it's portrayed in the commentaries one finds at AMSPEC.
The world is coming to an end and it's all because of Mitt Romney. Please!
First, we had Nixon whose EPA is doing everything possible to destroy American. Taking us off the gold standard wasn't good either.
Ford wasn't much better, marching to the beat of the same drummer, expanding government at any opportunity. He was never elected only selected.
On to Reagan, cut taxes for which he's remembered, then significantly raised taxes which few want to remember. When he left office he significantly increased government and the national debt.
George H.W. Bush, raised taxes after promising not to raise taxes. Read my lips, "No more H.W. Bush."
George W. Bush, spent money like a drunken sailor, expanding government at every opportunity and did little to fight Congress on the housing Congress.
After these acts and Obama Romney shouldn't have to try very hard to succeed.
Maddox| 2.3.12 @ 8:43AM
Wrong, he will have to work very hard to turn the country around. His bland rhetoric hasn't given us much to believe he will do anything more than smile and make promises. I hope I am wrong.
There's that word "hope again." Conservatives, like me are always left "hoping" after every election the RHINO will be better than we "hope" or the leftist won't be as bad. That's the best we can do?
TrueBlue | 2.3.12 @ 5:07PM
The tax increases at the end of Reagan's term was him falling for the classis Republican blunder. "Raise taxes now, and we promise we'll reduce spending later." The participation rate during Reagan's term jumped up like crazy, so did individual wealth, then H.W. Bush went and screwed the pooch, but he was a RINO anyway, so what do you expect? GW had the problem of wanting people to like him, so he practiced "compassionate conservatism" and we ended up with tons of social programs and nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. But then to be fair with those two countries we haven't practiced real warfare since WWII. Should have gone in, taken out the leaders, and left. Tax cuts were about the only conservative thing Bush did (at least that I can think of, there may have been something I missed).
Romney is in the same vein as HW and GW, leaning even more towards Obama. He's a successful businessman, so what? That's his ONLY positive. Soros, Buffett, and Gates (Sr and Jr) are all successful businessmen and they're liberal as hell.
Bemused| 2.3.12 @ 8:48PM
Individual wealth did increase under Reagan, but only for the rich. Every other indicator shows that the poor and middle class went backwards since Reagan's two terms, more specifically, poor and middle class wages have not kept up with inflation.
Go across the pond to Europe, and have a look at the proportion of luxury cars on the streets compared to ours.
Tea Party Jim| 2.3.12 @ 8:56PM
They have more kings and princes than we do, too.
Bemused| 2.3.12 @ 9:54PM
Maybe, but that still doesn't account for the proportion of middle class Europeans driving luxury cars.
chester arthur| 2.3.12 @ 9:58PM
Funny that,our income went up considerably under the Reagan administration,and we weren't rich or even middle class when his first term began.I don't know anyone who lost ground in middle class families in the 80's,and I didn't know anyone who didn't suffer in the Carter economy.Now the suffering is even greater,and the leadership is worse.
fckewe| 2.7.12 @ 6:27AM
There is an honest man in the RED menace! Welcome aboard the Good Ship ... uh... we gotta come up with a name for this.
Clint| 2.3.12 @ 7:07AM
RINO-CINO Romney Wants To Index The Minimum Wage.
"Indexing the minimum wage would be an absolute job killer," Club for Growth President Chris Chocola said. "Mitt Romney's proposal is anti-growth and would harm our economy. It's disappointing to hear that the leading candidate for the Republican nomination believes that the government can set the price of labor better than the free market."
RINO-CINO Romney Wants America To Be The Peoples Republic Of Massachusetts.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To Nevada & Maine.
fckewe| 2.7.12 @ 6:30AM
index wages to profits. Companies lose business, wages go down. Employeees who own significant stock almost always invest more in their own prosperity, including sweat equity and sacrifice. But ALL wages should be indexed to profits.
Executive pay takes the same hits and reaps the same rewards. It should also have the same benefits at the same cost and the same retirement plan administered by the same brokers.
W| 2.3.12 @ 7:25AM
We do not need another President with grandiose ideas making pretty speeches promising to transform our lives and country. These big ideas like Obamacare and nation building with Bush have caused our deficit and lousy economy.
We need a businessman to fix things. You make it sound as if fixing the economy is bad, not a gradiose enough idea, but that is what we need. We need someone to reduce the deficit, cut taxes, allow drilling, reduce the size of government, and leave us alone. We don't need the government to run our lives.
If you want grandiose expensive useless programs with grand rhetoric, then vote Obama.
Ted| 2.3.12 @ 8:01AM
"We need a businessman to fix things."
You are presuming that a businessman knows how to fix things. Many of the businessmen (and women) are not pro-free market capitalists. They have made their fortunes in the world of crony capitalism. I am not suggesting Romney did so, but I am suggesting that his success as a businessman in no way implies he is competent to fix the economy.
W| 2.3.12 @ 8:19AM
I am presuming that Romney is more competent to fix things than Obama and Newt. I am not sure about Santorum because while he is a social conservative, he voted for every expensive program of GWB, such as the No Child Left Behind Act, Medicare Part D, the nation building, the big transportation bill, etc. Rick will not be different that GWB, another "compassionate conservative," which means someone using our money to be compassionate.
I agree about the crony capitalism especially under Obama, where is is giving our tax money to his contributors, like Solyndra.
JimP| 2.3.12 @ 8:42AM
I think you are being too harsh on Gingrich. He wants to unleash the economy/free market a la Reagan. That's his way of 'fixing' things. Slash taxes and reduce regulation. Romney will tinker with the system that exists now and try to make it more efficient. Think Gerry Ford in the 70's when we had stagflation. Ford's approach was basically an epic failure. Gingrich's plan is much more radical than Romney's and modeled after Reagan's.
Hetta| 2.3.12 @ 3:49PM
Gingrich says he wants to "unleash the economy/free market a la Reagan", but his past record doesn't support that statement. He has been in Washington his whole life. He is a good talker though.
Romney is the one with the record of completely dismantling and reforming. But he isn't as good as Gingrich at saying so. Newt talks the talk, Mitt walks the walk.
TrueBlue | 2.3.12 @ 5:10PM
What do you mean "his past record doesn't support that statement"? 1994-1998 balanced budgets, booming economy, welfare reform, etc etc etc.
Newt has a several flaws (news flash, nobody is perfect), which are why I don't support him, but his record DOES support that statement.
Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 7:24PM
Gingrich managed to get the budget balanced which is why the establishment hated him so much.
He didn't let them go on spending binges, which is probably the real reason why they hit him with the trumped up ethics violations and the establishment mutiny.
W| 2.3.12 @ 5:44PM
Jim
I will support anybody who cuts taxes, regulations, the deficity, and allow drilling. I think Newt, Mitt, and Rick will all do this, but Mitt is the best for the economy. I like Newt and Rick, but when Newt had his chance as Speaker he wasted a golden opportunity by getting entangled in his book deals. He did help balance the budget and welfare reform, but was forced out by his own members. He was not fouces on his job as Speaker. We need someone focused on the economy.
Give Jerry Ford a break. He was president only two years, had a solidly Democratic Congress, and had no mandate to govern. The Dems ruled, they even blocked all aid after Nov 1974 to South Vietnam resulting in the invasion by North Vietnam in Jan 1975 and their victory in April 1975. Ford never had a chance.
Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 7:27PM
Actually, I really don't believe a word Mitt Romney says.
I believe Newt and Santorum mean what they say. Romney however has repeatedly demonstrated that he will say anything to get elected and will even go along with election rules being changed to disenfranchise voters to keep his opponents off the ballot (a tactic that I only thought a Chicago Democrat would pull until it happened in Virgina).
John II| 2.4.12 @ 2:57PM
Spot-on, Garfield. Except the word is "disfranchise," not "disenfranchise." The latter malapropism, despite its widespread use, is nonetheless morphologically cluttered and silly, probably a confusion with the correct "disenchant" or "disengage." Rather like the ridiculous "irregardless" in confusion with "irrespective."
And now back to "Ball of Fire" (1944), in which Gary Cooper is a bit out of character in the role of a flummoxed wordsmith.
Margie| 2.5.12 @ 2:02PM
Troll "W" is a bigot and a hypocrite and a liar.
He trolls here pretending to be a conservative, but he actually hates Christians and is a racist.
Here is his repeated commentary to me here without ceasing. I sometimes think he must really be Clint:
W| 2.3.12 @ 10:32PM
Keep lying, Mullah, that is all you know.White trash bigot.
REPLY TO THIS
Now: How is it that this Troll is permitted to continue posting to me like this here, and yet I am warned by Quin that I am not permitted to post Scripture!!
Who does AmSpec discriminate against here?
Judge for yourselves, Christians.
Are you all a bunch of cowards here too? Do you not say a thing to "W" for this?
Do you not care that a Christian is permitted to be slandered repeatedly here and threatened by Quin?
kf451| 2.3.12 @ 1:39PM
I don't want a president who thinks he can fix things. I want one who will repeal Obamacare, repeal job-killing regulations that don't help people anyway, and then get out of the way. It scares me that Romney wants to "fix" Washington.
Hetta| 2.3.12 @ 3:52PM
How exactly do you repeal Obamacare and job killing regulations and not call it "fixing"? Washington does need to be fixed by technocrats with the expertise to do it, no matter how boring and scarey they are to the average voter.
Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 7:28PM
Mitt's own team has said that they have no intention of repealing Obamacare.
Mitt is just saying anything to get elected, and has no intention to actually follow through.
Old Soldier| 2.3.12 @ 8:46AM
"We need a businessman to fix things."
The last guy who ran with that message was Hoover.
Hetta| 2.3.12 @ 3:53PM
If you compare records, Romney is nothing like Hoover.
Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 7:29PM
You're right, Hoover was just over his head. Romney is just saying anything to get elected because he wants to be President, he wants the power.
Vern Crisler| 2.3.12 @ 9:22AM
Look at his record in Massachussets. That's how Romney will "fix" things.
Cpl.Punishment| 2.3.12 @ 3:31PM
Vern, Not sure if you are from MA but I am and lived here almost all my life (wife won't leave). Romney was actually quite good for MA. First and foremost he actually balanced the budget. Many conservative (for MA anyways) thinhgs happened under his watch. Romneycare today is in no way the way it was when he signed it. There were major changes that took effect in 2008 and 2009 that make the program unsustainable and Obamacare is 10 times worse (MA rules are ridiculous (no lifetime caps on substance abuse treatment, cover invitro fertilization, etc.. but they do not satisfy Obamacare requirements.)
MA is and has pretty much always been a Liberal Dem stronghold. The fact that he got anything done in this environment is simply amazing
JimP| 2.3.12 @ 7:29AM
Many of us certainly hope he will be the last Republican. What has been made clear once and for all this campaign season is that the "establishment GOP" is the enemy of conservatism just as much as the Democrat/communist party. If Romney is the nominee I guess I can keep my lunch down long enough to vote for him to get rid of Obama. I think. Maybe. I'm projecting future events without any certainty. Who knows what Romney might do to turn me off so badly that I will not pull the lever for him. After that, I want a third party that actually is a conservative Reaganesque party that will shrink government, slash taxes across the board/flat tax, and reduce D.C.'s 'share' of GDP way down to around 5%. There's no need for it to be 18% etc. A pox on the GOP and so many 'conservatives' who have written column's trashing Gingrich and touting Romney, instead of backing Santorum or Paul. IMO, no conservative can be for Romney if there is ANY other actual conservative still running.
KC| 2.3.12 @ 6:00PM
5% of GNP gets you defense and nothing else.
Tnes31| 2.4.12 @ 11:51AM
5 percent gets us back to the constitution...defense of the USA clearly written in the document. The rest is fluff.
VonMisesJr| 2.3.12 @ 7:31AM
Mitt represents the Republican Establishment. The Republican Establishment does not represent conservativism. Therefore, Mitt does not represent conservativism.
As many of you read "Ameritopia," it seems clear to me that the so-called "Progressive" Bible is Plato's "Republic" or More's "Utopia" where society has Philosopher Kings and Enlightend, benevolent Princes to rule the "Noble Savages." Mitt and the GOP follow the creed of Hobbes "Leviathan." They embrace socialism, but the bureaucratic state instead. You might say that the liberals are "good little commies," while the GOP are simply "statist."
I am not sure the answer is a conservative coup of the Republican Party in Washington. The answer is to follow the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Can you say "Enumerated Powers?" Can you say "Tenth Amendment States Rights?" Can you say "Federalism?"
Some thirty states are in lawsuits with the regime based on health care mandates, illegal immigration enforcement, oil drilling, and now GA with election eligibility. Nebraska just passed a state law exerting their "States Rights." The critical mass will come from the "People" and the "States." If you are waiting the for DC federal government to reform itself, don't hold your breath!
Kade| 2.3.12 @ 8:00AM
First we need to define conservatism. True conservatism is not the Rush Limbaugh definition of conservatism, for he is more of an economic libertarian who espouses no business, banking or trade laws and this globalist view is a race to the bottom. True conservatism is America-First policies under-girded by social conservatism and prudent and fair laws that benefit for both business and Main Street -- for without a thriving middle class America will be regulated to Third World status. .
This is traditional Republican conservatism and until the GOP gets that straight they will continue to lose elections. For sure, Obama will, with some justification, paint Romney as a tool of Wall Street who cares little about Middle Class America and he may very well win this election or make it close instead of a crushing GOP Reagan-like victory. .
Kade| 2.3.12 @ 8:16AM
Simply put true conservatism must always have patriotism and morality as its foundation, and sending AppleI- phone manufacturing and good-paying jobs to communist China is not conservatism, no matter what Rush says.
VonMisesJr| 2.3.12 @ 8:29AM
Like Hayek who wrote "Why I am not a Conservative" in "Constitution of Liberty," Rush and I are Old Whigs. Read it and perhaps you will understand.
But the basic point, and you may be well intentioned, relates to what Rush always says: "Words mean things." Socialist bastardize the definitions of words. Hayek wrote about this in "the Fatal Conceit" in his Chapter "Our Poisoned Language." To get to the point, "liberalism" meant the compelte opposite to Von Mises and Hayek 100 years ago than it means to you today. Hayek said he was not a conservative, since the classical sense of the word was reactionary in that one wished to "conserve." Today's "conservative" is a classical "progressive," and what you think of a progressive is probably better defined as revolutionary or anarchist.
So unless you can make your point more clearly, I don't know what the hell you are talking about. Not that it is your fault, but socialist understood Pascal's "Port Royal Logic" and exploited it. The first two rules are essentially that words must have a unequivocal meaning and used consistently in any logical argument. Socialist, who today call tehmseves by stealth names, consistently violate both rules as a matter of course!
Bob K.| 2.3.12 @ 10:46PM
You are saying the same thing that the contemporary historian, John Lukacs, has said repeatedly in his histories and essays. "The history of ideas (indeed of all human thought) is inseparable from the history of words." This from his chapter on the 'Misuse and misreading of "Fascism" ' at page 117 of "Democracy and Populism" published in 2005. Over time the meanings of words change as peoples thinking changes.
VonMisesJr| 2.4.12 @ 7:57AM
Bob,
Socialist change the meaning of words on purpose. "Progressives" in the early 20th century sullied the word. They co-opted "Liberal" that was actually the opposite. Now that liberal is a damaged label, they are asking to be called progressives again.
If you read Hayek, in "Socialism and War," he writes two essays titled "Freedom and the Economic System." Chapter 9 written in 1939 starts: "Freedom" and "liberalism" have become terms that are used to describe the exact opposite of their historic meaning. Combined with his Chapter "Our Poisoned Language" in "The Fatal Conceit," he is clear that this is no accident!
JimP| 2.3.12 @ 8:34AM
Where did you guys get these definitions of conservatism? Who defined conservatism originally and when?
As for Limbaugh, I've never heard him espouse NO laws regulating business etc. Can you site some examples?
JimP| 2.3.12 @ 8:35AM
Correction: I should not have said "you guys". My comment is addressed to 'Kade.'
Kade| 2.3.12 @ 9:11AM
Rush is for unfettered free trade and little if no banking laws.
When did Rush ever mention to reinstate the prudent Glass-Steagal wall that separated the corner bank from the gambling investment firms posing as banks?
Rush rarely criticizes an out of control, monopoly money printing Fed.
Rush is a known economic globalist who was for Dubai managing our vital ports. Rush is for outsourcing our vital manufacturing base to communist China and Third World countries under the banner of free trade. Clinton’s NAFTA started the 20,000 page suicidal free trade agreements. Liberals Clinton, Gore, Kerry, W, and Obama are free traders.
Rush called Newt an anti-capitalist for questioning Romney unsavory Bain Capitol tactics – anything goes under the banner of capitalism as far as Rush is concerned.
Listen to Rush closely and he always backs Wall Street, rarely Main Street. Unfettered capitalism is not conservatism it is libertarianism -- isn’t that clear?
We need prudent though certainly not onerous business, banking, and trade laws that benefit our country, its businesses and Main Street too, not foreign powers – that is America-First conservatism.
Vern Crisler| 2.3.12 @ 9:28AM
I understand your point about free trade and unfair foreign competition -- but I don't recall Rush ever giving a 52 point plan on what he would do on trade policy. Can you cite some examples from his books that would support your claims?
Kade| 2.3.12 @ 9:50AM
I did not read Rush’s books. But just 2 days ago he was defending Apple for shipping their I-Phone manufacturing to China with the clever caveat that the hi-tech design jobs are still being done in America. Now hi-tech manufacturing and quality control was probably a decent paying American job and the research and engineering eventually follow where the product is being made -- not to mention the security concerns of giving our hi-tech world to a ruthless dictatorship. But Rush is silent on these concerns.
Rush called Donald Trump a liberal for wanting to impose import tariffs on China -- something our Founders would have strongly endorsed; in fact they would have enacted laws to keep our vital manufacturing in their beloved America. .
And Rush’s Dubai Ports position was the clearest example of him being an economic globalist.
VonMisesJr| 2.3.12 @ 11:27AM
Kade, you don't know what you are talking about. Von Mises and Hayek, as well as Sowell and Williams are for free trade. If the Austrian Economist are not conservative enough, who is?
Our Founding Fathers rebellion was over tariffs, dumb ass. The Intolerable Acts and the dictatorial rule over Boston Harbor as punishment for the TEA Party rebellion was the catalyst. The colonist wanted to trade with France, United Provinces and the rest of Europe and the Far East; but the British forced them to buy and sell only with Britain at exorbitant rates of return for Britain. Tariffs were very low and central government was very small. Most taxes were local and most government was in one's backyard.
If you knew about economics and conservativism, you would understand "division of labor." Do you want a job assembling phones? If I can catch fish, and you can knit stockings; it always pays for me to go get the food, and you to stich with your needle and yarn. Then I trade salmon and tuna for pretty little socks and a sweater.
And the Dubai Port controversy was about a Dubai company managing U.S. Ports and had virtually nothing to do with trade. It was a security issue that was politicized when in fact the same company managed other U.S. entry and departure points.
Mark in LA| 2.3.12 @ 12:45PM
Yes, this is why tariffs were the only source of revenue for the US government until the Civil War, because the Founding Fathers were so against them. Do some real reasearch, Hamilton wanted high tariffs to encourage the development of manufacturing in the US. The Civil War was fought over the high tariffs the north imposed to defend US industry. The south wanted cheaper European goods.
Kade| 2.3.12 @ 1:54PM
VonM
The Boston Tea Party rebellion against the British has nothing to do with what I am talking about and I am not against legitimate trade needs.
Dubai Ports was a sellout of our national security just like sending our manufacturing and engineering to communist China is a sellout of both our sovereignty and national security; nether are technically trade (movement of goods) but both fall under the term unbridled economic globalism – a race to the bottom.
VonMisesJr| 2.3.12 @ 3:22PM
What the heck does "unbridled economic globalism" mean? You liberals talk in gibberish and then tell us you were correct after the fact.
Kade| 2.3.12 @ 4:35PM
Better term then -- economic libertarianism. Economic conservatism first thinks of the good of one’s country and citizens, and enacts trade and business laws to mirror that. Dubai Ports and outsourcing our vital industry to (hostile) foreign powers does the opposite of this.
VonMisesJr| 2.4.12 @ 8:13AM
Kade, actually "economic libertarianism" is a useful description since both words have clear meanings and they are used consitently in arguments. These are the first two laws of Pascal's "Port Royal Logic." This connotes free trade and the words are unambiguous and unequivocal.
"Economic conservativism" makes no sense. Economic "pertains to the production, distribution or income, wealth and commodities." Conservatism means to "conserve" in its classical definition, and several similar ideas in today's parlance; none of them seem to connect with a description of some form of economic activity. Unless you are suggesting that we do not have economic activity, and we are therefore conserving it for the future?
Kade| 2.4.12 @ 5:57PM
VonM
I am using the term economic conservatism as a philosophy that embraces conservative principles regarding the economy. Now today the meaning of the term conservative is all over the map and I believe upside down regarding economics. Please hear me out.
A principle that I consider conservative is to protect the sovereignty, independence and safety of our country. Thus I believe that it is conservative to have a large military, to have a robust manufacturing base, and a thriving middle class. Transferring our industrial might, our technology, and engineering to foreign powers (even hostile ones) for cheap labor is counter to protecting our country and its people and in my humble opinion should not even fall under the category of trade.
I also think it is conservative to have a strong banking system with strict laws that provide safeguards to protect the foundation of our financial system. It is not conservative to allow our banks to take risky investments and be at the whims of free markets. The 2008 crash screams for a downsizing of the global banks and for the Glass-Steagal wall to be reenacted at a minimum. Bailing out these gambling institutions with TARP is also not conservative.
And it is certainly not conservative to allow a Fed gone wild – continually bailing out Wall Street with monopoly money for each market dip.
In a word protectionism (of ones country, its people and its banking system) is conservative, not liberal, no matter what the present Country Club Republican establishment and their media allies state. In fact without protectionism we are guaranteeing another crash, which could bring our whole economic system down.
VonMisesJr| 2.4.12 @ 9:10PM
That was much more reasonable Kade. But the problem is not that China is stealing our jobs. It is that we are running a welfare state that we cannot afford, and borrowing from them to pay for it. Then they buy our real estate, companies and own our bonds. They will own us not because they sell us trinkets, but because they are financing our profligate spending.
Sorry to bust your chops, but you sounded like a flaming liberal when you attack free trade.It is the policies of our DC elitist leaders that is destroying the country and bankrupting our children. I think we lose focus of that when we blame boogeymen for crimes they are not committing.
Keep in mind that we benefit from cheap goods, and we would sell them technology if our government hadn't confiscated half in taxes between the corporate rate of 35% plus 15% capital gains or similar effective rate when it is earned. I am glad you replied and I will stop being rude now that I realize that you are clearly not the troll I thought. Sorry.
VonMisesJr| 2.3.12 @ 3:17PM
I do believe that the Civil War was driven significantly by economics. The South exported raw materials that went to Europe for processing giving the South a disadvantage to Britain. At the same time, the North was prospering involved in trade and commerce importing the finished goods and selling them to the southern states..
But the key point is that the Founders advocated FREE TRADE with all nations, but not entanglements.
VonMisesJr| 2.3.12 @ 3:17PM
I do believe that the Civil War was driven significantly by economics. The South exported raw materials that went to Europe for processing giving the South a disadvantage to Britain. At the same time, the North was prospering involved in trade and commerce importing the finished goods and selling them to the southern states..
But the key point is that the Founders advocated FREE TRADE with all nations, but not entanglements.
Vern Crisler | 2.3.12 @ 7:02PM
In actual fact, the founders wanted some protections for American industries against British competition, so they favored a tariff. And while it's true that colonists disliked British laws forbidding them to manufacturing certain items, it was not trade regulation or tariffs that brought about the Revolution. It was instead the imposition of unrepresentative revenue-increasing taxes. To put it another way, it was not taxes to regulate trade but taxes to raise revenue that brought about the Revolution.
And the South did not secede because of a high northern tariff, though it made them very angry. It was the election of Abraham Lincoln. That means it was ultimately slavery that caused the Civil War. None of the other causal theories comes close as an explanation, though the tariff problem aggravated the situation.
The goal should be a tariff-free world, but I agree that we can't unilaterally disarm when it comes to foreign competition. There is a tit-for-tat type of thing going on in foreign trade: we lower our tariffs when they lower theirs, and when governments stop subsidizing their domestic industries. Free trade is the best way to go, but it'll take a while to get there.
VonMisesJr| 2.4.12 @ 8:27AM
Good points about the early colonies. The prohibition on the colonies to finish goods was an issue. Rothbard's "Conceived in Liberty" actually speaks to the monetary manipulation by the colonies to make their products more desireable, but it lead to rampant inflation. The Chinese are doing the same but through pegging their currency below the dollar, and imposing tariffs.
I think it was Pat Buchanann that advances the economic argument for the Civil War. I think we both have valid points.
But I have read some 30 books by Sowell and Walter E. Williams, and another dozen by Mises, Hayek and Rothbard. I don't recall them ever making an argument for a tit-for-tat since it leads to trade wars, and it makes no sense to punish Americans in the market because the Chinese government penalizes Chinese by obstructing their access to foreign goods.
But I appreciate your thoughtful and valid points.
JimP| 2.3.12 @ 9:32AM
That was a long winded way of evading answering my questions. Where did your definition of conservative come from and give me some citations/exact quotes where Limbaugh says what you allege. I already know what your perceptions of what he says are. You stated he was for NO laws regulating business, banking etc. Please provide quotes and please give an answer on the definition of conservatism. Thanks.
Kade| 2.3.12 @ 10:06AM
JimP
Rush never explicitly said little or no banking laws, but his relatively little criticism of the Wall Street global banks even during the 2008 crash says volumes. Rush defected blame solely to Freddie and Fannie as if the reckless gambling of the mega-banks did not contribute to the crash. Rush’s silence on fixing the on-going banking crisis even now with prudent (not onerous) banking laws tells me he is for mostly unfettered global banks and this is not conservatism.
VonMisesJr| 2.3.12 @ 9:54AM
Kade, I knew you were full of crap. You know little about capitalism, conservativism (as defined today in politics), and you obviously don't listen to Rush.
I listen almost every day, and everything you said about Rush's philosophy and positions is bull.
You should actually listen even if for the first hour. You will learn more about the real news than three times as long reading online, and you will be a day ahead in many instances.
BTW, classical definitions of these terms are found in the Enlightenment philosophers and the Austrian Economist. Try reading Von Mises or Hayek who moved from pure money based calculation and classical ideas to the study of "Human Action" and marginal value concepts. Mises has a book "Theory and History" and the one I am reading now called "The Epistemological Problems of Economics" that discuss the different philosophical schools of thought for the last three centuries. You will find the pre-socialist propaganda definitions there.
Old Soldier| 2.3.12 @ 9:02AM
Please! No more "Social" Conservationism or "Compassionate" Conservationism or any other bastardizations.
Conservatives believe in a small, federalist, constitutional government.
As soon as we start bastardizing this, the government gets bigger and more powerful - and the Conservative Republican brand gets damaged. Witness the damage done by Bush and his Congressional allies.
Ted| 2.3.12 @ 8:10AM
Please remember that St. Thomas More's "Utopia" was, like much of Jonathan Swift's work, a satire.
Mike Hawk| 2.3.12 @ 8:39AM
It was not satire and More said as much.
Indy| 2.3.12 @ 8:37AM
I'll be reading Ameritopia this weekend. Mitt is no conservative and I'm sure he'll pick Chris Christie as his running mate instead of picking a conservative.
I read Andy McCarthy's piece yesterday, he's right, and as one who worked so hard in the 2010 elections, I'm more than disgusted with the GOP, no spending cuts, not even the low hanging fruit, instead we get more spending.
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....c-mccarthy
former Republican| 2.3.12 @ 7:38AM
those people will be saying, "Never again."
I have old "News"--they've been saying that loudly since Nov, 2008. That's why Willard M Romneyfeller will get rolled this November.
ltw| 2.3.12 @ 4:25PM
Exactly
benny havens| 2.3.12 @ 7:47AM
Folks, I have seen this dog and pony show before. The liberal progressive country club Republican runs for president. He has lots of money. The Republican establishment, with their grease pencil boards, examines the numbers. They work in their percentages and fractions and conclude, yep, this guy has the best chance of winning.
Wait a minute, what about those pesky conservatives and Tea Party people? Don’t worry about them. We’ll pick a conservative to be the running mate and that will appease them.
Sound familiar?
Nixon - Agnew
GHW Bush – Quayle
Dole – Kemp
GW Bush – Channey
Romney – take a guess
And nothing changes.
Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 7:33PM
If Romney is at the top of the ticket, I will not support the Republican nominee and may vote third party.
martin j smith| 2.3.12 @ 7:48AM
One reason I do not support Romney is that is of THEM not of US. THEM-The wealthy Elite. US-everyone else. And the Wealthy Elite is Bi-Partisan to be sure. It has nothing to do with Party Label. Its about Class and all that goes with it. Privilege,Money of course and Powuh, . He cannot related to ordinary people and shows clearly he does not care. Like Michael Bloomberg he will be a nanny statist with good intentions that lead us to the prim rose path to hell. If that is where he wants to go I say good by.
Ross Kaminsky | 2.3.12 @ 8:01AM
Geoffrey,
If you're right -- and you might be -- does this mean that we should not support Romney if he gets the nomination, and cede the nation to Obama for four more years?
I ask this of myself as well as you. After all, I refused to support John McCain, saying that "if he represents winning then we've already lost."
I think Romney may be slightly better than McCain, primarily because I think that with McCain we would have gotten cap-and-trade which would have made Obamacare look like a good deal.
Nevertheless, if the impact of Romney would be to damage/destroy the GOP brand for years to come, perhaps it is worth hoping we can survive four more years of Obama.
My issue is that even if I think Romney is bad for the GOP brand, I just don't think we can afford 4 more years of Obama. Also, and I realize it's a thin reed to cling to, I would hope that a more conservative Congress would force Romney down the right path.
Anyway, I think this is the most difficult and important question of the year. I am leaning toward supporting Romney because I so deeply fear and loathe Barack Obama, and almost nothing else matters, politically speaking, at this point.
W| 2.3.12 @ 8:22AM
Ross,
How do you feel now that we got Obama instead of McCain?
Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 7:34PM
McCain is a lot different from Romney and Obama.
McCain wouldn't have signed Obamacare due to all the corruption. Romney wouldn't have hesitated to sign it.
W| 2.4.12 @ 4:57PM
Neither McCain or Romney would have signed Obamacare.
And Romney is more conservative and smarter than McCain.
Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 2:20PM
Romney signed Romneycare into law, which is the blueprint of Obamacare.
So it stands to reason that Romney would have signed Obamacare into law too.
The Big E| 2.3.12 @ 9:25AM
Well, Ross, for someone so uncertain about Romney, you sure have written enough hit pieces on his Republican competition on this site, so excuse me if your credibility is, uh, nil.
You compared Newt to David Duke, you claimed Rick Santorum knew nothing about economics, and now you're not sure you'll even vote for Mitt Romney if he gets the nomination.
Have you been moonlighting as Clint? Or Jack in Wi? Or have you been surreptitiously writing upcoming campaign ads for the Obama re-election campaign? Well, you've been doing that last one whether you intended to or not.
Since you obviously have issues understanding the concept of priorities, here's a clue to help you figure this one out. It is likely true that there will be no Republican Party if Mitt wins the nomination and then loses the general, BUT THERE WILL BE NO COUNTRY IF OBAMA IS RE-ELECTED!
So which is more important, Ross? The survival of the Republican Party or the survival of the USA?
loulou| 2.3.12 @ 11:10AM
Great post, E. Thank you.
Simon Templar| 2.3.12 @ 12:34PM
You are one of the reasons I come out here and still read this ridiculous so-called conservative web publication. You nailed this little prissy prattler! He is pathetic, he can not even hold up enough consistency, backbone, and integrity to at least hold up his Romney. These losers need to be flushed out of the conservative political movement (and there is one, Ross). We need to stop listening and being influence by these talking heads and take this country back.
Tommy Frisco| 2.3.12 @ 3:49PM
Right on, Simon!
We can't 'expert pundits' like Ross lie and weasel their way into pretending they weren't in the tank for Romney when there were conservatives still in the race. If Obama wins because fewer independents jumped on board for Romney than there were principled conservatives that stayed home, it will be pundits like Ross that will be to blame.
Al Adab| 2.3.12 @ 2:58PM
W, E:
This Romney (like his father before him) is representative of a long line of republicans- and many noninees- who, starting with Dewey and proceeding through Nixon, Ford, Dole, McCain, have consitently led the GOP to failure. The "moderate" wing of the party only claims they can manage the social welfare state better that the DEMS. Big deal. All that view does is legitimate leviathan.
Where are the candidates who intend to reduce governments size? Where are the candidates who will defend the liberties of the citizens instead of providing for them their daily pottage? Another failing candidate may well be the end of the GOP. If the best we can do is more accomodation with the big government, big debt, social welfare leftists/statists, then so what.
Somewhere an alternative to that GOP must emerge or The Conservative Movement must recapture and take back the party. "Let's grow up Conservatives; Let's get to work." Goldwater, 1960
W| 2.3.12 @ 6:31PM
Al Adab
I agree with your analysis of the Leviathan state but have to respectfully disagree about the fix.
In 64 LBJ won a landslide victory agaisnt Goldwater and proceeded with a Democratic Congress to pass all the laws to perfect the leviathan state started by FDR. Many conservatives thought it was better to lose with Barry to cleanse the party of the squishy moderates. The result was the Great Society that we now want to unravel. Yes, Reagan won in 80. He did cut taxes but did not cut any agencies or departments. The government grew.
If Obama is re elected because we want to stay home and not vote or run somone who can't win to again remove the squishy moderates, then Obamacare will be implemented and will never be repealed. He will further centralize power in the federal governmetn and the Rule By Agency Regulations. He will appoint a couple more far left Justices llke Kagan and Sotomayor. In short, the game will be over.
People like Kaminsky who think it is noble to sit at home while Obama is elected because it makes them feel principled are clueless to reality. He just could not bring himself to vote for McCain? Give me a break. So we got Obama and now we have to fight to reeal Obamacare and repeal ObamaRegulations.
We have to elect a Republican, and it looks like Mitt. More importantly we need to elect conservatives to Congress to repeal Obamacare and pass a conservative agenda like the Dems passed a liberal agenda in 64. Mitt will be fine with a conservative Congress, and he will always be better than Obama, as will Newt and Rick. It is always better to win than lose.
It is not like we will get a first round pick next year and start a new season. We lose and Obama wins, we are finished for conservatives.
Didn't mean to be so long winded.
Have a great weekend. Giants over Pats.
Vern Crisler| 2.3.12 @ 9:39AM
Right now Ross I think Romney would do so much damage to the Republican brand that the Republican party won't survive it. I think we need a new conservative party.
What we need to do now is forget about Romney -- the snake is still running lies about Newt in my state -- and concentrate on electing conservatives to the House and Senate. They can block most of Obama's extravagances.
The presidential race to concentrate on now is four years from now.
The Big E| 2.3.12 @ 10:02AM
If Obamacare is not repealed there may not be a Presidential election four years from now, and if Obama is re-elected, it will not be repealed.
Obama must be defeated or the country is done for.
John Navratil| 2.3.12 @ 10:55AM
The Big E,
I think you are exactly right which is why, despite my opposition to Romney in the primary, I will vote for the eventual nominee.
loulou| 2.3.12 @ 11:12AM
But Romney has no plans to repeal ObamaRomneycare.
I drew the line in '08 after I voted reluctantly for McCain--never again would I vote for the lesser of two evils.
John Navratil| 2.3.12 @ 11:14AM
loulou,
We are, fortunately, free to vote our conscience. The alternative view is voting for the greater of two flawed candidates. I can't let perfection be the enemy of the good - with a clothes pin on my nose I voted for McCain.
Keep on plugging for the anti-Romney.
The Big E| 2.3.12 @ 3:22PM
If Congress votes to repeal Obamcare, Romney will sign it. Of that, even I have no doubt. Obama will veto any attempt to repeal, and if his veto is overridden, he will attempt to implement Obamacare through regulation, just as he has done with many other pieces of legislation he wanted and didn't get.
If for no other reason, THAT is enough to vote Romney over Obama. We may get a repeal of Obamacare if Romney is elected, we definitely will NOT get a repeal if Obama is re-elected.
Garfield| 2.4.12 @ 3:06AM
If you honestly believe Romney will sign the repeal, I have a bridge to sell you on Saturn.
He won't repeal it, for the same reason he won't renounce Romneycare.
W| 2.4.12 @ 12:53PM
Garfield, are you today's pretend Republican here to smear all the Republican candidates? You are on Romney because he is in the lead, you will attack Newt and Rick if they get the lead. I suggest you defend you man Obama if you can.
Garfield| 2.4.12 @ 1:58PM
Actually W, I am a Conservative that is pissed off at the Republican Party for pushing a left-wing suit from Massachusetts on us.
For the record, I voted for McCain/Palin in 2008, I actually manned a phone bank in 2008 to try to help Republicans stop the Saul Alinski radical from getting in the White House.
I didn't like Romney in 2008 (didn't trust him then), and I sure as heck do not trust him now.
If Gingrich is the nominee, I will support him wholeheartedly. If Santorum is the nominee (even though I don't think he can win nor have the experience of getting politicians to actually balance the Federal checkbook), I would support him wholeheartedly too.
Reason I supported McCain in 2008 was cause even though I didn't agree with him on several issues, at least I knew where he stood on things. I was overjoyed when he made Palin his VP pick, because I felt she would be able to keep him on the Conservative path and would someday be a great President.
I would have had no problems supporting Herman Cain, and I think either team Romney or Team Obama is responsible for the hit job that was done on him (50/50 chance in that regard).
As a Conservative, I cannot in good conscious support Mitt Romney, whom I view is no different from Obama.
I will support Gingrich, Santorum, and would have supported Rick Perry, Herman Cain, or Michelle Bachman, but I will not support Obamney.
W| 2.4.12 @ 4:53PM
Do not believe you Garfield. Romney is more conservative than McCain. Even Herman Cain supported Romney in 08 instead of McCain. You are right, though, Romney must have told Cain not to bother learning anything about Libya and Romney must have told Cain to pay the bills of that woman.
McCain made a careeer of voting against GWB and compromising with his friend Ted Kennedy,remember the amnesty bill and McCain Finegold?
If you cannot see any difference between Obama and Romney then that tells me you are an Obama supporter. Did Romney hang around a cop killer terrorrist like Ayers and a racist, ant-semite like Wright? Sorry, but don't believe you.
Garfield| 2.4.12 @ 10:59PM
John McCain didn't sign Romneycare into law, and he was one of the people fighting Reid/Pelosi/Obama on that 2000 page monstrosity.
The claim you are making that Romney is more conservative than McCain, is laughable at best.
I mean seriously Romney tried to run to the left of Ted Kennedy in an election, I know McCain isn't exactly the most conservative Republican, but he is a lot more conservative than Romney.
John Navratil| 2.3.12 @ 11:07AM
Vern Crisler,
I'm not disagreeing with your assessment, but I think it is incomplete. We WANT the Republican Party, as is, not to survive. However, forming a new conservative party is, in my opinion, a recipe for disaster. We already have a Libertarian Party which is not succeeding very well. Expect the same for ANY new party (Green, Socialist, etc.). Unless the Democrat Party fractures, we will be divided against a united Progressive (current definition) foe. Say what you will about the wildly differing views in the Democrat caucus, they are effectively united. As I've said before "Democrats protect their worst, Republicans eat their young."
The anti-statists must reclaim the Republican Party, and that is done by electing appropriately conservative representatives as was done in 2010. Boehner is flawed, but not unalloyed evil. He is faced with the task of keeping a divided caucus together. I couldn't do the job.
My fear of Romney isn't that he will damage the Republican brand. My fear is that, as he did in Massachussets, he won't repeal Obamacare claiming to be a President for "All America", not just those on the right.
Kade| 2.3.12 @ 2:02PM
Ross
We would have to reluctantly vote for Flip Romney since our nation is at a critical juncture. But the so-called conservative print media and the talkers must push Mitt to the right when he veers left, instead of carrying his liberal water like they did for GWB for 8 years.
R. Nixon| 2.3.12 @ 4:44PM
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ted| 2.3.12 @ 8:12AM
Ross,
If Romney is the GOP nominee, Obama likely will win the election this November. There's realistically very little difference between Romney and Obama.
loulou| 2.3.12 @ 11:13AM
Precisely.
What conservative is going to get excited for Romney? Besides Ann n' Emmitt?
Marco2| 2.3.12 @ 8:39AM
That the wealthy and the well- connected run the country just reflects the history of the world. The "Establishment" that selects the Republican nominee for president is the collective voice of those who attend caucuses and vote in primaries, thereby choosing the delegates to the convention. If we don't like the results, we have no one to blame but ourselves. Not running the right candidate(s), splitting support and the early vote between a number of lackluster candidates (several being almost comical), and we get Mitt Romney. Surprised? Why?
SouthernGent | 2.3.12 @ 3:38PM
Finally, someone who gets it. Where were all these supposedly vitally interested commenters the last 4 years? Apparently not going to caucuses, not out influencing others to find a "true conservative", whatever that is. Thanks, Marco.
Edward Cropper | 2.3.12 @ 8:48AM
I have very mixed feelings about Gov. Romney. I too get exasperated with his constant happy attitude , but I can't really fault him for being positive just because I am not.
He seems to be genuinely calm in all situations. I don't feel this is necessarily a sign of unconcern or being out of touch.
I have known people who faced tremendous difficulties in their life and did it with calmness and an attitude of "it will be OK' while we their friends were climbing the walls for them in our emotions.
Compared with the alternatives maybe things WILL work out.
loulou| 2.3.12 @ 11:16AM
Romney's happy attitude is a sign of his cluelessness. His calm seems like a catatonic robotness.
No, HE won't get angry.
SouthernGent | 2.3.12 @ 3:44PM
Funny, I don't recall Reagan appearing angry too often, during the campaign (1980) or in the WH. He was pretty much the epitome of the upbeat optimist. Perhaps Romney's problem, one that he shares with many of today's pols, is that he doesn't want to gloomily discuss the gloomy issues we face. Remember, there is a sizable chunk of folks out there who can't stand a frowny face or any kind of negative-sounding comment. He, perhaps wrongly, is trying to appeal to a broader base than he can really reach, thus the error on the side of sunny-ness. He should concede that he cannot reach the American Idol crowd.
Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 4:33PM
Funny, I don't recall Reagan consistantly insulting Conservatives either.
Old Soldier| 2.3.12 @ 8:53AM
This article could have been written months ago with a fill-in-the-blank for the nominee's name.
Gingrich and Santorum have plenty of their own big-government skeleton and are no more conservative than Romney. I don't trust any of them to do the right things.
Who convinced all the fiscal conservatives (other than Ron Paul) to sit out the race? Did somebody talk Bobby Jindal, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, and others out of running? What happened? Did they assume Perry was competent or Romney unbeatable?
I would love to see an actual conservative party emerge in the U.S. I believe it would be immediately successful.
Sheila| 2.3.12 @ 10:47AM
If your vision of "an actual conservative party" includes people like Jindal, Daniels, and Jeb Bush, you, too, will get the government you deserve.
loulou| 2.3.12 @ 11:16AM
BINGO.
Old Soldier| 2.3.12 @ 11:19AM
My vision is more people like Gary Johnson, my own Rep. - Scott Garrett and other members of the Liberty Caucus.
Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 7:38PM
Sorry but calling Gingrich and Santorum big government candidates is rather ridiculous.
Neither one of them is anywhere close to what Romney is.
Gingrich is about the only "insider" as you call it, that can't be blamed for this mess (despite Romney's campaign of smears). When he left, we had a balanced budget.
It wouldn't surprise me if the reason he was so hated is cause he wouldn't let the politicians go on insane spending sprees.
joellen| 2.3.12 @ 8:59AM
Romney & the elite GOP "never get the feeling that they sense fear, the uncertainty and outright dread that is loose in the land. People, millions of them are not merely frightened, they are terrified". Mr. Norman, the Elitist Politicians, GOP & DEMS, know our fear, they just dont care. They believe they will be the ones left standing when this country falls and then all will be in hands to newly proclaim this land as their to be had. The teaparty and all constitututional loving AMERICANS must do their best to elect a president who loves America or elect a congress and senate that can keep us in check until we have a candidate in 2016 who will adhere to what our founding fathers fought for. My sage advice will always end with PRAY FOR AMERICA unceasingly.
Renaissance Nerd | 2.3.12 @ 9:08AM
Man the whining of the Anti-Romney crowd is really irritating. Y'all realize that only one conservative has been elected since WWII, right? Reagan IS THE ONLY ONE. What we should've done is focus on Congress--in the 50s. Ceding the House to the Dems for 40 years isn't exactly a great game plan when all the real action is in the House. The Senate is a combination rubber stamp and bloviation contest. Republicans have focused on the presidency--and I don't mean 'the establishment' I mean top to bottom, it's been our focus forever, conservatives as well as country club, and then we whine about not getting what we want. Who cares if Romney is semi-liberal if we have a conservative House? Senate would be nice too, but gridlock which defunds Obamacare and any of the agencies that get out of hand will suit me fine. Very often lately I'm just plain ashamed of the conservative movement. Are we just a pack of whiners who moan and gripe about not getting perfect candidates when we've betrayed them more than they have us? Conservatives voting for Perot gave Clinton the presidency--GHW Bush may not have been conservative, but he would've been better than Clinton. Dole would've been better than Clinton too. McCain would've been better than Obama. Through all that, we allowed Republicans, some but not all, to spend like mad as if they were Dems, and didn't much bother about it. Then in a fit of madness, too many sat home in 2006 and gave the House back to the most fascist pack of Democrats in history.
Moping and whining and sitting home are the marks of cowardice. If you want change, you have to work for it. Romney will probably get the nod because that's what he did--he traveled all over helping out in House races in 2010. That's why the 'establishment' wants him, and that's sure more than most of us ever did. So quit whining and get busy working if you really are the ultra-pure conservatives you pretend to be.
Fact is I'd much rather have a born-again conservative who used to be a liberal on my team than a moaning, complacent defeatist.
Vern Crisler| 2.3.12 @ 9:33AM
You're giving us a choice between two evils. Right now, I think if we elect a conservative Congress we may be able to survive 4 more years of Obama. If Romney wins, the Republican party is finished.
Old Soldier| 2.3.12 @ 11:27AM
"only one conservative has been elected since WWII"
Only 2 have been nominated, that's the problem.
Cpl.Punishment| 2.3.12 @ 3:43PM
Here Here
SouthernGent | 2.3.12 @ 3:53PM
Amen!
BackToBasics| 2.3.12 @ 11:35PM
from your post - " Republicans have focused on the presidency--and I don't mean 'the establishment' I mean top to bottom..."
I understand your points but mostly disagree with your conclusions. You make it sound as if most of the problems on the Republican side are due to misdirected and misfocused Conservatives who also aren't stoic or "grown up" enough to have fought the proper fight.
Sure it would have been better in the 1952-1994 timeframe to have had more control over the House and Senate. But during much of that time, the Democrats had HUGE majorities that were so difficult to overcome that the Republicans were almost desperate to hold onto the presidency as a block to leftist encroachment.
Wresting the majority away from the Democrats during the prosperous boom times we had after WWII would have been a lot easier said than done.
The "whining" you cite is nothing more than the vocalization of pent-up frustration that conservatives feel in not being taken seriously by the Establishments of both parties.
It's easier to focus on the presidential runs to show this. A thumbnail look at what happened in the presidential runs since the war general hero Eisenhauer left office:
1960: The verdict is still out as to whether ballot stuffing in sates like Illinos and Texas threw the election to Kennedy.
1964: Goldwater cannot beat an encumbent Johnson.
1968: Wallace runs a major 3rd party and Humphrey comes within 2% of defeating Nixon.
1972: Nixon wins soundly but is excoriated by the press for what today would seem like a minor crime and forced out of office.
1976: Carter runs as a strong Born Again Christian and once elcted quickly turns leftist in every way conceivable. The election is very close in many states. I remeber reading that if just 20,000 votes had been changed in 5 close states that Ford would have won.
1980: John Anderson runs a major 3rd party campaign as a fiscal conservative and siphons most of his votes away from those who otherwise would have supported Reagan.
1984: This is one election the Dems and the RINO's have to concede.
1988: Bush Sr. gets the nod and does not carry on the more conservative tide that Reagan helped bring in.
1992: Bush Sr. is ahead in the polls in August so Perot REENTERS the race as a major 3rd party candidate, ensuring a Clinton win.
1996: Dole - nothing furhter need be said.
2000: A very moderate Bush almost gets the election stolen from him because not quite enough felons voted for Gore in Florida. After the election, RINO Jim Jeffords quickly becomes an independent and puts control of the Senate in Democrat hands.
2004: Bush wins and the House and Senate are even more strongly Republican but Bush decides to placate Dems more than his base and loses control of the House and effective control of the Sentate in 2006.
2008: Part of the legacy of a weak Bush II is the election of Obam.
2012: Republican Establishment actively cuts down any of the more conservative candidates and fully and openly backs Romney.
I am not saying that all of the above Republicans were conservative; only Reagan was moreso. And I do not know if it was just the media or if RINO's or Democrats also gave some behind-the-scenes aid to the "major" 3rd party runs, but all these 3rd party runs hurt the Republicans more. What I am saying that in ALL cases, the more moderate and LESS conservative of the 2 candidates, irrespective of party won the election. The only exception was Reagan.
The vocalization of Conservatives about this is part of the election process just as much as any other involvement.
And one off-year election, 2010; Republicans win big only to get a very moderate "his-turn" Boehner as speaker.
And as for Romney being a born-again conservative, that really remains to be seen for sure. I'd like you to be correct but I don't think so. He will need the House and Senate to keep him from turning sharply left.
BackToBasics| 2.3.12 @ 11:38PM
2008: Should have also noted it was a very weak McCain who the RINO's backed.
BackToBasics| 2.4.12 @ 1:28PM
To clarify, the least conservative won, except Reagan, includes the primary process even if the Republican won. I rethought 1968 and looked up the 1968 primary and will make a correction about Nixon. He was "probably" more to the right than Rockefeller would have been had Rockefeller won in the Republican primaries; although he was certainy no conservative. My brief list shows the general direction as NOT favorable to conservatives with the main exception of Reagan.
dhurkett| 2.3.12 @ 9:27AM
Romney is the ultra-rino with and election year conversion to conservatism. All republicans are conservative in the election years. Some are even conservative after the election is over. Romney is also a sure loser in November. With him as the nominee there will be a low turnout in the conservative base of the republican party. Here we go with the Bob Dole, John McCain type choice based on the media promise that he is electible. Please remember that the media wants Obama re-elected and they lie about the electibility thing.
Fiscal| 2.3.12 @ 9:36AM
The problem with the Republican Party (and Democrat as well) is that the litmus test is far too restrictive. Both the Democrat and Republican parties are getting smaller as their restrictive ideologies limit any bigger tent. The only growing segment of parties is independents. So what does that mean? It means that if the Republican Party drops the the requirement for social conservatism and the expansionist policies of neo-conservatism and stuck to what is needed today, a focus on fiscal conservatism and small government, you would bring in at least another 15% of voters into the party according to the data I've seen.
Romney isn't a bad guy -- but he's in over his head. He's forced to use the epithets of the hard right instead of focusing on the truth to get the nomination of the dwindling Republican Party. The reason this country is not fiscally sound is that BOTH parties have these social litmus tests and thus there is no singular focus on fiscal sanity.
Yes, I'm one of those hard fiscal conservatives who can't stand people who try to force their religious views on me or who believe the force of our military can change the hearts and minds of radical Muslims.
Because of those litmus tests, you end up with people like W and Romney (and Obama) -- people you know will say and do anything to get the vote of their restrictive political bases.
SeymourGlass| 2.3.12 @ 9:36AM
It all comes down to this, folks. Mitt and Obama are not all that different - true.
But - would you rather have Mitt in office making occasional concessions to conservatives, or Obama in office making occasional concessions to liberals.
Pick your poison.
Ward Bond| 2.3.12 @ 10:19AM
I am NOT a Romney fan but to say Romney and obama are basicly the same is absolutely wrong. We have not seen anything yet! obama would have no fear of us at all. He will rule by executive order and dare us to stop him. Give him a couple of new SCOTUS judges for cover and who knows what become of the Bill of Rights, esp. 1&2. But then again maybe Tim is on to something.
Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 7:40PM
Sorry but they are pretty much the same, and probably would pick similar judges too (only Romney's would probably be from the Northeast).
Bob K.| 2.3.12 @ 9:43AM
Good article Mr. Norman.
Either way changes are coming about. They will affect both political parties and affect our Republic. The forces of democracy and populism are always at work here in the Republic that Ben Franklin and his companions gave to us "if we could keep it;" and just as Mitt may be the last Republican of the party of Lincoln that came to confuse the ideals laid out in our Constitution with government crony capitalism; Obama could well be the last Democrat of that solipsistic, egocentric generation that came out of World War II to run the party of Jefferson.
The parties names might be the same but the nation and ultimately the world will be
completely different.
The 20th Century began in 1915 with World War I and ended in 1989 with the fall of the Soviet Empire. We are now in a transition stage into the unknown 21st Century.
The Big E| 2.3.12 @ 9:58AM
"They will have seen it before and one suspects they will be finished with a party that repeatedly sends out for slaughter candidates who do not represent their beliefs, positions, and ideas with conviction. If it is about common ground and compromise, they will say, then the hell with it and leave the Republican Party to people who consider it a boast to say, "I could work with Teddy Kennedy."
Amen. Speaking for myself, I already finished with the Republican party. After the NC primary, I will be changing my registration to Unaffiliated.
Of course, it really isn't going to matter. I said it after the Iowa caucus and I'll say it again - A Mitt Romney nomination equals a Barack Obama re-election - and I've seen or heard nothing since to change my prognostication on that, but I have heard a lot to confirm it - and a Barack Obama re-election equals the end of the USA. You may think you don't recognize the USA now after three years of Obama, what do you think it's going to look like after eight?
What I don't understand, what I have never understood, is why the leadership of the Republican party continues to believe that the way to victory is to run one moderate after another. I know, I know, they say we have to "appeal to moderates." Do they not understand that when they say, "we have to appeal to moderates" what people hear is "we don't actually have any convictions, we just want power?"
Elections are supposed to give the people the opportunity to choose the way they are to be governed, and invariably, people want to vote for leaders who believe in something. When you intentionally run a candidate who does not represent what your party members' priorities, all that says is that the leadership of the Party doesn't really think the conservative principles of mainstream Republicans are worth a damn. It says our priorities are a sham, so we're not going to run on them.
And for all you Romney folks out there, don't respond to me by claiming that Romney really is a conservative. He's not, and his comments recently about "fixing the holes in the safety net" prove it far more than anything he may have said while being Governor of Massachusetts. If you think Romney's a conservative, then you either have no understanding of what conservatism is, or you are deluding yourself.
Christopher C| 2.3.12 @ 4:51PM
I doubt that I could agree more. Considering that Mr Romney is probably going to be crowned at the R National Convention, and then goes on to be beaten by a disgusting sitting President, I'm now contemplating a fearful fact: that the country that, for as long as I have been alive, has always managed to restore itself to cultural and economic health and surmount even the greatest obstacles, will no longer exist.
Obamacare on its own changes everything. And Romney will not be the man to get rid of it. Moderate? Supine would be a better adjective.
Carol| 2.3.12 @ 9:58AM
Mr. Norman:
Good article and you had me until the end. But then you went all RINO with the 2nd term mantra already for Romneycare?
Please!
You proclaimed Romneycare the winner of the race already. Why don't all you hacks just say to "We The Dopes Out Here" we are nothing but grains of sand and we don't matter.
I swear to God there are only 2 true conservatives left in America: Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levine.
Gazinya| 2.3.12 @ 10:01AM
And outside of scripture, no truer words were spoken.
Derek Leaberry| 2.3.12 @ 10:26AM
It is wiser for conservatives to let Obama win in 2012 and then win landslides in 2014 and 2016.
Fred Farkel| 2.3.12 @ 10:30AM
If Obama wins, there may not be a 2014 or 2016 to worry about.
Naturalborn Texicanette| 2.3.12 @ 10:35AM
IF the nominee is Romney, I will drag myself kicking and screaming every inch of the way,to the voting booth and holding my nose, I will vote for Romeny,,,,even when everything inside me screams NOOOOOOOO!!!!.
Because even Yogi Bear is a better alternative than "Obomination"!!!!!!!! :(
Carol| 2.3.12 @ 10:40AM
I would be proud to vote for Yogi Bear or Yogi Berra.
Romneycare gives me the creeps.
He is phony to the core and just like Obama I can't watch him because he is insincere.
DatsunMark| 2.3.12 @ 10:38AM
I will not vote for Romney. I will leave my ballot blank for President or vote Gary Johnson. Romney is a flip flopping John Kerry without the hero baggage. Our best hope now is to split government and take the Senate and make the Community Organizer in charge of gridlock.
Tommy Frisco| 2.3.12 @ 10:54AM
We know how Romney will govern as POTUS...just as he did as Governor in Mass.. He's already started his move toward the middle by joining with the Dems on the minimum wage issue. To offset the attacks on his wealth, I expect him to join the Dems in asking for tax hikes on the rich. By the time Romney is in general election campaign mode, he won't be sounding much different than Obama.
Conservatives, including Newt, think this is the perfect election to showcase conservatism and how it contrasts with extreme liberalism as represented by Obama over the last three years. Karl Rove believes the best way to defeat Obama is to run a candidate who is very similar to Obama so it will be harder for the Left to attack our candidate.
What's the best approach in getting a conservative elected? I believe in honesty. I believe Ronald Reagan showed us how it should be done. Yes, we want to defeat Obama, but we shouldn't sell our souls to get it done. If conservatives want a conservative candidate, they should support Newt or Santorum in every way they can. This should be a two man race between Santorum and Newt.
As for the future of the GOP, we must realize that it has not been a conservative party, but it can become one if we stop populating the party with more moderates. We cast our own votes. The Establishment cannot make us vote for moderates in these primaries.
Uncle Samuel| 2.3.12 @ 11:00AM
"Mr. Romney has captured the Republican flag and will carry it into battle this Fall."
What presumption. What a lie. We aren't falling for that line by a long shot. Try again, Mr.
Mr. Romney has 46 states to go. And every time he opens his mouth, a different lie issues forth and his campaign tactics are like his business tactics...they show the electorate who he is and what he is - Obama's kind of guy, just in a different skin and party.
We are not stupid. The every-day, common-sense, tax-paying, law-abiding, God-fearing silenced majority don't want this farce of a pretty-boy, liberal dressed up on Republican clothing to hide his ugly interior.
We have read about whitened-sepulchres and pharisees all our lives. We have seen and had our fill of religious pretenders: Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakkers and political pretenders: Jack and Ted Kennedys and of Bill Clintons, Barney Franks, Nancy Pelosis, Barack Obamas and of conservative journalistic pretenders: Coulter, Drudge, Will, etc.
Truth is what we want. Truth inside and outside.
We are grown-up people, not blind sheep.
Thank you very much.
OregonBuzz| 2.3.12 @ 11:01AM
I'm very afraid that Newt was right about one thing, "Romney will manage the decline". He is an insider Republican and the GOP knows that he too can be managed. Newt, on the other hand, is decidedly a maverick and that scares the pants off the insiders. Fortunately, for them, they didn't have to resort to dirty tricks, lies (well, not too many) to derail Newt. He did that to himself. Regardless, no matter who the GOP candidate is I will vote for him. I held my nose last time, I can do it again. Getting rid of Zero is of paramount importance.
Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 2:39PM
I don't think Newt can be considered an insider anymore.
I know the Mittbots will try to twist what I am saying, but the fact is Mitt is the insider running for the nomination, not Newt.
1. The ethics violations were all bogus, the IRS cleared Newt Gingrich of any wrongdoing a few years after he paid the fine. I think they wrote a 74 page report on why they came to the conclusion that it was totally bogus.
2. When Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, we weren't heading towards this mess because we had spending under control. I think this is the real reason why he was so hated in Washington D.C.
3. He probably has a rough idea where a lot of the skeletons are buried in Washington, which has the establishment scared to death.
4. He is the only one in this race that has experience in Washington that can't be blamed for this fiasco we're in now.
5. As much as Romney lies about it, fact is Newt was not a lobbyist, he was a consultant. Also does anyone really believe that Freddie Mac would have shown Newt their financial reports?
6. If you do a follow-up on the "couch incident" and do some digging you will find that Newt Gingrich dropped support for Cap & Trade on his own after reading what the Democrats were trying to do. I actually found and watched Gingrich's testimony on Cap & Trade, and a few democrats in the video looked so angry one wonders why their heads didn't explode.
7. Newt is hated by the establishment, this same establishment is falling all over itself kissing Romney's feet.
8. George Soros is fine with the idea of Romney being President, but is afraid Newt will upset his applecart.
9. Did anyone else here know that ABC News actually has a grudge against Newt Gingrich? Apparently that speech that Romney's people editted the video of so as to lie to us about Gingrich, in reality had Gingrich praising Reagan and specifically bashing ABC News (comparing them to apologists to for the Soviets (heard that on Rush)).
10. Team Obama's campaign strategy centers on class warfare. Romney is the perfect target for Obama's class warfare campaign. They want to run against Romney, they think they can beat Romney, the media is treating Romney with kids' gloves. I think that is a good indicator why we shouldn't let Romney even be on the ticket, let alone be the nominee.
With the country in as bad of shape as it is, I seriously doubt Newt's personal baggage makes him unelectable when compared to Barack Obama... I mean seriously, when Jimmy Carter doesn't want to be compared to Obama, I think we could run a shoe and a sock against team Obama and have a good chance of winning. However that's only if we can nominate someone that can actually hit Obama on the issues, and while a shoe and a sock could even do that, Romney can't due to Romneycare.
Bill| 2.3.12 @ 11:08AM
Romney is the last "New England big-government liberal RINO" that GOP will nominate for the Presidential candidate. He's another Gerald Ford, who will lose to a "light-weight" Obama. FL voters made a "terrible" mistake selecting Romney over Gingrich. American people will have to put up with another 4 years of Obama.
Bob S| 2.3.12 @ 11:12AM
One has to laugh at all this.
I mean , come on.
GH Bush was Clinton with arthritis.
Obama was McCain on steroids and after a trip to the tanning salon.
Romney is a lighter and whiter version of Geo. W. Obama.
So what.
The people that made the mess aren't the ones to fix it.
Paul offers the only genuine constitutional and principled option.
Who? We can't have that. He's crazy. No more big govt. at home or overseas. What do you mean, legalize the Constitution?
And what happened to the comments over at Exit Newt written by ahem.. . never mind. Did Anonymous hack it or what?
Coultner's busy apologizing for RomneyCare and everybody else is drinking the kool-aid and upset that the Washington DC Party, Repug version of the same old same old is a little too obvious.
What will we do, boys and girls?
Tis a puzzlement, indeed it tis.
Mitt/Newt/Rick or more of Geo. W. Obama.
Either way it's more of GW.
cheers
John II| 2.4.12 @ 3:31PM
That's the most racist remark I've ever read on this site. You are a racist and a bigot and a logophobe and a religious fanatic and an anti-Catholic and, and, and . . . a name-caller!
And now back to "The Big Store" (1941), the last of the really good Marx Brothers vehicles. Sadly but truly, after World War II, they started losing their stride. And during World War II, Hollywood really started going downhill.
David| 2.3.12 @ 11:21AM
Santorum will provide the greatest contrast with Bam Bam.
Remember, Newt, Mitt, and Barack all hold the following positions.
They believe in man-caused global warming baloney, and the regulations and restrictions that have resulted from such thinking. Santorum does not.
They supported the Wall Street bailouts. Santorum did not.
They support and/or supported individual mandates for health insurance. Santorum never has.
They all criticized Paul Ryan's plan to get our fiscal house in order. Santorum embraced it.
Santorum is of the opinion that ILLEGAL immigrants have not broken ONE law (by crossing the border) as many claim, but that they have continually been breaking America's laws by working here, driving here, etc.
Santorum cannot be accused of being a flip-flopper.
Santorum cannot be accused of telling people what they want to hear.
Santorum cannot be accused of stating his positions based on the particular audience in front of him at the time.
It is clear that Santorum has been the adult in this race. His criticisms have been on the other candidates' records and he does not distort or misrepresent their records as they do to one another.
It is also clear that he has been the true, principled, consistent conservative his entire politcal career.
Simon Templar| 2.3.12 @ 12:38PM
David, will you remain loyal to Santorum when the same load of smear and innuendo hits him as it did all the others or will you let him be crucified?
Mimi| 2.3.12 @ 7:45PM
Simon .....WHO is it , that is killing off our candidates ? Is it Mitts money or the Dems!
I don't think Newt was the cause of his
Fla. loss it was not his 17 mil doing the dirty business.
I swear if Santorum starts rising like yeast ....You will see the same game played....and he is the supposed GOOD GUY !
Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 7:45PM
How about we put Gingrich and Santorum on the same ticket?
Right now Romney is propping up santorum to keep us divided. If we throw Gingrich and Santorum on the same ticket, Romney would suddenly see his front-runner status go bye-bye.
Mimi| 2.3.12 @ 7:49PM
BRILLIANT !!! I thought for a long time that Rick would be a great one for V.P. I love his family and he knows his stuff...In a few more years he would be a treasure to behold for the PRESIDENCY!
Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 4:35PM
Only problem with that idea is that I think Gingrich was thinking of asking Sarah Palin first so if/when he beats Obama he could further rub it in the faces of the establishment that McCain lost in spite of Palin, not because of Palin.
The Big E| 2.3.12 @ 11:32AM
To all you Romneyites out there who claim he's the most electable because he can appeal to moderates - read through the comments above and see how many conservatives are planning on NOT voting for him AGAINST OBAMA!
How can any politician get elected without the support of his base?
That is why I have said since Iowa - a Romney nomination equals an Obama re-election.
Romney is NOT the most electable Republican. He is the LEAST electable (other than Ron Paul, but I don't count him as a Republican).
Cpl.Punishment| 2.3.12 @ 3:59PM
"How can any politician get elected without the support of his base?" This is exactly what is wrong with the right. We will only except the absolute perfect candidate. Well, let me clue you in. That person does NOT exist anywhere. All of the candidates have positions that you can support and some you can't.
What needs to be taken into consideration is which one Obama or (whoever gets the nomination) is the best for YOU and YOUR family.
I agree with Ron Paul that we should bring the troops home from places like Germany. Imagine all the bases that were closed re-opening. Military bases create local jobs.
I agree the Constitution should be cited for every piece of legislation.
I believe that we should drop the litmus test of pro vs. anti abortion and/or gay marriage. These are social issues and the Gov't shouldn't be involved. I am anti-abortion but I do not feel I have the right to legislate that morality.
The Gov't shouldn't even be in the business of "marriage". Marriage is a religious institution The gay marriage issue can all go away if all Gov't sanctioned unions were civil unions.
What I'm trying to say is if you seek the perfect candidate based upon moral and social grounds you are a fool and if you will only vote for who you consider the perfect candidate you are delusional.
You might as well vote for Obama
Mimi| 2.3.12 @ 7:55PM
LOOK what Obama is getting away with now...If he ever gets re-elected he'll use the Constitution for toilet paper...And the judges....OMG....I go to the POLLS no matter if they run an ANT!
Garfield| 2.4.12 @ 3:12AM
Romney would do the exact same thing as Obama.
Scott Ryan | 2.3.12 @ 11:35AM
"Does anyone expect that when he gets to Washington and starts running the government like a business"
Like a business such as his "Wheels for Welfare" program in MA that was such an albatross that the Dem Governor who suceeded him had to shut it down. We know exactly how Moot Romney would run government. Nice column Geoffrey.
Stop the Romney Sleaze Machine (My take for today) The editing is a little sloppy as I was up until 1:30am. throwing this together.
http://youtu.be/acpxp93P1M0
Cpl.Punishment| 2.3.12 @ 4:11PM
"Wheels for Welfare" as you put it is still alive and well.
"The Patrick administration decided last month to funnel an additional $30,000 to the nearly $400,000 annual car ownership program.
The program, which is provided by the State Department of Transitional Assistance, gives out about 65 cars a year, said DTA Commissioner Julia Kehoe.
The state pays for the car’s insurance, inspection, excise tax, title, registration, repairs and a AAA membership for one year at a total cost of roughly $6,000 per car.
The program, which started in 2006, distributes cars donated by non-profit charities such as Good News Garage, a Lutheran charity, which also does the repair work on the car and bills the state."
Kehoe defended the program, saying the state breaks even by cutting welfare payments to the family - about $6,000 a year."
Romney vetoed this bill in 2006.
"Romney sought additional cuts in his last year as Massachusetts governor by vetoing nearly 250 items in the state budget, but all of them were overridden by the Democratic-dominated legislature."
Marc Jeric| 2.3.12 @ 11:40AM
Romney will be eaten alive by the communist clique in the White House and by its Agit-Prop Office (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, PBS, NY Times, Wash. Post, LA Times, ...
Not to forget Mullah Obama's system of local soviets (that's Russian for community organizations) consisting of ACORN, SEIU, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, NEA, AFT, Steel and Auto workers...hell-bent on massive vote fraud supervised by that racist commie Holder.
RCV| 2.4.12 @ 5:42PM
Yes, that's the explanation of why you conservatives can't sell your program to Americans -- it's all a big conspiracy!
Mark| 2.3.12 @ 11:41AM
A more accurate statement would be, "just one of a multitude of RINO's." The Demacratic party/lib media has historically given the weaker conservitive free press and helped to build them up. Why? because they belive their mastermind and arsenal of Liberal media can easily defeat the Lib Republican. I believe it page 2 in the Demacratic play book, just behind class warfare and personal demonization.
fmm| 2.3.12 @ 11:52AM
Many have commented here that they don't understand why the GOP keeps running moderate or statist candidates. In my view, there are very few conservatives in politics above the level of the common electorate. The very incentives which entice people to become politicians preclude them being conservatives. Until we change those incentives, we are destined to continue on the path of centralized power. Count yourself as lucky if at least one choice in November is not a wild eyed leftist.
Otis the Hand | 2.3.12 @ 12:02PM
Right on. You put your finger on something that I was considering writing about, only with a slightly different emphasis. Romney's success can only mean that the majority of the American people do not feel a real sense of urgency either. They must be truly ignorant of the precipice on which we teeter.
Simon Templar| 2.3.12 @ 12:21PM
Bingo. Probably the most intelligent and astute observation ever written here.
Please do write about it.
Tommy Frisco| 2.3.12 @ 4:05PM
I respectflully disagree, Simon.
According to the exist polls in Florida, Newt got the "true conservative" vote, by far, and Romney got the "most electable" vote, by far.
That tells me that the voters in Florida , in their zeal to defeat Obama, bought into the mantra "Romney is the most electable candidate" that we've been bombarded with for the last six months. They held their noses and voted for a candidate they didn't like...in their primary.
Otis the Hand | 2.4.12 @ 9:57AM
Don't you realize that everything you wrote supports my contention? American's are so focused on beating Obama that they ignore the vital importance of a drastic course correction. They are under the impression that a few flight adjustments are all that is needed. Little do they know that we are about to slam into the mountainside. If they "got it," they would never settle for a candidate who is a mere lesser enemy of liberty rather than a champion of it.
Occam's Tool| 2.3.12 @ 12:11PM
I wish we had the Democratic Candidate from 1924 running. He would cure the problem here. (Not kidding---look it up)
Al Adab| 2.3.12 @ 5:15PM
John W. Davis, the last Conservative Democrat to run. "To take from one person, group or class to benefit another person, group or class, is theft." If only his party knew that today.
W| 2.3.12 @ 6:35PM
Al Adab
He may have been the last principled Democrat to run for VP. He was one of the top appellate attorneys and argued before the Supreme Court the cases that ruled unconstitutional parts of FDR's New Deal legilation. Imagine a Dem VP doing that today.
RCV| 2.4.12 @ 5:56PM
Occam: John W. Davis was indeed a great one, a towering figure of 20th century politics and law. He was the uncle and adoptive father of Cy Vance, one of the founders of the great NY law firm of Davis Polk, founding President of the Council on Foreign Relations and, incidentally a member of my college fraternity, Phi Kappa Psi. He also was a strong defender of Black voting rights, a stand that probably lost him the traditionally Democratic South, and the Presidency, in 1924.
Indeed, one of the greats.
Mark Shepler| 2.3.12 @ 12:39PM
I think what we're watching and suffering through is a primary and electoral process so jerry-rigged over the decades by the two parties that it simply cannot nor will not give expression to what the conservative majority of the country truly wants or needs. What it does is offer up is what the parties want and needs and presents those "hold your nose and vote" choices to the electorate. But the candidates themselves are really two sides of the same coin of more Federal gov't, more concentrated power, more suffocation. If I had a more conspiratorial turn of mind I might think it was all a long running diabolical plot run from smoke filled rooms or like professional wrestling were it's all settled and choreographed in advance so that one time this guy wins and the next time the other, but in the end they both get paid every time. Thus Romney and, for that matter, Newt.
Yes, Romney is certainly the better choice over another four years of Obama but that doesn't make him a good one or the right one. All it means is the rate of suffocation will slow for a time and that's ok with the establishment so long as it isn't halted or God forfend, ever, ever really reversed. This is the man the most liberal state in the Union found acceptable as Governor and Mr. "Inside Baseball" himself, Bob Dole, popped out of his well deserved obscurity to recommend. Can he really be the man to save our foundering ship? The ship the very likes of Bob Dole helped steer towards the rocks? As Mark Steyn and this article point out, Romney's pronounced lack of urgency, his apparent obliviousness to the catastrophe ahead of us, not decades hence but within the next administration perhaps, is truly frightening and give no cause for relief or cheer. And for me, his continued justification of RomneyCare bodes very, very ill for the future under a Romney presidency for if one listens carefully his protestations are not a defense of the policy so much as a defense of himself.
The trouble with Romney is not all the little quibbles and differences in his policy prescriptions from that of his opponents or Obama, it is far more basic than that. Indeed, the trouble with Romney is in his sameness to all the others. It is in his very adamancy that a man, any man or group of men, can "solve" the problems of 300 million putatively free individuals if only they gather enough money, resources and power unto themselves. He is imbued with this dangerous conceit as are just about all the establishment men nowadays, left, right or center, Rep or Dem, save, maybe, Ron Paul. And no, this no brief for him. If this were 1840 or so Ron Paul would be our man but, alas, he is a man whose Big Ideas came and went a long time ago. But that too is really at the crux of the problem, WE have become enchanted and beguiled with the notion that A Man with Big Ideas is our salvation.
Even a Reagan cannot undo the mess we're in. Indeed, he DIDN'T. He simply slowed it's accumulation for a while. The problem is much, much bigger than who is at the helm now. We've almost reached parity of those who think that when they win an election they are entitled to take the wealth, property and liberty of others and those others who are merely trying to fend off the attacks. The back and forth, the outright taking and the acquiescing to the taking in the hopes of appeasing the takers cannot last. It has just about played out to the logical end and is reaching critical mass. Such a polity cannot hold together, certainly not in anything like Liberty, very much longer.
nathan| 2.3.12 @ 12:51PM
So much of this is tedious. Sorry but it is.
Like BHO, we knew and know all we needed to know about Mitt, Newt, and Rick long before the primaries. And based on ACTIONS, especially recent actions, we knew that they weren't conservatives, weren't remotely conservatives, wouldn't not if elected govern as conservatives.
Mitt we've analyzed to death. He is at best a moderate and while better than the incumbent isn't really a Founding Fathers type conservative and doesn't bother to pretend to be. Don't expect the deficit to decline much with him. He's a statist and makes that eminently clear.
Newt, whatever he once was, is ancient history. His personal values are deplorable. And are not ancient history. Asking Rick to quit the race when Rick was taking time out to deal with a sick child just shows that his whatever he says, this is just a continuation of his yes dear I know you have cancer but I want a divorce anyway. His dalliances with Nancy on global warming, his taking money to shill for Fanny and Freddie, money that he didn't need unless he anticipates yet a third divorce, his advocacy for the medicare drug benefit, his "great ideas" like going to the moon when when we don't have money to deal with issues on the ground, and on and on shows he's not remotely fit to be president. Again, he really wants to be king and thinks he should be.
Rick during the Bush years supported all the excesses of that administration, the so horribly misnamed civil liberties destroying Patriot Act, the medicare drug benefit, the war in Iraq, TARP which benefitted as Reason wrote, that marvelous Baptist bootlegger Warren Buffet who made billions off it, Rich backed all of it. Again, conservative? Not any more.
The one REAL conservative here is the man who because he doesn't want to to be world's policeman any more, no more "white man's burden", no more neocon imperialist interventionism like Iraq where we lost and lost big, so many of you, and talk radio too call him crazy on foreign policy even though like it or not most of his policies abroad are going to happen anyway because guess what? We're broke and can't afford this nonsense any more. No folks Ron is the only real conservative in the group. Still time to get behind the only conservative out there.
But you won't. So settle for BHO, only a little less which is what republicans tend to do. It's genetic?
Simon Templar| 2.3.12 @ 1:41PM
Really? Hmm..maybe you could explain to this neo-con why this is happening...
Romney, Ron Paul Forging Unlikely Alliance
As the Republican presidential race goes on, front-runner Mitt Romney and long shot Ron Paul are said to be forging a strategic alliance between establishment and outsider. The Romney-Paul alliance is more than a curious connection....
-Newsmax
Yeah, the REAL conservative...you and your libertarians are nothing but neo liberals and political trojan horses. Frankly, I wish all of you to go to hell...I am sick and tired of reading your dribble about who and what a real conservative is and your false prophet, Ron Paul.
Clint| 2.3.12 @ 9:23PM
The Israel Firster Crybaby, Templer Is In The Building.
http://www.grimmemennesker.dk/.....people.jpg
" In the category of politics makes strange bedfellows, witness the friendship between former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. The two became friends during the 2008 presidential race and while others are attacking vehemently in the GOP race for the presidential nomination, they are not, The Washington Post reported.
Not only are the two candidates friends, so are their spouses, Ann Romney and Carol Paul. While Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich snipe at each other, Romney has taken time at debates to praise Paul despite their differences on the issues.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Nevada.
Simon Templar| 2.3.12 @ 1:49PM
You are the sickness and political disease that will destroy the Republic...not Barack Obama. Obama can be dealt with, deceptive trojan horses like you destroy and rot the Republic.
Just thought I should calarify my response to your tediously diseased, hypocritical, and deceptive comments..pass it onto Clint and Jack Off for me.
Thanks.
nathan| 2.3.12 @ 2:31PM
Sir:
For the record I attempt to abstain from personal invective and try not to as it says at the bottom, feed the trolls as cute as they might be sometimes.
If you care to do so, fast forward four years and tell us all what will have happened in the interim for each of the four candidates.
Go through them one by one for us and be your most optimistic. And when we talk "conservative" the standard here is adherence to the Constitution and the principles largely enunciated by the Founders which means by the way Washington's no entangling alliances and keeping out of other people's fights.
So using the Founders as the benchmark and the only one that is valid, project out the next four years for each of them.
For example, would any of them, Paul excepted, seek to get rid of the Patriot Act which is blatantly unconstitutional? How about the amendment to the NDAA which McCain supported and which more or less eliminates the Fifth Amendment? Besides Paul do any of them oppose the non judicially approved execution of Americans not engaged in battle based on "information"? Do any of them vow to eliminate that unconstitutional practice? (Fifth Amendment "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law".) I mean the last guy was having dinner with eight other people when the missile came through the door. Do any of you believe for a minute that in an American court he would have been found guilty of a capital crime?
Besides Paul how many oppose getting into another unwinnable war in the Middle East? You sir are a self proclaimed neocon? Are you generally pleased with the last foreign venture you supported that lasted eight years, cost 4,000 American lives, maybe as many as one million Iraqi lives, led to the destruction of the Christian community in Iraq, at least several cities/towns like Fallujah, if you read Business Week you find that the infrastructure still doesn't work we could on, the so called "democracry" is a joke, in any case are you please with that outcome and are prepared to back a candidate like Newt or Mitt apparently who wants to do another one? In a country where the population is five times larger?
Are you comfortable with the way the values and principles of this country were destroyed during those conflicts? The outright torture at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, 124 and others? Col. West, openly admitted to carrying out a mock execution, specifically prohibited by both US law and Geneva making him a self confessed war criminal by the way and yet he's in Congress now as a republican. Do you support a candidate such as Newt who would continue those practices? Washington, again the standard here, made it clear and insisted on humane treatment for all detainees.
How do we in this day and time define conservatism? Good question isn't it? Throw some answers at us.
Simon Templar| 2.3.12 @ 6:39PM
As usual you side stepped, avoided, and skirted the point that I made with a typical liberal rhetorical technique and began with a false premise about the founding fathers and a false definition of conservativism. By the way, calling myself a neo-con was sarcasm and a premptive strike at your inevitable response of calling everyone a neo-con who does not think EXACTLY the way you do.
Am I prepared to back a candidate like Mitt? No. But Ron Paul apparently is...
Neo-Liberal! Particulary noticed and loved that smarminess and self idolatry and arrogance that you reek like a neo-liberal. Just like your progressive cousins, that same self righteous stink.
Clint| 2.3.12 @ 9:30PM
The Israel Firster Crybaby, Simon Pimpler Is Very Upset & Angst Ridden This Fine Day.
http://www.grimmemennesker.dk/.....people.jpg
Call Bibi In The Morning.
Red in Denver| 2.3.12 @ 12:53PM
Some people are such strong ideologues that they might win the battle, and then lose the war. EVEN if you can make the leap in faith that either Gingrich and Santorum are 'true conservatives' -- Have you considered that NEITHER of them have shown (via months of polling data) that they can even come CLOSE to beating Obama in the general election?
Romney's not an ideologue and hasn't spent a lifetime in politics, honing the conservative message/talking points, etc. Romney is a "fix-it" or turn-around guy; and can FIX what's wrong with the federal government. That's where he has experience -- in taking something that's bloated and broken and 'fixing' it, cutting the fat, so that it functions efficiently again. I think that message will resonate with a majority of Americans.
It's clear, as well, that he understands the China trade issues; the importance of strengthening the borders; and also a strong national defense.
If you'd rather have a long-term politician who has those conservative talking points down pat -- both of whom appear to have been 'big government' types who have not been consistently conservative; the results of the election in November are on YOU and people like you. If you had an amazing, charismatic, true conservative -- that would be one thing -- but it seems completely not worth it to gamble on either one of the not-all-that-conservative alternatives, who are obviously much weaker against Obama.
The Bruce| 2.3.12 @ 12:55PM
"Many have commented here that they don't understand why the GOP keeps running moderate or statist candidates."
That's just it. The GOP isn't "running" anybody. People seem to act like the GOP spread its legs, shat out Mitt Romney, and said, (presto) "Here's your candidate."
The people running for the Republican nomination are doing so of their own accord. They weren't picked in some back room, RNC commitee meeting.
And to those that would rather stay home on election day and cede a victory to Obama, why not put up or shut up? Why aren't any of you running for President?
Here's a little piece of advice, there will never be a candidate running for office that you'll agree with 100% unless, of course, that candidate happens to be you.
fmm| 2.3.12 @ 1:48PM
The GOP does pick the candidates in each and every local of every state. Without the approval of the GOP committemen, no one gets on ballots for any office. There are numerous requirements to be meet, all set by the poolitical party. Do your homework to understand how the political parties work from the ground up. And if you want to make a difference, get involved on the local level to help make the choices.
Who Knows?| 2.3.12 @ 2:07PM
Maybe the “Hitler rule” is being extended into a “Nietzsche rule”---that is, when the argument is reduced to invoking Hitler, it’s lost, so now you use a chosen Nietzsche quote.
LOSER!
Never forget the golden rule---he who has the gold rules.
And, these “high tech” days, what is the “gold”? Why, it’s the lords and masters of the WORD universe, who are busy making up the mass of public “schooled” moron’s minds, so they can keep the true elites in power.
The most appropriate quote from dear old dead Nietzsche is from “Thus Spake Zarathustra”, “On The Flies Of The Market Place”—
“In the world even the best things amount to nothing without someone to make a show of them: great men the people call these showmen.
Little do the people comprehend the great---that is, the creating. But they have a mind for all showmen and actors of great things.
Around the inventors of new values the world revolves: invisibly it revolves. But around the actors revolve the people and fame: that is ‘the way of the world’.
The actor has spirit but little conscience of the spirit. Always he has faith in that which he inspires the most faith---faith in himself. Tomorrow he has a new faith, and the day after tomorrow a newer one. He has quick senses, like the people, and capricious moods. To overthrow---that means to him: to prove. To drive to frenzy---that means to him: to persuade…..Verily, he believes only in gods who make a big noise in the world!
Full of solemn jesters is the market place---and the people pride themselves on their great men, their masters of the hour. But the hour presses them; so they press you. And from you too they want a Yes or No. Alas, do you want to place your chair between pro and con?
….
Flee into your solitude! You have lived too close to the small and the miserable. Flee their invisible revenge! Against you they are nothing but revenge.
….
They hum around you with their praise too: obtrusiveness is their praise. They want the proximity of your skin and your blood. They flatter you as a god or devil; they whine before you as a god or devil. What does it matter? They are flatterers and whiners and nothing more.
Often they affect charm. But that has always been the cleverness of cowards. Indeed, cowards are clever! “
Ah, Nietzsche is indeed Pietzsche!
Why, the fact that a clever deceiver like Obama was elected maximal leader of the “free world”, itself, is truly enough to make a sober and sane person flee to their solitude---that is, tune out of the vulgar political “market place”. So, huffing and puffing about Romney, the “fly in the market place” du jour, is simply overkill.
Anyway, perhaps Mitt will turn out to be EXACTLY what the dumbed down American situation calls for---the universe will not be mocked.
In a movie, the producer wouldn’t choose a skinny wimp to play a he man role---no, better would be a muscle bound character. Just so for president---the people might be fooled, though, eh? Until all hell breaks loose---which, in my exalted opinion, seems to be just about what the universal “doctor” is calling for.
Bring it on. My guess is there’s going to be a whole lot of fleeing to solitude, before long.
John II| 2.4.12 @ 4:06PM
Right. For random thoughts, though, I prefer Pascal over Nietzsche. Le ceur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait pas. So to speak.
Santorum is the best man in the field, and he hasn't the chance of a fart in a whirlwind, inasmuch as Professor Obama and his degenerate acolytes are perfectly representative of a culture in freefall.
Romney will lose the general election because more than half the degenerate electorate still believe, to use the fatuously measured words of Newt, that Professor Obama is a "good man."
Santorum WOULD lose the general election because he actually IS a good man.
We're screwed.
And now back to a solitary study of "All the King's Men," the superior 1949 version of the inadvertently prescient Robert Penn Warren novel.
sirbourbon| 2.3.12 @ 2:29PM
First off, the government is not a business but a contract between the people to lrave people alone and to only interfere to safeguard the people's liberties as declared in the Declaration of Independence. Romney quoted the Declaration in one of the debates but I am sure he didn't understand the meaning of those words. Defending the pursuit of happiness does not mean using the bureaucracy (Leviathan) to rule us but to chain Leviathan down from mischief and starve it to death so that the people can get on with the business of America!
History is clear, and Romney I am certain missed the lesson, that the states and their creation in 1789 of the small, tiny, microdot government they called the federal government, hd very specific duties. Whenthe Founders created the central feature (federalism) they very specifically itemized the federal government's duties. Those duties were confined within a few enumerated chores identified in Article I, section five.
What the author refers to as "Leviathan" has broken its chains and runs rampant across the American landscape, ideed, the world landscape, is attributable to a variety of reasons. One was judicial decisions beginning with Chief Justice John Marshall that opined in court decisions that if the Constitution does not specifically deny the congress from meddling in the affairs of the states and of the people, then congress has the authority to do it!
Romney is of that mentality: that unless the contract spells out where government cannot go then it's okay for the federal government to go full stream ahead!
Although Romney has toned down down his Massachusetts crap game bravado and has begun to sound more like Ron Paul, Romney is Romney and refuses like most politicians to read the instruction manual. He will tear into his agenda of "running government like a business" and forget the instruction manual since his team from Council on Foreign Relations have their own manual.
As you open this link note the CFR asterisk by each of Romney's advisors.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/.....ist-elites
Paul| 2.3.12 @ 3:18PM
I said never again after Bush 41. Said it again after Bob Dole. Said it again at the end of Bush 43's second term. So, yeah- we'll say it again after the latest RINO, Romney. But it won't matter. The whole GOP establishment are a bunch of RINO's. They lose, they blame it on the stubbornness of conservatives, they win they say, "See, we told you so". And since I can't see anyway to root these RINOs out, I've given up and settled on the notion that we're doomed.
Gerald Bulkley| 2.3.12 @ 3:40PM
You are correct we are doomed. But if we control both houses and can get enough conservatives in the house and senate then it's much easier to handle a RINO as oppose to a jackass.
Once Romney gets smacked by his own he will fall in line.
Penobscot11| 2.3.12 @ 3:20PM
That was one of the worst articles ever written. It's too bad the internet gives crappy writers a voice. You took half of Romney's "flaws" out of context and exaggerated the rest. If you want to be taken seriously, then be a serious writer. Seriously.
shoebox57| 2.3.12 @ 3:53PM
Nonetheless, the point is correct. Romney is going to be abad word in American history. We were Romneyed will me "sold out" or "drained" as in we were "Romneyed" will mean robbed. It is torture just to think of how close we could be to reviving the Republic and the U.S. Constitution! We are truly doomed!!
Penobscot11| 2.3.12 @ 4:16PM
Well, Obama is already a bad word, so Romney will just be joining the ranks. When we say we are Obamaed, it means "to oppress," "to rob," "to do nothing and take credit for everything," and "to thrust one into suffocating debt," all while he and his cronies live the high life. What a hypocrite. Romney will clean the floor with arguably the worst POTUS in history, Obama.
Cranios| 2.3.12 @ 4:02PM
Well, the fact is we don't know what Romney would do. He governed in a state where he had to tack to the left to survive - but is that what he'd do as President of the entire country? Maybe. But we have no way of telling. We only know that he'd be better than Obama.
Tommy Frisco| 2.3.12 @ 4:46PM
Yes, Romney said he had to govern like a Leftie because the Dems gave him no choice.
How 'bout now? He's now so confident in winning the GOP nomination, he's already moving back to the Left\middle by saying he wants to increase the mininum wage limit and tie it into the inflation rate.
Thom| 2.3.12 @ 3:42PM
If the United States were the Titanic .
Capt McCain would have given the same orders that doomed the ship but he would have turned to the right instead of the left.. .... 1500 hundred people die because he won't buck the SOP nature of the established "order". He is greeted as an incompetent when they arrive in New York ....
Cap Romney would have followed established "order" to the letter, turned to the "left" being his natural tendencies and hit the iceberg on the right... Using his business sense he would have ensured the life boats were filled to capacity and only "700" people die. He is greeted as a hero in New Yor'k .....
Capt Conservative would have bucked the established "order", not reversed the outboard props taking thrust off the rudder but merely slowed them and turned to whatever side of the iceberg that represented the shortest distance... the ship either misses the iceberg or scraps
alongside it amidships, deflects and does not doom the ship .... No one dies. He is greeted in New York and arrested for violations of established procedures and protocol. ..... by the "order".
Capt Obama says he doesn't see an Iceberg, orders increased speed and hits it straight on doing massive damage to the bow but not dooming the ship ... He orders the ship to reverse and repeat his orders until he says otherwise....... He is the sole survivor of Titanic and is greeted with a parade in New York .....
Hell of a choice we have ....
Penobscot11| 2.3.12 @ 4:19PM
I'll take Capt. Romney.
Thom| 2.3.12 @ 4:59PM
That makes you a Republicrat and someone willing to let 700 out of 2200 people die because you can't learn from history and then call that progress because you achieve better results than Capt Obama.....
Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 2:43PM
Agreed, I would take Capt. Conservative whom would probably end up being exonerated of all charges and then proceed to humiliate those that pressed charges against him by explaining why doing things the established way would have gotten everyone killed.
shoebox57| 2.3.12 @ 3:45PM
Why does it take so long for a post to show up?
shoebox57| 2.3.12 @ 3:48PM
Must have been something I said about Romney?
Anyway as I was saying. Romney is Un-electable! So we do not have to worry about a second term for him. The issue is, upon his historic loss, will the GOP then become a weak 3rd party or simply fade away? The tear in the fabric of the GOP cannot be mended this time. The angst is too much to bear.
Gerald Bulkley| 2.3.12 @ 3:56PM
Why are you worried about the party? It's the country that's doomed and will fade away. Those of us with like minds will find a way to survive, it's the liberals serfs who will really suffer. I pity their complete ignorance. No matter how hard the liberals want to deny reality THE IS NO MONEY TO DO ANYTHING THEY WANT.
Cranios| 2.3.12 @ 3:58PM
I can't tell what this writer's agenda is. Does he think we would be better off with Obama? Or, is he disgruntled that his Republican didn't win the nomination, and Romney is poised to?
I think at this point people are terrified, all right, but mostly of what an Obama second term would be like.
Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 4:36PM
What's the difference between Romney and Obama?
Cause I really don't see any.
MissouriConservative| 2.3.12 @ 4:02PM
Georgia:
Romney vs. ObamaSurveyUSARomney
51, Obama 43Romney +8Georgia:
Gingrich vs. ObamaSurveyUSAGingrich
50, Obama 44Gingrich +6
Georgia
Republican Presidential PrimarySurveyUSAGingrich
45, Romney 32, Santorum 9, Paul 8Gingrich +13
That shows all from SurveyUSA that even though Gingrich is set to win the Georgia primary, in the general election Romney fares better than Newt against Obama. Wake up people in Georgia. Newt will give us four more years of Obama.
KShannon| 2.4.12 @ 1:29AM
Exactly...I can't believe the people of Georgia will vote for him since he jilted them days after being elected to an 11th term. I lived in that area for years...I thought they were smarter than that.
PattyMor| 2.3.12 @ 4:07PM
Romney is probably the worst candidate (besides Ron Paul). He's got the Romneycare albatross around his neck. And he's the very rich guy running in a year when Barack is ramping up the envy and greed via his "fairness" and tax the rich campaign. Romney loses on both accounts.
I think the flawed Newt Gingrich has the best track record of actually doing something positive: welfare reform and balancing the budget. Why do you think the spend-happy congress fights to keep him out, but his supporters are: Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, JC Watts, Fred Thompson, and Guiliani?
If Gingrich can stay on message, he can win. He just resonates with the base with such things as "the Food Stamp President". Prosperity and spending restraint works every time.
m| 2.3.12 @ 4:09PM
I would like to see new candidates run for President like Rep. Allen West or former Gov. Sarah Palin; not Mitt Romney. Romney is not conservative and he is reminded of former Pres. George HW Bush. Romney will not get my vote. I don't trust these RINOS and it time for them to retired from Congress. The Established Republican and the Romney's campaign has been hurting the conservatives and Tae Party. We are going to lose the election this coming November and Obama will be back in the White House in 2013. The Republican Party need a clean house and better strong leadership for the conservatives.
Cpl.Punishment| 2.3.12 @ 4:12PM
I am all for Allen West, but alas he won't run.
Miriam Corbin| 2.3.12 @ 4:22PM
For all those of you who say you will not vote for Mitt Romney this fall, I have only this to say: Supreme Court nominees. The next President will be appointing one and maybe two Justices. You see what Obama gave us. To maintain any hope of freedom that we have known for our children and the future of our nation, we MUST elect whomever is on the ticket for the Republican side. Enough said.
Garfield| 2.4.12 @ 3:17AM
Actually, Obama and Romney would probably pick similar supreme court justices, so you just proved another reason why Romney should not be the Republican Nominee.
Nelson Feliciano| 2.3.12 @ 4:48PM
From reading your article, I think you're not really considering the following when it comes to weighing in on Romney as possibly the future POTUS:
a) Romney, like all U.S. State Governors and former Governors, has executive experience since a State Government is a microcosm of the Federal Goverment; none of the other current candidates have that experience (not even the current President had that going for him).
b) His private sector experience allows him to understand i) how government regulations affect the private business sector, ii) what decisions/investments can fuel an upturn in businesses, and iii) the importance of the private sector on the overall economy (which to POTUS Obama, who was pretty much a community organizer before getting into politics, is only important if they are donating money to his party; why else would he pick Solyndra at the drop of a hat over a pipeline that would produce more overall jobs?)
Heinrich| 2.3.12 @ 4:48PM
Blah Blah Blah...There are only two types of people that don't like Mitt Romney--Liberals who want to see Obama re-elected and conservatives who hate Mormons.
Thom| 2.3.12 @ 5:04PM
Can you prove the latter point?
Fred Farkel| 2.3.12 @ 8:06PM
I'm a Conservative. Why do you say I hate Mormons?? I have friends who are Mormons ad I like them. Oh, and they are also Conservatives. Do they hate themselves??
Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 2:46PM
This "hate mormons" narrative from Mittbots is yet another reason why I consider Romney equivalent to Obama.
Obamneybots: "If you don't like Obamney it's cause you hate mormons."
Obamabots: "If you don't like Obama, it's cause you hate black people."
They even use the same style of attacking people...
sara r| 2.3.12 @ 4:51PM
let's go mitt! i don't want or need emotion. i want someone who can fix things and he is the best.
Patrick| 2.3.12 @ 4:59PM
I think you have this exactly backwards. Romney is a terrible campaigner. But I think he would be an extraordinary president. You underestimate his leadership ability. The United States needs a complete and classic turnaround. He is a turnaround expert. Perhaps one of the best in the world. Perfect guy for the times. I don't think he'll get elected though because he is a mediocre candidate/campaigner and with unemployment perceived to be improving his chances may diminish enough for Obama to scrape by and continue to emasculate the United States. Despite having served as President for three years, Obama remains a very poorly qualified candidate, especially compared with Romney.
John| 2.3.12 @ 5:00PM
You are desperately trying to find something wrong with Mitt. The truth is, he is the most qualified candidate, and he has a clean record. Mitt takes broken and bankrupt institutions about ready to fail, and takes the necesarry steps to save it, and make it prosperous. That sounds exactly like what our country needs.
You ridicule him for not being scared? We need a leader who has courage, and who can reassure Americans. He is possitive and he knows he has the ability to rectify the mistakes of previous leaders. He does not talk specifics while campaigning as strategy. He is capable, he is confident. He is the best candidate.
Garfield| 2.6.12 @ 3:09PM
How about the fact Romney is approved by George Soros and is also a lieing smear merchant.
http://townhall.com/columnists.....thics_case
That ethics investigation that Gingrich got hit with was a farce, yet Romney is giving Pelosi credibility she doesn't deserve.
Archon| 2.3.12 @ 5:02PM
I want Obama to win but one silver lining with a Romney win. I can't wait to see Romney make some "free market" adjustments to Obamacare at the edges announce the problem "fixed" while having his buddies in the Republican establishment "remember" that the private insurance mandate was their idea in the first place. Cant' wait for that.
In other words Romney will add a little bit of sugar to urine flavored drink, rebrand it as "cactus cooler" and you conservatives will drink it up like it's a hot, sunny day.
David| 2.3.12 @ 5:07PM
John, how naiive can you be? He doesn't talk specifics [as to how he will solve our major problems] as a campaign strategy???!!!
Pleeeeeeease.
JohnLeeHooker| 2.3.12 @ 5:10PM
Geoffrey, I feel your pain dude BUT odumbo has GOT to go. There is NO other issue in this election. His policies will/have bankrupt(ed) the country and his SCOTUS nominees will turn the constitution on its head.
Romney may not be everyone's first choice, but at the end of the day he will be the ONLY CHOICE like it or not.
W R Dickinson| 2.3.12 @ 10:09PM
Remember Bush 41 gave us Souter - a disaster.
Romney will nominate a similar "moderate" who will turn left and vote with Kagan.
Jim| 2.3.12 @ 5:27PM
It is becoming all to apparent to me that the Republican party is not the party I want it to be, a conservative party. By this I mean a party which espouses smaller government, less regulation, more freedom and liberty to make my own way and to pursure that happiness which I feel is mine to find.
DanInMN| 2.3.12 @ 5:34PM
When playing poker, right before a big raise or call I ask myself, "How does this end well for me and how likely are the things required for this to end well for me to happen?" If the answer is "It can't" or "It can, but the flop, turn or river required for it to happen are pretty unlikely" then I fold.
This article is right, even if Mitt wins (and he won't) what do we really get? Maybe we get the visceral satisfaction of watching Jugears and the Wookie pack their s--- and head out of town, but that's about it.
DrewC| 2.3.12 @ 5:52PM
How about we talk about the issues and not the stupid petty political game of perceptions. If we buy into the perception game then we're all doomed. The fact is that Obama has increased the debt more in this country than all previous presidents combined. The fact is that he did it in the name of saving the economy, which is stagnant and weak. The fact is that Obama did not have any executive leadership experience before serving in the White House. The fact is that Romney has lead four very successful institutions, has had to balance budgets in all of those positions, and has first hand witnessed the effect of incentives in the private sector.
PaulC| 2.3.12 @ 6:15PM
I don't intend to wait and see how Romney performs once he gets into office, if he gets into office, before I bolt the Republican Party. I intend to bolt the Republican Party the moment Romney get the nomination, if he gets the nomination. In fact, I have one foot out the door as I type this. If Romney is the Republican nominee, I'll be voting for the libertarian candidate, or not voting at all. And it won't make any difference to me whether Romney or Obama wins.
Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 6:44PM
I'm actually looking into voting third party if Romney is the nominee.
I am also sick of people insulting McCain (I think someone has been putting alcohol in his beverages cause I know he doesn't like Romney and that would probably be the only way they could get him to support him).
Seriously, McCain wouldn't have signed the 2,000 page monstrosity known as Obamacare. He would have vetoed it.
Romney I believe would have signed Obamacare without a 2nd thought.
McCain is a Moderate-Left, Romney is a Massachusetts-moderate, something most of us would call a left wing progressive.
alex scipio | 2.3.12 @ 6:57PM
Yeah, but Romney won't win. America NEVER elects moderate Republicans, never has - never will. Ford, Bush41 (not as Reagan-2), Dole, McCain... Romney....
And one must think that the Establishment GOP understand this and would rather lose and keep their government & pundit jobs than win and return American to lawfulness. Is there a more selfish group of men?
It is past time to reject the GOP. When the last time McCain used the words, "Fight with me,"
was at the convention - and then refused to fight not only for his own VP pick, or let her fight at all, not only for America but for generations of Americans yet unborn, the GOP was done.
It is a dead man walking. We just need the stones to go form a new party. And the money. But there goes moneybags big mouth Trump, signing-on with old tired out-of-touch loser Mitt...
Bummer, huh? It is almost as though none of these old guys understand that America still matters to the rest of us, even if they'll all die within the next decade or so.
Garfield| 2.3.12 @ 7:05PM
Romney is not a moderate Republican, he's a left wing Progressive trying to pose as a Republican.
truzak| 2.3.12 @ 7:20PM
Newt said it best at one of the debates: If elected, Romney "will manage the decline" of the country. He most assuredly will not do anything to "fundamentally transform" America back into a representative Republic of limited government.
But it is all a moot point anyway. Romney is the absolute worst candidate to go against Obama, and Obama will have him for breakfast, lunch and dinner before he knows he's even been served!
I always thought Obama was the judgement of God against America for our debased culture and the 50 million murdered babies since 1973. Now with Romney being the perfectly flawed "champion" to save America, I'm more convinced than ever that the judgement continues.
We the People need to seriously start praying and praying and praying again if we are going to have any hope of lifting God's judgement and saving the country.
Fred Farkel| 2.3.12 @ 7:23PM
Hey you Paultards. You better start singing a different tune about Romney. Seems he and your old crackpot icon are best buds and have been kissing each other's posterior for awhile now. Hmm! How about that. Will you support a Romney/ Paul ticket. Kinda sucks to the rest of us.
Clint| 2.4.12 @ 8:54AM
Hey, Israel Firster Smear Bund Clown.
" In advance of Saturday's Nevada caucus, tonight Ron Paul sits down with Piers Morgan at Planet Hollywood's Koi in Las Vegas. In an intense and revealing interview, the Republican from Texas addresses a wide-range of issues, including his reaction to Mitt Romney's recent comment about the poor.
The GOP candidate went on to say that he doesn't believe Romney really doesn't care about poor people, but actually, it's his views on finance that are the true issue: "I think the problem is he's a victim of his own economic theories, rather than him being cold and heartless."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Nevada.
Fred Farkel| 2.4.12 @ 5:31PM
Romney/ Paul that's the ticket.
BCanuck| 2.5.12 @ 7:35AM
Considering Ron Paul would never endorse or even vote for Romney, I don't think it's likely he'd accept an offer for VP.
Obama-Biden 2012| 2.3.12 @ 7:50PM
Omfg, this page is hilarious. You're a RINO, no you're a Socialist like Obama. What we are witnessing is the disentigration of the modern-day GOP.
Oh.....President Obama fixed Bush's disastrous economy and wars. Bin Laden DEAD. Pirates, dead.
It's like Mitt said to Laura "I'm Christian" Ingraham," Laura, the economy IS improving. What do you suggest I run on?"
Bwahahahahaha. Thanks for the laugh, troglodytes!
Jeanette Maier Vitter| 2.3.12 @ 7:53PM
Watching Rethuglicans mud-wrestle gets me wet. Wish I could turn ya'all out. David's buying.;)
Daniel K| 2.3.12 @ 7:54PM
You couldn't be more wrong. Romney is The hope for a better future. Where hope isn't a bumper sticker, but a new job, a paycheck, and aspirations for a better life for your children. Obama is a disaster- all his best staff has left
AlsoSprach| 2.3.12 @ 8:17PM
If you are going to go all Nietzsche on us, you might want to learn how to spell "vice versa". Or is "visa versa" a new guest worker program?
PCP Smoker| 2.3.12 @ 9:07PM
What a contribution. Thanks for the spell check! You are awesome. Asswipe.
POST American| 2.3.12 @ 8:41PM
-----------------BOTTOMESS LINE---------------------
----Even by the sick-O-phantic standards
of this journal --that lead is a rtretch.
----'The LAST Republican?'
-----------------TRY Barry Goldwater.
From Rockefeller sellout 'Nick's ON'
----right down through the Bushes and
certainly 'ROME-knee' it's been nothing
but CFR cover for the RED China handover
and TREASON OP.
Hence, we fully expect 'BAR-Rockefeller'
Obama to be re-elected.
This Averell Harriman stealth clone, afterall,
is the ---PERFECT---- figure to preside
over America's FINAL takedown and
2015 receivership.
He's even better suited for the
rapidly approaching occupation,
by those BILLION helpful hands in
Bill Gates's 'fave' EUGENICS paradise.
SO--Keep following those actuarial psychopaths!
---Keep handing your posterity to EUGENISTS
---------JUST KEEP ON GOIN'
PCP Smoker| 2.3.12 @ 8:56PM
As that Fla voter said, "He is a republican and he's a good man. I believe in him." No need to go into existential matters with that idiot (times 47%), all he needed to do was be a good republican.
TxPatriot| 2.3.12 @ 8:57PM
My wife and I stayed at home when the Repub elites ran RINO Dole, we stayed at home when they ran RINO/TRAITOR McCain, and we will stay at home in Nov 2012 if LIBERAL Romney is the Repub nominee. In fact, after the TEA PARTY returned the House to the Republicans in 2010, we have been screwed time after time by the gutless leadership ever since, I really don't see any reason to remain in the Repub Party nor to bother voting to replace the current set of crooks with a new set of crooks.
Dan Burney| 2.3.12 @ 9:09PM
A few less "Republicans" as you call you and your wife like yourselves and few more level headed civil minded leaders and maybe we can crawl out of this mess the "Demagod" has gotten us into, Under you intellectual arguement your home vote is another vote the Great, the one, the only, Barrack Hussein Obama!!! three cheers for you! This Country is made up of more than just your ideology and will not turn on it alone, it takes us all coming together as a Nation to fix this mess.
Jones| 2.4.12 @ 2:22AM
It's people who 'stay at home' that helped elect Bill Clinton and b Hussein 0bama.
Dan Burney| 2.3.12 @ 9:03PM
Well I have to say you clearly allow your reader to see your bias, the man has not even been elected yet; yet you already have definded his leadership for the first year, your clarivont skills are amazing. Can we get a winner before you start trashing him, or better yet why not comment on the current potus who has led for three years? This you will not have to guess at his record is done and there to talk about.
PCP Smoker| 2.3.12 @ 9:06PM
"to whom there is no dispute that cannot be settled by compromise … those people will be saying, "Never again."
I made that promise in 2008. I won't be breaking that promise for a mormon or a flip flopper.
Steve851| 2.3.12 @ 9:15PM
While I certainly will not vote for Romney. I wouldn't mind at all having the GOP replaced with something different, but since it survived W (barely), it could survive Romney. In any event, what would you suggest instead? Gingrich who demonstrated he was unreliable and not a leader as Speaker? Santorum, who is mired in most of the issues that brought the GOP down? Dr. Paul? Well, actually, I wouldn't a Ron Paul lite, but the real thing is not going anywhere.
Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 2:49PM
Excuse me, but managing to keep spending under control with everyone else wanting to go on mad spending sprees is somehow not being a leader?
You saying he'd be more of a leader if he had let everyone go hog-wild on spending?
Daymon| 2.3.12 @ 9:39PM
Stick with writing about something you know all about, like kissing Obama's &$$!
Jeanette Maier Vitter| 2.3.12 @ 9:41PM
Sharron Angle-Christine O'Donnell 2012 Write-In Campaign.
Jeanette Maier Vitter| 2.3.12 @ 9:42PM
Secretary of State Michelle Bachmann
Jeanette Maier Vitter| 2.3.12 @ 9:43PM
Treasury Secretary Sarah Palin
Tom| 2.3.12 @ 9:46PM
This is one of the greatest essays I've ever read. This man is right, we need someone who believes passionately in the country. I feel like the only thing Mitt Romney believes in passionately is that he wants to be president. People are clamoring for someone else. I've got an alternative for you. I've been running an online, internet only campaign and the response has been overwhelming. It's really starting to take off. We've been doing this for a few months now and we're quickly approaching 300,000 hits on our site. I don't take donations and have, in fact, turned down many which were offered. I'm just a regular guy who has really thought it out. I have business and military experience, as well as experience as a teacher. I heard Roseanne Barr is trying for the Green Party nomination. I promise this. I'll NEVER grab my crotch and spit on the ground after singing the national anthem. I want to return this country to the greatness it had when I was younger. See my ideas on my "issue stances" page. Check out my writing entitled "Pondering America's Future." Look at my health care ideas. See my Pledge to America. See if you want to join this quest. www.gradyforpresident.com.
W R Dickinson| 2.3.12 @ 9:59PM
If Romney is the nominee, he WILL be the last Republican. Win or lose, he will alienate the GOP base. I won't vote for him!
BO or WMR, it makes no difference. This country is headed for the ash heap.
Hopefully, in 2016 a new party will emerge from the ashes to rejunevate this country.
KShannon| 2.3.12 @ 10:13PM
Wounded members of the conservative media are now writing doomsday stories about the end of the Republican Party. With that attitude, why don't we just hand Obama the keys to the WH and save ourselves a lot of money? In the most important election of our lifetimes, this is what we get from conservative media. I can't begin to express my disdain for the pitiful creatures who decry how unfair the mainstream media is to their "less than favorite" candidate. That is exactly what they're doing to Romney. If Romney loses, the loss will be squarely on the shoulders of the conservative media and talk radio pundits who just can't find anything to like about a great man like Romney.
PCP Smoker| 2.3.12 @ 11:05PM
The loss will be on Romney. He's weak, he is a liberal, and he's a loser. Morons like you are handing the nomination to Nobama.
PCP Smoker| 2.3.12 @ 11:08PM
By the way, you dumb cunt, Obamas HAS the keys to the White House. He won it after beating Romney I (McLame) in 08.
TEA PARTY| 2.4.12 @ 1:57AM
Being rich does not make you great. Romney is a vapid fool, too stupid to understand the implications of his own statements. He is the perfect candidate for the GOP - clueless, disconnected from the non-elites, blissfully ignorant of what life is for 99% of Americans. He bears a stunning resemblance to Nelson Rockefeller - another eastern liberal Republican born into extreme wealth. The GOP is again handing the election to the radical left. What do they care about us becoming debt slaves? They will still be filthy rich.
Practical Republican| 2.3.12 @ 10:36PM
"Will Romney be just another politician?" is about as fruitful a question as "Will this be just another critical article about a politician?"
Not to be a jerk, but this writer is no more intellectual or talented than me. I could've written this waste of time.
section9| 2.3.12 @ 10:40PM
Sarah Palin was right all along.
Thing is, it only took 24 hours for her insistence that the candidates should continue to be vetted for Obamneycare to insist that there should be automatic hikes in the Minimum Wage. Romney would be at home in an SEIU meeting, I guess.
Romney will be the same as Bush the Elder, tone deaf and easy to roll by the Left using the usual tactics of screaming "racism" and "mean-spiritedness". I also tend to believe that the GOP is taking the risk with its insistence on Romney of birthing a new Conservative Party and wrecking the coalition.
The Beltway GOP has done nothing to grow the Party as Reagan did. There isn't an original thinker in the entire Party apparat; they're all technicians after jobs in the Old Executive Office Building.
Because Romney stands for nothing, however, my bet is that Obama will actually beat him. Bet on the Alinskyite to beat the Man from Mush everytime. Of Mitt Romney it can be said, as Mr. Churchill rightly remarked, "This pudding has no theme!"
I've noticed, btw, that a lot of the Usual Suspects (Rubin, Jonathan Tobin, Frum, et al) continue to be upset with Palin for insisting that the race continue. Methinks they are aware of Mitt's shortcomings and don't want him exposed, and are angry at Palin for her insistence that Emperor Mittens show that he actually is wearing clothes.
JonB| 2.4.12 @ 1:20AM
Sarah Palin is a bona fide idiot.
Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 4:40PM
Considering she caused the popularity of Obamney care to go through the floor using nothing more than twitter and facebook, if she's a bonafide idiot, what does that make you, cause she's obviously more intelligent than you are.
KShan| 2.4.12 @ 1:38AM
Romney stands for nothing? That is absurd. But you think Sarah Palin is qualified for the presidency....
No wonder people make fun of conservatives.
Jean| 2.4.12 @ 2:04AM
Brilliant
TEA PARTY| 2.4.12 @ 1:47AM
I desperately hope that Romney will be the last of them. We need a real choice, a real party, not a GOP sham. The history of the GOP since FDR is one long retreat, with frequent surrenders. They have never repealed a single socialist program. The GOP is the biggest impediment to conservatism. It is rife with warmongering bible thumpers who will go along with anything as long as they get to play army man in some foreign country.
Steve| 2.4.12 @ 2:01AM
Better than Obama who claims he can fix it because he was a community organizer? I think so...
Steve| 2.4.12 @ 2:16AM
so numbers came out about 80,000 jobs better than Dec. 2011. OK. So Obama's admin has spent ~4 TRILLION in simulus =$50,000 per job...
SGT Baker (native Coloradoan)| 2.4.12 @ 4:45AM
Maybe instead of sitting on our collective rear ends, we need to actually run for office ourselves?
Tom| 2.4.12 @ 6:52AM
I am running...see my post above. Come join the cause. I want to see our country return to its past glory. I want to see balanced budgets. I want to see an opportunity society instead of an entitlement society. I've written down all my ideas and linked them on my "issue stances" page. See them, judge for yourself and, if you like what you see, spread the word, as I do not take donations. www.gradyforpresident.com.
TrueHawk| 2.4.12 @ 5:45AM
We already have an unqualified president, someone who just wanted to be president. Romney is the same. Just wants to be president. Not driven by reform or a passion for a social cause. Just wants to be president. He is shallow.
Susan Harms| 2.4.12 @ 6:39AM
He is already the Last Republican. We are already saying Never Again. I am not the only one who is DONE, stick a fork in me. Not only does Mittens not get it, most of Congress does not get it. It is not good ole politics as usual, no more plantation politics. It is time, this time, not next time, 2012, to clean house. If we dont make some drastic reductions we are headed for Road Warrior. Conspiracy? NO! Agenda of the ruling class. And they will pay.
redmanrt| 2.4.12 @ 6:40AM
I voted for the fake McCain, knowing the vote was wasted. If Romney is the nominee this time, I will not bother to vote.
Chef Schnauzer| 2.4.12 @ 11:26AM
Time and time again conservatives are asked to chow down on yet another liberal-republican crap sandwich. No more - I stand for something the republican party does not. I will have to stand before God and answer for my life, this is my first priority.
Alexandra Mark| 2.4.12 @ 9:53AM
I have not yet accepted the fact that it will be Mitt. He has been anointed by the establishment but there are lots of us non-establishment types whose opinions matter even more.
Atokaite Tn| 2.4.12 @ 10:29AM
If and I sincerely believe this, the Obama Admin completes the Coup De Tat of this Nations' electorate, and Romney fades off into the GOP wilderness with a "I tryed hard folks" smile, then the period 2012 - 20## will be forever nailed down in the yet to be written history, as the last gasp of the 4 Freedoms. We will enter into the darkest ages of history. The European dark ages of the mid 500s to 1800s will seem like a paradise of society.
You and the other posters here are likely to have never seen the utter poverty, degradation, denigration and utter hopelessness of the remote parts of the world, that today, still live in those Dark Ages of time past.
The Chaldean Hand has written on the Oval Office wall, and the inhabitants, plus the US Electorate have been found wanting.
We Reap Exactly what we have sown.
Semper Fi
Tom | 2.4.12 @ 10:58AM
I am inclined to agree with Mr. Norman's characterization of Mr. Romney as an uninspired, antiseptic, pragmatic, utilitarian 'last man' (in Nietzsche's sense), willing and able only to make fixes to the functioning of a present system, but lacking in the historical depth, passion for ideas, and the imagination required to inspire the country toward a vision of what conservatism could be. As G.H.W. Bush said in '91-'92, when he admitted that he lacked 'the vision thing' (certainly in comparison to Reagan). But frankly I am more interested in how this year's primary bodes for the future of the Republican party, beyond 2012. Fact is, visionary, philosophical conservatism cannot survive if it remains ethnically confined to the aging white population. Antiseptic utilitarian pragmatism of business elite Republicans (e.g., Romney-ism) becomes more attractive when the country gets too culturally and philosophically diverse to center political affairs on values and virtues. Conservatives need to think hard about the measures required to attract the demographically diversifying American population to its philosophical virtues.
Chef Schnauzer| 2.4.12 @ 11:14AM
Who was the last American? Those characteristics captured by Bogart, Wayne and Reagan have been perverted by likes of Pee Wee, Obama and Barney (Frank). Unbelievably small, petty insignificant asexual things devoid of meaning or morals.
mary| 2.4.12 @ 11:15AM
Thank you expressing for us the state of our nation.
Our election has been bought and paid for in advance. Evil has quietly crept into the workings of our leaders, they have forsaken the citizens for money and power. The only candidate that could come close to beginning a turn around is being taken down by the Romney machine which is relentless. The American citizens that fall for this for whatever their personal dysfunctions, are fools.
I am a Christian, for a while I have believed that God let Satan put Obama here for the purpose of strengthening our faith and bringing us closer to Him. I still believe this. America is Job of the Bible. Everything we hold dear and believe in is being torn from us. We must believe in God and in ourselves as we are the last hope. We must fight this takeover with all of our might.
deprofundisclamavi| 2.4.12 @ 11:28AM
If I am going to have my interestes, values, and ideals betrayed, I would rather have as the perpetrator someone who at least is honest enough to bill himself as a Democrat. With Obomney, we will get the same nonsensical
view that "We Republicans can make socialism work even though the Democrats can't". Anyone capable of "making socialism work" would be too honest and too intellignent to attempt it.
Milt| 2.4.12 @ 11:39AM
What a stupid article! You Romney haters just write a bunch of trash that is just jibberish and makes not sense. Get a life.
David| 2.4.12 @ 11:54AM
Santorum will provide the greatest contrast with Bam Bam.
Remember, Newt, Mitt, and Barack all hold the following positions.
They believe in man-caused global warming baloney, and the regulations and restrictions that have resulted from such thinking. Santorum does not.
They supported the Wall Street bailouts. Santorum did not.
They support and/or supported individual mandates for health insurance. Santorum never has.
They all criticized Paul Ryan's plan to get our fiscal house in order. Santorum embraced it.
Santorum is of the opinion that ILLEGAL immigrants have not broken ONE law (by crossing the border) as many claim, but that they have continually been breaking America's laws by working here, driving here, etc., and should not be rewarded for doing so.
Santorum cannot be accused of being a flip-flopper.
Santorum cannot be accused of telling people what they want to hear.
Santorum cannot be accused of stating his positions based on the particular audience in front of him at the time.
It is clear that Santorum has been the adult in this race. His criticisms have been on the other candidates' records and he does not distort or misrepresent their records as they do to one another.
It is also clear that he has been the true, principled, consistent conservative his entire politcal career.
Clint| 2.4.12 @ 12:00PM
Big Government Ricky Santorum's Record On Voting For Earmarks, Even The Bridge To Nowhere, His Support For The Lobbyist "K-Street Project" , His Tariff Votes, Medicare Prescription Drugs, No Child Left Behind, Etc. Is Gonna Sink Him With Tea Party Patriots.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Nevada & Maine.
Susanna Gordon| 2.4.12 @ 12:24PM
I am one of those who is terrified these days, and every day I think about how nations don't die by murder, they die by suicide.
I cry for the loss of and deliberate destruction our country under this horrible president.
And now Romney? Who are these people who are voting for this man? And how can he be so clueless?
Your article explains exactly how many of us feel.
Where is Ronald Reagan?
Garfield| 2.4.12 @ 2:03PM
I'm guessing it's a combination of his ad campaign that can't be duplicated in the general election and a bunch of left wingers that are voting for Romney, whom intend to vote for Obama in the general.
Mistral| 2.4.12 @ 1:07PM
Little surprise that Americans are scared today - this nation has led the world in legalising abortion and other laws which undermine natural law & the delicate demographic balance. White people are in absolute decline on this planet. It has also squadered trillions in funding futile military campaigns in such places as Iran and Afghanistan when the money should have been put to fruitful use at home. It has also exported its industry and best technology for its greatest economic enemies to pirate. Little wonder jobs were lost in the millions. With policies such as these who can be shocked at the appalling outcome?
Time to be very frightened indeed. The foundations have been uprooted for a long time to come - perhaps permanently.
HarryS| 2.4.12 @ 2:10PM
Good luck with your loser candidate GOP establishment. You can find some other schmuck to vote for Obamney
B-737| 2.4.12 @ 3:07PM
Go ahead and beat up on Romney if it makes you feel better. All you're doing is guaranteeing that we'll have more years of Obama.
Romney, at least, is a proven executive who understands and believes in free enterprise. If you prefer four more years of an Alinskyite radical, keep it up.
Garfield| 2.4.12 @ 4:29PM
If Romney is the nominee we get 4 more years of Obamney regardless, only diference is the letter by the name.
urownexperience| 2.4.12 @ 4:25PM
Thank you Rush Limbaugh for destroying the GOP. It couldn't have happened better.
Garfield| 2.4.12 @ 5:06PM
The Establishment has only itself to blame for destroying the GOP, blaming Rush Limbaugh doesn't change the facts.
Fred| 2.4.12 @ 5:56PM
If the Republicans do not elect a very Conservative candidate this year, they can forget my vote. None of these "middle or moderate" types will draw my vote. After 4 years of disaster, I'm angry as hell, and not going to take it anymore. I have voted against every liberal or "moderate" candidate since I turned 18 in 1974, and will continue to do so for as long as I live. Another Party will replace the Republicans if they do not measure up this fall - hopefully a Party that believes in following the Constitution AS IT WAS WRITTEN. A Party that will ban all judges legislating from the bench. A Party that will enforce the Oath of Office that every elected official swears to follow, and never does.
Earle Belle | 2.4.12 @ 6:09PM
Who Is Totally Unelectable & Who Is Super Electable & Seriously "In It To Win It"?
http://communities.washingtont.....it-win-it/
Which Candidate Is Undeniably The Present Day Ronald Reagan?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....79T2veZy0Q
POST American| 2.4.12 @ 9:18PM
"Undertstand Carroll Quigley himself,
in 'Tragedy and Hope' stated plainly,
America has NOT had a non-CFR cabal puppet,
wholly American president for since before
the turn of the century ---that is the 20th century."
And of course, we all know their sterling
record with steering away from financial
disasters, world wars and corruption.
AGAIN, ---Goldwater was at leasr --somewhat--
the 'Last Republican' ----the last American.
He probably would NOT have stood for
the Acheson/ Harriman/ Kissinger/ Rockefeller
handover to MAO TSE TUNG.
-----er, make that certainly would NOT have
MEANWHILE
-----------THE REPUBLIC HAS FALLEN-------------
Robert of Ottawa| 2.5.12 @ 8:37AM
Look North to Canada. The Conservatives were in the wilderness for 20 years due to what I call The Joe Clarke falacy; CINOs lose their base support.
Unfortunately, the US cannot afford (literally) 15 years of socialist rule. Get you act together, Americans, and nominate a small-government conservative, not another elitist - just like Bambi.
martin j smith| 2.5.12 @ 8:53AM
Here is my take: Newt and Santorum will continue to push Romney to the right enough to stop the bleeding in Conservative circles. That is why I support both of them and to stay in the race.
Ron Paul-forget him--he is well --you figure it out --but not my cup of tea--Hey Clint here is your golden opportunity to act like a sixth grader and do your anti-Jewish Act you go guy !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Uh OH--here comes Clint lets hide !!!!!!!!!
I do not like or support Romney but I think Obama is a far greater disaster so without any doubt I will not stay home but I will note Not For Romney but against Obama. Those people who do otherwise and post these views are either very stupid or they misrepresent who really are. Those of us who believe that Obama is even worse for country than Jimmy Carter should be careful to critically suspect some of of the posts especially those who suggest there is not difference. Sorry,Romney is not my choice,no angel,not perfect, but he has the great disitinction of NOT BEING OBAMA. That is his main attribute that is positive--and only one.
Get rid of Obama then lets fight it out with RINOS
after we get rid of Obama.
Garfield| 2.5.12 @ 2:51PM
Seriously, as soon as Romney thinks he can get away with it he will go hard left. He is no different from Obama.
Marc Jeric| 2.5.12 @ 4:35PM
For God's sake - another RINO ready to "work" with our eco-nazis and commies. He will be chewed over and spit out by our MSM - which acts as Mullah Obama's Agit-Prop Office. Obama's komissars in the White House will direct a massive vote fraud performed by his local soviets (in Russian that's community organizations) - ACORN brownshirts, and union thugs supplied by SEIU, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, NEA, ATF, Steel and Auto workers, Teamsters, all local unions of government employees...After Abu Hussein al-Mombassa (or whatever Kenyan hellhole that marxist Muslim was born in) finishes his second term we will be the United Soviet Socialist States of America.
Colin Foy| 2.5.12 @ 6:22PM
Yes! The Washington and republican political establishments get their man. Happy days again for the two faced sad sack Mitch McConnell and cry baby John Boehner. Won’t have to contend with those constitution loving tea party types come January 2013. Things will finally get back to normal! Dingy Harry Reid must be laughing his butt off right about now. And Nancy, you can order another round of neuron poisoning Botox injections you insane stupid bitch. Government mandated health care is here to stay no matter who wins. Teach your children to speak Chinese and Spanglish, study up on the Koran, trillions more in debt on the way. And our big gay military can continue the important work of making the world safe for Islam. The corrupt American political ruling class (And the folks who pay for them) wins again! What a pathetic joke.
Garfield| 2.7.12 @ 2:19PM
I wish people would stop bashing Boehner, whom is stuck between trying to stop Obama's destructive agenda and trying to keep conservatives from being blamed for Obama's destructive agenda.
McConnell I think deserves a lot more blame then Boehner.
Colin Foy| 2.5.12 @ 6:36PM
I wonder which freedoms will be stripped when they do patriot act 4.0?
Colin Foy| 2.5.12 @ 6:38PM
If you thought John McCain knew how to kiss liberal commie democrat ass wait till Willard hits DC. This guy knew how to play patty cake with the Kennedy's to get what he wanted.
They've groomed him well.
post*tenebras*lux| 2.5.12 @ 6:42PM
To my recollection and I admit I have not watched all of the debates, not one moderator asked, Why Do You Want To Be President? any observations from the astute AS crowd?
Neil| 2.5.12 @ 10:58PM
AMEN
Jim Boswell| 2.5.12 @ 11:02PM
I'm a lifelong committed conservative Republican, and I may actually vote for Obama, because Romney won't change things and Obama will force America to understand socialism and the "progressive agenda", an education they will never get from a pretty liar in a nice suit. At least Obama will force a massive swing to constitutional conservatism and maybe defeating Romney will teach the Republican establishment a lesson about forcing their idiot on the Republican voters.
Garfield| 2.6.12 @ 2:03PM
I'm not supporting one George Soros approved candidate (Romney) to replace another George Soros approved candidate (Obama).