The American Spectator : The Mitt H.W. Bush Problem

Text Size

The Mitt H.W. Bush Problem

By Jeffrey Lord on 4.12.12 @ 6:09AM

Arrogance, hostility to conservatives sank the moderate president elected as Reagan’s heir.

(Page 2 of 5)

On one occasion Rollins was the guest at a dinner given by the Bushes at the Naval Observatory, the official vice-presidential residence. At one point the two men were standing on the porch of the residence discussing the Reagan program. Wrote Rollins:

Then our conversation turned to the tax bill working a tortured path through Congress.

“I don’t think this tax thing is such a good idea,” Bush confided. “What do you make of it?”

Rollins was dumbfounded. The Reagan tax cuts were the centerpiece of the conservative economic program. Rollins was understated in his astonished reply:

“I think it’s pretty important to the president.”

Replied the Vice President:

“But he’s gonna pay a heavy price for all this. I think we need more revenue, not less.”

An astonished Rollins would later write:

It was a fleeting though telling insight into the psyche of the man who would probably be the next president… signaling that he didn’t agree with Reagan’s desire to lower tax rates.

Now, mind you, this conversation took place as the Reagan tax cuts of 1986 were front and center on the agenda. They would later pass, continuing to build on the tax and budget cuts of 1981 and providing some 21 million jobs in the Reagan era.

Two years later, George H.W. Bush stood in front of the 1988 Republican National Convention and said:

“And I’m the one who will not raise taxes. My opponent, my opponent now says, my opponent now says, he’ll raise them as a last resort, or a third resort. But when a politician talks like that, you know that’s one resort he’ll be checking into. My opponent won’t rule out raising taxes. But I will. And the Congress will push me to raise taxes, and I’ll say no, and they’ll push, and I’ll say no, and they’ll push again, and I’ll say, to them, ‘Read my lips: no new taxes.’”

Let’s move the story ahead one year from that moment.

It is now 1989. And Ed Rollins is Executive Director of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) — the political arm of House Republicans. The latter, in 1989, still in the minority in the House.

He attends a political dinner in Washington, a dinner at which now-President Bush’s pollster, Bob Teeter, is present. Says Teeter:

Page: < 12 3 4 > Last ›

About the Author

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (340) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Jack in Wi.| 4.12.12 @ 7:20AM

For once Lord writes something I agree with. How has 24 years of rule of the Republican Party by the countryclub and the Neocons been anything out a huge disaster? Now we a doubling down with the biggest country clubber of them all, Mitt. I believe he is incapable of moving to the right in any meaningful way. He will be just like he was in Mass. a liberal sellout.

Con Chef (NB) | 4.12.12 @ 10:02AM

Then, by all means, Jack, keep your "sunshine patriot" ass at home. Obama will thank you for your vote. Yeah, Jack. You're such a selfless patriot & love your Republic so much that you fail to realize that another term of Obama & this Republic, as we know it, is finished.

What's the story, Mr. "Proud 4-F?" You gonna carry on the family tradition of being a "live coward" for your Republic & stay home, or write someone in? Or are you going to do your duty to your Republic & remove the enemy currently running it into the ground?

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 10:14AM

Another RINO too stupid to resist showing contempt toward conservatives whose votes they desperately need.

You MittBots are Rain Man idiots without any savant at all.

Con Chef (NB) | 4.12.12 @ 10:31AM

Oh, GOSH! You pegged ME! I'm such a "RINO." The only "contempt" I have is for those who will stay home or write someone in. That is selfish in the extreme & ensures another term for Obama & the end of our Republic.

Let's get this straight, dude. I'm holding my nose to push the button for Mitt. I feel as if he's not a true conservative because, although MassCare IS Constitutional, under the 10th Amendment, NO true conservative would turn to the gov't., on ANY level, as the answer to health care issues.

That being said, he's a damn site better than the current "president." And unlike the current "president," I don't think his goal is to destroy our Republic & its economy. The choice is clear enough to me.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 10:49AM

Yeah, when the choice is between Socialist A and Socialist B, you make your decision based on the jersey they wear.

Drop the Manichean crap---Mittie Rich the Poor Little Rich Boy has no intention of pulling us back from the abyss. He just wants to sit in the pilot's seat for a minute before we crash.

That was patently obvious by his horror at the notion of reforming entitlements, if it wasn't by his enthusiastic resurrection of Clintoncare in Mass.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 10:52AM

And as for your alleged conservative bona fides, take this and publish the results:

http://www.timgroseclose.com/calculate-your-pq/

Mine is a 3:

Here’s your PQ: 3
Politicians with similar PQs are:
Michele Bachmann (R-Minn, 2007-09) PQ=-4.1
James DeMint (R-S.C. 1999-2009) PQ=5.1
Newt Gingrich (R-Ga., 1979-94) PQ=11.4
Richard Nixon (R-Calif., 1947-52) PQ=12.5

Con Chef (NB) | 4.12.12 @ 11:08AM

Tried your link. I answered the first question, but instead of taking me to the next one, it just gave me the results after one question. Well, I'm honored to be in Ms. Bachmann & Mr. DeMint's company.

However, Teflon, I've been posting here for a while. And I don't think you need me to take any test to know where I stand on certain things. All you need to do is read my posts, as I have yours, & every other regular on this site.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 11:19AM

Unfortunately I haven't read as many of your posts---perhaps because I'm pretty selective on topics given time constraints. The quiz is I think 40 questions long, if you get a chance to take it in full it would probably be illuminating.

I think you'll generally find that the lower the score the more likely a person is to find Mitt Romney unacceptable.

And I say that as somebody who somehow managed to vote for McCain.

Con Chef (NB) | 4.12.12 @ 11:34AM

Then there isn't a whole lot of daylight between you & I. My enthusiasm for McCain was based only on his war record. I knew, politically, he wasn't the guy I wanted. Hell, the guy I wanted in THAT one thought he'd be too clever by half & waited too long to get into the race (my former Senator, Fred Thompson).

Crassus| 4.12.12 @ 12:11PM

Interesting test. I scored a 5.4. I'm honored that Bachmann and DeMint scored lower than I did.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 7:03PM

I am not surprised at all, Crassus. From your posts we can tell you're a rock-ribbed conservative.

Occam's Tool| 4.12.12 @ 12:15PM

Yup, that's me, too. I'm a Minnesotan who helped vote OUT Oberstar and voted IN Cravaack, whose precinct Captain I will be.

Mitt is not all that great---Obama is a traitor. There's a difference. Damn it, why didn't DeMint or Pence want to run? That's what I would have asked. To get the position, you have to RUN. This guy ran.

Another 4 years of Obama will put two or three YOUNG Liberals on the bench, and scalia is 75 and fat----Kennedy is also in his 70s---you want a Libtard SCOTUS for 20 years, sit at home. W. Gave us two GREAT SCOTUS choices.

Clint| 4.12.12 @ 12:33PM

Tool Job's The RINO-CINO,Who Said He Would Vote For The RINO-CINO Frontman,Mittens Romney Back In June.

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

These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.

Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....

Occam's Tool| 4.12.12 @ 8:56PM

Mittens is better than 4 more years of Obama, traitor.

Teflon93| 4.13.12 @ 1:24PM

Mittens picks libs for the bench. Check out his record:

http://cdn2.dailycaller.com/20.....Romney.pdf

Drek| 4.12.12 @ 6:04PM

Mine was 5.3.

Did you note how low Gingrich's was, yet this was the guy Will was bashing as a "marxist."

Of course that's all water under the bridge now.....

Teflon93| 4.13.12 @ 1:25PM

Gingrich has never been a Marxist. He did do some dumb things like embracing Global Warming with Nancy Pelosi and attacking conservatives over Dede Scozzafava though.

Not surprised you scored in the rock-ribbed range, Drek.

Bob James| 4.12.12 @ 6:52PM

Yow. My score was a 0.6. Only Michele Bachmann and Jim Demint were listed as "similar."

Teflon93| 4.13.12 @ 1:24PM

Okay, Bob---THAT is impressive!

Con Chef (NB) | 4.12.12 @ 10:57AM

Well, then Bro, I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. I CAN NOT stay home & NOT VOTE. I WILL NOT WASTE my vote by writing someone in. Too many people throughout the history of this nation have died for my right (I see it as my duty) to do so.

I still have faith in the American Experiment. That faith will diminish if we re-elect someone who's every political fiber was forged in the crucible of the most anti-American & racially tense time in American history. This man is the protege of all the Bill Ayers & Bernie Dohrn could've ever hoped for.

I don't see Romney anywhere NEAR as bad as that.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 11:17AM

We don't have to agree---you have a right to vote however you want to for any reason you choose.

But so do I.

I'm simply not going to be told I have to vote for somebody. I gave at the office in 2008 by supporting that odious lizard McCain. And I only did it then in honor of the hero who told Uncle Ho where to stick it while Mittens was prancing about the Loire Valley tasting wine.

I understand that some conservatives have a stronger gag reflex than I do. But you need to understand that the rest of us oppose Romney for principled reason and don't find the argument that he would govern differently than Obama persuasive. He wouldn't---they share a vision of big government.

They share it because they are both Ruling Class to the bone.

Con Chef (NB) | 4.12.12 @ 11:42AM

Trust me, Brother, I'm about as big a pessemist as they come. However, if Mitt's elected, I have faith that the Congress will keep him in check. I MUST have faith in our institutions. Not the people IN them, but the institutions themselves.

The reason I think Congress will keep him in check is because of the stringent core of Tea Party freshmen that is currently there. And IF Mitt wins, I also think we'll pick up MORE House seats & possibly gain the Senate.

If I lose faith in our institutions, I know what the next step becomes. And I shudder to contemplate that step.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 11:51AM

The Tea Party hasn't even gotten Tammy Faye Boehner to fight Obama on spending. How will they force him to take on his own party's president?

Optimism is one thing----but let's not have blinders on!

Tom Osterman| 4.12.12 @ 11:53AM

What you're saying is that you're relying on a Tea Party-influenced REPUBLICAN (House and Senate) Congress to keep the Mittster on the straight-and-narrow. The greater likelihood is that Congressional Republicans will be pressured to defer to Romney for the sake of appearing unified. And that assumes the Democrats stay in the minority for Romney's full term or terms.

If you think this will turn out well, I'd love to hear your scenario.

Tom| 4.12.12 @ 6:33PM

Absolutely correct, Tom Osterman.

Anybody who thinks that a Republican Congress will keep President Romney on "the straight and narrow" is about as delusional as those people who enter into a marriage thinking, "Well, I can change him/her after the wedding."

Most of the time, such a situation results in a total and complete disaster.

Overdubbed| 4.12.12 @ 2:02PM

Any so-called "Conservative" who does not vote for the demonstrably conservative Republican nominee out of some weird hurt over not having their favorite candidate anointed, is ... by definition .. a RINO.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 2:13PM

Demonstrate Romney's conservatism.

Meanwhile, I'll let HIM demonstrate his liberalism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQoBxZZPqU

Tom| 4.12.12 @ 6:29PM

Any "conservative" that votes for someone like Romney who doesn't have a conservative bone in his body is nothing but a cheap political whore.

Strong Christian| 4.16.12 @ 12:31AM

Anyone who doesn't vote for the Republican nominee can be said to be a slut for Obama.

How's that for a liitle bit-O-taste of your own medicine, Troll?

The American Hitman| 4.12.12 @ 10:38AM

Way to prove the point, dope

Gregory Kyle| 4.12.12 @ 1:20PM

" You gonna carry on the family tradition of being a "live coward" for your Republic & stay home, or write someone in? Or are you going to do your duty to your Republic & remove the enemy currently running it into the ground?
Tell me Con Chef(NB):
What good does it do to replace one liberal for another?

A Sphincter Says What?| 4.12.12 @ 11:57PM

Hear, hear!

Occam's Tool| 4.12.12 @ 8:55PM

Bush never learned algebra. If y = 10 X, then .28 * y is greater than .70 * X.

If lowering taxes increases the economy, then one can have more tax revenue from a lower tax rate, to a point.

Vern Crisler | 4.12.12 @ 11:59AM

I think Jeffrey is indulging in battered wife syndrome. The wife offers up a wish list of what she wants from her man, hoping that he will change. She might even get some agreement from the abuser. But then, once day to day life takes over again, the high ideals are forgotten and the abuser reverts to his past patterns.

It is pathetic that conservatives now are forced into wishing and dreaming about "saving" Mitt Romney's presidency.

It's not going to happen. If he becomes president, he will revert to type, and we will have Mitt the Moderate back with us again. He might not even wait until then to flip the etch-a-sketch to see what his principles are going to be.

In any case, conservatives just have to admit that we've lost this year, and should instead concentrate time and money on House and Senate races. Romney won the nomination with the help of sunshine conservatives and Republican whores, so let them put their money into the Romney campaign. True conservatives have more important things to do.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 12:07PM

http://www.bing.com/images/sea.....25&first=0

TrueBlue | 4.12.12 @ 3:29PM

I agree, the only real way to "save" Romney's presidency is to get conservative Reps and Senators elected.

His only plus is that he won't veto pro-business laws like Obama would.

Tom| 4.12.12 @ 6:26PM

Simon I was thinking along those lines this afternoon. It seems that all too many conservatives have an abused spouse syndrome type of relationship with the Republican establishment. Regardess of many time the GOP libs display their contempt for conservatives, or even acknowledge their presence within the Party ONLY when they need the votes, and just generally treat conservatives like the scum of the earth; all too many conservatices do nothing but return for more of the same old stuff. The establishment spits in their faces, and they call it dew. While these conservatives do nothing aobut it but just continue to say, "next time, it will be different; next time it will be different; next time it wil be different."

I cannot speak for anyone but myself. But NEVER again will I dance to the tune played by the GOP "moderate" establishment. NEVER!

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 7:05PM

Quite right. Conservatives in the GOP are like Tina Turner to the RINO Establishment's Ike Turner---although they never even have the sense to apologize after stabbing us in the back. (Plus Ike Turner had a helluva lot more talent at his chosen profession than RINO pols do).

This image sums up the approach Tina Turner conservatives are taking to the prospects of a Romney administration:

http://www.bing.com/images/sea.....25&first=0

A Sphincter Says What?| 4.13.12 @ 12:07AM

You know Tom, the Obomney supporters are saying that we are just chewing on sour grapes. You bring up such a great point by stating how poorly conservatives within the GOP are treated....battered wife syndrome so to speak. I would like to add more to this idea by explaining to everyone why conservatives are so pissed off. It's not ALL because "our guy" didn't win but it's because this election is so damn important and yet again the moderates can't see though their proven failed strategies to understand that we NEED a conservative to WIN THIS DAMN ELECTION! That's why we are pissed off. Not because "our guy" didn't win.....it's because now with Obomney as the nominee it doesn't matter because Obomney is GOING TO LOSE in Nov. THAT IS WHY WE ARE PISSED!

Teflon93| 4.13.12 @ 10:56AM

Exactly.

Unlike the MittBots, I supported HALF the GOP field---Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, and Perry. It's not "my guy lost"----it's "the Establishment rammed a liberal down our throats---again."

They wanted him---now they can try to get him elected.

I gave at the office in 2008. When it was RINOs turn to hold their noses and vote for a conservative----after Tea Party conservatives gave the GOP the biggest electoral victory since 1948---they pulled out all the stops to slime us and make sure only a RINO could get nominated.

Good luck with that.

StainlessCoder| 4.17.12 @ 6:04PM

I think it was Obama's masters in Chicago more than anyone who gave us Romney. Every time a threat to Romney came up, he was smeared like clockwork from the media.

In the case of Cain, while he stood up to it and proved it was a lie, his wife was not able to live with the libels to her husband, and he couldn't allow her heart to be broken by the lies any longer, so he quit. It's unfortunate, but the man loves his wife more than he wanted to be president, and it's beyond dispute that he was a political neophyte, and though he should be able to gain huge sums from what his libel suits should gain him, he appears to be uninterested in starting the smear machine up again even to set the record straight.

The lickspittle media are partisan more than anything else, and they follow orders well. They're not even bright enough in most cases to be particularly ideological, given their college entrance scores are the second lowest among all college entrants (the lowest being "public" school teachers: see Thomas Sowell's book on education), but they're decent actors and actresses.

Tom| 4.12.12 @ 7:24AM

Simple lesson: Having a liberal act and look like a conservative may get someone elected, but will prove to be a complete and utter disaster once that liberal is elected, takes office, the mask comes off, and that liberal's true nature makes itself known.

The American Hitman| 4.12.12 @ 10:48AM

"Read my lips; No New Taxes" = "I will repeal Romneycare on my first day."

Both lies, made to deceive gullible conservatives.
Don't be a gullible conservative.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 10:50AM

Oh, it's not a lie--it's just Smart Politics.

Romney has the Magic Etch-A-Sketch.

Did you really think RINOs would support him if they thought he'd repeal Obamacare?

Tom| 4.12.12 @ 6:17PM

Unfortunately, there is all too many gullible conservatives around here.

richard ryan| 4.12.12 @ 11:47AM

would he veto the Ryan budget? No. Would he decimate the military?nope. Would he veto common sense reforms sent from the House? no. nuff said

Tom| 4.12.12 @ 6:05PM

Dickie;

1. There is no guarentee that the Ryan Budget will ever reach his desk.
2. Congress also has a say in military size and stregnth.
3. There is a high probably that the Democrats would take back at least the Senate or House during a Romney Presidency.
4. When you talk about "common sense reforms sent from the House," you display your total and complete ignorance. Things do NOT go from the House to the President; they must first pass through the Senate.

Nuff STUPID things said from Dickie.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 7:07PM

And remember that McConnell and Boehner signed off on that "commission" agreement that guarantees the military will be gutted in order to prevent draconian tax increases. That was their idea of a genius political play.

Tom| 4.12.12 @ 7:32AM

Simple Lesson #2: Republican "moderates" (liberals who lack both the courage and integrity to admit what they really are) HATE conservatives, and the only time when they want anything to do with them is to get their voteson Election Day.

Kitty | 4.12.12 @ 8:20AM

You got that right; all they want from conservatives is our vote. Then they order us to sit down and shut up.

The Etch-a-sketch visual and Bush 41's endorsement are two reasons why conservatives are beyond bitter.

Tom| 4.12.12 @ 6:27PM

Correct on that one, Kitty.

Tom| 4.12.12 @ 8:10AM

I won't volunteer or contribute to Romney (a/k/a RINOmney), but will (with great despair) vote for him, simply because Barry Soetoro Hussein Obama truly presents an existential threat to this nation.

If RINOmney somehow manages to sidestep the usual "moderate Republican" electoral fate (e.g., Ford, Dole, McCain), I'll probably end up sitting out the 2016 election.

By then the existential threat of Obama will have been put on hold (Romney will be a good steward of the progressive construct, but may not expand it much), and if the Democrats put up a more "mainstream" candidate I'd rather let Mitt suffer George H's electoral fate (I voted for Perot in 1992 to send a message to the Ruling Class GOP).

fmm| 4.12.12 @ 9:23AM

A vote for Perot was a vote for Clinton. Guess some people don't learn from past mistakes.

Clint| 4.12.12 @ 9:29AM

Guess Not.

Romney Is McCain Redux

The American Hitman| 4.12.12 @ 10:51AM

You got that right. Why on earth would the GOP nominate another GHWB? Some people never learn.

Guys like you made this bed; now lay in it.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 10:53AM

Yes, especially RINOs, who ran John Anderson as a 3rd party candidate in 1980 to upset Reagan's chances of beating Carter.

Funny how they forget about that.

StainlessCoder| 4.17.12 @ 6:23PM

And Clinton is the worst traitor in history. He may have ended up murdering countless millions of Americans with the trillions of dollars in value worth of military technology he sent to China during his presidency. And he also used American taxpayer money to pay off the bribe to Ross Perot in September 1992 to get back in the race and split Republicans. Perot Systems got a multi-billion dollar federal contract in 1993. Congratulations, Perot voters.

China's ICBM's became successful, and their space program/satellite program with it, because of Clinton's treason. He also gave them MIRV technology for their nukes. And gave them an AT&T encrypted communications system which ended Americans' capacity to gain intelligence on their military communications. And more. In exchange, the Democrats got hundreds of millions of dollars a month from China. So much money it was laundered through every state party and they spent more in 1996 than all Republican campaigns in history combined, monopolizing the ad time. And it's likely they have retained enough of that gusher of money to use it forever more earning interest to outspend their political opponents.

Harry the Horrible| 4.12.12 @ 10:55AM

I didn't really like any of the candidates left when the Primary reached, my state. But:

FOR the best conservative in the Primary, and AGAINST Obama in General.

That's the way it has to be.
Best wishes to all, and God save our Republic!

Tom| 4.12.12 @ 6:07PM

Just for the record, this "Tom" is a different "Tom" than myself, who made the above comments under that name.

cali| 4.12.12 @ 8:12AM

I agree strongly with all three comments above mine!
There is a very sinister connection between Romney and, Bush Sr, Jr and Jeb - which allegedly all have one thing in common - money laundering.
"White Hats Report" has been investigating thisconnection for a whileand, it isn't pretty.
Also remember, Bush Sr and Jeb recently visitied with thecurrent occupant in the white house.
I would recommendreading the 'White Hats Report' to understand what is afoot here.
Romney is the worst pick especiallyat this time!

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.12.12 @ 8:18AM

This article is inaccurate in the sense that if Romney does win the nation is far different than the nation H.W. Bush inherited.

Clearly, H.W. Bush held a winning hand that he dealt himself. He may have rode Reagan coat tails a little but the article correctly points out that H..W. Bush created the circumstances for his own win.

Then he made a stupid promise and went back on it. Even Reagan raised taxes and if you note the author of the article leaves out the fact that Reagan never promised not to raise taxes. It's a silly promise and is not conservative. It's simply silly and a gimmick.

However, once you promise no new taxes you better stick to it and it had nothing to do with conservatism. Conservatism is not highlighted by making stupid promises and then not keeping them. That's liberalism.

If Romney does win he should clean house and at every agency. He should also clean house at the Department of Justice.

One other factor that Romney will have to deal with is the incredible national debt. Good luck with that unless he has the Senate behind him.

Romney will have to lead and he won't have time to waste. He should do everything possible to cut debt without damaging the economy.

Pie in the sky energy grants should be eliminated, we can't afford them. The. E.P.A. should be cut by 20% off the bat, and it wouldn't hurt to close the Department of Energy or at least reduce a do nothing agency. The Department of Education should also see significant cuts.

In the offing, there hasn't been a Republican President yet who cut the size of government including Ronald Reagan.

If you're looking for conservatism don't refer to the Republican Party.

Dai Alanye | 4.12.12 @ 11:49AM

Here's a confused fellow. Stalin opposes everything Mitt is likely to stand for, yet he backed and still backs him. As with all too many voters, Stalin obviously decides his favorite on an emotional basis rather than by priciples held.

But notice the tacit agreement with raising taxes. A severe flaw in one who claims to be conservative.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.12.12 @ 12:12PM

I backed the winner and never claimed he's a cure all for anything.

It's simply dopey to put forth candidates like Santorum and Gingrich when they obviously had no chance of winning. Many conservative web sites noted that long before I ever mentioned it.

As far as principles don't blame me for the fact that Republicans haven't had any conservative principles for decades. I long ago left the Republican Party.

No, it's you who is confused as to what constitutes political analysis as opposed to personal preferences. I don't pick the winners and losers. The public does. And it's easy to see who the winners are if you're not wearing blinders.

And I never endorsed raising taxes. I simply note that many Republicans have raised taxes including Ronald Reagan.

What I noted is that it's silly to make political promises of that nature before an election and it is silly. If I hear someone running for Congress signed a pledge I know immediately they have little confidence in their selves. That goes for tax pledges or other types of pledges.

As far as deciding issues on an emotional basis I never do that and it's not necessary. Only the foolish endorsed Gingrich and Santorum. They had no chance and it was obvious.

Unless you were a confused person.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 1:03PM

Ronald Reagan didn't raise taxes; Tip O'Neill raised taxes (that's what the House does; GOP never controlled it during Reagan's tenure) and Bob Dole agreed to a 3-1 spending cuts-to-tax increase deal with O'Neill which he then begged Reagan not to veto. Reagan didn't veto it; the spending cuts never came because Democrats are liars.

Reagan's 1981 and 1986 tax cuts---which lowered the top rate from 70% down to 28% among other things---ushered in the biggest boom anyone had ever seen.

Which was why he won two landslide elections, unlike your RINOs.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.12.12 @ 1:26PM

Reagan signed those increases. Under your reasoning then no President could be held accountable for tax increases because "they made me do it." That's pathetically weak and ignores the fact that Reagan signed the biggest tax increase in California history when it was signed. He also doubled the California budget so he had a history there also. Reagan's conservatism only holds up in one area. The military:

As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.
2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 1:37PM

There is a big difference between not vetoing something and seeking it---not least of which is Reagan sought and obtained two large reductions in taxes. Taxes were a lot lower at the end of his terms than at their beginning.

And indeed, revenue INCREASED. You being an economic illiterate do not make the distinction between revenue and spending. What happened was that spending rose faster than revenues, in part because Jimmy Carter had gutted the military and Reagan rebuilt it, in large part because Tip O'Neill spent like the drunken Irishman he was.

Of course, you being an idiot, you no doubt also give Bill Clinton credit for the balanced budgets which didn't come until after the GOP seized both houses of Congress and insisted upon spending cuts.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.12.12 @ 2:56PM

Your statement is complete sophistry which makes me suspect you're a liberal. I never claimed revenue did not increase with tax cuts. What I'm pointing out and you're apparently either obtuse or purposely stupid is that with or without tax cuts there's been no conservatism under Republican Presidents as far as the budgets. That makes the point of higher revenues irrelevant because if you have higher revenues but ever higher spending you really don't have revenue you have deficit. If there has been some conservatism on the budget side under Republicans will you give us an example? I'd love to hear it. Instead of being an obtuse nit picker lets hear your examples.

Nick| 4.12.12 @ 2:01PM

" Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue [...]."

Now you're starting to sound a lot like 3/5 Bob, Billy Boy.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.12.12 @ 2:52PM

Nick: When you make comments like that you sound like a liberal because if you go back and read the post, that was posted from someone else. There wasn't a link but it's been posted so many times I didn't think one was necessary.

As far as tax cuts bringing in revenues that's not a myth it's a fact. However what makes it a myth is where the Republicans claim it will cut deficits.

Tax cuts have only been utilized by both parties to significantly increase spending. That also occurred under Reagan. Do you dispute that? If not, it's rather immaterial.

It's akin to stating the boat sank from the hurricane as opposed to a hole in the bottom of the boat.

Nick| 4.12.12 @ 3:15PM

"because if you go back and read the post, that was posted from someone else."

What was posted by someone else? What are you talking about?

And, don't start acting like you know anything about Ronaldus Magnus, Billy Boy. You're an O'Romney supporter. You have cognitive dissonance.

I always love how RINOs protest how conservative they are, and, then, go on to bash President Reagan. Is Non Reagan, jr. your boyfriend?

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.12.12 @ 3:32PM

Those weren't my words. I should have put a link in for the moronic. However, let's go over Reagan's record of RAISING taxes so that even you can understand it. And by the way, if Reagan's tax cuts bought in so much revenue why did the deficit triple while he was in office? Here are some facts and I've included the links this time.

By the way Nick and some of you of you other dolts. Do you want to know who is currently the biggrest tax cutter in history? That would be Barack Obama. Yes, I know it's a bitter pill to swallow but by extending the so called Bush tax cuts and cutting the payroll tax I would be surprised to find out Obama is not the biggest tax cutter in history.

And what of the revenues? We have the biggest tax cuts in history while tax revenues continue to plunge back to 2004 levels. All this while the Republicans want to go to 2008 spending levels. That's responsibility for you. In the meantime more on Reagan:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/0...../index.htm
So, despite his public opposition to higher taxes, Reagan ended up signing off on several measures intended to raise more revenue.

"Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph Thorndike.

Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said.

The bills didn't raise more revenue by hiking individual income tax rates though. Instead they did it largely through making it tougher to evade taxes, and through "base broadening" -- that is, reducing various federal tax breaks and closing tax loopholes.

For instance, more asset sales became taxable and tax-advantaged contributions and benefits under pension plans were further limited.

"What people forget about Ronald Reagan was that he very much converted to base broadening as a means of reducing deficits and as a means of tax reform," said Eugene Steuerle, an Institute Fellow at the Urban Institute who had helped lay the groundwork for tax reform in 1986 and served as a deputy assistant Treasury secretary during Reagan's second term.

There were other notable tax increases under Reagan.

Nick| 4.12.12 @ 3:47PM

"I should have put a link in for the moronic."

How about quotation marks, plagiarist? Ever heard of them, 3/5 Billy Bob?

As far as talking to morons goes, why don't you try spewing your RINO, anti-Reagan claptrap to O'Romney. We know that he is already predisposed to bashing the greatest president of the 20th century.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.12.12 @ 3:54PM

So, Nick, all you have is insults and no facts? I knew you were a liberal.

Nick| 4.12.12 @ 4:11PM

Pot calling kettle, 3/5 Billy Bob.
Why don't you educate yourself on your RINO hero, O'Romney:

http://cdn2.dailycaller.com/20.....Romney.pdf

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.12.12 @ 3:33PM

Here's a link that should have been placed after the colon:
http://thinkprogress.org/polit.....entennial/

Old Soldier| 4.12.12 @ 8:36AM

Bush should have picked Peter DuPont as his VP. DuPont was a true conservative - I watched him completely destroy Bush in an '88 New Hampshire debate.

There is a 4th way for Romney to prove some conservatism: Help conservatives kick Rino's like Dick Luger to the curb.

albert constantine jr.| 4.12.12 @ 9:43AM

Former Congressman and Governor du Pont of Delaware went by the nickname "Pete", but his first name was "Pierre". I believe his full name was Pierre S. du Pont III (but it might have been IV).

As Governor of the First State, he was very fiscally conservative, but his social conservatism was not so much in evidence. His hand-picked Lieutenant Governor and successor was Mike Castle (whom some might describe as the RINO's RINO, who suffered that fate in the 2010 Republican Senatorial primary vs. Christine O'Donnell).

Delaware's Republican Party leadership has long been a bastion of literal country club Republicans, and the party is highly fractured between the more conservative base in the southern counties and the more moderate and liberal members of the country club and suburban set.

Sometime in the mid-1980s, Mr. du Pont emerged post -elective office as a more complete conservative, and threw his hat into the ring for the 1988 Presidential Race. As far as I have observed, he has not renounced or gone back on this (though many of his former allies have). he has been heavily involved with the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, a conservative think tank that was sued by its former employee Christine O'Donnell.

Old Soldier| 4.12.12 @ 4:43PM

du Pont really exposed Bush in that debate - so I wasn't surprised when we got the tax stab in the back. I wish we had a candidate of du Pont's quality this time around.

Von Mises Jr.| 4.12.12 @ 8:46AM

We must also keep perspective in mind. If you take a vacation on a yacht and it capsizes, you wish you were back on land. But when you realize you are in the water drowning, and sharks are circling; you thank G-d you made it to the lifeboat.

I totally agree with Jeffrey Lord about the GOP Establishment. I was in McConnell's DC Office when our AFP contingency convinced him to change his mind and announce on the Floor of the Senate that he would not support earmarks after all. G.H.W. Bush is a big proponent of Agenda21 and the epitome of a RINO Ruling Class Leviathan. Romney concerns most of the conservatives I meet in multiple TEA Parties, AFP and other venues. But right now, the choice is between Romney and the second reign of Mao.

We need to support the nominee since he will bring many congressional seats on his coattails. Even if Romney disappoints in his own right, bolstering the House majority with conservatives and takeover of the Senate will enable conservatives to send him OUR legislation.

Stormzeye| 4.12.12 @ 10:02AM

I agree Jr.
It was the feckless Republican leaders of the House and the Senate (Hastert and Frist) that allowed the Bush Jr. to get away with the spending rampage and big government binging that was his hallmark. I don't worry about Romney going down the same path if we elect a Tea Party House and a Tea Party Senate. As for the purists who read TAS let me say that Obama is too dangerous to allow him a second term. If Hillary were the Republican nominee I'd vote for her over the jug-eared Marxist currently pretending to be President of the United States.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 10:55AM

Where are these magic Tea Party votes now? We sent a whole bunch of them to the House in 2010---yet Tammy Faye Boehner and Eric C^ntor somehow haven't found the spines to fight Obama on spending any more than they did before they came.

Stormzeye| 4.12.12 @ 4:52PM

The "leadership" was not elected by the Tea Party movement. That won't happen for awhile given the seniority system.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 7:08PM

Well, they were----the votes aren't by seniority but rather by member. A Tea Party freshman has the same vote as a lifelong hack.

And they could have supported a Mike Pence over a John Boehner.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 7:09PM

Note also that Allen West's reward for going along with Boehner in the debt ceiling fight was getting redistricted out of his seat.

Big Tony| 4.12.12 @ 11:45AM

Your train of thought here fails to consider the damage done if Romney puts another Kennedy type Justice or 2 on the SCOTUS. What's the difference in Romney/Bush and Obama? From my perspective only the time line to arrive a the New World Order not the destination.

Von Mises Jr.| 4.12.12 @ 12:20PM

Your logic defies my understanding. Obama gave us Sotomayor and Kagan; a wise Latina that thinks her compassion trumps the Constitution, and a troll that makes Perp and Brooksie look like a blessing.

I think in time you will realize that David Souter was a disappointment, but he is no Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsberg or what these last two will turn out to be.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 7:43PM

Souter's voting record is indistinguishable from Ginsberg's. He's been a solid liberal vote on just about every major issue.

SUBVET| 4.12.12 @ 12:30PM

Von........you are right in your evaluation but, most here can't see the "Big Picture".

What does the Bible say about PRIDE.

Von Mises Jr.| 4.12.12 @ 3:05PM

Satan was expelled from Heaven due to pride and that pride will bring destruction.
Goal number one -get rid of Obama
Goal number two -save us from ourselves
G-d bless Subvet.

Indy| 4.12.12 @ 8:53AM

The VP pick will tell us a lot, one major difference between now and Bush 41, many Americans are awake, we have the internet (for now), we are far more aware of the CFR, who makes up the permanent political class, we have technology to use effectively to hold elected official accountable, i.e. SOPA was stopped (for now) by ordinary citizens, we have much work to do, but if Romney wins, I will work just as hard to hold him accountable, we must take the Senate by electing conservatives, Lugar must go, let's get Cruz in office as an example. Let's help Gov. Walker win against the recall effort. We need strong governors and AGs to hold DC accountable....

fmm| 4.12.12 @ 9:26AM

Support the Senate Conservative Fund's candidates - they have been vetted for their conservative stances.

Indy| 4.12.12 @ 10:08AM

Yes, I have more faith in Jim DeMint's group, I still prefer to donate to specific candiates / causes (True The Vote, as an example). I don't have much $ to give so I am selective. I can give some of my time by making phone calls to elect conservatives and help keep Gov. Walker in office. We all must do something to protect our fragile Republic

benny havens| 4.12.12 @ 10:52AM

We can fill the Senate with conservatives but if Obama is still in the Oval Office he will bypass the legislative branch and just appoint more lefty tsars to do his dirty work. The progressives have found a loophole for their agenda. We need the Senate and the White House in order to stop the destruction.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 10:56AM

And Romney will do the same thing while peeling off RINOs and those conservative Republicans who prize party loyalty over principle.

We just saw this for 8 years with Bush.

History didn't start yesterday.

P.Smith| 4.12.12 @ 8:55AM

I doubt Romney will heed this advice. He is not a natural conservative; the words do not come easily to him, he has to think about what he will say, then he says what he thinks the right might want to hear and he screws it up. His natural inclination is in the center or to the left where he will be destroyed. His natural inclination is command and control, look at his fifty-nine point plan (or whatever it is)…this is the mark of a man who wishes to rule by rules instead of encourage through a vision. Why not a three point plan like cut taxes, gut regulation and cut spending? Because he instinctively doesn’t trust the American people, Mark Levin has it correct, Romney is a Corporatist.

Kitty | 4.12.12 @ 9:29AM

Dittos! If he has to be dragged to the right, the only question will be how soon will he flip back into his comfort zone of RINOville?

The American Hitman| 4.12.12 @ 10:54AM

The day after he has your vote.

fmm| 4.12.12 @ 9:33AM

Really like your use of the word corporatist here. Corporations are totalitarian in nature with ridgid rules in place to foster efficiency. Corporations work with left leaning governments so well, as in crony capitalism, because they understand each other.

martin j smith| 4.12.12 @ 8:56AM

The question is this: Is Mitt and the rest of the Republican Establishment Leadershit stupid or are they purposely blowing elections like 2008 ? Sort of like what people ask about Obama except what is is doing is b lowing up this country..

If Romney is the nominee and he and his fellow travelers blow this election the Republican Party will not stand. I would guess that about 30% or more will form a third party.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 10:10AM

Their primary objective is to prevent a conservative from leading the party.

Their secondary objective is to hold onto the House and gain the Senate chairmanships which will allow them to peddle influence for profit.

They don't want smaller government---they want to control the checkbook of bigger government. Understand this and you will understand everything they do.

They are not complicated.

martin j smith| 4.12.12 @ 8:57AM

Oh and the name of that Party will be the Tea Party.

Doctor Right| 4.12.12 @ 9:46AM

...And then we can have permanent, 1-party rule - by Democrats!!!

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 10:08AM

Hey dimwit--the Tea Party gave the GOP its biggest House gains since 1948 just two years ago. What did you bootlicking little Bob Michel Republicans do all the time you dominated the party?

The Permanent Minority is a RINO production.

benny havens| 4.12.12 @ 10:55AM

Thank You!

Doctor Right| 4.12.12 @ 11:59AM

Well guess what, genius?

Apparently they don't have enough REAL power to make the changes they promised, and whining about it isn't going to change anything.

You're an intellectual midget who thinks with his emotions. You're unable to extrapolate to the logical end of what you want to occur.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a sizable %-age of Republican voters bolt the Party in disgust if Romney loses.

To assume that a high number of those people will rush right out and join an official "TEA PARTY" is idiotic. First of all, most of them will become independents. Second, one of the attractions of the TEA PARTY MOVEMENT is it's lack of central authority; it's a grass roots movement. If it became official, and "organized", it wouldn't be long before it was plagued by similar problems as the current GOP.

Third...and listen carefully, Einstein...lots of those GOP-voters - the real RINOs - would feel far more comfortable aligning themselves with the Democrats than they would with a deeply Conservative TEA PARTY, which many of them already disdain.

So where does that leave you, Mr. "Big Ideas"??

Out in the cold, while the Democrat Party consolidates it's grip on central power in DC, and what's left of the GOP and this new "TEA PARTY" become regional Parties.

This fantasy you have that somehow the new TEA PARTY would gain immediate strength because it would align itself loosely with the GOP and force concessions for a coalition government is just that - a fantasy.

And for the record, dummy, I'm probably to the right of Attila the Hun. I'm pro-2nd Amendment, anti-abortion, anti-tax, anti-government, PRO-Constitution. Not that I have to prove my Conservative creds to an idiot such a yourself, but I'm proving a point.

And the point is that the difference between Conservatives like me and fools like you is that I think with my brain, not my emotions.

You're a baby. You're going to pick-up you're toys and go home because you're not getting your way. So to prove some vague "point," you're going to throw a temper tantrum and not vote, then puff out your chest and pat yourself on the back for being a "REAL man of principle".

What a joke.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 12:09PM

Take the quiz and publish your results:

http://www.timgroseclose.com/calculate-your-pq/

Here are mine:

W| 4.12.12 @ 2:34PM

There is only one test in the real world: Do you vote for Obama or Romney?

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 4:28PM

Feel free to take it for yourself, since you think liberal v. liberal is the ne plus ultra.

Publish your results here. Like a man.

The American Hitman| 4.12.12 @ 12:25PM

why *are* the Mittbots such an unhappy miserable lot? There isn't one of them who has the first idea how to sell their guy.

Doctor Right| 4.12.12 @ 12:37PM

The only time I've ever supported Romney is now.

He's the nominee.

Obama must be defeated. If you don't understand that, if you don't rasp the importance of that, then you're hopeless.

Now is NOT the time for internecine whining and bitching. That's what primaries are for. Personally, I thought the best GOP Candidate was Michelle Bachman, but not many people agreed with me.

Gee...should I cry like a baby and refuse to vote?

Or should I look at the bigger picture?

You want someone to "sell" Mitt Romney?

You don't have to; all you have to do is show pictures of Detroit, and make sure people understand that that's America's future the longer Obama stays in the White House.

If that's not good enough, try this:

Family man.
Smart.
College grad.
Business grad.
Self-made gudzillionaire (his Dad did NOT start his business).
Understands economics.
Loves his country.
Ran a large, successful, entrepreneurial business.
Executive-level Gov't experience.

Obama has NONE of that. In fact, except for his love of country, neither did McCain.

But go ahead, keep thinking Romney is Lenin and Marx all rolled into one...

The "unhappy" Republicans now are the ones like yourself who think the Party needs to send them a personal love-letter to get them to vote on election day.

If your preening ego causes you to sit home on election day, then you're pathetic.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 1:13PM

What's your PQ score? We're waiting, Attila.

Doctor Right| 4.12.12 @ 4:17PM

Keep waiting, jackass.

If that's all you've got to say, then you don't have much to say.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 4:24PM

Yeah, because you're a liberal troll who can't back it up.

But anyone can see that.

The American Hitman| 4.12.12 @ 3:33PM

thanks for proving my point, genius.

Doctor Right| 4.12.12 @ 4:17PM

Glad you agree.

skip| 4.13.12 @ 10:06AM

Doc,

Nice summary. I hope everyone reads your post. Liberals are supposed to be the ones living in fantasy. Conservatives are supposed to be the ones living in reality.

And I took that legislation for dummies quiz and got a PQ of 3. It only wasted 5 minutes of my life, to not learn anything I didn't already know.

Teflon93| 4.13.12 @ 11:02AM

Why not spend more useful time learning about the liberal you're supporting, then?

http://cdn2.dailycaller.com/20.....Romney.pdf

Here's a taste:

“Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans,has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights, a Globe review of the nominations has found.” (Raphael Lewis, “Romney Jurist Picks Not Tilted To GOP,” The Boston Globe,
7/25/05)

"A study of Romney’s 80 nominations to the bench shows that Romney chose at least 46 nominees who were registered Democrats or independent voters who had contributed to Democratic campaigns."

Thus Sununu---who gave us "conservative" David Souter---as Romney's chief judicial advisor.

skip| 4.13.12 @ 11:46AM

Tef,

Fantasy versus reality. It is apparent it will be Obama versus Romney.

Reagan was a democrat once upon a time. Reagan signed legislation for abortion once upon a time. Reagan obviously changed. Maybe Romney is smart enough to heed the Tea Party.

Why would a decent person want to be a politician today in America? Romney at least is a decent human being, unlike Obama.

Liberalism has been invading every aspect of American life now for a hundred years. Do you really expect a century of liberal progressive socialist invasion into the nation's unconsciousness to be reversed much less halted to your satisfaction in just 3 years?

Obama is a gift from God to America. Instead of the continued relentless advance of liberalism into a second century, Americans are more aware of liberalism's failure politically, socially and economically, and know more about the Constitution than in decades, all because Obama is such a stupid incompetent idiot.

Organize now for a true conservative in 2016 or more realistically in 2020, and hope for a Reaganlike change in Romney, that the nation can survive another 8 years until then, and avoid us patriots from having to in reality not fantasy sacrifice our lives and fortunes and sacred honor or live with tyranny.

In the meantime do not repeat the lesson of allowing a Clinton to beat a Bush by voting for a Perot.

And pray.

Teflon93| 4.13.12 @ 1:31PM

Look at the dates above, skip. You're going on nothing but Romney's word---and what good is that with an Etch-A-Sketch candidate?

I don't object to conservatives who know Romney is a liberal and hold their nose anyway for the faint hope that maybe things won't be as bad under him. But I object strenuously to conservatives tossing time-honored principles over the side while DENYING Romney is a liberal.

Each man has to follow his own conscience. But to lie about it harms the cause greatly for it convinces people there is no difference between conservatism and liberalism.

And Bush would have lost if Perot hadn't been in the race--Limbaugh covered this in detail. Violating the "no new taxes" pledge did him in.

BTW, if Romney wins he will jack up taxes in short order as the bill for Obamacare and all this stimulus spending comes due. You've already seen a hint of this with his horror at the prospect of entitlement reform and his walkback of his "I'm not concerned about the very poor" line.

http://cdn2.dailycaller.com/20.....Romney.pdf

John - TMF| 4.12.12 @ 9:54AM

Dumb name... (it's weak... tepid... meaningless in the concept world. It says absolutely nothing about where you want the party to go or what you want the party to be.) "Darjeeling, anybody? No, Earl Grey, piping hot."

Name it the New Federalist Party, and brand the snot out of it.

As to Mr. Lord's pleas...

1. John Nance Garner - "The Vice Presidency isn't worth a warm bucket of p!ss." Unless the President chooses, the VP is just a heavily and expensively protected golfer. (kind of what the number 1 in the White House is now...)

2. Romney will end up raising taxes just like Bush the elder because his Havaad education won't allow him to think any other way... The Hasty Pudding/Skull and Bones axis -the heart and soul of the Establishment - is obdurately Keynesian and fiscally moderate to liberal.) Romney will say anything to get what he wants, and then he will do what he will.

3. When GHWBush agreed to break his anti-tax pledge, I told my wife... He's a one term President.. he goofed and will never recover. My co-worker at the time came high stepping into the office, slapped me on the back, and smiled... "You lose! We win with Ham Sandwich!" I almost punched him out, except that he was correct.

Romney is the S-squared D-squared candidate from the Hasty Pudding branch of the Establishment. He cannot connect with the general public/electorate, because he hasn't a clue as to who they are or what they want. His life is mansions, private jets, chauffeured Limousines and stables of cars housed at multiple homes needing elevators to get them to the ground. That sounds like class warfare, but it isn't. Willard was raised rich. He was exclusively educated, and has never connected with the Americans of "flyover country". His mission work was done in France, and his life is one exclusive compound after another. The Dems will strangle him with it.

He's Wendell Wilkie with money...

Fimian for the House, Allen for Senate! - we will work with what can win, and IS Conservative.

r/TMF

The Big E| 4.12.12 @ 9:54AM

I don't see Romney selecting a strong, ideological conservative for a running mate simply because the likely candidates would all outshine him on the campaign trail.

Marco2| 4.12.12 @ 10:00AM

Perhaps a grain of truth here? One HUGE difference, however. In 2013, one will be able to say, "This isn't the Obama White House anymore, this is the Romney White House." And that, friends, is the ballgame.

Mike Hawk| 4.12.12 @ 10:03AM

I put this one on the Tea Party article too.

In PA the Tea Party Patriots are actively supporting the Conservative Sam Rohrer against two RINO former Democrats Tom Smith and Steve Welch. Welch was an Obama contributor and supporter in '08 and Sest-hack supporter in '10. Smith was a Democrat Supervisor in his home County and voted in 19 Democrat primaries since 1969. Both registered Republican last year. I guess they have John Corzine syndrome. After successful business careers they want to dabble in politics and start at the top. No thanks guys. No more Rendell Republicans here. The state GOP Establishment is now giving the finger to Tea Party people after currying favor in 2010 (They were not big on Pat Toomey after , or before, Specter flipped either). In January at the state convention thay barred us from the assembly and endorsed Welch against the wishes of 85% of the base. Rob Gleason, the chairman basically gave the Tea Party movement a Raspberry. Sam Rohrer has embraced it and in fact calls Tea Party and affiliates the "Freedom Movement" and has the momentum. We will nominate Sam for Senate and after that defeat Bob (with one "o") Casey (sorry Clint, your boy has to go). Then we will replace Gleason and the other Establishment types by electing local committee people to replace them. It will meet resistence, but it can be done. Support Sam Rohrer. www.Rohrer for Senate.com

Clint| 4.12.12 @ 11:21AM

You're A Serial Liar, Little Micky Hawklette.

But Then,You Already Know That.

I Never Supported, Voted For, Nor Will Ever Vote For The Lib Boy, Junior Casey.

Aaaaand Actually, Hotel Security Barred Dr.Ron Paul Supporter & Constitutional Speaker Phil Duffy Of The West Chester Tea Party And a Few Others From Presenting A Petition For Gleason To Butt Out & Not Endorse Welsh In Our Pennsylvania Primary Set For Tuesday, April 24th.

Now, Tell Us All About Your New Mancrush On The RINO-CINO Frontman,Mttens Romney, Little Micky Hawklette.

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

Mike Hawk| 4.12.12 @ 12:10PM

You are a serial cut and paster TPINO Paulistinain crackpot Casey enabler. Who said anything about Romney?? You sure do have a thin skin.

Clint| 4.12.12 @ 12:44PM

Little Micky Hawklette Ain't Got Thin Skin. He Got Mitten's Kitten Kitty Fur On Now.

We Valley Forge Tea Party Patriots Will Be Out Protest Rallying On Sunday.

Doctor Right| 4.12.12 @ 12:38PM

You're dumb.

Clint| 4.12.12 @ 12:46PM

Aaaaand,
You're One Of Mitten's Kitten, Dr.Reich.

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

Doctor Right| 4.12.12 @ 5:18PM

Dumb and dumber...

Clint| 4.12.12 @ 7:56PM

RINO And RINOER.

Strong Christian| 4.16.12 @ 12:28AM

Nick, Teflon and Clint~ all the same Troll.

Maxwell| 4.12.12 @ 11:25AM

Mike, thanks for that update, I am right next door to you in Jersey.

Mike Hawk| 4.12.12 @ 12:13PM

Tell your PA registered friends to vote for Sam Rohrer in the Republican primary on the 24th. It is closed, so Republicans get to select their own candidate. When I refer to the Rendell Republicans, they are the RINOs who register Republican and vote Democrat. Fast Eddy used them to good effect, but he's out of office now.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 10:05AM

Enough with the conservative wishful thinking!

Little Lord MittleRoy won't do any of those things:

1. Pick a conservative VP: Romney hasn't even paid lip service to GOP conservatives in the primary. He doesn't have any in his inner circle. He ran the first "run to the middle" primary---by ignoring conservatives. He spent most of his money and time trashing anyone to his right---which was most of the field. He won't pick a conservative VP because he has no respect for conservatives and because he believes he is as conservative a candidate as we deserve. He will pick a RINO.

2. GOP Platform - Romney is a technocrat. He's not going to allow the party's strategy statement to be dominated by conservative principles----certainly not in any way that ties his hands. That's not how business leaders think---they think the vision statement is destiny. He doesn't share a conservative vision and won't allow one to be articulated.

3. Obamavilles - Who cares? Cheap political stunts may be right up his alley but the second Obama and Axelrod go visit a Mittville---a factory shuttered by Bain Capital, plus maybe a visit to Romney's own new mansion----he'll shut up like the weakling he is.

The only way to fight Obama is with bedrock principle---and Romney doesn't have any principle save ambition.

He won't get 37%.

John - TMF| 4.12.12 @ 10:41AM

Tef,

He will get more than 37% unless there is a viable 3rd party siphoning off votes (that would be no more than 10% at best). I figure he's good for about 45-47% of the popular vote. He might even hit 48%, but I think that's the ceiling.

As to the more important Electoral College, I figure that Romney will win in Virginia - if the Democrat vote stays unenthused as it is now. Even George Allen is way ahead of Tim Kaine.

I don't know what will happen down your way, North Carolina is difficult to read anymore.. Y'all have had your share of Yankee tax refugees and liberal college administrations to pull your state to the purple side, of late.

But I figure that The One will be within 40 electoral votes short of his 2008 total.

Romney's voter base will be too heavily populated with ABO votes to generate enough positive enthusiasm for him to retake formerly red states that he needs. Of course he's chances of flipping any true blue states are slim to none.

Keith Fimian is a very Conservative pro-life, pro-gun Catholic businessman from Fairfax... Getting him over the line against Gerry Connolly (a liberal catholic - of little character) He's not an Establishment favorite.

George Allen is a champ. He's one of the most genuinely personable and likeable candidates that I have had the pleasure to meet. The Establishment hate him, so that is fine with me.

Nothing will save Romney though... he's not any sort of Conservative, and not really even Republican.

r/TMF

George Allen

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 11:01AM

1. I believe there will be a 3rd party challenge.
2. You're right about NC but this is also the state where the plurality of the electorate is rural. Voter enthusiasm is everything---it wasn't there for McCain in 2008; it is even worse for Romney this year. If the rural voters don't come out in droves, the Research Triangle and inner city Charlotte will pick the winner. And that will be Obama. It's Blue Dogs or bust---and Romney's adopting the suicidal strategy of appealing to metrosexuals who support Obama to the hilt.

3. I think Obama's overall electoral count will be down a bit simply due to the census reapportionment, not because Romney will peel anything off.

4. Worse, I think Romney's going to kill the downticket chances for the GOP. The only hope is that enough disaffected conservatives come out to support their senators and reps, but that is looking more and more remote given how much contempt is being shown toward conservatives as they rally behind Romney. It's political suicide but that's what they're doing.

The Big E| 4.12.12 @ 11:48AM

I think you pegged the situation in NC, Teflon. I live in a rural, mountain county that is almost evenly split between R's, D's and unaffiliated, and there is zero - and I mean zero - enthusiasm for Romney here - not just among Republicans, but among the unaffiliateds as well - and I am very hard-pressed to think of anything he could do to change that. If the Republicans vote, they will vote for him, but if it rains on election day . . . The unaffiateds appear headed Obama's way around here. They don't really like him or his policies, but something about Romney seems to be turning them off.

Obviously, I don't claim that the local situation is necessarily analogous to other rural areas of the state, there's always big differences between mountain counties and eastern counties, but up here, it appears that not only will Romney lose, but that he may take down others with him.

You know, I'm really getting a bad - or I should say worse - feeling about this whole thing. I know the numbers in the Senate look pretty good just based on which seats are up this time around, but I can't help getting this sinking feeling that not only will Romney lose to Obama, but that we may well fare much worse in the House and Senate than the know-it-alls think. Obama's going run against the Congress, if he's successful in selling that . . .

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 11:57AM

My fears exactly, TBE---MittBots pooh-pooh the importance of the base turning out, but it has a huge impact because the base is by far the likeliest to vote GOP.

Think of the Research Triangle here in NC, which went for Obama by a decent chunk last time. Even if Romney were able to get a 50/50 draw there---and I doubt seriously he can---he has to deal with the fact that a) moderates/independents vote less frequently than liberals/conservatives do and b) getting that 50% of votes from people who vote 33% of the time costs him the votes of people who otherwise could be counted as in the GOP tank every time. This probably means that for every conservative Romney alienates he needs to pick up 3 moderates or independents. That's just not going to happen.

And he doesn't even seem to realize this simple truth.

The American Hitman| 4.12.12 @ 12:20PM

the Mittbots have been running on the whopper that their guy has great appeal to indies and Reagan Dems, but their behavior--their nasty, freaked out demands that conservatives vote for their guy--says that they know he has no appeal to indies and dems at all, and that they know they are doomed without a big conservative and tea party turnout.

Sucks to be them

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 12:28PM

They just can't turn off their contempt for the GOP conservative base.

But in fairness, I have nothing but contempt for them myself.

The difference is we don't need anything from them.

W| 4.12.12 @ 4:57PM

Teflon,
You are projecting.
Since your guy lost you have thrown a two day temper tantrum and asking others to take some silly test to show how conservative you are. In the real world results count and you are helping Obama with the Obama trolls here who are laughing at you.

You can take all these silly tests but the bottom line is you are helping Obama, and that is no conservative, or Republican, or sanity.

Had Santorum or Newt won I would have gladly supported them, I have voted for Rick in Pa and did some work for his campaigns.

I do not need a test to tell me who is conservative .
You and your fellow travelers may think you are conservatives but you are not acting conservative.
I suggest you think about four more years of Obama. If you want four more years of Obama then vote for him, but please stop trying to pretend you are voting for Obama because he would be a more conservative president than Romney.
Who did you support, Rick or Newt?

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 5:04PM

I supported---as I've said many times---half the GOP field: Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, and Perry----in order of preference.

I think you just talk smack about being conservative while showing very little commitment to conservative principles.

Which is why you're too chickenshit to take a simple test.

W| 4.12.12 @ 5:41PM

You need an internet test to prove you are a man and a conservative. I do not. You are no longer worth responding to. Go play with your tests, and feel good with your Obama trolls.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 7:10PM

Oh, piss off already. You're all talk and all appeasement.

W| 4.12.12 @ 9:45PM

Another intelligent reply from the latest Obama voter.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 10:08PM

Yes, more empty snark from a RINO troll.

W| 4.12.12 @ 10:28PM

So you admit you are an Obama voter.

Teflon93| 4.13.12 @ 11:03AM

No, dipshit---I voted for McCain last time, as I've said at least three dozen times now.

I may become an Obama voter given how clueless, unprincipled, and just plain arrogant you damned MittBots are. All you're doing is reinforcing how desperately we need a conservative and how ill we could afford 8 years of Romney at the top of the ticket.

Strong Christian| 4.16.12 @ 12:26AM

Wow. You make no sense what so ever, man. Maybe some of your real friends here can guide you to a therapist, or better yet, go to the Creator Himself because you sound schizophrenic.

But you'd have to give up the self righteousness first because God doesn't listen to anybody who thinks they know better.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 10:16AM

And conservatives ought to clip and save Lord's article as it's a complete rebuttal to those MittBot weasels who argue that supporting Romney is just fine as Congress will "rein him in".

Congress didn't do a damned thing to prevent H.W. Bush from jacking up taxes. That's because the RINOs always circle the wagons and vote with the Democrats when it's time to expand government intrusion into our lives and fleece people who don't have Caribbean tax shelters.

Con Chef (NB) | 4.12.12 @ 10:35AM

So what's the answer? Don't vote? Write someone in? And where does that get us? And not all of us are Mitt-tards. My guy dropped out. I've never liked Paul. So how about instead of jumping down everyone's throats as a "MittBot weasel," you stop & take a second to think about the alternative?

I've always enjoyed your posts, Teflon. For as long as I've been posting here. But as I asked before, what's the alternative? This country CANNOT SURVIVE another Obama term.

John - TMF| 4.12.12 @ 10:59AM

"This country CANNOT SURVIVE another "Clinton" term."

Heard that one before... from my own lips... I was WRONG... Clinton was horrid. He was scum, a master manipulator and abuser of power; but this nation survived. It is still here. WE will still be HERE in 2016.

1. You are assuming that Romney can beat Obummer. That is a huge and very shaky assumption. Obambi has the power, he has the presidency, the Senate, and most importantly the media.

Romney has a weak fractured coalition of Mittbots, Elitists, and ABO's voting out of pure panic. He does not offer enough qualities that encourage folks to vote FOR him.

Abstaining is a perfectly honorable way to protest. You do not have to stay home; you under vote. Vote for your House, Senate, and local elections. Vote Conservative. If you don't feel comfortable leaving the Presidential line empty, then write in the candidate that you thought best represented your interests.

But please stop with the hyperbolic panic stricken fear mongered notion that this nation CANNOT SURVIVE another Obummer administration.

It most certainly can, and will probably have to. The way that we do it is by electing a Conservative House and Senate to oppose and shut The One down.

BTW - In reviewing the records and accomplishments - gag... of Timothy Kaine - former Democrat Governor of Virginia, I realized that Kaine was much more conservative than Romney... Tim Kaine liberal Catholic missionary more conservative than the Mittster... who'd a thought that one, eh?

I wouldn't vote for Tim Kaine to sweep the streets. So why would I vote for Romney and hope that he changes?. I've had enough of that stupid "hope and change" crap.

r/TMF

Con Chef (NB) | 4.12.12 @ 11:28AM

John:

While I agree Bubba was bad, I don't think Bubba has as ingrained a hatred for this nation that I believe Obama does. I'm a student of history. I see Obama as Caesar. I'm merely a modern day "optimate" who's trying to stop the encroachments of the tyrant.

"Men ask, what is the reason why I, or why any one of you, O conscript fathers, should be afraid of bad laws while we have virtuous tribunes of the people? We have men ready to interpose their veto; ready to defend the republic with the sanctions of religion. We ought to be strangers to fear. What do you mean by interposing the veto? says he; what are these sanctions of religion which you are talking about? Those, forsooth, on which the safety of republic depends. We are neglecting those things, and thinking them too old fashioned and foolish. The forum will be surrounded, every entrance of it will be blocked up; ARMED MEN will be placed in garrison, as it were, at many points. What then?--whatever is accomplished by those means will be law. And you will order, I suppose, all those regularly passed decrees to be engraved on brazen tablets. 'The consuls consulted the people in the regular form,' (Is this the way of consulting the people that we have received from our ancestors?) 'and the people voted it with due regularity.' What people? that which was excluded from the forum? Under what law did they do so? under that which has been wholly abrogated by violence of arms? But I am saying all this with reference to the future; because it is the part of a friend to point out evils which may be avoided: and if they never ensue, that will be the best refutation of my speech. I am speaking of laws which have been proposed; concerning which you have still full power to decide either way. I am pointing out the defects; away with them I am denouncing violence and arms; away with them too!"...Marcus Tullius Cicero, The First Philippic

It sounds like it could've been written yesterday, for G*d's sake.

John - TMF| 4.12.12 @ 11:46AM

Yes, and Rome existed in one form or another for 1000 years.. It's children and grandchildren for a thousand more.

This nation has endured some pretty dreadful presidencies... it will do so again... or it won't...

Maybe in near future generation the nation finally calls a Constitutional Convention, and cannot come to any agreement.. so it shakes hands and goes its separate ways.

Maybe... maybe not...

We will survive... or we won't. We will probably default on our debts, but so will the remainder of the world. China has no money (its our money that was leveraged by them to buy more of our bonds... that gives us more money to buy more money yet again.. it's a false economy that will eventually collapse or explode.) The same goes for Europe... Everyone is in debt to EVERYONE else.. eventually it will all cancel out...

It won't be elegant or comfortable.. but it will pass.

We are basically in debt to ourselves many generations in the future, so nobody in particular holds the debt. Ultimately the pols will figure that nobody in particular holds the debt so nobody in particular will mind much if we don't pay it. Insane, yes.. but we have already driven off that mythical cliff... That bus left the road.

It's just a matter of time.

And then it will all start again.

We will still be here. In this place, on this continent, with the same God, whether we believe in Him or not.

When you have one parent die of a rare form of cancer at 39 years old, and the other waste away to a disease that leaves the mind intact but the body useless (ALS), there comes a certain amount of perspective about disasters, and whether they can be endured.

This nation has existed more than 200 years (we were basically established with the convocation of the Second Continental Congress) on the edge of disaster. We will probably survive, and if we don't we didn't deserve to.

-John TMF

Con Chef (NB) | 4.12.12 @ 11:53AM

While I agree with the "this, too, shall pass" theory, I'd just like to avoid the bad coming to pass to begin with.

"Expect the best, plan for the worst." That way, there's never any surprises. Or, at least the surprises are more limited & less shocking when they DO crop up.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 11:58AM

Obama isn't Caesar. Caesar didn't golf.

Con Chef (NB) | 4.12.12 @ 1:50PM

:-)

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 11:10AM

Stop embracing Mittford Wife status then, CC. You don't need to abandon your principles or encourage me to abandon mine. Hold your nose if you must---it's your vote.

The answer is to vote for a candidate you do agree with and who shares your principles to a reasonable degree. If there isn't one at the top of the ticket, look down the ticket and support them. If there isn't one down the ticket, don't vote---at least you're not contributing to the Ruling Class RINO mess then, and perhaps those missing votes will be coveted in the future even if despised today.

I've registered as an independent, ending a lifelong GOP affiliation. That also sends a message---and also ensures that the same GOP which despised my vote when it was assured will not covet it.

Remember the Whigs. In 1852, the Whigs refused to do anything about the number one issue in America---slavery---out of pure corrupt self-interest and cowardice. Two years later, a party was founded united around the principle of the abolition of slavery. In 1856, the Whigs dissolved---the bulk of their former supporters flocked to the new party. In 1860, that new party won the White House, 59% of House seats, and a six seat Senate majority.

That party was the Republican Party.

The Tea Party is the answer now that it is clear the Republican Party has no intention of weighing in on the most important issue of our day---the size of the federal government exceeding its Constitutional bounds.

John - TMF| 4.12.12 @ 11:14AM

Ah hem...

New Federalist Party.

I love good tea, English Breakfast... Green with Jasmine... but a political party needs a name that doesn't make one think of a break at 4 pm for a spot and some crumpets...

;-)

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 11:20AM

The "federal" unfortunately would kill it dead given the dearth of historical knowledge in the electorate.

Con Chef (NB) | 4.12.12 @ 11:30AM

I like what Cicero & his crew were called. The "optimates." Hell, why not? Those of us who know history will appreciate it, those who don't will see it as something new.

John - TMF| 4.12.12 @ 11:33AM

As I tell my children... "Well then, I guess it is time for Pops to teach, so listen up."

Explaining the brand is how you teach your customers what it does and why you want to sell it to them, and most importantly... Why they ABSOLUTELY MUST have one.

Make no mistake about it, it is a MARKETING job. This is the modern world, and an enterprise without a business plan that pays careful attention to marketing and branding, will ultimately fail.

We are from the New Federalist Party... Oh? Don't know what that is? Well lemme tell you about it....

r/TMF

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 11:38AM

It hasn't worked for "liberal", which the Progressives hijacked and poisoned. I'm of the Austrian School myself but von Mises needed to recognize reality there.

Mike Hawk| 4.12.12 @ 10:48AM

Bush 41 did not jack up taxes, only Congress can do that. Unfortunately 41 went along with the Democrat Congress when he should have held the line. He should also have learned that deals with the Democrats don't happen. The Dems renege every time. He got rolled as 'moderates' always do.

The American Hitman| 4.12.12 @ 10:59AM

Yeah, I'm really sure that Mush McConnell and John Weeping Boehner are going to push Romney to the right!!

Ted| 4.12.12 @ 11:18AM

"And conservatives ought to clip and save Lord's article as it's a complete rebuttal to those MittBot weasels who argue that supporting Romney is just fine as Congress will "rein him in"."

And there in a nutshell is the crix of the matter.... Conservatives must vote for a man that conservatives will then have to worry about reigning in. Reigning in his liberal tendencies, that is.

Con Chef (NB) | 4.12.12 @ 10:22AM

The most important aspect of this, to me, will be the VP pick. And while Mr. Lord's piece illustrates that succession of VPs to the Presidency doesn't always garantee philosophical cohesion, in THIS case, it may work to the advantage of conservatives.

If the VP pick is someone like Marco Rubio, Allen West, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan or Mike Pence, then that would be a mind easer for conservatives. And even though I'm certain that Mitt will be head & shoulders over Obama, he will most certainly need a VP who's a strong conservative, as well as a more conservative Senate to work with, in order to not fall into the "moderate" morass of his yes men appointees he's sure to have in his admin.

Whether the nominee was Romney, Newt, Santorum, or Reagan resurrected, the task un unf-ing everything this current "president" has f-ed up will be painful & unpopular for many. And as we all know, the media dropped ALL pretenses of "objectivity" during the Bush admin. They could still BARELY hide it during the time of Reagan & Bush I. Now, they don't even bother. And when all the cleaning up starts to take place, you can rest assured that the manufactured caterwauling will be un-freaking-real. It will take a man of iron & a good personality to help defray this inevitable onslaught. If Mitt's able to be that guy, then he sets his VP up for an EXCELLENT chance at succession. If the media is allowed to shape the narrative as badly as they were after Tony Snow died, Mitt will also be a one-term wonder & his the odds of his VP being his successor will decrease dramatically.

albert constantine jr.| 4.12.12 @ 10:38AM

While Mr. Lord was much closer to the process than I was in 1988, I always thought that the selection of Dan Quayle was supposed to be a conciliatory gesture toward conservatives (due to his hawkish Senate voting record), as well as a feeble attempt to attract women voters towards the ticket, as DQ was billed as a "Robert Redford lookalike" until Redford objected.

Con Chef (NB) | 4.12.12 @ 10:46AM

I remember being in 4th grade then. Qualye turned out to be one of those VPs who pulled a MacArthur after his time at the Observatory. He seemed to want to "just fade away..."

Someone like West, Rubio, Pence or Ryan most certainly won't "just fade away." The question is: do we put some of these up & commers on a Presidential ticket, or do we keep that powder dry to run some of them in later elections?

That's the strategic conundrum I think I'm having, as far as a VP pick is concerned.

albert constantine jr.| 4.12.12 @ 11:55AM

VP slots can be tricky. Nixon lost (after the Chicago count, anyway) in 1960 as incumbent VP, but came back in 1968. Ford was appointed VP in 1974 and became President by virtue of that, but lost his only nationwide election. His VP running mate was Dole, who got the nod 20 years later, only to lose.

Humphrey, as Johnson’ VP, couldn’t beat Eisenhower’s VP after George Wallace threw his hat in the ring from his right and ran on the American Party line. Mondale, as Carter’s VP, got to take a big whoopin’ in 1984 as the head of the ticket, and lost again in a last minute bid for his old seat in 2002 after Wellstone died of Buddy Holly’s disease. Gore, thankfully, couldn’t find enough hanging chads.

Quayle, as you observe, quietly faded away. Unlike the contemporary examples you cite, I’m not sure that there was enough substance there to keep him in the public eye. I kind of figured at the time that in addition to the mistaken thought that he was eye candy for the ladies, that he was GHWB’s version of Biden (i.e. assassination prevention insurance).

W| 4.12.12 @ 2:29PM

Albert
You are correct that Bush selected Quayle for the conservative balance.
Jack Kemp was a joke as the VP for Dole in 1996. He refused to attack Bubba as attacking Bubba was beneath him. Gore trounced him in the debate because Gore congratulated Kemp for being a "statesman" and then Kemp got misty eyed and would not attack Clinton or Gore or anything else.

Bush did screw up royally with the tax increase. But he agreed to the tax increase because he was promised cuts which never materialized, similar to Reagan.

But we view Reagan as a conservative and therefore excuse his tax increase and blame it on Dole, O'Neill, and whomever, but when Bush increase taxes we view it as confirmation that he was a liberal.

Reagan signed an abortion bill while governor of California and then changed his mind. So we view him a making the right move. But when Romney changes his mind, it is a craven political act.

Bottom line, if you like the guy you excuse whatever he does and say. If you don't lke Romney, then you see what you see here.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 2:40PM

Bush saw how the Democrats screwed Reagan and went for it anyway.

Experience counts for something, you know.

W| 4.12.12 @ 3:47PM

Experience does count. What has the Obama experience taught you? Did it teach you that you want four more years of it? That is what your are advocating, and the Obama trolls here are sucking it up and laughing.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 4:11PM

I would prefer 4 years of a defanged Obama to 8 of a full-throated liberal Romney administration followed inevitably by at least another 4 years of a Democrat administration.

You, on the other hand, believe Boehner and McConnell are going to grow spines.

http://www.bing.com/images/sea.....25&first=0

W| 4.12.12 @ 5:10PM

A defanged Obama?

Obama will pick at least two more Supreme Court justices, most likely Holder and Sebellius. With Kagan and Sotomayor the left will control the Court for the next 20 years. This means forget about repealing abortion and affirmative action. Are you OK with that?

Forget also about repealing Obamacare. That will be the law. Just like we got the Energy Dept and the Education Dept from Jimmy Carter because some conservatives were too "principled" to vote for Jerry Ford. So now you want someone to eliminate Energy and Education, and 4 years from now you will want someone to eliminate all the federal agencies spawned out of Obamacare. Good luck.
As you know the Dems control the Senate, and a bill must pass both the House and Senate and then be signed by Obama. Maybe you want to explain what laws Boehner and McConnell could have passed without the Senate and Obama?

If you prefer Obama, then vote for him if you sincerely believe it would be best for our country.

I do not agree with you that Obama would be better for our country than Romney and will proudly vote for Romney.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 7:15PM

1. Romney has only ever picked liberal justices and his judicial advisor is the guy who gave us David Souter with Bush the Elder's lone pick. So sorry, there is no evidence Romney will appoint conservative judges---if he even knows any.

2. Mitt Romney has no intention of repealing Obamacare. That was what the Etch-A-Sketch trial balloon was all about. He wants to "improve" it. Romney will do what he did in Mass---make a halfhearted repeal effort, shrug, then say, "Well, we didn't have enough Republicans---I tried."

3. The original bill passed under reconciliation; reconciliation only requires 51 senate votes. Boehner has control over the budget---all he had to do was refuse to pass debt ceiling raises and continuing resolutions. Which is what conservatives pointed out at the time. My God, are you a liberal troll or what?

4. Given the weak cheese petulance of people like yourself in the MittBot ranks, I just may. Then Romney will have to find even more votes to try to flip NC. Smart move, genius.

5. Yes, because:

http://www.bing.com/images/sea.....25&first=0

W| 4.12.12 @ 8:24PM

Congratulations. Since you announced for Obama you already argue like a lefty Obama troll. No logic, just name calling, and misrepresent the facts. Obmacare was passed 60 to 39 in December 2009 by the Senate, and by the House in March 2010, 219-212. All the yes votes were Dems and all the no were Republican. The reconciliation occured in June 2010 only because the bill had been passed and the Dems used the reconciliation process. Bohner did not become Speaker till 2011. I suppose if you were in Congress in 2010 you could have stopped Obama with your brilliant arguments and logic.

As for you leaving, good riddance, and have fun with fellow Obama voters. You are a fair weather "conservative."

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 10:10PM

That vinegar aroma is inescapable with you.

Listen to Michelle Bachmann on the reconciliation option and learn something. The reconciliation process happens regardless of who controls Congress, it was necessary because the House and Senate versions were very different. That's what the Stupak Amendment kerfuffle was about.

You are a douchebag.

W| 4.12.12 @ 10:31PM

You talk like an Obama troll. No facts. Name calling. Go play with your new pals at HuffPo and Daily Kos, they sound like you. Dr. Right is right, you are a moron.

Teflon93| 4.13.12 @ 11:05AM

No facts? You're a damned liar as well as a lickspittle.

I'm the only one posting links and citing Romney's actual record, you little sissy.

Read it yourself and learn something.

http://cdn2.dailycaller.com/20.....Romney.pdf

Eric | 4.12.12 @ 10:22AM

Hostlity to conservatives? Not sure how. You can say he isn't conservative enough,which I would agree,but I don't get hostile.
Arrogance? I certainly disagree with that one. Also odd coming from someone who is friends with Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin to call someone else arrogant.

Mike Hawk| 4.12.12 @ 10:39AM

Who is friends with Rush and Levin?? Certainly not Romney. Mark has asked candidates to call in so he could question them and Romney and Rube Paul refuse. Mark has never met Romney as I recall him saying. Rush has never said a thing about knowing Romney and has certainly never played golf with him ( I don't think MR plays any sport, much less golf) BTW, Obozo will play his 100th round since his Immaculation soon. Be ready for the hoopla.

Eric | 4.12.12 @ 10:52AM

Jeff Lord.

Mike Hawk| 4.12.12 @ 12:21PM

So Jeff Lord knows Rush and Mark. How does that effect the price of hamburger? I've met Jeffery Lord, he's a pretty standup amiable guy. Why wouldn't Rush and Mark be friendly with Jeffery?? If I was in a position to commiserate with him I would be too. Probably have a brew or two if he likes good beer.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 12:30PM

RINOs don't like Levin and Limbaugh.

Another tell that Romney is a liberal is he's refused to go on Levin's show. Santorum and Newt have been on several times.

If you want to reach the base, Limbaugh and Levin are must stops on the talk show route.

Not Dennis Miller.

Strong Christian| 4.15.12 @ 11:35PM

Hey numbskull Teflon,

Rush, Mark AND Michelle B. are all going to vote for Romney.
So while you're aligning yourself with them as if you're sooo much better than all of us, and busy bashing conservatives here who'll vote for him for the same reason they will~ how do you answer for yourself, idiot?

randyinrocklin| 4.12.12 @ 1:42PM

Rush even mentioned Lord's article on his radio show.

Crassus| 4.12.12 @ 12:24PM

Romney did appear on Levin's show during the 2008 primary. It was a fairly pleasant exchange.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 12:31PM

After Levin endorsed him in an effort to derail McCain.

Levin admits freely he knew next to nothing about Romney at that time.

Mike Hawk| 4.12.12 @ 3:23PM

'08 doesn't count in '12. A lot of us would have prefrred him to Capt McQueeg. We did not have Obamacare or Obama at the time either.

Anthony| 4.12.12 @ 10:33AM

The good news is, Romney and the R establishment, and some of the fools who post here, like Jack and Telfon, who are adament that they will not vote for Romney under any circumstances, will soon find out that America will be at war with itself.
What is coming this summer will scare the hell out of all thinking Americans, such that even Teflon will be singing Romney's praises.
Yes, the R establishment has played the "Chicken-Little" the sky is falling threat, if you don't support folks like Bush Sr, and Dole, once too often, which has now led to disenchantment from many conservatives fed up with that b.s. and ready to to tell the establishment to shove it, however, America as we know it is going to blow!!
Yep, just as in the fairy tale, one day, Chicken-Little was correct, that the sky is indeed falling, that the shit is hitting the fan.
I guess what I'm saying is that Romney, Jack, Teflon, et al, are soon to become foxhole buddies, as the cities burn this summer, violence shakes the very foundation of America, and Obozo sets in motion his plan that will pit American against American.
Romney, whether he knows it or not, will have no choice but to be the conservative America needs him to be, he will become the reluctant warrior because the very fate of America hangs in the balance, Obozo will see to it.

Con Chef (NB) | 4.12.12 @ 10:41AM

Well said, sir!

Again, Paine was correct when he wrote this:

"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated."

Guess we know who the "sunshine soldiers & summer patriots" are. They're just like the little kids who get pissed of, take their ball & go home. Its a vein of selfishness so extreme as to almost qualify them as regressives.

Vern Crisler | 4.12.12 @ 12:17PM

Paine's point was that you soldier on even during winter's gloom.

Conservatives who plan to vote for Romney are sunshine conservatives. They don't want to go through the political equivalent of Valley Forge, but want to appease the British and go home; i.e., do the easy thing by voting for Romney.

Mike Hawk| 4.12.12 @ 10:44AM

The way The Regime is operating right now, I fear there may be race riots and leftist thug terrorist activity this summer. The riots of 1967 will be pale in comparison.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 11:11AM

Wanna bet? Presuming you're not a bad Mormon like Mittens....

Anthony| 4.12.12 @ 11:23AM

Hey Teflon, your cozy world of R establishment hating is about to come to an abrupt end.
You are in for the shock of your life, like I said, this summer is gonna scare this s*** out of you.
Tough times turn pansies into men, but you'll soon see for yourself, tough guy.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 11:39AM

So when will you finally get some tough times?

I'll have some shaving tips waiting.

Nick| 4.12.12 @ 1:44PM

Anthony,

So, this is all that you O'Romney supporters have to offer? Hoping for riots this summer? How pathetic!

Plus, you conflated the stories of Chicken Little and The Boy Who Cried Wolf. The sky never fell, whereas the wolf did show up one day. The moral of the former is not to follow fools and/or RINOs.

The moral of the latter is that RINOs expect conservatives to show up, no matter how many times they cry, "I'm conservative too!" The conservatives finally get tired of being tricked, and don't come running when called.

Anthony| 4.12.12 @ 7:47PM

You sound like an Obozo operative Nick, way beneath you.
No, I'm not hoping for riots, but in case you haven't noticed, The New Black Panthers and the OWS vermin have signaled their intentions. Holder is holding hands with Sharpton and so is Obozo.
Do you see the writing on the wall now?
I may have gotten my stories mixed, but the result will be the same.
As Rumsfeld famously intoned, you go to war with the army that you have. For better or worse, Romney is our army,and you damn well had better hope he gets some balls real quick.
Maybe you and Teflon can lend him a pair.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 8:04PM

I'm sure Rumsfeld would agree it's never wise to go to war with somebody working for the enemy---which is what Romney has done.

He's a liberal. We need a conservative. You aren't going to beat Obama with Obama Lite.

Nick| 4.13.12 @ 12:37AM

Anthony,

"You sound like an Obozo operative Nick, way beneath you."

When you've been here a little longer, you'll realize just how ridiculous this statement was. Just ask any of the regulars here how liberal I am. It's absurd.

Anyway, you stated quite clearly that the only way that O'Romney can get the support of conservatives like Teflon93 is if there are riots this summer. You are not a prophet, so, you don't know that there will be riots. But, you are hoping that there will be.

Those who are Republican first, and conservative second, have nothing positive to say about O'Romney, whatsoever. The only reason this RINO is going to be the nominee is because all he did was lie about the competition. He has/had no positive message.

All of you O'Romney supporters need to get this fact of life through your head:
Candidates don't win elections by getting the people to vote AGAINST the other guy.

This has been the RINO GOP play book since 1992, really. Governor George W. Bush ran as the "compassionate conservative" and barely squeaked out the win in the closest election in U.S. history. Against algore!

But, you don't have to go back that far. Have you guys already forgotten '06 and '08? In '06, all the GOP had was, "Do you want to see Speaker Pelosi?" How'd well did that work out?

This is why O'Romney will lose in November. Unless, we get the riots that Anthony is hoping for, or, the DOW plunges to 7,000 and gas is $5.00 a gallon.

Teflon93| 4.13.12 @ 9:39AM

Whistling in the wind, Nick.

To be a MittBot is to somehow believe the following:

1. Conservative candidates are ballot box poison, although the last unabashed, unhyphenated conservative to run at the top of the ticket won two of the biggest landslides in presidential history.

2. RINOs appeal to moderates and independents, although McCain, Dole, H.W. Bush, and Ford all lost independents by large margins in their losses to leftist candidates.

3. The Tea Party is dead, although the Tea Party led Republicans to their biggest Congressional gains since 1948 just last election cycle, whereas McCain lost the previous one and the GOP RINOs the one before that (the "Do you want a Speaker Pelosi" campaign you note above).

It's not so much they're delusional as they're dishonest crapweasels.

Strong Christian| 4.15.12 @ 11:39PM

"You are not a prophet, so, you don't know that there will be riots. But, you are hoping that there will be."

Pompous Nick the Pope Idolator Thinks he has the right to lie about others hearts and minds.

Get used to it, Anthony.

Strong Christian| 4.15.12 @ 11:37PM

"You sound like an Obozo operative Nick, way beneath you."

No, it isn't.

The Bruce| 4.12.12 @ 12:50PM

Come November, I'll be pulling the lever for Romney -- even if I have to crawl over broken glass to do it.

Do I particularly like Romney? No, but I'm not going to waste my vote on a third-party candidate or a write-in, neither of whom has any chance of winning. Let's be honest -- Hell will freeze over before a third-party candidate finds himself living in the White House. He's been my least favorite candidate for a variety of reasons.

But now it's go-time and I have a simple choice: Would I prefer to see a RINO in the White House, or would I prefer four more years of the current excrement -- a talentless, America-hating, narcissistic, marxist, race-bating ass-clown that seems hell-bent on destroying the country? Hmm, let me think about that for a moment. I think I'll choose the former.

And for the self-righteous not willing to do the country a favor by pulling the Republican lever because the "R" candidate doesn't measure up to their idea of idealogic purity, fine I suppose. Apparently you're just fine being abused by the devil you already know.

The American Hitman| 4.12.12 @ 10:40AM

Conservative who get suckered into voting for Romney this cycle will soon be singing this tune:
Don't you remember us, Mitt?
http://youtu.be/WxZK0spa1yI

Eric | 4.12.12 @ 10:53AM

Vote for Hussein you mf's. Don't bitch afterwards though.

Con Chef (NB) | 4.12.12 @ 11:00AM

And that just about sums it up as concisely as can be! Well said.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 11:12AM

Okay---deal.

(MittBots are real political geniuses, aren't they?)

The American Hitman| 4.12.12 @ 12:10PM

Why are these Mittbots so hostile? They've spent most of this year arguing that he beats Obama easily because of his magical appeal to deems and indies. Shouldn't you be over at a Dem site selling your guy? It could not be more obvious that, if your guy needs conservatives to turn out for him, he is a dead man walking.

Vern Crisler | 4.12.12 @ 12:19PM

And we can reply to the Mittbots: "Vote for Mr. Etch-a-Sketch you mf's. Don't bitch afterwards though."

Ted| 4.12.12 @ 11:03AM

"Will nominee Romney run on principle -- or personality and biography?"

Well, this will be interesting. How is Romney to run on principle when even some of his ardent backers say he has no clearly discernable principles? Reference Ross Kaminsky's article from yesterday's TAS.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 11:13AM

His sole principle is ambition.

somnolence| 4.12.12 @ 11:04AM

Please provide me strong evidence that Kemp was more conservative than Quayle. There are many examples of Kemp's swaying to moderate-center, in fact more so than Quayle. The fact remains that spending went through the stratosphere under the philosophically conservative Reagan(who I voted for twice and admire to this day). To go by the past and not look forward, instead pondering into a figurative crystal ball just doesn't cut it. It boils down to two choices: Obama or Romney. It is very elementary to me as Obama has FORFEITED any more chances to kill us all.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 11:14AM

Kemp was never a social conservative but was a fiscal conservative.

Quayle was a social conservative but I can't remember if he was much of a fiscal conservative.

somnolence| 4.12.12 @ 11:06AM

BTW if there are race riots make sure the perpetrator have enough shovels to bury their dead. The countryside is already on edge and more than ready to kick ass if need be.

squalis| 4.12.12 @ 11:18AM

No one is talking about the posibility of the next President nominating at least 2 Supreme Court Judges. As we have seen, that can have ugly consequences. I would much prefer Romney nominees.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 11:22AM

You might want to acquaint yourself with who Mittens picked in Mass and who his top advisor Sununu picked while in the Bush White House before stating such a preference.

The American Hitman| 4.12.12 @ 12:13PM

Mitt is going to give you David Souters and JP Stevens types. Are those types of nominees better than Kagan and the Wise Latina? Peas in a pod.

squalis| 4.12.12 @ 7:59PM

Right. You might want to consider that the great conservative (said seriously), Ronald Reagan nominated O'Connor and Kennedy, not the most conservative of judges. So no, one can never predict the type of judge a confirmed nominee will be, but the chances of an extreme liberal ideologue sitting on the Court will be high with an Obama reelection, and that will last many years beyond your childish temper tantrum window of the 2012 election.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 8:05PM

Repeat after me: Romney has only nominated LIBERALS to the bench.

He is a liberal.

So keep dreaming that you have any prayer of a Scalia coming out of this idiot's administration. Not. Gon'. Happen.

http://www.bing.com/images/sea.....25&first=0

Dave Williams| 4.12.12 @ 11:19AM

Picking Bush as VP was Reagan's greatest mistake, one for which we are STILL paying. A Reagan-Kemp administration would've permanently altered the course of this country for the good. Instead, because of that breathtakingly poor choice, we got Clinton AND W...Fiorella LaGuardia's statement applies here: "I don't make many mistakes, but when I do, it's a beaut."

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 11:23AM

Reagan thought it would bring the RINOs back into the fold. Instead they supported John Anderson on a third party ticket.

RINOs are backstabbers by nature. RR really ought to have known that by 1980.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 11:24AM

A pictorial summary of some conservatives' embrace of Romney:

http://www.bing.com/images/sea.....10&first=0

Scorpio51| 4.12.12 @ 11:36AM

Mr. Lord another stunning article from you. However, you needed to expand on your comments about Newt Gingrich leading the infusion of Congressional takeover.

This is the very thing that Newt has said was against him in his Presidential bid. It's the OLD order. GHWB and Barbara totally hate Newt and are pushing Romney because he is the same type of Republican they are.

I know you do your investigative work very well, but at least say that the Republican party is trying to do away with the Reagan era. Mitt Romney said "he was running away from Reagan."

If conservatives don't wake up and realize that the GOP establishment and the wealthy elite Wall Streeters are sending us down the river, then we only have ourselves to blame.

Mitt Romney will keep the White House in the Bush 41 order. Older Republicans will continue with their spending ways.

America is going off the cliff and we need bold and decisive changes. I'm not here to try and change anyones mind. But I feel like if you ignore what Newt Gingrich has laid out in his plan, you will have made a big mistake.

Newt knows the "old order" is still against him, but that's not going to deter him. We need a fighter for this nation and its clear to me who that is.

No, I don't have my head in the sand. I'm very well aware that Obama is a dangerous individual and must be removed. Romney doesn't have the delegates needed now. So there's still time for conservatives to come together.

somnolence| 4.12.12 @ 11:40AM

I'm sure somewhere there are pictures of Reagan cozying up to Tip O'Neil, etc. Photo ops and perceived graciousness go hand in hand in politics. As I said before, YOU can look back and sob because there "isn't a Reagan" on the horizon. I proceed with the future as neither Ron or Ward and June are coming back, lol.

somnolence| 4.12.12 @ 11:47AM

Rush HAS met Romney, as Romney has been on his show in the past, and spoke highly of him the other day. You might want to improve your listening skills.

David Messick | 4.12.12 @ 11:52AM

Didn't hear that yesterday. He seemed very disappointed that Mitt is all but certain to be the nominee.

Vern Crisler | 4.12.12 @ 12:22PM

But Rush also intimated that there was a difference between talk and what one actually does.

Mike Hawk| 4.12.12 @ 12:26PM

Rush has spoken highly of ROmney as far as his personal life and integrity goes, but he disagrees with him a lot on politics. I have not been tuned in if he ever had him on the show, he doesn't generally take calls like that or give interviews unless there is a specific reason. Rush does not endorse Primary candidates either. You might want to improve your listening skills as you may be hearing things that are not said.

Crassus| 4.12.12 @ 12:29PM

Rush is very skeptical of Romney. You might want to improve your listening skills.

Mike Hawk| 4.12.12 @ 3:20PM

Duh, no sh!t Sherlock. I think I said that though not in those words. You need to improve ryour reading skills.

Crassus| 4.12.12 @ 3:44PM

Seeing as how your post was not yet up when I was writing mine all I can say is GFY. You might learn to spell and tell time as well.

LarryK| 4.12.12 @ 12:24PM

RINO
or
Communist?

Some choice!

Tim| 4.12.12 @ 12:25PM

Bush was following Reagan...and many folks voted for a Reagan third term because they didn't want the dream to end.

Lee Atwater was brilliant.
There is no such person as Lee Atwater in this election cycle.

Obama is a sitting President, and while I agree perhaps the worse in American History regarding hatred toward our constitution.

All of this said, My fear is that by the time the Obama Machine is finished slicing and dicing Romney for his stiff as a board one per cent out of touch wealthy elite barron flip flopper perception that he has earned over the past 20 years enough social conservatives will not support him by not voting at all.

As all elections this one will be one or lost in 7 States. The VP selection will help but there is a real chance that Obama will carry both Mass and Michigan Romney's back yard.

This is not sour grapes but a reality check of what may happen given an Economy focused Romney trying to convince 51 per cent of folks that he has to take their free bennies away.

In a tough economy that is a tall order.

People may tell pollsters all sorts of garbage but on D Day they will vote their Pocket Book and very few will choose cutting their own free ride.

Bill| 4.12.12 @ 12:29PM

VEEP Talk:
1. Chris Christie
Pros: NJ will turn RED, a fiscal hawk governor
Cons: declined
2. Pat Toomey
Pros: PA will turn RED
Cons: groundwork
3. Rob Portman
Pros: OH will flip RED
Cons: former Bush executive
4. Kelly Ayotte
Pros: The women votes
Cons: NH has only 4 electoral votes
5. Marco Rubio
Pros: The Latino votes
Cons: waterdowned DREAM Act
6. Jeb Bush
Pros: The Latino votes (he speaks fluent Spanish)
Cons: Bush dynasty
7. Mitch Daniel
Pros: signed the "Right-To-Work" law
Cons: name recognition
8. Bobby Jindal
Pros: "Reaganite" fiscal hawk southern governor
Cons: declined
And the VP nominee is......................................

Crassus| 4.12.12 @ 12:32PM

The con for Mitch Daniels is that he has a wife with baggage. Extreme baggage.

Bill| 4.12.12 @ 12:56PM

And what are those baggage.....................

Crassus| 4.12.12 @ 1:25PM

Cheri Daniels had an affair in the 90's and abandoned her husband and family to marry and move to California with her lover. Three years later, after finding that the grass wasn't greener on the other side, she came whining back to Indiana. Cuckhold Mitch took her back. This was the reason Daniels didn't jump into the presidential race.

Bill| 4.12.12 @ 2:26PM

Interesting.

Nick| 4.12.12 @ 1:14PM

"That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."
- Written by Bill the Bigot, in the Time for Newt to Do the Honorable Thing thread:

http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_749403

You're a moron and a racist, Bigot Bill.
GO AWAY!

Bill| 4.12.12 @ 2:26PM

Nick is a moron and racist, Bigot Nick. Get Lost!

Not Special Ops Bill| 4.12.12 @ 3:57PM

Ah, the mot juste!

Crassus| 4.12.12 @ 12:31PM

All right you, RINOs, you got your boy Mittenz the nomination. Now see if you can get him elected. Don't worry, you can always blame us conservatives when he loses. That's what you always do.

Russel| 4.12.12 @ 12:40PM

For crying out loud , all this internal sniping at each other . Lord's article doesn't boost my enthusiasm one bit , it's a history lesson . Who CARES who or what the nominee will do IF ELECTED , as long as it ain't Dumbo again . Four more years of Alinsky rule and we may not have a country left . Stop this circular firing squad and lest help our nominee win . Remember , Mr. Reagan wasn't perfect the first day on the job , and we will have considerably more clout in congress to help the freshman in the oval office . Let's get positive here , ya'll .

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 1:06PM

Because we elect presidents to DO something, not BE something.

What's the point of voting for Obama's opponent without tangible proof they'll be better than he is?

At least Obama's lazy and narcissistic. Somebody who wasn't would have accomplished much more.

Crassus| 4.12.12 @ 1:28PM

At least with Obozo we kow what we got. Who the hell knows what we'll get with Romney. I'll concede that there's a chance that he'll be a solid conservative who will make the necessary tough decisions to turn the country around. But he could also be little more that Obama Lite. Just another Democratic wolf wearing Republican sheep's clothing.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 1:33PM

I've asked MittBots for months: "Name one thing Mitt Romney did to advance conservatism". There has never been an answer---not least of which because advancing conservatism is something MittBots only care about in the sense of preventing it from happening.

He has no record whatsoever of conservatism and seems to believe that not cheating on his wife ought to be good enough for us.

Strong Christian| 4.15.12 @ 11:44PM

"MittBots". You're an idiot, just like your lying pal, "Nick".

Guess Rush and Mark Levin and Michele Bachmann are MittBots too, eh? Since they're going to vote for him if he becomes the nominee.

From this time forward you best (if you're an honest person), disassociate yourself with them.

Lest you be a flaming hypocrite!

somnolence| 4.12.12 @ 12:42PM

I would have to say that Rob Portman and Marco Rubio are probably among the top 5 Veep picks right now for Romney. BTW Rush stated on his show that Romney "was sitting right there", and mentioned that in conversation Romney sounded as conservative as anyone. I know he doesn't endorse during the primaries, but how well I remember when he endorsed George H.W. Bush in 1992 right before the election at a gathering in New Jersey. We all have a choice: Obama or Romney. It is so elementary to me, without even thinking twice about it.

Rita Dumais| 4.12.12 @ 12:51PM

The RINO Bush I certainly ended up like a lot of those lawyers Republican presidents put on the Supreme Court—growing in office, and all that. Except, in his case, sad to report, he more closely resembles the con artist Obama, in that he hid his true colors enough to get picked as VP.

I used to be sure that Romney was quite moderate, but after paying much closer attention to the primaries this year—especially by reading the essential Jennifer Rubin---my mind has been changed.

A lot of right wing pundits who’ve clung to their animus against Mitt are going to look pretty stupid, after he wins the presidency AND governs at least as conservatively as Reagan did---this is my bet. It’s actually quite easy, even at this time, to see how this is so likely.

Divide a sheet of paper in half vertically, with Reagan’s name on one side and Romney’s on the other. Then, list their comparative stances and/or actual actions on all the appropriate issues. You name it---foreign policy, economics, social concerns: I’d say they were very similar.

Indeed, it would be good clean fun to do this exercise, and after removing the names from the top of the paper, ask all the Romney foes (the GOP types) to choose who is who. Can you say a distinction without a difference?

A lot of hard right people have tossed Ann Coulter onto the ash heap of history---she’s gone off the reservation! Well, as has become usual, her latest column wittily nails to the cross of cold-hearted-fools such halfwits.

HALF wits!

The debate between truly witty Ann Coulter and the half wits who believe they have heard enough to reject the one they previously adored is, by dint of nature or nurture, inherently unfair!

The true dummies will be smoked out.

Place your bets, gentle and strong men and women.

Only eight months to go---12-12-12

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 1:07PM

Gee, except Mitt Romney ran AGAINST Reagan and the Contract with America. And we have him doing it on video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQoBxZZPqU

But who are you gonna believe: MittBots or your own lying eyes?

Eric | 4.12.12 @ 12:52PM

Obama is good for some "conservatives"business. If he wins they win.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 1:10PM

If Obama wins we have a shot at a conservative president in 4 years.

If Romney wins, it's liberals running government for the next 8 years (either because he gets reelected or more likely he cocks it up and a Democrat wins in 2016) minimum.

And your stupid MittBot argument that Congress will "rein in" Mittens is a lot more plausible with Obama in the White House. Republicans are far likelier to oppose socialism pushed by a Democrat than one of their own.

randyinrocklin| 4.12.12 @ 1:11PM

the dream team of conservative governance, Romney, McConnell and Boehner! NOT!

Mike Rogers | 4.12.12 @ 1:34PM

HW Could have bee a great like Reagan or Thatcher, especially after his masterful coalition-building over the liberation of Kuwait: we didn't beg the UN for permission, we sold our idea and twisted arms with appropriate urgency, and got on with the job.
Instead, due to a lack of "the vision thing", something even "W" understood far better than his father, he finished his presidency looking like Dole: "the tax collector for the welfare state". A sad end for a great hero.
The big question is whether Romney can rise above his moderate self and genuinely express a vision to unite a big majority.

Tim| 4.12.12 @ 1:38PM

I think all of this is good conversation but nothing really matters until June when we will know the fate of Obama Care.

This decision will be a double edge sword.

On the one hand I hope the Supreme Court Strikes it down.....for the good of the Nation.

But if that happens....The Obama socialist Machine will be in over drive scaring the living daylights reminding folks that the Supremes gave us Bush in 2000 and two Wars etc etc. and now their Judges took your Health Care away etc etc.

The line will be that Obama will be a check and balance against these women hating civil rights hating and poor people hating and medicade hating Rich Reps and their puppets in the Courts.

Now we all know this will be garbage but.....in a bad economy and with a stiff elite candidate leading the way I see a potential disaster for Romney.

Politics change on a dime....as we all know....

My gut feeling having been around politics 40 some years is that if Obama Care Looses...(and I hope it does) Obama wins big in November.

Hense the double edge sword!

In this scenario the best we can hope for is to take over Senate and increase the House
and block Obama's radical Judicial Appointments

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 2:23PM

If Obamacare is struck down completely in June, would you be more or less likely to support Romney?

Gary| 4.12.12 @ 1:49PM

It is time to quit the rhetoric that keeps the party from healing and coming together. It is time you picked between Romney and Obama, and a no vote is a vote for Obama. Romney and his advisors will do what is right for this country, and he will ultimately write history as the next best record to Reagan in our lifetime.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 2:16PM

http://www.bing.com/images/sea.....25&first=0

Charles| 4.12.12 @ 1:59PM

This is a really interesting article -- with regard to history and the HGW Bush Administrations mistakes.

But it has NOTHING to do with Romney.

Its silly to say that Romney is running on Personality when the public perception is that he does not really have a personality.

Romney is absolutely running on principle and pretty much nothing else.

So this is a sort of silly argument presented here.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 2:16PM

Should be easy to articulate the principle he's running on, then.

What is it?

The American Hitman| 4.12.12 @ 3:36PM

name the principle....

His campaign was based solely on alleged electability, and now his defenders are lashing out because they know he can't make the sale to conservatives OR independents.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 3:55PM

Of course. I've been asking for months; they have nothing. Romney's record is so liberal that there's nothing there they can point to so they fill it in with empty utterances and wishful thinking:

http://www.bing.com/images/sea.....25&first=0

kurt2022| 4.12.12 @ 2:27PM

The ONLY reason to vote for Romney is to get Obama out! I feel pigeon holed again, how PAHETIC!

RJ| 4.12.12 @ 2:29PM

Good article Jeff. While I admire GHW Bush for the honorable life he has led, his presidency was a disappointment. Many of us voted for him as Reagan's successor. I wish I knew then that he was not on board from day one. Same was true with GW Bush. No wonder limited government conservatives are much less trusting these days.

Tim| 4.12.12 @ 2:42PM

If Obama Care is struck down of course I will vote against Obama as most contributors on this site will do.

The question is not what a few of us posting here on this thread will do but what a few million hurting social conservative folks will do in the swing States!

That's the real question for Romney and the Rinos running his campaign.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 2:48PM

Okay---if Obamacare is completely struck down in June, do you think social conservatives will be more or less likely to come out for Romney in the swing states?

I don't have an agenda with the question; I hadn't considered it and was wondering what you thought the impact might be.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 2:50PM

In other words, Romney's claims he will repeal Obamacare don't weigh with me at all. I think he'll make a half-hearted attempt and blame failure on not having enough Republicans in the Senate----which is what they always do and what he did in Mass.

So the status of Obamacare doesn't impact me at all.

For those conservatives who are expecting Romney to be their savior from Obamacare, I can imagine it might be different--but would their ardor cool if Obamacare was off the table?

It's an interesting question.

hobbyfarmer| 4.12.12 @ 2:43PM

He's spot on. It's the elder Bush's administration that made conservatives so gun shy of liberal Republicans and caused so many of us to apply the RINO term to so many non-ideological Republicans. Committment to principles first and then loyalty, not the reverse!! Otherwise, many of us won't vote for a second term, providing he can get enough of us to vote and elect him to the first term.

Frank Bitzer| 4.12.12 @ 2:59PM

Team Romney will ignore this solid advice. They're ready to shake the Etch-A-Sketch and draw a very moderate picture for Americans to vote for. He will lose.

Bill| 4.12.12 @ 3:37PM

VEEP Talk:
1. Chris Christie
Pros: NJ will turn RED, a fiscal hawk governor
Cons: declined
2. Pat Toomey
Pros: PA will turn RED
Cons: groundwork
3. Rob Portman
Pros: OH will flip RED
Cons: former Bush executive
4. Kelly Ayotte
Pros: The women votes
Cons: NH has only 4 electoral votes
5. Marco Rubio
Pros: The Latino votes
Cons: waterdowned DREAM Act
6. Jeb Bush
Pros: The Latino votes (he speaks fluent Spanish)
Cons: Bush dynasty
7. Mitch Daniel
Pros: signed the "Right-To-Work" law
Cons: name recognition
8. Bobby Jindal
Pros: "Reaganite" fiscal hawk southern governor
Cons: declined
9. Bob McDonald
Pros: Southern heritage
Cons: None!
AG: Pam Bondi (FL), Ken Kuccinalli (VA), Greg Abbott(TX).

And the VP nominee is......................................

Nick| 4.12.12 @ 3:52PM

http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_749403

You're a moron and a racist, Bigot Bill.
GO AWAY!

Bill| 4.12.12 @ 5:06PM

Nick is a stupid liberal.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 3:54PM

VEEP Talk:
1. Chris Christie
Pros: Ann Coulter will be delighted
Cons: Obese bully RINO
2. Pat Toomey
Pros: PA might be closer
Cons: Too conservative for RINOs
3. Rob Portman
Pros: OH may be competitive
Cons: who?
4. Kelly Ayotte
Pros: Won't outshine Romney
Cons: who?
5. Marco Rubio
Pros: Will piss off Democrats
Cons: Conservative star has fallen with Romney endorsement
6. Jeb Bush
Pros: Will piss off Hillary
Cons: Typical Bush RC RINO
7. Mitch Daniel
Pros: talks nice
Cons: cuckold
8. Bobby Jindal
Pros: broke Dem machine in LA
Cons: much better than Romney
9. Bob McDonald
Pros: Might be mistaken for Ronald
Cons: who?
AG: Chris Christie

Weak tea all around. Romney desperately needs to pick a real conservative but is too stupid to.

albert constantine jr.| 4.12.12 @ 4:43PM

I like your analysis more than Bill's serial post. Regarding #7, to you think the con listed there is why Biden got picked over Hillary?

albert constantine jr.| 4.12.12 @ 4:44PM

"Regarding #7, to you think " should be "do you think"...

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 4:48PM

Even seeing Bobby Jindal on the list surprised me. Do you think there's any chance whatsoever Romney would pick him?

Bill| 4.12.12 @ 5:10PM

considering Jindal's southern ties.

albert constantine jr.| 4.12.12 @ 9:33PM

T93

Jindal brings an excellent mix of legislative experience as a Congressman and executive experience as Governor and the Bush administration. He has some southern appeal with his accent and residence. For the diversity conscious, he reaches beyond the demographic of white male that Obama has already largely abandoned.

There are a few who steadfastly believe he does not meet the Constitutional definition of a natural born citizen (they also tend to disqualify Rubio by their interpretation), but I don't think their assessment of the state of the law is correct.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 10:12PM

And Jindal wasn't afraid to stand up to the Obama administration---a rare commodity these days.

I like the guy---he had the toughest of sledding in LA but has gotten things done without throwing his principles over the side.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 4:47PM

Yes, plus Obama not wanting Bill Clinton anywhere near the White House.

Bill| 4.12.12 @ 5:09PM

Teflon93, I loved your sense of humor, and I'm looking forward to having a civil discussion on politics going forward. Keep up!

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 5:46PM

No worries, Bill. Romney would be wise to pick a Southerner but I'm not sure he has any in his circle at this point.

Teflon93| 4.13.12 @ 9:34AM

Wouldn't Nikki Haley be a likely VP choice?

I think a bad one, given her stock is falling and her legal issues, but one irresistible to the Romneyites.

Clint| 4.12.12 @ 3:51PM

VP Candidates Don't Get Presidential Candidates Elected.

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

Mike Hawk| 4.12.12 @ 4:54PM

I gotta give credit where credit is due. The first line is spot on. Too bad nobody sees that and gets lost in trying figure out who is the most attractive.. (You spoiled it with the following cut and paste.) I'll just add, VP is and never has been a stepping stone to election to the POTUS to succeed the sitting Pres.

Clint| 4.12.12 @ 6:23PM

I Got Little Micky Hawklette Trained To Follow Me Around.

Now, Go Fetch Mitten's Ball Of Yarn.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 7:17PM

The VP pick is the Rice-A-Roni to the new car on "Wheel of Fortune".

ansonheath| 4.12.12 @ 3:56PM

Prediction: If the GOP wins both houses and the WH - and then does little or nothing, we won't have to argue about who or what in 2016. It will functionally kill the GOP as an effective political party. Unfortunately, our country might sink along with them. However, there is no other option now. As Ben Franklin said: "We all hang together, or we shall surely hang separately!"

Nick| 4.12.12 @ 4:16PM

Here is the definitive work on O'Romney, The Romney Book.
It is 200 pages of McLame's 2008 opposition research on Mr. Severely Conservative.

http://cdn2.dailycaller.com/20.....Romney.pdf

Enjoy!

Bill| 4.12.12 @ 5:16PM

Romney is not perfect. But he's the inevitable nominee, so get over with him. We need to talk about his VP nominee, and contribute our inputs, and that;s why I post my suggestions on the VP talk. I appreciate your rational thoughtful comments.

Clint| 4.12.12 @ 6:31PM

Obama Is A Tarpster, Where Romney Is A Tarpster.

Obama Orchestrated Obamacare,Where Romney Orchestrated Romneycare.

somnolence| 4.12.12 @ 6:01PM

All I can say to all of those on this page who are so keen to use inexhaustible resources to try and hamper Romney's campaign: you would best be served by supporting Obama rather than let your whimpering, tail tucked between your legs sour-grapes loser attitudes show through.

Clint| 4.12.12 @ 6:38PM

Call Your Mancrush Bibi, RINO-CINO Israel Firster Crybaby Somenonsense.

http://www.grimmemennesker.dk/.....people.jpg

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 7:18PM

Okay--great. We'll all go campaign for Obama.

You RINOs are extremely persuasive---I bet those moderate votes are going to come over to Mittens en bloc!

Simon Templar| 4.12.12 @ 6:07PM

At this point, I am not sure anyone might be interested due to exhaustion and intensity of this thread, but I will offer my opinion on this conundrum we are all in...

First, let me point out that it is certainly possible that many of you are correct, you are just seeing the elephant from different directions.

Tef made a comment whereby he refered to the ruling class which reminded me of Codevillas book, The Ruling Class. I suggest that many of you need to read it or read it again.

Now, many of Tefs comments and analysis about Romney, the GOP, and the general state of disaray we are in, are spot on. He certainly has the right to vote anyway he wants. Many of his arguments make a lot of sense but there is an underlying assumption that is the fly in the ointment.

It struck me, Tef when you wrote,
"If Obama wins we have a shot at a conservative president in 4 years."

Why? What will be different than what is going on today? Except perhaps more intense assault and destruction on this Republic and the opportunity for the most extreme elements of this ruling class to have free and flexible reign to finish the job in destroying the Republic and transforming it.
No, I also do not buy, as well, the idea that a Republican congress will keep anyone in check. They are barely doing anything now to slow this down as that same ruling class controls the going ons in D.C.

So, what do we have? We can give Obama free reign to finish the job and create an even much higher pile of destruction or we can do everything we can to get him out and support the opposition candidate as squishy as he is, but more inclined at worst to just slow things down or best actually initiate a few meaningful reforms that might buy us some more time to save this Republic and work on building a new political party that actually represents the "country class' that Codevilla has described.

One thing is clear and Tef nailed it. It is all the workings of the progressive ruling class and their machinations and manipulations. Right now, we will play the game and pull the lever as it suits our ultimate interest, as real conservatives, in the long run.

If Obama wins, I can not assume that we have any better shot at a real conservative than we have had at any other time in the past century. This ruling class will launch just another push and pull manipulation as they have done so many times before. What is really going to change things is the vast majority being finally educated and reasonably orgainized and informed of the whole game itself. I do not rely on the stupidity and folly of the democrats to do this for us or present these follies in way that "wakes people up." They will spin this any way they want and you can be damn sure conservativism will be blamed as they have done exactly this time and time again and very well. This is where we all come in. This is much more involved and bigger then just getting one conservative guy elected. It is about fundmental change, to borrow a phrase, in our political system and the emergence of a new and truly powerful and representative party of the 66 percent. We have to stop relying on the GOP portion of this ruling group to provide us with what we want or the vain hope that if the democrats just screw things up so badly, it will somehow awaken the electorate and bring about the end of progressivism.

Just a few things to consider....

Tef, you are spirited and intelligent. Keep posting.
Remember, there is more than one way to skin a cat and more than one road to get where we want to go....

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 7:26PM

"It struck me, Tef when you wrote,
"If Obama wins we have a shot at a conservative president in 4 years."

Fair question, Simon.

Here's my hypothetical, for what it's worth:

1. Obama has very cleverly backloaded the pain of his policies. Bernanke is printing money like a fiend, but inflation is bottled up for the most part because reserve requirements mean companies are terrified to let any of it hit the street. There's about $3.5 T sitting in their coffers now. It won't filter out until after the election. Likewise, as bad as the budget situation is, the impact of the interest won't really hit until Obama's second term. Ditto Obamacare---which I don't believe the Court will overturn completely.

2. As a result, Obama's popularity is actually artificially high at the moment. The media's playing up the propaganda and BLS is playing with the unemployment numbers to keep it so. But they're running out of time.

3. Romney winning means that big turdpile hits the doorstep on his watch. He will have to do what Reagan did---crank up interest rates skyhigh, turn off the money tap, allow foreclosures to resume, and tip the country into a year or so of hard recession. He doesn't have the brains or guts to do what needs to be done, so instead he'll raise taxes, micromanage the finance industry, and make things worse. That's what technocrats do.

4. The GOP will be blamed for ALL of it.

5. in 2016, Romney will likely get whipped---as will the GOP downticket.

6. We'll then have a situation like CA has with Jerry Brown---another crazy liberal in control of the whole of the government.

The alternative is let Obama take the blast when it hits the fan, hopefully with a GOP Congress.

It isn't much of an alternative, but we need a CONSERVATIVE in charge and the GOP RINO Establishment screwed us out of one.

squalis| 4.12.12 @ 8:34PM

So, let me understand this. You think when that turdpile you speak of hits Obama's doorstep next term, Obama and the libs will be blamed, not the GOP. You need to rethink your reality.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 9:11PM

Didn't Carter get justified blame for double-digit interest rates, unemployment, and stagflation?

There is an historical parallel there at least.

There is absolutely none for Mitt Romney, Latent Conservative or The Great Restraining Congress.

Mike| 4.12.12 @ 11:50PM

Teflon doesn't do reality. He does spite and name calling and this is how he will build a new poltical party to beat the Democrats.

Teflon93| 4.13.12 @ 9:33AM

Mike's delusional. Anyone see Mike offer a fact or an argument yet?

Mike| 4.12.12 @ 11:47PM

I thought it was the voters in the primaries that didn't vote for your candidate. Now you tell me the ESTABLISHMENT and not the voters did it.
You are a dimwit and paranoid.

Teflon93| 4.13.12 @ 9:33AM

You are a loser and a bootlicking apparatchik.

You are also the most ignorant poster on this board, since even your fellow MittBots aren't quite so stupid as to deny that Their Man Mitt had the GOP Establishment in his pocket before the primary began---and that that was where his money and primary schedule/rule advantage came from.

But in the spirit of educating even so invincible an idiot as you, go look at the VA ballot changes which kept everyone but Paul and Romney off a crucial swing state primary ballot.

With morons like you voting, it's frankly a wonder we don't even get bigger losers than Romney at the helm.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 7:28PM

And you're right---given that the GOP Establishment screwed us with McLame and had the audacity to run the exact same playbook all over again with Mittens (minus the war hero), I don't think the Republican Party is reformable.

I think the answer is for the GOP to go the way of the Whigs and for a real conservative party---the Tea Party---to arise.

Mike| 4.12.12 @ 11:49PM

With people like you in this new party you could not win a dog catcher election.

Teflon93| 4.13.12 @ 9:30AM

Without people like me in your party the GOP won't win a school board election.

As will soon be clear.

Marc Jeric| 4.12.12 @ 7:49PM

Even the wimp Bush the First could have won over that impeached and disbarred felon Clinton but for the presence of that pipsqueek Perot. Twice! They always reported what Bush the First was - ambassador to China, the CIA Chief, etc. - but never what he did exactly there! Nothing - that's what! A "decent" man but unread in history, economics, literature, etc. An innocent!

shipley130| 4.12.12 @ 8:15PM

Maybe we can truly blame the elder Bush for the stupid, Kinder and Gentler nation we have now. Now that is a Blame Bush mantra I can agree with. Oh, and don't forget One World Government, yaaalllll.

TeaPartyPatriot4ever| 4.12.12 @ 10:38PM

Reagan Conservatives never liked Bush, any of them from GHW to GW to Jeb , and never will. The Bush's are all GOP Republican Party establishment RINOs.

The only reason they were are all in the Presidential White House picture, is because of Ronald Reagan and the Reagan Conservatives, not because they were a Republican.

Let me tell you why- The "connection" to a real conservative, President Ronald Reagan.

If it weren't for Ronald Reagan choosing GHW Bush as his VP, the Bush's would never have been elected President, period. This connection is the only reason they were selected by conservatives over others in the 1988 election, as well as the 2000 election. American conservatives do not love, nor have they ever loved the Bush's.

Romney stated he is a progressive Republican and denounced Ronald Reagan and Reagan Conservatism. Romney is the antithesis of Ronald Reagan.

Thus, Romney who is a progressive GOP RINO elitist, is on the wrong side of Reaganomics and Conservatism.

somnolence| 4.12.12 @ 10:52PM

There is no assurance there will be an election in 2016 if Obama is reelected in 2012. The Tea Party is already well on its way to being a nonentity, and yeah, Clint, I'll side with Bibi over your sorry Paulbot ass any time. At least there is a man who does fight.

Nick| 4.13.12 @ 12:46AM

"There is no assurance there will be an election in 2016 if Obama is reelected in 2012."

Ah, yes, the RINO Chicken Little message for 2012:
"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!.
(Unless you vote for O'Romney.)"

Which will guarantee an O'Bama victory in November.
Candidates don't win elections by getting the people to vote AGAINST the other guy.

Strong Christian| 4.15.12 @ 11:55PM

"Candidates don't win elections by getting the people to vote AGAINST the other guy."

Keep trying to push your fantasy. Hopefully there will be more of us who are reality based voting AGAINST Obama by voting for WHOMEVER becomes the Republican nominee.

Teflon93| 4.13.12 @ 9:28AM

The Tea Party is responsible for the greatest GOP congressional gains since 1948----and bigger than the tidal wave of 1994----just two years ago.

Romney must be for legalizing drugs as you're clearly on something.

Magic Underwear| 4.13.12 @ 12:44AM

BELIEVE IN IT! DON'T QUESTION IT!

TommyFrisco| 4.13.12 @ 1:13AM

Mr. Lord,
Thanks for another great post and another attempt to continue Reagan's efforts. Sadly, we have failed, again, to support a conservative candidate for the GOP nomination. We didn't support Thompson in 2008 because the media convinced us he didn't have fire in his belly. We didn't support Gingrich because of his two failed marriages and he sat on a couch with Pelosi to open the debate about global warming. Instead we chose McCain in '08 and are now choosing Romney who is more of a big Gov't RINO than even John McCain. And, we'll gripe and complain about the MSM and the GOP Establishment even though it is clear that many of us voted for Romney in the primary because they believed he is more electable in November...because the MSM and the GOP Establishment told them so.

I'd like to ask those conservatives a few questions as I'm sure you would too:
1. Who stood up against GHWB and the Establishment in regards to raising taxes? Gingrich.
2. Did Santorum ever stand up against the GOP Establishment? No.
3. What would Romney have done? Supported GHWB in rasing taxes.

Maybe, someday, we'll figure out that the most electable candidate can be the most conservative candidate if we will simply support and vote for that conservative candidate. Until then, we're going to keep repeating this same cycle every four years.

BTW, I will vote for Romney in November. Our current POTUS is using a fake identity. He is a liar, a fraud, and an imposter. In a sane world, he wouldn't be running for re-election, he'd be sitting in a prison cell.

Magic Underwear| 4.13.12 @ 2:09AM

Hear, Hear!

ZinnSlayer| 4.13.12 @ 2:54AM

You lost me at "Yes" on page 4.

Nick099| 4.13.12 @ 10:22AM

Mitt reminds me a lot of GWB...He's a likable guy....just average in intellectual prowess and understanding of the issues though. In his public performance and speaking he is more articulate, but when he goes off-script...boy does he start to stutter.

TeaPartyPatriot4ever| 4.13.12 @ 11:02AM

Just like GHW Bush and the GOP RINO establishment hated Constitutional Conservative Ronald Reagan and all Conservatives back then, so do Romney and the GOP RINO establishment do today, and they will get the same results today as they did back then.

He is a self proclaimed Mass. moderate progressive establishment Republican, aka a liberal, aka a RINO..

He personally publically denounced Ronald Reagan and Reagan Conservatism, thus he is the Republican antithesis of Ronald Reagan.

Romney is the worst possible choice of all choices as the Republican Party Nominee, as he is not a conservative, let alone a Republican politician of opposite ideology and political policies of Obama.

Here's how to expose the GOP Romney RINO establishment hypocrisy-

As a Conservative, let alone as a Republican, how does one defend a Ted Kennedy collaborated forced mandated substandard inferior State Socialized Medicine entitlement program law that bankrupts the residents, citizens, and Independent businesses and companies in the Free Market Capitalist Free Enterprise system of a State, let alone the Nation, but then turns around and argues that he must repeal Obamacare, the very same thing he implemented and refuses to refute and repeal in his on State called Romneycare."

Obama will eat Romney alive in his own world of Socialist programs and policies, that Romney supported and implemented himself as Gov.

For all intents and purposes, Romney should be Obama's running mate.

What will they debate, how much each of them loves inferior substandard force mandated State Socialized Medicine programs like Obamacare and Romneycare.. How they both love Global warming cap and trade policies and programs.. How they both love crony capitalism to prop up govt, and stifle the Free Market economy.. How much they both love social welfare programs.. How much they both love to spend and borrow and tax.. How much they both support abortion rights, and how much they both lie about everything they say and do, and use blame game excuses for political plausible deniability, etc, etc, etc..

The Truth speaks for itself, and all the Romney GOP Progressive Republican RINO propaganda and delusional denial by all the progressive RINO Romney-ites in the world cannot hide it, let alone makes taste any better.

This is why Conservatives are not necessarily Republicans, and Republicans are not necessarily Conservatives.

I, along with millions of other Tea Party Reagan Conservatives, will never support and vote for Mr. liberal progressive Republican GOP RINO Romney, period. !

Strong Christian| 4.15.12 @ 11:57PM

Please, do us all a favor, along with your other self-righteous nincompoop pals- go register as a Democrat.

topeka| 4.13.12 @ 11:08AM

Dear Mittbots,

As a conservative voter - I have over the years voted for the most conservative candidate in the race - usually accepting that I would get the shaft, but the nation would be better off with socialism-lite than real socialism.

A problem has now arisen that comes to all conservatives sooner or later:

Reality + Memory = bu11cr0p.

If we vote for Rombama - and accept new insults for conservatives, and a new farther left goalpost for the nation: Even if he tries (I mean please - do conservatives believe in unicorns now?), even if, he will elect "O"^3 in 2016. If the internationalists drop the boom on him in Sept. 16, (if they can wait that long-they are always letting their hate get in the way of our total destruction), we will have "O"^4. Probably someone with the middle name of Mao, who thinks North Korea is a paradise.

HW gave us Clinton. W seized the nomination with the same help as HW. (I remember the Texans warning us - but we held our nose and voted anyway.) Kerry gave us Bush2, and his weakness and lack of "ideology" (i.e. "growing up") gave us "O." O2 will give us? What? What will be different under RO1 than under B1? (Hint; nothing assuming RO moves one time zone to the right.) So - RO1 will give us? O3. Any doubts? Our voters are dying - their voters are increasing in number (and violence).

Now - we can and should vote for Rombama - but anyone (like Coulter) who doesn't see the problem is in D'Nile. We need a Congress that will treat RO as one cut better than the Dem's and keep his feet to the fire - preferably with a flame thrower.

What we need to do now is focus on local and state elections - rather than fighting over the Obama-lite candidate our "masters" have selected for us.

Be careful what you wish for - you may get it.

Teflon93| 4.13.12 @ 11:57AM

Let me pile on the pessimism by noting we have NEVER had a GOP congress hold a GOP president's feet to the fire. Indeed, Boehner and McConnell have refused to hold this Democrat president's feet to the fire---even on issues 2/3 of Americans disagree with him on, even when they have total power to do so (as on the debt ceiling and continuing budget resolution/government spending issue).

Boehner in particular has been actively subverting Tea Party candidates and interfering in primaries to ensure the RINO candidate wins.

Let's not kid ourselves of the prospect for the GOP to be a conservative party again---if they didn't become one after Tea Party conservatives gave them 56 more House seats just two years ago, they aren't going to. Period.

Connie| 4.13.12 @ 11:32AM

I agree with you, Mr. Lord, but Romney is not a guy who will stomach the conservative base. He's a McCain type. He may try to play to the base by phony quips here and there, even pulling a conservative for VP like McCain did. As popular as Sarah Palin was, she wasn't enough to overcome McCain. Nominating Romney is the worst possible thing the GOP can do this year. I suspect it will be their ultimate downfall. The base have had enough of this nonsense.

Teflon93| 4.13.12 @ 11:59AM

RINOs think Palin was why McCain lost. That's what the consensus at David Frum's G-town cocktail parties was.

Mitt Romney isn't likely to pick a conservative VP because everybody around him thinks like Frum.

somnolence| 4.13.12 @ 1:20PM

No, Mr. Uninformed, The Tea Party AND the GOP were responsible for the gains. One simply can't win without the other, and you are certainly the one toking if you can't see that.

Teflon93| 4.13.12 @ 1:34PM

How'd the 2006 and 2008 cycles go? No Tea Party candidates then....

Whoops. you're wrong again. Quite a habit you've got there---better taper off before DEA comes around with jars....

somnolence| 4.13.12 @ 2:00PM

That's right, NEITHER the Tea Party or the mainstream GOP could salvage a victory on those years. Keep deluding yourself-----there will be a GENUINE Tea Party candidate when pigs fly, thank God!!

Teflon93| 4.13.12 @ 2:23PM

The "thank God" gives you away as a RINO tool---although you people only tend to invoke God to curse.

1854 - GOP founded.
1856 - Whigs disband.
1860 - Republicans win White House, House, and Senate.

The Republican Party---stuffed stem-to-stern with power-hungry whores like yourself---will go the way of the Whigs and far sooner than you think.

somnolence| 4.13.12 @ 2:02PM

I seriously doubt that YOU can even define the IDEAL Tea Party candidate, and neither can the author of this piece. There, now smart guys prove me wrong, somehow, some year, some time-----very, VERY, far away.

Teflon93| 4.13.12 @ 2:27PM

Very simple:

1. Cut the size of government in absolute terms in each and every year of his/her term.

See how easy that is? Ideal Tea Party candidate.

BTW, the reason the Republican Party exists in the first place is it had a similarly simple objective at its founding:

1. Abolish slavery.

You see, the Whigs were corrupt and interested only in power at that point. They refused to engage on the most important issue of the day out of cowardice and self-interest. And so those with principles sought another vehicle for those principles.

That's where your party came from.

Now go pull the lever for the magic (-R), genius.

nathan| 4.13.12 @ 4:43PM

Most of what is being written here is a waste of time. Reagan tax cuts, Reagan tax increases. Bush tax hikes, Bush deficits, Obama deficits. It amazes me, just amazes me to see so many people who don't know or won't discuss subjects based on the fundamentals of the Constitution which "conservatives" very few which exist any more, supposedly know by heart.

Repeat after me class, all, repeat all spending bills, all revenue bills, all bills tax, anything regarding finances originate in one place and one place only in this government. With the president? No. The senate? No. Supreme Court? No. Can the President arbitrarily on his own by the stroke of a pen with no other action by anyone else raise taxes, raise spending, do anything along these lines? No. Where repeat where for all you people who claim to know the Constitution, where do ALL spending, tax, revenue, spending you name it bills originate?

The House of Representatives and only there. They then go to the Senate, they can be discussed in House/Senate conference committees, but at the end of the day, the end of the process, all presidents can do is sign the bills or veto them.

To be sure they can propose budgets, but those constitute "suggestions" only. Show me the article of the Constitution that says the House is in any way bound by what the president sends up. Show me. You can't.

There are by the rules of this government no presidential tax cuts, no presidential deficits, no nothing. We can talk about Pelosi deficits if you will, or Boehner deficits, but strictly according to the Constitution, there are no such things as presidential deficits. There is no such thing as Obama care. That bill originated in the House too. All he did was sign at the end.

The Constitution is what it is. You want constitutional government, try to act like you all know what it is. That means getting the language right.

Class is dismissed. By the way, we're not a democracy either. Just thought I would throw that in too.

Enjoy your weekend.

Teflon93| 4.13.12 @ 8:05PM

Wait---does that mean Romney won't "repeal Obamacare" either?

somnolence| 4.13.12 @ 7:16PM

No, I genuinely thank God for answering my prayers in this instance. There will NEVER be a Tea Party President. As a matter of fact I can boldly state there were no Tea Party CANDIDATES this year. Gingrich is from the Establishment and supported Dede Scazzofava. So Tef, you are the true "whore" who follows the Judas turn and tries to twist it to his own whims. You also seem to be very sure of who has the true religious devotion and who doesn't. I'm sure Jesus would frown upon that.

Teflon93| 4.13.12 @ 8:04PM

Given Jesus founded a Church and was quite specific concerning it, you shouldn't be so sure on that score, somnolence.

What is obvious is that you are the typical RINO. One thing you can be sure of is that your little gang of weasels will go the way of the Whigs---well before those clouds of glory appear in the Eastern sky.

Strong Christian| 4.16.12 @ 12:09AM

"The Church". A misnomer.

There is no "Church" in the New Testament, and it doesn't mean the Catholic church, either.

The original Greek says, assemblies, not church.

And all who are born of His Spirit are members of His Body.

"and He “put all things under His feet”
and gave Him to be Head over all things to
the Assembly, Psa. 8:6
23 which is His body: the fullness of the
One filling all things in all.." Eph. 1:22 & 23.

"So also it has been written, “The” first
“man”, Adam, “became a living soul;” the
last Adam a Spirit giving life. Gen. 2:7
But not the spiritual first, but the natural;
afterward the spiritual.
The first man was out of earth, an
earthy one. The second Man was the Lord
out of Heaven. Gen. 2:7
Such as is the earthy man, such also
are the earthy ones. And such as is the Heavenly
Man, such also are the Heavenly ones." 1 Cor. 15:45-48.

And a Heavenly one you and your friends are not!

leveut| 4.13.12 @ 11:00PM

Jeffrey Lord should ask for something possible.

Wankel| 4.15.12 @ 12:08AM

Dear Old Poppy. Not worth a crap really. And then there was "Dubya". Not worth a crap either. And soon, there will be big-time Jeb. Seems we can always look to the Bush family for our salvation, eh?

Marie| 4.17.12 @ 9:59AM

Why are people expecting anything more from Romney? At this stage in the game, most conservatives have realized "ABO 2012" is the best we can do.

A. Hick| 4.17.12 @ 3:10PM

The title of this article should be "The GOP's 'POB' (Party of Bush) Problem."

It has become just that. The political gangsters that are the Bush family destroyed the Republican Party, helped turn it from a somewhat conservative party into an elitist party that caters exclusively to the interests of a speculator class and that must rely on reactionary wedge politics in order to barely win elections against candidates that would be unelectable otherwise.

The thinking middle has rightfully abandoned the GOP. So what will they do to remedy this? Nominate Crown Prince John Ellis in 2016.

Latest Headlines

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|97 comments

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord|99 comments

Obama’s Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield|56 comments

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut|24 comments

The Woman Who Wrote Liberty Valance

Bill Croke|31 comments

Not Super, But Pretty Good

Aaron Goldstein|19 comments

The Loss of Trust

Thomas Sowell|32 comments

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|88 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 6.18.13

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Are Young People Souring on Obama?

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

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

By P.J. O'Rourke

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

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

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

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

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

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

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

The American Spectator

Political Hay

The Mitt H.W. Bush Problem

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (340) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Jack in Wi.| 4.12.12 @ 7:20AM

Con Chef (NB) | 4.12.12 @ 10:02AM

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 10:14AM

Con Chef (NB) | 4.12.12 @ 10:31AM

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 10:49AM

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 10:52AM

Con Chef (NB) | 4.12.12 @ 11:08AM

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 11:19AM

Con Chef (NB) | 4.12.12 @ 11:34AM

Crassus| 4.12.12 @ 12:11PM

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 7:03PM

Occam's Tool| 4.12.12 @ 12:15PM

Clint| 4.12.12 @ 12:33PM

Occam's Tool| 4.12.12 @ 8:56PM

Teflon93| 4.13.12 @ 1:24PM

Drek| 4.12.12 @ 6:04PM

Teflon93| 4.13.12 @ 1:25PM

Bob James| 4.12.12 @ 6:52PM

Teflon93| 4.13.12 @ 1:24PM

Con Chef (NB) | 4.12.12 @ 10:57AM

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 11:17AM

Con Chef (NB) | 4.12.12 @ 11:42AM

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 11:51AM

Tom Osterman| 4.12.12 @ 11:53AM

Tom| 4.12.12 @ 6:33PM

Overdubbed| 4.12.12 @ 2:02PM

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 2:13PM

Tom| 4.12.12 @ 6:29PM

Strong Christian| 4.16.12 @ 12:31AM

The American Hitman| 4.12.12 @ 10:38AM

Gregory Kyle| 4.12.12 @ 1:20PM

A Sphincter Says What?| 4.12.12 @ 11:57PM

Occam's Tool| 4.12.12 @ 8:55PM

Vern Crisler | 4.12.12 @ 11:59AM

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 12:07PM

TrueBlue | 4.12.12 @ 3:29PM

Tom| 4.12.12 @ 6:26PM

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 7:05PM

A Sphincter Says What?| 4.13.12 @ 12:07AM

Teflon93| 4.13.12 @ 10:56AM

StainlessCoder| 4.17.12 @ 6:04PM

Tom| 4.12.12 @ 7:24AM

The American Hitman| 4.12.12 @ 10:48AM

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 10:50AM

Tom| 4.12.12 @ 6:17PM

richard ryan| 4.12.12 @ 11:47AM

Tom| 4.12.12 @ 6:05PM

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 7:07PM

Tom| 4.12.12 @ 7:32AM

Kitty | 4.12.12 @ 8:20AM

Tom| 4.12.12 @ 6:27PM

Tom| 4.12.12 @ 8:10AM

fmm| 4.12.12 @ 9:23AM

Clint| 4.12.12 @ 9:29AM

The American Hitman| 4.12.12 @ 10:51AM

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 10:53AM

StainlessCoder| 4.17.12 @ 6:23PM

Harry the Horrible| 4.12.12 @ 10:55AM

Tom| 4.12.12 @ 6:07PM

cali| 4.12.12 @ 8:12AM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.12.12 @ 8:18AM

Dai Alanye | 4.12.12 @ 11:49AM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.12.12 @ 12:12PM

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 1:03PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.12.12 @ 1:26PM

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 1:37PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.12.12 @ 2:56PM

Nick| 4.12.12 @ 2:01PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.12.12 @ 2:52PM

Nick| 4.12.12 @ 3:15PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.12.12 @ 3:32PM

Nick| 4.12.12 @ 3:47PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.12.12 @ 3:54PM

Nick| 4.12.12 @ 4:11PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.12.12 @ 3:33PM