So Tell Me About Mitt Romney
I’ve been dreading this day, because even when I asked you to tell me about other candidates, you told me about Mitt Romney.
While the MSM tells us that Sarah Palin is the most divisive Republican, I don’t think that’s true in the Republican primaries.
Please hold on one second while I brace myself.
Okay, now I’m ready.
So tell me about Mitt Romney.
Update: For a reasoned argument against Romney and in favor of Pawlenty, read this. (via HotAir)
So tell me about Tim Pawlenty, Newt, Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman.
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Perhaps Mitt can answer that himself.
I like Romney: he's intelligent, well-meaning, and experienced. I also don't want him as President; his support for and (tortured) defense of the MA healthcare plan tells me he has too much of a statist streak in him at a time when we need someone willing to cut back the size of the federal government heavily — take a cleaver to it, not a scalpel. Romney isn't that guy.
Politically, I also don't think he has the ability to connect with most voters on a gut level. Remember, in the 2008 primaries, he couldn't buy a win in a contested primary no matter how much he spent. For a businessman, it was a terrible return on his investment. (I think the only one he won was Michigan, which McCain didn't contest.)
I'd be happy to see him as Treasury Secretary, where I think he could do real good, or as Veep, but I don't see him winning the nomination for POTUS.
Not.a.real.Republican. Thinks he is, but fails to understand where the GOP needs to go to lead us back from the abyss. He would, instead, give us 4 more years of the last 4 administrations – essentially solving nothing and kicking the can further down the road.
I disagree with pubsecrets re: Romney's role in 2012. I'd rather see him as Ambassador to a major ally, should we still have any by then.
May 24, 2011 11:00 AM
So tell me about Mitt Romney.
I was able to hold my nose for McCain… holding my nose for Romney would be less difficult… and that's about all the good I have to say about his Presidential prospects.
I wanted to vote for Mitt last election but he was out by the time we had a chance to have our say in PA. Personally I think he was a far better candidate than McCain and I will be his new best friend if he manages to get the nomination this time round. I should add I will be the new best friend of anyone who gets the GOP nomination but I could support Romney with a clear conscience.
I have a friend on facebook who is a MA conservative. Though she has thrown in the the towel on Scott Brown she is very supportive of Romney. A Romney supporter makes a pretty impassioned case for him on one of her recent posts. I can't vouch for the authenticity of all his claims but I think it is worth looking at to get a different perspective about Romney aside from the usual.
I would prefer to vote for Paul Ryan, he is my ideal candidate this election since I believe he is in the race by default anyway. I think he would be the best person to make the case for his plans and budget and I would love to see him run rings around Obama in a debate. I am losing hope I will see that this election. If Ryan is not a candidate I am not sold 100% on anyone but I think we should give everyone fair consideration.
Romneycare vs Obamacare. Yeah, that's the narrative that is going to win it for the GOP. Follows the pattern of the GOP losing 2006 and 2008 over amnesty and then cramming the father of amnesty as the GOP candidate. Brilliant!
On the other hand, Trump is sending out indications that he is not necessarily staying out of the race. Woohoo!
" … the MSM tells us that Sarah Palin is the most divisive Republican …"
Agitprop narrative, but I think you know that.
Things come down around the Romney family. A car company, a state, another state, several campaigns. The spirit isn't rampant there. Wealthy and privileged in a relatively small orbit but not expansive. The lack of expansion is evident in the tailoring and manicure. Lacks that certain insouciant whatsit, that ineffable power trending forwards and upwards that makes things grow up rather than collapse down. Elan vital Bergson calls it. Essentially small-minded. Lidded, top closed, not open. Sort of chap who explodes sideways when squeezed. Not, therefore, C-i-C material. Insufficient spirit (power and meaning combined).
No support from me.
I don't like him.
RomneyCare is breaking MA and the only reason it hasn't gone bust is federal dollars. I.E. RomneyCare was and still is being bailed out. Mitt has yet to admit this failure and this is a pattern with him as it is with Obama. We don't need a GOP version of Obama.
The gay marriage issue was also classic Romney, it doesn't matter what side of the debate you stand upon, it is how Romney weaseled the deal under the guise of legality. Claiming the State Supreme Court ordered the legislature to pass a bill that he MUST sign is not only personal cowardice on taking a stand on the issue, flipflopping after telling voters during the election he wouldn't, it is a frightening lack of respect for the consent of the governed and the rule of Law. What's next, Gingsburg tells President Romney he has to legalize all illegal aliens which he then promptly does? Apparently, elections and representations don't mean anything, just what some small group of self appointed elites decide. That is not democracy, that is the tyranny of meritocracy. Again, just like Obama, Romney says one thing knowing full well he intends to do the exact opposite in the name of enlightenment. Does the POTUS represent the people or does he rule them? Liberals have great difficulties in understanding the difference between those two ideas.
Romney is a liberal, no question about it.
Romney isn't conservative nor for small-government. His record speaks volumes. He is also, like Newt, dishonest and inconsistent. I don't even know why he is mentioned as a worthy candidate, and I'm very suspicious for why he'd do well on any poll of Republicans nation-wide.
The Western White House, 2013?
Maybe the question you should ask is, If Romney is the Republican nominee, will you vote for him?
(Btw, I had lots of problems commenting here earlier.)
Start by checking mittromneyisatool.com
mittromneyisatool is brutal and pretty funny. Did I just break the 11th Commandment?
Tea Party to GOP: NO ARRANGED MARRIAGE!!!!!
Good hair. Romneycare.
The Democrats knew Romney would have his eye on the presidency after he left office and set Romney up years ago to fail in his presidential quest by passing healthcare legislation for him to sign, and they gleefully called it RomneyCare. Checkmate? And, for the life of me, I do not understand why Romney continues to support that legislative monstrosity when he could have backtracked so easily by saying (1) without his oversight and input the legislation would have been far worse for the citizens of MA and (2) the Dems had such a stranglehold on the legislature they would have easily overridden his veto. Thus, I can only surmise that his ego will not let him admit what a failure RomneyCare has been or, he truly believes in government having a large role in controlling access to healthcare.
Either way, I think he has dug such a hole for himself that it is going to be difficult for him to persuade enough of the Independents (I like to call them Indifferent) to become POTUS. It goes without saying the country will be in far more capable hands under Romney than having to fear a Barack Obama let loose on our constitutional republic for four more years with a pen to sign more “Teutonic” Executive Orders, appointment more unaccountable czars to accelerate the fundamental transformation of America, continue to increase spending as we speed into the financial abyss while shredding the Constitution – especially in regards to the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of government.
Personally, I am a big fan of Cain and Bachmann and truly believe either one would make an outstanding president but, if neither one makes it to the finish line, I will have no problem getting behind Romney. The country is in dire need of competence in the executive branch and Romney’s career shows that competence is one of the qualities he will definitely bring to the job as well as a resume full of executive experience.
Romneycare is enough.
I'm betting (an prayin) Sarah is still holding out till November. That will provide out anti=american president to do something else to show he is above us.
Romney, not a guy you want as president.
He's your better, and he lets you know it.
But here's a solid reason. He has no respect for the separation of powers. In 2003 our state's highest court said that gay marriage would become legal 6 months after its rulings.
A court made out and out law, overturning 000s of years of societal understanding of what marriage was. Who made the SJC the decider of self-government.
John Adams himself said in 1780 when the MA constitution was written that there must be complete separation of the 3 powers. Famous Art. 30 reads, "Article XXX. In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men."
Well, the SJC crumpled that piece of paper by making gay marriage. AND MITT LET THE COURT RULING STAND WITHOUT CHALLENGE.
Mitt is nothing but a Profile in Putty, and changes his mind all too conveniently. If he won’t stand up to a liberal, activist court, I’m to believe he’ll stand up to the forces which will be trying to insert Sharia into our lives.
Whether gay marriage should be legal or not was a matter solely within the jurisdiction of the people through their legislative reps. NOT through the courts.
And Mitt went along with it all.
Now add in RomneyCare and you have a good assessment of Mitt Romeny.
Mitt is your basic Ken doll – perfect hair, plastic smile, no balls.
He reminds me of obama. He has taken every position available on every issue.
He will NOT be getting my vote. I would rather have four more of obama, just so EVERYONE can see just how stupid we were to elect this bunch of collectivist ninnies in the first place, and maybe just maybe we will be done playing with leftist ideology.
I'm a Mormon. In early 2007, when I heard that another Mormon was running for president, my first thought literally was "Just get out of the race early so you don't embarrass us." Not that I expected any Republican to win in '08, and certainly not Rudy Giuliani, but I "knew" the country was not going to elect a Mormon, and I just wanted to avoid all the stand-up comics for the next couple of years with all the polygamy jokes.
And then Hugh Hewitt published a book called "A Mormon in the White House?" that laid out Romney's strengths, his weaknesses, and those of the GOP field at the time, as well as addressing the "Mormon problem". The more I read the book, the more I started saying to myself, "This is the man who Should be president", and I stopped caring about all the detractors.
Mitt Romney is exactly the man we need as president. There is not a problem currently facing the country that he cannot handle. The economy: do I really need to list the ways in which he is perfect for saving the economy? He said "Let Detroit go bankrupt"; one very large government bailout later, it went bankrupt. He saved the 2002 Winter Olympics when all anyone could talk about was how no one could save them. He turned a multi-billion-dollar deficit in Massachusetts into a billion-dollar surplus without raising taxes. He is the man most directly responsible for saving Brookstone, Domino's Pizza, Sealy Mattress, Sports Authority, and Staples, along with countless others. Donald Trump may have made more money in his life, but Romney's the man who's most likely to have created a business at which you've been a customer.
National security: show me one candidate on either side who's more of a security hawk than Romney is. He was against closing of Guantanamo when both the Republican and Democratic candidates for president were calling for its closure, and guess what? It's still open. He's already known around the world from his time competing directly with Asia, Europe, South America, and Canada and Mexico in business, not to mention from his world stage in the 2002 Olympics. He routinely educates himself on a wide range of issues, and national security is one of them. While Herman Cain insists on "waiting" and Ron Paul insists on bringing home every troop outside our borders, Romney has met with commanders and generals throughout the military, visited the Middle East multiple times, was Commander-in-Chief of the Massachusetts National Guard, and even handled a great deal of security-related issues during the Olympics (which took place in the shadow of 9/11).
Small government and social conservatism: again, he did not raise a single tax as governor. Despite what he may have said while running, when he was faced with actual life-and-death issues, he acted in the interests of life 100% of the time. When the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was legal in the state because it would take a constitutional amendment to make it otherwise, he began to work on a constitutional amendment. He never called a "truce" on social issues, and he issued a record number of vetoes against the legislature's agenda.
Healthcare: despite how you personally feel about Romneycare, is there ANY other candidate who can say they worked harder on the issue than Governor Romney did? His plan was endorsed and informed by the Heritage Foundation, hardly a left-leaning organization. Yes, conservatives across the country all supported Romneycare and the "individual mandate" long before they were against it. This is a rare case when it is Republicans at large and NOT Romney who have "flip-flopped" on the issue. He is the best GOP candidate to face down the president on this issue, especially in a head-to-head debate. He has vowed to issue Obamacare waivers to every single state while he and Congress work to fully repeal and replace it. His plan for a nationwide healthcare plan is one that ANY Republican could endorse, and should.
Electability: I don't like talking about this subject, but since it seems everyone else does, I may as well take my shot. Mitt Romney has the broadest appeal of any Republican candidate. He beats the president in the polls in Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, Michigan, and elsewhere, all states that we'll need if we're going to win in 2012. Every other candidate has had their place at the top of the polls, but Romney is the only one who has remained there for the past two years. He has support among Tea Partiers, Establishment Republicans, conservatives, moderates, independents, older voters, younger voters, all classes and races, and yes, even among evangelical voters. He raised over $10 million in one day, not one dollar of which was his own; every donor is also a voter, don't forget.
You want to know about Mitt Romney? Read his own words in his books. Read "No Apology", in which he takes on the president directly (in case you need any evidence that he's willing to). Read "Turnaround", in which he talks about saving the Olympics. Listen to his speeches, not with an ear for "red meat", but for substance. You'll quickly learn what I learned four years ago: that this is the man who Should be president, not in 2012, but right now.
One last thing, and this may sound a little counter-intuitive, depending on your perspective: if you've been asking about other candidates all this time and people keep telling you about Mitt Romney, no matter what it is they're saying, then maybe that's a sign that Romney is the man. Food for thought.
Romney is an opportunist, a big government/nanny state progressive, and an all-around sleazeball. If he did get elected and we lost Congress, he'd be full-on socialist communist in a heartbeat. No doubt in my mind.
@Tim, omg, you're right. He is just like Obama in so very many ways (though he does seem to know how many states there are and what year it is).
It is amazing to me how truly stupid people are… Oh wait…60 million people voted for Barrack Obama. Nothing should surprise me.
Right now our economy is in the toilet and it is just beginning. Bad unemployment and spending is out of control. I see blatantly stupid comments regarding Mitt Romney that you would rather have 4 more years of Obama, it would be the same. Dont procreate you fools.
In one term in office Mitt took a liberal state from 5oth to 11th in unemployment. The opposite is happening under Obama. In one term Mitt Romney balanced his budget by cutting 341 social programs which in laymans terms is downsizing that government.
Romneycare. If he did not initiate it, did not write it and also vetoed it until by due process of law… had to sign it….how in the hell is it "RomneyCare"?
I wonder how he was able to get all of this done in a 85% liberal legislature? Thats the miracle. Oh yeah he also had a billion dollar slush fund when he left office.
You people makle ignorant statements because you are too balless yourselves to care about truth.
gspencer- thats pretty slanderous. Slander is spreading lies. Just so you know. Here is an education instead of your ignorant statements.Do you understand Government due process? Governors are not kings. Well its obvious you do not. Here are some facts for you.
They claim Romney flipped on gay marriage. The fact is, Romney has consistently opposed gay marriage. When asked in 1994, Romney said(23): "I line up with Gov. Weld on that … he does not feel at this time that he wishes to extend legalized marriage on a same-sex basis, and I support his position". When asked again in 2002 if he supported gay marriage, Romney still answered "no"(24).
Critics also point to Romney's disagreement with a proposed constitutional amendment concerning gay marriage, House Bill 4840, which was both proposed and shot down prior to Romney becoming governor. However, Romney's disagreement with the amendment was not over its clause which banned gay marriage, but over a separate clause, which Romney feared "would outlaw domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples"(25). The problem with the amendment is that it falsely implied that Massachusetts law itemized "benefits or incidents exclusive to marriage," which the amendment prohibits in non-marital relationships. Without itemization in the law, the prohibition was without limit.
When gay marriage came before the MA Supreme Court, Romney fought against the decision which made gay marriage a right. As governor he had to enforce the ruling, which some have faulted him for doing, but critics do not apply that standard to other issues, for instance faulting Pro-Life governors for enabling abortions in their states because of court decisions legalizing abortion.
I will take any of you on….I am tired of stupidity.
Tim Pawlenty. Minnesota's tax burden increased 1/2% during his tenure, from 9.8% when he took office in 2003, to 10.3% in 2009 (the latest year data is available), changing his state from the 17th most taxed state to the 7th most taxed state in the nation.
STATE DROPPED NEARLY 25% IN TAX-BURDEN RANKINGS:
During Governor Romney's tenure from 2003-7, Massachusetts dropped from 13th to 17th in national tax burden rankings. Gov. Romney created the 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 budgets (and slashed spending in the existing 2003 budget as soon as he entered office). Massachusetts' combined state and local tax burden was the same in 2007, the year he left office, as it was in 2003 when he took office, at 9.9%. However, he cut taxes while city and county governments within the state raised them, which caused a small bulge in the tax burden in the years in between but ended the tax burden at the same level in the year of his final budget as in the year he entered office.
This improvement in tax burden rankings occurred while Massachusetts experienced the worst economic situation in the nation and had the highest ratio in the nation of democrats controlling the legislature, a veto-proof 85%, whose leadership stated intentions to raise taxes.
Romneys Economic Record:http://www.aboutmittromney.com/economic.htm
The Mitt Romney Report
@Dennis, wow, those ad hominem attacks and that sneering vitriol miraculously changed my mind. No wonder socialist progressives engage in childish name calling and petty, angry rants. They work! Really. I'm so voting for Romney, even if I have to write his name in (maybe you'll let me borrow your crayon?).
Who let the dogs out?
I agree with pubsecrets: "his support for and (tortured) defense of the MA healthcare plan tells me he has too much of a statist streak in him".
I agree with fuzzy slippers: "Romney is an opportunist, a big government/nanny state progressive, and an all-around sleazeball."
I agree with tim: "He will NOT be getting my vote. I would rather have four more of obama, just so EVERYONE can see just how stupid we were to elect this bunch of collectivist ninnies in the first place, and maybe just maybe we will be done playing with leftist ideology."
If I am standing in the voting booth looking at two checkboxes with Obama and Romney next to them, I'll either vote for the Libertarian candidate, or I'll write in Barry Soetoro. I actually love the write-in idea: it's a loud and clear statement that this was a vote against Romney, and an explicit vote of no confidence in Obama, with a few strokes of the pen.