Why I (Still) Support Mitt Romney


Barring a major shift in public opinion, John McCain will win the Republican nomination for president. This is probably good for the party: he’s a principled man who stands for things worth standing for. He has the best chance to win in November, especially against the slimy Clinton machine. Nevertheless, I intend to vote for Mitt Romney on February 5th.

There are two levels on which my vote for Romney can be explained: why I think he would make a better president, and why I would vote for someone less likely to win in November.

The latter argument is simpler. Politics should not be about the party, it should be about the country. If everyone expresses his honest opinion, and McCain wins, I'm fine with that. If, in November, everyone expresses his honest opinion and Hillary wins, I'll be disappointed, but I won't hate my country. And when I'm given the choice to express my opinion, I'll do so as honestly as I can: of those running seriously for president, Mitt Romney would make the best president. I owe it to my fellow citizens to vote my conscience.

I'm proud of the American electorate for ignoring a lot of the media hype this year. Voters have not jumped on bandwagons (for Obama), voted for the guy they saw most on TV (Giuliani, Romney), voted for a candidate because she was "inevitable", or withdrawn their support because a campaign looked unlikely (Huckabee, McCain). The result is a loud, raucous process with lots of choices and lots of ideas.

Mitt Romney, as I stated above, is the best person for the job. He acquitted himself admirably as governor of Massachusetts and he takes a can-do approach to governing. These qualities made me an early supporter of Romney, and his awful, consultant-driven campaign has not convinced me otherwise.

What stood out about Romney when he was governor was his ability to solve government problems. Facing a Democratic majority, he did not play partisan politics (until he began his presidential run), and he did not adhere to the Republican party line. He also led as a one-term governor: he appeared to look for the best solutions to problems, rather than judging each issue by its potential political impact.

He worked with Democrats to create individual-mandate universal health care in Massachusetts. Prices for individual plans quickly dropped, and the state has worked to facilitate comparison shopping. The Massachusetts plan may not be the best one for the country, but it's a good experiment. In a few years, we'll have much better idea how much it costs and how well it works. For now, its principal virtue is fairness: it treats all employers equally, and addresses the emergency-room freeloader problem. Romney was able to sell the program to conservatives by getting away from partisan cliches and pointing out that we already have universal health care - in emergency rooms - and all he was doing was trying to allocate it more cheaply and more fairly.

In sum, my support of Romney comes not from any particular issue, but from his attitude toward governing. His consulting business earlier in life was based on solving the problems of client companies - looking for specialized solutions to a host of different industries. He brought the same attitude to Massachusetts: rather than trot out the tired tropes of zero-sum politics and zero-sum budgeting, he found ways to make government more efficient and more accountable.

If we are to have post-partisan politics, it won't take the form of Obama's inclusive liberalism. Nor will it be represented by McCain's renegade approach - he makes as many friends as enemies. If possible, it will arrive with the realization that government can work efficiently and fairly.

We can increase the effectiveness of social welfare programs by designing them with less moral hazard (remember the 1990's welfare reforms?). We can increase tax revenues without raising taxes, by making the code simpler and fairer. We can stimulate economic growth without spending more by re-routing pork money to legitimate uses. We can raise real income by cutting farm subsidies and protectionist policies. We can improve educational results without raising costs by introducing competition among public schools (a la Europe). We can solve the problem of illegal immigration by bringing more legal immigrants from all over the world, people who want to work hard and invest their labor in America.

I believe Mitt Romney is the candidate most likely to govern with an attitude of efficiency, instead of playing politics at every turn. His campaign, which stinks of political consultancy, suggests otherwise, but I believe that his attitude toward governing will overcome his faith in the "experts" if we give him the chance to be our president. Therefore, I will vote for Mitt Romney on February 5th. Posted by Chops at February 1, 2008 2:37 PM
Comments
Comment #244431

Chops,
John McCain is NOT a man who stands up for things worth fighting for, and you are absolutely wrong if you think he has a better chance of winning against Hilary than Romney.

Disclaimer: I am/was a Huckabee supporter, but the media controls who gets elected through debates run by the government-media complex. DId anyone watch Huckabee and Ron Paul shaking their heads as Romney and McCain got asked all the questions the other night? It was ridiculous.

Back to Mccain.

You don’t co-orchestrate the biggest DIRECT stab in the back (Amnesty) against the American people barely a year before election day and easily win.

McCain is liberal on everything but his foreign policy stance, and while he thinks he can “unite the party” I think he misread a typo and it should have said “untie the party.”

A strong percentage of Republicans AND conservative independents will not vote for McCain because they are tired of establishment politicians running everything into the ground.

It should tell you something about the conservative agenda ANYTIME Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Muchael Savage, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham have ALL said (and continue to say) that based on his record, McCain is not a conservative and he will not be a good thing for this country.

The collective audiences of these talk radio hosts represents a tremendous amount of America, and while the hosts don’t pull the strings, you’re kidding yourself if you don’t think that together they can pull tens of millions of them.

The idea that Michael Savage and Mark Levin agree on anything is proof that they aren’t playing politics.

I think in your post you were trying to seem objective, but I believe you are wrong. McCain is not good for America, he cannot unite the party, he does NOT stand for things that are worth fighting for, and he DOES NOT stand the best chance of beating the Clinton machince.

I’m glad you’re voting Romney, I will be too, and I hope when he gets the nomination, he picks a running mate who has a great track record. Two conservative governors with a history of getting the job done and managing the needs of a state would do a fantastic job in the white house.

Far better than a senator with 20+ years of favors waiting to be collected when he takes the throne.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at February 1, 2008 3:31 PM
Comment #244434

Now it’s the “slimy Clinton machine”. Before it was the Clinton “hate” machine or the Clinton “attack” machine. Chops, you are asking your audience to accept and assume something about the Clintons that you have not proven. What is it about the way the Clintons have conducted this campaign, or any other, that makes it “slimy”? Wouldn’t you have considered Bush’s insinuation to the hicks in S.C. in 2000 that McCain’s adopted child was a black baby to be slimy? How about the attacks on Kerry in ‘04 that he really didn’t ‘earn his medals”? that wasn’t slimy? be specific. I have yet to hear a coherent explaination from anybody that would inform me about the accuracy of these accusations.

Posted by: charles ross at February 1, 2008 3:58 PM
Comment #244435

Everything is CNN’s fault - right Yukon?
Huckabee had his chance in the limelight after Iowa but I guess CNN decided to take him down.


Posted by: Schwamp at February 1, 2008 4:00 PM
Comment #244438

Charles -

Yes, Bush’s tactics against McCain in SC in 2000 were slimy. So were Clinton’s tactics in SC in 2008 against Obama.

Posted by: Chops at February 1, 2008 4:43 PM
Comment #244446

I love seeing the compassionate hearts of the liberals on display. I just wonder why the hicks never figure out that the left knows whats best for them?

I still have faith that Romney will be nominated it’s all I can do. If McCain gets it then I will not be represented and will not be able to vote for president for the first time since legal age. You say he has the best chance I’m not so sure. Yes, he will pick up some of the independent left votes but what about people like myself, who under no circumstance (Billary or no) would cast a vote for him.

Maybe it’s time to see if those hicks will accept me.

Posted by: andy at February 1, 2008 6:34 PM
Comment #244450

I have expressed my favorable views on Mitt before and still believe he will make the best president of all those running now. He is experienced in both government and private business, a claim that no other candidate can make. Hillary claims vast government experience in her WH years and today, the last obstacles were removed freeing hubby Bill to release all the WH info on Hillary’s role in his administration. How many think Bill will release this valuable information?

According to today’s email from MoveOn.ORG the results of their poll means that they will throw their entire support behind Obama who won with nearly 70 percent of the vote between him and Clinton. I am astonished that MoveOn would do such a thing and am anxious to hear what MoveOn members have to say. If I were Hillary I would start to worry. With the Kennedy’s, Opra and MoveOn behind Obama, does she still stand a chance?

Posted by: Jim M at February 1, 2008 7:20 PM
Comment #244461

Hey Andy, In 2000 automated phone calls were used in South Carolina against McCain by supporters of bush. The substance of those phone calls was that the Bangladeshi baby that Cindy McCain and John McCain had adopted was really an illegitimate black baby that McCain had fathered!!
Stop for a moment and think through all the implications contained in this accusation:
1. That the audience to whom this was being directed was so fucking stupid that they wouldn’t know the difference between a black child and a Bangladeshi child
2. That the audience to whom this was being directed was so racist that they would be offended by the possibility that a white man had fathered a black child.
3. That the people sending this message knew that the people receiving it and accepting it lacked the slighted shred of interest, education or intellectual curiosity that would have allowed them to establish the truth themselves!

“Hick” was the nice word to describe these trailer-trash, subnormal, cusin’ lovin, nigger hating South Carolinian’s who would hear such a message and come out of it saying: “Gee, I didn’t know that about John McCain!!” The other words I could have used are, Oh wait a moment, I just used them.
You wonder if the hicks will accept you? Believe me, you are already on the inside looking out!

Posted by: charles ross at February 2, 2008 1:06 AM
Comment #244462

Hey Andy, In 2000 automated phone calls were used in South Carolina against McCain by supporters of bush. The substance of those phone calls was that the Bangladeshi baby that Cindy McCain and John McCain had adopted was really an illegitimate black baby that McCain had fathered!!
Stop for a moment and think through all the implications contained in this accusation:
1. That the audience to whom this was being directed was so fucking stupid that they wouldn’t know the difference between a black child and a Bangladeshi child
2. That the audience to whom this was being directed was so racist that they would be offended by the possibility that a white man had fathered a black child.
3. That the people sending this message knew that the people receiving it and accepting it lacked the slighted shred of interest, education or intellectual curiosity that would have allowed them to establish the truth themselves!

“Hick” was the nice word to describe these trailer-trash, subnormal, cusin’ lovin, nigger hating South Carolinian’s who would hear such a message and come out of it saying: “Gee, I didn’t know that about John McCain!!” The other words I could have used are, Oh wait a moment, I just used them.
You wonder if the hicks will accept you? Believe me, you are already on the inside looking out!

Posted by: charles ross at February 2, 2008 1:10 AM
Comment #244463

Hey Andy, In 2000 automated phone calls were used in South Carolina against McCain by supporters of bush. The substance of those phone calls was that the Bangladeshi baby that Cindy McCain and John McCain had adopted was really an illegitimate black baby that McCain had fathered!!
Stop for a moment and think through all the implications contained in this accusation:
1. That the audience to whom this was being directed was so fucking stupid that they wouldn’t know the difference between a black child and a Bangladeshi child
2. That the audience to whom this was being directed was so racist that they would be offended by the possibility that a white man had fathered a black child.
3. That the people sending this message knew that the people receiving it and accepting it lacked the slighted shred of interest, education or intellectual curiosity that would have allowed them to establish the truth themselves!

“Hick” was the nice word to describe these trailer-trash, subnormal, cusin’ lovin, nigger hating South Carolinian’s who would hear such a message and come out of it saying: “Gee, I didn’t know that about John McCain!!” The other words I could have used are, Oh wait a moment, I just used them.
You wonder if the hicks will accept you? Believe me, you are already on the inside looking out!

Posted by: charles ross at February 2, 2008 1:11 AM
Comment #244464

Uhmm…OK. Tell me how you really feel about them charles.

That state just voted for Obama though.

Posted by: andy at February 2, 2008 2:34 AM
Comment #244468

Charles

Re slimy politics. Maybe you didn’t notice that Bush is not running, so his behavior (good or bad) is no longer particularly relevant. You guys are sure going to miss him. The typical liberal rebuttal to any argument is “Bush is bad”.

Re Hicks – I own a tree farm in rural Virginia. You would probably disapprove of the people around there too. They hunt, fish, work the land and drive in pickup trucks. They are also very honest and friendly to a outsider born in Wisconsin, driving a hybrid, with a fancy education and a funny accent. They look after my land and once when I got stuck in the mud, strangers spent the time to pull me out, asking nothing in return. I suggest you get around a bit more. Everyplace you go, you find people that you like and some you don’t. In the South I find more than average friendly people. Blanket anti-Southern bigotry is probably a form of racism, especially since you make implications about their genetic heritage.

BTW – wasn’t Bill Clinton one of these guys?

Posted by: Jack at February 2, 2008 7:19 AM
Comment #244475

Hey Jack, I also lived in a small rural Virginia town having moved there from Wisconsin. Like you I found the local folks very friendly to a Northerner. While I was still considered a Yankee, I wasn’t a damn Yankee from the Northeast. I found very little evidence of racism, and instead, found southern hospitality and acceptance of all. In 1963 and 64 I was stationed at a small Army Fort in Queens and quickly found out that if I went into NY city in uniform I would not be allowed into many of the bars. My co-workers were mainly civilians and I found New Yorkers to be very cold and unaccepting of someone outside their circle. I hope that has changed in the past 40 plus years.

Posted by: Jim M at February 2, 2008 11:30 AM
Comment #244477


I would be extremely suprised if even one of the Republicans on this site doesn’t vote for McCaim/Liberman this fall.

Posted by: jlw at February 2, 2008 12:18 PM
Comment #244478

None of the candidates represent real change.
Mitt Romney (worth $220 Million) is trying to buy an election (i.e. has spent $30 Million of his own money).
Yet, he doesn’t have the lead?
That’s pretty sad, when you consider that 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money on their campaign.
The only change they are after is the change in your pockets.
None of them are serious about these 10+ abuses hammering most Americans.
1 in 10 Americans now own 70% of all wealth (a disparity gap that hasn’t been that large since the Great Depression).

Regardless of who the next president is, why saddle the president with the same incompetent, irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress?

After all, if no one can list 10, 20, 50, 100, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable, why repeatedly reward incumbent politicians with 96.5% re-election rates?

Either way, the voters will get their education, and the voters will have the government that they deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 2, 2008 12:53 PM
Comment #244485

Well, I agree that “hicks” is generally a derogatory term used to refer to people who live in rural areas and may not be the best insult to throw at the unsophisticated, uneducated, intellectually challenged people who would cast their vote based upon overtly racist rumors like the one spread in 2000 about McCain.
And I concede that it’s real nice that rural folks treat us flat-land city sophisticates with courtesy and that they pulled your pick-up out of the mud too, Jack,
I would argue, however, that this country is in a profound mess, because too many people lack the critical thinking skills, experience, education to understand the issues and the arguments around them. I don’t know about the people who blindly accept the most ridiculous assertion because someone laid the thinest layer of logic possible on the top of it (e.g. Kerry’s “I voted for it before I voted against it” served up as an example of Kerry’s so-called flip-flopping, but I do know that the people behind the scenes crafting these arguments are highly sophisticated. The republicans knew full well that the people to whom this argument was aimed had no idea how the legislative process worked, that multiple votes were often taken on different versions of the same bill and that a legislator often would vote differently on different versions (Even now I suspect there are people reading this who are saying “I didn’t know that!”)
This all brings me back to my original question: what did the Clinton campaign do in the South Carolina campaign that qualifies it to be “slimy”? I really don’t know. Give me an example, be specific. The only thing I have heard is Bill’s comment about Jackson winning twice there, that the states dem electorate is %50 black and that Jackson faded out after that, and, I guess the implicit suggestion that Obama would do the same. I don’t see that as being “slimy”. Am I wrong, Why and what else did her campaign do? I really want to know.

Posted by: charles ross at February 2, 2008 2:32 PM
Comment #244517

To all those that support Romney.

Hey, let’s vote in a devout one-term governor with an Ivy-League MBA, a ton of cash, and a family history of governance! Sounds great to me!

Oh, yeah, that was Dubya.

Sorry, but Mitt is just Dubya with more charm, more brains, and less morals. See where that got us? No thanks.

As to the question above directed to MoveOn-ers: here’s what will happen. In the next 48 hours, Edwards will announce his backing of Obama (in exchange for either a cabinet seat or Attorney-Generalship). Between this and MoveOn’s move, plus the fact that Obama polls better against McCain than Hillary does, you will see a quick switch in poll numbers in the Super Tuesday states. I’ll check back Wednesday morning to see if my prophesy comes true.

L

Posted by: leatherankh at February 3, 2008 1:55 AM
Comment #244518

dan, why do you care where Romney gets his money if earned legally? As a matter of fact I find it a positive that he spends his own earned money…less third party debts. Billary gets donations from China is that a better way?
Having said that he does scare me when he talks about expensive projects with Michigan or everytime he brings up health care.

charles, isn’t clinton winning because she’s winning the “uneducated” vote? Nobody’s perfect we all have faults. But ANYBODY who votes is voting using the most thought they can get out of their brain. Have you ever stopped to think that maybe they vote R because their middle-class lives are better with them in charge.

Also, nothing that Bill has done has offended me. I think Hillary is the one who said he went too far. The outrage seems to be coming mostly from the left.

Posted by: andy at February 3, 2008 2:18 AM
Comment #244538

I hear liberals on this site scream about corruption in government all the time. Take a careful look at how Mitt Romney handled the corruption in the Olympics and got the job done on time taking a potential disastrous looser and making it a successful financial winner. He did a great job in Mass. working with a democrat controlled state and government which attests to his ability to work with all political sides.
I would love to see Romney and Obama battle it out and their debates would be terrific and great for the entire electorate. This match-up would, in my opinion, be very similar to the Nixon-Kennedy race for reasons I have stated before.

Posted by: Jim M at February 3, 2008 2:11 PM
Comment #244540
andy wrote: d.a.n, why do you care where Romney gets his money if earned legally?
I don’t.

I don’t care where he gets it, if it is obtained legally and ethically.
The problem arises in how it is spent, to buy an election.
But that is really an issue of campaign finance (for which we can thank John McCain and Russ Fiengold for).
However, perhaps you want to rethink your question, since 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money.

andy wrote: As a matter of fact I find it a positive that he spends his own earned money…less third party debts.
Perhaps.

But is it really the sacrifice you think it is?
Romney has spent $35 Million (a small percentage of his $220 Million).

andy wrote: Billary gets donations from China is that a better way?
No, not at all. Hillary (along with Bill) is worth about $28 Million.

Again, the problem of campaign finance is a serious issue, and it appears too often that only the wealthy can run for office.
Barack Obama, worth about $1.6 Million, may be the least wealthy in recent history, so, he depends heavily on donations too.
John Edwards, worth about $32 Million, didn’t want to spend his own money, but had he spent every cent of it running for office knowing others have more money, then that might be admirable. Especially since he claims to be a chapion for the poor and his life-long goal is to end poverty.
But, then, that might not leave much left over for $300 haircuts?

andy wrote: Having said that he does scare me when he talks about expensive projects with Michigan or everytime he brings up health care.
Me too. I think he will be little more than the next flunkie for wealthy interests, and refuse to do anything about these 10 abuses that have been growing worse for 30 years.

I don’t know who I’ll be voting for president (probably Nader, if he runs.

But I do know who I’m not voting for, because who ever the next president is, what is the point in saddling the next president with the same bought-and-paid-for, corrupt, irresponsible, Do-Nothing Congress.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 3, 2008 2:43 PM
Comment #244541

It concerns me when people make these big, general assertions about people, issues, institutions, whatever, and ask their audience to blindly accept their claim as fact. References have been made here on several recent blogs about “the slimy clinton machine”, “the clinton attack machine”, “the clinton hate machine”,” Clinton’s corruption”. I still don’t know what, exactly, these critics are talking about. Kctim provided a list of accusations about Hillary’s corruption in a previous blog. He said it took him about a minute to find these things. I can believe that, but mere accusations really don’t get us anywhere.

I’ll try it again: What has Hillary Clinton done, been convicted of or been photographed doing that would justify the label being attached to her of being “slimy”, “corrupt”, or hateful?

I have to say, I love politics and follow all the goings on with great interest. (watch Meet the Press this Sunday if possible, Matlin, Carville, Shrum, most interesting) I would not be reluctant at all to accept all the tags that have been attached to this woman if I could see some distinct proof. Both she and her husband were investigated for several years by the Republican majority in Congress through their proxy, Ken Starr. From Hillary’s investments in commodities, through Whitewater, the accusation they had someone murdered, Travelgate and at the end of it all they discovered that Hillary’s husband had cheated on her and lied about it under oath. Is this her sin?

Posted by: charles ross at February 3, 2008 2:47 PM
Comment #244542

Who knows about some of that other stuff.

This alone is enough to be concerned …

Hillary Clinton’s Voting Record/Statements/Positions:

  • 2006 PorkBusters Hall of Shame:
    • Robert Byrd (D-WV) (lifetime pork-barrel achiever)
    • Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
    • Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
    • Ted Stevens (R-AK)

  • January 2006 Porker of the Month: Sens. Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)

  • February 2005 Porker of the Month: New York Sens. Hillary Clinton (D)& Charles Schumer (D) {bringin’ home the pork, bringin’ home the pork, we’re all…}

  • Provided by tax-payers: Hillary Clinton’s $514,148 per year lease (2001) with the most expensive hometown office of any U.S. senator.

  • Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)

  • Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)

  • Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006) {This isn’t the norm for a Democrat politician; could it be Hillary was following the poll numbers?}

  • Opposes illegal immigration, but doesn’t vote to follow up. (Jan 2007) {see previous; seems so}

  • Hillary Clinton’s Immigration Report Card: D- (pathetic)
  • Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006) {just as soon as we get another amnesty passed like the one in 1986 that quadrupled the problem}

  • In January 1996, a long sought-after copy of billing records from the Rose Law Firm were identified and turned over to prosecutors by Carolyn Huber, a White House assistant to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Ms. Huber, herself a former Rose Law Firm employee, recognized the records and realized that they had been among papers that she had removed six months earlier from the First Lady’s book room on the third floor of the White House. The mysterious appearance of the billing records, which had been the specific subject of various investigative subpoenas for two years, sparked intense interest about how they surfaced and where they had been. Shortly after the discovery of the records, Hillary Clinton made history — she became the only First Lady ever called to testify before a Grand Jury inquiry.

  • Voted for Iraq war (Apr 2007) {Hmmm … I see a “If I knew now what I was supposed to know then” moment coming on}

  • Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004) {OK, pro-choice doesn’t mean pro-abortion, but what’s up with this?}

  • Critic of Iraq war, but did not recant 2002 vote in its favor. (Nov 2006)

  • Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)

  • Regrets George Bush (43)’s handling of war, but not her own vote to allow it. (Oct 2006) {there’s nothing hypocritical about that, eh?}

  • Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)

  • states: NY share of federal taxes is too high. (Feb 2000) {What does she want? A lower tax percentage for New York residents? Could this be pandering for votes?}

  • Voted YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005) {this is partly why our tax system is now REGRESSIVE}

  • Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006) {yet, she did it again! this is partly why Warren Buffet (2nd wealthiest person in the U.S.) can pay a smaller tax rate than a secretary making only $60K per year; our current tax system is REGRESSIVE among other REGRESSIVE abuses that didn’t all come about by accident}

  • Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs’ effectiveness. (Mar 2007) {Heck no, we can’t have any of that. That might make it harder to vote on pork-barrel, corporate welfare, graft, etc.}

  • Rated 21% by NTU, indicating a “Big Spender” on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

  • states: Enough with corporate welfare; enough with golden parachutes. (Jun 2007) {Yeah? with a dismal Pork-Barrel Card Grade of 14%, and two porker of the month awards?}

  • And lastly, this is kinda funny
  • . From the smile on Hillary’s face, she does too!

Posted by: d.a.n at February 3, 2008 2:54 PM
Comment #244546

Mitt Romeny to me looks like a well-off car dealer…a little too slick looking. Hasn’t said anything that would even make me consider him…McCain in the past has done some things that made me at least consider him, but he was such a wimp when Bush bad-mouthed him in SC and then proceeded to kiss Bush’s a$$ for the next 7 years…

We need a person who will stand up for the people and stop all the corporate welfare and special enticements…if you can’t run a business without handouts, you shouldn’t be running a business.

Posted by: Rachel at February 3, 2008 4:46 PM
Comment #244550

Rachel, especially Exxon/Mobil setting new all-time records again in profits. But, they still have their hand in the public till as inducement to explore for more oil, or alternative fuels. It is a complete corruption of capitalism which would require they reinvest their profits into new exploration of both oil and alternatives. But, why should they, when their lobbyists can twist the arm of the majority of politicians in office and get taxpayer handouts for that work?

The best chance of ending this corruption of government is in throwing Congress out and getting a whole new lot, and electing Obama or John McCain as president.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 3, 2008 5:36 PM
Comment #244556

d.a.n. If you want to talk about Clinton’s positions and actions while as a senator and now as a candidate, there is much to say. She is a campaign warrior and has her sights set on an eight year presidency. It makes her extraordinarily careful about what she says, looks and does. It is not at all complementary to her. She often equivocates, parses and slants her positions when she is opposed. If she was not a woman, not the focus of the right wing spin, and not the wife of a former president she never would have achieved enough of a profile to even enter the race, particularly acting the way she does. She looked ridiculous by initially supporting N.Y. gov’s plan to issue d.L to illegals, then drawing back, then saying essentially that the issue is too complex to have a simple answer to whether or not licenses should be issued to people who have no legal right to be here. (The correct answer is “NO, hell no”!)
On the issue of pork, i don’t really know. She is from n.y. big state, lots of money, lots of people. A hell of a lot more money flows out of n.y. to other states then goes to n.y. in the form of fed government taxes.
Re: the cost of her headquarters in n.y. If it is in the city half million might not be too ridiculous in rent. it’s expensive there!
It’s possible to legitimately defend her vote to go to war and attack bush’s handling of the war. bush/cheney/rumsfeld consistently, over many years, put just enough effort into Iraq to lose it. We could have had victory and repubs now running would be talking about how they are the bush heir’s and “foot soldiers for the bush revolution”. The way they avoid even mentioning the current president make them all look pathetic (except for Paul).
Anyhow, my thoughts.

Posted by: charles ross at February 3, 2008 7:21 PM
Comment #244557

Charles, Thanks!

Posted by: d.a.n at February 3, 2008 7:33 PM
Comment #244561

How can anyone support someone who believes that Joseph Smith dug up some golden tables
in the woods in Vermont under the direction of an angel named Moroni, then translated those
tables revealing that people from the middle east, the Nephites and Lamanites, came to the
Americas and evolved into the Indians, and that “Jesus” appeared to the Nephite leader, Mormon, (how can anyone support someone who believes these things) be seriously considered for the Presidency of the United States? If you don’t know the Mormon story, you’d better learn it before you make a severely serious mistake by supporting someone who is not a rational thinker and by most definitions should be considered insane or moronic.

Posted by: Citizen at February 3, 2008 9:54 PM
Comment #244566

Citizen, you know full well that Mormonism is a main stream religion with one of its leading members running for president. You need to stay away from such fact/reality based books such as Under the Banner of Heaven. It can only depress you.

Posted by: charles ross at February 3, 2008 11:15 PM
Comment #244582

“(how can anyone support someone who believes these things) be seriously considered for the Presidency of the United States?”

Why not? Past and present Presidential candidates believe a hippie walked on water and they were, or are, being “seriously considered for the Presidency of the US.”

Judge the person, not their faith.

Posted by: kctim at February 4, 2008 11:21 AM
Comment #244688


Moses went up on the mountain and came back down with some stone tablets with words on them. He claimed a god gave them to him. A virgin gave birth to a male child whom many claim wasn’t a human but rather a son of a god. We have elected many presidents who believe these things.

Aliens illegally came down from heaven and tought civilization to man. As punishmnent, they were forced to live here among us. They are now using us and preparing us to fight the star wars for them. I think we should elect a president who believes this. It has as much of a chance of being true as any of the other beliefs.

Posted by: jlw at February 5, 2008 4:46 PM
Comment #244764

Mitt Romney is and should be our next choice for President, not only do I still believe in him but I admire him for not being one of the “good old boys/woman” who has not been tainted by government politics! I want someone I respect, I trust and I believe in, all of this describes Mitt Romney! He is the only one I feel can fix our broken government and lead us to better days. I have always voted Republican but if our country does not see the truth, I am not sure what I will do when voting. Romney is my only choice. I will continue to support the person I believe in. LSD….which stands for “L”ook the part of president, “S”ay which stands for saying what is true and correct, and last “D”o which is do the Americans a favor and become the President we can be proud of and trust.

Posted by: Diane at February 6, 2008 8:01 PM
Comment #244804

Hilarious. He withdrew, saying he didn’t want to distract the US from the War on Terror. He didn’t want to admit all of the other Republican presidential candidates, regardless of their philosophies, like each other, and all of them can’t stand Romney, because his only core political belief is that he wants to be president. True to form, his “message” shifted back and forth during the campaign, and despite the enormous amounts of money, he couldn’t buy enough votes. He tried playing true conservative, only to come to the belated realization that true conservatives have seen their ideas fail miserably, and become utterly discredited.

Today’s withdrawal statement brings a fitting end to one of the stupider, yet wealthier campaigns we’ve seen in quite a while.

Posted by: phx8 at February 7, 2008 2:37 PM
Comment #244807

Diane,

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but it’s LDS, not “LSD”, which is a hallucinogen.

But, then again…..

Posted by: Rocky at February 7, 2008 3:28 PM
Comment #244808

Was there ever a position that Mitt Romney didn’t take in any situation? He was shiftier than a scorpion in a frying pan. True conservative! What a joke! That’s like calling Hillary a moderate!

Oh yeah … Diane, the acronym for the church is actually LDS, not LSD! Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) is something bozos like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham must have been taking to back Mitt.

Posted by: Goombah at February 7, 2008 3:31 PM
Comment #244812

Its the Dems election to lose.
Conservatives don’t want to vote for McCain and many will stay home. Well, unless they have a reason to vote against somebody.

Posted by: kctim at February 7, 2008 3:40 PM
Comment #244818

The media is barely even commenting on the total number of votes that are being cast for Democrats v Republicans in the primaries. Everyone is so caught up in the horse race aspect that they ignore the enormous numbers of people who are voting D. All signs point towards an epic landslide later this year.

Republicans are going to get their heads handed to them in November. Incredibly, the candidates mostly parrot Bush policies, or propose supposedly “conservative” ideas which have already failed miserably. Unbelievable… as if moving further to the right will help them… demanding people get their fear on… calling Democrats and anyone who disagrees “enemies,” or traitors, or whatever. The vast majority of people have had it with this approach. The collapse of Romney’s campaign is a good indicator. Boy, it took a lot of stupidity to waste that much money.

Posted by: phx8 at February 7, 2008 4:35 PM
Comment #244825

phx8…you’re joking right? The candidates are too conservative? Sorry but the opposite is the reason for no excitment for turnout.

I voted Romney on Tuesday and lets just say it wasn’t the most excited vote I ever gave. The supposed conservative of the bunch talked about huge handouts to Michigan and kept bringing up a health care plan.

McCain…open borders, against the tax cuts, works with the extreme left, against free speech. When he states, as a plus, that he will reach across the aisle to the left to get things done I can promise you he is not trying to get my vote. Oh, he also said Hilary would make a fine president…huh?

I am not privy to the inside workings of the republican party and am not sure whats going on. But one thing is certain, it’s not moving to the right it’s moving left. And you can tell by the turnout what conservatives think about it.

Posted by: andy at February 7, 2008 5:23 PM
Comment #244829

Seems just like yesterday that the independents and moderates, were telling the Dem party that they were moving too far left and what did we hear back? We haven’t moved far enough left.
Gore lost. Kerry lost. And running more moderate type candidates gave you a win in 06.

And now? Well, the right wants to move further right. I wonder how it will all end up :)

Posted by: kctim at February 7, 2008 5:41 PM
Comment #244834

Here is the money quote from Romney:

“If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win.”

And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”

So I guess Romney surrendered. What a horse’s ***.

Andy,
If you will recall, there were a lot of “conservatives” running- Tancredo, Hunter, Brownbeck, etc. With the exception of Ron Paul, and then only on the issue of Iraq, the candidates all claimed to be true conservatives. With the exception of Paul on Iraq & McCain on torture, they all pretty much stuck with Bush policies.

The Republican presidential candidate is getting set up to get absolutely creamed in November.

McCain represents the party is moving to the left? Well, he did get booed pretty hard by the conservative meeting he met today. But I suspect most people would characterize his stands as right to far right, with a willingness to compromise on a few issues.

Posted by: phx8 at February 7, 2008 7:17 PM
Comment #245314

goombah said: “(LSD) is something bozos like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham must have been taking to back Mitt.”

NOPE! LSD is mind expanding! Not mind narrowing as evident in the likes of Ingraham and Limbaugh. I frankly have never met a conservative who has taken LSD, but, I have met and read of many liberals who have. There has to be a correlation in their somewhere. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 14, 2008 11:48 AM
Comment #245316

phx8, Romney said he “hates to lose”. He must be full of self-hate for having lost 35 million dollars of his children’s inheritance on a venture that was doomed from the start. But, with 210 million left over, it is clear his commitment to winning was never whole hearted in the first place. Winning for Romney means it has to be relatively cheap or easy or he won’t play anymore. I knew some kids like him when I was young playing marbles in the dirt in Detroit back in the 1950’s. Not bad kids, but, risk averse to losing all their marbles, and therefore, when push came to shove, they could be counted on to go home rather than risk everything to win. Nothing was more important than their marble collection.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 14, 2008 11:54 AM
Post a comment