Is Massachusetts Mitt’s excuse?
[Posted by Karl]
At RedState, Leon H. Wolf would prefer Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman as the GOP presidential nominee. Yet, he argues that Mitt Romney, “if he were to win the nomination, *** would be our most conservative nominee since at least 1988.” Although I think he validly notes some are overreacting to the probability of a Romney nomination, Wolf is likely overstating the case for Mitt. Moreover, what grabbed my attention was one of Wolf’s asides:
[I]f I had my druthers I would prefer someone like Rick Perry who has been more or less consistently conservative for a relatively long time (an easier feat in Texas than Massachusetts, no doubt, but that is beside the point).
It is not entirely beside the point, as Romney supporters will defend his record as the product of trying to govern a Blue state like Massachusetts. That’s one reason why it’s worth reading the response from the American Spectator’s Jim Antle — a Bay State native who voted for Romney thrice:
So I know something about settling and political reality. I also know that over that period Romney went from being someone who emphasized he was an independent during the Reagan years to trying to be a full-spectrum Reagan conservative, someone who described himself as a “progressive” in this decade to a “four-legged stool” movement guy, someone who with equal conviction defended both sides of the abortion debate, did not just flip-flop on abortion once but zig-zagged for over nearly two decades, and has generally acted as if none of this ever happened.
That pretty much tracks the standard oppo research on Romney. Antle is not alone, either. Michael Widmer, president of the nonpartisan Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, says Romney did little to make state government small or simpler during his tenure as governor. Romney raised revenues with a host of fee hikes and tax levies. The state payroll increased by 3,000 workers, or 2.6 percent, under Romney. Mitt also floated the unprecedented notion of empowering the state revenue commissioner to adjust the tax filings of certain corporations who used complicated transactions and out-of-state shelters to avoid paying their “fair share” of state taxes. And there was Romneycare, which Mitt still defends.
Maybe all the critics from Massachusetts are simply being unrealistic. After all, Jake — it’s Massachusetts. But people who live there have some frame of reference, don’t they? Moreover, Romney does not fare well in comparison to other Republican governors in Mass. The CATO Institute’s Fiscal Policy Report Card for governors — which looks at proposals as well as results — shows that in the 1990s, William Weld got a high “B” and third-best score overall. In 2000, Paul Cellucci got an “A” and the highest score overall. In 2002, Jane Swift managed a low “B,” even in tough economic times. Yet in 2006, Mitt Romney could only manage a “C.” That’s an unimpressive grade, even on the Massachusetts curve.
–Karl
Ding!
Karl (5a613f) — 1/5/2012 @ 7:26 amWell get used to it. This is our destiny.
SarahW (b0e533) — 1/5/2012 @ 7:27 am‘resistance is futile, you will be assimilated’
narciso (87e966) — 1/5/2012 @ 7:30 amCliff Notes: Romany is a lying crud.
gary gulrud (1de2db) — 1/5/2012 @ 7:36 amyou can just see it now Wall Street Romney and Meghan’s coward daddy and David Brooks and Princess Lindsay lounging around the oval office in unbuttoned seersuckers and Wall Street Romney rings for a jolly nice pot of earl gray and Lindsay says chamomile for me please
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/5/2012 @ 7:38 amWall Street Romney and Illegal John Mccain are a marriage made in hell.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/5/2012 @ 7:40 amMr Belfry? Your bats ^^^ are here!
Icy (e6ad7f) — 1/5/2012 @ 7:53 amMeghan agrees with you, on Santorum, pikachu, how do you feel now;
narciso (87e966) — 1/5/2012 @ 7:54 amUse your God-given intelligence, do some research into the careers, records and backgrounds of all the candidates and make the choice of who you support. May the most conservative man with the best chance of removing the malignant current occupant of the Oval Office be our nominee.
Colonel Haiku (db8df3) — 1/5/2012 @ 8:03 am“someone who with equal conviction defended both sides of the abortion debate, did not just flip-flop on abortion once but zig-zagged for over nearly two decades, and has generally acted as if none of this ever happened.”
Karl – This seems like one of the biggest lies out there. Romney openly talks about his personal beliefs versus the way he proposed to legislate or govern. Massachusetts is a very pro-choice state. Heaven forbid he pay attention to what his constituents want right? That’s not what politicians are for right? Not paying attention to the public is how we get crap like ObamaCare.
The conversion he does talk about publicly is when he felt he could no longer separate his political actions on the subject.
Let the attacks continue.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/5/2012 @ 8:13 amUse your God-given intelligence, do some research into the careers, records and backgrounds of all the candidates and make the choice of who you support. May the most conservative man with the best chance of removing the malignant current occupant of the Oval Office be our nominee.
Amen.
I understand not liking Mitt and not really wanting him to be the nominee. But for heaven’s sake, look at what we’ve got. I’m afraid I can’t understand people who seem to want to destroy Mitt. Do they really want Obama again? I think they might.
MayBee (081489) — 1/5/2012 @ 8:15 ammost people what are not corn chuckers agree with me on Santorum
you’ll see
you’ll all see
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/5/2012 @ 8:15 amif one Mr. Wall Street Romney does indeed become the nominee of the Republican Party in 2012 I reserve the right to revise and extend any previous remarks with respect to him and his record and his suitability for the presidency
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/5/2012 @ 8:18 amBut for heaven’s sake, look at what we’ve got
How dare you disparage our President-For-Life-To-Be!
Just look at the wonderful way he’s transforming a government of Wall Street Greed, to one empowering the Workers of the World.
Why, it’s unprecedented (except when it was done by some obscure guy from London named George – and that didn’t turn out so well for him, did it?).
AD-RtR/OS! (de46f9) — 1/5/2012 @ 8:29 amdaleyrocks,
Ah yes, the personal vs the political. This is different from, say, Mario Cuomo how, exactly?
Karl (5a613f) — 1/5/2012 @ 8:32 am“Ah yes, the personal vs the political. This is different from, say, Mario Cuomo how, exactly?”
Karl – Don’t understand your reference. Are elected officials supposed to represent the interests of their constituents or themselves if they openly declare their stances on issues contrary to the views of their constituents. It’s an easy question.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/5/2012 @ 8:42 amRe; post #11… It’s only right, MayBee. People need to have enough interest to look for the information and not rely on what any pundits, bloggers (sorry, Karl, Mr. Frey) have to say, as they are all biased. Most have very interesting points of view, but that doesn’t mitigate their bias.
I have friends, family and co-workers in Texas, Massachusetts, Georgia and Pennsylvania and they too are all valuable resources relative to their experiences with those in the race.
Colonel Haiku (db8df3) — 1/5/2012 @ 8:45 amAn aspect that most people are ignoring is that the President doesn’t serve in isolation, they don’t get unlimited power to impose their agenda on the country (perhaps not so good with a GOP President, but thank God that’s the case with Obama).
And unlike the Democrats, who are much more philosophically aligned and could be counted to fall into line, the GOP in Congress is all over the place. Some hardcore, others are considerably closer to the middle (but note none of them, not even Scott Brown, who backed Obama’s Cordray nomination, are what the Democrats would consider liberal).
Thus, it doesn’t matter if an allegedly more pure conservative (stipulating Santorum is such) gets elected, he’s not going to have the votes to push through a truly conservative agenda. His record will be somewhat similar to that of Romney in Massachusetts… not particularly conservative, but a whole lot better than it would have been had a Democrat held the office (as evidenced by Patrick’s record over the past few years). He won’t have the votes to overturn Obamacare, appoint truly conservative justices to the Supreme Court, roll back the welfare state, etc. A Santorum may want to do more than a Romney wants to, but in the end the legislative outcome will be pretty much the same whether Romney or Santorum takes over. All that matters is that one of them win. And if nominating a ‘less conservative’ candidate will help, then I’m fine with that even though I am not a big fan of Romney or his positions). We need to keep our eye on the big picture, getting rid of Obama.
Of course, the above all changes if and when the GOP in Congress not only becomes more solidly conservative but also more willing to ignore trying to please the media. But until then, it’s a pipe dream to think that a true conservative is going to accomplish anything more than a Romney would.
steve (369bc6) — 1/5/2012 @ 8:47 amWho is Paul Cellucci?
Oh yeah, he was Weld’s Lt. Gov. who was famous for continually proposing tax cuts since Massachusetts was awash with cash in the second half of the 1990s with its high tax rates. That’s why Cato loved him. He ultimately managed to convince the leg to approve a capital gains tax rate cut but the repeatedly refused to cut the rate on ordinary income. Cellucci eventually put it on the ballot for voters where it passed with 60%.
Those tax cuts set up the $1.3 billion deficit Romney faced entering office with the minirecession that hit Massachusetts harder than many other places in the country due cuts in tech jobs and business services. Hence the misleading talking points on job production during Romney’s tenure as governor for those who bother to do any research.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/5/2012 @ 8:50 am________________________________________________
“if he were to win the nomination, *** would be our most conservative nominee since at least 1988.
This from a guy who’d favor Jon Huntsman?! Is Wolf for real? Or is he actually a plant with a hidden agenda (a left-leaning one) trying to sow confusion in the Republican Party? Then again, is he much more squishy than so many of the prominent Republicans in general? Is he much worse than so many people throughout America overall? The possible answer doesn’t give me much confidence.
Towards the end of this year — and assuming polling data six or more months in the future doesn’t change much from current ones — if a large percentage of the American electorate still is willing to give more benefit of the doubt to someone like Obama than he deserves — in spite of his ultra-liberalism — but will be less willing to do the same thing to all the squishes running for the Republican nomination, that will illustrate one thing: This society truly has become full of too much leftwing sentiment.
However, a past generation of Americans was not much less foolish, since a majority of voters over 60 years ago — in spite of the Great Depression remaining great until the start of WWII — kept pulling the lever for Franklin “Packing-the-Supreme-Court” Roosevelt.
Mark (411533) — 1/5/2012 @ 8:55 amEt tu, Daley? You’re adopting the liberal talking points that tax cuts (as opposed to excessive spending) is responsible for budget deficit?
steve (369bc6) — 1/5/2012 @ 8:55 amWell argued.
And I would probably feel better about it if it weren’t distorted. Yes, Romney is a liberal Republican. That he’s needed to cover it up so much makes it a lot harder to rely on any promises he makes because a lot of his statements now have quite stark contradictions from his statements not long back.
Romney isn’t the only Republican with liberal tendencies. I think Santorum has some (not nearly as bad, of course) and so does Newt (but Newt is also better). Romney has more executive experience, so the fact that he’s not honest about his plans and ideology are a major factor in what holds most people back from relying on him.
I want real reform. At least a good try. I recognize that Romney was a liberal far longer than he pretended not to be, and the current act is designed to get the nomination, and that he would move left as soon as it was expedient (and I note, that would be very, very soon).
Newt and Perry are substantially better bets for the conservative.
I also think if either had the party behind him in a general, they would fare better against Obama’s machine. Mitt is much easier to beat than polls suggest, in my opinion.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:04 amdaleyrocks (19),
And yet Romney did worse than Swift, who bore the brunt of the economic conditions you describe.
Karl (f07e38) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:06 amthey don’t get unlimited power to impose their agenda on the country (perhaps not so good with a GOP President, but thank God that’s the case with Obama).
I hope to Hell that this is sarcasm in light of what happened yesterday with the “recess appointments” to the CFPB and NLRB?
AD-RtR/OS! (de46f9) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:07 amMark (20),
Huntsman has a more conservative record than Romney; it just doesn’t seem that way because Huntsman went out of his way to insult the base at the outset of the campaign (Perry also insulted the base a few times, but more likely from ineptitude). And Mitt’s supporters will note that it’s easier to have a conservative record in Utah…. which brings us full circle to this post.
Karl (f07e38) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:09 amHe was talking about conservatives, wasn’t he? That’s the problem.
Mitt defines conservative as “Individual mandate”, which is socialism.
People want a conservative nominee. They aren’t just evil monsters trying to ruin this poor poor Romney victim. Romney is a big government progressive and would definitely be a worse president than Newt or Perry.
Look at how stunningly bad he was in MA. He left it far worse off than he found it, far more intrusive, and papered over the budget gap he left. Romney left MA with over twenty billion dollars of spending it couldn’t afford in Romneycare alone, but he increased spending and taxes all over the place. The guy flip flopped on abortion… that’s why people don’t trust him. The guy taxed guns $100 a pop… that’s why conservatives don’t trust him.
And yet, day after day we see people act like those telling the truth are actually doing something wrong because we have to pretend Romney is OK or we’re actually helping Obama? That kind of loyalty oath is what has ruined the GOP. That’s why we get politicians who TEST our loyalty by going as far left as they can, because that is the easiest way to keep power, short term, and damn the long term.
So when you say you can’t understand why conservatives criticize Romney, look at his career of failure and screwing this country. Look how he never took to the bully pulpit to rail against liberalism when he was governor. Or even before that, look at what Bain did to this country, a pioneer in outsourcing in thirty industries, making China much wealthier and America much poorer. That kind of thing can’t go on forever. Or look to his entire argument for Romney in 1994 and 2002, that he isn’t actually conservative, progressives need him, he’s progressive, and even support for policies 100% opposite of what he claims to support today.
It’s not personal. It’s patriotic.
Romney fans have no choice but to compare him to Obama because that’s how bad he is. That’s such a weak comparison to make, because Obama is a terrible president. We need to do better than merely better than Obama.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:12 amJust do the research, folks. Decide for yourselves and don’t let anyone’s spin or bias unduly influence you.
My $.02… Job #1 is sending Obama back to what he knows, which is community organizing. We need to back the candidate with the best chance of making that happen.
Colonel Haiku (db8df3) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:13 amWhy vote for Obama-lite, when you can get the full-flavored, full-bodied original?
AD-RtR/OS! (de46f9) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:14 amIt gets old hearing how you’re being stupid if you don’t support Romney. Any logical argument is dismissed or spun cynically, and yet the people having the adult conversation with the facts on their side are ignorant and stupid.
Yeah, that’s why Romney has gone from 23% to 23% after pouring tens of millions into politics. that’s why Romney’s seven digit Iowa operation tied Santorum’s $23k operation. You can’t win an argument by telling people who are very familiar with Romney… by far the most familiar of all the candidates, that they just don’t know anything about the mystery man.
And if that’s true, then Romney is a very poor politician.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:16 amWe don’t need some country bumpkin Lonesome Rhodes, who is too busy lining his and his cronies pockets to care, we need a guy who can help put us back on the rails.
Colonel Haiku (db8df3) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:16 amRamussen 1/4/12
if the GOP 2012 Primary were held to day, who would you support?
Romney 29%
Santorum 21%
Gingrich 16%
Paul 12%
Huntsman 4%
Perry 4%
which is the strongest candidate to run against Obama?
Romney 44%
Colonel Haiku (db8df3) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:23 amGingrich 17%
Santorum 15%
Paul 6%
This is BS, Dustin
JD (392f2d) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:25 am_______________________________________________
it just doesn’t seem that way because Huntsman went out of his way to insult the base at the outset of the campaign
But that suggests to me his gut biases do tend to push him away from the right, towards the left.
Based on the human nature illustrated by the phrase “you can judge a person’s character by the company he keeps” (hi, Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright, etc!), if a politician feels a need to distance himself from those who occupy a part of the ideological spectrum, that hints at what animates his core.
Beyond that, I don’t trust Huntsman when I keep observing various liberals saying he’s the type of Republican they can get behind or tolerate.
Mark (411533) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:27 amJust look at Perry’s career. An amazing fiscal conservative, a veteran, a self starter, a much more competent executive.
Look at Newt’s. A brilliant man, a successful fighter for conservatism, someone capable of using the bully pulpit, and a leader of the House, which is impressive.
Look at Santorum’s… he’s yet to really accomplish anything tremendous, but he’s conveyed an ideology openly and even tied Romney’s seven figure Iowa campaign with basically pocket lint and nickels, so while he’s not really competitive for my vote he is a superior politician.
And look at Romney’s background. A nobody starts goes into leading a huge company because of his last name (this is a guess… I realize it’s pretty obvious since Romney’s kid did the same now, but Romney fans pretend it’s not obvious). The company does better when Romney leaves. Romney bankrupts MA with Romneycare, calling a huge increase is what the government forces people to pay (I call that a tax hike) conservative. Lies about his abortion views. Imposes a terrible gun tax. Papers over the deficit he leaves MA. Ends a streak of much better GOP governors (new talking point!). Loses to weak 2008 candidates and devotes himself to winning in 2012 by ducking all the major endorsements and political issues as the Tea Party came to life. Where was this guy as so much happened in 2009 and 2010? He was issuing endorsements months later. He’d offer a watered down and quibbling version of Palin’s facebook comments six months later.
The moment was there for a leader to arise, and Romney wasn’t there. I note Perry was proudly making controversial (to liberals and the MSM) statements about Obamacare at Tea Parties. and he was hardly alone.
Romney’s record shows he has a lot of experience as a manager and an executive. His ability to shift positions on anything is both a real problem for informed voters and a real advantage with low infos he panders to (with promises of more Medicare spending and warnings about Republicans abolishing social security). Romney would be an improvement over Obama and he’s less risky than Santorum given his experience leading (even if the results were disasters).
So there, I’ve done as asked and gone over their backgrounds.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:31 amNo that was campaign manager, Weaver, that backstabbed McCain with the bogus adultery story with the Times, he was also formerly with Perot.
narciso (87e966) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:32 amDustin: nice that a supposed conservative like you blasts Romney for his tenure at Bain. Isn’t it the union dependent liberals who get upset at companies that outsource labor in response to high labor costs and restrictive workrules? And aren’t conservatives supposed to trumpet merit? If one doesn’t produce at a level to justify a paycheck, you don’t have a right to one just because you live in this country.
And I’ll keep repeating this: we don’t get even a short term if you harbor the illusion that this country will elect a full-conservative to the Presidency. (and don’t bring up Reagan, he did a lot to come across as less conservative than his fans would admit and in any event, half the people who voted for him are dead… it’s a different country now and one would be silly to argue that election campaigns today should be modeled on what took place 30 years ago.
steve (369bc6) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:35 amWhoops!
“Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum committed one of the gravest sins in Republican politics on Wednesday evening by knocking the revered former President Ronald Reagan at a packed town hall meeting.
While addressing America’s entitlement crisis at his first New Hampshire event since his stunning near-victory in the Iowa caucuses on Tuesday, Santorum said Reagan contributed to the entitlement crisis by pushing Social Security’s sustainability issues down the road instead of dealing with them head-on in the 1983 bipartisan deal to fix Social Security.”
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/05/santorum-commits-republican-sacrilege-attacks-ronald-reagan/#ixzz1ias1xAba
Colonel Haiku (db8df3) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:35 amNo, it’s true. Bain calls themselves a “pioneer” of bringing American industry to China in thirty industries.
Now, should I hold that against Romney? I don’t know. On the one hand, he had a duty to make a profit with layoffs and outsourcing and all that. That’s definitely what his tenure resulted in. They made very impressive profits and sometimes they turned around failing companies.
And one reason they made profits is because the consumer wants cheaper Chinese goods, so is it Romney’s fault for following that invisible hand, or was it his duty?
Personally, while I think laying off American workers is justified, because if the company fails they lose their jobs anyway, and this is obviously something the GOP House needs to be doing anyway with budget cuts, I draw the line somewhere. There are some things I wouldn’t do for money.
I think China is oppressive and investing there instead of in America is wrong. Bain calls themselves a pioneer… first in Beijing or something like that, and I that is something I wouldn’t do even for a large profit. I try to avoid buying Chinese made goods because I think the regime there is terrible and I also think America is making a mistake eliminating so much of its own manufacturing.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:36 amJeez, you’re flailing. What huge company hands over control to someone just because that person has a last name that’s the same as a relatively unimportant and unimpressive governor? Do you really think that is the way companies work?
steve (369bc6) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:37 amNo!… it’s twoo, it’s twoo!
Colonel Haiku (db8df3) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:37 amDustin: so are you blasting Romney for his time at Bain #26 or are you okay with it #38. You seem to be arguing with yourself.
steve (369bc6) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:39 amThat’s the way they do it in Texas, Steve.
Colonel Haiku (db8df3) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:39 amThanks.
I think China in particular is oppressive and not our long term friend, and I personally would not fire an American to outsource his job just to make money.
I would, instead, succeed in America like many Americans do. Romney’s Bain clearly knew how to do that too, as they managed to make a lot of successful ventures in America.
You just have to pick a red state like South Carolina or Texas. You do not need to go to China for that, in my opinion. Samsung is making electronics up the street from me. Boeing is making planes. Toyota is making trucks.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:39 amExcellent (albeit unwitting) examples of why people need to do their own research.
Colonel Haiku (db8df3) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:41 amAgain with the liberal talking points. ‘America’ didn’t eliminate its manufacturing. It went away because labor costs and work rules made it more profitable and efficient to have it done somewhere else… a self inflicted wound, not something ‘America’ did.
steve (369bc6) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:42 amWell he happens to be right, as with the TEFRA deal,
narciso (87e966) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:42 amas with Simpson/Mazzoli.
No, I’m being honest. I’m not ‘arguing with myself’ to note the good and the bad. That’s just honestly. I don’t need to take a ‘everything he did was bad’ take to be consistent. Layoffs are more justifiable than outsourcing to China.
Do you plan to bring any facts to back up your assertion? You are arguing against FACTS by claiming they aren’t true.
What had Mitt Romney accomplished before finding himself running an eight digit business venture?
And no, Bain did not hand over control to Romney. Romney got a bunch of investors together without having any significant experience. I think because he had connections. There’s nothing inherently wrong or unusual about that. The Romney family was very wealthy and Romney’s dad was a businessman.
My point there is not to demonize people who use connections. You don’t seem to be following what I’m saying. My point is that Bain was doing very well before Romney, and Romney’s contribution is questionable beyond the fact he managed to bring in a lot of investors. And then Romney departed and Bain did fine without him. So how much credit does Romney get for running the actual leadership part of these investments?
I only credit him generally, as I did above, assuming he has more management experience than someone who has never managed, because it really is unclear to me what, beyond fundraising, Romney contributed.
You seem to have changed what I’m saying to something a lot stupider.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:44 amAgain with the simplistic responses ignoring the facts.
I showed that manufacturing and success in America is completely possible.
And China isn’t the only other place in the world, you know. It just happens to be the cheapest.
Why is it the cheapest, Steve? Because it is a human rights nightmare. Yes, again with the liberal talking points. I think China’s human rights record is terrible. I guess that means I’m a bad conservative in your book, but this is the truth.
It’s also a HUGE problem for Romney in the general election.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:47 am___________________________________________
which is the strongest candidate to run against Obama?
Romney 44%
I wonder how much of that is due to a variation of the “abused wife syndrome,” or great disquiet among various parts of the right about how Obama has turned on its head a particular sociological observation. That being the notion of the past that when two people were competing for the same job, if one of the two was a minority (ie, racially, ethnically or gender- or religion-wise), not only would he (or she) have to be as good as his competitor, he’d have to be much better.
I recall thinking several years ago that if Americans decided to elect this country’s first black president (or, based on what some have labeled Bill Clinton, the second one), he’d have to have a pretty firm, reliable background, or certainly no less than that of, say, Colin Powell. In reality, we got someone with the radical, peculiar life story of “Barry Obama” — of someone with close relationships to fanatics like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, not to mention a family full of flakes (eg, Obama’s hippie mother) — and, as they say, the rest is history.
Recent opinion polls suggest there is a reason why anyone with sanity and common sense should continue to suffer from a political, ideological version of “battered wife syndrome.”
Mark (411533) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:47 am“Et tu, Daley? You’re adopting the liberal talking points that tax cuts (as opposed to excessive spending) is responsible for budget deficit?”
steve – They both do, but obviously if you enter a budget year and the economy or stock market falls of a cliff like it did prior to the Bush tax cuts, the tax revenues react more quickly than calling a new legislative session and making mid-year budget cuts.
If you look at the sources of Massachusetts revenues for the periods in question, you’ll see what I mean.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:51 amheh
Who knows? Obama is so bad I absolutely vote for Romney.
The problem I have is that in the primary, when laying out the problems I have with Romney, I keep running into personal attacks or spinning.
Sorry, I have a lot of problems with him being the nominee. I would prefer to replace Obama with someone a lot better. Someone who didn’t make China richer at the expense of America. Someone who didn’t say Romneycare was conservative. Someone who didn’t ban guns and tax what he didn’t ban at a steep rate. Someone who doesn’t flip flop on core issues.
a lot of that is just personal character stuff. A lot of it is ideological.
I think Newt in particular is a better compromise. I give up some of what I want on ideological consistency for a guy that I think can beat Obama.
BTW: those dismissing the attacks I’ve made on how Bain made a buck, keep in mind that this is a general election issue. Those polls that say Romney is electable are mostly of folks who haven’t heard enough about it. Personally, I think the best way to overcome the vulnerability (all GOP candidates have at least a few) is to be distinct from Obama on ideology. That way, we have a choice between two directions, instead of two men headed in the same can kicking direction (where personal attacks work better).
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:59 am“And yet Romney did worse than Swift, who bore the brunt of the economic conditions you describe.”
Karl – Swift was a two year caretaker. She earned he Cato ranking by continuing Cellucci’s tax policies, for whom she served as a Lt. Gov., but she had to fight off the legislature to maintain them. She earned a “Low B” versus Cellucci’s “A”, showing the downward trend:
“Swift has been too timid onkeeping the lid on the legislature’s spending proclivities.”
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:59 am_______________________________________________
It gets old hearing how you’re being stupid if you don’t support Romney.
I fully agree, even more so since all the Republican candidates, either for purely ideological or superficial reasons (eg, so-called charisma or lack of such), suffer from having large feet of clay.
I’m still astounded that Herman Cain entered the race apparently without any (or enough) concern that the various details of his private life would eventually leak out. But such movers and shakers — regardless of their political persuasion — tend to be stuck with the weakness of too much hubris, too much ego. I think that’s one reason a Mitt Romney can be such a chameleon or go-along-to-get-along type person (echoes of George “read-my-lips” Bush Sr, and certainly when it came to negotiating with the Republican-led Congress and its bloated budgets, Bush Jr), or a Newt Gingrich can be, well, a Newt Gingrich.
Mark (411533) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:07 amComment by Colonel Haiku — 1/5/2012 @ 9:16 am
You don’t get it, do you?
AD-RtR/OS! (de46f9) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:07 amWe don’t want someone to put the train back on the rails to Perdition;
We want someone who will survey a new path, and lay new track back to the Constitutional Republic that the Founders bequethed us, and then put the train on those rails.
I think Newt in particular is a better compromise.
I could be wrong, but isn’t Newt’s experience at running anything pretty nonexistent?
When you vote for someone based on what they can’t be criticized for, the person who ends up on top is the person who has the least relevant experience.
That’s one way we got Obama. He was very good at getting post offices named in the US Senate, and we were told demonstrated excellent executive skills in running his presidential campaign.
MayBee (081489) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:09 amThere are some people who think conservatives MUST support corporatism. Like big business = conservative.
Well, I think that’s quite stupid.
Sometimes, it’s even backwards. Sometimes, large businesses are really a democrat thing. I think conservative policies are much better for those who want to start a business and succeed here in America, but I don’t think people should water down the concept to where any time you criticize something that made money, you are no longer really conservative.
I would criticize Nokia for making money selling technology to Iran. I criticize GE for using lobbyists to shape laws in ways that benefit their profit margin. Both these things are smart business, I guess, but I don’t excuse them just because they made money.
I think it stands in stark contrast to Rick Perry coming back from military service and making money in America as a door to door salesman. Sure, that’s far more humble than building forty factories in China that pay workers a few pennies while greasing the wheels with the Chinese government and military. But it probably relates better to what is needed to turn America around.
Some folks defend Romney saying ‘but you need to leave America to make money’. That’s not constructive. Perry’s shown how Texas have bring investors and new factories. Keep regulation down.
Now that’s totally fair, because Romney was governor of MA and he failed to take anything he learned at Bain and create jobs. Steve notes that some states make fewer jobs because of regulation. Did Romney overcome this problem in MA? No. Romneycare was a burden for businesses. To listen to Steve, you think maybe Romney is an expert on what attitudes drive away success in America, because he saw them and invested in China, and so maybe he can fix them here and we can get our prosperity back.
Things like this make me think Romney’s attitude is different.
And we have leaders who have a record of job growth, so we should pick them instead.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:10 amHe was speaker of the house. It isn’t like running a company or a state. I grant you have a point there. It still requires a lot of leadership, manages a lot of people, and I think is about as good as you’ll get from a legislator.
But yes, this is not what I wanted. I am settling because Newt is closer to where I am ideologically.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:11 amI would rather have a “Lonesome Rhodes”, a man of the people, than “President Chance”, who lives in the bubble of his own mind.
AD-RtR/OS! (de46f9) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:12 am“And China isn’t the only other place in the world, you know. It just happens to be the cheapest.”
Dustin – And American companies have gone through waves of off-shoring as new countries became better locations. Start with Mexico, the biggest trading partner of Texas, Taiwan, Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, India, etc.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:13 amDustin,
Massachusetts is screwed by Prop 2 and 1/2. Local governments cannot raise property taxes high enough to pay for local expenses (such as schools, firefighters and police). So the state government is forced to raise money through higher income taxes, higher fees, higher sales taxes and more stupidity taxes (The Lottery!). (The parallels to the current situation at the Federal level is eerie)
Four Republican administrations in a row could do nothing to end the Mass Turnpike Authority, a nepotistic bureaucracy solely chartered to pay for a highway whose construction costs have been paid off for 20 years. There hundreds of authorities, administrations and departments that are just as sclerotic and bloated. And their all unionized…
In that environment, during years were there was a growing anti-Republican groundswell, Romney was lucky he wasn’t hung from a Statehouse window solely for being a Republican during the Bush years.
So, can Romney be an effective President, do all of the right things, bring all of the right people in place to have a smooth and uneventful Presidency if world event cooperate? Yes.
Do I expect Romney can keep an even hand on the rudder during a global economic meltdown? Yes.
Do I expect the Federal government to be smaller, better, more efficient, our debts more in order, our laws more sane by the end of a Romney administration? No…and that’s what a lot of us our clamoring for…
Xmas (7afe29) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:14 am“I criticize GE for using lobbyists to shape laws in ways that benefit their profit margin. Both these things are smart business, I guess, but I don’t excuse them just because they made money.”
Why not criticize GE for all its off-shoring as well?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:15 amYes. This is why I don’t get upset if someone notes Newt’s or Perry’s problems (unless they go nuts with mocking Tardasil or claims he’s gay, as two of the guys in this thread have done).
The fact is that Perry is a huge, huge disappointment. Newt has been so disappointing in the past, that his gaffes today don’t even faze me. Santorum at least is upfront about his ideology, but I disagree with a lot of it.
Romney has his problems too. sorry (not to Mark).
At the end of the day, I am simply taking the primary very seriously. I know I will support whoever we pick, and I know I’m settling no matter who it is, and I am most interested in picking the most conservative guy who can win. Necessarily, they do need to be electable and conservative, and I worry about Romney being overhyped as both.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:16 am_________________________________________________
I give up some of what I want on ideological consistency for a guy that I think can beat Obama.
Dustin, I truly don’t have any confidence in what I believe will be tactically the best choice this year. That’s because I don’t have lots of faith in a majority of the electorate, meaning they’re full of left-leaning squish. If it weren’t for that, I’d definitely want the most conservative candidate possible, and your hesitation about Romney makes perfect sense. But from a purely tactical standpoint, I don’t know if the Colonel doesn’t have a better finger on the pulse of the public.
I honestly can’t say what’s the best way to throw the dice—not helped by my being still appalled that the electorate in 2008 chose to put “Goddamn America” into the White House to begin with.
Mark (411533) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:16 amSome folks defend Romney saying ‘but you need to leave America to make money’. That’s not constructive. Perry’s shown how Texas have bring investors and new factories. Keep regulation down.
I don’t think Romney’s experience argues against this. When he was running a business, he was on the other side of the issue- living within the constraints set by our government.
Steve Jobs both chose to manufacture in China AND tried to tell Obama why, and begged him to change our business climate.
If Romney got in office and tried to do what Obama is doing- create more and more regulations at the behest of favored corporations- that would be horrible. But he could well use his experience to change our business climate and make it more favorable.
MayBee (081489) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:17 amMA is screwed…
They are screwed because, like most divisions of govt today, they are being guided by the “big govt” school of politics.
AD-RtR/OS! (de46f9) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:18 amThe one solution that they (all of them) never try is to scale back the scope and reach of govt and to reduce the spending.
They refuse to believe that there are limits to what the people can afford to support, and to match the size of govt to the size of revenues that can be (historically) attained.
Good comment, Xmas.
I can’t even argue against that. Romney will probably make… mixed nomination choices if his record holds true, and if the left has power in the legislature at any point in his presidency, Romney will cater to them and then call the results conservative if they are … slight compromises.
Otherwise, yes. Romney would bring many improvements.
And thank you for offering a much heightened Romney defense than I’m used to seeing here. I don’t think someone can do that without being realistic about the man’s many problems.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:19 amDustin, you left this part of Xmas’ post out, which is – to most of us – the relevant part:
Do I expect the Federal government to be smaller, better, more efficient, our debts more in order, our laws more sane by the end of a Romney administration? No…and that’s what a lot of us our clamoring for…
AD-RtR/OS! (de46f9) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:23 amI think Romneycare (which is probably the fastest expansion in business killing regulation in MA history) and Romney’s pandering against energy in MA were speaking against this.
And 47th out of 50th. Sure. I have to be honest and say Romney merely failed to turn that around. He failed to take to the bully pulpit and I think he started out negotiating with liberals on how to best make MA more liberal, instead of actually CREATING the fact that MA is a failure.
Unfortunately, the USA is in a serious situation Romney didn’t make, so I would like the next president to have more experience turning it around. Succeeding where most men would fail. It’s not like I’d be a better president than Mitt Romney. I have not the first clue how to shut liberals down, handle all those legislative battles we see play out today in bizarre ways. I don’t have the temperament to make a righteous speech like Chris Christie.
The more I think about it, the more I lean towards Newt.
But you’re right I can’t blame Romney for MA. I can say he failed to overcome those problems and I think the way he tried to deal with them is actually making them worse.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:23 amYes, AD. Xmas clearly gets why you and I would be frustrated to nominate Romney.
That is the most relevant part in the primary.
The part of Xmas’s comment I quoted is why I would show up in the general and vote Romney, and also volunteer/donate to congressional candidates (it would be all that really mattered).
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:25 am“And no, Bain did not hand over control to Romney. Romney got a bunch of investors together without having any significant experience. I think because he had connections. There’s nothing inherently wrong or unusual about that. The Romney family was very wealthy and Romney’s dad was a businessman.”
Dustin like to channel Elizabeth Warren.
Bain the consulting firm decided to start a principal investing side and put one of its most successful consultant, Romney, in charge. They called the new firm Bain Capital to distinguish it from the consulting firm. Romney had been at Bain seven years before Bain Capital was spun off and at BCG (Boston Consulting Group) for two years prior to that.
If you have any evidence showing he owes his job or fundraising to family connections you must be keeping it secret, because you have not presented any.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:27 amThe smaller government thing one huge reason Ron Paul gets votes. But people would rather ignore him or focus on his many flaws than try to encourage the other candidates to figure that out.
MayBee (081489) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:28 amso I would like the next president to have more experience turning it around
I have no idea how this gets you to Newt.
I’d look at the Olympics and Bain and think Romney has a good problem solving skill set.
MayBee (081489) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:30 amMark, I was stunned in 2008. No smart person would have faith in the electorate after that.
I think one thing we learned is that moderates can’t beat the democrats at the pander and showbiz game.
What does the election wind up being about, when the GOP is a waffling quibbling RINO? What was at stake between Mccain and Obama, or Dole and Clinton, or Ford and Carter? Hindsight shows a lot more was at stake than their campaigns showed, much of that probably being competence (for Clinton on foreign policy).
But the elections themselves? Especially with Mccain, we saw two guys say they would have a (vague and BS) fiscally conservative government that solved basically all the same problems. And then Obama simply beat Mccain on style rather than substance. The MSM makes this a cakewalk.
So the 2012 election could be a lot different. It could be about Obamacare, for example. It could be about jobs, if we nominated Perry instead of someone with a poor jobs record. It could be about getting congress to enact real reforms, if we elect someone with a spine.
Or it could be about Romney criticizing Obamacare because it cuts Medicare spending, and how he’ll protect entitlements without cutting them, and how they are both the really smart neat guy we want in the white house. I think with Mccain, polls overstated his chances because this is an position that is likely to erode.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:31 amIt’s the leading the
Colonel Haiku (db8df3) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:31 amhorsemule to water thing, daley. Let the mule sow and eat his oats… all that he can stomach… and when he finally drinks the water, he’ll bloat and there endeth the lesson.“Some folks defend Romney saying ‘but you need to leave America to make money’. That’s not constructive. Perry’s shown how Texas have bring investors and new factories. Keep regulation down.”
It’s a BS talking point. If you look at the investments made under Romney at Bain Capital there are those that improved profitability and grew in part by off-shoring and there are others that are more domestic companies. Pure anti-Romney spin without any research of facts.
With respect to Texas, if you look at large Texas companies, many, many of them have pursued off-shoring as a manufacturing solution. I served up Texas Instruments as an example. What Perry is doing is luring companies from other states to the detriment of the economies of other states, not improving the economy. Cannibalism is not a solution to off-shoring.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:35 amWell, I suggest you look at the impact the House had in the 1990s on spending, on welfare reform, etc. Newt wasn’t the only guy responsible for that, and his ego has overstated his role I am sure, but he was a big part of it.
He has a mixed record, but that record certainly includes turning around problems against loud democrat opposition.
Romney doesn’t have that record. I find your siting the Olympics pretty bizarre. How does that relate to what will be a legislative battle requiring a bold president arguing his case?
Who was arguing against Romney, at the Olympics? Sure, they made it profitable, and there was skill. I can’t in good faith deny Romney credit for that. But I think this is a pathetic credential for the White House, even if I ignore Romney’s failure when he had a job that was much more relevant.
How Romney governed MA… how he successfully made MA less intrusive and more job friendly… that would be the best proxy.
It’s like Xmas says. Romney’s administration would sail smoother. The rapid descent Obama has us on would probably stop. God knows how much worse his second term would be. But agent of reform against democrats? Romney has been tested on that, and he didn’t succeed. I don’t even see him really trying the way Chris Christie is, and I think he did a lot worse than the several republicans who were there before Romney was (note that democrats having that office are now Romney’s legacy).
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:37 amPart of Obama’s problem is he gets rolled by businesses and unions who are smarter than him. They know what his little utopian ideals are and how smart he thinks he is, and they steamroll him (for our money).
Newt’s problem is he is so good at talking he can argue for anything. As his Freddie experience and weasel-wording demonstrates.
MayBee (081489) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:39 am“c”iting the Olympics, rather
btw, I’m not reading comments from people who have called me gay for supporting Romney, or called me a liar and then admitted they were themselves dishonest (by saying my lying actually was just making an unconscious error).
I am not responding to trolls because it just leads to a huge mess. I’m thankful that intellectually honest folks like Maybee are here to argue against my views.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:39 am“And 47th out of 50th. Sure. I have to be honest and say Romney merely failed to turn that around.”
I have to be honest and say you’ve got no clue why those rankings are where they are. It’s just another point I’ve tried to explain over and over. Public source documents are available which talk about it but some people prefer to ignore relevant facts.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:40 amI agree. It’s hard to be super confident about him. It frustrates me a great deal that he may be the most conservative guy left who can win, which is why I’m holding out hope for Perry.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:40 amHow does that relate to what will be a legislative battle requiring a bold president arguing his case?
Because it isn’t all about legislative battles. It’s also about vision, ability to look at a budget, ability to plan, ability to see traps, ability to solve existing problems, and ability to get people to believe in what you are doing.
We spent years saying part of Obama’s problem is that he has no private sector experience, and now Romney having private sector experience is not pertinent. Is that it?
MayBee (081489) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:43 amNo, it’s that he has too much of it, MayBee.
Colonel Haiku (db8df3) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:46 amThat’s why I’m on the Romney Rubio bandwagon.
MayBee (081489) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:46 amPresident Romney can set the country back on a sustainable path, and then President Rubio can conservatize it.
I have no idea how this gets you to Newt.
I’d look at the Olympics and Bain and think Romney has a good problem solving skill set.
Comment by MayBee
I’d add his term as governor of Massachusetts to that problem-solving skill set, MayBee. Good post.
Colonel Haiku (db8df3) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:50 amOK, well let me grant that Romney’s success at the Olympics bolsters the idea he at least understands how to cut bloated failures to the point where they are successful, which I assume is a skill he picked up at Bain but I don’t think it’s super clear what role he played there.
I don’t think Romney had the kind of opposition in that case, getting people to support what he’s doing, that he’d have in the White House. I think we would see Romney’s ideology (Which I believe is in direct conflict with limited government on many issues) come out more, and I believe if there was a politically tough issue, Romney very well could flip flop to what’s expedient for him. Also, the democrats seemed to get a lot of what they wanted from Romney. Sometimes they went over his head and extended a little, but still, they got much of what they wanted.
It’s hard to dismiss that as the most relevant part of his record.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:50 amAlso, what are Rubio’s credentials, Maybee? Is he ready to be president if the worst happens?
He had some leadership in state legislature, and I am sure Rubio would be better than the vast majority of non-governor options. I just worry he’s being picked for his charisma (and to be fair, you have already validly noted charisma’s role in reform).
Newt Hunstman! The choice that makes your stomach sink!
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:53 am_____________________________________________
And there was Romneycare, which Mitt still defends.
And when he likes the idea of the government forcing people to buy health insurance — which to my way of thinking is a totally different notion of “responsibility” compared with that of mandating people to carry auto insurance if they’re driving vehicles on public roadways — that’s merely one more reason why I think this society is tilting far too left. That along with matters such as otherwise sensible folks like Patterico supporting the idea of same-sex marriage, or political correctness infecting no less than the US military, exemplified by Nidal Hasan and the Fort Hood massacre.
Another sign that things truly are headed off the cliff of liberalism gone berserk? When even super-blue Massachusetts is having to wrestle with things like the following. Keep in mind that this doesn’t even involve the far more difficult, far more burdensome, far more excessive nature of illegal — not legal — immigrants and healthcare:
Mark (411533) — 1/5/2012 @ 10:58 amis he ready to be president if the worst happens?
For me, the worst that could happen would be for Obama to get re-elected. So VP candidate Rubio could help guard against that.
MayBee (081489) — 1/5/2012 @ 11:00 amheh. Good retort.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 11:01 am________________________________________________
No smart person would have faith in the electorate after that.
Even more so when I observe various opinion polls — of the recent past — giving not just Obama higher marks than he deserves, but when other liberals who aren’t much better, including Hillary “dodging-sniper-fire” Clinton and, for that matter, her husband, Mr. “Meaning-of-is-is,” also generating far more warm-and-fuzzy feelings from a good portion of the populace than justified.
Mark (411533) — 1/5/2012 @ 11:03 amMark, Hillary would have been a lot worse than many realize.
But I think she would have been less bold on health care, saving it when it wasn’t popular. I think Obama has risen to my guess about what Hillary’s foreign policy would have been (and I’m not saying it’s good).
The real difference is that Obama has deferred to congress so much and now we have a very strange budget situation. Hillary probably would have led a little more.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 11:11 amAlso, what are Rubio’s credentials
Wasn’t he Speaker of the FL House?
AD-RtR/OS! (de46f9) — 1/5/2012 @ 11:18 amSo, according to the Newt-critics, he has no executive experience, and is unqualified to be the Chief Executive of the United States.
But Maybee is being completely upfront here. She thinks Rubio’s purpose is mainly just helping the ticket beat Obama. And it’s true, Rubio could bring hispanics over and he’s very charismatic.
I worry he would be destroyed for the same reasons Palin was and in much the same way. They have already gone after his family. But that’s true for anybody. Someone has to jump into the frying pan.
Personally, I think Newt did more than just be speaker: he led well with some successes that outshine what the GOP has been capable of for a long, long time.
And yes, if Rubio is ready for the oval office, Newt is readier.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 11:28 amAD- to be clear, I do not think Newt’s lack of executive experience makes him unqualified to be POTUS.
It simply means that he has not had to make executive decisions upon which he can be judged. So I have a problem with the idea that no executive decisions (and therefore nothing to criticize) somehow defaults to a more favorable resume than the guy with executive experience (and therefore inevitably some things to criticize).
MayBee (081489) — 1/5/2012 @ 11:30 amI would to, but it’s not just ‘defaults’. Newt led a large organization, the House, to successes that the GOP has been incapable of for a long time. Did he do it alone? No more than Romney was alone in fixing the Olympics budget a single time.
And we’re talking about leadership in tricky political negotiating. I think Newt’s record is impressive on that front. Perfect is the enemy of the good here.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 11:32 amAnd yes, if Rubio is ready for the oval office, Newt is readier.
Democrats beat Palin over the head with the “is she ready if McCain dies” hysteria and then voted for Biden. And put Pelosi third in line. And McCain has so far made it through three of what would have been his four years.
Presidents have the best doctors and ridiculous levels of security. I find the “readiness” argument to be about 999th on my list of 900 things to worry about in a campaign.
MayBee (081489) — 1/5/2012 @ 11:33 amI’m not trying some kind of roundabout criticism when I say you’re being upfront there. You think Rubio makes the ticket more electable, and that’s a legitimate reason (one I disagree with, but legit) to rank that over readiness to lead.
You’re probably right.
Also, you want Rubio to be president later, and this would help a lot (though not as much as Rubio being Governor of Florida, IMO).
I think Daniels and Perry would be much better VP choices. Maybe Christie, but not if Romney is the nominee.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 11:37 amNewt led a large organization, the House, to successes that the GOP has been incapable of for a long time.
He did, but there were problems there too. He ended up resigning due to a rebellion in his own ranks.
I think Newt would make a fine president. He just isn’t my man in the primaries.
MayBee (081489) — 1/5/2012 @ 11:45 amNewt “The glass is half full of hydrogen and oxygen molecules.”
Santorum “The glass is half empty!”
Perry “The glass … is … well … hmm … the glass is …”
Ron Paul “The bet some Jews spat in the water”
Romney “I wanted a full glass, but it’s half empty because I let the democrats drank half of it, which is more conservative than an empty glass.”
Bachmann “This is a glass of tears from a young orphan I found at one of my events who got AIDS after the CIA invented it. She died before it was full.”
Daniels “I don’t want anything to do with you idiots.”
Huntsman “The glass would look pretty sexy in Barack’s hands.”
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 11:46 amFair enough. He really isn’t my man so much as the some of the other guys are definitely not my man. Thanks again for a reasonable discussion.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 11:48 amI like Newt because he is apt to be more bolder. But he is terribly flawed.
About both Newt and Romney I worry that they can do little in the way of inspiring our countrymen to trundle along the bataan-like death march to solvency what will be required to sustain our poor debt-bloated little country.
But Newt seems more in touch with the gravity of the problem. Romney mostly just focuses on striking reaganesque notes of optimism.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 1/5/2012 @ 11:53 amRush Limbaugh thinks – and he said this already before today – that there are some people who are for Romney, not because they expect him to win – they’d rather win, yes, but they don’t expect to defeat an incumbent, but they think he won’t hurt them down-ballot. (because he doesn’t have a reputation as a conservative, and he won’t be demonized that way.)
Someone else they think (he thinks) would prevent them from gaining control of the Senate and even maybe cost them the House.
Of course if anything like this is true, they might be thinking of state and local races, or even races in November 2013.
Rush Limbaugh thinks the main reason some people might want Republican control in Congress is because of committee chairmanships and control of the money.
Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/5/2012 @ 11:53 amAfter Mark Foley, I have to admit I do not understand how downticket races work. It seems they can be incredibly affected.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 11:57 amHooray for Democrat talking points! Without them, some of us wouldn’t have any.
“If you’re Governor Romney and you say I’m going to turn this economy around, I’ve got the answers. You don’t offer them. Then people have a right to say, why is it that your state was 47th in the country in job creation when you were governor?” Axelrod said.
Former White House spokesman Robert Gibbs cited the 47th out of 50 statistic in interviews before and after the most recent Republican debate. And on NBC’s Meet the Press on June 12, 2011, Democratic National Committee chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said, “Mitt Romney is pretty darn vulnerable on the economy himself. When he was governor, he literally was 47th in job creation. For someone who touts his own ability to create jobs, we’re talking about somebody that never created and recovered the amount of jobs lost in Massachusetts from the 2001 recession when he was governor.”
____________________________________
BTW, the unemployment rate in Massachusetts during Romney’s tenure was below that of the great state of Texas the entire time. Funny how that translates into such a weird job stat.
Hmmmmm
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/5/2012 @ 12:02 pmThanks for consistently pointing out the inconsistencies and outright falsehoods, daley. You do heavy lifting around here.
I promise I’ll never put you on the extra-special sissy double secret probation ignore list.
Colonel Haiku (db8df3) — 1/5/2012 @ 12:09 pmThe argument for mandatory auto insurance is not that people are using public roads and highways but that they can injure others and this way they would be able to compensate people. (Later on no fault changed that to every person’s insurance company compensating them, rather than the other person’s insurance company)
What’s mandatory is liability, not collision.
It is tied to the car not the driver, but it is tied to the county of residence of the driver, and also to their driving record. If you have a license bu do not own a car you don’t need insurance. In some states you don’t need it at all. In Virginia, I read, if you have $70,000 in savings, you can legally drive without insurance.
In Detroit nobody can afford auto insurance, and many people don’t actually carry it. It’s $5,000 a year.
Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/5/2012 @ 12:18 pmBingo.
And I only carry liability. What business is it of folks if I don’t think I need more? I take care of myself on the road and I am extremely unlikely to have an accident, so I save a ton of money by self insuring.
If I do screw up, I will be hosed. I’ll have to pay a huge penalty in replacing my car. Boo hoo if that happens, but that is freedom.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 12:21 pmtexas is awesomer though they have torchy’s tacos and tito’s vodka and a fun neighbor across the border and spec’s liquor stores and HEB and HEB+ and that’s where Farrah Fawcett was from plus also Leighton Meester
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 1/5/2012 @ 12:32 pmNo matter how bad Romney’s Massachusetts job numbers are, they shine in comparison with Obama’s numbers over the past three years. Do you think Obama really wants to get into comparing job loss/creation numbers
Executive experience is meaningless. Business executive experience is apples to the orange of the White House, about the only thing they really have in common is the word ‘executive’. Business executives don’t have to deal with a Congress. They don’t have courts second-guessing their decisions. They tend not to have to balance competing factions. And what good is experience if the occupant wants to do dumb things? Remember, the problem with Obama isn’t his lack of executive experience, the problem is what he wants to do as executive.
steve (369bc6) — 1/5/2012 @ 12:37 pmBut Romney was governor from 2003 to 2007. Those were boom years. MA was raking in tremendous revenue, too. Much more than the prior admin did, but the state didn’t dig out of debt with that money. Instead, it grew the government.
Romneycare had the same effect on employers than Obamacare did.
Honestly, I think just saying ‘Obama was worse, right?’ as true as that was, is simple.
I think it was one of his biggest problems, and this is probably the best argument Romney has.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 12:44 pmIt’s like you’re living in my head.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 12:46 pmI’m a little homesick after visiting Austin in November
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 1/5/2012 @ 12:47 pmBut now Obama has the real relevant experience, and four more years of it than Romney. So how is that Romney’s best argument?
The best argument (for whomever is the nominee) is ‘Obama made things worse (than they would have been)’. The unemployment rate is higher than it would have been had Obama not pushed through his stimulus. More people would be working if Obama hadn’t demonized all of business. The national debt would be smaller if Obama hadn’t given away billions of dollars to political cronies for stupid ‘green investments’. Gas prices would be lower if Obama hadn’t stomped on the neck of the oil and gas industry. Health care prices would be lower if Obama hadn’t pushed through Obamacare. Your house would be worth more today if Obama hadn’t pushed to let those who lied their way into buying more house than they could afford stay in those houses. Your savings account would be paying more than 0% interest if Obama (technically Bernanke) hadn’t flooded the market with dollars to bail out his Wall Street and European buddies.
America (the mushy middle in particular) isn’t happy with the way things are. Romney needs to make them think it’s Obama’s fault… and it isn’t Obama’s (then) lack of experience that is at fault, but rather the policies Obama put into place.
And this line of attack also segues nicely into a governing message and, dare I say it, a mandate for his successor. Let’s get rid of the stuff that Obama did that has hurt America and America will get back on its feet and start growing.
steve (369bc6) — 1/5/2012 @ 1:07 pmSmall s steve and I agree on something?!
JD (65d1c1) — 1/5/2012 @ 1:14 pmNoooooooo!
steve (369bc6) — 1/5/2012 @ 1:35 pm“But Romney was governor from 2003 to 2007. Those were boom years.”
Which years were boom years? Where? For which states?
Facts as opposed to assertions would be nice.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/5/2012 @ 2:27 pmafter the 9/11 recession yeah it was a very growy time in our little country, and the deficit was getting smaller and smaller and smaller in America, but not in the backwards land of Massachusetts.
For it was there that Wall Street Romney reigned haughtily, as if he were an imperious jungle cat, and the public purse but his ball of yarn.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 1/5/2012 @ 2:32 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 2:39 pmasspulls all he’s got, dr…
Colonel Haiku (db8df3) — 1/5/2012 @ 2:48 pmBTW Rubio and Jindal say they are absolutely not interested.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/5/2012 @ 5:00 pmBeing the “most conservative GOP nominee since 1988” is a little like being the best ice hockey player in Tahiti.Bush, Bush Jr., Dole and McCain aren’t conservatives.
Bugg (ea1809) — 1/5/2012 @ 5:01 pm“For it was there that Wall Street Romney reigned haughtily, as if he were an imperious jungle cat, and the public purse but his ball of yarn.”
Mr. Feets – It was not exactly man on dog, but it was indeed a frothy mix of an economy for a while there.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/5/2012 @ 5:31 pmicky frothy mixes are icky
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/5/2012 @ 5:48 pmWhey and glutamine shakes are both icky and frothy.
JD (392f2d) — 1/5/2012 @ 5:53 pmI put up a comment yesterday that I think was eaten by the moderation witch-doctor for some reason, but it was along these same lines of a Veep pick.
With both Romney or Gingrich, I think the Veep pick will come from a Gov’s mansion,
and be more conservative than the Prez nominee, and be from West of the Mississippi:
Sandoval of NV, or Martinez of NM; both for that Hispanic kicker, and a little geographic/philosophical balance.
I take Rubio at his word that he would rather, at this time, stay in the Senate;
and I don’t consider Daniels for the same reason that he disqualified himself; and which is why I make the above picks.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
AD-RtR/OS! (de46f9) — 1/5/2012 @ 5:54 pmTEST!
AD-RtR/OS! (de46f9) — 1/5/2012 @ 5:57 pmAs compared to Blackstone or the Petersen Group, Bain was a pretty good player in the M&A group,
however in the era of the Occupiers, you really
want him as the standard bearer.
Yes, he caught a bad break, relatively speaking,
narciso (87e966) — 1/5/2012 @ 5:59 pmwhen he came to office, regretably it proved difficult to depose Patrick, and restore some order, and the Charlie Baker example should be a little instructive,
Dang it, Karl! The Boston Globe endorsed Teh Huntsman.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/05/oh-my-boston-globe-endorses-huntsman/
Colonel Haiku (db8df3) — 1/5/2012 @ 6:18 pmAlthough the official number is a state secret, it is well known that China executes more people than the rest of the world combined.
In May 2010, China officially stopped using evidence gained via torture for convictions.
China’s expatriation of property to provide for construction in its burgeoning industrialization is often called brutal.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 6:24 pmI am extremely unlikely to have an accident
Maybe Texas drivers are better than Florida drivers. Don’t know. (But the one time I was in Texas I had to sit through a traffic jam in Houston that was worse than anything I’ve encountered in Miami, which is saying a lot.)
But I think you’re seriously underestimating the number of sheer idiots who are behind the wheel. (My pet peeve is the ones who zoom and cut in and out of traffic so they can sit at the next red light a moment or two longer than they would if they drove sanely.)
JBS (cc1ec4) — 1/5/2012 @ 6:27 pmJBS, there ain’t no traffic jam like a Houston traffic jam. I say that as someone whose driven in LA and Boston.
Anyway, my point was that if that happens to me, I’ll pay the price. I am arrogantly assuming that the odds of my having that problem are so low that it’s worth it to save the money.
Yeah, that’s lovely. Austin ain’t a peach, but I typically get into it via the mass transit system. I drive on country roads during the day 99% of the time, and the worst traffic I usually encounter is on the way to church of when visiting family.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 6:38 pmwhey and glutamine sounds like the future
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/5/2012 @ 6:40 pmhttp://www.kcci.com/news/30144582/detail.html#ixzz1idUftgoh
narciso (87e966) — 1/5/2012 @ 7:00 pmRomney’s problem is that he’s the Republican Clinton. He has no real fire in the belly, he’s willing to work within the status quo and make incremental change, and he’ll generally block any of the more radical Tea Party notions.
At a time when the status quo leads to ruin almost as fast as Obama’s extremism would.
I wish there was a better candidate in the offing, with more experience and clearer focus, but right now all we have is Newt. Perry is done, Zombie Richard Nixon has a better chance to beat Obama than Santorum, and Paul is impossible. It’s Romney or Newt.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/5/2012 @ 7:12 pmhe wants to be president really bad though
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/5/2012 @ 7:33 pm“As compared to Blackstone or the Petersen Group, Bain was a pretty good player in the M&A group,”
narciso – Pete Peterson was one of the founders of the Blackstone Group in 1985 after Lehman was sold to American Express the prior year, where he served as Chairman. Not sure if you’re talking about the same person.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/5/2012 @ 7:39 pmWhatevs you Romney fanboys say.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/5/2012 @ 8:38 pmhe wants to be president really bad though
It’s almost as if his daddy brainwashed him.
Kevin M (563f77) — 1/5/2012 @ 11:43 pmHis daddy proved to be right, Kev, however artlessly he may have said it.
Colonel Haiku (c7d740) — 1/6/2012 @ 4:20 am