Comments

Romney the big-government Republican? — 75 Comments

1. angelo codevilla got to the heart of this in the american spectator article last year

   essentially– the “ruling class” satisfies the political desires of almost all the democrat party and a few “big government” republicans whereas the majority of “republicans,” “independents,” etc., rarely have the candidate who best represents “them.”

   romney reeks of the republican ruling class; the fact that he defends his action of government mandates and his chameleon flip-flops are more than enough to raise the red flags- which is exactly why those who wish the “debate” over and done- let us just nominate romney already and get on with it unmask themselves as big government/crony capitalist instigators-both the democrat (msm) and rino stripes

2. Was Romney’s experience outside government playing at the game of regulatory capture? Big business and big government are two heads of the same Hydra.

   Did Romney’s experience inside government yield anything a conservative would desire? Making “good compromises” and doing “the best he could given the political environment” is the excuse that nourishes the Hydra.

   I say the burden is on the candidate to give me a reason to support him. Electability is not a first-order reason, it is qualifier to select among those who merit support.

   I hold to my position that if the choice is Romney v. Obama, I’m voting for Barry. Let’s get the collapse over with.

3. Romney is part of what those of us in the trenches refer to as “silk stocking Republicans”. People of privilege whose way in the world was paved with their families money. Mitt is one of these.

   Don’t get me wrong. I do not begrudge anyone being born to good circumstances. But those who are often do not understand the day to day of those of us who must make our own way without those benefits. Often they protect those of privilege without regard to equality and they are will to legislate spending our money as if we are part of the idle rich. For all his rhetoric, Mitt did this with RomneyCare. So many conservatives hold little trust, that when push comes to shove, Mitt will keep his word.

   Now as it happens, Romney so far has failed to close the deal, and various other candidates have risen and faded as the broad spectrum of Republicans look for someone better. At teh moment that candidate is Cain. Cain is not typical, I have a hunch that Romney’s dreams and those of the establishment are about to break on a rock named Herman.

   It’s a little early to tell, but he seems to have that unquantifiable something that speaks to our essential American spirit. He is a long shot and I am far from sold and in a pinch I’ll hold my nose and left with no choice, I’ll hold my nose and work for Romney, but for now I’m sending a few bucks to Herman Cain, because when the long shot seems to be the best in the pond, that is the right thing to do. He has a few more squares to fill before I’ll acknowledge that he is the real deal, but for the moment I’ll contribute to keep the dream alive and see how it turns out.

4. I hold to my position that if the choice is Romney v. Obama, I’m voting for Barry. Let’s get the collapse over with.

   I wouldn’t take it that far, but as things stand now there’s an excellent chance I’ll vote Libertarian. Of course a lot can happen between now and November 2012.

   I remember seeing a bumper sticker idea: “Boil the damn frog already! Vote Democrat.”

5. >>Yes, Romney has changed his mind on a couple of issues, particularly abortion, and now states views that are more conservative than before. Not sure why that’s such a crime, except that it causes people to believe he’s insincere, then and/or now.<<

   As a "changer" you know it's possible to change your mind about your worldview. I rejected liberalism as a kid, but all the change stories I've heard and read suggest it takes an awful lot of careful study, delibertion, and soul searching to get there. I don't sense that Romney has gone through that with his flip-flopping on abortion and gun control.

   Romney was for abortion when he was trying to be a player in MA politics where it is popular, but now that he's in a Republican presidential primary where most of the people voting in those primaries are pro-life conservatives, he's against abortion. It just looks like he's an unprincipled opportunist.

   If he didn't sincerely change his mind about abortion, was he pandering to the citizens of MA or is he pandering to pro-life conservatives now? We just don't know.

   Why is he for an individual mandate to buy healthcare if you live in MA, but he's against it if you live in any of the other 49 states? It just doesn't make sense (to me).

   I want someone who is proud to be conservative. Someone who champions conservative values because he thinks they are right, not because his "base" expects it of him.

   I am fed up with Democrat-lite RINOs.

   Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection is already talking about "Operation Counterweight". He's almost resigned to accept that Romeny is likely to win the nomination and so he thinks we need to focus on building a stronger conservative House and Senate to keep him in check if he wins the general election against Obama.

   As I am writing this, Intrade puts the probability at 67% that Romney wins the nomination.

6. Not heard Mittens described quite so much as big-government, but as possessing conservative credentials that are badly in need of repair, and that’s being charitable. He’s done something a small-government conservative would not do, which is of course create the government-run health care plan; and as near as I can see, to the extent that this is an albatross around his neck, it should be. And then he hasn’t done something that a small-government conservative would do, which is form a friendlier alliance with the Tea Party movement. So…he’s not doing something he should do, and he did do something he shouldn’t do. Both of those, added together, create an argument far more persuasive than double the effect what either one would do by itself.

   Add to that, the aggravation factor that we just ran a “be a little like the other guys” candidate four years ago…Romney ends up looking useful only to a select crowd, the people who want to get a guy in the White House with “R” after his name and don’t give a damn what he does once he’s there. If you have some legitimate and heartfelt concerns about government overreach, you’re not going to be in that crowd.

7. As I’ve said before, and I apologize for repeating myself, it looks to me like the Republican Party wants to be more like European “conservative” parties. They have no intention of reducing the size and scope of government. That’s just boilerplate rhetoric for the rubes. All they really want is to get their hands on the levers of power.

8. rickl: I voted Libertarian last time. For once I thought their candidate wasn’t a total wackjob. Other times I have written in cartoon characters. SpongeBob 2012!

9. foxmarks:
   I’ve voted Libertarian before, so it won’t be hard to do. But in 2008 I voted happily and enthusiastically for Sarah Palin. I even volunteered at the local campaign office, which I’ve never done before. I wished she was at the top of the ticket.

10. Morgan K. Freeberg:

    You write:

    [Romney has] done something a small-government conservative would not do, which is of course create the government-run health care plan; and as near as I can see, to the extent that this is an albatross around his neck, it should be.

    “Of course, create the government-run health care plan’? Did you read my post at all, or the link to the Heritage Foundation evaluation of that plan in 2006?

11. Scott: I will be writing about Romneycare in greater depth in the future; it’s a complex story. But what is it about the federal argument that you don’t understand? Many things are allowed the states that are not allowed to the federal government. An individual mandate to buy health care is one of them.

    Was it good for Massachusetts? That’s another complex question, one I will try to tackle in another post. But if you don’t see the difference between a federal mandate and a state one, read the Tenth Amendment.

    Remember also that the conservative Heritage Foundation was for the individual mandate at the state level as part of the Massachusetts proposal when Romney was governor. They seemed to understand the difference between the mandate at state and federal levels. Newt Gingrich was a supporter as well, at the time.

    Nobody here has to like Romney. But take a look at his actual record on this subject and how it compares to that of other so-called conservatives, and you might be in for a surprise.

    One other thing: Romney has never been for an individual mandate in other states. He is for each state deciding the matter for itself, and against the federal government having an individual mandate.

    As for Romney’s supposed flip-flops on gun control, study this.

12. People may be angry and disappointed, and rationalizing voting for Obama to “get the collapse over with”, etc.; or by simply enabling Obama by not voting for Romney or Obama. However, beware of allowing the Democrats another 4 years in the Executive Branch even if only a Rino can be had. Romney will at least be the proverbial glass half-full from which events can further evolve. Beware of the consolidation of the socialist state, tragedy on so many levels is lurking there for so many people, and not only in America.

13. Given the threat that Obama poses for America, I would vote for a ham sandwich over him. Romney meets that standard.

14. Interesting presentation.

    Rush consistently credits the HF as a leading conservative think tank. This lends credibility to Romney’s credentials as a conservative. no?

    Looking forward to your next chapter on this topic.

    Good job!

15. It’s all been so well said, and laid out much more clear than I am capable, that all I have to add is “I won’t work for that douche bad, I won’t vote for that douche bag, and I won’t contribute to that douche bag.” As for me, I’m starting to look a lot more closely at Newt. I think Cain is going to come up lacking, and if I’m going to die on the hill of a flawed candidate, I pick Newt. Well, I will add this…

    http://www.whichmitt.com/

16. Like all good RINOs, Romney believes government is the solution. Unfortunately I’m not sure we’ll ever find someone to save us, since I can’t see any viable candidate who doesn’t share that belief.

17. LAG: I ask for evidence, you give me a reiteration of the same old song. Am I supposed to believe something merely because you and others say so? I gave that up a long time ago, if I ever operated that way at all.

18. Tom: it’s all been so well said? Where??? That’s exactly what I don’t see (and that link you—or someone else; can’t remember which person offered it—provided was just a bunch of truncated quotes). I just keep people saying it’s obvious, we all know it. No has attempted to counter the facts as I wrote about them in my post and my comments here.

    If you’re looking more closely at Newt, you’d better take a look at this. Or does he get a pass from you on that?

19. I have made the argument that Romney and Perry are basically the same candidate, with Romney being more polished. Perry did what he had to do in a conservative state. Romney did what he had to do in a liberal state, including, as Neo points out, directing a very liberal state legislature to the least bad health care option they would consider. Both state environments are likely masking who these candidates are, namely, moderate Republicans.
    Romney is the least bad candidate we have now. He’s not great. I really, really, really want to like Cain as a candidate (I really like him personally). But I think he’ll wither under the pressure and his inexperience will eventually show.

    http://mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf It’s a fairly moderate conservative plan. Lower taxes, less regulation. That doesn’t seem like big government. He’s not calling for elimination of medicare and social security nor of the fed…but what electable politician is?

    Though I did just catch the trade war language with China…too late for that.

20. He does call for the repeal of Obamacare in his plan as well. Interesting…this hasn’t been noted as mostly he has talked about waivers for states.

    Congressional approval of major regulations…really like that.

    It’s just a lot of common sense stuff, that most people center to right would not find objectionable. That’s his candidacy, “I’m not objectionable to the center or right.” That should be good enough to beat Obama.

21. it’s not so much what romney “does” that spotlights his “big government” tendencies but, rather, what he doesnt do/say

    the basic, if not flawed, template is to play one’s conservativeness in the primary season to placate the base; when it goes national the candidate begins to tack to the other side in an effort to lure the so called independents and moderates

    so, basically, this is as conservative as romney will ever be– some kind of trepid toe in the pool of “states rights,” a good haircut and knack for excelling in these debates

    there is a very specific libertarian/conservative economic framework that is the antithesis of obama with which to bring the statists to their collective knees yet the entire selection of candidates get sidetracked much to easily to give me much confidence at all

    my main problem with romney is not the man himself but the puppeteers who want the entire process bypassed just to name their champion as the republican nominee asap

22. Interesting facts you present regarding Romney.
    Now I’ve got to figure out why I still prefer Cain.
    Cain would be historic: the first black president.
    Not half black.

23. It seems to me, Republicans want to fall in love with someone, as the Left did with Obama. They wanted to with Palin, but she was too hated (irrationally, yes), and the damage was done. So I think they’re trying to do the same with Cain. He’s somewhat exciting, he’s a minority with a wonderful American story….(stop me if this sounds familiar)…I think he would make a great VP.

24. Neo, I s’pose I should state that I have a basic objection to the idea of universal health care, whether it involves an individual mandate or not. If the government gives it to you, it can take it away, for whatever reasons it sees as necessary. As far as Romney goes, he’s really not as electable as you like to think he is. He will get eaten in the general over his flip flops. He is Yoda to (s)Kerry’s Luke Skywalker. Do you remember what “we” did to (s)Kerry. There is also no one challenging the assertion that Romney is more electable than the other candidates. Like you say, we all just think that, because it’s what’s commonly thought. I don’t care for the man, because he doesn’t stand for anything. He goes whichever way the political winds blow.

25. I’ll just reference my prior comment on the Christie thread here , with a subsequent correction here here .

    Ditto what I said for this thread.

26. I gotta ask the question, what’s better about hoping for a strongly conservative congress to restrain Romney, than hoping for a strongly conservative congress to restrain Obama. I say F#^K it, if there’s gonna be a Democrat in the seat, let it be a real Democrat, and let the Democrats defend it. I guess I also should be honest and say I’ve given up hope. I think this socialism has gone too far to be turned back. I think we’re doomed. The ONLY possible solution I see is a strong small government conservative, and a strong small government congress. If we don’t get that, it’s over anyway. I think if you look at history, this is how democracies run their course. They eventually fall into socialism.

    “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

    Both quotes by Alexis de Tocqueville

27. Those are misattributed quotes above, Tom.

    http://www.freakonomics.com/2009/01/15/our-daily-bleg-what-quotes-do-you-want-me-to-trace/

    Not that it matters.

28. Perfected:
    I fear a consolidated socialist state under a compromiser like Romney (or Romney’s reputation…).

    By voting for Barry, we get straight to the bankruptcy implicit in the socialist contract. What follows that brief period of violent upheaval may be something closer to our original Constitution or it may be a fragmentation of the former United States. Either is better than dying slowly.

    And that raises another angle on Romney. I agree that he does spout the preferred ideas about limits to federalism while allowing States to be more intrusive. But is he an Originalist or does he think the Constitution is alive? Does anything in his political record hint at what kind of Supremes he would appoint?

    (The only reason I voted for GWB in 2004 was for his likely Supreme Court nominees. He nailed it with Roberts and Alito. It was a gamble that paid off for me.)

29. I think you are doing a good thing here, neo.

    I have always looked at Romney as a moderate Republican. To me that means someone who knows that the private sector must be healthy and that government can be a major force in crippling the economy. They will stand in favor of getting spending under control and holding governmnet in check because that is what it will take to resuscitate the economy.

    On the other hand, if the money can be found (it won’t be there for some time – the debt is just too big), Romney would, much like G.W. Bush, go for some major programs like No Child Left Behind, or the Medicare Drug Program. Bush, Cheney, papa Bush, and even Ronaldo Magnus were pretty much of the same philosophy. Ronaldo Magnus was the most conservative of the bunch, but even he ran big deficits because he wanted to rebuild the military and could not get the democrat Congress to quit spending on domestic programs. What Reagan did do was appoint James Watt as Secretary of the Interior. Watt fought the enviro-whackos to a dead stop and helped the economy thereby.

    We are not likely to get a President who will go hard right from the current candidates except Ron Paul. However, Paul’s isolationist stance and propensity to blame everything on the Fed makes him a poor bet to beat Obama.

    I like many of Newt’s ideas, but he is another of those who occasionally lapses into ideas that can only be implemented by bigger government or more government control. He would make a good SECDEF, IMO.

    Herman Cain would probably be gimlet eyed when it came to spending and new programs, but his 999 program (which I think is a very bad idea, as mentioned in earlier comments) is being denounced by people who know more about taxes and tax policy than I do. We need better thought out ideas for getting things moving again from our candidates.

    I tend to be of the same mind as Prof. Jacobsen. We need to work to elect more conservatives to the House and Senate as a way to move things further to the right. The perfect conservative as President cannot do much when Congress is opposing him at every turn.

    Anyway, I’m looking forward to more in this series. Your fingering of the Heritage Foundation support of Romneycare and Newt’s support of insurance mandates were things I had not noticed before.

30. Ed:

    Cain is not only genetically black, he is culturally American and black. He is not a persona adopted late in college.

31. neo-neocon:

    I don’t find the federalism argument persuasive at all. Just because the MA constitution gave the legislature the authority to create a bill forcing the residents of MA to buy insurance, it doesn’t mean Romney as governor should have signed it into law.

    I read a Romney apologist write once that Romney helped the legislature craft the bill because he was dealing with a veto proof legislature. If he had vetoed the bill and let the legislature override his veto to make it law, he’d be viewed far more favorably by conservatives today. I think Romney liked and wanted Romneycare. That’s why he refuses to say it was a mistake today.

    Just because a conservative think tank developed a bad idea does not mean it is automatically palatable with many conservatives. In fact, the Cato Institute, a right leaning libertarian think tank, opposed Heritage’s healthcare plan when it was introduced in 1993, as did many conservative Congressional Republicans at the time. Cato has also been very critical of Romneycare.

32. J.J. formerly Jimmy J.

    I know from previous threats that you and I are on different sides of both the “fair tax” and Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. Not that I expect it will sway you, but both Art Laffer and Paul Ryan came out in support of Cain’s 9-9-9 plan today.

33. It’s funny that so many of Romney’s apologists make the argument that he does not make himself. “He was a Republican governor in a liberal state”

34. Thanks, Neo. It’s nice to have facts instead of rants. I agree with Holmes that many conservatives seem to be looking for their own saviour and jump from candidate to candidate without vetting them. It is rather easy to state pure principles, but implementation is another ball of wax.
    WRT Romney’s change on abortion, I heard him say once that his original position was based on knowing of someone (I believe the friend of an aunt) who died after an illegal abortion. I once worked with doctors who supported legal abortion because they had treated and sometimes failed to save women who had self-induced or illegal abortions. It does give one a different perspective. Some people thought that wider access to birth control might help the situation, but unfortunately any emphasis on personal responsibilty was shouted down by those who see unencumbered sex as the ultimate freedom. I prefer someone who is willing to correct his own errors of judgement in light of new facts.

    Cain is obviously a likeable and competent person, but I fear that he has real deficits on the international stage and he may do or say something that kills his candidacy within the next year. I can’t jump on his bandwagon until I hear how he answers some serious foreign affairs questions. Obama may kill him on the basis of one ill-considered statement and then take off on another world apology tour. To date, Cain seems to have taken little interest in foreign affairs, and I think it takes time to school your instincts. Perhaps he will be able to survive tough questioning, but he hasn’t yet. I would like him to go through the archives of David’s Medienkritik to get a good feel for what it’s like to operate in the real world.

35. Scott,
    Didn’t Romney at least preserve private health insurance companies in MA? If Obama had his way we would have jumped into a British system and destroyed any chance to correct mistakes. Romney did give us a chance to analyze the problems of one approach on health care. Better that his approach was implemented in just one state. On a nationwide scale, the errors could prove impossible to fix.

36. Here are Cato’s policy papers that are highly critical of the Heritage inspired Romneycare:

    “No Miracle in Massachusetts: Why Governor Romney’s Health Care Reform Won’t Work”

    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6407

    “Romney’s Folly – Health-Care Mandates Are a Middle-Class Tax”

    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10381

    “The Massachusetts Health Plan: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”

    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8431

    And here’s Cato’s takedown of the Heritage plan introduced into legislation by moderate Republicans in response to Clinton’s plan to takeover the entire healthcare industry in the ’90s:

    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1069&full=1

    I feel like Artfldgr.

37. Did you read my post at all, or the link to the Heritage Foundation evaluation of that plan in 2006?

    These things are not convincing to me, because I’m opposed to government getting into this market. On any level.

    Say what you like, but it’s a legitimate position to take. When the doctor showed up on a doorstep with his little black bag and delivered a baby for $50 on a handshake, and/or some chickens, it wasn’t very glamorous but it worked and it was affordable. I recognize that ship has sailed. But on the whole, government involvement has been one step forward and six steps back.

38. 1) It’s at best misleading to say that Romney never advocated a mandate “for other states.” He advocated it plenty; he just didn’t go so far as to advocate outright imposing it on them.

    Last election cycle he called it, “…an American principle, a principle of personal responsibility.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6DrH6P9OC0

    He also said this:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/11/975117/-Romney,-2007:-America-will-take-the-mandate-approach-to-health-care-reform

    (Yes, I know it’s Kos, but Romney’s problem, to repeat my constant theme, is that lefties don’t have to lie about this stuff).

    What’s so hard to understand about why all of this is worrisome? I’m not clear on what the problem is here – if the argument is that we should support Romney if he’s the nominee, I agree; but if it’s that we should not be worried, I do not agree.

    Granted, Romney doesn’t directly say “I will impose this on all states;” instead he just says it’s objectively the best idea and he’ll provide “carrots and sticks” to help other states on their way to seeing that. Whatever that means. It certainly doesn’t indicate a non-technocratic approach to the problem.

    Furthermore, he is not exactly a marvel of clarity on how committed he is to repealing Obamacare (follow the links in here too):

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/10/04/is-mitt-romney-committed-to-repealing-obamacare/

    Note that one can deduce all of this without even seeing what he said in the past – it’s the only possible conclusion to draw from the totality of his stated positions on the issue today. Like so:

    It’s right for Massachusetts, he says, but the only reason he gives for that view is this: the state had a free-rider problem. But all states have a free-rider problem.* Ergo, it should be right for them as well.

    These days, Romney tries to not state that this is what he believes, but he’s said it in the past and it’s the logical conclusion of his muddle at present. And none of this, let’s not forget, addresses community rating and guaranteed issue.

    2) Tenth Amendment? Neo asks what we don’t understand about that. Speaking for myself, I understand a lot about that – I’ve done two semesters of con law work under a Tenth Amendment specialist, and it is absolutely true that the police power of the states is orders of magnitude more expansive than the enumerated powers of the federal government. No argument there.

    Our claim, or mine at any rate – and what I think is the strongest argument – is that this is irrelevant. Whatever Romney does, it won’t be because of the Tenth Amendment. Rhetorically, it doesn’t wash with his stated (in the past) and implied (today) position that a mandate is substantively the best policy for all of the states. The logic of the two positions together dictates that this is what he should be saying:

    “I agree that an individual mandate would be the best policy federally, unfortunately it is unconstitutional, and the Constitution trumps policy preferences.”

    He used to say the first part without highlighting the second part. Now he emphasizes the second part while downplaying the first (he says it’s right for Massachusetts, but merely implies thereby that it would be right everywhere else). Accordingly, he invokes the Tenth Amendment.

    Problem here is that his new Tenther position is incoherent. It implies that it is illegitimate to draw conclusions about someone’s principles and preferences from their state record, his attacks on Perry in that regard notwithstanding. If someone did something in some state, all he or she has to say is: “Hey, it’s a state thing. I do what’s right for my state. Ain’t necessarily what’s right for the nation.” Case closed.

    If Perry were smart, he’d have some fun with Romney: “In-state tuition for illegals? State issue, not relevant to federal policy;” “Gardasil? State issue, not relevant to federal policy;” “Governor Romney, it was RIGHT FOR TEXAS – surely you understand the Tenth Amendment, yes?” And so forth.

    Romney, in short, wants to have it both ways. He wants us to not criticize him for Romneycare because it is 100% a state issue, while at the same time using arguments that imply what his former position made explicit, viz., that it is a 50 state issue, that the mandate is, objectively, THE right solution to what ails health care. And if he thinks that (or if he really believes Massachusetts is a land of magic), it is perfectly rational to worry about just how deep his commitment to the Tenth Amendment really goes.

    Once more: If he believes that a mandate is “right” for all states, as it is fair to conclude he does, why should we trust him on the issue of health care? The Tenth Amendment has nothing to do with it. It’s what’s in his head that matters, and with politicians that nearly always trumps the Constitution.

    It should go without saying that politicians say all sorts of things – the trick is to catch their actual beliefs beneath all of the mush. And one fact that cannot be explained away as something we critics have ignored is Romney’s bright, shining health care bill and his nauseating rationalizations for it. He could have as conservative a record as possible in other respects – Romneycare is not going away. Is it licit to use his evidently non-conservative attitude on this issue to indicate a more general problem? Why not?

    3) Pointing out that Heritage and Newt supported the mandate is nice, but again it’s irrelevant. No one can seriously doubt that Newt would go beyond the call of duty to rip Obamacare out at the roots. He loathes that law, and he is one of the most passionate advocates of its destruction. Heritage would back him. Why can’t Romney be as unequivocal?

    The problem is not flip-flopping in this case (which is the only one I care about). Indeed, it’s more the lack of flip-flopping. He’s willing to flip-flop on very important social issues that are arguably states’ rights issues as well – i.e., he’s willing to go from saying he’s a firm advocate of “choice” to saying he’s pro-life, even while maintaining states have the right to decide the matter for themselves – but he isn’t willing to make the same evolution on the mandate. So abortion is a fluid thing, but heaven forfend if he displayed inconsistency on the individual mandate. He plainly believes, and always believed, that the mandate is right, substantively and ethically. This is the easiest to identify conviction he has.

    This goes way beyond whatever he claims his policies would be if elected. It goes to his principles, and if certain conservatives once upon a time thought mandates were swell as well, then the correct conclusion is that they all were wrong. I don’t see how it helps Romney to point out that Heritage and Newt were just as wrong as he was (and remains).

    4) Why “remains”? Because notwithstanding the Tenth Amendment, it is no part of conservatism to believe that a mandate is “…an American principle, a principle of personal responsibility.” Romney believes that it is. He believes that government forcing people to buy private products is an American principle. It is one thing to say that a state mandate is not contrary to what the Constitution permits – that claim is, I believe, true. But this is not Romney’s position. Romney believes this policy is an embodiment of a foundational principle of the regime. That claim is dead wrong.

    I can understand if one wants to say that one trusts Romney will repeal Obamacare. But noting that he has done conservative things in other areas (which I’ll take neo’s word for) and that other conservatives were on-board with his bad ideas in the past, plus treating the Tenth Amendment argument as a trump, does not amount to a case for trust in Romney.

    He might be decently conservative in other areas – it’s all for naught if Obamacare or any of its infrastructure remains on the books. Others, such as Newt, may have been bad on the issue before, but they are much better than Romney now. And the Tenth Amendment is a piece of CYA-casuistry that doesn’t address the real problem: Romney’s principles, which on this issue are very hard to construe as recognizably conservative.

    5) If people who want to defend Romney are averse to caricature, then they shouldn’t caricature the arguments against him. I’m not a purist; most people who oppose Romney are not. For Pete’s sake, I’m a NEWT supporter.

    * The free-rider problem is a myth:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/02/02/myths-of-the-free-rider-health-care-problem/

    But if one wants to construe it as a market-failure, then all states suffer from it.

    See also these papers:

    http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/free-rider-a-justification-for-mandatory-medical-insurance-under-health-care-reform

    http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/fi/110/Kahn2.pdf

39. J.J.,
    Here is a good discussion (via Ricochet) on 999. The commenters point out some of the cons of the sales tax. My skepsis on this comes from seeing how VAT works in Germany: food is exempt, but now some of the health nuts want to impose it on unhealthy foods; the FDP (supposedly libertarians) carved out an exemption for the tourist industry. It can turn into a great trough for feeding pigs.

    Also, my reading of Ryan’s endorsement is that he finds it a great starting point for talking about tax reform, not a great final product.

40. The federalism argument doesn’t work for me because Mass made the for Romneycare. Mass can do whatever they like with their health care system as long as they pay for it.

41. One other thing, Newt does get a pass, because Newt has consistently fought, over a period of at least three decades, for conservative principles. I’m not that concerned that he screwed one up. Romney has never fought for conservative principals.

42. Mitt is one of those Republicans who thinks he can make “government work”.Hence, he talks of getting things done and reaching out and blah blah blah..the man is 20 years out of date.He will preserve the status quo and that makes many DC republicans very comfortable.

43. I agree that Mitt is far too centrist for my taste, and has a whiff of Stockholm Syndrome Republican about him — the Republicans who try to ape the Democrats in the hope it’ll make the press like them.

    BUT: what choice do we have? Perry has not shone in the debates. I really want to like him but he’s not delivering the goods. Cain looks like a good guy (and smart) but he’s unlikely to get the nomination as he lacks government experience. Newt has been so thorougly demonized by the press he can’t win. Huntsman is even more of a RINO than Romney. The rest are small fry.

    Whoever the Republicans nominate is the person who can save or doom America and the world. Letting Obama win a second term just because you don’t like some of Romney’s past policy ideas or flip-flopping is cutting off your head to spite your nose.

44. I won’t vote for him, but perhaps Mitt is the right guy. He can deceive the Leftists frightened by Obama into voting for him, then, suddenly discover the Constitution, morality, and a spine. After this discovery, he can restore Constitutional government by abolishing Homeland Security, Department of Education, etc.

45. Well written Neo.

    I can see by the comments that your well-reasoned offering was ignored by many in favor of preconceived notions based on legend.

    On a personal livel, I have mixed feeling about Romney’s private sector experience. His Bain Capital provided the seed funding to start my beloved Presidential Airways; then some years later they pulled back as we failed. That was painful, but demonstrated that they were smart; as we were one of the worst managed airlines in the business.

    On the other hand, it is his proven track record of accomplishment in the private sector that attracts me.

    I am a limited government conservative. I am also a realistic 76 year old, who understands that there is no chance in hell that we will ever get back to small government. We can reduce the size and scope; but it will be incremental at best. Anyone who thinks any President will come in and turn this freight train around does not understand trains (hint, they run on tracks and only go where tracks are laid) or politics. Since someone will likely bring it up, I know that trains can run backwards as fast as forwards, and that they can change direction at certain locations, called switches, but you are still limited in direction to where the tracks (political culture) will let you go.

    The silk-stocking jab is so typical of too many. Mindless. But, my goodness! Did you know that Romney is also Mormon? (For what it is worth, I have known and served with several Mormons. Never knew one that was not a first-class citizen.)

    I wrote to Rush last night and told him he should just shut up. He is so damn hypocritical. He proudly proclaims that he will not endorse a candidate in the primaries; then he blast Romney every day. I just hate that the ideologically pure Conservatives with megaphones feel that they have to cripple potential GOP candidates before the real fight even begins.

    I may or may not vote for Romney when the primary in Virginia rolls around. This has a ways to go. Perry needs to be looked at carefully, as does Cain. But, I would be comfortable with Romney vs Obama; and comfortable with Romney in the White House.

46. Frankly, the more I see of Cain, the more I think that he is just blowing smoke up our asses with his catchy 999 program–the equivalent of “Sham Wow” –and that Cain is just as much a flim-flam man in his own way as Obama was in his– and that Cain is not really competent; there is no “there” there.

    Moreover, while Cain focuses entirely on domestic/economic affairs, we face a myriad of ominous developments–exacerbated by Obama–in the fields of foreign affairs and national defense, subjects that I have not heard one word on from Cain.

    Cain, I am afraid, is just a smooth talking lightweight.

47. I was interested in all the references to CATO and Forbes on the issues of cost shifting in health care. As long as we have the law that requires treatment for all comers regardless of ability to pay, we will have cost shifting. As long as we are not collecting enough in Medicare taxes to pay for Medicare, there will be cost shifting. What are the options?
    1. Repeal the law, push for non-profit hospitals/clinics and let charities help those who cannot pay.
    2. Raise Medicare taxes, premiums, co-pays, and means test Medicare. (A way fo shifting the cost top those who can pay more.)
    3. Repeal the law, repeal Medicare and allow the market to decide. This would be the true conservative solution, but would be decried by all progressives and independents as too cruel because it would ration health care according to ability to pay. Yes, the old and poor would not get the care they do now. Excellent health care would be available only to those with the money to buy it. The Medical, industrial complex would not like this option either.

    My contention is that all the choices are imperfect tradeoffs. There is not enough money to buy the health care we all want just as there isn’t enough money to buy the higher educations that people desire. We have been led to believe that everyone can get the same level of health care at a price we can afford. We can’t. Romneycare and Obamacare are attempts to do that, but, IMO, show the fallacies of the idea. However, mistakes often have to made, (and the 1986 law commanding all comers be treated regardless of ability to pay was a doozy) before people can see what options will really work. I think Romney did what the people and legislature of Massachusetts wanted. The state has not repealed the law in spite of what we see as its problems. If I were in Romney’s place I would not be attacking something I had a hand in and has not yet been repudiated by the citizens of that state.

    Executives can try to shape laws, but they cannot dictate them. As they say, politics is the art of the possible. I agree with Oldflyer. Turning this ship of state abruptly to right is going to take more than electing the perfect conservative President. I’ll settle for one who can make freindly speeches about business and is favorable to wealth creation. In other words, just the opposite of Obama.

    My main objection to the 999 plan is that the national sales tax is regressive, and impacts consumer behavior in a way that is adverse in a consumer driven economy. IMO, it would further reduce economic demand, which is a major problem right now. We want tax policy to increase economic activity.

48. I despise the ‘debates’.

    I am looking for a sense of guiding principles on which I may place some reliance. I do not have that sense from Mitt. Nor from his brother and campaign manager, whom I met with last year. They bring the Bain mentality with them: ‘ Now how can we make this work FOR US? How can WE ( not you ) profit from this?’

    I am not going to get hung up on whether 9-9-9 is or is not workable. It is merely a step, one of many needed, to address tax reform. That Cain is taking that step is not a negative.

49. Jackson called for full government employment of the 15 million unemployed and said that Obama should “declare a national emergency” and take “extra-constitutional” action “administratively” – without the approval of Congress – to tackle unemployment.

50. JJ says: “My main objection to the 999 plan is that the national sales tax is regressive, and impacts consumer behavior in a way that is adverse in a consumer driven economy. IMO, it would further reduce economic demand, which is a major problem right now. We want tax policy to increase economic activity.”

    There’s the rub: using tax policy for reasons other than funding the gov’t.
    And regressive is such an ugly word compared to progressive.

51. The Republican party is now tearing itself into Tea Party and Tories.

    With modern Tea Party and Tories having the same relationship as the original Tea Party and Tories.

    Clearly, Mitt is a Tory Republican and a product of the Ruling Class.

    He’s simply gotta fool enough of us in fly-over country to elect him so he can build government structures to reward himself and his Tory friends instead of the current structures that reward the Leftists and their friends.

    That’s all this is.

52. Via the WSJ:

    Just days after his 2002 election, Mr. Romney hired Douglas Foy, one of the state’s most prominent environmental activists, and put him in charge of supervising four state agencies.

    Gov. Mitt Romney and Douglas Foy at a March 2006 event.

    Mr. Foy had initiated a lawsuit that led to the cleanup of Boston Harbor and had worked to protect fishing grounds and seashores. Once in the Romney administration, he served as the governor’s negotiator on a regional climate-change initiative and put emissions caps in place for coal-fired power plants.

    With Mr. Foy by his side, Mr. Romney joined activists outside an aging, coal-fired plant in 2003 to show his commitment to the emissions caps. “I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant, that plant kills people,” he said.

    Mr. Romney, while implementing the emissions caps, ultimately backed away from the regional climate-change agreement in 2005, a decision announced on the same day he said he would not seek re-election as governor, stoking speculation that he would run for president.

    Any GOP candidate with a history of channeling Al Gore’s lunacy should not be the GOP nominee.

    On a side note, I did see Mr. Laffer did endorse Cain’s 9-9-9 plan.

53. Agree with Don Carlos on the legitimate purpose of the tax system.

    The big advantage of a sales tax is that you see immediately each time you buy something how much you are paying for the product or service, and how much you are paying the government.

    I have conditioned myself to look at the tax burden printed on every receipt. It is enlightening.

54. About a month ago I emailed Romney/the Romney campaign, asking very specific questions concerning MA healthcare and Obamacare. I asked: 1. You say that the first day in office you would sign an executive order offering waivers to all 50 states to opt out of Obamacare. What about MA? What are you going to do with those of us that are stuck with a very liberal governor (Patrick) who will not accept your waiver offer? 2. If the Supreme Court finds the individual mandate to be unconstitutional, how will that affect MA residents? 3. Why haven’t you talked about torte reform and free market/buying insurance across state lines? 4. Why is MA the ONLY state in the union that PROHIBITS individuals from participating in patient assistance programs to get drugs at a low cost or free? This was another Federal law where every state opted out except MA; in his infinite wisdom Gov Patrick feels that the pharmaceutical industry uses these programs to get people to buy brand vs. generic. Too bad there aren’t generics for my meds that cost thousands but would otherwise be free if lived anywhere but MA.

    A month later I received a computer-generated email, where the sender basically cut and pasted Romney’s stance on healthcare from his campaign website. None of my concerns were addressed. Lame.

55. maybe they will throw the election again?

    for these people of course…

    The Email Archive of the #OccupyWallStreet Movement: Anarchists, Socialists, Unions, Democrats and Their Plans

    biggovernment.com/thomasryan/2011/10/14/the-email-archive-of-the-occupywallstreet-movement-anarchists-socialists-jihadists-unions-democrats/

    After attending these meetings and socializing with those present, several of our team members were added to all the mailing lists of the “Occupy” group. That is how we created the email archive that we are sharing with you (see below). In addition to the involvement of socialists, anarchists, and other radicals, the emails also reveal heavy union involvement from the beginning of the “Occupy” movement, as well as discussion about the role of the Democratic Party, and how the movement should respond to President Barack Obama.

    The emails also reveal that the Occupation attempted to provoke the New York Police Department prior to some of the clashes that occurred with activists.

    can anyone ask romney a gotcha question about that stuff?

56. Grey’s Law
    Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice!!!

57. Don Carlos: “There’s the rub: using tax policy for reasons other than funding the gov’t.”

    Are you intimating that the government’s policies on tax rates have nothing to do with the economy? That is the argument of the democrats. They are the ones who claim there is no relationship between tax policy and the economy. Tax the wealthy more and it won’t affect investing and spending patterns , right? In a perfect world (A small government restricted to only Constitutional mandates) maybe the tax policies would be imminently fair and neutral as to the economy. We aren’t there and, IMO, will never be. Government tax policy with the governmnet we have will always have an effect on economic activity.

    Sales taxes tend to drive economic activity into black markets. I refer you to the cigarette market here in Washington State. The huge taxes on cigarettes have resulted in a huge black market – maybe even bigger than the pot market. The state has been disappointed that cigarette tax revenues have not met their expectations. Well, duh? People will ALWAYS arrange their affairs to pay the least possible taxes and black markets are a normal reaction to such. Want to pay 17.5% tax on a new auto, boat, house, or other big ticket items? Remember the “luxury tax” on boats? Killed the boat market in matter of months.

    The one area that I think needs to be changed is the corporate tax. Corporations don’t pay taxes, their customers do. Those taxes are in the cost of everything we buy. Why not cut the loopholes and reduce the corporate tax to a token amount, like 9%. That step alone would inject a huge amount of confidence and investment into the economy that woud begin to turn the jobs market around.

    I’m not saying Cain is a bad candidate because of his 999 idea. I like him very much and if he gets the nomination I will work for and support him but I reserve the right to express my opinion about his ideas.

58. For my “2 cents”, Romney could lose against Obama.

    1) Neither has served in the US military.
    2) Both support “mandated” health programs.
    3) Both have questionable/unconventional religious backgrounds
    4) Both believe in the false religion of AGW.
    5) Both favor tax increases over government cuts.

    Romney could lose even worse than McCain did.

59. My objection to Romney is he appears to be a patrician. He has more in common with European oligarchs than with this old Kentucky farm boy. I think he has little understanding of or empathy for the average American man on the street.

    For people like Romney a bad government policy might result in a marginally reduced portfolio or slightly higher taxes. For many American citizens a bad policy might mean we can’t fund our children’s education next semester or keep granny alive and in reasonable comfort a few more months.

60. Thank-you geran for the astute “2 cents”, let’s hope that the king makers don’t force us to try to sell stupid to the American public just to avoid a second term of dishonest incompetence (Obungler).

61. Romney a Tory or RINO?

    Once the nomination process is over — who gives a damn.? Who gives a flying rats a$$.

    All that matter is ABO-2012. PERIOD. Geez people.

    All this infighting and ripping each GOP canditate to shreds….well, I suppose it is just typical of the stupid party and its stupid voting members. Bachman with her 999 can be turned into 666? She lost me. For good. Way to go, Michelle! How clever! Let’s help the Marxists by ripping into each other. Good plan! What candidate can we mock today?

    Look, a Tory/RINO in the White House with a Tea Party controlled conservative Congress, and we will have a chance, at least, to preserve our freedoms rather than losing them.

    Our freedoms will be taken two ways if the Marxist in Chief is allowed to remain in office – via even more “extra-constitutional” executive orders — e.g., the President using the EPA, IRS, ATF, and other agencies to reward friends and punish enemies or take more power… Whether it is seizing guns under trumped up “emergencies” or refusing to issue oil drilling permits….there is no end to the list.

    And, via Kagan/Sotomeyer justices doing things like reversing Heller and McDonald.

    A Tea Party/Conservative dominated Congress/Senate won’t let a RINO president appoint anybody other than Alitos/Roberts, and will keep him in check on regulatory issues too.

    If you do not realize how CRITICAL this is for our country, you DESERVE to be in chains. To any of the “oh let’s boil the frog now and vote democrat or vote Libertarian because XYZ is too “moderate” or too “big government” for us….”

    Well, let’s see. How do I let you know how I REALLY feel? Hmm. How about this:

    You are my enemy.

62. Looks like I’m far too late to this discussion to have any meaningful input, particularly since I had nothing too deep to add. Only that I like Cain… and I also like Romney. I look at these two candidates and I am sure I’d be happy with either.

    I’m adamantly pro-life, I won’t vote for a pro-choice candidate. At the same time, I always wonder about people who bring up Romney’s flip to the side of life on this issue. Isn’t our goal to support people who change their minds about abortion? Even looking at the situation with the most cynical of eyes, I think Romney would be particularly careful to remain pro-life in his policies as to stray even a moment will have everyone yelling “FLOPPER!” and waving their arms in the air.

63. JJ:
    Re tobacco taxes, that’s my point exactly. The alleged rationale for high taxes on smokes is to discourage smoking. And the state seeks to benefit from that, revenue-wise. The iron fist in the Oh-so-caring velvet do-gooder glove. So the state NEEDS smokers to smoke. That is social change as a driver of tax policy. It doesn’t work. The state is the ultimate nicotine addict.

64. Exactly, Book. If abortion is your hot button (it’s not mine) …..then the choice is a no brainer.

    1. We KNOW that the Marxist in Chief will NEVER appoint anyone other than stauch pro-choicers to any federal bench.

    We DON”T know for sure that even the most flip flopping squishes will appoint a pro-choicer. Could go either way. I like those odds better than ZERO odds. The odds are, that you at least have a 50-50 shot at getting someone appointed who is willing to do things like hold a state law putting some restrictions (like parental notification) to be constitutional under Roe.

    2. We KNOW that the Marxist in Chief will NEVER willingly agree to anything like, eg., cutting funding to Planned Abortion-hood.

    But at least you have at least a CHANCE at that, with even the squishiest of RINO flip-floppers. Especially if pushed by a conservative congress….

    On that issue, any of the GOP candidates are an easy pick over the Obamunist.

65. Neo,

    This may have been covered in the comments, and if so, I apologize for posting this (I didn’t have the time or inclination to read all of the long comments, or all of the comments in general, but I digress…).

    I will state that I have perhaps an irrational dislike of Romney, the candidate. It’s a trust thing, honestly, and something I can’t really put my finger on. I think he could be pretty good on domestic policy, especially on the economy, but I’m not really sure he’d be willing to. Like I said, trust…

    Anyway, I was listening to Levin the other night, and he made a very good point, and I fear he’s 100% right. It’s about RomneyCare. Imagine this scenario:

    First debate between Obama and Romney, opening remarks:

    Obama – “I’d like to take a moment to thank Mitt Romney, and his staff of advisors in particular, who I met with, for providing a workable blueprint to the Affordable Care Act (read ObamaCare)…”

    With that 1 relatively simple sentence, Obama just broke Romney’s jaw. Romney is on the defensive, and because Romney’s advisors met with Obama and helped him and his advisors create Obamacare, the jab has real teeth, and will only further chaff the conservative base which doesn’t seem to be wild about Romney in the first place. In short, people saying he’s the most “electable” are in for a rude awakening if he gets the nomination.

    Other things I think would also make it a harder sale for him. His defense of TARP (a knock on Cain too), his defense of the Stimulus and individual mandate from his book (that are apparently now ommitted? I have not thoroughly researched this, however), the AGW thing…

    I’ll say outright that I wish Marco Rubio were running. I’ve loved him since he was a FL state legislator and was first gearing up to run against Charlie Christ (who the establishment wanted). I think he’s the real deal. As is, I have no idea who I support in the primaries, but Romney is lower on the list, probably a bit below Perry, but above Ron Paul and Huntsman, and probably Bachmann. She’s a little too erratic and willing to shoot from the hip.

    I wish I liked and trusted Newt, because when he’s on his game, he’s amazing. But then he goes and makes commercials with Nancy Pelosi on AGW…

66. Southern James, please explain Justices Anthony Kennedy, Sondra Day O’Conner, Souter, John Paul Stevens, Harry Blackmun.

67. As to Romney’s vaunted private sector experience, from Wikipedia:

    “Thus, Bain Capital turns a profit on floundering corporations by buying them at low cost, stripping away any projects that aren’t profiting or which have potential, and laying off any excess workers. One of the fund’s first start-up investments was Staples, Inc., the $15 billion office supply retailer. The funding enabled Staples to expand from one store in 1986 to nearly 1,700 in 2006.

    More than twenty five years after its inception, Bain Capital manages approximately $65 billion in assets, and has founded, acquired, or invested in hundreds of companies including AMC Entertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Domino’s Pizza, DoubleClick, D&M Holdings, Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Toys R Us, Unisource, Warner Music Group and The Weather Channel.”

    (presumably written by Bain for Wiki)

    Buying cheaply, stripping assets, layoffs all enhance Bain Capital’s investments, which is fine. Bain surfed the financial wave of the late ’80s to 2007. But it’s a bit like having Warren Buffett, anyone from Goldman Sachs, like Rubin or Paulson, or Gordon Gekko deem themselves presidential material.

    I do not have any sense that Romney will bring the same intent to the Oval Office, though if he intends to use his saber in the same way on the Executive branch, I would support that.

68. Sure Tom.

    Stevens, Blackmun. Different era, different times. Both confirmed unanimously. Wasn’t the Senate democrat dominated in the Nixon/Ford days also?

    Those were the pre-Bork days, recall. The game changed when the Dems turned it into a partisan war, starting with Bork.

    O’Connor and Kennedy — not conservatives like Scalia/Alito/Thomas. But certainly not flaming leftists like Obama’s first two nominees and whoever else he gets to nominate. Heaven forbid.

    Souter? Eh — sometimes you just get a turncoat who conveys one thing in the nominating process, and turns out to be something other than he represented.

    And now I’ll ask you….what is YOUR point? That it makes no difference to the make up of the Federal Judiciary (including all the appellate and circuit court appointments, not just SC), whether there is a Republican or Dem in the White House?

69. Someone back up the line stated they would not trust Romney on certain issues; and if I recall correctly it was mostly foreign policy or defense related issues.

    To people who think like that I ask:

    Do you think Romney would send U.S. Marines (or Army) into a cauldron with no defined mission except to be there? Would he have them sit in place as little more than targets? After over two hundred had been killed, would he pull out with the national tail between its legs?

    Secondly, do you think that Romney would grant blanket amnesty to every illegal alien in the United States?

    Did you trust the man who made those decisions? If I need to tell you which much revered President committed both of those blunders, you fail the quiz.

70. Some people who assume that conservatives who revere Reagan and his memory think Reagan was infallible. But most of us know that even the best president in my lifetime (and I was born under Eisenhower) made some dumb blunders, and unwise compromises with the Dems.

    Even the best Presidents are still very human. Heck, I think most historians can point to blunders and errors in judgment that Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln et al made too.

    But perhaps that is the point you are trying to make Oldflyer. Perfect is the enemy of good. We get nothing but griping, bitching and moaning about whoever appears to be taking the lead for the GOP nomination. Romney is too this, Perry is too that…..now it’s “Cain doesn’t have the right “experience,” so “let’s do better this time.”

    Oh puleeze.

    ABO – 2012.

71. Oops. Sorry, neo, I went away for a day, so I didn’t catch your reply, “I ask for evidence, you give me a reiteration of the same old song.”

    You’re right, I did call Romney a RINO, but I don’t think I made an appeal to authority. As for the other assertion, I defy you to provide any evidence to the contrary that shows Romney DOES NOT believe government is the solution.

    In the meantime here’s a bit of evidence for you:

    For example, you could take a look at this excerpt from the last debate as recorded by Ramesh Ponnuru over at National Review:

    Newt Gingrich asked: Why cut capital-gains taxes only for people making less than $200,000? Romney’s answer was that he wants to help the middle class, adding this bit according to Ponnuru, “And so if I’m going to use precious dollars to reduce taxes, I want to focus on where the people are hurting the most, and that’s the middle class.”

    As Ponnuru points out this seems “to presuppose—does it not?—that the money belongs to the government….” That is, it’s precisely the same rhetoric as calling tax increases “revenue enhancements” or cuts “tax code expenditures.” Save your euphemisms for the hicks, buddy.

    Does this sound like a man who wants to clear away the dead hand of government or only tweak it a bit so the old train runs on time? Don’t blow smoke up my skirt and tell me it’s raining, if I may mix a couple of metaphor.

    Probably a slip of the tongue.

    Speaking of his health care program in Mass., Romney has said, “I believe in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.” However, on education he follows the same old centralization in federal hands in spite of once having advocated killing the Dept of Education.

    Sounds to me like more of the same. Can’t trust mom and dad on this.

    He likes minimum wage legislation, one of the big destroyers of jobs for young people and young black men everywhere. See what Thomas Sowell has to say on this or Walter Williams, two economists with pretty sound credentials.

    Don’t get me started on abortion. It causes me to hallucinate–I imagine I’m being repeated slapped upside the head by those cheap plastic sandals you get at CVS. What’re they called–oh, yeah, flip-flops.

    Come ‘on, neo. This ain’t hard. I’ll vote for him if he’s the candidate, but I don’t believe the result will be a return to the halcyon days of Bush II, let alone the days of Reagan, Eisenhower, Coolidge, or etc. (And I’m no fan of George, either. Too much spending for me.)

72. Unfortunately for the country, Romney is the worst possible candidate to put up against Obama. Romneycare was the model for Obamacare and Romney staff consulted on Obamacare. Obama and his cohorts in the media will make the most of that connection. While it is testament to his business acumen, Romney made $250 million during his career on Wall Street. The current Occupy Wall Street protests are the left’s battlefield preparation for the campaign against Romney. If your platform is class warfare, who better to have as your opponent than a super-rich capitalist. From Boston.com:

    The White House also revealed it is gearing up to attack Romney not just over his politics, but also the business acumen he claims as a result of his leadership of Bain.

    “The second aspect of the campaign to define Romney is his record as CEO of Bain Capital, a venture capital firm that was responsible for both creating and eliminating jobs,’’ Politico wrote recently. “Obama officials intend to frame Romney as the very picture of greed in the great recession – a sort of political Gordon Gekko.’’

73. Pat,
    You are probably right about the left’s attack plan against Romney, but this plan may overlook counteratacks against Obama. Last time he was protected by a failure to vet and by the race card. I am not so sure he will be immune from attacks this time. Each program point in Romney’s Believe in America includes a discussion on Obama’s flawed policies. At this point, the criticisms are very civil, but as the campaign heats up, the people and the Rep candidate may take up these points and use them very effectively against Obama. Obama said if we bring a knife to the fight he will bring a gun. He may find that Fast and Furious has deprived him of his arsenal. Meanwhile, there are lots of clingers out there who are sick of his condescension and incompetence. He may find that even YouTube videos can be pretty lethal weapons. Obama’s flip flops could make Romney’s look like hunting boots.

74. Romney needs to actually argue principles and make a case that he will actually represent ideas that conservatives value before I will support him. He’s a smooth operator, but I want to be confident he will be able to carry conservative ideas into the White House.

    I strongly support attacking Romney, Cain, and Perry savagely, tearing their positions apart, and ruthlessly examining them. If they can’t handle the heat in the Primary, rest assured Obama will hit them with more in the General. I’ll settle for the ultimate GOP nominee, but not until he has proven himself in brutal primary infighting. Romney hasn’t even gotten a single primary vote, and people want to call the race for him.

75. Further to my 10/14 @7:16pm:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-plans-to-turn-anti-wall-street-anger-on-mitt-romney-republicans/2011/10/14/gIQAZfiwkL_story.html

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>