March 02, 2012
Arguments against Romney being President

I had to point this out four years ago with McCain. (You know, four years ago when Mitt Romney was supposedly the "conservative alternative" to McCain and all the folks who are calling Romney a loser liberal now were vehemently supporting him then.)

Arguments I hear against Romney:
1. He's pro-abortion.
2. He's too liberal.
3. He's establishment.
4. He's not a fiscal conservative.
6. He's a RINO.
5. He's the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama. (My personal favorite)

Arguments that could have been (and sometimes were) made against Reagan in 1980.
1. He's pro-abortion. (signed CA's 1967 Therapeutic Abortion Act)
2. He's pro-gay rights. (Opposed CA's 1978 Briggs Initiative)
3. He's anti-family. (signed CA's Family Law Act of 1969)
4. He was divorced. (Still the only divorced president we've ever had.)
5. He's not a fiscal conservative. (Raised taxes by $1 billion per year/$17 billion in today's dollars.)
6. He led a union of Hollywood actors.
7. He used to be a Democrat.
8. He's the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Carter.

I say none of this to impugn Reagan but rather to point out that people are shaped by their situations. How a man may govern California (or Massachusetts) at one point in his life is different than how he may govern the nation. And picking and choosing tidbits of a candidates record to make him look like a liberal or a RINO or a loser or whatever, does not make it so.

If you don't support Romney, fine. But at least come up with an honest argument. (Or tell me that you didn't or wouldn't have supported Reagan in 1980 because he was a liberal.)

A great piece along this line by the "liberal establishment" Republican Ann Coulter here: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-02-22.html. Here current article about why Santorum is the wrong choice (and, if anything, more liberal or at least anti-Federalist, than Romney) is also worth the read.

Posted by MarkGriswold at March 02, 2012 10:37 AM | Email This
Comments
1. The abortion issue has been settled: it's legal. Get over it!

Posted by: Politically Incorrect on March 2, 2012 11:07 AM
2. .
Reagan's long dead and I don't think Republicans are going to re-animate him, but

Watch the video of Romney bragging about how he vigorously pursued and obtained federal tax dollars to support his Olympics hobby and compare that to what he says now about his tenure with the Salt Lake City Olympic games and what "conservatives" say they believe and then tell me why any "conservative" Republican can support Rmoney.

I'm a big believer in getting money where the money is. And the money is in Washington - Rmoney the same old same old.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 2, 2012 11:29 AM
3. Arguments I hear against Romney:

1. He's pro-abortion.

He's not.

2. He's too liberal.

Maybe.

3. He's establishment.

That's an excuse for not supporting someone, not a reason.

4. He's not a fiscal conservative.

Yes, he is.

6. He's a RINO.

Factually speaking, no, he is not. The use of "RINO" means that the person is not a real Republican, which is just false. This is another, much poorer, way of saying that you think he's not conservative enough, or too liberal.

5. He's the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama. (My personal favorite)

What? Romney lost to Alan Keyes?!


Posted by: pudge on March 2, 2012 11:34 AM
4. Politcally Incorrect: funny, that's what the slave owners said about slavery.

Posted by: pudge on March 2, 2012 11:34 AM
5. ..pursued and obtained federal tax dollars to support his Olympics hobby

Really!? That's all you lefties have? Whining about the US spending money on hosting the international games designed to be a symbol of international goodwil and competion. Oh, by the way, Romney drew zero salary and did a hell of alot of work to bring it off. Only an absolute assclown could find something wrong with that.

Posted by: Rick D. on March 2, 2012 11:48 AM
6. He didn't serve.

Posted by: Old Timer on March 2, 2012 11:49 AM
7. Old Timer: most Americans -- including most veterans I know -- do not hold it as points against someone just because they weren't in the military. They give extra points to people who were in the military, but I can't see how it could possibly be a negative to be a good American in other ways than serving in the military.

Rick D.: the Olympics thing is hilarious. Talk about grasping at straws: trying to turn a huge positive into a negative by making up a straw man argument. It's terribly pathetic.

Posted by: pudge on March 2, 2012 12:02 PM
8. @5 Rick D. on March 2, 2012 11:48 AM,

If only an assclown could find something wrong with seeking out and obtaining the most federal tax dollars ever for hosting an Olympics then I guess you think Rmoney is an assclown?

Watch the video. Rmoney denies he did what he did, and criticizes his Republican opponents for doing the same thing he is. He clearly thinks something is wrong, else why does he deny it and hide his achievement?

And it does not matter what I say or what you believe or who you choose on Saturday. Rmoney has this. Always did. Watch the video. Rmoney knows how to work the system, and he knows how to work you.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 2, 2012 12:07 PM
9. Couple of items missing from the Romney list:

-anti gun, 2nd Amendment
-likes the concept of minimum wage
-proud author of RomBamaCare
-happy to trash high income earners with
tax deduction haircuts aka more and
more progressive taxation on the doers
-propensity to tell people what they want to
hear depending on the day and the venue

These are dealkiller issues, Mittens.

Do us a favor, withdraw from the race and run
as a Democrat..


Posted by: Hank on March 2, 2012 12:42 PM
10. Actually, I consider an assclown someone that blows hundreds of billions of our tax dollars on idiotic solar companies like Solyndra, only to have that company and others like it go belly up within a few years. That is the embodiment of said assclown. To the contrary, Romney sought federal monies to host an international games whose purpose is to create goodwill and cooperation worldwide through competion. So, Mike BS would apparently not want the United states to participate in these international games if it means spending money. Once again, the embodiment of an...well, you get the idea.

Posted by: Rick D. on March 2, 2012 12:46 PM
11. Romney is no RINO. Olympia Snowe is the model for RINOs. Romney is a radical right-winger compared to Snowe.

Posted by: Paddy on March 2, 2012 12:50 PM
12. He's not O-dumber.

That's works for me. I'm voting for him.

Posted by: Medic/Vet on March 2, 2012 01:08 PM
13. @9
I agree with you Hank. Romney, is one of the good-ol-boys of the Establishment. He's a player. He's one of them. He's part and parcel to the Statists and One-worlders who want full and supreme Rule over all people. However, first they must destroy any Nation that believes in God and Liberty. Obama has done a good job of bringing this Nation to the brink. If the baton is passed to Mitt, he will just, continue the job of destroying America.

Posted by: Daniel on March 2, 2012 01:36 PM
14. Hank: I hear alot of whining from you, but I really don't hear you endorsing anyone. Care to share your who you'd endorse and why?

Posted by: Rick D. on March 2, 2012 01:38 PM
15. My biggest argument against him is he seems like a robot. Never know what issue he is going to "misunderstand". That and his only ammo against Obama is the economy (which is recovering), yet his tax plan has a $3 trillion hole in it...

Posted by: politicsandotherdrugs.com on March 2, 2012 01:50 PM
16. My biggest argument against him is he seems like a robot.

As opposed to our current obamaton in office that can't give a speech without a teleprompter? yeah, that's not robotic at all...

Posted by: Rick D. on March 2, 2012 01:53 PM
17. re 10: If they were spending a billion dollars a day making solar nuclear missiles, you'd be all for it.

But, in 2006, it was costing approximately $2 billion dollars a week to run your 'off the books' war in Iraq. Didn't hear anything about that from you then or now.

But, a $535 million loss on a loan to a solar company like Solyndra!!! Oh, MY!!!! - Then you're crying like a little girl.

Posted by: dorky dorkman on March 2, 2012 02:36 PM
18. ORANGE ALERT!!!! GET OUT THE LIPSTICK. LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE ROMNEY!!!

Posted by: dorky dorkman on March 2, 2012 02:38 PM
19. Let's be clear here. Assclowns are people dumb enough to vote for Hope and Change.

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 2, 2012 02:38 PM
20. re 10: Not to mention the 'star wars' money pit Reagan created. Feel safer now?

Sucker.

Posted by: dorky dorkman on March 2, 2012 02:41 PM
21. re 19: Yeah -- Hope and Change -- can't be done without the 2000 year old man, can it?

You know what the biggest impediment to hope and change is? The millions of idiots like you and the billionaires who spend their pocketchange giving asshats like you a FORUM.

Posted by: dorky dorkman on March 2, 2012 02:45 PM
22. Pudge: I guess I am the exception here too. If a candidate had the opportunity to serve and chose not to, I am not inclined to support that candidate in his or her quest to become Commander-in-Chief. Its not a deduct, they just don't have the requisite background and experience for the job. When we elect one who hasn't served (i.e. BHO) we end up with CF's like we have going on in Afghanistan right now. It seems somewhat ironic that the only Presidential candidate who served is the only one that wants to end the war.

Posted by: Old Timer on March 2, 2012 02:49 PM
23. Wow, I mention assclown and Dorky comes a runnin' like pavlov's dog. Sit Dorky, sit. Good boy!!

Posted by: Rick D. on March 2, 2012 02:51 PM
24. Wow, ignore the elephant in the room. One simple argument against: ROMNEYCARE...

1) Mitt Romney and his supporters defend Romneycare by calling it a 'conservative' solution, explaining that it was made with pride under the 10th amendment and therefore is different from Obamacare.

2) Mitt Romney and his supporters thus admit that if it weren't for that damned 10th amendment then Romney would install Romneycare upon the whole nation.

3) I won't argue my position and say it should be yours, but my position is that any person who thinks it is okay for the government to force you to spend $25,000 a year for health insurance (yes, that is what the MA health insurance company wanted me to pay through my MA owned business) is not a conservative, is not a moderate, but is in fact a marxist dictator in political philosophy.

4) Now, Romney supporters, do you think your man is a good man for wanting to be able to force you to purchase a private industry product against your will with the only thing preventing him from forcing you to, the 10th amendment? No, it is a fatal flaw in what would be your President.

5) Romney says he would grant waivers to all states for Obamneycare, then would 'fix' the bad parts of Obamneycare, what does that tell you? First off, by granting waivers he will have managed to completely eviscerate the 10th amendment as it would no longer be an obstacle for his rule. 2nd, he would keep Obamneycare but 'fix' it to fit what he thinks is proper, mainly to:

6) Force you to purchase a product or service against your will. Welcome home Josef Stalin.

Posted by: doug on March 2, 2012 03:15 PM
25.
The ideal Republican Presidential Candidate would be Arnold Schwarzenegger.

It is clear that the Social Conservatives who hijacked the Republican Party are willing to crash dive it out of spite, and because of their inability to connect to the 80% of Americans who do not agree with them.

What is more, this strain of Curmudgeonry has let to a lot of backward thinking in other areas -- in energy, science, technology. Even Governor Romney, formerly of high tech Massachusetts is tripping over himself to chew sit on fence chewing a weed and speakafy about them there new fangled energy sources.

What we need is someone who is strong enough to be bold when it comes to the 21st century issues. Nixon was able to do this. So was Bush. Both men could seize the day and lead instead of follow. What I see from Romney so far is that he is willing to be just as bad as as the worst of them (Santorum) in order to be popular. Bush commanded. Nixon lead. Romney? He cowers and say "me, too".

Posted by: John Bailo on March 2, 2012 03:21 PM
26. To my good thread buddy Rick:

This thread is about Romney and his suitability for the highest office in the land.

He certainly has some fundamental deficiences that many would conclude render him unsuitable
as a GOP candidate for President, as many his stands mirror the Democratic Party, and he is the consummate elite insider focused on power and money, not the Constitution or the people.

Uncommitted would seem to be the perfect choice here on 3/2/12 in light of the 4 candidates on our plate to date.

I urge all caucus attendees to keep their powder dry and not choose tomorrow. Many months to go....

Posted by: Hank on March 2, 2012 03:32 PM
27. .
Mitt Romney thought the steps he took to reform the health care system in Massachusetts could be a model for the whole country. But the Tea Party didn't like it, so Mitt changed his tune--campaigning against his own signature law. Watch the video,

http://www.whichmitt.com/video/health_care

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 2, 2012 03:32 PM
28. Pointing out the facts about Romney's stands on issues is critical to making a choice.

His authorship of RomnBamaCare in itself is a total dealkiller for me.

And, his stubborn adherence to RomneyCare, which is in slow motion collapse in all ways in Mass, is very disturbing in that his ego is SOO big he cannot admit an obvious mistake.

Who needs another narcissist in the White House. Haven't we learned our lesson with Bummer and Bubba??

Posted by: Hank on March 2, 2012 03:41 PM
29. .
Mitt Romney's Tax Plan Is a Moral (and Mathematical) Failure
The Tax Policy Center has updated its analysis of Mitt Romney's platform to reflect his proposed new tax cuts. And the result: Lower taxes for nearly everyone. The highest-income households would pay significantly less, while few with the lowest incomes would benefit. And without offsetting revenue increases and no new spending cuts, Romney's plan would significantly increase the budget deficit.

.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 2, 2012 03:42 PM
30. .
Rmoney 2009: Obama could learn a thing or two about health care reform from Massachusetts
Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar. The Massachusetts reform aimed at getting virtually all our citizens insured. In that, it worked: 98% of our citizens are insured, 440,000 previously uninsured are covered and almost half of those purchased insurance on their own, with no subsidy.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 2, 2012 04:02 PM
31. For the whiners saying that Romney has some fundamental deficiencies, read this true story which speaks volumes as to his character not to mention compassion.Sounds like a class act to me.
And for those that are here just to complain about Romney and have no candidate of their own to forth, quit wasting our time.

Posted by: Rick D. on March 2, 2012 04:24 PM
32. Sorry, Rick, this is a Romney thread and not a who do you like thread.

Two distinct subjects, my friend.

Pointing out facts is not whining...

Romney is unacceptable both from a issue standpoint and a character standpoint.

What does Romney, the facts about him, his character or lack thereof, have to do with making a choice among candidates?

Posted by: Hank on March 2, 2012 04:33 PM
33. Romney is unacceptable both from a issue standpoint and a character standpoint.

Hank, you've already stated on a previous thread that you are voting for whomever the GOP puts forward. That person WILL BE ROMNEY!! so when you say "unacceptable", I guess you mean acceptable enough.

Posted by: Rick D. on March 2, 2012 04:41 PM
34. Rick:

If Romney get the nomination, and wins, do you actually think he will reverse:

-RomnBamaCare
-$3 million/$ a minute borrowing
-funding for Dept Ed, Energy, on and on

???

In your dreams, buddy.

Mittens is a big govt boy. Just check his record.

Mitt has been clear that he will seek accomodation with the Dems. We all lose on that one. The Dems need to be defeated, not compromised with.

Romney, either in victory or defeat, will seriously endanger the survival of this country under the Constituion.

Romney, either in victory or defeat, will end the GOP as it presently exists: Democrat Lite. If so, will we save the country?? Iffy....

Uncommited is a far better candidate than elitist, big business, big government, narrisictic Romney...

Mitt is Obama lite, just slower trashing of the country..

Posted by: Hank on March 2, 2012 05:21 PM
35. As a conservative, I am cautiously hopeful about a Romney presidency. The overwhelming problem of federal overgrowth has become so clear, that even a moderate republican like Romney can see the problem. A few years ago, before the obama spending and regulatory explosion, it was less obvious. Fiscal disaster is now upon us, and we need an organized, focused president to fix it. I don't see anyone in the current field with the skill set needed to address the problem except Romney. It is long odds that he can or will do anything about it, but we need to go with the opportunity we have.

Posted by: Peter on March 2, 2012 07:16 PM
36. I am opposed to Romney because he will continue to increase the deficit and is not a fiscal conservative. We can not afford that any more.

That you were able to show Reagan was not is great too. More people need to recognize that we have not had a good president in generations!

We can get help get one tommorow AM by voting for Ron Paul.

Posted by: Lysander on March 2, 2012 07:51 PM
37. We can get help get one tommorow AM by voting for Ron Paul.

Um, voting for a 77 year old isn't exactly in this country's best interest- especially considering the rapid amount of aging that goes on with handling the pressure of the position. Romney runs circles around Paul and the rest of this field in both intelligence and competence.

Posted by: Rick D. on March 2, 2012 08:20 PM
38. Um... Paul is probably in better shape than the other 3 but really I do not chose my candidate based on age and health. That would be silly.

Romney is probably very intelligent and competent, but so is Obama. Those are nice traits to have but worthless without principles and more importantly, principles that I share with the candidate.

So if you want a smart competent man that will vote which ever way the banks pay him to go, then vote Romney. If you want a 77 year old that is so principled in small government ideals that lobbyist do not even bother with him, vote for Ron Paul.

Posted by: Lysander on March 2, 2012 09:02 PM
39. Although Paul won't be the nominee, I hope that his platform is incorporated into the GOP platform because it will resonate. I think Ron Paul has some ideas about domestic agenda that are worth paying attention to. Mitt Romney is probably smart enough to pay attention to Mr. Paul's ideas. Rand Paul is a rising star, but Christie or Rubio would be better as a vice president.

The one concern that I have about Romney is that he seems to have a tin ear, when it comes to resonating with the electorate. He needs to call Obama on demagoguery when he does it and convince the public what the real truth is. There are so many opportunities to do this. I hope that whoever is nominated will be more competent at debating on the campaign trail than McCain (who had the worst campaign I can remember) was. The Super PAC ads by the GOP nominee should be able to indict Obama for the incompetent, ideological buffoon of a community organizer he is. He is good at talking trash in his demagoguery, pitting groups against another in his effort to divide and obfuscate the masses and often not doing what he says. While its true that we deserve the politicians we elect, it is hopeful that we are not so stupid, brainwashed and brain dead to reelect this poseur as president - that would make us the laughing stock of the world and make our enemies happy. Evil occurs when good men do nothing and you can take that however you want.

Posted by: KDS on March 2, 2012 09:39 PM
40. Predictions?

1) Romney wins the counties that normally vote for Patty Murray.

2) Santorum wins most of the other 28 counties, however Ron Paul does surprisingly well and wins a handful with Newt only winning a couple.

3) Santorum takes the state by single digits, but most of his votes go for naught as Ron Paul supporters take the seats at the county convention leaving Romney with the win come April 21.

Posted by: doug on March 2, 2012 11:16 PM
41. Romney's honestly a leftist slimeball RINO.

Honest enough for you?

Posted by: Hinton on March 2, 2012 11:31 PM
42. Laser like clarity, Hinton.

Bravo!!

Off to the caucus to raise dump the RINO Romney, God Bless America, hell....

Posted by: Hank on March 3, 2012 07:58 AM
43. Hey demo kid, why did you change your name to dorky dorkman? Is that a reflection of your decline in belief of your own ideas?

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 3, 2012 09:22 AM
44. He got tired of being referred to as demo shit.

Posted by: Daniel on March 3, 2012 10:37 AM
45. Those are fair questions. Perhaps people are against Romney because they are tired of holding their noses at whatever candidate was crammed down their throats by the Republican National Committee. The more anointed a candidate seems, the less he is trusted - and that may not, necessarily, have anything to do with the candidate. Experience, however, does show this to be a wise position to take. The Republican Party has a tendency of backing the weakest, most "willing to reach across the isle" people it can find.

Where is Romney's equivalent to Reagan's speech at the 1964 Republican National Convention? People do change and we accept that. Andrew Breitbart had been a liberal, and there are many others who have also become conservative later in life. Where is the evidence that Romney has really changed? Romney also comes from an old political family - and members of such families are not renown for their conservatism.

The point was made of how someone would govern in California or Massachusetts may be different that how he would govern anywhere else. Perhaps, but (not that he is the governor) we had great hope when Scott Brown was elected to replace Ted Kennedy in the Senate. As it turns out, Brown is just a Democrat with an R after his name. We can't help but think that Romney would be the same way. Why do we want to do the same thing with the White House? If compromise is what a Republican must do to get elected in Massachusetts, then maybe we should not nominate a Presidential candidate from Massachusetts. Is he going to be any different on the national stage?

In 1996, I was a Precinct Committee Officer in Washington's 34th district. Before the district caucus we were given the opportunity to nominate ourselves or someone else to be a delegate to the state convention. As I recall, about fifty-some people were nominated by the deadline. But, of course, we had to give a second chance to those who did not read the instructions. Nominations were opened on the floor. The head of the King County Bob Dole Campaign then proceeded to nominate people by the truckload. When people complained about this, the Bob Dole campaigner whined about how we were trying to shut down the political process. A compromise was reached and he was only allowed to nominate three people at a time. Once someone else made a nomination, the Bob Dole campaigner would then nominate three more people. When nominations closed, there was a total of over 150 nominations - most of them nominated by the Bob Dole guy for having pledged to support Bob Dole. I am sure that Washington's 34th District was not unique in this regard. Backers of the anointed Republican candidate come in, manipulate the system, then crow about how much support their candidate has in the Republican Party.

It is up to Romney to prove himself to us - not the other way around. We will vote for him in November should he be the candidate, but we are tired of having the Republican Party pushing candidates chosen because of their willingness to compromise with Democrats (who won't live up to their end of the bargain anyway). Give us a strong conservative leader, not someone who will break in front of a Democratic onslaught.

Posted by: Matt on March 3, 2012 10:56 AM
46. I don't see what all the fuss is about. There has to be a challenger to Obama. Clearly that's going to be Romney. He's better than McCain by far. And let's face it, this election is about Obama's record. A referendum on Obama. Bottom line, people are going to be casting their ballots yes or no on Obama.

Romney is more than an adequate placeholder for sane Americans to reject the radical socialist agenda of the Obama administration. Done. November.

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 3, 2012 11:04 AM
47. pudge @ 4,

Abortion = slavery? Get a grip, dude!

Posted by: Politically Incorrect on March 3, 2012 11:17 AM
48. Well said, Jeff B. All this idiotic teeth gnashing over why Romney isn't good enough is useless. He will be the nominee and he is infinitely more qualified than Obummer to handle the job. It is time to quit whining and start winning if you're voting for the GOP candidate.

Posted by: Rick D. on March 3, 2012 11:29 AM
49. The fuss, Jeff B/Rick D...is that Romney is not, the best choice for God, Liberty and Country. He's a Sham. He's the one behind Romney Care which is proving to be a disaster to Massachusetts. Obama Care and Romney Care is the same Socialist Crap. Do you want your medical care to be to controlled and provided by Government? Do you want your medical needs to be rationed because, of a shortage of doctors leaving the system because, of inadequate pay and Liberty? Would you like to stand in long lines because, the system is overrun by every small complaint since, it is free no matter how small the need or no need at all? Would you want to wait years for treatment to the point of not being treated at all?

Romney is your typical politician who represents the controlling Elite and not the American people and simply because you think he is better than, McCain, in no way, makes him good enough to be nominated.

Posted by: Daniel on March 3, 2012 11:42 AM
50. @49,

OK fine, nice bluster. But show me how the nominee is not going to be Romney? The math works out heavily in his favor. He's going to win MA, ID, VA, etc. There are several states where he's running only against Ron Paul, or has a very strong base.

Sure, I'd love a better candidate. I'd love to see a more normal person who represented our everyday lives, and could focus on the fiscal issues and debate circles around Obama. I know plenty of smart people like this, but they are not running. Your dream candidate doesn't exist.

So stop the gnashing and focus on the prize. Down with Obama.

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 3, 2012 11:56 AM
51. For the folks that are so ideologically so right wing that Romney is a left winger... Just vote for your guy, whom ever that is, and enjoy 4 more YEARS of Obama.

Posted by: Tomas on March 3, 2012 12:24 PM
52. [Romney] represents the controlling Elite and not the American people and simply because you think he is better than, McCain, in no way, makes him good enough to be nominated.

Why don't you say who you would nominate rather than whine about why Romney shouldn't be our nominee? Pissing and moaning isn't finding a solution to the problem afterall, yet that is all I hear from some in here.

Posted by: Rick D. on March 3, 2012 12:33 PM
53. It's really disconcerting to see so many Anti-Romney GOPers out there. Face it, Santorum stands zero chance of getting elected. That's not media spin, that's a fact. Gingrich would have a better shot, but his smugness would never connect with the voting public and his personal baggage is atrocious and shameful. This dragged out nomination process is hurting the eventual nominee, Mitt Romney.

Posted by: Andrew on March 3, 2012 12:48 PM
54. Rick:

Why the hell bent hurry to determine a nominee?

-5 1/2 months till the convention
-most of the public pays little attention until Labor Day
-the press is ready to trash whomever our nominee is; let's give those bastards the least amount of time possible
-Romney will be painted as a Demo Lite, so why not vote for the real thing:
supports man caused global warming
anti gun
pro abortion
wrote Obamacare, supports the mandate
pure Democratic tax policies

Go ahead and ignore the above, the press will not and the Dems will feast on it.

Maybe worst of all, there is no fight in Romney; he could not say sh#t if he had a mouthful of it.

Posted by: Hank on March 3, 2012 01:27 PM
55. At today's caucus here, not much Romney enthusiasm, fair amount of open minds aka uncommited. And, best of all, a tsunami of pissed off and new faces.

Posted by: Hank on March 3, 2012 01:29 PM
56. Whoever the nominee is had better bring their A-game when they get to the general election to combat the onslaught of mud slinging and demagoguery. The 3 main issues the candidate needs to focus on the Economy, the energy future and getting rid of Obamacare - not necessarily in that order.

Borat Obama is trying to foist alternative energy sources on us before they are ready and will worsen the economy and our bank accounts if allowed to move on. His economic IQ is remedial at best partly because it gets in the way of his statist ideology that props up government control which is very inefficient.

Alternate energy technology is important for the future and needs to be incentivized, but for right now, we need to open up oil and natural gas exploration so it will lower energy prices and help economic recovery.

Posted by: KDS on March 3, 2012 01:30 PM
57. 55. At today's caucus here, not much Romney enthusiasm, fair amount of open minds aka uncommited. And, best of all, a tsunami of pissed off and new faces.

Posted by Hank at March 3, 2012 01:29 PM

The tsunami of pissed off and new faces had better channel their energy and get behind whoever they nominate, or it will mean 4 more years of Obama come November. If that turns out to be the case, a third party movement is waiting in the wings,.

Posted by: KDS on March 3, 2012 01:34 PM
58. Andrew, I agree with most everything you said. What is amazing... is the social conservatives seem to have a check list that a politician must meet or they are some crazy left wing radical. I am moderate conservative. The hard core right wingers are under the belief that Obama can't win this time. They are so myopic that they come across as not being very bright. They give the leftists plenty of ammunition every election. If the right wins, it's a miracle because of some of the stupidity of the right's extremists. The first thing that the social right wing extremists is that not everyone here is religious. Just because someone is not religious does not mean they have no morals. It also doesn't mean they are liberal. The right wing social extremists needs to open up to be less fearful of other ideas. Less hate toward the Latin community, is a must. Just because someone is from Mexico or the Middle East, doesn't mean they are illegal or bad. If you are so full of hate because of the color of someone's skin or because of where they were born, you have a problem, not them. Prejudice can not be part of the Republican party. If it is it will lose me, other moderates like me and the election.

Posted by: Tomas on March 3, 2012 01:38 PM
59. Hank,

Maybe you saw the activities through your anti-Romney glasses. People do that you know... they see what they want to see. I wasn't there, so I can't say. But based on your comments, you are very very biased.

Posted by: Tomas on March 3, 2012 01:42 PM
60. Our caucuses had half the county and it looks like Ron Paul had about 46% and the other three were split more or less evenly. However, that 46% translated into about 90% of the total delegates going to the county convention due to GOP vote procedure rules.

It's a small county, but could be an indication of other areas where Paul has such an organized group. There was a contentious rebellion to begin the caucus as they tried to oust the GOP County Chairman but narrowly failed.

Posted by: doug on March 3, 2012 01:46 PM
61. And yet again, Hank, you give me no alternative to Romney. Until yourself and/or Daniel manage to do so, I cannot take your objections seriously. Don't tell me the problem, tell me the solution. Preferrably with a name and resume to match the position applied for.

Posted by: Rick D. on March 3, 2012 01:48 PM
62. What I find even more amusing is that people like Hank and Daniel have supported at least three or more candidates within the last six months. THEY are the true flip floppers who can't fixate behind an electable candidate. First Cain, then Gingrich, then Santorum. They're the one's being manipulated by the media and don't even realize it.

For the record, I quite liked Perry, but the media blew his gaffes out of proportion and everyone fled.

Posted by: Andrew on March 3, 2012 02:09 PM
63. Andrew, I'm not sure what your point is.

I have changed who I would vote for until today and the only manipulation or calculation I made was this: Anyone but Romney first, next who is the best person for the job....Then after Romney started winning some primaries the next calculation is, If qualified, which candidate has the best chance to make sure Romneycare isn't nominated.

The media and Mitt Romney's paid thugs are doing a good job of trying to manipulate who we vote for, but the general equations are still the same, which candidate has the best chance of making sure Romneycare doesn't get the nomination.

Posted by: doug on March 3, 2012 02:47 PM
64. And yet again, Rick, this is a Romney thread... I do not see an active thread for any of the other three. At the very least, the other three have a few basic GOP instincts, versus Mittens, the Dem in RINO clothing spouting Dem policy positions by the dozen.

5 1/2 months to the GOP convention. Who knows what will happen in 5 1/2 months.

For the record, lots of P O ed people, but so in a positive way in that to the man and woman all were clear the goal is to take out the Bummer with our candidate, whomever that will ultimately be. Everyone who spoke was very clear on uniting behind the GOP candidate when the time comes.

At least uncommitted for now is the perfect candidate with no baggage and maximum flexibility.

Posted by: Hank on March 3, 2012 02:52 PM
65. Rick:

Here on 3/3, the solution is .....wait and watch the cream come to the top. It surely will.

By the way, to date Romney appears to be the last choice of a significant portion of GOP voters, and yet so many here call him electable. Strange logic...

Posted by: Hank on March 3, 2012 02:56 PM
66. Romney appears to be the last choice of a significant portion of GOP voters, and yet so many here call him electable. Strange logic...

Yet you'll still vote for him in November, right? Quit your pissing and moaning and accept the inevitable nomineee. Your speaking of "logic" is laughable since you haven't put forth an alternative candidate to Romney. I, for one , am tired of the whiners without a solution of their own they can put forward.You sound like honorary Democrats at this point as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: Rick D. on March 3, 2012 03:15 PM
67. Well, Rick, the solution is that the GOP will settle on someone sometime.

I have an open mind and am clear that Romney has serious and perhaps fatal weaknesses that the opposition is salivating over. You appear to ignore his blatant if not fatal weaknesses and proclaim him the nominee irregardless.

It is not for me to offer a solution, it is for the process to work through.

I will support Mittens if he is the nominee. God help us if he is as mush uninspiring RINOs always lose. Do McCain, Dole, Bush 41, Ford ring any bells?

Posted by: Hank on March 3, 2012 03:26 PM
68. Caucus results just published on Orbusmax:

Romney 31%

And you call him electable and inevitable, Rick.

Restated, 69% of WA Republicans today do not like Mittens. Standard results for Mitt.

100% of Dems have no time for Romney, or the other 3.

Mitt: Inevitable? Electable?

Reality check..............

Posted by: Hank on March 3, 2012 04:31 PM
69. @Hank, there are still several counties (including the five most populous of King, Pierce, Snohomish, Spokane & Thurston) which haven't reportered. King, Pierce and Snohomish (and probably Thurston) are expected to go heavily for Romney. Early reports from Spokane show that Paul won't be sweeping that county as he did four years ago. And perhaps most telling, Clark County, which Paul also swept last time, has gone to Romney.

Posted by: Mark Griswold on March 3, 2012 04:54 PM
70. In our precinct (east King County), the 4 delegates went one each for Romney, Paul and Gingrich, with one undecided betw/ Romney and Gingrich (which is interesting). However, in the straw poll, a strong majority (8) went for Romney, with the rest sprinkled amongst the other candidates with anywhere from 1-3 votes each.

Posted by: Michele on March 3, 2012 06:08 PM
71.
I'm PCO for my precinct here in Kent.

We had 3 participants including me.

We all went for Romney. I announced that I am a Social Moderate and another person said she was a Social Conservative. My guess is we probably have little difference between us when it comes to the basics.

Romney seems like the candidate who meets most of the current needs. We have to get working again.

Posted by: John Bailo on March 3, 2012 07:32 PM
72. Hank,

Using your logic, and assuming you voted for Gingrich or Santorum, that would make 90% and 75% of the GOP against Gingrich or Santroum respectively. Also, do you think ANY of the 25% of Ron Paul voters will support any of the three real GOP candidates? You're spinning numbers that you've been spoon fed to by the Romneyhaters on the radio and the left wing media which is hell bent on dragging this race on. I know you're not a fan of the guy, but get a better argument.

Also, admittedly, I'm young and the 1996 election was when I was in grade school. However, most accounts of the unbiased minds say that Dole was quite conservative. I myself have seen his positions and can't for the life of me understand why he's considered a "RINO." Seems you place him there because he lost the election. But please, enlighten me as I'm sure I don't have the full picture.

Posted by: Andrew on March 3, 2012 09:54 PM
73. I saw that Romney received 38% of the vote today, not 31%. Also, I support the candidate who has the best chance of defeating Obama. It is close between Mitt and Rick, but if Chris Christie is available for VP as he recently indicated (he already endorsed Romney),and if he is selected, that looks like a winning ticket to me. It may very well be waiting to happen.

Ultimately, it is worth it for everyone to encourage both Romney and Christie to run as a team. That is the best combination that the GOP can put forward - yeah Rubio would be good also, but he has already said he does not wish to be vice president at this time. Keep your eye on the prize. Obama will deservedly go down as a one term president if the GOP pulls it together when it starts to count more and gets behind a potential Romney-Christie ticket. It's past time to leave the debate misgivings and in-fighting behind and move forward in a positive direction !

Posted by: KDS on March 3, 2012 11:18 PM
74. Ha, KDS, when Marco Rubio (swoon alert!) declares, there will be so many of us in line to help his candidacy they will have to rent out Safeco Field to hold us all at the caucuses. The job is his for the taking. Til then, it's onto making Obama a one-term president. The country can't take 4 more years of Obamunism. Focus on the task at hand, everyone. There's too much at stake.

Posted by: Michele on March 4, 2012 12:39 AM
75. Here's an honest argument:

I had to do a paper on Al Gore when he ran for President in 1988, and was surprised how unlike a Democrat he seemed. He spent the next twelve years reversing his stance on every major position and came a heck of a lot closer to the Presidency, if still short.

I was happy when Mitt Romney won for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002, but when he ran for President last time, it bothered me increasingly that he'd done the same thing as Al Gore: reversed his stance on not one or two issues, but effectively every major issue. I spent the next four years saying I hoped I never had to defend him on it because I didn't think I could.

If anything, he's gotten even worse. I can't tell that he has any core convictions, which was my whole objection to Al Gore. In ten years as an active Republican and elected official, I've only once not supported the Republican primary winner in any general election. But as long as Mitt Romney's strategy is to destroy every other Republican so Republicans are stuck with him, I still don't think I can defend him.

Posted by: T.J. on March 4, 2012 03:01 AM
76. Romney has already stated that we would repeal Obamacare by issuing a 50 state waiver until Congress does the rest. He then would leave it up to the states to craft their health care solutions, which is exactly as it should be.

He also has a solid plan for reducing the deficit and controlling spending. Another Obama term would be disastrous to this country. That's what you're looking at with your quest for ideological purity.

Posted by: Palouse on March 4, 2012 03:32 PM
77. Hank,
I have been very concerned about Romney's apparent past willingness to water down our options within our 2nd amendment rights. There doesn't seem to be much talk about this very important issue regarding his old statements. I have not heard from the NRA as to their acceptance of a Romney presidency either. I did see on Drudge where Ted Nugent has reportedly endorsed him though. I will never vote for any public official who is not a defender of the 2nd. He will have to publicly clarify his position.

Posted by: shaydo on March 4, 2012 03:54 PM
78. Palouse: "Romney has already stated that we would repeal Obamacare by issuing a 50 state waiver until Congress does the rest. He then would leave it up to the states to craft their health care solutions, which is exactly as it should be. "

You cannot REPEAL Obamacare by issuing a 50 state waiver, all that issuing the waivers do is make the Supreme Court 10th amendment argument moot. It strengthens the federal government's judicial position. And why would Romney want to do that?

Simple, he believes in a gigantic government that runs your life, even to the point of determining when to end you life. How can I say that with a straight face? Simple....As he has inferred, his Romneycare should be used as an example for the rest of the country, but he's against Obamacare because it violates the 10th amendment.....THUS if it weren't for the damned 10th amendment Romney would be the marxist dictator that he is inside and force Romneycare on all of us.

Government control of your everyday healthcare decisions, determining whether your condition is too expensive to allow you to live, coming to the country you live in.

Posted by: doug on March 4, 2012 04:27 PM
79. THUS if it weren't for the damned 10th amendment Romney would be the marxist dictator that he is inside and force Romneycare on all of us.

Completely false. Romney has stated numerous times that he believes in states' rights to determine their choice and rules for health care. That's exactly my opinion on it.

Posted by: Palouse on March 5, 2012 07:33 AM
80. How about the fact that Romney doesn't tell the truth all the time?
Oh wait, he is a politician and that makes it a given to expect lies. Sometimes I wonder if politics is like Survivor. Can someone "win" by being honest 100% of the time?

Posted by: tc on March 5, 2012 12:59 PM
81. The short answer; NO. What makes you think they can and do you know any president who hasn't ?
I don't. The magnitude of the lie is what really needs to be considered.

Obama wins that (dis)honor hands down - the magnitude of his lies has been unprecedented.

Posted by: KDS on March 5, 2012 04:01 PM
82. KDS,
I wasn't just thinking at Presidential level. All politicians seem, at a minimum, to make overly optimistic promises that they know they can't keep. Can we at least start there?

For your "hands-down," I would say Nixon and Clinton get my top honors. Clinton told a bold-faced lie to the American public on national TV. That is a lot different than promising something you can't possibly deliver on.

As for Romney, his newest economic plan can be shot through with huge holes. His numbers just don't add up. It will dramatically increase the deficit and I doubt he will achieve the savings level he promises. Not that I care for him, but at least Ron Paul's numbers are somewhat close to sane.

Posted by: tc on March 5, 2012 05:32 PM
83. tc - Clinton's and Nixon's lies were minor compared to this Obama character. It has nothing to do with what he promised. He lied repeatedly on TV about Obamacare about not covering abortions, about keeping the same insurance and on and on there. Those alone are more significant because they affected us more, as this bill is now law and since it has been signed, numerous provisions have been vetted and found to be either untrue or were not covered. He has also lied about Solyndra and Fast Furious, never giving clear cut answers, which is a cover up in my book. He also made a recess appointment that was not made during a recess and refused to rescind it - that's not lieing, it's just breaking the law stated in the Constitution, something that Clinton and Nixon did not do. For someone who promised the most transparent administration, this has been the least transparent administration ever ! according to a renowned law professor.

Do you have any credible documentation to prove your point about Romney's economic plan ? Ron Paul probably has a good plan and hope that some elements of his plan are incorporated into the GOP platform.

Posted by: KDS on March 5, 2012 06:38 PM
84. KDS@83
Here is a Money article about Romney's revised proposal. To say he is fiscally conservative and increase the deficit $3.4 trillion, to me is flat out not telling the truth. He tries to cover it by saying growth will make up the difference. Well, the problem is the amount of growth he would actually need to make up the difference is nearly double historical highs in growth. How does he expect to get growth at a rate never experienced. It is a fairy tale.

Romney's plan also doesn't address tax reform, which is really what is needed. The current tax laws are a mess and Romney wants to tweak around the edges and thinks this will make all the world of difference.

Regarding your supposed "lies" of Obama, I don't know how you can compare to Nixon's fairytale story about how the Vietnam War and criminal activity in covering up Watergate. The Vietnam War costs countless lives. Young men and women (yes even then) went off to fight a war Nixon knew they weren't winning.

As far as recess appointments, many President's have used this, including Clinton. It was a charade what the Senate Republicans were trying to pull. They weren't conducting business. Look at the Congressional Record there was no business on the agenda for the so-called days where they would call the Senate to order and then dismiss it. If Democrats pulled that, which they probably have in the past, the GOP would be screaming bloody murder. Talk about hypocrisy.

As far as scandals (like Solyndra), you forget your history. Kennedy and Johnson, both had plenty of scandals. Nixon probably had too many to count. Ford probably was an exception since he wasn't in long enough. Carter was probably too obtuse. Reagan had a few. Can't you remember Iran-Contra where Reagan went around Congress to funnel arms to the rebels in Nicaragua? Bush Sr, said "read my lips" and still passed tax hikes. Clinton, in addition to the Lewinsky affair, had the questionable death of ??? (can't remember his name) and his wife had the Arkansas real estate debacle. You are believing too much of the current talk-radio crowd and not honestly looking at history.

Posted by: tc on March 6, 2012 08:29 AM
85. KDS @83
Here is an article analyzing Nixon's Presidency. GOP complains about Social Security and Medicare, and yet it was Nixon who greatly expanded the programs and set them on the course they are today when he could have stopped it. Add to this the big lie about Vietnam where he campaigned in 68 that he would get America out of the war, yet behind the scenes escalated the war further and got less in the final peace agreement than what could have gotten in 69. I don't know how you can even state anything Obama has done as being worse than Nixon's record. You may disagree with policies, which is fine. Obama has gotten us out of Iraq, got Osama Bin Laden, and is winding down Afghanistan. Further, he is trying everything possible to not have a third world war start in the Mideast, despite Israel's saber rattling. I can't believe McCain is so eager to "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," and Santorum is even more eager than McCain. This is one area where Romney leads Gingrich and Santorum, but even Romney is moving further right everyday on this issue.

Posted by: tc on March 6, 2012 09:26 AM
86. Nixon was bad, but he respected the constitution - that's why he resigned rather than get impeached. You are unable to refute what I said about Obama though and don't see how anyone in a proper frame of mind can excuse what Obama has done to removing our freedoms and bastardizing the constitution as well as lieing more than Nixon or Clinton. So you are equivocating why you are going vote for Obama anyway. It is a disingenuous argument.

Still waiting for you to address; "As for Romney, his newest economic plan can be shot through with huge holes. His numbers just don't add up. It will dramatically increase the deficit and I doubt he will achieve the savings level he promises."

Posted by: KDS on March 6, 2012 10:13 AM
87. KDS@86
See my link @84 to the Money article. Maybe you don't think increasing the deficit by and additional $3.4T is significant. I do.

Posted by: tc on March 6, 2012 12:12 PM
88. That would be significant, not nearly as significant as the additional amount in Obama's most recent budget (a joke) though. It is subject to change and would like to see other vettings. I support a flat tax or fair tax - time to get rid of this garbage tax code.

I do know that Romney refers to the Ryan plan in explaining his plan, so would say that your outrage is premature.

Posted by: KDS on March 6, 2012 12:21 PM
89. Here is Forbes quick analysis of Romney's plan. They address the supposed ways Romney's campaign claims to recoup the lossed revenue and demonstrate that the numbers are not there. Romney's plan blows a huge hole in the deficit beyond even Obama's recent budget. You can't get from point A to point B with Romney's plan. It is a bunch of election year smoke and mirrors in an area that is supposed to be Romney's main strength.

Posted by: tc on March 6, 2012 12:52 PM
90. The Romney plan you cited looks like a work in progress and he should consult Paul Ryan. Regardless, it looks one helluva lot better than the Obama budget for the last 2 years - of course El Presidente is economically retarded, partly by his ideology and partly by his remedial math aptitude.

Posted by: KDS on March 8, 2012 12:28 PM
91. KDS,
Why should Romney consult Paul Ryan? Isn't Romney's core argument that since he comes from business and created jobs (and fired people) he knows best on how to fix the economy. If Paul Ryan is better than Romney in fixing the economy, then this means Romney is not the best candidate for the GOP nomination, Paul Ryan is.

By the way, you are enamored with Paul Ryan's proposal, but it also has holes, specifically around the area of making up for lost revenue due to tax cuts. Ryan's proposal actually takes a more "liberal" stance on economic growth than CBO projections and thus is not "conservative" in nature. If Ryan's proposal uses CBO economic projections, then it actually is worse as far as the deficit than even Obama's proposal. It has the same flaws as Forbes points out with Romney's plan. You can't get from Point A to Point B with Ryan's proposal either.

Posted by: tc on March 8, 2012 03:02 PM
92. tc - Time to cut to the chase; Who do you support ?

Posted by: KDS on March 8, 2012 10:34 PM
93. KDS,
Right now, on the Republican side, I would say I would prefer Santorum, even though I totally don't agree with his foreign policy stances. I would figure those stands are due to his naivete in the details in dealing with these countries in question. It isn't black and white like he makes it out to be.

Overall between the current set of GOP candidates and Obama, I would lean Obama, due to his foreign policy record (ending Iraq, getting Osama Bin Laden, winding down Afghanistan, played Libya properly, and so far playing correct line as far as Syria and Iran). I had hoped for a Huntsman/Obama match up which would have been the best choices (in my mind). Mitch Daniels would have been another really good GOP candidate. The GOP candidate that could hands down beat Obama would be Colin Powell, but he could never get nominated by the GOP since it has ventured so far to the right.

Posted by: tc on March 9, 2012 11:56 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?