Please explain why so many people are so put off that a RICK Santorum can virtually win in IOWA ? What policies so ENRAGED you in his 4 years of Governing Mass. that you need a loser who lost by 18 pts and these other corrupt individuals to be a Anti - Romney WALL against Him ? Sure he has flopped in speeches..but they all have. He has Flipped on subjects over a lifetime..but where do you get this sense he is SO dis honest that he would be lying to screw over the Conservative voter ? When we or he points out others have done the same in less than 10 years he gets blasted for attack. When we show affiliations with those that support others either by people or WORDS..we get reversed attacks on the same subjects. What is so evil ..so un undeniably wrong about a guy that is so just the opposite that a Newt Gingrich wants to destroy him.? Romney won fair and square and all you got last night was Romney was negative. Newt was up by 38 % and declaring a victory 2 weeks ago. What Romney did was a service..not an attack..just think what Obama would have done to Newt..and it would have come in the general election. Now the heat is back on Romney again. He caused guys to be fired for profit at Bain...like he picked individual winners and losers..NO THAT BE OBAMA .. not Romney. Paul supporters should like the idea that Free market forces caused people to lose jobs..to save many more going forward. A Bain V Obama economic debate would be welcome. Using the GM model for Obama ( picking a union winner and letting others fail.using tax payer monies ) V> Bain ( Romney led free market no tax payer bailout and the market decides who will lose and who will win ) This is very much a PAUL principle in Practice..not theory.If you listened to Romney last night HE CUT SPENDING 4 years in Mass.He BALANCED A BUDGET for years in a row..and he left with a rainy day fund surplus. What is so wrong about those FACTS that we need a ANTI ROMNEY ? On economics Romney is as PAUL as you can get without being PAUL. How he ran his companies..saved the Olympics ..and ran Mass. Why on economics do we need the ANTI ROMNEY ?
We have very little to be confident in with Romney. His record is the least conservative of any of the candidates. Sure, he sounds like he has his head on straight, but it wasn't that long ago that he was whistling a very different tune. I believe he said a while back "I'm not the typical Republican. My views are progressive". Now, I can relate, because I used to consider myself a liberal. Most of us conservatives weren't born that way. However, I'd like for Romney to explain what led to him becoming a conservative, because I don't believe he ever gave a convincing answer to this question. If he's just saying what he thinks the nation wants to hear to get elected, we are going to pay for it. That's the fear with backing Romney.
Lets use History and geography. Newt Gingrich is a social conservative from Georgia. He says he is the most conservative yet runs away from switching his religion 3 times in 20 years..Multiple affairs while prosecuting a sitting President on the same thing.His corruption charges.. resignation. Then we have his new tag team partner Rick Santorum.. a social conservative from Penn. He won twice against a scum corrupt democrats. Then when IN office became the 2006 # 3 most corrupt person in Congress. 1 and 2 went to jail. Is that the confidence you seek ? Now Romney is a conservative that ran against Kennedy and almost won. He ran for governor and because Mass is a liberal state they OVERLOOKED that he was a MORMON..and instead focused on his work in government. Rick Santorum ..Newt Gingrich or Huntsmann wouldn't have a snow balls chance in Lower Hawaii of winning there. Of course he couldn't run as a super conservative but he ran without corruption and with HONOR. Santorum and Gingrich.. ?? Evil tag team villains in The wrestling world V. the good guys. Dont be fooled again.
Right! A man can only be judged on his works, we can not take Romney, nor any other politician on their word. We need to vote based on what they have done, or tried to do. With that said, I dont want Romney as president based on his actions.
Consider this a service. It's been brought up before and will be brought up again by either a Republican or Obama. Romney won't be able to stand up to this once it's really opened up. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58952.html http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...slashed_jobs_romney_stayed_to_side/?page=full [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdYx19temU8"]Bain & Co: The 1994 Ad By Sen. Ted Kennedy Which Will Floor Mitt RomBOT in 2012 - YouTube[/ame]
A vote for a Romney cardboard cutout would be a more sensible vote than the unreal guy himself. What a motherfaker.
Its more than that.... the entire concept of mandatory government health care for all citizens is as communist as you can get. It cannot be ignored. Mitt is not fit to serve.
Wait a second .. ARE YOU saying he is not fit to serve because of the Mass. state health care law. ?? Then you are condemning the Constitution and state rights. Plain and simple. The health care law is NO different than enforcing a law that everyone driving a car should have insurance. That is a MANDATE..why ..because if the anti Mandate poop was allowed to happen people wouldn't get car insurance and YOU would be at risk. SS is a mandate.. You are FORCED by law to contribute and if you die before retirement age..screw you. Where is the up roar over that ? Without SS many would be well below that threshold of poverty.. Heath care is broke..Mass. Decided to fix it their way.Most Mass residents still approve of it..Their cost has gone up LESS than what ours has without full coverage. It was passed in the light of day with full debate and input. No corruption or crony politics played ANY role in passage. Here is a bit on the constitutionality of mandates and their history.. Take a few moments.. http://www.whyromney.com/truth-about-mandates.php
Mitt Romney would make an excellent President. And for you Conservatives who think that he is not Conservative enough, newsflash! --The Liberals' policies are not 100% wrong. The best balance is a little Liberalism, a lot of Conservatism. And Conservatism that keeps the country wealthy, but not all of it in the hands of the rich only. And Liberalism that allows current drilling, but that makes darn sure that we're working HARD on alternatives at the same time! And even if Liberals WERE 100% wrong, we must COMPROMISE anyway. They do happen to be Americans. If Mitt is somewhat liberal, so be it. The IDEAL President would be somewhere in the middle too. I wouldn't like everything he does perhaps, but so what? I can live with a little of what I don't seem to care for too much. But Obama is not the key. I'm pretty sure of that. ANYONE the Repubs are running would be better. Romney would be great.
You seriously wonder why people don't like Romney? http://www.hulu.com/watch/315666/th...omneys-victory-speech-and-rick-santorums-coup Feel free to hit me up if you don't get it.
I refuse to watch sound bites out of context and 15 year old clips that show a man campaigning in a most democratic state for political office. It is no different than you going to a cowboy bar dressed up like a cowboy to pick up a chick. When day light comes they realize you aint no cowboy. Romney ran as a moderate to get elected..when day light came it showed him to be more conservative than he ran on.. Mass. was one of the few states where a MORMON might be let in to play political games. What chance would he have in Georgia ? None. I'd love to see Newt Gingrich run for any office where southern BS isn't the norm.They aint enough darkness to disguise what he really is..a scum bag.
