Saturday, February 25, 2012

Two Problems With Romney

Just observations here, not "science."  And yes, I'm not a Romney fan...

1)  He is Clintonesque in his poll-driven/focus-group campaign.  He campaigned as a 'progressive' (RINO) in Massachusetts--and governed pretty much that way--but now that the country's mood has shifted, so has Mitt.

2)  He strikes me as far too professional--too calculated and be real.  I don't doubt that the guy is a good guy--someone you and I would love to have as a neighbor.  But in campaign-mode, he comes across as just a bit chilly, like HRC. 

Except HRC is the very picture of cold and calculating and no, I wouldn't want HER as a neighbor.

There you have it.


Grim said...

Romney's latest attacks on his opponent are all about how Santorum 'took one for the team' by supporting his leadership on No Child Left Behind instead of his own principles; but Romney (having run as pro-choice) began explaining as soon as he wanted to be President that he was really pro-life, but would be violating his principles in service to a campaign promise he made in order to get elected.

If I were a less charitable man, I would say that the argument boils down to this: 'My opponent's truth-telling about having violated his principles for political reasons is unacceptable; he should have lied like I did.'

Anonymous said...

Bull's-eye on Romney

Now if you would ease up on RP.....

jimspice said...

The reason he's the front runner is that A) he's the most centrist and thus B) appeals to more voters who likely C) consider him more electable. The RINO label cracks me up. American politics is game played from the center; every effort you make to enforce you my-way-or-the-highway rules is an advantage only to your opposition. YOU guys are the outlyers. By all means try to start your own party. More power to you.

Imustberacist said...

I am afraid of his views on socialized medicine, I fear he will try to change obama care and not try to repeal it.

Jim said...

Must, you really have nothing to fear.

Since almost all of PPACA is actually republican ideas, IF they get the power to do anything, they will tweak it here and there and then TAKE CREDIT for the landmark legislation to provide healthcare and cut the deficit (which was actually done 2 years ago).

Dad29 said...

....the reason he's the front runner is that A) he's the most centrist

Yah, just like Reagan, hey!

The reason Santorum is catching up with Romney is that Santorum has finally decided to use his principles.

Romney has "won" so far with a large pile of money, a large organization, and by ripping the crap out of any opponents--because he doesn't HAVE a principle--and won't admit that he was ever wrong.

Santorum does admit it, and he's gaining.

Do y ou REALLY think that the ObamaConomy will get Obozo re-elcted? The price of gasoline? The endless debt? The Statist/Marxist rule?

You know better than that, Spicey.

jimspice said...

I DO know better than that. Though I'd wait to see the economic conditions in May to make a best guess, this election is your side's to lose, and by all appearances, you're doing your damnedest to lose it. Huntsman could have done it for you, but no RINOs allowed.

Anonymous said...

My name is Big Papa Pedro, and I do not debate but if i am at a loss for words I am going to say TELL YOU WHAT!! I was happy to see the recent congress turn down the bad transportation bill that was an attempt to defund mass transit. Hoorway! The only two things I have that are bigger than my ego are my ass and my lies!

Anonymous said...

Dad is away. Hope he is well.
I'm sure he would like us to continue. Please read:

"TSA Fail "

......The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was formed to ensure America’s freedom to travel. Instead, they have made air travel the most difficult means of mass transit in the United States, at the same time failing to make air travel any more secure.

TSA has never, (and I invite them to prove me wrong), foiled a terrorist plot or stopped an attack on an airliner. Ever. They crow about weapons found and insinuate that this means they stopped terrorism. They claim that they can’t comment due to “national security” implications. In fact, if they had foiled a plot, criminal charges would have to be filed. Ever hear of terrorism charges being filed because of something found during a TSA screening? No, because it’s never happened. Trust me, if TSA had ever foiled a terrorist plot, they would buy full-page ads in every newspaper in the United States to prove their importance and increase their budget............

Anonymous said...

This is the clearest, most convincing thing I have seen on the whole HHS debate.
This should be posted EVERYWHERE (2 minutes)

The Con - presented by Americans United for Life

Send it to everyone you know!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

10 Most Cited Arguments in Favor of the HHS Mandate

1. “98% of Catholics don’t abide by this core doctrine of the Catholic faith; therefore, it should not be entitled to First Amendment protection.”

First and foremost, that statistic is absurd. Seriously, 98%? I am with Glenn Back on this one, “I mean, when your poll looks like the results from a Saddam Hussein election, you know you have problems.” Among other issues, the study that touts this statistic doesn’t include: anyone who isn’t a Catholic woman between the ages of 14-44, anyone who is pregnant, anyone who gave birth recently, anyone who hadn’t had sex in the past three months, anyone trying to get pregnant or was indifferent to getting pregnant, anyone having sex and trying to avoid pregnancy without implementing a specific contraception method. It did, however, include self-identified Catholics who listed their church attendance rate as less than once a month, or never. Actually, 2 in every 5 of those polled fell into this category. But I digress.

Even if 98% of Catholics used contraception, that fact would have no bearing whatsoever on the fact that the doctrinal beliefs and teachings of the Catholic faith have never wavered on this issue, a fact that illustrates the strength and conviction of the Church. As one Evangelical Lutheran put it, “That a Roman Pontiff would lead the opposition – often painfully alone – to contraception at the end of the twentieth century is no small irony. Perhaps the Catholic hierarchy model, reserving final decisions on matters of faith and morals to a bishop whom Catholics believe is the successor of Peter, has proved more resilient in the face of modernity than the Protestant reliance on individual conscious and democratic church governance.”

The Church’s beliefs are clear. Whether or not individuals choose to disobey the Church’s directives does not change the fact that “the First Amendment stands tightly closed against any governmental regulation of religious beliefs.” (Stated in the Supreme Court’s 8-1 Johnson v. Robisondecision.)

Anonymous said...

10 Most Cited Arguments in Favor of the HHS Mandate

go to link to see the rest....

Jim said...


Can you explain how the mandate for contraception coverage by employers is "an establishment of religion" or how ANY person is by this rule prohibited from "the free exercise thereof"? Because I don't see how any person is being prohibited from the free exercise of religion by this rule?

Can you explain?