Skip to main content
  1. News
  2. Politics
  3. Republican

Mitt Romney and the Wreckage of GOP Leadership

Mittt Romney's health care package in Mass. is falling apart.
Mittt Romney's health care package in Mass. is falling apart.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney was the hope of many self-described conservatives during the 2008 presidential race, and was the apparent frontrunner in an early 2012 presidential poll in New Hampshire last week.  The question facing most conservatives these days is: Who is going to be the standard bearer for the conservative wing of the Republican Party into the 2010 elections and beyond?

The GOP has few genuine conservative voices left who are capable of credible leadership on a national level. While it's too early to start putting former GOP presidential nominee John McCain's face on a milk carton, any hope of a grass roots following for McCain is gone. McCain has become the “wrinkly white-haired guy” Paris Hilton called him during the campaign, and he was never much of a conservative anyway. On issues like freedom of speech (McCain-Feingold), immigration, and fiscal issues, McCain's record leaves a lot to be desired. Gone also is any hope of leadership from McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, who recently earned for herself the reputation as a “quitter.”

The Republican leadership in Congress is even more rudderless. Back in March and April, House and Senate GOP leaders offered an “alternative” to President Obama's unbridled spending spree, thinly disguised as a “budget” proposal. The GOP “alternative” budget looked more like a carbon copy of Obama's budget proposal than an alternative. Republican budget that traded Obama's $600 billion annual deficits forever with one for $500 billion deficits forever. The House GOP leadership must think the American people are looking for a second “Party of Borrow and Spend.” The budget didn't only call for $500 deficits forever, larger than any deficit in the history of the nation until 2008. It failed to call for cuts in any major government program. If the Republicans believe in “me too” credit card socialism, and the only difference between the GOP and the Democrats is fractional accounting, then voters will eventually choose the genuine socialist article. The congressional Republican budget is not only a dead letter in the Democrat-dominated Congress, it's a dead letter among the GOP rank-and-file in Congress. Only the leadership ever talks about it, and for good reason.

Second on the list of presidential primary vote-getters back in 2008 was Mitt Romney. Do the nation's conservatives turn it's lonely eyes to Mitt Romney? They might, but Romney had better hope those eyes don't look too closely. Or else they might see his record of tax increases and a health care disaster in the making.

While Romney ran in 2008 on a platform that claimed he hadn't raised taxes as governor of Massachusetts, the claim was based upon a simple deception: he called his tax increases “fees.” During the presidential campaign, NBC's “Meet the Press” host, the late Tim Russert, exploded Romney's claim he hadn't proposed tax increases as Massachusetts governor:

MR. RUSSERT:  The AP says it this way:  "When Romney wanted to balance the Massachusetts budget, the blind, mentally retarded and gun owners were asked to help pay.  In all, then-Gov. Romney proposed creating 33 new fees," "increasing 57 others." The head of the Bay State Council of the Blind said that your name was "Fee-Fee"; that you just raised fee after fee after fee.  That's a tax.... A fee's not a tax?

GOV. ROMNEY:  A fee--well, a fee--if it were a tax, it'd be called--it'd be called a tax.  But...

MR. RUSSERT:  Governor, that's, that's gimmick.

GOV. ROMNEY:  No, it's, it's reality.  It is.  But--and I have no--I'm not trying to hide from the fact we raised fees.  We raised fees $240 million.

Romney argued with Russert: “But a fee is different than a tax in that it's for a particular service.” Barbara Anderson of Massachusetts' Citizens for Limited Taxation revealed that many of Romney's “fees” had nothing to do with services and everything to do with the purpose of taxes: raising revenue.

But Governor Romney is also creating a new "user fee" of $150,000 on health insurers to help pay for Medicaid -- the state healthcare service for the poor or for people who make themselves appear poor by hiding their money with their kids. To determine if this is really a "fee," or if it is, in fact, a tax; you must ask the question: What service or privilege do the health insurers get in return for their money?... the Romney administration, by putting this in the budget, has made it clear that the purpose is to raise revenues, not to compensate the state for providing some sort of service to health insurers that the rest of society isn't getting.”

Romney increased fees upon gun owners and for people who needed duplicate licenses. Neither of these are “services” that the government provides; they are simply licenses needed to comply with government-established mandates.

Romney got a mostly free ride during the presidential race on this issue, despite the fact that he falsely claimed he didn't propose tax increases in Massachusetts. Maybe he could get away with it again in another race.

What he likely won't get is a free ride on the health care legislation he sponsored as governor. The word is out that the Massachusetts system he sponsored is a failure. The Manchester Union-Leader opined on August 12 that Obama held his “town hall” meeting in New Hampshire instead of Massachusetts for good reason:

Rather than declining, insurance premiums in Massachusetts are rising much faster than the national average. The cost of family coverage is about 30 percent higher in Massachusetts than the national average. In addition, the waiting time to see a doctor has increased from 33 days to 52 days.

“Commonwealth Care, the subsidized insurance part of reform, will cost almost $900 million, about 20 percent higher than projected. To make up for the shortfall, the state ordered subsidized insurers to cut payments to service providers and is considering capping insurance premiums, excluding some residents from eligibility, and limiting coverage to "services that produce the highest value when considering both clinical effectiveness and cost." In other words, rationing.”

This is a theme that the leftist Boston Globe, which was a big fan of the Romney health care package, has has also reported on. The Globe pointed out that the Romney “universal” health care plan in Massachusetts is about to go belly-up financially without cost-controls and rationing.

The more time that passes since passage of Romney's health care package, the less conservative Romney will appear to conservatives and constitutionalists. Amazingly, Romney is still touting his Massachusetts program, even though the plan fines people with no health insurance up to $1,068 per year (and the fine will soon rise to more than $3,000 annually). The poor without insurance pay their fines as an income tax surcharge under the Massachusetts law.

Romney recently promoted his Massachusetts plan as a model for the nation in the pages of USA Today, suggesting (at odds with the facts) that “Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank.”

Romney explained how he created the Massachusetts “public option” in his USA Today column, which essentially means that the state subsidizes of private insurance of the poor:

First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. 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. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.”

It's not a “government health care” program, Romney insists, it's just a program that the government pays for and controls. Can you say “distinction without a difference”? Conservatives who have experienced the Massachusetts plan don't understand why the “conservative” Romney is backing such an unconservative plan. “This isn't understandable,” Forbes columnist Peter Robinson wrote earlier this month, “it's baffling.” But it's only baffling if one assumes Romney is a conservative.

Massachusetts' unraveling health care plan alone may be enough to sink any future presidential candidacy for Romney. Maybe it already has. Romney's presence on the national stage has disappeared from a practical point of view. He has no grass roots organization working against Obama's spending plans, and no legislative agenda he's pushing – other than taking his Massachusetts health care plan to a national level.

The true conservative path is not to look ahead to a presidential race, anyway. A free people doesn't look to the “leadership principle” or seeking a man on a white horse to ride in and save us. America's founders focused their attention upon the legislative branch, where most of the power under the Constitution is supposed to be. In every sense of political reality, the 2010 congressional elections are far more important to the conservative movement than the results of the 2012 presidential election will be.

I realize that this column is now throwing you for a loop, in the sense that it began as a search for a “leader” and is ending with the conclusion that the conservative movement doesn't need a leader. But that's the reality. The GOP has a few leaders worthy of following, such as Rep. Ron Paul, but even the sense of “following” Ron Paul is something the good doctor (Rep. Paul is an obstetrician) would disagree with. He'd say he was simply pursuing smaller government under the limits of the U.S. Constitution, as the people demand, anyway.

Are Republicans willing to embrace the leaderless constitutionalist “tea party” movement in 2010 fully and abandon the “man on a white horse” philosophy, or will they suffer another round losses in the 2010 mid-term elections? The only question is, is the Republican Party tired of losing?

Comments

  • Bill 5 years ago

    I was reading this rant against Mitt Romney, thinking to myself what could induce someone to write such blitherings, when I came to the end and had my questions answered when the author revealed himself as a Ron Paul supporter.

    Another cuckoo for cocoa puffs. God save us from the cancer that is the Ron Paul revolution.

    Romney's health care plan is working exactly as designed. No state has made more progress in covering their uninsured than Massachusetts. There is no government insurance option in Massachusetts, although there is a subsidized private insurance product. The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation in a recent report said that costs of the subsidy program are "relatively modest" and "in line with initial projections."

    Beyond that, I think it's fair to point out that no one in the Republican Party offers more breadth of leadership and experience than Mitt Romney. He has been successful in business, in running the Olympics and as the governor of a state.

  • George Sommers Bos. PETS Birds&Fish Examiner 5 years ago

    You are exactly correct about "Mitt" Romney - and this is coming from a liberal Democrat! He either fooled a lot of people in Massachusetts (not me) into thinking he he was a social liberal or he fooled a lot of people in the '08 primaries into thinking he was a conservative. Either way, he's about as genuine as the first name he goes by "Mitt" - and that's because this phoney's REAL first name is Willard. Look it up, folks! By the by, he's responsible for getting a big government health care bill passed in Massachusetts, just like the one Obama is trying to get through!

  • Mike 5 years ago

    Mitt Romney is the real deal and will make an outstanding President for all Amercans. We need a "Good Guy" to lead America at this time. Romney is that person with the education, knowledge, experience, and character the country needs at this time. Run Mitt Run 2012!

  • D Hyde 5 years ago

    The notion that Romney tried to "disguise" taxes in the form of fees is ridiculous. Mr. Eddlem should do his homework.

    There is a clear theoretical and practical difference between a tax and a fee. As noted, a tax is applied to everyone. Conversely, a fee is applied to only those people using a specific good/service. Fees go up in every state almost every year. Marriage license fees, car registration fees, college tuition fees, etc. all adjust from year-to-year to meet growing inflation. So, the fact that fees raised under Romney's administration is not only normal...it's expected. That's why Romney was recognized by the 'Club for Growth' as being a fiscal conservative noting that there was nothing abnormal about the fee increase.

    Conveniently left out of this article was the fact that when Mitt entered office he faced a $3 billion (yes, B as in Billion) budget deficit in 2003 and left office with $700 million surplus at the end of 2006. Enough said.

  • Maria S. 5 years ago

    The Massachusettes Health Care program is actually doing quite well. Where are the negatives? Gives us numbers to show where there is a problem.

  • Romney is a whatchamacallit... 5 years ago

    I have proof that "Mitt Romney Has A Truth Problem" just google it!

    Remember the 08 debates?
    Dr. Paul will take him to school again...

  • Dave Redick 5 years ago

    GOP Leadership? They are mostly career-centered, big spenders with few or zero principles. That's why I'm running for President-2012 as a Reform Republican. See my views at
    www.forward-usa.org. Questions or comments to
    dave@forward-usa.org Thanks, Dave

  • Shaun 5 years ago

    I think Romney should have won, and he might have it it weren't for Huckabee and McCain colluding against him. Right now this nation needs a financial genius at the helm and instead we have a lawyer who got into Harvard because of his skin color.

  • Don 5 years ago

    Bill, you couldn't have said it any better. Mitt Romney touts his Mass. health care reform because it's something done at the state level and not at the federal level. He believes it should be done at the state level like car insurance. Mitt did say recently that the state of Mass. still needs to work on lowering health care costs. That is a problem still not solved.

  • Ellen 5 years ago

    There needs to be new leadership, and Mr. Romney is not the new leadership needed. Mr. Romney and David Fischer, his bundler from the last presidential election have some serious questions which need to be asked from them. How did the Russian mentioned in the articles get on the Michigan bRepublican Congressional Committee, especially due to his position in the former Soviet Union? The Romney family cannot dodge the issue. There is no way the Romney’s should go near the White House.

    Read Bizzyblog blog on " The case against Mitt Romney His Risky Associations and Entanglements, and a blog titled Strange Bedfellows

    And also a blog Titled. Best able to do for the link.

    bizzyblog.com the-case-against-mitt-romney-his-risky-associations-and-entanglements

    Strange Bedfellows
    janskousenandromney.blogspot

    ALEX ITKIN (KAIROS DEVELOPMENT INT'L INC./CHAIR), (Zip code: 48342) $1250 to NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE CONTRIBUTIONS on 04/23/01

  • Ellen 5 years ago

    Bill-- people on both sides liberal and conservative despise Romney, he used both sides, talked out of both sides of his mouth to win the governorship. Mr. Romney is all glitz and no substance, besides being a danger in the White House, his family has too many questionable contacts they are hiding, Romney's lust for money would harm and betray America.

  • DS 5 years ago

    The Republican party can do a lot worse than Mitt Romney. American can do much worse than Mitt Romney. I'd trade Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton for a Romney Presidency based on his record of turning around failures, including the state deficit of MA that you conveniently leave out, and his exemplary ethical composition.

    You've also cited newspaper's opinion sections as evidence of the MA healthcare results. They are at odds with the findings of the nonpartisan MA Taxpayer Foundation which indicate the costs of CC are in-line with original porjections, which, even if they land at the high end of the range still amount to just 2% of the state budget.

    Furthermroe, Romney has proven you don't need a public-option to increase the insured and decrease premiums. Distinction without a difference? Uh, government dollars used to facilitate and regulate is a world apart from government-run anything.
    Whoever we nominate will be leader. Until then, let's not demonize ourselves

  • Dan 5 years ago

    I'm an independant socialist who supported Romney's bid for president because out of all the electable candidates, I saw him as the most solid...even better than the dems. Conservatives cringe when they hear a dem say "universal healthcare". People don't understand that we've had a socialist system for many decades regardless of what party is in control of the executive or legislative branches. I'm also a pragmatic realist who realizes that sometimes the best way to help implement a socialist democracy is to run on the republican ticket. That's what Bush did, and I voted for him. In fact, I've voted for more republicans as an independant socialist than I have democrats. The old marxist/leninist strategy is that you tell the people exactly what they want to hear and campaign on all sorts of things that sound great to people so that they elect you. Once you're elected, you're in power, and you can help implement the kind of society that people really do want...(continued below)

  • Dan 5 years ago

    Having conservatives on your side is a huge plus. They only supported Romney because he was touted as and proclaimed himself to be a "conservative" (think marx and lenin). Conservatives assume (correctly) that the dems are all "socialists," so what the (socialist) republicans try to do is get the conservatives on their side...a brilliant strategy. This is why those who identify with the democrats would have liked Romney as president. The conservatives would all like him because they believed the hype about his being a "conservative", and the liberals would have liked him because of his efforts in bringing about a free socialist democracy.

  • Dan 5 years ago

    Of course, I don't support marx or lenin. But I think they had the right ideas. The thing is, most people just don't know any better. I admire Obama's efforts with socialism, but I think we would not be having any of these ridiculous "town hall meetings" had say McCain been president. If McCain had been president, yes, the same legislation would be pushed (let's not be naive), and everybody would be happy (for the most part). The conservatives would still believe that McCain was a "conservative" and the liberals would be happy with McCain's "plans" for a socialized system which has been in the works for about a century or more.

  • ATL-9 5 years ago

    I agree with Bill.

    I was reading this rant against Romney and I knew where it was going. They all sound the same except what threw me for a loop was the author's candidate of choice. I was expecting it to be Huckabee since these kind of articles usually end with a hearty endorsement of the preacher turned politician from Arkansas. The surprise was that it was the good doctor from Texas instead.

    Republicans need to remember Reagan's 11th commandment that "thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican". My impression was that the Paul supporters praised their guy and stayed quiet about the rest in the field which is how it should be and which is why I was expected Huck to be endorsed at the end; his fans love to hate on Romney.

    I don't think Paul has any chance at the nomination. He's already run 3 times and never gained widespread support and in '12, he'll be approaching 80 years old so the party needs to look elsewhere. To me, Romney wouldn't be a bad place to start.

  • Ellen 5 years ago

    Exactly! Romney says what ever it takes he FEELS will get him elected. If Ron Paul is considered a three time loser, Romney is a two time loser, in a much bigger way. Romney spent Millions and Million and published a book in his first failed race for president.

    Romney will give the government Romney wants and not an American democratic society will be found in America once he is done. Romney is a dictator in the making. Mr. Flip Flopped has been outted more than once for his lying ways.

    Romney is a bad choice for American and a bad choice for the GOP.

  • Ellen 5 years ago

    DS says:
    The Republican party can do a lot worse than Mitt Romney --

    Wrong! the Republican Party could not do any worst than flip flopper Mitt. We would live in a United States of spins, fraud, and deception with a Romney in the White House, not to mention the criminal friends of his he would place in office.

    Stuffed straw vote ballots like any common criminal street crook is what Romney did. American should not be for sale, and Romney thinks it has a huge for sale sign on it!

  • AMW 5 years ago

    A couple of points on Romney.

    1. He turned around Massachesettes' finances. The state went from debt to a surplus during his four-year tenure.
    2. Yes, he raised fees to do it. The legislature in the state is Democratically controlled and would not cut spending so there were two options to eliminate the deficit; raise taxes or raise fees. He choose the least objectionable method.
    3. Yes, health care is more expensive in Massachesettes. Have you ever lived there? Everything is more expensive than the national average in the state. Why would health care be different?

    Romney is a smart guy and is genuinely skilled at looking at problems, analyzing all the data and finding a pragmatic solution. Unlike our current President who simply wants to check items off his list and doesn't care if the "solution" works, Romney would insist that solutions achieve their goals and be cost effective.

    America would be better off right now if he were sitting in the Oval Office.

  • aprpeh 5 years ago

    Thompson-Huckabee

  • Sickandtired 5 years ago

    Where is Dr. Paul's health care plan? As a doctor, he should have something right? All I heard during the primaries is how he doesn't act on things Proposed legislation? Nada. He only seems capable of voting no or not voting on things. Furthermore, his followers are rabid tech bandits who hijack internet comment chains with the suspicion that it's always the same person drawing from a copy-paste pool.

    Mitt Romney was a class act during the primaries. Despised by his own, openly mocked in debates, he stood as an example of the Washington Outsider. Nothing could have pleased me more. The same politicians who pat themselves on the back if they can get their name in the papers didn't like the businessman-turned-politician that Romney embodied; in other words, Romney was successful, and they only wanted to seem that way.

  • Sickandtired 5 years ago

    Is the Mass. health plan spiraling towards insolvency? Depends on who you ask. However, depending on when you ask the biased mainstream media, it also depends how you ask. When it was a 'Democratic bi-partisan measure' it was lauded as a successful model for states to follow. However, 'Romney's Health Care' is an abysmal failure. Holy toledo Batman, I think they're the same thing!

    You can't divorce Mitt Romney from the Massachusetts Health Care Bill that he passed, but you also can't blame him for the additional government option (passed by the democratic legislature overriding his veto), or for the years of spending that have followed in an all democratic government after he left office (by completing his term, I might add).

    The reasons the Republican base hasn't rallied around Romney are simple. The established politicians don't want an outsider who hasn't 'paid-his-dues' (i.e. been subject to scandal by their own bad choices), and the media doesn't want another Reagan.

  • Aaron 5 years ago

    The health care plan in Massachusetts is not the same as Mitt Romney's plan. Romney vetoed a few important parts of the plan, but the democrats overrode the veto. We'll never really know how Mitt's plan would have turned out because the democrats altered it.

  • philly 5 years ago

    Romney is AWOL on the current Health Care debate. The sum total of his input was to ask Obama to slow the process. He is NOT a conservative leader, nor a strong leader. His timidity may be related to the fact that he believes in Government controlled Health Care for all, even for illegal aliens.

  • ScottP 5 years ago

    "The reasons the Republican base hasn't rallied around Romney are simple. The established politicians don't want an outsider who hasn't 'paid-his-dues' (i.e. been subject to scandal by their own bad choices), and the media doesn't want another Reagan." that is a a plain wrong statement.

    'established politicians' not rallied around Mitt? Are you kidding. People did not rally around Mitt because of his FRAUD, and they did not rally around Mitt after learning of the Romney family Russian connections. The Russian connections are complicated and did not fit into a sound bite, so they went after him on what would fit into a sound bite, his flip flopping. Romney chose David Fischer as his bundler for a reason.

    Romney can run, but he cannot hide.

  • ATL-9 5 years ago

    Ellen,

    Where do you get that Romney is a two-time loser? You are wrong. He ran once for President and came in 2nd in that race against a guy with much better name recognition. John McCain was well known and was the 2000 runner up. Romney's performance wasn't bad given where he started from.

    Secondly, this rap that he tried to buy the office is bogus too. Let's be logical. All Presidents buy the office. It takes huge amounts of money to run a campaign and win. Obama spent more money than anyone else in history.

    The question becomes which would you rather have; a politican who raises millions from lobbyists, special interest groups and PACs to fund their campaign or a guy who spends his own money?

    The guy who spends his own money is "owned" by no one. He has no favors to return and nobody to pay back. He is free to do what he thinks is best for America so I'll take the guy who buys the Presidency for himself any day over the one who has it bought for him.

  • DS 5 years ago

    Ellen, explain how in your mind Romney's a flip-flopper, fraud and criminal.

    Philly, Romney is anything but AWOL on the healthcare debate; he as the main challenger if you actually do your own due diligence instead of waiting on the media to report on Sarah Palin's comments on anything, lol. He's written multiple op-eds on healthcare reform, on card check, on stimulus, on bankruptcy, on cap and trade, and on foreign policy.

    Finally, if the nonpartisan MA Taxpayers Foundation and the flagship of conservatism Heritage Foundation each have favorable reviews of the MA healthcare system, as they have, then maybe it's not poor and wretched as an aspiring journalist and identifed, admitted Romney political opponents try to characterize it.

    Doctrinalism will only lead to Obama's second term. Afterall, apply that logic from 2008 to Reagan and he would've lost the nomination too because he committed the ultimate flip-flop after jumping parties after having been a lifelong Democrat

  • Ellen 5 years ago

    Ask David Fischer

    Ask Alex Itkin

    criminals put other people up to destroying women and children, then spin and spin to hide their involvement.

    So, ask Romney exactly how David Fischer got so close to him?

  • Ellen 5 years ago

    "ATL-9 says:
    Ellen,
    Where do you get that Romney is a two-time loser?"

    1. Romney is a loser - presidential race
    2. Romney is a loser as a person, as is his entire family

    Romney should use his money to help other people, instead of his spoiled self centered normal " How great I am" thinking he is suppose to be President.

    For a group of people who attack, abuse and let their cronies abuse, emotionally batter women and kids to cover up their involvements, they are sickening people, and too psychopathic to realize it. Go run the Romney presidential race in Russia where they belong.

  • Victoria Secrets 5 years ago

    Here's a funny Romney story.

    A very good friend of mine worked at Victoria Secrets in the early nineties. She is, and was a very sweet lady. She had gone to the Grand Opening of the Auto show in Detroit, the big Gala, and passed by one of the Romneys and a lady standing next to him in a yellow formal. She did not stop to say hello, even though she know the man.

    Not long after, she was at work in the back room at V.S., a lady came in and was looking over the teddy rack, thong back teddy rack. My dear friend went over, walking up behind the lady, and asked if she could help find the woman's size, the lady began to rattle off about a 'hot weekend' she was going away on, with Then the woman looked up, saw my dear friend, my dear friend recognized the lady as the woman she saw earlier in the yellow formal, and the woman recognized my dear friend, dropping the teddy which she had selected for her 'hot weekend' the woman ran out of V.S. My friend stood amazed at what happened.

  • Ellen 5 years ago

    The Romney family sound like they have a lot to be ashamed of.

  • Don 5 years ago

    Ellen,

    I can see why you don't like Mitt Romney. He actually makes fiscal sense when he speaks. Enough said.

  • Don 5 years ago

    Ellen,

    I can see why you don't like Mitt Romney. He actually makes fiscal sense when he speaks. Enough said.

  • Eleen 5 years ago

    "I can see why you don't like Mitt Romney. He actually makes fiscal sense when he speaks. Enough said. "

    Pretty funny. Nice spin, deflect the Romney family ties to former high level Soviets, and deflect about David Fischer, the Romney bundler.

    Romney is a flim flam snake oil sales man, who's cut his teeth in the Mormon Stake his Daddy ran,learning the know how of how to psychologically abuse women and kids who were abused and sexually abused by their glorious priesthood holders.

    Nice try. Romney only deflects and makes no sense.
    Go Run the Romney presidential campaign in Russia where your friends can openly support you.

  • Maria Sanchez 5 years ago

    Regarding this story {yawn}
    Must be a slow summer for news.
    Any political season is a time to sell yourself (warts and all). The best salesman wins. Romney has far fewer warts than most candidates. If he decides to try again, I have little doubt he'll succeed.

    Now a message to Thomas {yawn} pick another topic please.

  • Richard 5 years ago

    This country became the number one in the world because the smart people,the experience leadership,the good vision of America leader. No one had better resume than Mitt,no one had better record than Mitt, no one had success in the business more than Mitt,no one is capable more than Mitt,no one is smarter than Mitt,no one is more intelligent than Mitt,no one is look more presidential than Mitt,Mitt is the America dream,why you are so hate him ? Mitt spend his own money is better than Obama used America money campaign and collect them second times now. Mitt can't speech the way you fall in love with him like Obama but he can do the thing you need,he can change the direction you want,he can turn the country to the way you love.The wealthy man can make a wealthy country,the smart leader can build a prosperity country,the strong leader can create a wonderful
    country,Mitt is that kind of leadership that America really need now because we can't look Obama destroy our country anymore.

  • ATL-9 5 years ago

    Ellen,

    Let me guess...you support Mike Huckabee, right? I knew if you talked long enough the real reason for your hatred of Romney would come out and predcitably, it appears to be his religion you don't like.

    The founding fathers specifically prohibited the imposition of a 'religious test' for those seeking to lead our Nation. Although it is clear from their writings that they anticipated future leaders would be religious and Christian, they wanted to ensure that no specific denomination be favored. This edict was not to protect America from religion as some think today but rather to protect religion from America and their wisdom has allowed Presidents from many denominations to serve and none of those Presidents has attempted to establish an official national religion.

    Mitt Romney would be no different and he should be judged on his merits as a man and his fitness for the office but not on the teachings of his church

  • ATL-9 5 years ago

    Ellen,

    Let me guess...you support Mike Huckabee, right? I knew if you talked long enough the real reason for your hatred of Romney would come out and predcitably, it appears to be his religion you don't like.

    The founding fathers specifically prohibited the imposition of a 'religious test' for those seeking to lead our Nation. Although it is clear from their writings that they anticipated future leaders would be religious and Christian, they wanted to ensure that no specific denomination be favored. This edict was not to protect America from religion as some think today but rather to protect religion from America and their wisdom has allowed Presidents from many denominations to serve and none of those Presidents has attempted to establish an official national religion.

    Mitt Romney would be no different and he should be judged on his merits as a man and his fitness for the office but not on the teachings of his church

  • Kyle 5 years ago

    Eleen:

    You wrote:
    "Pretty funny. Nice spin, deflect the Romney family ties to former high level Soviets, and deflect about David Fischer, the Romney bundler. Romney is a flim flam snake oil sales man, who's cut his teeth in the Mormon Stake his...."

    Obviously you didn't read the entire article but read only the portion that was positive about Romney and decided that you needed to spew your nonsense.

    Obama, Biden, Paul, Palin, Huckabee, McCain, Clinton - all of the politicians - at one time or another have made errors in judgment.

    The question is, would Romney GOVERN better than Obama? Would he influence Congress and the country to engage in good fiscal, social, and political practices that would improve our enconomy, strengthen families, and strengthen American world wide, more so than Obama? Would he have better ideas and a better team?

    The answer? Yes. Romney would do a better job than all of those aforementioned politicians.

  • Clyde 5 years ago

    Ellen:

    You're really lousy at objectively finding answers and choosing presidential candidates.

  • DS 5 years ago

    Yes, Kyle, not only would Romney make better decisions than McCain, Palin, Huckabee, Rudy and the rest of the 2008 slate, but he'd also make better decisions than President Obama, President George W. Bush, President Clinton, and probably presidnet George H.W. Bush as well.

    Ellen, why do you think it's OK to hate people of other faiths? Kyle laid down some history for you, but I'm sure you'll discount it because what do you care that the founders set out to establish a fair and egalitarian society — you want one based on cultural identity alone.

  • Ellen 5 years ago

    Another switch, now you deflect using 'religion', as you have attempted to deflect before using fiscal responsibility -- not ever answering the questions regarding the Romney family connects to high level former Soviets or questions regarding David Fischer, Mitt Romney bundler.

    Romney is no victim, his campaign in run on dodging issues, diverting serious questions, and deflecting.

    It is 'hating' his religion, to know about and question the abuse and cover up done to women and children in the Bloomfield Hills Stake and surrounding stakes the Romney family grew up in and have had control over? Are you crazy?!

  • Ellen 5 years ago

    Clyde said

    "Ellen:

    You're really lousy at objectively finding answers and choosing presidential candidates."

    No, I am not, and by your statement shows you are not objective either.

  • Tory 5 years ago

    Ellen is right Russian connections are serious, and the Romneys need to answer the questions.

  • Ellen 5 years ago

    Let me guess ATL-9 you supported Romney.

    The issue is Romney. Are your crazy with the type of deflecting which is attempted to be done.

    Are Romney supporters nuts? Each one has deflected from Romney needing to answer questions, and let me guess all the posters saying 'you hate his religion", you posters support the cover up of sexual abuse of children, the abuse of women, and the psychological battering done to keep them silent, therefore, making any statements about the activities of abuse within the wards and stakes the Romney were in power over is 'hating his religion'?

    There is no logic in the statements being made to defend Romney.

  • Delois 5 years ago

    Ellen is right!

    The Romney Supporters are deflecting!

  • Delois 5 years ago

    Ellen is right!

    The Romney Supporters are deflecting!

  • Ellen 5 years ago

    Kyle,

    I did read the article. No, Romney would not govern better, he would be dangerous because of the conflict he would have owing his families wealth to a foreign nation. The involvements of Karios are serious. The types of abuse victims of the wards and stakes his family had, and has power over, is reflective of how Mr. Romney's actions would be in the office of President.

    With all the Warts the Romney family has Mitt would be a dangerous leader for our nation.

  • Ellen 5 years ago

    Alt man said "Mitt Romney would be no different and he should be judged on his merits as a man and his fitness for the office but not on the teachings of his church"

    So, I take it Alt.man, Romneys church is a LAY ministry, meaning Romney's were themselves Bishops and Stake Presidents in their church, their pop was very powerful in the church, and just because during the times of the Romney family being in these positions within their church, there was active cover up of sexual abuse of women and children, and sever psychological battering to some of victims done, Romney should not be questioned on these issues, because it is his 'faith'? Is this what you are saying Altman?

    And bring out the topic and questions of the Romney families involvement with Karios, is again attacking Mitt faith, and being unable to objectively select a candidate based on their merits, correct?

    The abuse done to victims, Romneys bunder David Fisher involvement, and questions on Karios are Romneys m

  • Ellen 5 years ago

    The abuse done to victims, Romneys bunder David Fisher involvement, and questions on Karios are Romneys MERIT

Pages

Advertisement