Romney The Progressive

[Gipper]

Limbaugh: Romney's No Conservative
COUNTRY NOT READY TO SETTLE ON GOP CANDIDATE, RUSH SAYS

(NEWSER) – Mitt Romney might be a nice guy and a "gentleman," but he's no conservative, at least according to Rush Limbaugh. "Romney is not a conservative. He's not, folks," the radio host said on Wednesday. What's more, the argument that Romney's presidential record would differ from his gubernatorial one just doesn't hold water. "We bring up RomneyCare, we're told, 'Well, that's [because] he was a governor, but as president he wouldn't do any such thing.' What do you mean he wouldn't do any such thing? He did it is the point."

It's also "obvious he believes in the concept of manmade global warming," Limbaugh argued. Sure, you can point out that Massachusetts is a liberal state, but "there's gonna be a lot of liberal pressure on whoever our president is: media, Democrat members of Congress that the media's gonna fawn all over." So let's not settle on a candidate just yet—even though "the Republican establishment's trying to nail this down and end it."
http://www.newser.com/story/130991/rush-limbaugh-mitt-romney-is-no-conservative.html

Of course, Romney is a progressive. It is a plain as the nose on your face.

The Rs have an opportunity here to make history and put a stake into the heart of liberalism. We have a terribly ineffective president who will not be re-elected. The Ds in congress are going to get smoked. So, if a true conservative is nominated by the GOP and both houses of Congress go R in a big way, this truly will be a historic turn around from the disaster that was 2008.

Will the Rs go progressive or conservative? That is the only question.

 

[dogtowner]

He delivers what his customer wants, he's done that his entire career.

Mass wanted socialized medicine so he gave it the best effort he could and said from the start that it could not possbly work elsewhere.

While it would be best to have someone conservative, I can live with someone who demonstrably knows how to get things done. No one else in the field can claim this.

 

[Gipper]

He delivers what his customer wants, he's done that his entire career.

Mass wanted socialized medicine so he gave it the best effort he could and said from the start that it could not possbly work elsewhere.

While it would be best to have someone conservative, I can live with someone who demonstrably knows how to get things done. No one else in the field can claim this.

I don't believe that. Perry is a four term governor. Cain is a very successful businessman. They have gotten things done in their careers and done it without pandering to the left like Romney has.

 

[clarkatticus]

Perry panders to the highest bidder. Cain I don't know what to think about except for the fact he is un-electable. Milk toast Mitt will be your candidate, can't wait for your posts after the convention when you all find new found respect for this pillar of conservatism from MA. Now would be the time to start drinking if your GOP. Heavily.

 

[dogtowner]

I don't believe that. Perry is a four term governor. Cain is a very successful businessman. They have gotten things done in their careers and done it without pandering to the left like Romney has.

Cain has enjoyed some success in business to be sure but not approaching the scale. Perry certainly has had a relatively successful run as governor but was Texas a disaster on the brink when he took the reins and he fixed it ? Not really. And he WAS Gore's man in Texas though I'm glad he saw the light.

Nobody has the skillset Romney has who is in the field.

That being said I have no problem voting for either one. I would vote for my dog over Obama.

 

[BigRob]

Cain has enjoyed some success in business to be sure but not approaching the scale. Perry certainly has had a relatively successful run as governor but was Texas a disaster on the brink when he took the reins and he fixed it ? Not really. And he WAS Gore's man in Texas though I'm glad he saw the light.

Nobody has the skillset Romney has who is in the field.

That being said I have no problem voting for either one. I would vote for my dog over Obama.

Perry has been quite a weak Governor in my opinion. Despite his super majority in the Texas State House this session, he was unable to really get much of what he wanted through.

To me, that is horrible leadership....he didn't even need to engage Democrats, and still couldn't accomplish some of his biggest priorities. Additionally, it bothers me about Perry that he basically used his position in government to obtain his wealth, unlike a Romney.

Additionally, let's face it, as long as Texas has oil and gas, they will do relatively well, despite economic pressures. I think Perry cannot honestly take credit for much of that. In my opinion Perry is a weak governor that is simply not ready for the prime time he now finds himself in.

 

[Openmind]

Perry panders to the highest bidder. Cain I don't know what to think about except for the fact he is un-electable. Milk toast Mitt will be your candidate, can't wait for your posts after the convention when you all find new found respect for this pillar of conservatism from MA. Now would be the time to start drinking if your GOP. Heavily.

I've been saying for the last 3 months that Romney is the only viable candidate. I think Christie would have been also, but since he is not running.

Basically, I don't see ANY Indpendents voting for ANY of the candidates except for Romney (and some for Paul. . .but he doesn't have a chance).

Romney is really the only candidate who would give Obama a real challenge. . . the others are all too interested in their extreme social agenda and bending backward to get tea party votes.

 

[Pandora]

Perry panders to the highest bidder. Cain I don't know what to think about except for the fact he is un-electable. Milk toast Mitt will be your candidate, can't wait for your posts after the convention when you all find new found respect for this pillar of conservatism from MA. Now would be the time to start drinking if your GOP. Heavily.

Why do you think Cain is un-electable?

 

[Dr.Who]

Cain and Perry are both better than Romney.

But Romney is probably better than Obama. Why probably? Not because I don't think that Obama has the worst politics in the history of our country. But because more of Obama just might push our country further to the right. While a little of Romney just might push us further to the left.

Whichever GOp candidate would get Obamacare repealed is going to get my vote. Obamacare left alone will destroy our country and is as dangerous as a foreign army. A candidate who would let the red threat advance cannot be accepted.

 

[Openmind]

Cain and Perry are both better than Romney.

But Romney is probably better than Obama. Why probably? Not because I don't think that Obama has the worst politics in the history of our country. But because more of Obama just might push our country further to the right. While a little of Romney just might push us further to the left.

Whichever GOp candidate would get Obamacare repealed is going to get my vote. Obamacare left alone will destroy our country and is as dangerous as a foreign army. A candidate who would let the red threat advance cannot be accepted.

A little over dramatic, there, aren't we, Doctor?

I happen to believe that the Obamacare plan is far from perfect, because it was allowed to be so watered down by the Right.

What we do need (if this country is to survive as a semi-leader in the world) is a PUBLIC OPTION.
This is the ONLY WAY for this country to compete, not only in social well-being, but also in economic development against all the other developped country who, because of their various version of public option health care are taking a huge load off the back of enterpreneurs, and the public, both because of the MUCH lower ratio of cost for health care to the GDP, but also because it offers more security to people and allows them to move more freely from job to job if necessary, and provide a more stable "growth path" in term of health care costs to businesses.

I am pretty sure you will not agree with all this. . . but why don't YOU present your factual arguments and your numbers to show that the various "flavors" of public options/universal health care that have been in place for decades in other developped countries have been the cause of a terrible downturn in economy and have limited enterpreneship development. . . or is too expensive to sustain, or has shown a greater increase in cost of health care than what we have been experiencing over the last 15 years in the US?

Your turn to answer and support your answer with specific, factual data.

 

[clarkatticus]

Why do you think Cain is un-electable?

Cain doesn't have the support of the old school GOP back room boys. He is very outspoken and frank (not bad in my opinion) and will polarize too many of the independents along with certain wings of the GOP. I believe he and Paul are honest even if their politics are opposite mine.

 

[Openmind]

Cain doesn't have the support of the old school GOP back room boys. He is very outspoken and frank (not bad in my opinion) and will polarize too many of the independents along with certain wings of the GOP. I believe he and Paul are honest even if their politics are opposite mine.

I do think Cain is a "fun" candidate, but I do not trust him. He presents himself as a polical outsider, a businessman only, but he does have a history (thoghh mostly unsuccessful in gaining office) in the politic circles.

I believe he is nothing but a plant, a strawman for the Koch brothers.

Also, while at first I enjoyed his sense of humor, he seems to be using it to say very disturbing thing, and then, when those disturbing statements (i.e., the 20 feet high, electrified wall on the Southern border) are not well received, he says: "I was just joking."

Well, when you watch him make that statement, it is pretty clear that he is not joking!

 

[Pandora]

Cain doesn't have the support of the old school GOP back room boys. He is very outspoken and frank (not bad in my opinion) and will polarize too many of the independents along with certain wings of the GOP. I believe he and Paul are honest even if their politics are opposite mine.

Out of the gang applying I like Cain best. I like Paul too but his middle east policy is a deal breaker for me.

You are right Cain does not have the old school GOP backing, but I don't like the ones they pick I did want Romney last time, He was the best of the bunch back then, now he isn't but Ill settle for him without complaint if I need to.

 

[Gipper]

Out of the gang applying I like Cain best. I like Paul too but his middle east policy is a deal breaker for me.

You are right Cain does not have the old school GOP backing, but I don't like the ones they pick I did want Romney last time, He was the best of the bunch back then, now he isn't but Ill settle for him without complaint if I need to.

Reagan did not have the old school GOP backing either, but he sure had the backing of the American people. Cain would be a great nominee, but I suspect the progressive Rs and the lib media will do all they can to stop him.

The establishment GOP is controlled and populated by progressives. They will never back a true conservative. The Bush family are progressives and I fear they intend to do whatever they can to prevent a conservative from getting the nomination.

 

[Dr.Who]

A little over dramatic, there, aren't we, Doctor?

I happen to believe that the Obamacare plan is far from perfect, because it was allowed to be so watered down by the Right.

What we do need (if this country is to survive as a semi-leader in the world) is a PUBLIC OPTION.
This is the ONLY WAY for this country to compete, not only in social well-being, but also in economic development against all the other developped country who, because of their various version of public option health care are taking a huge load off the back of enterpreneurs, and the public, both because of the MUCH lower ratio of cost for health care to the GDP, but also because it offers more security to people and allows them to move more freely from job to job if necessary, and provide a more stable "growth path" in term of health care costs to businesses.

I am pretty sure you will not agree with all this. . . but why don't YOU present your factual arguments and your numbers to show that the various "flavors" of public options/universal health care that have been in place for decades in other developped countries have been the cause of a terrible downturn in economy and have limited enterpreneship development. . . or is too expensive to sustain, or has shown a greater increase in cost of health care than what we have been experiencing over the last 15 years in the US?

Your turn to answer and support your answer with specific, factual data.

I am about to sign off so it will have to wait. Feel free to remind me if I slip up - I am not perfect.

However, since you have failed to answer somewhere between 80 and 99% of the questions I have asked you it would only be right if before I answer that you go back and answer just three questions that you have ignored before. Why would this be right? Because your demonstrating some good faith means that I am not just spitting in the wind.