Feb 29 2012
Stuck With Mitt – For Now
Mitt Romney pulled out a weak win in Michigan last night. So that means we are stuck with him as the GOP candidate against Obama.
I don’t need to emphasize how underwhelmed I am. I was happier with the McCain selection in 2008 – and I was not thrilled then either.
Mitt has no more Mulligans. None.
I repeat: He has no more Mulligans.
One misstep and many independents, tea partiers and others will determine that a neutered Obama facing a GOP controlled Congress (with subpoena power) is far more preferable than a big-government Romney.
Here is the list of Must Not Do’s Romney has to abide from here on out or he will lose to Obama:
- Never give an inch to the human-created Global Warming nonsense. Promise to over turn all the regulations calling CO2 a pollutant, close down CO2 exchanges, end all Green subsidies and tell the EU no US company is paying their stupid green taxes.
- Open up all areas of the US to oil and gas exploration and production. Hold companies to those environmental laws that make sure exploiting our resources do not harm are national treasures, overly impact animals and plants or do harm to humans. We have these rules already so this should not be a challenge.
- Overturn ObamaCare. If you want to keep some pieces force them to be revoted into existence. Make sure we now the pros and cons of any holdovers.
- Cut spending now (not in 5-10 years). And no net tax increases anywhere. No new revenues unless it is 100% offset by closing down existing streams. Government may only shrink – not grow.
These are his 4 weakest areas and the ones I doubt the man can hold to. But he must abide by these boundaries to win. They are also non-negotiable. He best stop rationalizing and excusing. This is what he must promise.
If he slides even a fraction on any of them, or hints at any wiggle room or gray area, or appears to be just giving lip service so he can explore beyond these boundaries when elected, he will not be elected. I promise you that.
It will be far better and easier to block a President Obama on all fronts with a GOP Congress (and real investigations into his administration’s screw ups) than to have Romney come in, give a blanket amnesty to the prior President’s sins and then demand fealty from HIS GOP Congress. Our Imperial President needs to be Imperial only when cutting the size of government and doing The People’s bidding. No playing with government. He needs to oppose out of control government on every front.
Government has to be the solution of last resort. Closing down useless, wasteful and corrupt government can take the time required to minimize or avoid hurting those simply doing their jobs or those who need to break their government support addiction (those who truly need it will always be covered). But a GOP president in this day and age cannot slip up and start imposing his warped version of government intrusion using the powers that now exist.
And there better not be a hint of crony capitalism and lining of pockets. None.
If he remains true to these conditions he will win. He steps one inch out of line he will lose.
Agreed. I am totally underwhelmed with any of them. Given the choice that I HAVE to make…is Santorum.
What’s worse is that I really cannot think of anyone outside the race that is willing to step forward to become our president. There are several.
Oh, would I LOVE to see Dick Armey in the White House.
I have some questions for you AJ:
1) When was the last time Romney submitted any supportive references to cap and trade? As I recall, there was significant waffling on this environmental issue, from all political corners, including Gingrich. It wasn’t until more reliable data has been submitted, disputing earlier claims, that the tide has turned, and some congressmen are now saying cap and trade is effectively dead.
2) Has Romney said or done anything that would cause people to doubt he wouldn’t be for legislation that would improve our energy resources here? For instance, I’ve heard him countlessly slam the president for his Keystone decision, haven’t you?
3) Repealing Obamacare, or at least doing what is legislatively possible to do with this law, is what he has said he would do…as have all the other candidates in the field. But, don’t you agree that healthcare costs need reform?
4) Just looking at Romney’s stint as governor, he attempted to cut government spending, but was opposed more times than not, by his 85% democratic legislature. How much Romney, or anybody can cut, will depend upon the composition of Congress and how adept a Republican President will be in working with this body of people. Considering that Romney has been endorsed by roughly a 100 people in Congress, it would seem he has more allies to work with than someone like a Gingrich or Santorum who have gotten relatively few such endorsements. Did you not hear his recent economic speech which highlighted cutting tax margins, looking at government spending in such a way as assessing needs for any government expenditure etc.? He has said if there is no determined need, it is gone!
Resizing bodies, whether they are a struggling business or a faltering, bloated government, IMO, is one of Romney’s best skill sets. That’s mainly why I am supporting him, versus the other people who only talk about it, but have not really shouldered any administrative responsibility in actually doing it.
Is there going to be anything left to fund any more crony capitalism after Obama’s stint at looting the treasury expires? And looting the treasury is exactly what he has done. Just like the South was looted after the Civil War, our entire country has been looted under this unqualified, affirmative action, self esteem enhanced president. The South ended up owing billions in bonded debt for projects that were never built and nobody knows where all the money went. Sound familiar? Obama’s legacy is going to be the same as his African predesessors, Idi Amin, Robert Mgawbe, etc. The country will be left in dire straits and so far in debt that our great grand children will still be paying for it.
Jan,
Get off th Kool Aid. Romney has to earn support.
(1) Cap&Trade: off topic.I gave the 5 items he cannot violate. And pointing to Gingrich won’t help him fail. Stay on target.
(2) Romney’s has casts doubts many times. I gave him a clean slate and outlined where he must never travel. Get out of the excuse game
(3) You waffled. I did not say he could hide behind ‘what is possible’. He is President. It is all possible, especially with a GOP Congress. If Romney made this statement he would be out of it.
(4) I am not concerned with his stint as governor and his excuses. He has a clean slate. Any future violation, waffle, caveat, excuse making, pointing to others as a diversion he is out.
Congrats – you failed.
I do see it a little differently. Although underwhelmed over the past several election cycles….
Dole
McCain
Romney (likely)
I see it getting better each time (not worse). However, until the GOP starts running/electing the young guns (next generation of Republicans) I think they are fighting an uphill battle. I am very impressed with some of these new Republicans who are either taking leadership roles for the first time — or just now getting elected. I see good things on the horizon if we can squeek out a victory this time around.
I, like many of you, have no idea how Romney would be as President. However, I think he has a good working relationship with the likes of DeMint, Rubio and Ryan, etc…..so, I am leaning towards thinking he may perform well. My biggest concern is that he won’t go far enough fast enough to get our fiscal house in order.
Romney is a loser.
Read the RedState article (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/02/29/three-percent/)…
But with obama for one more term, two or even three supreme court judges may be gifted to the left.
So, obama will be catastrophic, especially given the weak repubics in charge in Congress and Senate.
So, we are screwed either way.
Right…
So why would you want a GOP controlled Congress “with supoena power” and Obama but not have a President Romney. Obama will never sign legislation sent to him by such a Congress. Romney will. And if he falls out of line and the GOP Congress doesn’t stop him in his tracks then its the Congress’ bad. I don’t get you.
On your points above, all good. But you refuse to acknowledge that Romney has already committed to ending Obamacare and he’ll do it administratively until the Congress sends him legislation. Also, he’s been for CUT, cap, and balance since day one.
As to his weak victory in Michigan… he got a higher percentage than 4 years ago, more votes than 4 years ago, and overcame Santorum’s attempt to get Dems to hand him a victory. And let’s not forget, Newt spent two weeks telling everyone that if Romney lost MI he was toast, then very cleverly backed off sending his supporters to Santorum. So under all these conditions, I see Mitt’s victory as huge.
AJ
I don’t drink Kool aid, and feel somehow that we are talking either over each other or past each other. While you’re challenging Romney to ‘prove’ himself or else, you go on to think:
In other words, in your opinion, a seated president like Obama is better than someone you personally detest like Romney. Also, you’re assuming that we can even win the Congress with the likes of someone other than Romney — meaning Santorum or Gingrich. Of course all the polls indicate otherwise.
Wow!
It’s difficult to prove yourself with words alone, which is why I was pointing out Romney’s previous political stances and his behavior (stint) in MA as indicating what his actions might be as POTUS — including cuts and balanced budgets, which is what he did in his 4 years as governor. This isn’t kool aid thinking, just pointing out his record, which you seem to dismiss as irrelevant.
Frogg1 also brought up some good points dealing with his close relationships with people such as Ryan, Rubio and DeMint. There has been speculation that Romney would rely heavily on Ryan for budget consultations. In fact so many of the people Romney consults with are smart people in their fields — John Bolton and Dr. Robert Kagen of the Brookings Institute are some examples.
jan,
yep, you still are missing my point. Romney with a GOP Congress would be a loose canon IF he violates the boundaries I laid out.
So IF he looks to be a loose canon, then Obama being hamstrung by a GOP Congress is a good option. In case you missed it, nothing passes until Congress says so, and they can de-fund any and everything even if Obama doesn’t lie it. And he cannot appoint judges without Senate consent.
I would prefer gridlock over a big government Romney. Yes indeed.
Dbostan,
You’re kidding yourself if you think a GOP Congress will stand up to a GOP President.
That is beyond naive. Power is everything. A few promises to a few key lawmakers and the GOP Congress will fold like a cheap lawn chair.
Are you folks kidding me???
AJ,
I did neither say nor imply that the GOP Congress (with the repubic leadership, at least) will stand up to Romney as a GOP president.
What I meant to say, and apparently I did not do it well enough, is that either with Romney as president or with Obama as president we are screwed.
With Obama at the help we get the full implementation of obamacare, which will end freedom in our country AND more commies as supreme judges. Plus some other screwy ideas, of course.
With Romney we could get less leftism, but not enough reform to REVERSE the slide toward socialism, and, the result will be blame for the GOP president and whatever chamber of Congress the repubics will control.
That was the meaning of my statement: “So, we are screwed either way.”
AJ
As a point of clarification — I don’t see Romney as a loose canon. His whole push in this election, as I see it, is to make the numbers in government work, similar to how he sees the numbers in business. He’s not an ideologue, but a man who likes to see the balance sheet balance. Fiscal health, the economy, jobs all seem to be at the top of this country’s “to do” list. So, in cutting to the chase, this man seems to be capable of doing this. I’m not judging him on any other facet other than his financial expertise.
MI may turn into another Iowa. They are in the process of correcting errors for submission to the state. In the process Santorum picked up 400 votes in CD-5 leaving him around 450 votes short. When the infamous recanvassing begins tomorrow, little Ricky could pick up the other 450 votes a win CD-5 by a whisker.
That would give Rick a 17-15 delegate victory just in time for the Washington caucus.
Next week in Ohio, Ricky failed to name delegates in three CDs, meaning if he wins those CDs then the second place finisher claims the delegates. If he loses those district no harm no foul. He still gets the statewide vote from those districts.
He may wish Paul comes in second in those districts. This primary has more twists and turns.
I meant 17-13, four delegate victory.
Michigan primary results may be skewed by mischiefr
Yep, Mark, you could be right!
I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me this irrational hatred of Romney. Its what I’ve been referring to as RDS – Romney Derangement Syndrome (pseudo hat tip to Krauthammer).
Look at how bad George W Bush was on spending – with a GOP controlled Congress! He stunk the place up! But he was still better and less of a spender than Obama.
Let’s see if I can come up with a metaphor that doesn’t get me banned 🙂
I have a severley injured leg. I’m hoping for a surgeon that will save it. There’s one out there that I’m not sure of – he might just amputate. I’m just not sure. So I decide to go for one who I know is going to take off both legs? Sure thing! Brilliant!
Someone explain it to me… please!!!!!!!!
Layman1
I don’t understand the viseral hatred of Romney either.
His record in MA is fairly good, especially considering the enormous weight liberals carried in that state. He was a successful business man, working his way up the ladder. He is a religious man, serving his church in leadership roles. He has volunteered time for the Olympics, not taking any pay for the task. He has a long term, seemingly devoted marriage, with 5 sons and 16 grandchildren, and so far no skeletons spilling out of closets. His wealth has been earned by him rather than inherited. He has the backing of many leaders in this country, from across the political spectrum. And, has surrounded himself with some of the brightest people in the country to give him counsel.
However, he is nevertheless called untrustworthy, a big government progressive for stances he earlier may (or may not) have taken but has since renounced. It’s interesting because the same people who think Romney is a jerk, look at Gingrich, and his sordid, varigated political past and have forgiven him for all his trespasses, sincerely seeing him as a bonified leader for accomplishments achieved a decade and a half ago, basing their current support primarily on strong words saying what he intends to do.
Doesn’t anyone, other than Romney, have to earn trust and support? Also, why doesn’t a Gingrich or a Santorum get a ‘must do or else’ list too?
jan: “But, don’t you agree that healthcare costs need reform?”
that seems like such a simple question, but I suspect the answer is even simpler: No. they don’t need reform. they need management.
and: “Resizing bodies, whether they are a struggling business or a faltering, bloated government, IMO, is one of Romney’s best skill sets.” I’m not quite sure when or where Romney demonstrated his ability to resize a bloated government. His failure to accomplish much in Mass is generally attributed to the fact he was dealing with 85% dimocrats. But a failure is a failure. I’m not even really sure that having a businessman run a political organization is a good thing or not. It would be equivalent to saying a politican would make a good business leader.
AJ: “I would prefer gridlock over a big government Romney. Yes indeed.”
but for Heaven’s sake, we don’t need that situation. While I was a supporter of George W. Bush, he personally led us into the situation that we have now, spending us into oblivion. I strongly suspect Romney is considerably more liberal than Bush and would do nothing to control spending.
Jan:
Just call me Layman. The “1” is from having to re-register as I was once banned from this site for using a “colorful metaphor.”
I loved your last point. Everyone else gets a pass on their past indiscretions, but Romney get the “do not violate list.” Where is the same list for Santorum? Not needed! Now he’s a fiscal conservative. Where is the same list for Gingrich? No need to worry about more marital indiscretions. He’s reformed (I’m sure Calista keeps him on a VERY short leash. After all, if he’ll do it with you… he’ll do it to you!).
We complain all the time about double standards in the MSM, but in our own house its OK.
Still awaiting the explanation!
Let me elaborate a little on my statement about whether a business man would make a good political leader. I am retired, but I was an executive with a huge company. While I was very good at what I did, I’m not sure I would make a good politician.. In a business, you want a company to operate effectively, keep costs down, and make a profit. Of course there are other objectives specific to different companies, but none of those three goals apply to a government. Most successful politicians work on the principle of enriching all their cronies, getting payola (earmarks for their areas to ensure re-election), and enriching themselves. This is usually done by screwing the have-nots by promising them the world and delivering a photograph of a world. Obama has been extremely successful at accomplishing his objectives. How well is usually determined by whether he got more voters paid off, or screwed and the MSM has only portrayed the good side of all his wheeling and dealing. Everything negative is swept under the rug. Take his little deal of ‘african Americans for Obama.’ Not a peep out of the MSM. If Fox News didn’t exist we wouldn’t even have heard of it, and it has only been discussed very briefly even on Fox. Now, if you put a businessman over the political system, the old hands at it will probably eat his lunch, because just because the business man got in charge doesn’t mean the existing politicians are gonna change their modus operandi.