Mark Levin: 'Character Matters and Romney's Worries Me'
Conservative author and talk radio host Mark Levin took to his Facebook page Sunday with concerns about the character of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney:
I am beginning to think that the nature and level of attacks being launched by Mitt Romney against Newt Gingrich, which he would surely use against any conservative threatening his nomination, are going to make it very difficult for Romney to unite the different factions of the GOP and the conservative movement behind his candidacy should he win the nomination. While I have said that I would vote for Rick Santorum, I am appalled at the "anything goes" assault on Gingrich.
Levin sent readers to a New York Times article published Sunday entitled "Facing Second Loss to Gingrich, Romney Went on Warpath":
Facing the unthinkable here just seven days ago — a second loss in a row to Newt Gingrich — Mitt Romney’s campaign team hatched a two-part plan to win in Florida: make Newt mad and Mitt meaner.
In a call last Sunday morning, just hours after Mr. Romney’s double-digit loss to Mr. Gingrich in the South Carolina primary, the Romney team outlined the new approach to the candidate. Put aside the more acute focus on President Obama and narrow in on Mr. Gingrich.
Find lines of attack that could goad Mr. Gingrich into angry responses and rally mainstream Republicans. Swarm Gingrich campaign events to rattle him. Have Mr. Romney drop his above-the-fray persona and carry the fight directly to his opponent, especially in two critical debates scheduled for the week.
With this in mind, Levin continued:
My great fear is, however, that he is the weakest candidate who can face Obama and will go into the general election with a fractured base, thanks to his own character flaws, which are now on display, and his tactics of personal destruction. Moreover, while Romney can swamp his Republican opponents by 3 to 1 or more in every state with his spending advantage, Barack Obama will be raising more and spending more to beat him in the general election, meaning Romney's financial advantage will be non-existent.
Levin's numbers are accurate, for the Miami Herald's Marc Caputo told CBS's Bob Schieffer Sunday that Romney is outspending Gingrich 3 to 1 in Florida.
This is certainly not an advantage he'll have in the general election if he gets that far.
Read Levin's entire piece for more details.
Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
keep in touch
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 7:10pm.
It ain't just Romney, should he win the nomination, be held to account for the brutality brought against Newt. The inside the belt-way insiders who have come out forcefully against Newt had better stay in their battle gear and not walk back into their Georgetown homes for wine and brie while leaving us peons down at the street level to fight and bleed for the candidate they pushed onto us.
Romney not well liked
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 7:13pm.
At least among the other candidates. yes, the party establishment seems to be behind him (the same people who fear Sarah Palin). What concerns me is that the candidates who drop out are endorsing Gingrich. Now Gingrich doesn't strike me as a terribly warm and fuzzy guy, so why do all endorse him? What is it about Romney that they don't like? Do they, like Levin, have issues with Romney's character?
What is it about Romney that they don't like?
Submitted by ThePickle on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 7:29pm.
Do they, like Levin, have issues with Romney's character?
I think it more of a worry over a lack of a strong "Conservative" character.
While the MSM and the Republican elite are bleating like good little sheep, "Romney's the only one that can win" they fail to realize that we as conservatives got bamboozled four years ago with John McCain. And we realize now that the MSM and Republican elite were bleating much the same mantra in their cheer leading for McLame as they are now for Romney. That, in and of itself, makes Conservative suspicious.
What I think you are really seeing is the Conservative base of the party saying they are sick to death of milquetoast wimps and are hungry for a fighter. Someone who will stand up and tell the MSM, the current administration AND the Republican elite just where they can shove their hand picked candidate.
Another part of the problem
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 9:33pm.
is RINO's like Boehner. I haven't seen the new Congress do much since elected. I'd like them to at least make a show of being conservative, rather than allowing things like granting the president the authority to jail American citizens without trial. Maybe the candidates are seeing Romney as another do nothing RINO who won't do a thing to pull back Obama's policies.
Romneycare.
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 12:45am.
.
There's a lot to like about Mark Levin
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 7:36pm.
and he's pretty spot-on in this piece except for one omission: Newt actually began the attacks along with Perry regarding Bain. That's been my biggest issue with Newt; "vulture capitalism" is inexcusable. He really did well early on when he was effectively running interference for the other candidates during debates -and he's had a couple of moments since- but deriding wealth is, well, I can't vote for him in a primary because of it.
If he's the nominee I'll vote for him, but he worries me from a "corruptible" standpoint were he to win the White House.
bob, that's the big thing
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 7:59pm.
bob, that's the big thing that bothered me about Newt. He said they should attack obama, not each other, and then he started attacking Romney. They both need to get back to the "any one of us is better than Obama."
All they are doing is writing the Obama team's attack ads for them. And they'll likely have close to $1billion to do it.
rules for radicals
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 8:11pm.
So how is our guys willingness to split the party for political gain any different than obama's plan to pit American against Americans for political gain?
The test for Romney, should he win Florida, is whether he will dial it back and allow some intra-party healing or will he continue to destroy Newt and alienate Newts supporters even more? But then maybe Romney plans to run to the center Left and hope to win with squishy Republicans, undecided middle dwellers and disaffected democrats, without needing the true Conservatives.
It's different in the context
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 9:20pm.
It's different in the context of the election. Because every Democrat will go to the polls and vote for Obama, no matter how much he's ticked some of them off. Republicans, OTOH, have a history of having hissy fits and not voting if their preferred candidate isn't the nominee.
Romney, if he's the nominee, can talk all the sweet-talk he wants; it doesn't work for Republicans like it does for Democrats. You don't really think all those PUMA's for Hillary really stayed home and didn't vote for Obama, do you?
motherbelt...your version of history is upside down...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 10:29pm.
The Democrats have long enjoyed a numerical superiority among Americans [although Rasmussen reported a year ago the GOP had gained a slight edge. That finding is disputed.] but have been less likely than Republican voters to turn out to support their nominee.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 10:34pm.
Even the dead democrats? I hear they turn up in droves. :)
Hardy-har-har, Rad...you and this guy from yahoo.answers
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 10:54pm.
should become a comedy team.
Are there more registered democrats or Republicans in America?
roadster9879 roadster...
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
The majority of the registered voters in this country are Democrats. A large number of these are dead, but somehow they still manage to rise from their graves and make it to the polls on election day.
So they don't look too good or have much to say, but dead people have rights too, ya know. And they represent one of the Dems most dependable constituencies.
Jer
I heard that in November
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 10:56pm.
The Walking Dead will be doing an episode to help get out the vote.
I'm sorry. I was on vacation last week and haven't quite gotten back to normal.
I disagree...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 11:01pm.
You're not exactly expressing a "radical" opinion on the subject--at least not around these parts. ;-)
Jer
⇒ But Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 11:05pm.
Why would these four Democrat New York officials plead guilty to felony voter fraud if it doesn't happen?
I'll grant you it's old news, say LAST WEEK. Sorry I couldn't find a more contemporary example.
Cool...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 11:10pm.
My disagreement was with Rad's statement that she wasn't yet back to normal, not with the claim of voting fraud.
Jer
⇒ So it's fair
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 11:19pm.
So, "Be he live, or be he dead, I'll count his votes to pad the spread".
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Carry on.
LOL!!!!!
Submitted by NC Cop on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 10:55pm.
LOL!!!!!
BK
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 8:45pm.
Huh? Romney and surrogates had been attacking Newt well before the Bain blowup, something on the order of 2-3 weeks beforehand. It was the unrelenting and personal smarmy nature of those attacks which propelled Gingrich's angle from positive to negative.
I don't remember those strat
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 9:33pm.
I'm not doubting you, I just don't remember attacks on Newt before he gained traction as Cain and Bachmann dropped out. My recollection is Romney remained mostly above the fray and messaged about Obama. I do remember a lot of commentary about how Romney -as the [premature] presumptive nominee- didn't have to worry too much about the other candidates since they consistently polled 10-20 points behind him. Surrogates maybe, but I don't remember attacks from Romney, himself.
Romney's surrogates,
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 12:16am.
Romney's surrogates, including a PAC(s), attacked both Perry and Gingrich. Romney has a history of these methods. There is a reason the other presidential candidates in 2008 were disgusted with Romney - he's fights dirty, or rather, he gets others to do his dirty work for him so he can keep appearances.
Surrogates performed the most dirty work for Romney this election cycle so far. Unrelenting attacks during the Iowa caucus which carried into New Hampshire. Newt asked for civility and a positive tone which feel on deaf ears. They continued to muck rake and Newt popped. Out came the Bain BS.
I don't believe the veracity of candidates with regards to these PACs they are supposed to be completely incommunicado. Apparently neither do a lot of other people because they conflated an independent PAC's lengthy commercial as directed or blessed by Newt. (Romney didn't try to dispel that notion about Newt but he sure yelped when Newt asked him to call off his PAC) It is not unlikely that surrogates communicate between candidate and PACs. Also, even if a candidate were not in direct or indirect communication with a PAC, I doubt the PAC would continue its style of attack if the candidate they support publicly mentions his disfavor for that approach. The candidate could also "disown" the PAC if the advertisements were outrageous. You know these angles will be exploited by Obama and his henchmen, so get ready for it.
They don't call politics a bloodless war for nothing.
Romney is the same kind of vermin ...
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 12:21am.
Obama is. He is a liar and a progressive. If the GOP are fool enough to nominate this man, Ron Paul is going to go renegade and run third party, and Obama will be re-elected with the lowest percentage of the popular vote since Benjamin Harrison.
Paul may go renegade anyway, but at least a Conservative GOP candidate will give Paul the least incentive to do so..
I will gladly vote for
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 12:29am.
I will gladly vote for Romney, Santorum , or Gingrich. Gladly.
Really?
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 12:34am.
Romney is a statist, a big government Republican. He represents about 1/3 of the party. He will have an uphill battle to unseat Obama. Worse, he will not reverse course as is desparately needed even if he is elected.
Yes
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 12:48am.
If either Gingrich, Romney or Santorum is the GOP candidate in the general election I will gladly vote for them to beat the Alinsky out of Obama.
Romney is the Death of the party.
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 12:57am.
I already know from my local canvassing that the party base in unenthusiastic about him. In particular, he is weak on the number one issue : Obamacare. Romney's nomination takes that off the table. If he is the nominee. the GOP are in trouble.
The GOP is already in deep trouble
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 2:16am.
Romney's hope is then on his business accumen and history of working with the Left, betting on the American public's number one concern is to fix the economy.
Any of the three I mentioned will govern better than Obama. Even Romney.
You know who is really weak on Obamacare?
Submitted by ckc1227 on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 3:59am.
In particular, he is weak on the number one issue : Obamacare
Obama.
If we believe your theory, Gingrich also takes Obamacare off the table, because he not only has called for a national healthcare mandate alas' Obamacare of his own, he also supported Romneycare.
If either of these guys is the nominee, the country, not the GOP, is in trouble. Unfortunately, these two are the best we can do at this point. How sad is that?
Mr Levin had damn well better
Submitted by ThisnThat on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 7:53pm.
Mr Levin had damn well better start deciding how to support the eventual nominee and get o'bama out of office. Enough with this "he ain't perfect, therefore no good" attitude from everybody. Stop it already. Doesn't anyone understand that the job is to get the current occupant out of the white house before our country is totally destroyed? And I mean TOTALLY.
Mr. Levin, there are no other candidates. Get used to it. And Newt is losing. And if you think you can stand on the sidelines and just snipe, rather than bring significant pressure on Romney as the winner, then you aren't any better than Romney or Newt. Instead, let's get Romney to focus attacks like this on o'bama. He has shown he can do it. Get behind him. I can guarantee you his character vs. o'bama's is night and day.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
oh please
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 9:05pm.
He is unhappy with some Issues within his party. He has every right to complain.
Get over it.
Oh, what - what was I
Submitted by ThisnThat on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 10:34pm.
Oh, what - what was I thinking? Thanks, Shawn, for the soothing words. I'm so refreshed.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
You are very welcome
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 12:04am.
Glad you are soothed after giving that wonderful advice to a man that has done more for conservatives than you probably won't achieve in a thousand lifetimes.
Imbecile.
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 12:31am.
I am a Republican party leader in my area. Let me tell you how things are. Fully two thirds of our rank-and-file voters do not like Romney. About one third support Romney. The other 2/3 are roughly divided into two camps : half of them will go to the polls and vote for Romney simply to defeat Obama. The other half will refuse to vote at all or vote for Ron Paul or some other third party candidate.
If Romney leads our ticket we will have hellish turnout problems that will plague our candidates further down the ballot.
If Romney is nominated, Ron Paul runs on the Libertarian line and Obama is re-elected, then the Republican party is finished. We will see the immediate coalescence of the TEA Party into a real third party. Romney is electoral poison.
Imbecile?
Submitted by ThisnThat on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 8:36am.
Take some time and think about it. You can hurl better insults than that. While you're at it, pick up a dose of reality too. There are only two candidates in the current field who will deliberately try to destroy this country -- o'bama and Ron Paul. All others can be worked with. Your ideal candidate isn't making it. You have either failed to produce him, or have failed to support him sufficiently. Therefore, you simply don't have a choice -- except to make do with what's currently available, and to continue to work on Congress. I suggest you start to work on that, now.
And we're not all imbeciles, in case you haven't noticed.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
The real imbeciles
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 11:42am.
The real imbeciles are the ones who voted for this poser in the first place. The real imbeciles are the ones who wanted to teach the Republicans a lesson.
And if that's the kind of idiocy we are seeing that's pretty much the harbinger of the movie Idiocracy which is fictional to becoming reality, then that's our bed to lie in.
I can blame government and the liberals and etc all day long, Lord knows there's no shortage of it, but I blame the American people first for allowing these things to happen. That was a choice.
-Jon
Actually I would vote for Ron
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 1:40pm.
Actually I would vote for Ron Paul before Romney if given the chance. I believe RP would have a Damascus moment as soon as he was elected.
Do you read at all?
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 8:22pm.
Or do you just blunder on?
I did not mention who I support at all. There are no ideal candidates, but some candidates are better than others. Understand the MSM is supporting Romney as the Republican nominee. Why do you suppose a bunch of left wing Democrats are supporting Romney? You can bet it isn't because they think he will defeat Obama!
And YOU are most certainly an imbecile since you obviously cannot count. Romney at the head of the Republican ticket will not motivate the base. In fact, it will suppress turnout amongst conservatives. This has all sorts of negative consequence down the ticket. There are going to be several very close Senate races this year. It's also going to be a struggle to hang-on to some of these House seats in Democrat and Swing districts that were won in 2010. Turnout is key to accomplishing this. Romney and Ron Paul both alienate significant portions of the Republican base. None of the other candidates active or inactive turn-off so many base voters. Any of Cain, Perry, Santorum, Bachman or Gingrich have broader appeal in the base than Paul, Romney or Hunstman.
Romney's nomination maximizes the probability that Ron Paul will go renegade and run third party. Such a third party candidacy would seriously harm the Republican nominee's chances against Obama.
I'm so SICK n' TIRED of the MSM success on trashing republicans.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 8:20pm.
So the MSM blackout on mitts Mormonism, is winning...., folks SOOOO forget.... Get ready for Mitt's TOTAL flame out since 2008, the media been saving up for a FULL ON Gauntlet ready billion dollar ATTACK for mitt, it's coming like a tsunami, baby.
Newt needs to win Florida, and the sheeple feed polls are getting squishy, so very squishy....
'Character Matters and Romney's Worries Me'
Well yea he's a lawyer!
You Didn't Build That.
Character ?
Submitted by Woodrowski on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 8:28pm.
What kind of character cheats on his wife/wives? Repubs lamb basted Clinton for cheating, they basically impeached him for it, but now cheating on your wife doesn't seem to be an issue, how convenient. Hypocrites ALL. Are the conservatives so deluded to really think the country wants someone so extremely right of center, He's like the oposite of OB on the left. Newt just proved he is just as much a Big Government moron as OB. Really a base on the moon. How are we going to pay for that? We barely get a rocket out of low orbit, Our new manned Orion spacecraft is just a bigger version of the Apollo capsule and it has cost of how many $$BILLIONS. What a great leap in technology. Nasa is just updating Apollo. What a joke. We can't even get to that stupid space station, we have to pay the Russians!!!! I sure hope that Mars car makes it, how much did that cost?? And all that money just to see if there is microbial life there. Does anyone really care about that? I bet the unemployed do, I'm sure that car on Mars will create plenty of jobs. Well frankly there is life here that could use that money. Like me, by keeping it in my pocket and not paying for frivolous missions like that. And now the he's talking about a moon base. Pathetic.
The truth is that Clinton was
Submitted by robert108 on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 9:06pm.
The truth is that Clinton was impeached for lying about his infidelities, both under oath and to Congress and the American people. He violated his oath of office; Newt didn't.
Robert, don't point that out to
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 12:36am.
Woodrowski, he made up his mind absent any facts, you'll just cause him to scratch his head and wonder what you meant by lying under oath.
He was impeached for lying
Submitted by ckc1227 on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 4:13am.
He was impeached for lying under oath. But you're fooling yourself if you believe his infidelity wasn't an issue for Republicans and Conservatives. They weren't too happy about Weiner's escapades last year either.
Woodrowski So dreams are not allowed.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 11:36pm.
How many trillions have been tossed at the moon base?
Oh no.... Trillions/billions tossed at O'bamacare/mittcare is what? good, whatever.
40 years ago Freemen walked on the moon. You think the commies will succeed 40.no.. 50 years later?
Apollo is the state of the art... Is there any device that propelled man (3 men) faster, than that 60's antique?
I'm all for drones, so a toy car is still runnin around on mars like 8 years later Somewhere around here,it's been spoken .... do you care da kine doctor operating on you RIGHT NOW had an affair a dozen years ago.
No I will not skip Mercy N' Forgiveness
You Didn't Build That.
For Newt supporters: question?
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 9:55pm.
Newt said this in a conference call in May of 2009, representing the Center for Health Transformation, an organization he founded in 2003. The YouTube vid was apparently excerpted from here.
Basically, this is Newt calling for an individual mandate for health insurance- during the debate for ObamaCare. Verum Serum posted it here.
So my question for Newtons is: can you support Newt in a primary knowing he supported the individual mandate in ObamaCare? And a follow up: Since that's at the heart of the Tea Party opposition to Obama's signature legislation, do you worry that a President Newt would not work to repeal it?
So far as I can tell, only Santorum and Paul actually oppose the mandate.
BK
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 11:51pm.
Good post. Would like to hear all of it, or read a transcript, but too many hoops for me to jump through to get the audio.
It is no surprise that Newt endorsed a mandate. He's done that for years. It also should be no surprise that Newt has campaigned on repealing ObamaCare, something Newt views as unconstitutional. He's talked about why his opinion as changed and he needs to talk about it more, be questioned more, his feet held to the fire, so that we and he understand precisely the situation and why we should believe him. No free rides. Obama and his surrogates will be all over this mandate issue and it needs to be crystal clear beforehand.
Romney still has not repudiated RomneyCare and his own representative has stated Romney will not repeal ObamaCare, instead cherry pick certain items to be removed. Not good enough.
Santorum is a good guy but he has not been known as an arm-twister or someone who can get down in the mud and beat the ever-living Marxist out of a Leftist. Rick just doesn't have the juice to do the job needed at this time in history for confronting a hostile Leftist political mafia and its media henchmen. Newt has that track record in spades.
Ron Paul is weird Uncle Chester whose good ideas are grossly overshadowed by his bad ideas. If he is the nominee, let alone elected as president, then we deserve the mess he will create due to our collective stupidity. How freakishly bad must things be in Colorado that they elect Paul? He's the counterweight to Dennis Kookcinich. So far we've been lucky the universe hasn't imploded as theorized if matter and anti-matter ever meet despite these two agreeing on something (Military and foreign policy).
If you've read my posts on Blonde's Health Care forum then you know my ardent position on ObamaCare. I do not choose my presidential candidate lightly with regard to the health care charlie foxtrot we have entered into under Obama and the Left. It's going to take a person with a helluva lot of junk yard dog in him and an intellect to play the Left like IBM"s Deep Blue against chess champion Garry Kasparov in order to whoop their asses into line. Newt's the only one who has done it, and done it on multiple occasions, and has the capability to get the job done again for Conservatism and the country. Newt flatly states his priorities, in order, are to repeal ObamaCare, repeal Dodd-Frank, and repeal Sarbanes-Oxley. I believe him.
As I have said in the past, I know Newt will say something, do something, I disagree with. All the candidates will. But Newt's positives will be much greater. I say this looking at his accomplished professional political career. Ronald Reagan isn't running. The next best choice at this time to fight for traditional American Conservatism and push back the rapacious Left is Gingrich... IMO.
Strat
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 12:37am.
Know that I'm not shilling for Romney -first of all- and that I've always liked Newt's fire-y side. But there are a lot of concerns I have with Newt, especially how he polls against Obama, and how, even though he's only conservative when it's expedient to be conservative, he's not likely to win over a lot of indies; a lot of people in the center don't buy into the media bias angle and he's liable to look petty in a general election if he tries to make too much of it. I also don't like Newt's attacks on Bain-regardless of who started what.
Three marriages, cheating, sitting with Pelosi on climate change, endorsing an individual mandate, and a host of other big-government positions have me really worried about just how closely he'll "work" with the other side. He is, after all, the consummate insider; no on in the race is as establishment DC as Newt.
Personally, I'm still holding out hope for Santorum. From the beginning, most of us Tea Party-types liked Cain and/or Bachmann of the declared candidates, as well as Palin, Ryan, Rubio, and DeMint of the undeclared candidates. Of those left in the race, Santorum is the closest to those. He's definitely true to his convictions, even those in which he deviates from the hard-right conservative line. He may not have the gravitas to take on the media, but with the right VP, he might not need to. He's a strong social conservative though he's made clear that those beliefs drive his individuality rather than his desire to legislate so I think he can sell that to indies. His policy on tax reform for manufacturing is a bit far-fetched, but smart at the same time; he might actually be able to persuade some union voters that he's on their side as far as employment, while Obama has to try to explain why a union pipefitter should sacrifice his paycheck for Obama's environmental allies. He's strong on foreign policy and has been way ahead of the curve on Iran. I don't think he'd pander to veterans claiming to offer tax breaks for employers that hire them in one breath, then cut their benefits in another like Obama. He can also say, "You voted in a flamboyant personality four years ago, maybe now we need a serious leader."
Paul is, well, not worth discussing.
Good Ponts, BK
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 2:09am.
My belief is that no one gets wealthy like a Romney, Gates, or that Mexican cell phone mogul without screwing somebody somewhere, probably many people they have never met. I have no doubt that while Romney was involved with Bain, leadership decided to close a business they acquired not because it wasn't making a profit but because it wasn't making enough profit. Whether they were corporate raider types I don't know, but decisions on sufficient profit were the primary driver and not a sense of altruism. My thought is Romney and his crew required more profit than I would. Hence, my belief is Romney did some good and some not so good along the way. But this alone, nor to the magnitude I know of at this point, does not disqualify him ethically or morally from the presidency. Perry calling Bain/Romney a vulture capitalist has not been proven sufficiently and was a poor choice of words. Regardless, capitalism is the system I support to advance my own interests (See Milton Freedman on greed) as no other system has ever afforded Man the ability to rise up from the enslavement by their masters.
Concerning Newt and the establishment... Gingrich was part of the Conservative establishment. He was a consummate student of the entire DC establishment in order to amass his power to become Speaker of the House, which he then used to accomplish Conservative goals. Gingrich was no RINO. If you think Newt was Beltway Establishment, he helped rid establishment types on both sides of the aisle and
Not exactly establishment when most vote against you on trumped up charges.
I believe at this point in time that Gingrich, based on his political accomplishments via wrangling both sides of the aisle to pass legislation out of the House, is the best of the lot to achieve Conservative goals once he becomes the President. Righting the wrongs of Obama and the Left in this fight for the life of this country are far more important to me than Gingrich's history of failed marriages, adulteries, petty stabs at Romney, or even sitting on a couch with the excrable SanFranNan.
Using grade school lunchroom hierarchy as a metaphor for the coming Republican presidency, at this point in time, I see Romney sharing his lunch with the Dems, the Dems taking Santorum's lunch, and Gingrich fighting the Dem bullies for their lunch.
Whether Romney Gingrich or Santorum are the candidate in the general election, I will gladly vote for them to kick Obama's Marx into retirement.
***Addendum***
Sarah Palin does not think Newt is the establishment: Look at the people fighting Newt so much.
Sounds to me like you might be in the wrong party
Submitted by ckc1227 on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 4:21am.
My belief is that no one gets wealthy like a Romney, Gates, or that Mexican cell phone mogul without screwing somebody somewhere, probably many people they have never met.
I hear there's a few OWS demonstrations going on around the country if you're interested. ;)
No, No Zero Sum Game
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 5:19pm.
I understand how it would appear that way. The fact is it is the nature of the beast whereby certain sound decisions for oneself and their business will result in a negative effect on other individuals. I have no doubt that those I mentioned previously have all used certain business practices to screw someone or some entity (which is, of course, comprised of people) in order to advance the interests of themselves and their businesses at some point in time.
Capitalism, like any other system, allows for individual avarice, but it still is the finest system ever devised on the planet because, amongst other reasons, it allows any person to rise up through the sweat of their brow and their God given talents, own property, and the opportunity to decide one's own fate in life.
Santorum is like limp and
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 1:43pm.
Santorum is like limp and pasty compared to the others. Gingrich for all his flaws is the best candidate.
Newt
Submitted by kilrod on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 3:09am.
Newt was tarred and feathered and rode out of DC on a rail 15 yrs are so ago. The beltway reps and the media are doing a hatchet job on Newt as we speak. I don't think he belongs to "the establishment". Newt is a flawed man and a flawed candidate but i think he is the only one with the guts and the intelligence to take on the media, the dims, and the establishment reps. First off if the media is not neutralized it won't matter who runs against 0 bama, they will lose. Newt has done well at backing the media up some, i think he can do more and benefit. The mess this country is in belongs to the establishment reps. as much as it does anybody, it will take someone tuff as nails to break the establishment from sucking eggs, i think Newt can do that. Specially if we have a good showing of Tea Party conservatives to hold his feet to the fire. I like Santorum but he just does'nt have the fire to lead. I support Newt as the anti-0 bama, the anti-Romney, the anti-media, and the anti-establishment man who is tuff enough to do what has to be done. In the end, after all is said and done:
I AM ABO_ _ ANYBODY BUT 0 BAMA 2012
kilrod "the Birther"
"Let the Good Times Roll"
If an unborn child cannot trust you, why should I,??
Hay, Mark...
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 11:57am.
Hay, Mark, if you're so concerned about character, why don't you run for President yourself? Or is it far easier for you to publicly scrutinize the the character of others while avoiding the same public scrutiny yourself?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Newt campaigned for the Eastern Liberal Establishment
Submitted by lrgon on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 2:46pm.
wing of the GOP in the sixties. Nelson Rockefeller was his choice as the GOP nominee and not Barry Goldwater who had the support of Ronald Reagan.
Newt threw his weight behind the "Liberal" Rockefeller. The liberal Governor was so liberal that he comminissioned a communist painter to draw a huge mural in Rockefeller Center that was so full of communist symbolism that it even made Nelson red turn red! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Rockefeller#Art_patronage
On the other side of the GOP was Barry Goldwater who campaigned for less government, lower taxes and an end to the Vietnam war by winning it! He favored cutting off aid and trade with communist nations that were supplying North Vietnam with war materiel to use against US troops! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_C._Sutton
Newt never had a bona fide relationship with conservative principles. His cause was and still is to Newt and only to Newt. Not the country,not the Constitution and and not to anything but his ambition.
His ability to talk and sound like a conservative has been his ace up his sleeve. But in the final analysis he is a double dealing yellow dog.
I am glad that his connections to Marxists is being exposed: http://www.newser.com/story/138577/newts-mentors-pushed-marxist-values-o...
And Reagan used to be a Democrat
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 3:11pm.
And Reagan used to be a Democrat.
People can change.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال