Mitt Romney against the debt deal

[candycorn]

Someone opined that he left the "Mittness Protection Program". Good luck with him righties.

I don't think he's going to have any support amongst the right. I think he's running on the "inevitability" platform, and it's going to work out as well for him as it did for Hillary.

As someone points out, this is a pretty right-leaning board, but I don't see a whole lot of pro-Romney posters here or a lot of pro-Romney threads. That tells me his support is a yard wide and an inch deep.

And the other moderate "RINO" candidates who the MSM keep telling us are the "Grown-ups" of the GOP are polling in low single digits. Pawlenty is rating 2.8% average on the RCP polls, and Huntsman is so low they don't even bother listing him. (By comparison, Gingrich still rates at 4.8%, even though everyone admits his campaign is in full rigormortis. )

Romney is running a 21.6% average, which makes him the "frontrunner". But the three conservative choices- Bachman (13.2) Perry (12.6) and Palin (12.1) could easily beat him if they agreed on a single candidate. Palin is almost probably not running, and I think Bachmann will implode long before Iowa.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

If you have to run to the right to get a nominee, that's not boding well for the GOP chances in the Fall of 2012 because if elections are won in the 20% between the hard right and hard left, Obama keeps the hard left which is not hypersensitive or perhaps because the likes of a GOP white house is so unappealing.. I don't think its as easy for any GOP nominee to keep the hard right which demands no taxes (for now) and lord-knows-what-else next. If he has to run to the right to win the primary, he has to run to the left--if you believe the old adage about the independent voters--to win the election.

I wouldn't be surprised if the tea party puts the BBA up as the next acid test forcing all GOP candidates to sign the pledge to back the BBA or they won't get the support they covet.

 

[JoeB131]

If you have to run to the right to get a nominee, that's not boding well for the GOP chances in the Fall of 2012 because if elections are won in the 20% between the hard right and hard left, Obama keeps the hard left which is not hypersensitive or perhaps because the likes of a GOP white house is so unappealing.. I don't think its as easy for any GOP nominee to keep the hard right which demands no taxes (for now) and lord-knows-what-else next. If he has to run to the right to win the primary, he has to run to the left--if you believe the old adage about the independent voters--to win the election.

I wouldn't be surprised if the tea party puts the BBA up as the next acid test forcing all GOP candidates to sign the pledge to back the BBA or they won't get the support they covet.

I reject that premise on it's face.

If you take a look at the Republicans who have won- Reagan, Bush-41 (the first time) and Bush-43, two of them ran to the hard right, and won. (Okay, please, let's not rehash 2000 again!)

Now, let's take a look at the Republicans who lost.

Jerry Ford. Jerry Ford only got the nomination because he already had the job after Nixon and Agnew resigned. The Conservative rank and file didn't want him and weren't enthusiastic about him. Reagan probably would have taken the nomination had he started earlier in 1976.

Bob Dole. Do you know when I figured out Bob Dole was doomed? It's when he resigned from the Senate to get some attention, and spent the whole speech talking about all the ways he made government bigger and more expensive and more intrusive. Did he not understand which party he was running for? Well, even though he had no credibility, 8% of the electorate still voted for Ross Perot, and almost all of those would have went for a credible conservative.

John McCain. Once again, we've heard for years about how liberals can almost stand to be in the same room with Republicans if they were just more like John McCain. So, dummy us, we nominated - John McCain. And conservatives were unenthused, at least until he took Palin as a running mate.

Now, the exception that proves the rule is George H. Bush. When he ran on Reagan's mantle, he got great support, but he was as president a lot more moderate. He appointed Souter to the Supreme Court. He raised taxes. He created two new Cabinet Level departments- Environment and Veteran's Affairs. By 1992, conservatives were pretty sick of him, which manifested itself into Buchanan and Perot's campaigns.

So the whole notion that we need to run someone more "moderate" has always struck me as not supported by history.
Now, it wasn't all idealogy. Economic factors played a role as well, and those favor the GOP right now.
The voters respect you more if you truly believe in what you say, not if you've checked with a focus group and a polling firm to find out what you believe.

Perry believes what he believes. Romney is still focus grouping that one.

 

[BoycottTheday]

So the whole notion that we need to run someone more "moderate" has always struck me as not supported by history.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Joe and Henry are out of step with and do not understand history, clearly.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe and Henry are out of step with and do not understand history, clearly.

I have a degree in History and Political Science, so ummm, yeah, I do think I have a pretty good understanding.

Of course all the examples I gave HAPPENED WITHIN MY LIFETIME. Some of those guys I even went out and campaigned for. (Ironically, only the ones who actually won. When I didn't feel like getting out for a candidate, that usually meant he was a loser. I'll go out for Perry, I won't go out for Romney.)

Now can you actually refute ONE POINT i've made? Please. Point out to me what I got wrong. Please, can you do that, Jake, because you come on every time I rip on the Android from Kolob saying that I don't know what I'm talking about. But you never, ever give an example of where I was wrong.

The ironic thing is I'm a lot less conservative than I was 10 years ago. But I would vote Perry over Romney because Perry is a man of principle. Romney, well, he's still trying to figure out his principles.

 

[JimH52]

Yup, he and Batcrazy Bachmann would rather the US Default.

 

[The Rabbi]

Looks like he has just aligned himself with every other Republican I would not vote for.

show me where he actually said he wouldn't raise the debt ceiling.

An unwillingness to make any cuts in defense spending is the thing that bothers me the most.

You understand that defense spending is being cut, even as we speak, right? Both wars are being drawn down and the military is not retaining many people. THis is the word from an active duty non com I get through my shop, as well as other servicemen.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Joe and Henry are out of step with and do not understand history, clearly.

I have a degree in History and Political Science, so ummm, yeah, I do think I have a pretty good understanding.

Of course all the examples I gave HAPPENED WITHIN MY LIFETIME. Some of those guys I even went out and campaigned for. (Ironically, only the ones who actually won. When I didn't feel like getting out for a candidate, that usually meant he was a loser. I'll go out for Perry, I won't go out for Romney.)

Now can you actually refute ONE POINT i've made? Please. Point out to me what I got wrong. Please, can you do that, Jake, because you come on every time I rip on the Android from Kolob saying that I don't know what I'm talking about. But you never, ever give an example of where I was wrong.

The ironic thing is I'm a lot less conservative than I was 10 years ago. But I would vote Perry over Romney because Perry is a man of principle. Romney, well, he's still trying to figure out his principles.

No, Joe, you are a far right extremist reactionary. You are not a man of principle. You do not admit your agenda. We have shown you where you are wrong all the time, so your integrity is in question, too, just like The Rabbi. He is a big statist guy who wants to outlaw abortion and universal marriage and all sorts of things, but he pretend to be small government.

The ironic thing is that you think you can lie away a lie.

 

[The Rabbi]

Joe and Henry are out of step with and do not understand history, clearly.

I have a degree in History and Political Science, so ummm, yeah, I do think I have a pretty good understanding.

Of course all the examples I gave HAPPENED WITHIN MY LIFETIME. Some of those guys I even went out and campaigned for. (Ironically, only the ones who actually won. When I didn't feel like getting out for a candidate, that usually meant he was a loser. I'll go out for Perry, I won't go out for Romney.)

Now can you actually refute ONE POINT i've made? Please. Point out to me what I got wrong. Please, can you do that, Jake, because you come on every time I rip on the Android from Kolob saying that I don't know what I'm talking about. But you never, ever give an example of where I was wrong.

The ironic thing is I'm a lot less conservative than I was 10 years ago. But I would vote Perry over Romney because Perry is a man of principle. Romney, well, he's still trying to figure out his principles.

No, Joe, you are a far right extremist reactionary. You are not a man of principle. You do not admit your agenda. We have shown you where you are wrong all the time, so your integrity is in question, too, just like The Rabbi. He is a big statist guy who wants to outlaw abortion and universal marriage and all sorts of things, but he pretend to be small government.

The ironic thing is that you think you can lie away a lie.

So says Jake, King of the Unsubstantiated Statement!
Jake, your village called. They want you back.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Rabbi is denying he wants Big Government to initiate his political beliefs? Then he is lying, period.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Mitt Romney against the debt deal - Maggie Haberman - POLITICO.com

Mitt Romney issues his most explicit statement today on any form of debt-ceiling deal:

“As president, my plan would have produced a budget that was cut, capped and balanced – not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table. President Obama’s leadership failure has pushed the economy to the brink at the eleventh hour and 59th minute. While I appreciate the extraordinarily difficult situation President Obama’s lack of leadership has placed Republican Members of Congress in, I personally cannot support this deal.”

Mitt Romney made a poor choice by saying we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling. What I find even more amazing is he talks about a budget that is balanced but at the same time doesn't want to put defense cuts on the table. His position puts him on par with Bachmann on this issue.

This is not going to win him over many Conservative voters who don't trust him at all to begin with. What this will do however is draw more support to Huntsman who did support the deal from the moderates who support Romney.

It's too bad no one can pin Romney down because I'd be very entertained in hearing how Romney is going to get rid of a deficit that is 40% of spending without touching defense.

That means, since you can't touch interest on the debt either, and with taxes off the table, you'd have to balance the budget by cutting over half of everything else.

lol, I'd like to see Romney itemize that.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Rabbi is denying he wants Big Government to initiate his political beliefs? Then he is lying, period.

So sayeth Jake Starkey, King of the Unsubstantiated Statement. Hail, Jake!

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you have to run to the right to get a nominee, that's not boding well for the GOP chances in the Fall of 2012 because if elections are won in the 20% between the hard right and hard left, Obama keeps the hard left which is not hypersensitive or perhaps because the likes of a GOP white house is so unappealing.. I don't think its as easy for any GOP nominee to keep the hard right which demands no taxes (for now) and lord-knows-what-else next. If he has to run to the right to win the primary, he has to run to the left--if you believe the old adage about the independent voters--to win the election.

I wouldn't be surprised if the tea party puts the BBA up as the next acid test forcing all GOP candidates to sign the pledge to back the BBA or they won't get the support they covet.

I reject that premise on it's face.

If you take a look at the Republicans who have won- Reagan, Bush-41 (the first time) and Bush-43, two of them ran to the hard right, and won. (Okay, please, let's not rehash 2000 again!)

Now, let's take a look at the Republicans who lost.

Jerry Ford. Jerry Ford only got the nomination because he already had the job after Nixon and Agnew resigned. The Conservative rank and file didn't want him and weren't enthusiastic about him. Reagan probably would have taken the nomination had he started earlier in 1976.

Bob Dole. Do you know when I figured out Bob Dole was doomed? It's when he resigned from the Senate to get some attention, and spent the whole speech talking about all the ways he made government bigger and more expensive and more intrusive. Did he not understand which party he was running for? Well, even though he had no credibility, 8% of the electorate still voted for Ross Perot, and almost all of those would have went for a credible conservative.

John McCain. Once again, we've heard for years about how liberals can almost stand to be in the same room with Republicans if they were just more like John McCain. So, dummy us, we nominated - John McCain. And conservatives were unenthused, at least until he took Palin as a running mate.

Now, the exception that proves the rule is George H. Bush. When he ran on Reagan's mantle, he got great support, but he was as president a lot more moderate. He appointed Souter to the Supreme Court. He raised taxes. He created two new Cabinet Level departments- Environment and Veteran's Affairs. By 1992, conservatives were pretty sick of him, which manifested itself into Buchanan and Perot's campaigns.

So the whole notion that we need to run someone more "moderate" has always struck me as not supported by history.
Now, it wasn't all idealogy. Economic factors played a role as well, and those favor the GOP right now.
The voters respect you more if you truly believe in what you say, not if you've checked with a focus group and a polling firm to find out what you believe.

Perry believes what he believes. Romney is still focus grouping that one.

Who , to the right of Dole, could have beaten Clinton in 96?

Who, to the right of McCain, could have beaten Obama in '08?

Why did you leave Goldwater, the quintessential rightwinger, out of your examples?

Not to mention to the 2 wins by the relatively moderate Nixon?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Mitt Romney against the debt deal - Maggie Haberman - POLITICO.com

Mitt Romney issues his most explicit statement today on any form of debt-ceiling deal:

“As president, my plan would have produced a budget that was cut, capped and balanced – not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table. President Obama’s leadership failure has pushed the economy to the brink at the eleventh hour and 59th minute. While I appreciate the extraordinarily difficult situation President Obama’s lack of leadership has placed Republican Members of Congress in, I personally cannot support this deal.”

Mitt Romney made a poor choice by saying we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling. What I find even more amazing is he talks about a budget that is balanced but at the same time doesn't want to put defense cuts on the table. His position puts him on par with Bachmann on this issue.

This is not going to win him over many Conservative voters who don't trust him at all to begin with. What this will do however is draw more support to Huntsman who did support the deal from the moderates who support Romney.

Mitt Romney is so into making himself relevant he has beome pitiful. Only because the rest of the Republcan wannabees are so bad does he poll well. The GOP isn't Grand, it's simply Old and Predictable; Mitt is the 'new' McCain. If he gets the nomination and picks Michelle Bachmann as his VP it will be Deja Vu all over a again.

 

[BoycottTheday]

8 years repubs, 8 years democrats, that how their duopoly works, until they screw up so bad the people wake up like when you get someone like carter ford or the Oman.

 

[Missourian]

Fake Jake strikes again.

Jake, your avatar should be wearing an Obama 2012 t-shirt...with the caption reading "C'mon guy's...I'm a conservative...I swear..."

 

[LibocalypseNow]

He should be. It's a terrible deal. No one wins with this scam. So kudos to Romney.

 

[Wry Catcher]

He should be. It's a terrible deal. No one wins with this scam. So kudos to Romney.

Have you read it? LibocalypseNow want a cracker, awk.

 

[Vel]

I still don't get it. How is making more debt going to get you out of debt?

Except raising the debt ceiling isn't making more debt.

U.S. GAO - Debt Limit: Delays Create Debt Management Challenges and Increase Uncertainty in the Treasury Market

The debt limit does not control or limit the ability of the federal government to run deficits or incur obligations. Rather, it is a limit on the ability to pay obligations already incurred.

What an absolute crock of shit. If you have to borrow money to pay the interest on your debt, then you will also incur debt for the money you borrowed. Reality check please.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fake Jake strikes again. Jake, your avatar should be wearing an Obama 2012 t-shirt...with the caption reading "C'mon guy's...I'm a conservative...I swear..."

Missourian, I don't care if a wing nut like you believes me or not. What you believe is immaterial to me. But your attitude is exactly that of a socialist: you can't think.

Romney, maybe Perry, has a chance in 2012. Palin, Bachmann, and that string of inanities are jokes will be beaten like a drum. If you want Obamacare forever, go for the far, far right.