Romney cannot be trusted by conservatives

[ScreamingEagle]

So what if he has great hair and appears "presidential".....he's just another RINO being served up by the Republican establishment....McCain (also a RINO) couldn't win against Obama.....what makes people think Romney could....anymore than a real conservative could....?

And WTF is this with waivers for Obamacare....? Why not just repeal the Obamacare bill? King Barack has been issuing waivers which are Constitutionally wrong....why would we want someone who proposes to imitate "King Barack"....?

Romney is the only one who did not advocate repealing Obamacare. He said he would give all states waivers. Bachmann criticized him for that, saying that she wanted to get rid of Obamacare in no uncertain terms. And all of the others also want to repeal Obamacare. Romney’s emphasis on waivers reflects his reluctance to totally repeal a liberal program. He’ll want to make it better. Clearly his mindset is as far from that of the Tea Party movement as can be.

Virtually all agreed that the federal government ought to get out of education, that education should be a local concern. But we doubt that Romney will abolish the Department of Education. He said nice things about Arne Duncan, Obama’s Secretary of Education, and the Race to the Top program. Anyone who thinks that Race to the Top is a good idea should never be president.

In other words, Romney cannot be trusted by conservatives. He represents the kind of Republicanism that contributed to growth of government by accepting all new liberal programs.

Will he win the nomination? Much depends on what happens in the months ahead. Sarah Palin is still waiting in the wings to see what the Tea Party will do to get its delegates to the Republican convention. Romney is counting on the Republican establishment controlling the convention. But if the Tea Party revolutionaries take over, everything will change.

The Republican Debate: A Learning Seminar or Indoor Sport

 

[Londoner]

I don't think you have to worry about Romney's centrism on social issues, or his RomneyCare. Why?

Because the Rightwing already has a leg-up when it comes to real locus of power - and Romney will eventually bend to that power.

Meaning: Big business owns Washington, and big business largely shares the Conservative agenda: lower taxes, friendlier regulations, and austerity for the great bulk of working Americans (which austerity means more tax cuts for business). Therefore, Romney will have the wind at his back when he cuts Government support for the middle class (which will allow him to give more tax breaks & regulatory advantages to the interests he represents).

But - and this is more to your point -

Big business also wants to cultivate social conservatism, but for complicated reasons. You see, business realizes that the Right (the party of business) needs populism, i.e., a mass block of voters who are sick of the bra burning atheist gay relativist multiculturalist Left, i.e., big business, in order to get conservatives in office, pays handsomely for a vast network of talking heads who convince poor people that the country is going to Hell, and that a return to conservative values is the medicine.

But the flight to conservative ideology is deeper than that.

Big business cultivates religious populism because it has a shared enemy: science. Meaning: GE doesn't want a scientist poking around its PCBs (which are being dumped in the Hudson) any more than Evangelicals want scientists using carbon dating to make trouble for the Biblical timeline. That is, they both want a think tank system which produces information for their social, political, and economic agendas - a system that is not held to rigorous empirical standards so that it can more easily be deployed to social and economic ends. (I'm just saying that you need to recognize the success of the business-evangelical coalition created by Reagan . . . and some of the economic & social victories it has delivered).

Which is to say: even though you've been told the country has been stolen by the dark liberal forces (in much the same way Germans were warned about a shadowy Jewish demon which had infiltrated finance and culture), you have to start crediting the success of Movement Conservatism, that is, your side has repealed much of America's liberal postwar government, starting with Clinton's massive welfare reform, and the multi-decade project of lowering taxes from 70% to 35%, and the construction of very effective loopholes which lowers many effective rates, as well as the reduction of capital gains to 15%. You've freed capital to seek 3rd world labor, so shareholders get a higher return on investment. Washington and the media have been successfully revolutionized by the forces Reagan put in motion. (Give Reagan some credit, and please realize that his deregulatory agenda controlled Liberal presidents like Clinton in much the same way Nixon was hedged-in by the New Deal) Meaning: by getting rid of FDR's Glass-Stegall, you were able to get Big Government off the backs of the financial sector (so that mortgage-securatization-innovators had the freedom to take their own risks without worrying about a bureaucrat asking to see the math on derivatives & swaps. Indeed, you got big government regulators off the backs of Arthur Anderson when they were doing Enron's accounting. You moved America's crime-focus from corrupt-business-practices to drugs & sin. Indeed, while we were worried about Janet Jackson's breast, nickel bags, and gay teachers, our bankers were finally freed-up en-mass to slip into poor neighborhoods with teaser rates. You need to recognize some victories). Moreover, by creating FOX News, Talk Radio, and a massive think tank network, you have created one of the most effective opinion molding systems in American politics. Indeed, you need to recognize at least some of your victories: Taxes have been lowered, unions have been greatly reduced, regulators have been either fired or captured, and the power of meddlesome scientists has been diminished by think tanks and their alternative theories.

Does that mean that you still have to dismantle some of the lingering New Deal shadows over the economy? Yes, of course - there are still poor wheel chair cripples receiving some forms of aid. And of course, you still have to fight lesser struggles against gay marriage and evolutionary biology. But you should also realize that the building blocks are in place. If we get attacked again, there will be even greater levels of fear. And as people lose jobs, there will be even greater levels of desperation. These things will set the table for Conservative Religious Revolution, which does a brisk business when people lose hope. That is, the conditions are ripe for a massive social transformation.

Which is to say: your moment is coming. I only ask that you draw a distinction between 1950, when your party was in the wilderness, and now, when your party and its powerful business allies are poised to finish whatever they started under Reagan. Revolutions take time.

 

[Kevinthedog]

no one the media "selects" for us to be voted for, can be trusted by anybody!

 

[Dot Com]

Big biz does own Washington and the Robert$ Court ruling only furthered that along.

 

[Mr. H.]

McCain lost in part due to the bimbo tag-along.

 

[Amelia]

McCain lost in part due to the bimbo tag-along.

I would say it differently than that but there's something to it.


He lit a fire under the conservative base by picking her, but he he lost a lot of support in the middle.



Plus he looked so old.


And on the economy he had little to offer over Obama. <---- key difference between McCain in 2008 and Romney in either 2008 or now.