Feb 29 2012

Stuck With Mitt – For Now

Published by at 9:40 am under 2012 Elections,All General Discussions

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

95 responses so far

95 Responses to “Stuck With Mitt – For Now”

  1. jan says:

    Some of the disputes we are discussing have arisen because in this country we tend to take people’s word over hard proof as to their identity or even citizenship. This is true in voting, where Eric Holder is so on the defensive in disabling any voter ID laws, as well as in taking the highest office in the land — POTUS.

    It is my understanding that all one has to do is swear that he/she is a natural born U.S. citizen, having one other person bearing witness to this statement, and it is a done deal! Why not have candidates submit their birth certificates at the get go? It would certainly save a lot of undo spectulation and controversy, wouldn’t it?

  2. dhunter says:

    Here, here Red Team I give a damn and wish our elected officials would live up to their oaths of office and protect and defend the constitution.
    The jug earred liar and his office…. Holder should be behind bars for multiple felonies and crimes against the state.
    Including accomplises to the murder of mexican nationals and a border patrol agent.

    If it looks suspicious investigate, the rats would.

  3. MarkN says:

    Just sent $50 to Santorum. He is our only hope.

  4. dhunter says:

    So now Mittens is stealing delegates from other candidates after the votes are in to win?
    Color me not surprised, what a despicable snake! Where the hell is Juan Wayne McCain and his warped sense of fair play!

    Pass a law Juan Wayne McCain no stealin delegates after the rules are published and the polls close.

  5. crosspatch says:

    Just a heads up out there. I got a call last night from someone claiming to be calling from the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) wanting money and wanting me to donate over the phone. What caught my attention was that the person on the phone said that Harry Reid was up for election and needed to be stopped. How Harry Reid just won a little over a year ago and has four+ more years in office before he is up for election again.

    I’m just saying that before you go giving out your hard-earned, you might want to make sure the person you are talking to is really representing the organization they claim to be representing.

    I have a feeling some people are scamming Republicans out there.

  6. Redteam says:

    jan, I guess one of the big questions is: what is a natural born citizen? It seems as if the answer is a person born to two US citizen parents. some people seem to think that birth has to actually be in the USA, but I’m not so sure. (what if two US citizens were on vacation in France?) technically, probably they would not qualify because they would be born with dual citizenship (US and French) dual citizens are not natural born US citizens. (this is assuming the rules as in the US that if you are born on US soil, you are a US citizen (native born not natural born) It is and has been that if a person is born in the US they are a US citizen. That’s not necessarily true because there is a disqualifier (if the parents don’t owe allegiance to another country) That is generally accepted as meaning ‘diplomats’. Probably it should mean if you are a citizen of another country and intend to maintain that citizenship. Such as: if you are a Mexican just visiting the border and happen to slip down and fall over the border and your baby happens to be born in that instance, but you then get up and go back to Mexico, the baby is still considered a US Citizen. Note that, I’m pretty sure if you are an American and the same thing happened to you and your baby were born a Mexican citizen, I’m pretty sure it would still be considered an American. (at that point a ‘dual-citizen’ so technically not a natural born citizen.. In the case of Barack Obama, we don’t know where he was born but we do know that he was born with a British Citizen father so he can not ever be a natural born citizen, of any country. Now having someone stand up and swear that he is one, does not make it true. There does not seem to be a requirement in any state that a candidate for office have to prove that they are actually qualifed for the office. I saw a case recently where a person ran for sheriff of a county. one of the qualifications was that he had to have a certificate of completion of a police officer course. he didn’t have it, his opponent challenged it. didn’t matter. he subsequently got re-elected 2 times(never having the certificate) the judge ruled that he couldn’t be challenged on it because he hadn’t been successfully challenged on it in the past. This was a case, as Obama where they just wanted him to be qualified for the office so ignored anything contrary. How many times have you heard Hannity pushing Rubio for Vice President? He knows he’s not qualified but seems willing to ignore it since it’s ‘what he wants’.
    I guess you could be born anywhere in the world and get the governor of Hawaii to fill out fraudulent documents to swear that you were born there and apparently no one could challenge that. (said in Jest)

  7. dbostan says:

    It just hit the news that Willard/Mittens wrote an op-ed in USA Today in 2009, urging Obama to spring the insurance mandate on ALL of us.

    And there are some fools who still believe him when he said he will dismantle Obamacare (by the way, how does he plan to do it wo. Congress?) and what he did in Massachusetts was only good for that state?
    If that’s the case why did he advocate for Obama to push on all of us?

    Guys, I feel like throwing up, because we are about to get a guy, much, much, worse than G.W.Bush as nominee.

  8. dbostan says:

    One more point: the fact that this info did not come out BEFORE the Michigan primary, when it could have made a HUGE difference AGAINST Willard/Mittens and FOR Rick Santorun, shows that the demsheviks, who control the media, want Willard/Mittens to face Obama, despite what they claim publicly.

  9. jan says:

    Here is the latest ‘breaking news’ supposedly exposing Romney in openly supporting the health care mandate in MA.

    This was 2009, when Romney was being interviewed, extolling praise on a HC mandate, seen by him as a good alternative in getting free riders to take responsibility for their own health care, while not using a government public option to do it.

    Romney’s always thought of the mandate as a conservative measure aimed at making people take personal responsibility for their own health care. (As did some prominent conservatives, Gingrich included, before the issue became toxic under Obama.)

    This same Hot Air article went on to say that Romney misread the public’s viewpoint on the mandate, and consequently has backed away from endorsing it. For that matter, so has Newt Gingrich.

    Now, Romney is going to get hammered for this earlier stance, by both the DNC, and people like dbostan and MarkN. However, they don’t like Romney. So, I would expect nothing else but grabbing onto any DNC ad and expanding on it like it was a message from God.

  10. Redteam says:

    Just heard a joke on Hannity: Obama is getting so bad, even the Kenyan’s are claiming he was born in the US.

    anyhow. This is the shame of the situation. How does Romney ‘really’ feel? what does he ‘really’ want? OCare, RomneyCare, individual mandate? what is it he wants?
    Answer: To get elected President of the US. What does that mean. That he, as most politicians, will do or say whatever goes toward that goal.
    Now, when he wasn’t running, he wants everyone to be required to have insurance and for those that can’t pay for it, he wants someone else to pay for it for them.
    Why? The US Constitution does not require me to have health insurance. It doesn’t require someone else to provide it for me if I don’t want to work to buy it. Note that the opposite is also true. The US Constitution does not require me to NOT have health insurance. So how does that break down? I believe that it means that it is up to me to decide if I want to have health insurance or to not have health insurance. So any departure from that fact by a politician is an attempt to win my vote by providing me goodies for supporting him for election.
    So, let’s go back to the original question, if it’s not for election, why does he think the government should provide health care? The only possible reason is that he believes in big government being in charge of everything and providing everything for everyone.

    That’s not what we need in a President. we need one that thinks the role of government is to GET OUT OF THE WAY.

  11. crosspatch says:


    No he didn’t “support” it but he said that if Obama wanted to do it, he would be better to go with a plan similar to his than with a plan like Hillary Clinton proposed that Bill Clinton push. Hillarycare would have outlawed private medicine and placed all hospitals and doctors under government employ as in the UK. Romney said to simply mandate private insurance keeping the private insurance industry and private doctors and hospitals.

    The other difference is that in Mass. the people WANTED government health care and were determined to get it. They were originally going to go with a single payer government health insurance mechanism. Romney got them to keep private health insurance.

    Note that “Romney care” isn’t government health care. It is only health INSURANCE. A state has the authority to mandate health insurance just as they mandate car insurance. The Federal government has no such authority.

    What Romney was trying to say at the time was that it would be better to KEEP private health insurance and private health care if Obama was going to try to come out with a health care plan.

    And … I agree with Romney on that issue. If government is going to mandate everyone get health insurance, I would rather have choices of private companies than be forced to have government as my health insurance provider. That’s all he was saying.

    People in Mass. still LIKE their plan and that’s fine, it’s what they want. The problem I have is when government forces it on people from Washington DC in states that might not want it.

  12. jan says:


    I totally agree, and have been making similar points for some time now. Romney’s involvement in MA HC was implementing the lesser of evils being proposed by the dems in MA at the time. Like you said, Romney’s perimeters were no new taxes and nothing like Hillarycare. By reading up on Romneycare, it has become obvious to me that connecting Romneycare with Obamacare is more of a political ploy than anything else. However, for those who distrust Romney, it has become a symbolic red flag which they refuse to let go of.

    IMO, if Romney becomes POTUS I have no doubt he will do away with Obamacare, if for no other reason than the financial havoc he sees it creating for this country…on top of all the other havoc. For instance, on Hannity’s radio program today, he cited Obamacare, first and foremost, as being something he would get rid of in dealing with governmental cuts. Hannity also asked him if these cuts, he was talking about dealt with future spending projections or related to present government expenditures. Romney decisively said it was the latter.

  13. Redteam says:

    I’ve seen this statement several times and I don’t agree with how it is generally interpreted.

    “A state has the authority to mandate health insurance just as they mandate car insurance. ”

    States do not require auto insurance for the benefit of the policy holder. They require it for the benefit of who the automobile may run over. States SHOULD NOT require auto insurance for the benefit of the policy holder. If a fool doesn’t want an insurance company to pay for their auto if they wreck it, it’s their business. I’m pretty sure most required insurance is only Liability insurance. not collision or comprehensive. (health insurance is collision and comprehensive)

    Now, let’s discuss why Romney or any politician should support government run(mandated) health insurance.
    whoops, end of discussion.. they shouldn’t support it.
    why do they? they are politicians and they are trying to buy votes by coming up with something that makes it look like you are gonna get something for nothing. and let’s say Mass is an average state which means that if everyone is suddenly required to have health insurance and those that can afford it are already buying it for themselves, then the only ones that are gonna suddenly get something for nothing is those that are not now gonna pay for it either because they’re not getting a pay raise, only a benefit increase. So, we all know that taxes(Romney calls it ‘fees’) went up by 5% in Mass. Of course since 50% pay no taxes, that means the other 50% are now paying 10% more in taxes(excuse me, ‘fees’) This is gonna do a lot to solidify the votes of those that are now getting a good freebie.
    An honest politician(I know there is no such thing) would say that we don’t need a government run/mandated program, that we need to let the free market, be a free market. but nooooo… that wouldn’t get many votes.

  14. Redteam says:

    jan: is this a standard for politicians?
    “Romney’s involvement in MA HC was implementing the lesser of evils being proposed by the dems in MA at the time.”

    Do we now consider someone imposing evils upon us as a good leader? Just because it may be a slightly lesser evil doesn’t mean it’s not an evil.
    How about the Hippocratic Oath? First do no harm.
    When Romney came in and saw two evil choices facing him, choosing one and calling it lesser was a very, very poor choice.
    As I said the other day, running up and getting in front of the pack headed over a cliff did not demonstrate his leadership, it only led them over the cliff.
    what would a good leader have done? Change course.

  15. jan says:


    I used the phrase “lesser of two evils” merely to point out that MA was already being led to a public option kind of insurance by the state legislature, as well as a ballot measure, having enough qualifying signatures, to put a much more liberal, expensive way of handling health insurance up in front of the voters. Romney buffered these poorer choices by negotiating out this mandate, which met the goal of insuring almost all uncovered people, as well as requiring those who didn’t want coverage to take responsibility for their own HC costs as a compromise solution for this state.

    And, as I’ve pointed out before, and has been echoed by Crosspatch, the majority of people in MA continue to LIKE this ‘bipartisan’ HC solution worked out by Romney and other leaders in MA, as do over 80% of the attending physicians. This is a prime example of state’s rights at work, nothing else. You and I may not like to live under such a policy. However, we do not live in MA,. Also, Romney is not suggesting that MA’s mandate policy is one that is sutiable as a national solution, such as the one Obama has pushed on this nation.

  16. jan says:


    Just to add on to my above comment:

    Being a good leader sometimes means going against the tide of popular opinion. Sometimes it means doing nothing, such as letting certain institutions fail and reorganize themselves, without governmental help. And, then sometimes being a good leader is to take components from different POVs, piece them together in more of a compromise format, creating something that, although imperfect, gets the job done…at least for a while.

    IMO, the latter action is how Romney saw his job as governor of MA, in putting together a health care policy whose major focus was to increase the numbers of insured people, while eliminating “free riders,” those who could afford HC but partook of free services, by being responsible for their own health care costs — either through insurance coverage or private pay. Other aspects of HC was not addressed in this short 70 page bill. So, all the talk about out-of-control costs continues to increase in that state, as it does in most of the other 50 states. However, for what and, importantly, ‘who’ Romney had to work with, I think he was a prudent leader and did the best he could under the given circumstances. So, rather than deriding him, I see little wrong in his leadership moves dealing with HC.

  17. Redteam says:

    This was Romneys goal?
    “in putting together a health care policy whose major focus was to increase the numbers of insured people, while eliminating “free riders,” those who could afford HC but partook of free services, ”
    if Romney were a good leader, this would have been an objective.
    Allow free riders to be ‘free riders’ it’s not unconstitutional.
    set a minimum standard of care for free health care coverage. This would likely be furnished by a state (not federal) government run clinic/hospital. free riders would be required to use these clinics.
    Have a co-pay for the free service that is required if they have any income.
    allow tax credits for the cost of insurance for those that work and provide their own health care.

    If this was his goal, why is everybody in the state impacted by the health plan rather than just those that choose to be free riders?

    you are very correct in this: “Being a good leader sometimes means going against the tide of popular opinion.” that’s what I was saying that he should not have led them over the cliff, he should have turned them around.

  18. jan says:


    You act like Romney had free reign with every option available to him to work with, along with a cooperating legislature and conservative constituency backing him!

    He didn’t!

    It was a cat and mouse game the whole time for this republican governor and his liberal democratic team mates. He vetoed and they overrode him. He sent legislation to them and they changed it. This applied to his health care bill as well, where 8 parts of it were struck down.

    He didn’t even have the option to do nothing, because there were already two far more liberal options being considered when he first took office — one by the legislature and another reform via the ballot measure I’ve talked about. Something was going to pass, regarding HC reform, so he negotiated the best deal that would satisfy all concerned.

    In a discussion of Romneycare on another site, someone who lives in MA wrote the following:

    I had lots of choices and price points, far more than I ever had before. Romneycare has greatly improved my choices and care, albeit at a higher cost. A cost which is well worth it.

    This appraisal coinsides with the 2 out of every 3 adults survey I’ve referenced, saying they are fine with their MA health care, which is far from the conclusion derived by you, as being “led over the cliff”. Why are people dickering around with another state’s apparent satisfaction with their reform measures, and then saying it’s the same as Obama’s national HC reform that is far more insidious, complicated, restrictive, wordy (70 pages of language vs 2700 pages), less straight-forward, hated than the one MA lives with?

    I feel like something is being lost in translation here, along with an unyielding capacity to see that conservatism oftentimes has to adapt to the social environment in which it is applied. This is what Romney had to do in MA, and now he is not considered to be a “good” leader? Maybe there were better options out there. But, would they have been approved by his political cohorts? Co-pays, tax credits, mandating people to go to specific state-run clinics for care appears to have far more structure involved than the simplicity of what passed under Romney. I think such a plan, would have been rejected.

    “why is everybody in the state impacted by the health plan rather than just those that choose to be free riders?”

    Small business is adversely impacted because the state legislature refused to pass the part of Romney’s plan where there was to be no fees passed on to them. People, though, already having their own health insurance saw no changes except for an increase in costs, which is something that was not addressed in the bill — reigning in costs.

  19. Redteam says:

    “You act like Romney had free reign with every option available to him”
    Why didn’t he? He was just elected, the door just got opened.

    “He didn’t even have the option to do nothing, because there were already two far more liberal options being considered when he first took office —”

    I’m sure glad I wasn’t an innocent condemned person awaiting death when he took office. Apparently he would only have been able to decide on whether I was electrocuted or hanged. How about a stay of execution? or maybe a pardon?

    “I had lots of choices and price points, far more than I ever had before. Romneycare has greatly improved my choices and care, albeit at a higher cost. A cost which is well worth it.” This says nothing about who wrote it and what we’re talking ‘cost’? apparently most of those that got those great benefits did get them at greater cost “TO SOMEONE ELSE’.

    I’d like for someone that lives in Mass that makes about 100K, has a regular job and health insurance, that they and their employer pay for, would tell everyone how they have been impacted by this. All the quotes about how great it is, that I’ve seen, never identify the economic circumstances of the speaker. or their political bent.

    I’m not sure I’m one of those that compares MassCare to Obamacare. I don’t see that as useful. Both are equally terrible.

    but Jan, since you are heavily defending Romneycare, would you please take a few minutes to tell me why you think they needed it. I’m not a believer in government requiring people to buy anything that they don’t want to buy.
    I know it’s just being a little contrary, but if you think other people are entitled to you paying for their insurance for them, does this apply to other things as well.
    If they can’t afford a Cadillac, should you pay part of their payment to allow them to buy one.
    How about a house, should you make part of their house payment for them?
    Clothes? Fast Food?
    are there limits?
    I’m sure that he would be happy with driving a Cadillac ” albeit at a higher cost. A cost which is well worth it.”

    I think it clearly shows absolutely no leadership by Romney. It only shows his political skill in trying to satisfy the most voters. He could easily have allowed the whole thing to be passed over his veto, that way he wouldn’t be saddled with credit for it now. while you are pointing out that 2 of 3 in Ma are happy with it, let me point out that about 8 in 10 in Ma are Dimocrats, so he didn’t even get all the Dims.