Jan 24 2012

Romney NOT A Working Class American (Heck, He’s Not Even Working)

Published by at 10:46 am under 2012 Elections,All General Discussions

Update: Even the WSJ is beginning to see the light:

That’s the real lesson of South Carolina’s Saturday primary, where Newt Gingrich, the Che Guevara of the right, always interested in leading a rebellion, smashed Mr. Romney, the Harvard M.B.A. interested in carefully calibrated, data-driven change. The South Carolina story—and the story going forward from here—isn’t so much Newt vs. Mitt as it is the insurgents vs. the establishment.

In fact, that has been the story of the Republican Party since the tea-party uprising began in 2009. The drama now will play out anew in the remaining Republican primary calendar.

Sort of obvious, but I am glad others are beginning to wake up and smell the frustration. BTW, the WSJ also garners the best summary of this primary election cycle:

As for the current GOP field, it’s like confronting a terminal diagnosis. There may be an apparent range of treatments: conventional (Romney), experimental (Gingrich), homeopathic (Paul) or prayerful (Santorum). But none will avail you in the end. Just try to exit laughing.

Sadly, I can’t laugh off this mess.A great opportunity ws offered up by the serial failures of Obama, Reid and Pelosi – only to squander it with The Damnable 4. – end update

No wonder Mitt Romney hesitated to disclose his income tax returns. Technically he does not work since nearly all his income is through investment profits:

Mitt Romney offered a partial snapshot of his vast personal fortune late Monday, disclosing income of $21.7 million in 2010 and $20.9 million last year — virtually all of it profits, dividends or interest from investments.

Emphasis mine. Clearly, this is not someone who represents Main Street. He is currently unemployed, but not in  way that connects with Main Street. They guy is set for life and for generations to come. Must be nice. How do I get  Big “FILL IN THE BLANK” out of my way so I too can reach my personal end of the rainbow?

Romney is not like Herman Cain, who worked his way from the lower middle class to the upper class. Cain is someone I can relate to and assume he understands how hard it is to break free of the legislative chains that hold entrepreneurs downs. Romney is a corporate raider who made millions the easy way – the Haarvaaard way. He bought out struggling companies, leveraged their assets with massive debt, took his profits and left ruin and destruction in his wake. I want no connection with him. I am a small business owner, not a corporate raider.

Romney is a vulture, not a creator. Vultures have their purpose in nature and economics, but they are not what someone wants in a national leader.Will he dismantle big government, or twist it to help Wall Street? Does he even understand what the average person has to deal with? Not likley.

Sacrifice? Others sacrificed for Romney to gain his riches.

Innovation? Others provided the core product and services for those rare instances when Bain turned a company around instead of using it as a vehicle to collect millions and then run (what a great ironic coincidence to have Mitt’s Bain actually be his political ‘bane’)

Olympic Savior? I guess if it were not for him none of those dedicated athletes would have been able to compete?

I hear echos of Al Gore and his infamous Internet every time Romney lays claim to Olympic success.

In this instance, Romney is the epitome of Bullying Big Business who likes to implement Big Government solutions when in office. So how is this model going to beat Big Government Obama and his Bullying Big Business connections???? This is just not computing. It definitely is not uplifting and energizing.

Romney is about as far from the Tea Party ideal candidate as you can get without being a liberal Democrat. The Tea Party is a Main Street USA (small business, not big business) phenomena. It is opposes Big Government and is barely tolerant of Big Business (and their hooks now embedded in our political process). The Tea Party movement also distrusts Big Labor. Big is bad – individual is good. Helping others is good, destruction and suffering is to be avoided at all costs.

The Tea Party is all about enabling the individual, protecting the small business from Big Labor, Big Government and Big Wall Street conglomerates. It is Libertarian movement.

It is not Romney. And that is why he is failing. The disconnect between the establishment candidate (Romney) and the 2010 electorate is wide and glaring. And that is why Newt is gaining. Because as far as he is from the Tea Party ideal, he is miles closer to the 2010 backlash voter than Romney ever will be.


105 responses so far

105 Responses to “Romney NOT A Working Class American (Heck, He’s Not Even Working)”

  1. dbostan says:

    Man, I disagree with the Gingrich many times over but I love the way the SOB fights!!!
    He seems the only one left, on our side, able, and willing, to deliver mortal blows to the thug in the WH.

    As Mittens/Willard aligns with Pelosi (see his latest add), she is recanting the threat.
    Well done Mittens!

    Meanwhile, Byron York clearly shows what a bunch of demshevik caca was the “Ethics complaints” story is.
    The same stuff that forced Sarah Palin out of office.

    Se the story here:


  2. WWS says:

    Redteam, you did mistake my meaning. (you’re reading far too critically)

    allow me to restate – Newt has done a good job of pointing out Romney’s shortcomings in a general election.

  3. Frogg1 says:

    Romney Advisor: No Obamacare Repeal

    I think the biggest fear I have of Romney is that he will only nip at the edges of all of our problems.

  4. jan says:


    What does ‘disgrace’ mean?

    There are notations about how Gingrich didn’t have the votes to retain the speakership. His conservative peers were fed up with his highjinx and antics, and not being conservative enough in his pursuit of certain policies. Only 11 congress people have endorsed Newt thus far. Over 70 have endorsed Romney.

    Where’s the love for Gingrich? And, why isn’t the above not disgraceful?

  5. dbostan says:

    By the way, did you see that Norm Coleman, ex-senator, and Mittens ADVISER just said the GOP will NOT repeal Obamacare?

    Hello, do you still trust Mittens!!!!????

  6. jan says:


    Did you read the actual article, or simply the sensational headlines? Here is a link that you didn’t provide.

    If Coleman is correct—and I think it’s possible he is—the next Republican president is likely to go through an experience along these lines: an attempt to repeal the whole bill will be made, passing the House but being filibustered in the Senate. Reconciliation can only go so far, and in the wake of a Supreme Court decision knocking down the individual mandate, the right’s political push to repeal the whole of Obamacare is likely to become less pressing (ironically, the Court’s getting rid of the worst part of the law from the public’s perspective may undercut these efforts). The Senate is likely to force instead a compromise position, in which Obamacare is “fixed,” not repealed – made “more market friendly”, as Coleman suggests.

    Currently the fate of Obamacare is with the SCOTUS, What they do or don’t do with it will decide the future path for Obamacare. If the mandate is considered unconstitutional, some opine that HC will not be able to stand, without the mandates. I’m not so sure. If Obamacare flies through the courts then the only other recourse will be to have a receptive President and Congress work together in getting it either repealed or reformed. That’s what this article basically says, in a pragmatic rather than flamboyant kind of way.

    ‘Mittens,’ as some like to call him has said time and time again that he would issue state waivers on his first day in office. From there he would work with Congress to either repeal or reform it. There’s nothing new or different in the above article from what Romney has consistently been saying.

  7. Redteam says:

    jan, I didn’t use the word disgrace. I only quoted Mitt. what did he mean by it? The Dims led the charge to get Newt out of the speaker job because he was destroying the Dimocrat party. They had some willing accomplices in moderate and liberal Repubs. Newt clearly was cleared of 100% of the ethics charges against him. If the ethics charges had been upheld, the ‘disgrace’ claim might be valid. Mitt clearly knows Newt was innocent of all charges and to make his statements are clearly ‘disgraceful’. The tea party is a powerful movement and are firmly behind Newt. They did wonders in 2010 and I suspect will repeat that in 2012. We shall see.

  8. dbostan says:

    If you start from the premise that any effort to repeal is doomed, as Coleman/Romney think, of course the final result is doomed.
    Besides, Romney ALWAYS defended his RomneyCare in MA.
    My friends in Boston, IN MASS, despise it and him, for passing it. Many are democrats, by the way…

  9. dbostan says:

    Another thought: a president (well, except Obama) defends the laws passed before. Therefore Obamacare can not be repealed by admin. orders.
    Certainly not by waivers. If the bureaucracy is not uprooted by law, it will spring roots over and over again, and finally kill the good vegetables, so to speak.

  10. Frogg1 says:

    Well, don’t forget….Romney’s position way back in 2010:

    Romney on ObamaCare in 2010: “Repeal the Bad, and Keep the Good”

    It seems his rhetoric changed when Bachmann started making gains on her “repeal Obamacare” theme. However, perhaps his position is the same as it has always been.

  11. jan says:

    Here are two dueling POVs reflecting on Gingrich’s relationship with the man he has handcuffed himself to during all the debates:

    Gingrich and Reagan, by Elliot Abrams

    Abrams seems to take issue with Gingrich’s claim of being such a great acolyte of President Reagan, especially dealing with words said about Reagan behind his back.

    The claims are misleading at best. As a new member of Congress in the Reagan years — and I was an assistant secretary of state — Mr. Gingrich voted with the president regularly, but equally often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides, and his policies to defeat Communism. Gingrich was voluble and certain in predicting that Reagan’s policies would fail, and in all of this he was dead wrong.

    ……at the height of the bitter struggle with the Democratic leadership Gingrich chose to attack . . . Reagan.
    The best examples come from a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986. This was right in the middle of the fight over funding for the Nicaraguan contras; the money had been cut off by Congress in 1985, though Reagan got $100 million for this cause in 1986. Here is Gingrich: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.”

    However, Jeffrey Lord writes this piece oozing with patriotic back-patting of Gingrich’s time with Reagan:

    Reagan’s Young Lieutenant

    This is a long and rather convoluted article spending time excoriating Romeny as being a MA moderate, and extolling Gingrich for his vision, and ‘bold ideas.’ A picture of Gingrich, is even highlighted in the article, as proof he was part of the Reagan Revolution.

    IMO, Eliott Abram’s recall has a more authentic ring to it, being that he was in the trenches with Mr. Gingrich, experiencing his behavior and actions first hand. His piece is also simply written, while Lord’s sounds more like a soft-shoe novella, from a by-stander, who has years distancing him from the actual drama and events of that era.

  12. Frogg1 says:

    A third article gives Gingrich “Reagan Revolution” credentials:

    Craig Shirley: Gingrich a lot more like Reagan than Romney

    “In fact, from 1974 up to today, Gingrich was always a Reagan man. In 1977, when Reagan was leading the national charge against the Panama Canal Treaties, Gingrich was leading the charge in Georgia. In 1981, Gingrich was asked to lead a task force to get Reagan’s tax cuts passed in the congress. In 1984, Gingrich was asked to be a member of the Platform Committee at the national convention in Dallas in part, to protect Reagan’s interests there.

    During that campaign, Reagan adopted Gingrich’s notion of a “Conservative Opportunity Society” in his acceptance speech, calling for an American opportunity society.

    The simple fact is Romney is from the establishment-Rockefeller-Gerald Ford-Bush Dynasty side of the GOP, more interested in great access than great ideas.

    Gingrich is from the anti-establishment Goldwater-Bill Buckley-Jack Kemp -Reagan- side of the GOP, more interested in questioning the establishment than joining it. These are Americans who have grand ideas about the greatness of the country and the future as a brighter one.”

  13. jan says:


    I agree that the word ‘disgrace’ was one used by Romney and not you. But, what I was differentiating was “what would be termed as disgraceful” by people? Romeny appears to think that being turned away by your own people is not exactly a ringing endorsement nor something that one would prize putting on a resume.

    However, I don’t see Gingrich’s exit from the Congress like you describe it. Ron Paul, during the last debate, said the same thing, being that he was there too. A conservative who I’ve seen as a straight talker is Tom Coburn. Here is how he sees Gingrich’s influence as Speaker:

    Tom Coburn says Newt drained life blood from the Republican Revolution

    WASHINGTON— Sen. Tom Coburn, who said Sunday that he would have trouble supporting Newt Gingrich for president, described the former U.S. House speaker in his 2003 book as a “Career Republican” who looked down on a band of conservatives seeking to curtail government spending.

    As told in “Breach of Trust,” written by Coburn after he left the U.S. House and before he ran for the U.S. Senate, Gingrich’s leadership “seemed erratic” after the 1995 government shutdown. Coburn also wrote that the speaker had “an inability to discipline himself in his public comments.”
    Coburn, R-Muskogee, and other conservatives clashed with Gingrich several times over spending, and some talked in 1997 about removing him as speaker.

    A pattern I’m seeing is that many of Newt’s detractors are people who have served with him in one capacity or another — a congressman or aide who worked for him. Those, not all, who have the most glowing endorsements and recall of his Reagan days, have second hand renditions of the man.

  14. Redteam says:

    The generally accepted reason Newt resigned (not in disgrace) is because the Repubs lost 5 seats in the election (in which he was re-elected.) He felt that the Repubs losing any seats were a defeat for the leader( which he was) so he thought that an honorable leader in such circumstances, should resign his position to give someone else the opportunity to be more successful. He also felt that if he remained in the House, it would cause a divided allegiance between his side(the conservatives) and the other side (the libs) so he chose to resign rather than cause that problem. I’m originally from the state of Georgia, which Newt represents so I’ve been a fan of Newt since back in the early days when he made many speeches (those made when no one else is there) in the House late in the evenings and at night. The only bad marks against him, in my opinion, is his marriage infidelity but I really see that as a personal matter between him and his wife. I heard an interesting comparison on the radio today. If you want a person that doesn’t smoke and has no maritial infidelities then Hitler is your man. If you don’t care if he fools around on his wife and smokes cigars, then Churchill is your man. Now, i don’t want anyone saying I’m a Hitler fan but the message should be understood that the personal characteristics of people sometimes is not the most important contributions they may make to society. It is generally accepted that Clinton raped and molested more than one woman and I’ll bet to this day, you won’t find a Dimocrat that will speak bad about those aspects of Clinton. His only negative, he lied to a judge. Sometimes when people speak about people such as Abrams did, you should see what his objective is. Is it to push a different candidate? Is there an ulterior motive? usually there is.

  15. Redteam says:

    One other minor point. For a person such as Coburn to state that he would ‘have a hard time’ supporting Newt, that means he thinks Obama is a better alternative. Do you think what he says has any credibility? For a sitting US Senator with an R behind his name to state that he prefers Obama to any Republican is cause for him to be brought up on ethics charges because obviously there is a ‘reason’ to be in the tank for a socialist. Vote him out immediately…

  16. crosspatch says:

    “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.” — Newt Gingrich from the House floor March 21, 1986


  17. WWS says:

    “The tea party is a powerful movement and are firmly behind Newt.”

    I’m glad to see that the Tea Party finally agrees that illegal aliens who have been here a long time need to be made legal residents, and that Mitt’s idea of “voluntary deportation” is heartless and cruel.

    (don’t get me wrong, I agree that they’ve earned to the right to stay here)

  18. jan says:


    I don’t take that from Coburn’s comments at all — that he would support Obama over a republican. What he is saying is that he is not going to support, meaning endorse Gingrich, because of what he experienced with him in the House.

    Regardless of how you see Gingrich, there is a lot of ill feelings and personal anecdotes out there that dispute the story you describe on his resignation. You make it sound, as Newt does too, that he took a bullet for the cause. And, what so many others are saying is he was so disliked and had lost so much credibility as a conservative Speaker they were ready to ride him our on a rail!

    Big difference!

    And, again you are judging the man more by his words and speeches, and the gluing of himself to the Reagan Revolution, like he was the main force behind it. I think that’s simply not true. He was a part of it, a mouthpiece, perhaps, but then he caved under his own ego, and ended up upending the revolution he helped start.

    This opinion piece today is running all over the place by R. Emmett Tyrrell which shows an entirely different Newt Gingrich than you see, Redteam.

  19. jan says:

    Regarding Newt’s infidelities: they are a component of my dislike for him, but not, by any means the only one. Yes, I would be gagging to see someone like Callista taking on the national role of FLOTUS, for other girls to look up to. However, it is Gingrich’s ongoing erratic moves in life, his faux conservatism, his self-serving behavior that bothers me. I’ve already listed them specifically in other posts, so I won’t wear people out re-posting them again.

    Like Tyrrell said in the article posted above, Romney has good character, while Gingrich does not. That means more to me than a scintillating debate performance. BTW, Obama will control how many presidential debates there will be, and it will be no more than three, if that many. So all that humbug about Lincoln/Douglas debates, where Obama is going to be slayed under Gingrich’s rhetorical prowess, is just Newt swimming around in his own frothy head.

  20. lurker9876 says:

    Looks like Santorum may be giving up on Florida and moving to other states. Where is Ron Paul? Has he given up on Florida?

    And…today’s comments indicate that Newt may be losing his steam and we’re back to Romney as the forerunner. Polls indicate that as such.

    I am disappointed in Tom Coburn’s actions as a member of the failed supercommittee.