Mitt Romney... our current biggest 2012 obstacle?

[Nate G.]

Wow, I'm surprised how quickly of a response we got after merely a few hours of talking about it!

As we can all tell - our forums are being watched by pretty much everyone - we must be even more popular than we thought.

Nate - I'm glad you guys found a place to concentrate your efforts and ideas, discussion, etc. Just so you know by 'infiltrate' I never meant anything of an attack.

What I do mean, however, is that if you guys truly value free markets, liberty and the constitution - then you should all be easily converted to the ideas of true liberty, and that of Ron Paul... as opposed to Mitt 'The Mandate' Romney.

Either way, good luck.

I wasn't actually monitoring your forum, but monitoring our live feed via feedjit: http://live.feedjit.com/live/mittromneycentral.com/0/

When I saw the links coming in I took a look to see what was up.

 

[paulitics]

Mitt Romney is everything that is wrong with America.

 

[BlackTerrel]

Here's the way I break it down. With the caveat that a lot can change between now and the next couple years.

Palin/Huckabee - Very popular with Republican base (IE those that vote in Republican primaries). But very limited support outside the base. Nominating Huckabee or Palin probably gifts Obama another four years.

Paul/Romney - Less popular with Republican base but have a very good chance of defeating Obama.

The big question is whether the Republican base will vote for their ideal candidate who has no chance of winning. Or whether they'll suck it up and vote for someone who has a chance of becoming President.

Romney's religion will be a much bigger deal in the primaries than in the general.

 

[Nate G.]

Mitt Romney is everything that is wrong with America.

I'd beg to differ with you on that. BARACK OBAMA is everything that is wrong with America.

 

[Sentient Void]

I don't see any reason to believe why Paul would even think of having Romney as his VP.

Paul is a man of pure principle, Romney is man of little to no principle. A true flip-flopper with an obvious desire for power and special interests (through his loveable mandates).

 

[Flash]

“I think that’s unfortunate because when you actually look at the bill itself, it incorporates all sorts of Republican ideas. I mean, a lot of commentators have said, you know, this is this is similar to the bill that Mitt Rommey, the Republican governor and now presidential candidate, passed in Massachusetts.”-- Obama

Paul/Romney - Less popular with Republican base but have a very good chance of defeating Obama.

I see Obama portraying Mitt Romney as a complete opportunist hypocrite.

I'd beg to differ with you on that. BARACK OBAMA is everything that is wrong with America.

Actually, Obama hasn't done anything really different than the Republican Party of the last few decades. The GOP in my state passed a type of socialized health care locally and the GOP is famous for resorting to Obama's tactics when it came to Congress voting on bills, ie the Patriot Act. And by "Obama's tactics" I mean giving Congress only a few hours to read a bill that is 1,000 pages long. But when Bill Clinton or Obama do these things, all hell breaks loose. You see my point?

Thats why our Tea Party movement has to completely reform the GOP and in part the Democratic Party too in order to get America back on track.

 

[Sentient Void]

I'd beg to differ with you on that. BARACK OBAMA is everything that is wrong with America.

Mitt Romney & Obama are both what's wrong with america.

They are both corporatist shills. In bed with the military-industrial complex and the pharmaceutical/medical-industrial complex.

How would ANYONE who supports free market values support FORCING a consumer to buy from health insurance cartels/monopolies? It's utterly ridiculous and filled with hypocrisy.

Anyone who has any sense of principle and believe in the free market should shun Romney and support Paul, hands down.

 

[sratiug]

It's funny to me that you guys scoff at the forums I installed just last week and not even officially announced yet.

You see that there are only 10 members, that's because I've only sent an email to 8 people to join the forum to help me test settings and permissions and such until we announce on our facebook page and blog that it is open. ( http://facebook.com/mittromneycentral )

Our whole site is relatively new since it was established just 7 months ago, yet we are already at a 5 google ranking. Daily Paul is a 5 also, these forums are a 4.

We are new and we are growing. Thanks for you interest in "bombing our site".

BTW - It doesn't reflect well on Dr. Paul (whom I have a lot of respect for) when his supporters go about seeking to destroy other sites.

~Nate G.

By the way, it doesn't reflect well on Mitt Romney (or his Christian principles) when he accuses Dr. Paul of taking orders from Ahmedenijad in a nationally televised debate only because Dr. Paul doesn't want to provoke another needless unholy war with Iran.

Welcome to the forums.

 

[paulitics]

I'd beg to differ with you on that. BARACK OBAMA is everything that is wrong with America.

There is no excuse for Mitt Romney's actions. What he did was beyond liberal, it was downright socialist.. I put him in the same tired group of rinos as Lindsey Graham and John McCain.

I would have more respect for him if he ran as a hawkish democrat, than pose as a conservative. He is pro big government, period. It's guys like Romney, that make it impossible for us to fight Obama on the really big issues without appearing like hypocrites.

 

[Nate G.]

By the way, it doesn't reflect well on Mitt Romney (or his Christian principles) when he accuses Dr. Paul of taking orders from Ahmedenijad in a nationally televised debate only because Dr. Paul doesn't want to provoke another needless unholy war with Iran.

Mitt Romney can speak for himself, and it wasn't me who said it. Whether you or I disapprove of him or not is our own choice. I'm inclined to think you wouldn't like him anyway.

 

[parocks]

I don't like Romney. I like Ron Paul, and to a lesser degree, Sarah Palin.

But you, a Romney supporter, do have the genius that is often lacking here when you recognize that Obama is really really unpopular with Republican Primary Voters.

The Republican Nominee will be getting the Nomination from the votes of people who strongly dislike Obama, and never liked Obama one bit. You understand that. Many here don't. There are people here that like Obama, or believe that the Republicans are just as bad as Obama and the Democrats. They'd recommend criticising Democrats and Republicans equally. You, and Romney have the kind of genius (which is actually common sense) to recognize that if you're running for the Republican Nomination, you want to present yourself as a Republican, who has Republican beliefs and a Republican track records. The things you dislike are Democrats and Obama.

I don't believe for a second that Romney is a conservative, but he certainly wants people to think he is one. Ron Paul most certainly is the most conservative (in a Tea Party / limited government sense). But people here want to talk antiwar and protest the tea party.

I'd beg to differ with you on that. BARACK OBAMA is everything that is wrong with America.

 

[Flash]

They'd recommend criticising Democrats and Republicans equally. You, and Romney have the kind of genius (which is actually common sense) to recognize that if you're running for the Republican Nomination, you want to present yourself as a Republican, who has Republican beliefs and a Republican track records. The things you dislike are Democrats and Obama.

You fail to understand there's a difference between talking to someone one-on-one on an internet forum and mass marketing to a national [conservative] audience. I'm not suggesting Ron Paul runs ads saying "REPUBLICANS = DEMOCRATS" at all. What I do suggest is going out there and talking to theses Romney supporters about how his policies in Massachusetts were identical with the MA Democratic Party. And point out how Romney's health care bill had a considerable influence on Obama's health care plan, as admitted by Obama himself.

I guarantee once more people are aware of Romney's policies (which WILL come up during the 2011 debates) they will drop him. It happened in 2007 when polls were showing Romney to be the front runner. Everyone tag teamed to take him down.

 

[Nate G.]

Open the flood gates on Romney! He must be pure evil...

Guys, I'm not going to try to persuade you to support Romney, I know it's impossible. I can't but help to try to correct what I feel are misconceptions about him. Here are a few from just that last few minutes:

Paulitics says "He is pro big government, period." Not really true sir. If he were you would expect that MA government would have expanded during his tenure. The opposite is true in fact. When Romney left office there were 600 less state government employees than when he started. Has that ever happened in the Fed gov?

Sentient Void says that Romney is a corporatist schill. I think what you are trying to say is that he is only in politics to protect his interests and his money. His actions provide evidence to the contrary. Romney has not taken a salary for any of his work since he left Bain Capital in 1998. He took no salary for doing the Olympics. He took no salary as Gov. of MA. He has donated all of his profits from his book to charity as well his speaking fees at several events. Romney is not in it for money. Nor even power. He is in it because he loves this country, and he loves his family, and hopes to leave the country in a better state for their inheritance.

You can disagree with the his policies, and I know you do, but Romney is in politics for the right reasons and motives.

 

[Flash]

That doesn't even make sense. If he is not in it for the power as you claimed (you said earlier you couldn't speak for him) then why would he have been Governor and held influence over the Massachusetts GOP? Common sense. If he didn't desire power then he would either just be a regular businessman or an anarchist.
And if he really values principles over power, then why does he repeatedly change his mind on the policies he had WHILE campaigning and the policies he had after being elected? The abortion issue comes to mind.

 

[Nate G.]

Regarding Republicans.... I have at times been very disappointed with the Republican party. Their record on spending when they had the majority is an embarrassment. Even so it is absolutely nothing compared to what the Dems are doing in congress right now.

As embarrassing as the GOP can be sometimes, I believe (and I think Dr. Paul would agree) that it is the best vehicle to use to promote conservative values. If Dr. Paul didn't think so he wouldn't have tried to win the GOP nomination in 2008. I'm sure he sees many errors in the GOP, but he seeks to improve it, rather than abandon it. I agree with this posture.

 

[paulitics]

Open the flood gates on Romney! He must be pure evil...

Guys, I'm not going to try to persuade you to support Romney, I know it's impossible. I can't but help to try to correct what I feel are misconceptions about him. Here are a few from just that last few minutes:

Paulitics says "He is pro big government, period." Not really true sir. If he were you would expect that MA government would have expanded during his tenure. The opposite is true in fact. When Romney left office there were 600 less state government employees than when he started. Has that ever happened in the Fed gov?

Who cares if (assuming your stat isn't hogwash) there were less state employees the year he left office. Romney permanently and dramatically increased the size of government, and helped provide a prototype for Obama to go around and say "A republican tried it, and it worked."

The argument you make is the same one Obama is making right now, that he isn't increasing taxes TODAY. But he is, and it will come a few years down the road because of these programs.

So, are you saying that a state mandated health insurance program is ok with you? Are you for cap and tax on the state level as well?

 

[Nate G.]

That doesn't even make sense. If he is not in it for the power as you claimed (you said earlier you couldn't speak for him) then why would he have been Governor and held influence over the Massachusetts GOP? Common sense. If he didn't desire power then he would either just be a regular businessman or an anarchist.
And if he really values principles over power, then why does he repeatedly change his mind on the policies he had WHILE campaigning and the policies he had after being elected? The abortion issue comes to mind.

There are different types of power, and I should have clarified better. There are those who seek to influence the national agenda, legislation etc, because they feel they can change it for the better. This if fine. This is what Romney does, as well as Dr. Paul.

Then there are those who seek to control the government, markets, for their own purposes. Neither Romney nor Paul are in it for those reasons.

Regarding change in policies. The substantial change in policy that Romney has had is in regards to abortion. There are many who say that he changed his stance on gay marriage. That simply is not true, he was never for it. There are many who've twisted his words on other matters. But abortion alone is the issue in which he flipped on. Note that it was a flip and not a flop, because he has never gone back to his previous held position.

 

[Tend yer biscuits.]

Re: Forum war

My bad. I didn't know that was taboo.

 

[parocks]

Well in 2011, 2012 (assuming Romney runs) Romney's opponents will bring up elements of his record that do not appeal to Republican Primary voters. There's a lot there to work with.

You fail to understand there's a difference between talking to someone one-on-one on an internet forum and mass marketing to a national [conservative] audience. I'm not suggesting Ron Paul runs ads saying "REPUBLICANS = DEMOCRATS" at all. What I do suggest is going out there and talking to theses Romney supporters about how his policies in Massachusetts were identical with the MA Democratic Party. And point out how Romney's health care bill had a considerable influence on Obama's health care plan, as admitted by Obama himself.

I guarantee once more people are aware of Romney's policies (which WILL come up during the 2011 debates) they will drop him. It happened in 2007 when polls were showing Romney to be the front runner. Everyone tag teamed to take him down.

 

[Nate G.]

Who cares if (assuming your stat isn't hogwash) there were less state employees the year he left office. Romney permanently and dramatically increased the size of government, and helped provide a prototype for Obama to go around and say "A republican tried it, and it worked."

The argument you make is the same one Obama is making right now, that he isn't increasing taxes TODAY. But he is, and it will come a few years down the road because of these programs.

So, are you saying that a state mandated health insurance program is ok with you? Are you for cap and tax on the state level as well?

The state has the right to issue such a program, but the Fed government does not, but I'm sure a constitutionalist as yourself would already know that. Also, the government doesn't oversee that program, the Commonwealth connector does. The MA plan is not perfect. And I readily admit that I would not want it in my state. Even Romney admits that his plan is not perfect. But neither was it implemented in the manner he sought to do it as the MA legislature over wrote many of his vetoes.

I am not for cap and tax on any level. But if a state chose to that it would have the right. I would fight it tooth and nail.

BTW- Dems are lying when they say they used MA care as a template. They never once spoke with Romney about it. The plans they tried to push were very different. And the end result is much different than MA care is as well. Don't succumb to their propaganda by equating the two. The differences are numerous.