Busted

[Core Imposter]

And this is why I said in another thread I will never under any circumstance vote for this phony.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics...chusetts-governor-gas-prices-renewable-energy

That article does an excellant job pointing out how Romney has been criticizing the president for doing and saying now just about exactly the same things Romney did and said on the same subject, gas prices, during his term as the Mass. gov.

What Obama will do with this phony is wipe the floor with him this fall.

I thought everyone knew Romney was a liberal when he ran in 2008. Now I think Republicans have lost their minds.

excerpt:

Romney’s response to high gas prices while governor fit into his broader effort to promote “smart growth” policies in Massachusetts—a focus that is rare among Republican leaders but that he took up with alacrity. After taking office in 2003, he combined the state’s transportation, environment, and housing departments into a single “Office for Commonwealth Development” under the command of Doug Foy, a prominent local environmentalist who was known to commute to work 20 miles by bike. Together, Romney and Foy pushed for legislation to channel new development into existing communities, thereby reducing the need for new road construction and the car dependence of Massachusetts residents. They put forward a sweeping “Climate Protection Plan” in 2004, which included, among many other things, calls for more car-pooling, public transit and tax breaks for motorists who bought hybrid vehicles. Clean energy was the future, Romney declared at a conference in 2005: “This is an industry that is going to be explosive in its growth in the next decade.”

Obviously democrats are comfortable with Romney as an opponent for Obama. It gives them a liberal win-win scenerio. Its like the TV I grew up with in the early sixties. Black and white, but the channels were pretty much all the same. These two are Siamese twins.

Its no wonder that Romney is carrying all the liberal precincts in the primaries. He is one.

Really, these two are a matched set. Both are more than willing to just look the American public in the eye and blatantly lie.

Romney said Monday,

“No question in my mind that these—I call them the gas-hike trio—that those three are on a mission to drive up the price of gasoline and all energy so that they can finally get their solar and their wind to be more price-competitive. That’s what they want to do,” speaking of Obama and two top officials.

But in 2006 when gas prices spiked when he was governor, and it was suggested that Mass could suspend its gas tax he said, “I don’t think that now is the time, and I’m not sure there will be the right time, for us to encourage the use of more gasoline, I’m very much in favor of people recognizing that these high gasoline prices are probably here to stay.”

Liar liar pants on fire.

Does he think the American people are that dumb?

...eh, wait

 

[Miles Teg]

If it helps, I'm kind of disappointed that Romney is still limping towards the nomination. Have you seen Santorum's poll numbers? Romney's chances of winning are entirely too high.

 

[BasketCase]

And this is why I said in another thread I will never under any circumstance vote for this phony.

Would you prefer Romney, or Obama? I hate to say it, but that's the only choice you'll have in November.

Romney is the best candidate from the available Republican candidates, because he can beat Obama. The other candidates can't; they may be suitable for Republicans, but those other candidates won't win American voters as a whole in the actual Presidential election. To be fair, Democrats have the same problem. They can't run a "real" liberal for the White House because a real liberal can't actually win.

Candidates who cling to true liberal or conservative principles usually lose, because the majority of Americans are centrists. The only way to win is to ditch the principles. The more principles you hold onto, the less likely you are to win.

Obviously democrats are comfortable with Romney as an opponent for Obama. It gives them a liberal win-win scenerio.

Actually, no. Romney may be a liberal in action, but he still wears the label "Republican" on his lapel, and that's something the Democrats can't have. They want an actual Democrat as the President.

That kind of thing has tipped Congressional decisions many times. Democrats are all about protecting the environment? If a Republican writes up a bill protecting the environment, and puts it up for a vote, Democrats won't vote for it because it was written by a Republican. I have seen those idiots put up the exact same bills (occasionally at the SAME TIME!) and then vote differently on them because of who wrote the damn things.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Actually, no. Romney may be a liberal in action, but he still wears the label "Republican" on his lapel, and that's something the Democrats can't have. They want an actual Democrat as the President.

There are social policies today which prevent Romney from appealing to liberals in the way that an economic conservative (like Reagan, for example) might have 30 years ago. Buying into a possible Romney presidency means not merely that he'll have better economic policy than Obama, but that you can tolerate his social policies as well. For many, that'll be a very tough bullet to bite. Too tough, by my estimation, for Romney to win.

 

[Leoreth]

Obviously democrats are comfortable with Romney as an opponent for Obama. It gives them a liberal win-win scenerio. Its like the TV I grew up with in the early sixties. Black and white, but the channels were pretty much all the same. These two are Siamese twins.

Have you actually talked to democrats about this? Probably not, because that would require leaving your conservative bubble world. The only people that can call a former hedge fond manager who keeps going about "corporations are people my friend" liberal are the rabid conservative fringe that for some reason has managed to take control of the GOP, and that only on grounds that he's not as obviously backwards as Santorum.

Liberals might see Romney as the lesser evil of the current set of candidates, but to say that they don't care about Romney vs. Obama is laughable. Therefore, most of them actually hope for Santorum to win the nomination because he'll be much easier for Obama to destroy in the general election.

 

[peter grimes]

Romney has been criticizing the president for doing and saying now just about exactly the same things Romney did and said on the same subject, gas prices, during his term as the Mass. gov[ernor].

I've seen this complaint a lot. I think it's misguided.

I first noticed it when Sarah Palin was proudly stating that she said 'Thanks, but No Thanks' about federal grant money to help Alaska build a bridge to an under-served community. But as Governor, your job is to do what you can to look after the health and welfare of the state's citizens and businesses. That's not at all the same thing as the job of President.

It's completely unfair to compare the specific actions taken at the level of governor and extrapolate to specific policy choices at the presidential level. But it is OK to look at how the person went about their job (building consensus? obstructionism? rule by fiat?).

If Sarah Palin really had said 'thanks, but no thanks' (she didn't), the people of Alaska should have tried to get her to step aside.

If Mitt Romney really did feel so strongly against mandatory health plans for his citizens -- against the wishes of the people he represents -- then he should have stepped aside. But clearly he was doing his job as Governor, which is managing the affairs of the state on behalf of the citizens.

...which is very different from managing the affairs of the USA on the presidential level.

There's enough to hate Romney for, even without this angle of attack.

 

[kochman]

But as Governor, your job is to do what you can to look after the health and welfare of the state's citizens and businesses. That's not at all the same thing as the job of President.

Exactly.

Anyhow, mister cooper, I'm still hoping to hear from you what an ideal US government would look like?

 

[Ice_Tyrant]

I kinda wish Santorum was winning, though really I just wish Herman Cain and Rick Perry never left. One of them seriously running for president against Obama, that would have ben the greatest thing ever. This is going to be a really dull general election.

 

[Leoreth]

If Romney wins, I hope he at least has the decency to make Cain the ambassador to Uzbeki-beki-beki-stan-stan.

 

[BasketCase]

Buying into a possible Romney presidency means not merely that he'll have better economic policy than Obama, but that you can tolerate his social policies as well.

Actual policy has nothing to do with it any more. The list of policies on which Obama is identical to his predecessor is huge. And still growing. Yet, what are most true liberals doing? Holding their noses and supporting Obama, even though they hate his guts, because they still consider him better than "any" Republican. They support him because he has the word "Democrat" stamped on his forehead, and that's the only reason.

Reagan didn't have this problem because the mindset of the voters was different back then.

Today, true conservatives and true liberals never have any luck getting a candidate who's actually conservative/liberal enough for their taste. The only choice true conservatives have is between a sissy Republican or a Democrat; the only choice true liberals have is between a sissy Democrat or a Republican. So they swallow their bile and vote for the sissy instead of the guy from the Other Party, who they consider even worse than the sissy.

(Side note: that's the reason socialists think the whole system is being run by Big Business, and also the reason Nazis think the whole system is being run by godless Communists; to a radical wingnut, none of the candidates are anywhere close to desirable. To a radical, they all suck.)

 

[Murky]

Climate Protection and Clean Energy are bipartisan issues. I thought the Republicans liked growing the private sector. Isn't clean energy development by private companies good for the economy and creating jobs?

 

[caketastydelish]

Even with the OP's post being said, I still can't blame the republican party (the people at the top, not the masses) for wanting Romney for being the nomination.

Yes you can call Romney a "phony" (and that would even have some validity), but between that and Santorum, there is no comparison.

I am a liberal who watches the Daily Show. Die-hard left wing guy. And let me tell you, whenever Jon Stewart makes fun of Romney, he almost always fails in my opinion. Romney is bland an uninteresting, and that's something hard to make fun of. On the other hand Santorum says ultra-right wing off the charts comments all the time. You don't even need Jon Stewart's help to see why Santorum's comments are funny.

Santorum's ultra right wing rhetoric could be popular with the extreme conservatives, but doesn't stand a chance in the general election. If Romney is similar to Obama, that means he's a moderate, as I would consider Obama to be a political moderate. And moderates always have a better chance of getting elected than people that are on the extreme (regardless of which side).

And for the record, I will vote for Obama during the general election; I am a democrat pretty much. But if I was a Republican, I would certainly want Romney to win. Santorum will get slaughtered.

 

[NetGear]

Ok he's a flip flopping mofo. How is this new tho.

Busted in american politics is more like having gay sex with osama's nephew.

 

[downtown]

because the majority of Americans are centrists.

I do not think this is true. Independent does not mean centrist.

 

[Core Imposter]

Looking at a decision on voting for Romney or Obama I can't find much of a difference. Am I supposed to vote for Romney simply because Obama is black?

Really?

 

[caketastydelish]

Looking at a decision on voting for Romney or Obama I can't find much of a difference. Am I supposed to vote for Romney simply because Obama is black?

Really?

I think a better reason (although a still terrible reason) to vote for Romney, (with this reason being what the GOP is pushing) is where as you've had Obama for 4 years, Romney is more of a fresh face. Even if his political ideologies are nearly the same as the incumbent, everyone likes a fresh face.

If the tables were turned, I don't think it would be fair to say "Are we supposed to prefer Obama because Romney is white".

 

[Core Imposter]

Okay,well that clears it up. Inevitable electibility due to freshness. What was I thinking?

 

[BasketCase]

I do not think this is true. Independent does not mean centrist.

Of course it does. In the United States, anyway. Keep in mind, the United States is constantly flip-flopping between electing Republicans and Democrats. If Independents were either "mostly liberal" or "mostly conservative" that wouldn't be happening. This flip-floppage allows us to place America's independent voters squarely in the middle.

 

[_random_]

There are social policies today which prevent Romney from appealing to liberals in the way that an economic conservative (like Reagan, for example) might have 30 years ago. Buying into a possible Romney presidency means not merely that he'll have better economic policy than Obama, but that you can tolerate his social policies as well. For many, that'll be a very tough bullet to bite. Too tough, by my estimation, for Romney to win.

Well, Romney's changed a lot of his positions on social issues, but you're probably right. That's why Ron Paul's really the only candidate democrats would vote for.

 

[downtown]

Of course it does. In the United States, anyway. Keep in mind, the United States is constantly flip-flopping between electing Republicans and Democrats. If Independents were either "mostly liberal" or "mostly conservative" that wouldn't be happening. This flip-floppage allows us to place America's independent voters squarely in the middle.

No, that isn't what it means at all.