Skip to comments.On The Eve Of Huge Speech, WSJ Delivers A Devastating Mitt Romney Takedown
Posted on 05/12/2011 4:47:43 AM PDT by Scanian
It's no secret that one of Mitt Romney's biggest vulnerabilities is the fact that he invented RomneyCare in Massachusetts, thus paving the way for the detested Obamacare.
What is surprising is that the WSJ -- which you'd think might overlook that in Romney's case, given their general common ideologies -- would pulverize him on the subject.
That's exactly what they've done tonight, on the eve of his big healthcare speech, basically branding him has un-credible and self-serving.
They say RomneyCare has been a mess, but that really, up until recently he was bragging about its success. What's more, his new argument that it only failed because of poor execution reeks of passing the buck.
The title of the WSJ's editorial is "Obama's Running Mate", a point driven home in the brutal conclusion:
"For a potential President whose core argument is that he knows how to revive free market economic growth, this amounts to a fatal flaw. Presidents lead by offering a vision for the country rooted in certain principles, not by promising a technocracy that runs on "data." Mr. Romney's highest principle seems to be faith in his own expertise...
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Anyone else get the feeling that the establishment knows Myth Romney won’t be able to win and want to stop him now in order to help Myth Daniels?
Romney should run for president of hell as far as I’m concerned.
I’m sick and tired of phony conservatives.
The Architect of zer0bama care shall fall by the wayside.
A trait he shares with most liberals. That they just know better than us rubes.
We need someone who governs by the conservative principles that government should stick to its proper enumerated powers and otherwise get out of the way. Romney is the opposite of that.
Romney is a non-starter. This photo will forever haunt him.
Who would buy a used car from this phony sleezeball?
Here’s a link to the WSJ opinion piece ...
The problem is that he is leading in the polls for the New Hampshire primary, which is open to dopey uninformed “independents” and crossover Demonrat saboteurs.
Mitt isn't good on socialized medicine.
Mitt isn't good on abortion.
Mitt isn't good on gun control.
The only people who like Mitt Romney are Liberals, and in the general election, Liberals will vote for Obama. Mitt will lose worse than McCain.
why hasn’t the gop plugged the NH mess ?
The demographic shift in NH make it a trainwreck !
‘Im sick and tired of phony conservatives.’
The GOP might, in some states, unless a real conservative steps up.
Well, he does have nice hair!
Most damning summary:
He still seems to believe he somehow squared the views of Jonathan Gruber, the MIT evangelist for ObamaCare, with those of the Heritage Foundation.
In reality, his ostensible liberal allies like the late Ted Kennedy saw an opening to advance their own priorities, and in Mr. Romney they took advantage of a politician who still doesn't seem to understand how government works. It's no accident that RomneyCare's most vociferous defenders now are in the White House and left-wing media and think tanks. They know what happened, even if he doesn't.
These Romney threads aren’t fun anymore, since you’ve got the RomneyBotts scared witless.
I propose that you let one live, just so we can beat up him/her on a regular basis. Remember “MurrayMom”? She was disgustingly 100% liberal and you tolerated her for years, for that reason.
Romney would have been a better VP for Obama than Biden. They both know how to destroy the economy.
Yeah, personally I could use some of it.
In fact, I could use a lot.
But that’s all he has that is worth anything, IMHO.
Do you suppose Romney would favor holding the line on the debt ceiling? I don’t think so!
I see Dems going heavy for Mitty in open primary states.
(their answer to Op Chaos)
They know a Mitty candidacy will produce a Tea Party challenger and a split in the anti-Baraq vote.
In my view, Baraq’s only hope to win is a Clintonian plurality.
There is a lot of tolerance for a lot of things that I don’t understand.
I just tell myself, “Well, it’s a private enterprise, I’m really not entitled to an explanation.”
Because I love private business, I end up shutting up.
My personal favorite from the article ...
“If he does not change his message, he might as well try to knock off Joe Biden and get on the Obama ticket.”
Yeah, but that misses the point a bit.
I think the real key is that Romney is so self-deluded on what the proper role of government is — because of this, he is easy to “roll” by “guidance” from “experts”. Romney is so focused on the technical details of making some kind of compromise work that he doesn’t have any appreciation over whether the basic idea is sound.
To a large degree, that is at odds with many on the left. Oh, I’m sure there are some who have good intentions and who are just of the belief that the right people haven’t been in charge yet. But many of the more radical ones, like Obama and his ilk (or puppet masters, if you prefer) have a much more cohesive (if repugnant) view of the role of government, and Romney is more along the lines of “useful idiot” than leftist ideologue.
Because Romney is all about Romney, and not an ideology, he is to a large degree more dangerous, because he can be led around by those who know how to manipulate him.
This is great. Romney’s base is the mainstream business community and if the iconic paper of business tosses him, he doesn’t have much of a chance.
That’s my reason for disliking him intensely. The sleaze-ball aspect is writ large on his shining, wrinkle-free face.
Never trust a man who wears a hair net to bed.
Seems to me the national and NH GOP Establishmewnt are, quite unfortunately, well aligned.
NH is also one of Mitt’s many home states and part of the Boston media market.
I take it you're anti-establishment and waiting for a myth of your own to swoop in.
If the establishment coalesces behind a solid candidate, we should not reject the candidate out of hand because the establishment is behind him or her.
W, for all his flaws like overspending and immigration policy, was the establishment candidate of 2000. They picked a winner.
It's looking doubtful but maybe they'll pick another who can beat Obama. The field is not looking great from where I sit.
“I see Dems going heavy for Mitty in open primary states.”
Good point, I’m sure Mitt’s team will try to exploit this through divide and conquer as much as possible now that he is probably losing establishment support.
Seventeen states use an open party primary system, including Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin. Of these states, Hawaii, Minnesota and North Dakota conduct open caucus elections.
If you mean "winner" as in winning the election.
On Primary election day in Illinois, you walk in to the polling place, they ask you which ballot you want, you tell them, they give it to you. When registering to vote in my various residences over the years, I've not been asked for party afillation. If that's not "open primary", I don't know what is.
In over 40 years of voting here, I've never been asked for an ID.
It also demonstrates that his fundamental governmental philosophy makes him unfit for the presidency.
those saboteurs will be out in force this go-round, as Zero won't have credible opposition.