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 ...
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.