Skip to comments.Mitt Romney: A Liberal's Liberal Republican
Posted on 07/23/2011 6:14:44 AM PDT by Hojczyk
The most prominent candidate for the GOP nomination is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. He's a prolific fundraiser and enjoys widespread name recognition, and he's the darling of the GOP establishment. George Will lists him as one of the few serious presidential candidates.
But should Romney be the GOP's presidential nominee? The answer is "absolutely not."
As Selwyn Duke rightly wrote in 2007, Romney is the Barack Obama of the GOP. Every Republican has made his share of mistakes, but Romney is a committed liberal on the whole spectrum of issues.
And, as Doug Brady points out, President Romney would not stop America's march to socialism and shrink the federal government. In the best case, he would only halt it, and with it, America's decline. But there's no reason to doubt that he will flip-flop again and insist that Obama's schemes are salvageable, if only he's be there to do the right trimming around the edges.
It is nonsense to claim that Romney, as a "moderate," can appeal to centrist/independent voters and thus win the election. Independents don't vote for Republicans who are not significantly different from their Democratic rivals. Romney is, on the issues, so aligned with Obama that there's no real difference between them. When faced with a choice between a liberal Democrat and a liberal Republican, Americans always choose the Democrat (vide 1976, 1992, 1996, and 2008). An overt RINO can never defeat a Democrat.
The reason why Romney is even considered for the nomination is because of his name recognition, establishment pedigree, the establishment's praise for him, and liberal media propaganda. The MSM wants to make sure that Romney becomes the nominee because he would be the easiest candidate for Obama to beat. Team Obama is already praying that Romney crosses the finish line first.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
i did the same.
“People seem to vote for name recognition. Wish I knew what we can do to change that.”
Legally change Chris Christie’s name to Thomas Jefferson or Brad Pitt?
Nit rummie- Mini mac, the crybaby liar, daddy.
From the frying pan into the fire.
you’re right that most people haven’t the time to keep up on politics, or in some cases, the inclination.
these people often are the victims of bits and pieces of cnn that they hear in the doctor’s offices or at the fitness centers, etc.
the left is good at sound bites.
None of them would have been elected if they did. It was the Depression. Roosevelt was going to win by a landslide. They won what conservative sentiment was out there and there wasn't much of it.
Phyllis Schlafly had the idea that a more conservative candidate could have beaten FDR or Truman, but her man, Barry Goldwater, did almost as poorly as Landon and considerably worse than Willkie or Dewey in the popular vote, and that against a much less popular opponent than Roosevelt.
But you do slander Hoover, who articulated about conservative a vision for America as anyone after he left office. He could form and express such a view when circumstances commanded it. It didn't win over most Americans even then, but he wasn't lacking in intelligence and showed great commitment to conservative principles in his later years.
And they all lost to the second worst communist president the USA ever had.
You either are a communist or you aren't. Roosevelt (and whoever the other president you're talking about is) had their faults, but they weren't communists or Marxists. I don't disagree with what I think you're trying to say, but surely there's a better way of phrasing your thought than this, especially after what happened yesterday.
Hoover's entire adult life, up through his presidency, was that of a liberal progressive, big government, globalist, command and control, anti-freedom, Republicrat; endeared to both the liberal Democrats, i.e. Wilson, and the east coast liberal Republican swine.
Like the RINOs of today, Hoover wanted to pretend that the "labor" part of the "land, labor, and capital" as in the means to production in a free market economy, should be free, or at least dirt cheap. As we can clearly see now, the "free and cheap labor" plot is a death knell to a functioning, sustainable economy. The theft of citizens' labor, along with corruption in every other corner of society, eventually leads to massive loss of returns on capital and land as well. The measuring stick for our current such fiasco is a whopping $15 Trillion national debt.
Absent corruption and manipulation, there is a market price for labor of all types, driven by supply and demand, just as Adam Smith described for all goods, services, and resources.
Absent corruption and manipulation, there are national boundaries, within which free market principles can work to their greatest potential. International trade by such a free market nation should be negotiated nation to nation, to the benefit of both nations, not to the benefit of a few corrupt people and to the detriment of the majority of citizens. Adam Smith's book is short-titled "The Wealth of Nations", not "The Wealth of a Few Globalist Commie Crooks".
However, Chris Christie isn’t conservative enough for me.
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.