Wrong:
"True to form, even today Romney is effectively promising not to take America back to pro-growth Reaganomics. Cowed by President Obama's class warfare rhetoric, Romney promises to eliminate taxes on capital gains, interest, and dividends, but only for middle income Americans. He says he would do that because they, not the wealthy, were the ones most hurt by the recession."
"But effective tax policy does not distribute tax cuts based on who 'needs' a tax cut the most. That is Obama neo-socialist class rhetoric. Effective tax policy enacts tax cuts that will do the most to promote economic growth and prosperity."
"That is what Reagan did in cutting tax rates across the board for everybody, including the wealthy who have the most resources to invest. That is what the middle class and working people actually need most, cutting tax rates that will promote their jobs, higher wages, and personal prosperity."
"Romney the Republican establishment businessman is telling us with his limited, crabbed policy kowtowing to Obama's class warfare rhetoric that he feels, like Bush I and Republican RINO moderates generally, that he cannot explain and defend good supply-side policy to the public. Given his background and who he is as a rich Wall Street takeover artist, he personally may be right about that. Who is going to take seriously a Wall Street millionaire calling for tax cuts for millionaires? That is why he personally is not a good vessel for carrying the Republican standard this year. He is actually a perfect caricature for the neo-Marxist class warfare arguments of Obama and the Occupy Wall Street rabble. That is one reason why Romney, in fact, is the least electable."
"Romney's understanding of economic policy as a businessman is overblown. There is no real history of those with private business experience coming to Washington and making good policy there as a result. See, for example, Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. The term that free market activists use in Washington to refer to the business reps they know from first hand experience is 'corporate pukes.'"
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/11/rino-romney-is-the-least-elect/print
I really can't argue with most of it. I would, of course, love to see a principled defense of cutting marginal tax rates by the Republican candidate. It's true that Romney is playing on the democrats "fairness" field.
But he has signed on to Ryan's plan, which involves serious spending controls. He calls for regulatory reform, and I think he means it. He calls for tax cuts across the board, not exempting the top brackets. He puts across a message of improving the economy, and he does it with a smile on his face.
Newt's economic plan is certainly better, but he can't sell it. He's known, and he's disliked by many. He's beloved by conservative political buffs, but he is a much, much, fatter target for Obama than Romney.
As far as "trustability" goes, for all Romney's policy reversals, one has to remember that he was in Massachusetts. He said and did what he could. He will not back mandatory universal federal health care. And I trust Newt even less. He has just emerged from the ultimate liberal hive, Fannie and Freddie, coated in honey. He demonized the best hope at entitlement reform this cycle.
Romney is no Reagan. But I agree with Rubio, Ryan, and Coulter that he'll be a good president. And he won't send women, youth, and independents running away in horror. He can win.