Posted on 06/04/2012 2:41:53 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
Over the weekend, Politico broke the news that Mitt Romney had tapped Mike Leavitt, the former Utah Governor and HHS Secretary under George W. Bush, to lead the transition effort should Romney win the presidency. This is a very worrisome signal to conservatives holding out hope that Romney will live up to his promises to fight for limited government if elected. As Ben Domenech details, Leavitt is one of the few Republicans who has been actively campaigning for governors to implement Obamacare’s health care exchanges at the state level.
[....]
Leavitt has shown time and again that he is to the left of his party—so much so that he was nearly defeated during the Republican nominating convention in 2000. The legislature has on many occasions pushed pro-growth tax policies, only to have them rejected by Leavitt. In [2001] the legislature passed a $25 million tax cut that included income tax relief. Leavitt insisted on a tax cut one-fifth that size… The only two taxes that he has reduced were the sales tax and the unemployment tax. Leavitt is a big spender extraordinaire.
[....]
Beyond the health care issue, there’s the cronyism issue involved. One of the biggest dangers of a Romney “CEO presidency” is that his business background would make him conflate being pro-business with being pro-free market. But as we’ve seen time and again, these are two separate things. As somebody who stands to personally profit if more states implement Obamacare exchanges, Leavitt clearly comes from the tradition of a Republican Party that’s perfectly okay with expanding government in the name of helping business. This is something we saw during the Bush administration, most prominently, with the subsidies for drug companies in the Medicare prescription drug law (which Leavitt helped implement ass HHS Secretary) and the Wall Street bailout.
(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...
It’s over. America is totally screwed. We either get shot in the face (Obama) or stabbed in the back (Mittens).
What is he saying? Don’t have him on right now.
It’s the RINO Way!
Leavit is a scary addition to Romne’s parade.
Also, how we need to work very hard to get Obama defeated and get Romney elected and then we have to work even harder after that to drag Romney to the right.
Denile?=Denial
I thought Ann Coulter said she would keep him in line.
See my tagline. It is what it is.
“Corporate crony or Mormon crony or both?”
Both, and for a litte extra luster he was a Bush appointee as EPA administrator and subsequently Secretary of HHS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Leavitt
There is no lateral Left versus Right struggle. There is a FedGov versus Americans vertical struggle, however.
First appointment, RINO Mormon, just like RINOmney.
Just the beginning.
....Even worse, with few conservative alternatives out there.
The only thing happening here is he is dragging a lot of so-called conservatives to the left.
Limbaugh, always the pragmatist, gave him a pass.. Saying Romney dictates policy, his transition manager doesn't. Mark Levin didn't. Levin rightfully pounded the choice, asking what kind of message it sends to conservatives...
It's 2 steps forward, 1 back... He needs to keep moving much more conservative, not less
Now you know fully well that Romney has a record of saying things just to pander to whomever he needs to get him from point A to point B without really meaning it.....what makes you think that he is really is moving conservative from the beginning? It’s fake
In most primaries Romney earned 1/3 or less of the vote. Conservatives split their vote among multiple candidates paving the way for Romney to win. Had it been a race from the beginning between Romney and a strong conservative, the Republicans would be running a conservative this year.
Votes do matter.
The words are Levin's, not mine.
And probably easier to drag Romney to the right than a reinvigorated Obama who doesn't have to run again.
Well, you didn't attribute them to anyone else, and you didn't use quotes.So, I appropriately addressed my comments to you.
Presidents who don't have to run again are generally called lame ducks, and historically accomplish little - especially if the have strong opposition in Congress.
Suppose, Obamacare is struck down this June. Do you really think Congressional Dems are going to want to go down that road a second time? I doubt it, but I can see Congressional Republicans taking a stab at passing an ill advised Romney plan.
See post #22, the post to which I was responding.
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.