7 REASONS WHY MITT ROMNEY'S ELECTABILITY IS A MYTH

TownHall.com ^ | Dec 27, 2011 | John Hawkins

[Yosemitest]

7 Reasons Why Mitt Romney's Electability Is A Myth
Dec 27, 2011. by John Hawkins

Mitt Romney was a moderate governor in Massachusetts with an unimpressive record of governance, who left office with an approval rating in the thirties,
and whose signature achievement was a Hurricane Katrina style disaster for the state.
Since that's the case, it's fair to ask what a Republican who's not conservative
and can't even carry his own state brings to the table for GOP primary voters.
The answer is always the same; Mitt Romney is supposed to be "the most electable" candidate.
This is a baffling argument because many people just seem to assume it's true, despite the plethora of evidence to the contrary.

1) People just don't like Mitt Romney: The entire GOP primary process so far has consisted of
Republican voters desperately trying to find an alternative to Mitt Romney.
Doesn't it say something that GOP primary voters have, at one time or another, preferred
Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and now even Ron Paul (In Iowa) to Mitt Romney?

To some people, this is a plus.
They think that if conservatives don't like Mitt Romney, that means moderates will like him.
This misunderstands how the process of attracting independent voters works in a presidential race.
While it's true the swayable moderates don't want to support a candidate they view as an extremist,
they also don't just automatically gravitate towards the most "moderate" candidate.
To the contrary, independent voters tend to be moved by the excitement of the candidate's base
(See John McCain vs. Barack Obama for an example of how this works).
This is how a very conservative candidate like Ronald Reagan could win landslide victories.
He avoided being labeled an extremist as Goldwater was, yet his supporters were incredibly enthusiastic and moderates responded to it.

Let's be perfectly honest; Mitt Romney excites no one except for Mormons, political consultants, and Jennifer Rubin.
To everybody else, Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama is a "lesser of two evils" election where we'll grudgingly back Mitt
because we won't lose as badly with him in the White House as we would with Obama.
That's not the sort of thing that gets anyone fired up to make phone calls, canvass neighborhoods, or even put up "I heart Mitt" signs in their yards.

2) He's a proven political loser: There's a reason Mitt Romney has been able to say that he's "not career politician."
It's because he's not very good at politics.
He lost to Ted Kennedy in 1994.
Although he did win the governorship of Massachussetts in 2002, he did it without cracking 50% of vote.
Worse yet, he left office as the 48th most popular governor in America and would have lost if he had run again in 2006.
Then, to top that off, he failed to capture the GOP nomination in 2008.
This time around, despite having almost every advantage over what many people consider to be a weak field of candidates, Romney is still desperately struggling.
Choosing Romney as the GOP nominee after running up that sort of track record
would be like promoting a first baseman hitting .225 in AAA to the majors.

3) He'll run weak in the Southern States: Barack Obama won North Carolina, Virginia, & Florida in 2008
and you can be sure that Obama will be targeting all three of those states again.
This is a problem for Romney because he would certainly be less likely than either Gingrich or Perry to carry any of those states.
Moderate Northern Republicans have consistently performed poorly in the South and Romney won't be any exception.
That was certainly the case in 2008 when both McCain and Huckabee dominated Romney in primaries across the South.
Mitt didn't win a single primary in a Southern state
and although he finished second in Florida, he wasn't even competitive in North Carolina or Virgina.
Since losing any one of those states could be enough to hand the election to Obama in a close race,
Mitt's weakness there is no small matter.

4) All of Mitt's primary advantages disappear in a general election: It's actually amazing
that Mitt Romney isn't lapping the whole field by 50 points because he has every advantage.
Mitt has been running for President longer than the other contenders.
He has more money and a better organization than the other candidates.
The party establishment and inside the beltway media is firmly in his corner.
That's why the other contenders have been absolutely savaged while Romney,
like John McCain before him, has been allowed to skate through the primaries without receiving serious scrutiny.
Yet, every one of those advantages disappears if he becomes the nominee.
Suddenly Obama will be the more experienced candidate in the race for the presidency.
He will also have more money and a better organization than Mitt.
Moreover, in a general election, the establishment and beltway media will be aligned against Romney, not for him.
Suddenly, Romney will go from getting a free pass to being public enemy #1 for the entire mainstream media.

If you took all those advantages away from Romney in the GOP primary, he'd be fighting with Jon Huntsman for last place.
So, what happens when if he's the nominee and suddenly, all the pillars that have barely kept him propped up in SECOND place so far are suddenly removed?
It may not be pretty.

5) Bain Capital: Mitt Romney became rich working for Bain Capital.
This has been a plus for Romney in the Republican primaries,
where the grassroots tends to be dominated by people who love capitalism and the free market.
However, in a year when Obama will be running a populist campaign and Occupy Wall Street is demonizing the "1%,"
Mitt Romney will be a TAILOR MADE villain for them.
Did you know that Bain Capital gutted companies and made a lot of money, in part, by putting a lot of poor and middle class Americans out-of-work?
Do you know that Bain Capital got a federal bailout and Mitt Romney made lots of money off of it?



“The way the company was rescued was with a federal bailout of $10 million,” the ad says.
“The rest of us had to absorb the loss … Romney?
He and others made $4 million in this deal.
… Mitt Romney: Maybe he’s just against government when it helps working men and women.”

The facts of the Bain & Co. turnaround are a little more complicated,
but a Boston Globe report from 1994 confirms that Bain saw several million dollars in loans forgiven by the FDIC,
which had taken over Bain’s failed creditor, the Bank of New England.


Did you know Ted Kennedy beat Romney in 1994 by hammering Mitt relentlessly on his time at Bain Capital?
The ads write themselves.

They show pictures of dilapidated, long since closed factories.
They trot out scruffy looking workers talking about how bad life has been since Mitt Romney crushed their dreams and cost them their jobs.
Then they show a clip of Mitt making his $10,000 bet and posing with money in his clothes.
All Mitt needs is a monocle and a sniveling Waylon Smithers type character to follow him around
shining his shoes to make him into the prototypical bad guy the Democrats are trying to create.

Now, the point of this isn't to say that what Mitt did at Bain Capital was dishonorable. It certainly wasn't.
To the contrary, as a conservative, I find his work in the private sector to be just about the only thing he has going for him.
But, people should realize that in a general election, Mitt's time at Bain Capital will probably end up
being somewhere between a small asset and a large liability, depending on which side does a better job of defining it.

6) The Mormon Factor: This is a sensitive topic, so I am going to handle it much, much more gently
than Hollywood and the Mainstream Media will if Mitt gets the nomination.
Mormons do believe in Jesus Christ, the Mormon church does a lot of good work,
the one I've met seem to be good people, and two of my best friends are Mormons.
That being said, Mormons are not considered to be a mainstream Christian religion in a large swathes of the country.
There will be protestants who will have deep reservations about voting a Mormon into the White House
because they'll be afraid it will help promote what they believe to be a false religion.
There have also been a number of polls that show that significant numbers of Americans won't vote for a Mormon as President.

Just look at a couple of the more recent polls and consider
how much of an impact this issue could have in a close election.


The poll found 67 percent of Americans want the president to be Christian and 52 percent said they consider Mormons to be Christian.
Twenty-two percent of those polled said they don't think Mormons are Christians and 26 percent are unsure.

"I do believe they are moral people, but again there is a difference between being moral and being saved," Linda Dameron,
an evangelical Republican in Independence, Mo., told the Tribune.




More than 40 percent of Americans would be uncomfortable with a Mormon as president, according to a new survey that also suggests
that as more white evangelical voters have learned White House hopeful Mitt Romney is Mormon, the less they like him.

A survey by the Public Religion Research Institute released late Monday also shows
that nearly half of white evangelical Protestant voters — a key demographic in the Republican primary race
— don’t believe that Mormonism is a Christian faith, and about two-thirds of adults say the LDS faith is somewhat or very different than their own.


You should also keep in mind that if Mitt Romney gets the nomination,
Hollywood and the mainstream media will conduct a vicious, months long hate campaign against the Mormon church.
They will take every opportunity to make Mormons look weird, racist, kooky, scary, and different that they can.
Would this be decisive factor?
I'd like to say no, but by the time all is said and done,
it's very easy to see Romney potentially losing hundreds of thousands of votes across the country because of his religion.

7) He's a flip-flopper. Is it just me or
didn't George Bush beat John Kerry's brains inwith the "flip flopper" charge back in 2004?
So now, just eight years later, the GOP is going to run someone that even our own side agrees is a flip-flopper right out of the gate?
Romney doesn't even handle the charge well.
When Brett Baier at Fox pointed out the obvious, Romney's response was
to get huffy and deny that he was flip flopping, which is kind of like Lady Gaga denying that she likes to get attention.
If Mitt can't even handle run-of-the-mill questions from FOX NEWS about his flip flopping,
what makes anyone think he can deal with the rest of the press in a general election?

There are lot of issues with trying to run a candidate who doesn't seem to have any core principles.
It makes it impossible for his supporters to get excited about him,
because you can't fall in love with a weathervane.
It also makes hard for independents to take anything he says on faith.
Additionally, since politicians tend to be such liars anyway
and you know Romney has no firm beliefs, it's very easy for everyone to assume the worst.
Democrats will assume Romney will be a right wing deathbeast.
Republicans will assume that Romney will screw them over.
Independents won't know what to believe,
which will make the hundreds of millions that Obama will spend on attack ads particularly effective.
Ronald Reagan famously said the GOP needed "a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors."
That's particularly relevant when it comes to Mitt Romney,
who has proven to be a pasty, grey pile of formless mush.

[Yosemitest]

No ... I won't vote for Romney. Let me be clear:

Mitt ... should QUIT!!!

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?

Palin was my first choice
Bachmann is now my first choice, and Cain was my second.
Now ... Newt is my second choice, and I might consider Rick Santorum, third.

But Romney, Perry, Ron Paul, Huntsman, and Johnson are NOT acceptable,
and if on the ballot for the general election for President or V.P., would cause me to do a write in.

There's no way in hell I can compromise my values.

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

[Impy]

I have 2 reasons why Romney could have trouble in the general election.

1)We conservative base voters don’t like him (cause those of us with brains know he’s not a conservative). This could dampen Republican turnout in a year we outta be super-motivated to vote.

2)The Mormon thing. Bias against Mormons exists.

[Diogenesis]

VOTE FOR ROMNEY - America needs a First Dog Abuser.

MITT ROMNEY – ABUSER OF SEAMUS

"But the details of the event are more than unseemly - they may, in fact, be illegal. Massachusetts's animal cruelty laws specifically prohibit anyone from carrying an animal "in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhuman manner or in a way and manner which might endanger the animal carried thereon. "An officer for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals responded to a description of the situation saying "it's definitely something I'd want to check out." The officer, Nadia Branca, declined to give a definitive opinion on whether Romney broke the law but did note that it's against state law to have a dog in an open bed of a pick-up truck, and "if the dog was being carried in a way that endangers it, that would be illegal."

---

"Dog on Roof? What Was It Like for Romney's Pooch? - Scientists Say Dog Likely Experienced Wind-Whipped, Uncomfortable Trip - "Before beginning the drive, Mitt Romney put Seamus, the family's hulking Irish setter, in a dog carrier and attached it to the station wagon's roof rack. e'd built a windshield for the carrier, to make the ride more comfortable for the dog,".. Jordan Kaplan, the owner of Petaholics, a dog walking service in New York City,
and a lifelong dog owner and dog lover, said Romney's actions were uncalled for"

---

"Romney's dog - This is a distinction Mitt Romney probably could do without, but he is surely the first presidential candidate to be attacked for putting a dog with diarrhea in a carrier and tying it to the top of a station wagon. Romney's defense: Seamus liked it. [like the citizens under Romney's RomneyCARE, etc.?] "

---

"As the oldest son, Tagg Romney commandeered the way-back of the wagon, keeping his eyes fixed out the rear window, where he glimpsed the first sign of trouble. ''Dad!'' he yelled. ''Gross!'' A brown liquid was dripping down the back window, payback from an Irish setter who'd been riding on the roof in the wind for hours. As the rest of the boys joined in the howls of disgust, Romney coolly pulled off the highway and into a service station. There, he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, then hopped back onto the highway."

"Story about dog on car roof comes back to bite Romney - 200 comments from readers complaining of animal cruelty"

Romney's bad behavior Exposed by Seamus

"Romney Loses Nomination Over Dog Abuse? - Romney was traveling that summer with his wife, five sons, and Seamus to his parent's cottage on Lake Huron. But hours into the ride, Seamus apparently suffered diarrhea, which ran down the back window of the car. .David Kravitz wrote on BlueMassGroup, a liberal blog. "It also strikes me as classic Romney: it solves a problem efficiently, in a business-like manner, and with no regard whatsoever for the suffering that the solution may cause."

[John Valentine]

Your absurd rants directed at Rick Perry are tiresome in the extreme. Worse, they are simply disingenuous. Perhaps you are a paid Obama operative attempting to sow discord. Who knows?

One thing is for sure; you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to Rick Perry.

[Leep]

I repeat: I will not vote for Romney.

[Yosemitest]

Here's something else to consider, how will Romney (a closet liberal) handle today's problems?
Read this from August 4, 2008.

Topic: Collectivism

A Fabian Socialist Dream Come True

---

The gradual revolution of the Fabian Socialists is quickly becoming a reality in America.
by Republicae (libertarian)
Monday, August 4, 2008

The Fabian Society began in England in 1887 by a very small group of elitist socialist that sought to reform society gradually into one of socialism instead of through violent revolution.
At first their purpose was to be an alternative in Britain for the more dominate Marxist Social-Democratic Federation,
but their true goal was to accomplish socialism through a very gradual process using the voting booth and representative democracy as their instrument of change.
In fact, one of their symbols is a Turtle with the motto:

"When I Strike, I Strike Hard".
Another symbol is the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing and the Globe on an Anvil being hammered into the Fabian model.

The Fabian Plan for gradual Socialist Revolution was as definitive as it possibly could be, to say it has been a conspiracy is simplistic in the extreme.
It instituted a widespread educational program for its leadership and its minions,
as time progressed, it opened schools, such as the London School of Economics, and the New School of Social Research.

One stroke of genius was that instead of advocating a Socialist State, they assisted in the implementation of the Welfare State,
which as we should all know is merely a few steps away from a purely Socialistic State.
It was, of course, implemented gradually, and played upon the weaknesses of human nature to gain popularity.
Unlike the usual Socialist points of views, the Fabians didn't advocate complete State ownership of businesses, industry, agriculture or land,
instead they sought to involve the State into very specific areas of importance
such as electric power production, transportation, precious metals and of course, credit.
The remaining balance of economic systems would be left to the private sector however;
it would be highly regulated by the State and operated according to the wishes of the State.

If you look at Britain, you will see that they accomplished their goals with ease
and while American has been more difficult, the goals are the same
and they have made enormous advances toward those goals, as we all know.
Much of their accomplishments have been realized without using that dreaded word: Socialism.
They have brought the Fabian Dream to America through an extremely brilliant system that has been openly accepted by the voters of this country
without the hint of suspicion on their part that they were voting a Socialistic system into place.

Now, make no mistake about it, Fabian Socialists are Statist, they are absolutely authoritarian in their philosophy.
Their long-term goal has always been a Socialistic Dictatorship with full-imposition of a very legalistic society where the individual is simply a part of the collective.
An example of this can be found in the writings of one of the founders of the Fabian Society, George Bernard Shaw
speaking of the Socialist Utopia, he said:
"Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor.
You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not.
If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble,
you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner;
but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well."

Of course, all of this would be in the best interest of society as a whole and the whole made up simply of parts,

individuals merely cogs in the machine of social justice.
This idea of social justice is the biggest selling point and perhaps the easiest to peddle to the people.
Programs of social reform, incremental at first, allowed for the tempering of the people;
allowing for them to grow accustom to the intervention of the State in the affairs of the individual.
Of course, such reforms are never an end unto themselves
only stepping-stones to a greater Socialist construct of society.

Regarding the great strides made toward these goals, Max Beer stated with confidence:
"There was no reason for Socialists to wait for revolution.
The realization of socialism had begun the moment when the State became accessible to social reform ideas."
Indeed, the revolution was already half realized at the moment when the State stepped over the threshold of progressive social construction
and intervention into the private lives of the people.

The first step in any Socialist plan is the reform of capitalism,
when the capitalist system is sufficiently neutralized the rest comes relatively easy.
The first step to an efficient plan of capitalist neutralization is control over the money supply
and for that a central bank is required along with a fiat monetary system,
in this country that was initiated with the advent of the Federal Reserve.
Later, of course must come effective controls over major infrastructure and services,
all accomplished through the New Deal.
The New Deal accomplished substantial feats toward the Fabian Socialist construct
with numerous price controls, quotas, subsidies, inspections, regulations, licenses, fees, penalties
and massive government interventions into what was formerly private enterprise.
Although you would never hear politicians of either political party to admit to support the ideals of socialism,
they nevertheless not only support such measures, but also promote them.

We have recently seen a greater push toward socialism, though few realize it.
The government is assuming more and more responsibility for and authority over the economy,
all under the guise of protecting the people from potentially unscrupulous free marketeers.
We are being moved yet another step closer to the dream-society of the Fabians.
Of course, these are simply steps, essential parts to a much broader agenda,
one that is authoritarian in nature and execution, even the centrally planned economy is a mere step, not the end product.
It is all carefully crafted, manufactured to ensure the most popular support possible for "people-friendly" solutions
while instituting a fraudulent system of central control over the unsuspecting public.
The system has been marketed to the public, one specific component at a time,
each component essential to the completion of the whole
and that is the brilliance of this gradual imposition of Fabian Socialism in this country.

The greatest bulwark against tyranny in America has always been the system of private ownership and free enterprise,
it is the cornerstone of our system of government
and without it our freedoms and liberty are in jeopardy.

Central economic planning is, in a very basic sense, the keystone to Fabian Socialism,
for in order for it to succeed, central State planning and control must replace the system of free enterprise.
While it was not necessary for the State to actually own or directly control all the elements in the economy
it is enough for the State to have the right to assert itself in any area that it deems necessary.
The Fabians called it "the democratization of economic power", in other words socialized and centralized control over economic direction within the country.

In 1942, Stuart Chase, in his book "The Road We Are Traveling" [link to 82.795 MB pdf copy of book] spelled out the system of planning the Fabians had in mind;
the interesting thing is to look at that plan in comparison to 2008 America.


1. Strong, centralized government.

2. Powerful Executive at the expense of Congress and the Judicial.

3. Government controlled banking, credit and securities exchange.

4. Government control over employment.

5. Unemployment insurance, old age pensions.

6. Universal medical care, food and housing programs.

7. Access to unlimited government borrowing.

8. A managed monetary system.

9. Government control over foreign trade.

10. Government control over natural energy sources, transportation and agricultural production.

11. Government regulation of labor.

12. Youth camps devoted to health discipline, community service and ideological teaching consistent with those of the authorities.

13. Heavy progressive taxation.

It should be evident that while Socialist no longer use the name that the plan is Socialism at its heart.
The Fabian Socialist Revolution began in earnest in this country in 1933 with the imposition of the Welfare State and has been steadily progressing since.
Those who are promoting this system, whether in the Republican Party or Democratic Party, are nothing less than Traitors,
guilty of a type of high treason that deserves the most punitive penalty for such treachery.
Listen carefully to the propositions of both McCain and Obama;
I suspect that you will quickly find both of their positions are not only similar,
but propose in essence and detail the Fabian Socialist construct.
The system that these marauders are imposing upon us will ultimately alter our system of government beyond recognition.

It is all accomplished with the utmost respectability of course,
they would not dream of such an imposition without popular support
and they will make sure that they have popular support.

In 1933, they proposed that private enterprise had failed
leaving the jobless to starve,
hope to fade
and that the State must step in to save the country
and protect the people from the dangers associated with the inherent problems of free enterprise.
Today, the call is very similar, the State must step in to protect the people.
The Corporate State is, in the minds of Fabians, the ultimate protector of the common man, the provider of security on all fronts,
but it requires our complete compliance and the relinquishment of our liberty in exchange.
The State is to ultimately be the only one allowed wealth,
the problem is that wealth is the people's wealth confiscated in exchange for their hard labor.
It is, in essence, a plan for a modern feudal society of peonage
and the people are the peons.

Proofs of a Conspiracy?
Look around...

In Liberty and Eternal Vigilance,
Republicae-Seditionist

Wake up people! Look what the Democrats have done!i

[Diogenesis]

VOTE FOR ROMNEY - Romney is SMARTER than any Constitution.

Note Romney’s use of improper executive authority to defy the OLDEST Constitution in the USA.

"Experts: Credit Romney for homosexual marriage"
"What he (Governor Bishop Mitt Romney) did was exercise illegal legislative authority'

"While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims he did everything possible to throttle homosexual marriage in his state – his campaign now saying he took "every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" – several constitutional experts say that just isn't so.

"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."

Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School. He also worked with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ...

Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering same-sex couples.

Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the nation. And Titus agrees."

"....But the court's decision conflicts with the constitutional philosophy of three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial, Titus said. It also violates with the Massachusetts Constitution, which states: "The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."

And it cannot even be derived from the opinion itself, asserts the pro-family activist group Mass Resistance, which says the decision did four things:

* First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.

"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."

* Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)

"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."

* Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.

"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."

* And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."

"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."

After the Legislature did nothing during the 180 days, Romney then took action "on his own," the group said.

"Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or 'face personal liability' or be fired," the group said."

[Caipirabob]

2)The Mormon thing. Bias against Mormons exists.

I never had any bias against Mormons. They, however, excluded me at a time when I needed to establish my family and find a stable group of scouts for my son. There was a group of scouts that met weekly right next to our home. I contacted the group and over a period of several conversations they finally stated "You want to find another group."

I did, a "normal" group was meeting a block further once I finally located them. OTOH, no help from the former group in finding them. They just didn't want a non-mormon to attend their group.

So they are an exclusive branch of the scouts, but fully affiliated with the Boy Scouts?

Whatever...it really pissed me off to be brushed off like that.

Oh, and FUMR! Because you're socialist, sure, there are other reasons, like being a yankee elitist, but mostly because you're a socialist.

[Lady Lucky]

We must not swallow this poison pill. He’s Mike Dukakis, if not Kitty.
He would be Mitt Dukakis in the general election.
If not Mitt McGovern!

[Lady Lucky]

Mitt ... should QUIT!!!

The love don't fit!

[Lady Lucky]

Pains me even to think about it, but if Romney is the party pick, I may have to sit out the election or write in a name from the Mass. phone book per Buckley.
Might bring the book to the polls in protest. Liberty Bell meets Ma Bell.

[Dick Vomer]

Number one reason

[vanilla swirl]

” Pains me even to think about it,but if Romney is the party pick,I may have to sit out the election or write in a name from the Mass. phone book per Buckley.”

I feel the same way. Palin and Cain were ran out of town on a rail and lynched. Looks like the kook Rupaul might win Iowa. This election cycle has been totaly raped by “the powers that be”.

Getting ready for another 4 years of the Antichrist =/

[kalee]

Perry, Gingrich, Santorum. Doesn’t matter though because NC’s primary is so late, Mitt will be the annointed one before we even get to vote.

[Sola Veritas]

I agree with you. I WILL NOT vote for Romney in a general election. I will stay home, or leave the POTUS portion of the ballot blank. I have never done this before. I have voted in every POTUS election since 1976...and always for the Republican.

[Ex-Democrat Dean]

But Romney, Perry, Ron Paul, Huntsman, and Johnson are NOT acceptable,
and if on the ballot for the general election for President or V.P., would cause me to do a write in.
**************************************************

I don’t like Romney either, but my country or a overblown notion of my worth, I’ll vote for Romney.

[Yosemitest]

You might (vote for Romney) continue to be a puppet for the "Establishment Republicans" ...

BUT I WON'T!!!

[Yosemitest]

Look, Rush said it best....

Now, the fact that the Republican establishment cannot make that case and other arguments
tells me that they may have already surrendered,
and this is a big difference between us and the establishment.
They're in this defensive posture, I've told you,
I said on Greta how many times, a lot of people inside the Republican establishment secretly don't even believe Obama can be beaten.
And that's why they want Romney,
'cause they think at least Romney will help 'em take the Senate.
He'll lose less down the ballot than Gingrich or some conservative will.
But conservatives, you Tea Party activists, you don't want to give up
and you haven't given up,
and you don't want to accept this propaganda from the left.
We insist on challenging it, we insist on fighting it
'cause there's no other way to save the country,
and continually playing these games
letting the Democrats rewrite the language, change the definition of things,
get away with false accusations against us, never do anything about it,
constantly stay on defense.

[Ex-Democrat Dean]

Rush and Mark Levin both say that they will fight against Romney, but when it comes to nut crackin’ time, they would vote for Romney to save our country from another four years of Obama. You have to know that a write in is just another vote for Obama.

[xzins]

Did you know that Romney didn’t use “good old-fashioned capitalism” to make money at Bain Capital.

He manipulated bankruptcy laws by taking over companies as a holding company, borrowing tremendous sums of money through the acquired company, having Bain syphon off millions in fees, and then allowing the purchased company to go bankrupt to pay pennies on the dollar to stiffed creditors.

That’s not “the free market system”. It’s the insider “manipulated market system”.