I was a Reagan Texas Democrat who became a Republican. I was a Republican that was disillusion with W’s bailout of the banks. I was a man with no party until the Tea Party exploded on the scene. In short I’ve been a right winger even when it’s not cool. After fluctuating between Gringrich and Romney for weeks, I have decided to go with Mitt Romney.
As Marco Rubio said, "Mitt Romney is no Charlie Crist. Romney is a conservative. and he was one of the first national Republican leaders to endorse me. He came to Florida, campaigned hard for me, and made a real difference in my race."
Mitt has been a flip-flopping to the right for near a decade while Recently, Newt Gringrich has been running off the reservation more and more. When Obama and Democrats were blasting Paul’s Ryan Roadmap, Newt gave them cover by calling it wrong right wing social engineering and Mitt Romney stood with the House Republicans. Another example is Climate change. In 2004 Romney was arguing for a regional northeast cap and trade pact and by 2005 he pulled Massachusetts out of the pact saying it was the right thing to do. Newt Gringrich went from global climate skeptic to 2008 Pelosi Partner in cap and trade. My point is that positions change over time and Mitt has become a stronger conservative while Newt has gone from a staunch conservative to an erratic conservative.
Vulture Capitalist verses Influence Peddler. I looked into Bain and Mitt’s record is impressive. He started out an entry level consultant and rose to executive at Bain Consulting. He was so well thought of that when he wanted to start his own business, Bain wanted to partner with him. Bain Capital was born and the company specialized in making money by turning around companies. No one has produce a venture where Bain bought a company to liquidate for the cash. Even most of Romney failures produce companies that survived bankruptcy and still operate today. I have no problem defending his work at Bain. I wish I could say the same of Newt’s work with Freddie. I’m sure that under the Obama definition of lobbying Gringrich and myself can argue he wasn’t a lobbyist but I might need a shower or two afterwards.
Finally, Readiness and Competency to run a national campaign. It is no surprise to me that Romney had all his boxes checked. National Organization check. Well funded Super Pac check. Campaign theme check. It has shocked me at Gringrich ill preparedness. No super pac until after he had been destroyed by one (and it’s not that well funded). No national organization (He isn’t on the ballot in Missouri or Virginia. Campiagn Theme (Lincoln-Douglas Debate with Obama won’t work if you can debate without a crowd of roaring supporters). In short as I looked at the two candidates, Gringrich was the candidate of nostalgia and Romney the future.
In conclusion we have 4 candidates that represent large swaths of the conservative movment and I will support whoever the nominee. I think that Romney and Gringrich have strengthed each another. Romney has gotten Gringrich up to speed in campaign with outside support and Gringrich has taught Romney how to take a shot and give one in return. As for me I’m voting and endorsing Romney in the Primary
don't even put those words together at the same time
Romney, Tea Party, and endorsement
or my head will explode!
Romney will govern from the middle, tap dancing on top of the fence!
Actually, I'm surprised that your article was approved with that title...rather disappointing...
Glad. Your head didn't explode and hope you will consider that the reason none of these candidates truly leap is they all have deficiency in their conservative bonifides. Romney has a lot of positives and is a conservative. I don't think beating Obama will come from shrinking the base of conservatives but coalescing around one. For me it is 1. Romney 2. Gringrich 3. Paul or Santorum (I haven't decided which I like best)
Does it not matter to you that Romney was once a liberal dem and ObamaCare was modeled after RomneyCare? This is something that Romney still defends! I'd say that means he's still a lib.
1. I agree he defends it too much and should point out the flaws in Romneycare but Mitt Romney is not running to put romneycare or implement obamacare. He is running to REPEAL Obamacare and Romney did argue against Obamacare passage. Isn't this the position of all the candidates.
2. Romneycare was at its time truly the conservative alternate. While we were debating truly socializing Healthcare (Hillarycare), several conservatives (Like Newt) were arguing that to make healthcare market you had to have an individual mandate with a subsidisy for the poor to create large enough pools to spread the risk. Romneycare was the conservative alternate to socialize medicine. when it was passed.
3. Look at both platforms of the campaign:
http://www.newt.org/solutions/healthcare: Newt keeps the subsidy for health care. Notice number 1 gives a generous tax credit.
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care Mitt only offers a deduction for health care purchase.
In some ways Mitt is to the right of Newt. Newt will have Medicare reimburse for preferred treatment care.
My point is both candidates believed in Individual mandates and both don't now. Each would repeal obamacare and reform very similar. One (Newt) calls for more government spending into medical research.
How does this make Mitt a Liberal???
Don't think Newt was endorsing the plan! I think he was pointing out a defect in it!
Here's a question for a question:
How can Mitt challenge ObamaCare in a debate with Obama?
Simple.. What he has said is this:
"Our next president must repeal Obamacare and replace it with market-based reforms that empower states and individuals and reduce health care costs. States and private markets, not the federal government, hold the key to improving our health care system."
He can make a 10th admendment argument. I don't get how Romney care disqualifies him from disagreeing with Obamacare.
While we are talking questons that candidates will have to answer. The question I think Newt will have a huge problem with is.
"How can you tell the American People that it is fair that Warren Buffett and Mitt Romney would be exempt from paying taxes??"
Newt has proposed eliminating the capital gains taxes. Look at number 2. For the vast majority of the super wealthy, it would mean no taxes at all. As a matter of Fact Romney probably would have gotten a tax refund. In 2010 because of the large charitable giving.
You add that stance with his historian activities with freddie mac and Team Obama gobbles Newt up and spits the bones out before the first debate.
I have absolutely no faith in Romney's intention
to sign any bill that completely repeals ObamaCare.
He gives no indication that he would sign the bill.
His words cancel each other in my view!
Dude, both plans are socialized medicine!
I have no problem with eliminating that tax if it comes
with a law requiring that what is earned in America
stays in America.
Would you not use the current rules to your advantage?
I have no problem with Newt's work as a consultant.
At least he worked for his money!