At a time when the majority of Americans have sensibly moved away from belief in anthropic global warming, Mitt Romney re-affirms his belief in it.
At a time when ethanol subsidies have come to represent the worst in government wasting taxpayer dollars on special interest boondoggles, Mitt Romney says he supports ethanol subsidies.
And at a time when unions are rightly having to give back some of the over-the-top benefits they have gamed from taxpayers, Mitt Romney is out there praising unions.
ROMNEY: Unions have played a very important role historically in balancing, in some cases, the egregious actions of some employers and — and have been important to the development of our economy. And there are some unions that continue to — to train their workers effectively, their union members effectively.
At any other moment, such a statement would probably pass by without raising a fuss. But now, when even Democrats in deep blue states are having to roll the unions’ power back, and Big Labor owns the Obama White House, and is killing jobs in South Carolina via the NLRB while threatening state right-to-work laws? Now isn’t the time to go around praising unions.
I supported Romney in 2008, but he is sporting a titanium-plated tin ear this year.
To those who follow Rasmussen Polls, Romney is a part of the ruling elite, termed the ‘political class’ by Rasmussen. Those members are insulated from the people, they are an inner clique who attended one of a dozen universities, believe government knows better than the people, gain financially regardless of what happens to the voters, and don’t hesitate to do what is necessary to gain and maintain power. Is that what the American public really wants? Rasmussen states that the dis-connect between the governed and the political class is as great now as when we broke away from King George. After Bush II, one would think the Republican Party would re-think its supposed platform of limited government and either admit the truth or return to principles they say they believe.
Mittens knows exactly what he is doing. He is going for the unhappy Democrat vote. He knows he cannot get the Conservative base vote, and cannot get the Tea Party vote, but he can get the Dems and Indies to vote for him in NH (open Primaries in NH). They know a Repub will win, so he’s offering himself to them as the least bad Repub.
He knows if he cannot win in NH, he cannot win. He absolutely MUST win in NH. McCain came from behind to beat him there, and won the nomination. Mittens is not willing to let that happen again.
It’s not like he can move to the Right and convince Conservatives to vote for him. He has no chance in IA and he knows it. Conservatives did not like him last time, either, so why should he court their votes? He’s going for the everyone-but-Conservatives strategy. Lord knows, he has the support of the moderates. They are why he is polling as high as he is.
Bachmann would be smoking him right now, if it were not for so many folks splitting the Conservative vote (Cain, Santorum, Pawlenty). If all were to drop out, leaving just one to be the Conservatives’ candidate, it would all be over tomorrow. Romney would still poll at 38%. Paul would get his 10%. The Conservative would get 50+%, and that lead would only grow, as folks jump onto the winning team’s bandwagon.
That’s why he’ll be toast when Sarah Palin enters the race. PALIN/RUBIO 2012!!!Go Sarah! Go Marco!
I think it’s a curse on Republicans.
They are only good candidates the first time around. When they go out as retreads, they only manage to screw up so thoroughly they make the Democrats look good. I’m glaring at you McCain!
Of course I wasn’t thrilled with Romney the first time around anyway. Still, he seems determined to be unelectable this time around.
Romney is the Conservative most likely to win the Republican nomination. Once in office, he, like Eisenhower, Nixon, et.al., will conserve the bold advances of their Democrat predecessors.
V. good analysis of GWRomney, another Rockyfellar Repub…at least Romney will have the much desired FrumFrum voters.
Romney and Huntsman are (pretty obviously) the two nearest approximations to Eisenhower in the present crop of Republican candidates.
As to whether Eisenhower was an excellent versus a deplorable Republican president, there is (obviously) a considerable variation in opinion here on PJM/Tatler.
Is a deplorable Republican who wins better than an excellent Republican who loses? Regarding this too there is a considerable variation in opinion.
As for me, I end up mainly voting to block ideologues, carpetbaggers, monomaniacs, and narcissists … regrettably, such candidates are seldom in short supply in either party.
Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System. That’s an accomplishment, a big one.
Eisenhower and Reagan both invested heavily in technology.
The Eisenhower administration’s missile and space space program was scientifically sound … and meshed beautifully with Eisenhower’s investment in computers and electronics. Whereas Reagan’s Star Wars program was scientifically unsound … and never meshed with any other sector of the economy at all.
That is a major reason why historians—both conservative and liberal—consistently rank Eisenhower higher than Reagan. Because presidents who get the science-and-engineering right are better for America than presidents who get the ideology right.
Then again, SDI did manage to end the Cold War. It may have been scientifically unsound, but the Soviets were afraid enough to spend themselves into bankruptcy.
Hmmm … is today’s defense budget smaller as a fraction of GDP than under Reagan’s administration? … are median American family incomes higher?
The answer is “No” to both questions?
That’s why historians rank Reagan lower than Eisenhower.