Youngstown, Ohio — Mitt Romney’s town hall here on Monday afternoon reflected his campaign. It was tightly controlled, expertly managed, and packed with boisterous supporters. But accompanying that well-oiled machine was a hint of skepticism about Romney’s conservative politics.
As he fielded questions from the senior citizens and college students who sat in folding chairs on a steel-factory floor, Romney was twice asked about health care. One elderly woman wanted to know — to really know — whether he would repeal President Obama’s federal health-care law. “I need an emphatic ‘yes’ from you that you will repeal Obamacare,” she demanded.
“Why would I not?” Romney asked.
Advertisement
Another middle-aged woman, a self-proclaimed Romney fan who clasped the former governor’s latest paperback as she spoke, wanted him to better explain the difference between Obamacare and Romney’s program in Massachusetts. She expressed exasperation about not knowing how to tell family and friends about the big differences. She wanted some sales tips.
“I want to know how I can answer the doubters,” she said.
Romney greeted both of these questions with an easy chuckle, but the underlying exasperation was evident in his responses. This late in the primary game — only six months until Tampa — and here he was, once again, explaining to conservatives that he was not a Trojan horse for Bay State liberalism; that he was, if you just looked at the facts, one of them.
“Our plan dealt with the 8 percent of people in my state who didn’t have insurance,” Romney told the woman who held No Apology, his book. “Obamacare dealt with 100 percent of people. It took over health care for everyone.” He promised that if he won the GOP nomination, he’d fight hard this fall to make the repeal case. “I can’t wait to have this debate,” he said.
But Romney wasn’t itching to have a lengthy health-care discussion on the eve of Super Tuesday, when ten states, including Ohio, will hold primaries. His opening remarks were focused on the economy, his tax plan, and his support for manufacturing. Repealing Obamacare, he noted during the question-and-answer period, was a position he settled on long ago.
Romney added that his Massachusetts experience should not be viewed with suspicion by fellow Republicans; he urged them to see it as a general-election asset. “I’m happy to say, ‘Mr. President, all of the people in my state are insured; I did that without raising taxes,’” he told the crowd.
But the confusion among conservatives, even his die-hard supporters, remains, at least in eastern Ohio. The exchanges highlighted Romney’s key weakness this cycle — even as he surges ahead, scooping up primary victories, the former governor seems to be besting lesser opponents on the electability question, not necessarily winning over converts to his cause.
I believe his economic message is weak, platitudinous, lacking specifics.It will not suffice in the reality of the challenges faced by the spend and debt hole that we have dug for ourselves. Good man, but way over his competence to deliver the solutions we need now. I really don't care about the political maneuvering, press pontificating. his economic message is redux. And that is a failure
If Romney is the nominee how are we going to compete against Obama? Let's see, we would have a guy who graduated valedictorian of his college class, was a Christian missionary to France for two years, graduated with a dual degree from Harvard with an MBA and Harvard Law degree, gave away his entire large inheritance to charity, was a Governor of a State, head of the Olympics and given credit from turning it around from a major financial loser to a success, appears to be a wonderful family man, and last but not least, he made over $250 million dollars being a Capitalist.
How could we compete against Obama with a man like this?
Oh I forgot, especially after reading Robert Costa's numerous stories where class warfare is the norm, when writing about Santorum and Romney.
This is the Age of the Common Man - we don't want the Extraordinary, they make us feel bad and hurt our self-esteem.
I have thought since 2008 that we would win this election fairly easily as long as we avoided nominating Mitt Romney. He has lots of big negatives: Romneycare, conveniently changing positions on a host of issues when he switched electorates, his phony plastic persona, a weak record of electoral success - winning only a single term and skipping the re-election effort to avoid a loss, being a member of a religious group that is likely to scare off the very "squeamish about the religious right" independents he's supposed to be able to win.
On the plus side, . . . I haven't noticed anything. At least Dole and McCain were war heroes whose infuriating episodes of "crossing the aisle" were somewhat balanced by other times when they had fought hard for conservative issues. All Romney has is a ton of money and endorsers who apparently prefer to be on the winning side in a primary over helping pick a candidate who can actually win and advance conservative values. I see a vote for Romney as effectively a vote for Obama because I do not see a path for a Romney victory unless the economy dives again this summer. It is certainly a vote for Obamacare because Romney cannot make the key arguments against it.
And those "war heroes" Dole and McCain got creamed. Two of the most useless GOP nominations in generations.
We get it that Romney is not a "movement conservative". Yet he is more "conservative" than "go along to get along" Dole ever was, and more conservative than the still irrational John "I'm going to suspend my campaign to rush to DC to help bail out the banks" McCain will ever be.
Now *that* is funny. Romney is precisely the essential go along to get along type. He would make Dole blush on that score. Just look at the preposterous rationalizations and defenses of Romneycare we are supposed to be swallowing like dopes. (I especially loved the, "it was a liberal state, what could I do" defense. There's some leadership for you, as if its limits were not obvious right there in the affectless personality.) Not to mention what really happened with "gay marriage" in Massachusetts or the truth about his shifting positions on abortion.
And the only thing that Romney has over McCain is that McCain has already lost his presidential election. Aside from that category there's not enough difference to care about (except that the last time out the primary voters thought that there was a marked difference and went with McCain as the known unwanted candidate over the unknown unwanted candidate).
On what basis do you see Romney as being more conservative than McCain or Dole? His record is well to their left - both of them had lifetime voting records roughly in the middle of the Senate GOP, but Romney's campaigns in Mass. promised to be more similar to northeast liberals on the leftmost edge of the GOP. His principal accomplishment as governor was enacting the model for Obamacare.
Sure Romney talks more conservative now that he is running for President, but so did McCain & Dole. I agree McCain and Dole were terrible candidates who got creamed in otherwise winnable elections, and expect Romney would do the same. Romney is terrible for the same reasons as McCain & Dole, but at least they had some redeeming qualities - great personal stories and some real conservative victories. Romney has nothing to offer except for not being conservative and not being Obama.
(And as you can see from the thrust of my other commentary... I DETEST MITT ROMNEY!)
(*GRIN*)
Dole?
Mr. Archer Daniels Midland?
(*SNORT*)
He's not even relevant to this discussion.
Look... folks... there's a reason Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Art Laffer, Michael Reagan, the late Tony Blankley, the New Hampshire Union Leader, and other straight up conservatives have bucked the GOP Establishment leadership and gone with Newt Gingrich.
(*SHRUG*)
Again... I'll vote for Romney if he's the nominee!
I'll vote for Santorum if he's the nominee!
But if we want a candidate who can give us hope... engender enthusiasm... kick the living "you know what" out of liberal journalists as well as Barack Hussein Obama in one-on-one debates...
(*SHRUG*)
Newt Gingrich is clearly the best choice of a "champion" in this coming battle between conservatives and liberals for the future of America over the next four years.
We clearly look at this candidate from two different poles altogether. I highly disagree with your conclusions.
Mitt Romney from the very beginning has been seriously mischaracterized by the Democrats, the liberal media and the press. Understandably, seeing that he is the candidate they don't want to go up against in the Fall. Same exercise they succesfully ran in 2008.
American voters need to mature a little bit. Google "operation hilarity" and realize that bilions are being spent in Ohio right now by Big Labor Unions bent on getting union activists and Democratic liberals and socialists to subvert the vote for Santorum (same thing they did w/ McCain in '08 - can't believe voters are still not awake!)
Fact is Mitt Romney he has been stalwart on conservative principles as Gov of Mass and in his career and private life. He vetoed over 800 pieces of legislature seeking to advance or expand abortion rights. He is pro-family, anti gay-marriage, for more responsibility and smaller and smarter government, pro-string national defense and even stronger on growth and the economy. He lowered taxes (he did increase state fees but that was because the cost for state's good and services where being subsidized with tax money. So he increased the fees that put the onus of the cost back where it belonged - makes sense!) and got rid of the debt and created a surplus that he wanted to return to the taxpayers of Mass and it was their State legislature that decided against it.
While you're busy judging his character - you might consider that he did all of that without any pay from the State of Massachussetts. That's right - he took no money as Governor of Massachusetts. He also took no money for being rehired as CEO of the Bain Companies (not Bain Capital Investments) to keep them from bankruptcy. He did that for an annual salary of $1 annually. He also took no money or expense account for 3 years for his work turning around the SL 2002 Winter Olympics. The most successful in Olympic history and the only one ever to generate a profit.
To be clear - this is a real man. A men of honest distinction. A man of real impeccable (that is sinless in every way) character. We are extremely lucky to have him!
Mitt Romney is without a doubt the absolute best candidate we've had in decades and our very best choice for the GOP nomination - by far.
As Andrew Breitbart said, it is time to rally behind the one candidate that will represent us.
That candidate is Mitt Romney and the time is right now.
The longer we prolong this process, the more we deplete his campaign chest he needs to defeat Obama. The more we equip Obama against Mitt Romney.
We need to get past ourselves and onto what's really...best for America!!
Vote Mitt Romney 2012!
The time is now!! Don't wait... vote Mitt Romney today! It is time to act!!!
How much of your screed came right off the Romney website?
Are you a paid volunteer or only a sign-up volunteer for the campaign?
Hey... either way... it doesn't make you a bad person.
I'm just trying to get the point across to you and the other Romneybots who have obviously gotten "the call" to flood this comment space that the sheer volume of "form rhetoric" is more likely to turn off on the fence Republicans than it is to make them say, "oh... thank God... the Romneybots have opened my eyes!"
(*CHUCKLE*)
You folks might wanna at least make the "organized effort" look less... er... organized. Right now it's coming across more as a mockery of the Romney campaign style than it is real people typing away with real passion.
As a person who sympathized with the Tea Party, Mitt does not appeal to me. Your publication has been solidly in his corner. Newt is the Tea Party lion...with warts for sure. He is the Samson who's jawbone can defeat the modern philistines or neo-intelligentsia who promote infanticide (Dagon it). Newt is the visionary to lead us through the second decade of the 21st century. Mitt nor Rick nor Paul will take us to the promised land...the White House..
Mitt is a loser. He will lose Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana. He will lose his 'home states' of Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire and Conneticut.
Mitt is a loser. He will bring down Republican Constables, School board members, Sheriffs and state representatives. The Republican Party will be CRUSHED IN 2012
Follow
