There is now a group dedicated to making sure Mitt Romney does not win the GOP nomination. From the group’s op-ed in the Des Moines Register:
Mitt Romney is an honorable person. But he is not a conservative. His record over many decades is unquestionably moderate, and although he may be saying many good things now, we cannot trust that he will be a conservative in the White House.
Today we are launching a website www.NotMittRomney.com, with an online organizing petition, for the silent majority of American conservatives who remain unenthused, demoralized and depressed about the prospect of Republican nominee Mitt Romney and even President Romney.
Half measures are not what America needs at the present moment of extreme peril. One can turn to recent polling, Romney allies’ favorite evidence of a mandate, to discover that Romney’s strengths quickly are becoming his weaknesses.
This and his inability to break the standard frontrunner’s 30 percent, show that there is a growing national consensus: We don’t have an inevitable nominee. However, if Mitt Romney wins Iowa, he may become the inevitable nominee overnight.
Romney is campaigning in Iowa today. Speculation is that he may, after months of mostly ignoring the state, decide to make a serious play there.
Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
Who fits more the definition of a nihilist?
a: Flip flopper Romney who will say at the moment what it takes to get elected and his minions who do care how Romney will govern just as long a person with a R besides his name wins.
b: Principled conservatives who understand what it means to be a conservative and finds Romney falling unacceptably short.
Yes, they most certainly are. Most Americans, including myself, are totally fed up with the foaming-at-the-mouth ideologues on BOTH sides of the aisle!!!
I personally find the likes of Mark Levin and Ann Coulter to be every bit as distasteful as Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews.
The 80% of the population that is neither far left nor far right is looking for a moderate president who can forge sensible solutions acceptable to a majority of both parties, even if the fringes of neither party will like it.
Full disclosure - I am a Mitt Romney supporter. We do need to disassemble much of what Obama has put together and probably some of Bush and Clinton. But - unless we do it carefully, we can make a bigger mess than the mess we are in. We need Romney's brilliant mind and understanding of money and capitalism. That said, in a situation with less peril, I would be for a more libertarian candidate.
First of all, the editorial writers wildly overestimate the importance of Iowa (cf. President Huckabee).
Second, they waste all those words re-hashing what is known about Romney -- that he has changed positions on issues like abortion -- without making a case for which "conservative" candidate that is actually running can win the nomination and beat Obama. (As an aside, one would think that conservatives would be pleased with a candidate who has become more conservative over time. But no.)
Third, the country is in serious financial trouble. We need a guy who understands that and knows how to fix it. As amply demonstrated in the private sector, the 2002 Olympics, and in Massachusetts, Romney does know how to turn around flailing enterprises. His economic policy speech last week was spot on. We cannot afford 4 more years of Obama.
I don't trust a word out of Romney's mouth. Not a word. He is the exemplification of the politician that will say whatever to whomever to get the result he wants. I like that quality in politicians - when they are on the other side. It always catches up to them.
I will not support a double-talking squish who is so driven to power that truth and principle means nothing.
As far as how that makes Mitt feel? Well, I'll defer to Radiohead with this paraphrase:
"He did it to himself, it's true, and that's what really hurts.
He could have been a straight talker, but chose poorly and decided not to. If he had been honest all along, he might have had a decent shot at challenging Obama for the Democrat primary.
In what sense did Mitt Romney "turn around" the failing enterprise that is Massachusetts? In what sense does his record as governor suggest that Romney is equipped to address this country's fiscal crisis?
"As an aside, one would think that conservatives would be pleased with a candidate who has become more conservative over time. But no."
A candidate who has "become" more conservative, maybe, but not one who has merely SEEMED more conservative. There's little evidence that Romney is a conservative of conviction rather than a conservative by convenience -- that his transformation is due to anything more than a desire to win the nomination.
When Romney entered office in MA, he faced a $650 million shortfall and a projected $3 billion deficit for the following year. By the time he left, the state had a $600–700 million surplus. I consider that a turnaround of a flailing enterprise.
And I actually think there is evidence that Romney has become more conservative, certainly on the pro-life front, based on the embryonic stem cell issue. Look at how he handled that issue as governor (earning the wrath of NARAL along the way).
He's not perfect on every issue. But he's the best who is running this year. Deal with it.
I believe his signature policy, health care, resulted in a program that still hasn't approached the estimates in terms of costs.
And, on abortion, he insinuated to the state's pro-abortion voters that they needed a Rpublican like him on the national scene, presumably not to fight valiantly for the rights of the unborn.
I think that all of the candidates are quite flawed, but the conclusion that Romney's the least flawed can only be drawn if philosophical convictions aren't very high on the priority list.
About Romney's qualifications, your suggestion (demand?) to "deal with it" is hardly the best way to persuade people, particularly those who are willing to stand athwart what is presented as the inexorable force of History.
I don't really wish to defend Romneycare, but at least be honest and admit that the MA health care plan was not designed to lower costs (one of its biggest flaws, in my opinion). It was designed to get insurance coverage for nearly everyone without raising taxes, and by that measure it has been a success. The Boston Globe reported earlier this year that a poll by the Harvard School of Public Health and the Globe found that 63 percent of Massachusetts residents support the program.
On the pro-life issue, look at how he actually governed, not on what somebody said he "insinuated."
I happen to think that of the candidates running, Romney is the least flawed and also possesses the most relevant experience to deal with the fiscal crises we are facing. If you can't accept that, then make the case for the candidate you think is superior.
That's what I meant by "deal with it." There's a whole group of "not Mitt Romney" folks who can't seem to articulate who they are for, only who they are against.
As one of the 62% and 69% in Mass., I have to say that the "Johnny Don't" line is one of the funniest things I've read in a while. You're like a conservative Jon Stewart.
Since you insist on being obtuse, the point is that the MA health care program appeals to a majority of MA citizens. And the plan achieved its main goal which was to get health insurance for just about every citizen without raising taxes.
These anti-Romney nihilists have delusions of grandeur!
They won't be able to stop Romney from easily winning the GOP nomination.
Idealogues are such annoying pests...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNor will they be able to stop him from getting wiped out in the general.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA definition of nihilists:
Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
Who fits more the definition of a nihilist?
a: Flip flopper Romney who will say at the moment what it takes to get elected and his minions who do care how Romney will govern just as long a person with a R besides his name wins.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseb: Principled conservatives who understand what it means to be a conservative and finds Romney falling unacceptably short.
Romney does not reject all distinctions in moral or religious value.
Where did you get that idea?
Who do you imagine is better?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, they most certainly are. Most Americans, including myself, are totally fed up with the foaming-at-the-mouth ideologues on BOTH sides of the aisle!!!
I personally find the likes of Mark Levin and Ann Coulter to be every bit as distasteful as Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews.
The 80% of the population that is neither far left nor far right is looking for a moderate president who can forge sensible solutions acceptable to a majority of both parties, even if the fringes of neither party will like it.
ROMNEY IN 2012!!!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is GREAT NEWS!!!
For BARACK OBAMA!!!
(That's an inside joke for any of you who happen to recall Nate Silver's fabulous old, wild and woolly pre-NYT "538" blog :-)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFull disclosure - I am a Mitt Romney supporter. We do need to disassemble much of what Obama has put together and probably some of Bush and Clinton. But - unless we do it carefully, we can make a bigger mess than the mess we are in. We need Romney's brilliant mind and understanding of money and capitalism. That said, in a situation with less peril, I would be for a more libertarian candidate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst of all, the editorial writers wildly overestimate the importance of Iowa (cf. President Huckabee).
Second, they waste all those words re-hashing what is known about Romney -- that he has changed positions on issues like abortion -- without making a case for which "conservative" candidate that is actually running can win the nomination and beat Obama. (As an aside, one would think that conservatives would be pleased with a candidate who has become more conservative over time. But no.)
Third, the country is in serious financial trouble. We need a guy who understands that and knows how to fix it. As amply demonstrated in the private sector, the 2002 Olympics, and in Massachusetts, Romney does know how to turn around flailing enterprises. His economic policy speech last week was spot on. We cannot afford 4 more years of Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"We need a guy who understands that and knows how to fix it."
Which is why we don't need Mitt "I love big govt solutions" Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood luck with the rest of the lightweight candidates. None of them have a prayer.
And a protest vote is a vote for a liberal SCOTUS.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRE: "And a protest vote is a vote for a liberal SCOTUS."
I am not John McCain, but I'm certain he supports that message.
Balderdash.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDid you read or listen to his fiscal policy speech last week? What part didn't you agree with?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't trust a word out of Romney's mouth. Not a word. He is the exemplification of the politician that will say whatever to whomever to get the result he wants. I like that quality in politicians - when they are on the other side. It always catches up to them.
I will not support a double-talking squish who is so driven to power that truth and principle means nothing.
As far as how that makes Mitt feel? Well, I'll defer to Radiohead with this paraphrase:
"He did it to himself, it's true, and that's what really hurts.
He could have been a straight talker, but chose poorly and decided not to. If he had been honest all along, he might have had a decent shot at challenging Obama for the Democrat primary.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn what sense did Mitt Romney "turn around" the failing enterprise that is Massachusetts? In what sense does his record as governor suggest that Romney is equipped to address this country's fiscal crisis?
"As an aside, one would think that conservatives would be pleased with a candidate who has become more conservative over time. But no."
A candidate who has "become" more conservative, maybe, but not one who has merely SEEMED more conservative. There's little evidence that Romney is a conservative of conviction rather than a conservative by convenience -- that his transformation is due to anything more than a desire to win the nomination.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen Romney entered office in MA, he faced a $650 million shortfall and a projected $3 billion deficit for the following year. By the time he left, the state had a $600–700 million surplus. I consider that a turnaround of a flailing enterprise.
And I actually think there is evidence that Romney has become more conservative, certainly on the pro-life front, based on the embryonic stem cell issue. Look at how he handled that issue as governor (earning the wrath of NARAL along the way).
He's not perfect on every issue. But he's the best who is running this year. Deal with it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI believe his signature policy, health care, resulted in a program that still hasn't approached the estimates in terms of costs.
And, on abortion, he insinuated to the state's pro-abortion voters that they needed a Rpublican like him on the national scene, presumably not to fight valiantly for the rights of the unborn.
I think that all of the candidates are quite flawed, but the conclusion that Romney's the least flawed can only be drawn if philosophical convictions aren't very high on the priority list.
About Romney's qualifications, your suggestion (demand?) to "deal with it" is hardly the best way to persuade people, particularly those who are willing to stand athwart what is presented as the inexorable force of History.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't really wish to defend Romneycare, but at least be honest and admit that the MA health care plan was not designed to lower costs (one of its biggest flaws, in my opinion). It was designed to get insurance coverage for nearly everyone without raising taxes, and by that measure it has been a success. The Boston Globe reported earlier this year that a poll by the Harvard School of Public Health and the Globe found that 63 percent of Massachusetts residents support the program.
On the pro-life issue, look at how he actually governed, not on what somebody said he "insinuated."
I happen to think that of the candidates running, Romney is the least flawed and also possesses the most relevant experience to deal with the fiscal crises we are facing. If you can't accept that, then make the case for the candidate you think is superior.
That's what I meant by "deal with it." There's a whole group of "not Mitt Romney" folks who can't seem to articulate who they are for, only who they are against.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRE: "63 percent of Massachusetts residents support the program"
I fail to see your point.
62% of Massachusetts voters supported Obama in 2008.
69.3% of Massachusetts voters supported Ted Kennedy in 2006.
Are you saying that we, in any way, should let that group be an arbiter of what is prudent? Of what is conservative?
Massachusetts is the "Johnny Don't" in the Afterschool Special.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs one of the 62% and 69% in Mass., I have to say that the "Johnny Don't" line is one of the funniest things I've read in a while. You're like a conservative Jon Stewart.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSince you insist on being obtuse, the point is that the MA health care program appeals to a majority of MA citizens. And the plan achieved its main goal which was to get health insurance for just about every citizen without raising taxes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse