With the slow news days we’ve recently had, I wanted to pass along an article I came across in HuffPo (yes, I know, many will categorically dismiss the story because of the source). FreedomWorks, the national Tea Party organization headed by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, apparently doesn’t think too highly of Gov. Romney:
Interviews with top officials at FreedomWorks, a Washington-based organizing hub for Tea Party activists around the country, revealed that much of their thinking about the 2012 election revolves around derailing the former Massachusetts governor.
“Romney has a record and we don’t really like it that much,” said Adam Brandon, the group’s communications director.
…The group knows they cannot impose their will on the fiercely independent conservative organizers fueling the Tea Party. But they say the activist base is just as anti-Romney as they are.
…Brendan Steinhauser, who travels around the country meeting with activists as FreedomWorks’ top liaison to the grassroots, said most people he talks to are “definitely trying to stop Romney.”
“I don’t think I’ve met any groups or any local activists that like him or want him to be president,” Steinhauser said. “They just don’t believe he’s authentic. That’s the biggest problem in addition to the health care thing.”
…FreedomWorks is not currently leaning in any one candidate’s direction, though Pawlenty’s was mentioned as having the best shot to beat Romney and win the general election.
The article proceeds to analyze FreedomWorks’ clout compared to other Tea Party organizations. The information provided here clashes with some polling data we’ve seen, which have ranked Romney at or near the top of Tea Partiers’ lists of preferred candidates.
Will the Tea Parties ever bring themselves to back Pawlenty – a candidate whose rhetorical stylings and personality contrast with what they hope to see in Republican candidates (see: Scott, Rick; O’Donnell, Christine; and Paul, Rand)? If so, T-Paw will find himself in a rather comfortable position.
May 31st, 2011 at 9:22 pm
Pawlenty supported mandates. Daniels supported mandates. Romney got then enacted. Then, when Obama decides to support them, the reactionaries have to jump to the other side of the fence, abandoning a core Conservative tentpole of personal responsibility.
May 31st, 2011 at 9:25 pm
Trying to stop Romney would be almost impossible in a 50 state GOP primary. Freedomworks and other conservative tea partys groups excell with focusing their energy on one state. But it seems impossible in trying to compete with Romney’s money advantage and trying to take him down state by state. It would almost be funding a conservative candidate, just to stop one particular candidate from winning. That is shear ludicrous. By the time the General came around, both parties would be broke.
May 31st, 2011 at 9:30 pm
The PURPOSE of a primary is to weed out the bad candidates and prop up the good ones. If Pawlenty is a good candidate, he will win on his own; without any outside help. But for an organization to fund Pawlenty just to stop Romney is VERY dangerous. Especially if they succeed. Pawlenty would then be untested for the General election, both financially and mentally.
May 31st, 2011 at 9:33 pm
I am a Freedom Works member and I’m firmly in Romney’s Camp. What’s more conservative than working in Public Civil Service and taking no salary? What’s more conservative than balancing your agency’s budget without new taxes, before tackling major health care overhaul? What’s more conservative than granting NO pardons?
Those who adhere to the belief that Romney is not conservative are either not studying issues or paying attention. I know, he still likes ethanol subsidies….he’s a realist too. I suspect that once in office, he’ll tackle subsidy reforms.
May 31st, 2011 at 9:33 pm
When Romney finally survives these “anyone but Mitt” attacks from the furthest of the right folks, it will 1) make him a stronger candidate, and 2) help endear him to moderate and independent voters. As always, he will respond to attacks with class and tact and will win back over these same people who are now trying to knee-cap him. McCain was not good at this, but Mitt will be much better.
May 31st, 2011 at 9:35 pm
This can be seen in both the Alaska and Nevada senate races. Both Miller and O’Donnel were funded by outside conservative groups. But the general election proved to be a nightmare. Both candidates were HORRIBLE and didn’t obtain the qualities for them to be competitive. If outside groups didn’t help them, then Murkowski and Castle would of won the primary and dominated the general. Primaries occur because they work, DON’T SCREW UP THE 2012 ELECTION TEA PARTY PATRIOTS!
May 31st, 2011 at 9:38 pm
Riccardo,
I agree wholeheartedly with you. You should let your opinions be known to the “leaders” at Freedom Works.
May 31st, 2011 at 9:51 pm
All good comments so far…
May 31st, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Freedom works does not like romney, why? I’ve heard that dude with the thin mutton chops say they don’t like him, but have yet to give me a good enough reason. Could it be the …… thing?
May 31st, 2011 at 10:14 pm
If they picked some kind of principle to object to, I could understand their opposition, even if I didn’t agree with it. But authenticity? Really? “He’s just not, like, authentic, y’know?” Opposing Romney because you don’t believe he’s authentic is like supporting Obama because he’s in favor of hope and change.
I admired the Tea Party movement. Individual citizens gathering to influence politics is great. But these Tea Party organizations stink. America does not need more top-down slow-moving political parties.
May 31st, 2011 at 10:20 pm
the tea party might be careful not to get too institutionalized or it might suffer from these idiotic crusades that all institutions/parties seem to suffer.
May 31st, 2011 at 10:22 pm
While I certainly see why Pawlenty is generating such coverage (his truth telling, his electability, his ability to appeal to both Tea Partiers and regular Republicans) and don’t doubt that he could be Romney’s most formidable challenger for the nomination, he needs to start moving in the polls. In New Hampshire and Iowa, he’s going to have to start polling outside the margin of error. Either that or show some sign that he’s got a little momentum going. Those of us who follow this stuff very closely are seeing the Pawlenty Potential, but if it isn’t picked up on by the folks of Iowa and New Hampshire, then potential ain’t worth much.
May 31st, 2011 at 10:23 pm
FreedomWorks leans more Libertarian….Dick Armey is the co-chairman…The hypocrite who was forced to step down in 2009′ as a Lobbyist for a major Medical Insurance co. and a big Pharmaceutical company.
Is it possible that they’re writing off 2012′ by trying to take down the leading GOP candidate (whoever it was) so they could run their own candidate in 2016?
May 31st, 2011 at 10:39 pm
Jonathan,
Once again I need to remind you and the rest of the folks….Huck was at 7% in June 2007 in Iowa.
TPAW is doing just fine. It’s early and TPAW is on target.
May 31st, 2011 at 10:46 pm
14. And Huck won? If we’re comparing 2012 candidates to 2008, then Romney is McCain.
May 31st, 2011 at 10:47 pm
Matthew Kilburn,
You are playing very loose with the facts and it’s not going over very well with me.
TPAW rejected mandates twice as GOV…he did not pursue it because he thought it would not work.
TPAW gave examples of why he thought, in the end, it would not work.
You try to make it sound like he tried to enact mandates but failed.
The ROMBOTS are trying to blur the lines between TPAW and Mitt and it’s becoming laughable.
May 31st, 2011 at 11:02 pm
How can something headed by Dick Armey be considered part of the “tea party”? Isn’t it supposed to be a grassroots movement? You can’t get more Washington Insider than Dick Armey. It is a shame that people are actually acting like his personal politics have anything to do with the actual Tea Party movement. The hijacking of this grassroots group is obscene, if you ask me.
May 31st, 2011 at 11:03 pm
No one outside of HuffPo is paying any attention to the FreedomWorks vendetta (if you could even call it that) so I don’t know why we need to.
May 31st, 2011 at 11:14 pm
How is there no FPP on this very important and major article on RomneyCare (first in a series)? There is so much misinformation that goes around here. I would think a detailed account of what actually happened and why would have a place here.
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/articles/2011/05/30/romney_and_health_care_in_the_thick_of_history/?page=full
May 31st, 2011 at 11:30 pm
While I don’t consider myself a member of the “Tea Party” I do like FreedomWorks and have long been a fan of Mr. Armey’s no-nonsense, legitimate fiscal conservatism.
Romney does lack authenticity, whether his apologists and the members of the LDS church who frequent R42012 choose to recognize it or not. He has a history of pandering to those whose voters he’s seeking at the moment – remember his promise to bail-out the auto industry while he was trolling for votes in Michigan in 2008 in a futile attempt to salvage his sinking campaign – and he frequently takes the politically expedient route.
What concerns me most about Romney, however, is that I have doubts regarding his ability and willingness to make tough decisions and fight the Democrats on politically-sensitive issues like reforming Social Security and Medicare. Both of those large entitlements will need to be drastically reformed if we’re going to balance the budget and regain some sense of fiscal responsibility in this country. Since reforming both will be politically risky and will open him (or whomever is president) to savage attacks from the left and has the risk alienating some key voting demographics, I see a President Romney caving to the Democrats, selling-out on the issue and leaving us in virtually the same place we currently find ourselves as a country.
At best, Romney is a big-government guy. Not a big-government guy the same way Obama is, but rather the same way President GWB was. His supporters are much the same – claiming that federal government-imposed individual mandates are in fact “conservative.” Sadly, too few on this site are able to put aside their Mormon faith and look at the facts in front of them.
May 31st, 2011 at 11:34 pm
Here is what really bothers me about this group….
“A top goal of the nation’s most influential national Tea Party group is to stop Mitt Romney from winning the Republican nomination for president,” Columbia University professor Lincoln Mitchell expands on why Romney winning the Republican presidential nomination would be such anathema to the tea party:
…..
“Although Romney has sought to portray himself as a true conservative … Romney is not a fundamentalist Christian
http://christianteaparties.com/2011/05/tea-party-seeking-to-derail-mitt-romney/
It seems to be a cover for another agenda. They need to answer these charges.
Dr. Jeffrey A. Baker’s Comments – FreedomWorks Tea Party Group
This is the FreedomWorks Tea Party Group. Join your state group, … I am a fundamental Christian ChristIan,. Baptist by persuasion and saved by JESUS …
teaparty.freedomworks.org/xn/detail/3578713:Comment:270472?xg..
May 31st, 2011 at 11:54 pm
This is a junk piece. They don’t answer the question WHY? Why don’t they like Romney? It’s got to be more substantial than hair, dog transport, or “everyone just hates him trust us.”
May 31st, 2011 at 11:58 pm
Romney lacks “authenticity”. What is this, psychology class? Does Donald Trump lack “authenticity”? How about Barack Obama? When the whole world is asking to see your birth certificate, I think you lack authenticity. What a bunch of crap. This comes from Soros, I guarantee it. If not, it’s some other lame mind trying it’s darndest.
Lacks “authenticity”? This is another word used when there is nothing substantive to criticize. So annoying.
June 1st, 2011 at 12:24 am
#23-I am not sure it is about “authenticity” as much it is about how much you can really relate to him?
Personally, I don’t know many valedictorians at BYU who then graduated in the top 5% of Harvard Law and Business. And then also have the whole Morman thing where I am guessing he doesn’t drink caffeine or alcohol. Finally, I don’t know many people who have the robotic Al Gore thing going on.
Don’t get me wrong, he is my favorite candidate so far…I just think he has a lot of work to come across as a more relateable person.
June 1st, 2011 at 12:25 am
Didn’t Dick Armey endorse Romney in the primary last go around?
June 1st, 2011 at 12:31 am
You had a good argument up until this point and then it went off the rails. “rombots” or romney supporters would have been sufficient. However, to inject an obvious inflammatory statement that has nothing to do with the argument is asinine.
June 1st, 2011 at 12:45 am
@Colorado Guy
I think that there are plausible interpretations of Romney’s actions as simply pandering. I don’t dismiss them out right but just view it differently in most cases. To be honest I think we will see the real Romney this time around. That doesn’t mean he was (completely) inauthentic last time but that his advisors and political scenario convinced him to go out further right on his positions than I think he really felt at the time. For example, I don’t think Romney has anything against the 2nd amendment. He is not for letting criminals have assault rifles and the like. He supports others in using their guns safely. I doubt he has a burning conviction of gun rights, it just isn’t that important to him in the grand scheme of things. I can easily imagine a 2008 advisor saying “Romney you need to get in good with the NRA crowd”. Romney would then say-”Uhh that’s not really my thing but I guess it isn’t lying if I used to shoot small animals as a kid/teenager and am a lifetime member of the NRA”, while technically true it is stretching it since the lifetime membership is a type of membership-not that he has been in the NRA for his whole life.
I feel that 2008 Romney, with little presidential politics experience, took more advice than he should have. His ambition and strategies moved him to the front and was able to take on the much more conventional and favored candidates. However, in his efforts to stand out and get attention he made too many gaffes, switched too many positions, and made rookie mistakes.
Romney has been described as tough as nails. I met him and I believe it. One doesn’t get to his positions without being so. Being wicked smart helps too. His tough fiscal stance against the MA legislature and special interest groups shows he stands his ground when things get difficult.
Though a Romney supporter, and obviously not objective, I understand that position changes can upset people and conservatives are always a little skeptical of New England Republicans. For me I see 2008 Romney as a newbie politician that saw what needed to happen and mistakenly followed others how to get there. His weaknesses in “being a relatable politician” didn’t help either. I don’t think everyone all the sudden obtains the ability to talk to anyone on the street about one of the touchiest subjects out there, politics. I had doubts when I saw him stump but got on board when he gave a speech and then debated. The debates showed he was more animated and well versed on policy than originally let on.
All in all, Romney is seen by his supporters (or just me maybe) as a successful man that happened to become a governor then presidential candidate (x2). His strength is not in getting elected a lot or that he is most popular or has taken the most conventional path for a politician. His draw is that he gets things done. That allows me to overlook his flip-flops. If he really wanted a smooth ride to the presidency he could have started into politics a lot sooner and attempted to do so in a more fertile political environment. I see his flip flops as him finally accepting his personal beliefs to become his political beliefs, not the other way around. We see his whole life as proof of his character rather than just the political decisions he made while as governor and his more progressive 1994 self.
Here is my take on his current positions and whether he is reliable:
ethanol subsidies=pander/has to to stick to 2008 stance
abortion=true belief
traditional marriage=true belief
health care for all citizens=true belief
gun rights=pander/whatever
global warming=true belief
Cap and Trade=supports but not feasible but is his true belief
lower taxes=true belief
fiscal responsibility = true belief
foreign policy hawk= something he came to with more reading and talking with experts (doesn’t have much experience)
All in all I think he is the president we need right now. I would be for Pawlenty any other election and would campaign for the man if he got the nom. He has similar government experience and would be a great alternative.
June 1st, 2011 at 12:48 am
I guess the conservative positions Romney defended as Governor of Mass does not count, coloradoguy? Like his fight for marriage, his desire not to have businesses taxed?
Before you criticize people, you may want to be correct in your statements. Not sure how many Romney supporters have ever said federal individual mandates are conservative. Romney has never favored federal mandates. Unless you rely on the Judis article where Romney, although not agreeing on anything, said he would vote for the GOP bill that was touted as an alternative to the much worse Hillarycare.
I assume that you, like many others on this site, have never participated in the political process other than voting or commenting on blogs. However, those you have like me (note: I helped draft some of the Arizona law that was just upheld), ideals are rarely ever achieved in the political arena. that is the reality.
Show me one thing in Mitt’s 4 years S Governor, where HE was not conservative? I do not want the crap that became law over his veto or that was mandated by the courts.
June 1st, 2011 at 1:17 am
“Romney does lack authenticity, whether his apologists and the members of the LDS church who frequent R42012 choose to recognize it or not.”
This kind of political thinking is bottom of the barrel stuff and the worst blogs have to offer.
June 1st, 2011 at 1:21 am
Romney is going to face a bloodbath — FreedomWorks and Trump are going to spend boatloads of money to take him down. I don’t think he is going to survive the sheer volume of attacks. I think it is more likely that Pawlenty, Huntsman, Bachman, or Cain get the nomination than Romney.
June 1st, 2011 at 1:51 am
Troy I appreciate your reasoned and level-headed post.
I wasn’t a supporter in Romney in 2008. I was willing to give him another look this go around but after hearing and seeing him speak some more and discovering that he had made changes to the paperback version of his book to be more in-line with the GOP base of 2011, I came back to see him the same as I did in 2007/8 – a man who lacks sincere conviction and who is willing to say and do anything to get elected president. I believe he has wanted to be president since his father lost to Goldwater in 1968 and has tailored his life with that very goal in mind. He tried to out-liberal Ted Kennedy in 1994 and he tried to out-conservative McCain and Giuliani (who he saw as front-runners) in the 2008 cycle. I believe he stepped in to “save” the 2002 Olympics as he saw it as a golden opportunity to raise his public profile and add another line to his presidential resume.
Look I believe Mitt Romney is a good person and he has the intellect and work ethic to handle the duties of the Presidency. But I cannot vote for him. I think his history demonstrates he is far too willing to sell-out for the politically easy route. As I said above, I see him as very likely to make compromises with the Democrats that do little-to-no good merely to check off an accomplishment. I don’t see him willing to go fight for conservative principles, for example the Ryan budget. I see him as a wishy-washy moderate who will seek to please. In other words, I think he will be exactly the president we do NOT need right now.
June 1st, 2011 at 1:56 am
I agree nowandlater. Romney is going to have so many forces aligned against him he will have a very difficult time winning the nomination. And if he somehow survives the onslaught he will emerge a damaged, weak candidate who divides the GOP base and allows Obama to cruise to reelection.
Think about the 2008 cycle – there was one thing that Huckabee, McCain, Giuliani and Thompson agreed on – they didn’t like Mitt Romney. I remember the roundtable debate where all four pointed their guns squarely at Mitt. He is also someone who very few in the media, regarless of their political bias, like.
June 1st, 2011 at 2:24 am
It’s sad that the Republican party puts up with people like #20 COLORADO GUY and his subtle religious hatred….It’s getting harder and harder to stay a Republican!
June 1st, 2011 at 2:27 am
Just ignore Colorado Guy. If no one responds to his vitriol he will eventually go away.
June 1st, 2011 at 2:48 am
I’m beginning to wonder whether this site is really balanced or not. I am beginning to think it is not. When everything a guy that is polling around 5% says is in a front page post and there is virtually no coverage of what Mitt is saying despite several high profile interviews and articles on him. Here is another one that deserves to be in a front page post:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/43222199#43222199
June 1st, 2011 at 2:49 am
It would be nice to have some coverage of the campaign of the frontrunner on a blog devoted to the Republican race in general.
June 1st, 2011 at 2:53 am
I remember him from 2008′…Didn’t know a lot about politics then either…Mostly just repeated the stuff from the Huckabee camp.
June 1st, 2011 at 3:01 am
for the record, Romney was recruited to save the Olympics in 2002. He did not want to do it but he wife convinced him to do it.
In the 2008 cycle there were many reasons that the candidates didn’t like Romney. He was brutally honest and called out the candidates in front of everyone. He knew their records better than they did a lot of the time. When you embarrass them enough times they tend to go after you. Also he was well funded and got a lot of attention that some felt was premature since he only was a one time governor. Honestly Romney was rather snarky in some comments but I feel he was much better behaved than some of the low blows that were thrown. When they stuck to policies Romney left them in the dust.
The fact that the media doesn’t like him is not a good thing for publicity sake but I think he can win without it. Though Palin gets easy coverage, Romney will get coverage no matter what. When the media gets too critical that it becomes apparent then the more moderate voices start to question the harsh words. After his health speech Romney got a huge blow of negative press. Once it became overkill there were plenty of voices that came out and gave him props for confronting it head on even though everyone called his campaign over. Yeah well a couple days later he raises $10.3 million and suddenly a ton start calling him the frontrunner. Even now there are commentators that are calling out those that won’t admit he is in front or that aren’t covering him adequately (Frum is the first that comes to mind).
No one is going to convince you that you should support Romney. We should all recognize that. The real question is if you are willing to pull the lever for him against Obama. If you can than at least you can feel good that you stopped/slowed the demise of our nation. Anyone but Obama is the rallying cry. Whether the GOP candidate is Pawlenty or Romney I recognize that this is the election of all elections. In my opinion this election matters too much to be overcritical of the candidates…
June 1st, 2011 at 3:07 am
#31 – A man who lacks sincere conviction? You can’t have the success that Romney has had in his personal and professional life without conviction. ….Willing to say and do anything? If that were true, he would have dumped his religous beliefs and disavowed the Massachussettes healthcare plan he enacted. Look, I believe Mitt Romney is a good person too and I absolutely agree with you that he is wicked smart and a very hard worker – but most importantly, he is EXACTLY the President we need right now. We have a huge debt problem in country – entitlement programs will drive us into bankruptcy or socialism or both. We need a proven, economic problem solver – someone who understands the proper role of capitalism and free markets in our democracy and can restore fiscal sanity to the federal government. I don’t see any candidate more capable than Romney to take on this task.
June 1st, 2011 at 3:30 am
Rombot: thanks for the NBC video link..You’re right.. There needs to be more things like this shown here..There is also a good, and fair and balanced round table debate on a CBS news video that I saw on line yesterday about all the candidates where I learned more than a week of watching FOX….
Troy: Yes, In 2008′, Romney was the only candidate that stood in McCain’s way of getting the nomination. The others did gang up on him, but not because they didn’t like him…A couple of the candidates independently formed an alliance with McCain, who IMO did his dirty work while McCain went home to rest 4 days a week.
June 1st, 2011 at 3:53 am
A lot of what is still said about Romney came from other campaigns (McCain and Huckabee) and was gladly picked up by the media because they like to mix drama together with politics, it got repeated so often that people still think it’s fact….
June 1st, 2011 at 6:24 am
15 – actually if you’re comparing 2008 candidates with polls from today…Romney is Guiliani and Palin is McCain. Just sayin…
June 1st, 2011 at 6:27 am
12 – Jonathan, I completely agree with that thought!!! I actually like T-Paw but he doesn’t have a base of support and every day that passes his name recognition gets bigger and bigger yet his polling percentages stay relatively the same. At this rate if you double his 50% name id his ceiling is between 10 – 12% which will not win him any election.
June 1st, 2011 at 7:29 am
“This can be seen in both the Alaska and Nevada senate races. Both Miller and O’Donnel were funded by outside conservative groups.” So now, Miss O’Donnel is from Nevada??? Some of you guys are good at making things up.
June 1st, 2011 at 7:38 am
24. Do you want a leader – no matter how boring he is, who can and will get the job of President done? Or do you want someone to have a beer with?
June 1st, 2011 at 7:42 am
I was listening to the Tom Sullivan radio show yesterday. He was talking about the 2012 race. Talked about Mitt Romney in Iowa and his stance on Ethanol subsidies. What did Sullivan say about Romney, that Romney panders and will say anything to get elected.
So where do voters go if everyone says Romney is the frontrunner and Palin is the star?
We could vote for someone who will say anything to get elected or we could vote for someone who quit in the middle of her term?
Panderer in Chief or Quitter in Chief?
I hope the June debate allows the other candidates an opportunity to express their views, as I think most Americans would like another option other than Romney and Palin.
June 1st, 2011 at 7:47 am
I do not drink beer, but I’m not into boring either.
June 1st, 2011 at 7:50 am
“or we could vote for someone who quit in the middle of her term?” So you would rather the Alaskan Tax-payer piss away money to fight Ms. McLeod’s non-sense???
June 1st, 2011 at 7:59 am
JR, a quick review of recent history:
Giuluiani had high favorables, mysteriously camped out in FL, had no strong base in any early state, and got his rear kicked.
Sarah has low favorables, mysteriously rides around in a bus, has no strong base in any early state, and is going to get her rear kicked.
McCain had a strong early state base in NH, which he lost and regained for a number of reasons. He out-hustled NH while Iowa played out.
Rudy had finanacial incentives to play at running for President. So does Sarah.
Roughly speaking, there is no comparison you can make of Romney to Rudy that holds any water.
Sarah, on the other hand . . . .
June 1st, 2011 at 8:28 am
49 – I was basing my comparison upon the credentials used by MAMA Z in comment #13.
June 1st, 2011 at 8:35 am
Tex, you’ll hear from Mitt, but not form the Palin. She’s still under fox contract. She shows up at one debate, and that contract and the cash that goes with it, is gonzo.
June 1st, 2011 at 8:35 am
@48, yes, I would have rather the taxpayers money be spent and for Sarah to keep doing the job she was elected to do. The taxpayers voted her in, so they should be willing to pay for the lawsuits. The idea that she quit because it was right for Alaskans is ridiculous, and it holds no water whatsoever. The simple fact is that when the going gets tough, you really don’t know if Sarah Palin will stick around, because her track record suggests she just might skip town.
June 1st, 2011 at 8:42 am
“The taxpayers voted her in, so they should be willing to pay for the lawsuits.” No, you are wrong. Ms. McLeod and the Dems should be the ones paying for the lawsuits.
June 1st, 2011 at 8:50 am
52 – I must assume you are not familiar with the frivolous lawsuits and the resources, both monetary and time consuming, that were required of both her and her staff. The lawsuits took time and money away from the state and would have personally bankrupted her in the process.
Did you know one of the lawsuits was filed because she was at one of her husband’s races and was cold so her husband offered her his jacket? Unfortunately, the jacket was his racing jacket that had his sponsor on it…so she was sued because according to state law, the Governor cannot endorse a business…FRIVOLOUS AND A WASTE OF STATE RESOURCES. After spending a lot of money and time, the courts acknowledged it was in fact frivolous.
Please get your facts right. I understand if you feel she should have finished her term but any reasonable human being should be able to look at the conditions and understand the tough choice she made.
June 1st, 2011 at 9:33 am
Let FreedomWorks bash Mitt. They will make asses of themselves when President Romney cuts taxes, eliminates corporate welfare, passes a revenue limit of 18% of GDP, and reforms entitlements.
June 1st, 2011 at 9:49 am
Dick Armey is trying to establish FreedomWorks as a major force. What better way than to take out the GOP frontrunner (sacrificing 2012 as suggested earlier)?
Polls suggest the TP supports Romney just as much if not more than other candidates. Truth is the support is spread pretty evenly, most likely within MOE considering it’s a crosstab and smaller sample size.
I think I saw today, he is backing away from is overt claim of last week, of singling out Romney.
June 1st, 2011 at 11:01 am
Romney is conservative. He came from an arguably moderate home, and has intelligently evolved towards traditional conservatism. His trajectory is good. I think one of his best secret weapons against those that paint him as a RINO is that he truly is conservative. He simply has the veneer of the north easterner godless intellectual, which tends to throw a lot of folks off. If he shot elk and rode a Harley, people would feel he is more authentic, but then he would draw a different type of criticism, wouldn’t he? I think his approach is good – take the criticism, ignore it, and put forth excellent policy. Go baby.
June 1st, 2011 at 11:53 am
It is his lack of convictions that turn people off. It is easy to find the issues that he has been on both sides of over time.
He is a malleable candidate and not worthy of support.
June 1st, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Troy – your question is one on which I’ve gone around and around. While I recognize that Romney is preferable to Obama, I have to walk out of the voting booth with a clean conscious. If Romney panders his way to the nomination and travels around swing states pandering to independents in the general, I won’t be able to vote for him in November and would likely register a protest vote by voting for the Libertarian Party’s nominee. However, Romney still has time to change my mind, not only in the general but in the primaries as well.
June 1st, 2011 at 3:17 pm
To the offended Rombots,
I don’t think Colorado Guy was “insinuating” anything about religion other than to suggest that religious affinity seems to play a large role in the intensity of support Romney has here. Most of his vocal supporters on this site are Mormon. No, not all (Doug), but most. That’s a fact.
It doesn’t make that support illegitimate, but I think it does help explain why some people are quick to trust Mitt’s explanation for everything, and slow to understand anyone who isn’t so trusting of him.
June 1st, 2011 at 5:43 pm
60
As a non-Mormon Romney supporter, who has lived in Massachusetts for 13 years…
I support him because of his merits. He is electable, likeable (for me at least), competent, driven, and very smart.
I understand why some do not trust him. But they are mistaken. They don’t really know Mitt as a person. They see him as an enemy, so they view everything about him as being a campaign pitch or a lie.
Just open your mind more. Give him the benefit of the doubt every once in a while. I give other candidates the benefit of the doubt you know.
June 1st, 2011 at 5:50 pm
61: Well said.
I find him likeable as well.
June 1st, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Romnney is the only candidate so far that isn’t kind of flaking around. Pawlenty is doing OK. Everyone else makes me nervous they are so flaky. What, today Huckabee says he might run after all? Sheeesh, people.
June 2nd, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Thanks, Matt. I wasn’t going to get into a religious debate or argue with those who were attacking me. My original point about Romney’s Mormonism and how relates to the intense, vocal support he has here amoung many, but as you point out, not all. It’s a point you’ve made several times.
January 11th, 2012 at 8:40 pm
Very informative blog article.Much thanks again. Great.