Establishment Candidate Romney Steps in It!

First Romney said at the debate on Sunday morning that you need to be rich to run for President which just showed voters that what we have been saying that he considers himself an elitist and those of us in the Middle Class trash.  Attend anything Romney and watch him go for the big donors and others are there only for numbers.  He is definitely not a people person and confirmed it in a speech to the business leaders in NH when he talks about loving to fire people.  Are Republicans getting a clue why so many of us from the wars of 2008 cannot stand Romney and will not vote for him?  I doubt if the establishment Republicans can look past their blue noses to see what regular American Republican conservatives have been telling them.  We are a necessary nuisance to them.

Are the Republican voters of NH going to wake up to vote in big numbers tomorrow or are the independent (many former NH democrats are independent) voters who take Republican ballots to vote in our primary going to choose our candidate like they did in Iowa.  Isn't it great that the first two states allow Independents to help pick our nominee and the OK GOP Chairman thinks in an email it is great that it brings in new voters.  Someone was not well vetted and doesn't understand a lot of those new voters would never be Republican and out to create havoc.

Let's take Iowa, for example. The Iowa Caucus is now a wrap with a Romney, Santorum, Paul photo finish. There were quotes from "Party insiders" in Iowa and nationally that were concerned about Ron Paul's support among independents and Democrats in the Hawkeye state. Excuse me for asking the question that some within our Party won't like, but is it not our job to move Independents and Democrats in the Republican column?

When discussing Dr. Paul’s base or Tea Party voters for that matter, many scream "but they aren't Republicans!" Folks, if there's one thing I've learned from being the Chairman of a partisan political party it's that we are not always going to see eye to eye. Same goes for the Democrats. Nearly 60% of Independents voting in Iowa this year were first time caucus goers. Why again is that a bad thing? If we don't welcome these disenfranchised Independents and Democrats (many of whom are young) into the Republican Party then I'm terribly concerned for the future of it.

We have no clue if that 60% of independents voting in Iowa even lived in Iowa as the Iowa GOP Chair refuses to allow candidates to see the registrations.  Willing to bet that Iowa will never see a large portion of them vote again.  If this is an example of the GOP Chairs across the Country, then no wonder the RNC is so poorly run.  Guess this chair never heard of voter fraud by Democrats that is being used by some Republicans as well to get their candidates elected.

How can you allow independents to pick your candidate?  Next thing you know the OK GOP will want to open up Oklahoma.  Why don't we make this very simple and ask the Democrats who we should nominate and be done with primaries.  Anyone who doesn't think that a large portion of those independents/democrats voting in our primaries are up to no good is not wet behind the ears and doesn't understand hardball politics and how it is played.

Thought 2008 was bad but this election in 2012 is even worse.  What happened to the integrity of the voting process to elect our Republican nominee.  Putting out bad facts on websites that are supposed to tell you the rules of each state is wrong.  Word on the street is that the information came from the RNC which I cannot verify but since their debates were aimed to make Romney look good, I would not be shocked if they gave out wrong information on purpose.

To top it all off, I have an email from the RNC asking me to join in 2012.  That is not going to happen and frankly those who know me are going to be shocked when I say that just maybe conservatives need to start thinking about having their own Party and tell the GOP to pound salt.  I have been a big proponent of the GOP for years watching them since the days after Reagan favor Big Government over small government as we saw culminate during the Bush 41 years.  Just maybe this election is the watershed for many Conservative Republicans like me.

We have people in the House and Senate who are for Big Government and that needs to end.  I have also been about reelecting incumbents.  That is also disappearing this time -- will only vote for small government conservatives not big government ones who pretend to be Republican conservatives.  Not holding my nose any more -- it is over.  When you get Republicans to actually answer they are fed up with the Republican Party like they did with Rasmussen, the powers at be should be worried.  They seem like they could care less as they are going to get their candidate Romney nominated even if he loses because then Jeb Bush can run in 2016.

Another complaint is the media picking the flavor of the week.  Santorum endorsed Specter over Toomey and believes in gun control and many other liberal causes.  Will someone explain how some so-called evangelicals can support him?  Guess the 2nd amendment means zero, zip, nada to them and pro-life means everything.  Note to candidates:  If you want the evangelical vote of Ralph Reed, Richard Land, and others just pretend to be pro-life as you can be pretty liberal on everything else and they will still support you.

At the end of the day, there are a lot of unhappy Republican activists.  We are not talking Tea Party but the Republican grassroots who get out and work elections.  We have been taken foregranted for too many years that we will always be there to volunteer.  This is one person if you are not conservative, don't even bother asking because I am not donating and I am not working your campaigns.  I am only one person but there are a lot of conservatives with the same mindset.

The Northeast liberal Republican establishment is alive and well run by the former President  who comes from Maine but chose to live in Houston.  Problem is that he never left that establishment mentality of the northeast behind.  All he knows is dirty, underhanded politics that he has used for years.  Since 1980 I have heard the rumors of the Bush faction threatening to leave the GOP in 1980 when Reagan got the nomination and now believe it was true.

There is only one candidate left in the race who is not associated with the inside the beltway crowd and that is Rick Perry.  The Rove factions have badly wounded him and the only hope is that the voters of South Carolina will see through the rhetoric but since they elected Hailey as Governor, don't have much hope that they will stand tall and return to their conservative roots.  Huntsman was tied to Obama early on and pretty much taken out of the nomination battle because he was willing to go after Romney.  What does that say about the Mormon Church influence on the primary?  Rove is not Mormon as far as we know but he was raised in Utah as a teenager which makes you wonder.

My bottom line and that of a lot of conservative Republicans is that we are willing to listen to people wanting to start a 3rd Party of conservatives who adhere to the smaller government approach and will stand tall if Romney is the nominee against his flip flops and his moderate to liberal agenda.  We will not sell out again for a moderate to liberal candidate.  Both Romney and Obama are bought and paid for by Wall Street which is what establishment Republicans seem to like.

We need to concentrate on the Keeping the House and Taking the Senate with good conservative candidates and throw out the Big Government types.  Let's get more Republicans in the Senate and elect a new Republican leader of the Senate.  Just maybe a Conservative Party with small government principles could start electing members to Congress because the principles of the Republican Party on smaller government have been left in the trash heap of history by too many 'go along to get along' types who favor Big Government and the Nanny State.

We have given up on New Hampshire which is turning bluer in each Presidential election but just maybe Republicans in South Carolina will wake up and realize they are the ONLY state in early voting who voted Republican for President in 2008 and will take their voting seriously.  Time will tell.

IBD: Romney So Far: No Core Beliefs, Many Flip-Flops

"No matter what the media or the GOP establishment say, the truth of the matter is GOP primary voters are still in complete charge of the outcome of this race. Not one vote has yet to be cast."


We should be sending that to Rasmussen who is trying to throw this campaign to the establishment candidate with his polling right now.  The donations don't reflect the Rasmussen numbers, but anyone who has been around politics knows that Rasmussen polls are not to be believed until a few weeks before an election.  He has a history of switching to make his numbers match the fact closer to an election.  For now he is content to help out Rove, Ailes, Fox News, and the establishment trying to give us Romney as our candidate.  If you honestly think that Perry is polling behind Ron Paul then I have swampland for sale in Arizona!

"Is there anyone sane left in the GOP Establishment?"


From what I can observe the answer is a resounding "NO"!  Drudge Report and Fox News are fully on the establishment bandwagon for Romney except for a few hosts but you can count them on one hand and have fingers left over.  Drudge seems to be writing his anti-Perry articles right out of the Karl Rove playbook.  Site after site has figured out what Karl Rove is working for the Establishment GOP to get Romney nominated and a lot of conservatives don't like it one bit.  This pushing Romney who is not conservative and is a flip flopper is absolutely disgusting.  Bush 41 and his cabal who run the GOP Establishment should be ashamed of themselves for what they are trying to do to the Republican Party.  They don't seem to care if we lose as long as it is not Governor Perry.  Are they afraid with Perry, they will see what is left of their power disappear?  I say good riddance to their power over the Republican Party.

Then you have the Koch Brothers and their political arm Americans for Prosperity pushing Herman Cain.  Cannot believe people are not up in arms at his smoking ad which I find totally offensive but then I thought not having smoking in restaurants has been great since I start sneezing around cigarette smoke.  His campaign manager, Block, from Americans for Prosperity (AFP)was suspended from doing political campaigns in Wisconsin for three years due to his dirty tricks.  Most of his campaign people come from AFP and why he and his people don't understand Government or the Constitution.  His comments as President he would sign an amendment left you shaking your head that he could be so naive.  It wouldn't shock you if you have ever asked someone from AFP a question about government that isn't in their talking points, you can expect to get a dumb answer.  Seen it up close and personal.  Cain never claimed AFP on his resume but he had a desk, phone, and email account at AFP and spoke around the country for them getting paid through a speaker's bureau.  Not one thing on the resume which is not shocking when you deal with any candidate the Koch Brothers support.  Like so many wealthy donors on both sides, ethics do not matter!

This IBD editorial nails Romney for his flip flops and the GOP establishment for their stupidity.  Guess in VA yesterday afternoon, Romney flip flopped again on Ohio Right to Work changes from Gov Kasish and now supports them putting out the word it was a gotcha question.  Romney who was a one term Governor, been running for President since 2004, has been threw numerous debates in 2008, is claiming it was a gotcha question.  How dumb does he think everyone is to even consider that he would be caught by a gotcha question?  What a horrible candidate.

Romney So Far: No Core Beliefs, Many Flip-Flops
By DOUGLAS MACKINNON Posted 10/26/2011 04:48 PM ET 

Is there anyone sane left in the GOP establishment? Does plain old common sense and gut instinct no longer matter to those who purport to speak for the party? Have conservative principles and traditional values become nothing more than meaningless rhetoric to those so desperate to hang on to imagined power? 

As the Republican establishment lines up like lemmings behind Mitt Romney, it would be illuminating and in fact critical to look at the news for just the last couple of days with regard to this untethered and pliable candidate. A good place to start would be Romney refusing to back Ohio Gov. John Kasich against the public-employee unions' attempt to roll back the law against union greed. 

In a devastating and spot-on critique of Romney with regard to this issue, the conservative Club for Growth said:

"The big problem many conservatives have with Mitt Romney is that he's taken both sides of nearly every issue important to us. He's against a flat tax, now he's for it. He says he's against ObamaCare, but was for the individual mandate and subsidies that are central to ObamaCare. 

He thinks that collective bargaining issues should be left for states to decide if he's in Ohio, but he took the opposite position when he was in New Hampshire. This is just another statement in a long line of statements that will raise more doubts about what kind of President Mitt Romney would be in the minds of many Republican primary voters." 

Ouch. 

Next we turn our attention to the far-left New York Times and its recent headlines regarding Mitt Romney: "Lectern Gone, Romney Finds More Success," said one. Another proclaimed: "Why It's Good For Romney To Be At 21 Percent." 

Curious. Why do the New York Times and so many other liberal publications continually find ways to promote the Romney campaign? 

Conversely, let's look at some recent New York Times headlines regarding Texas Gov. Rick Perry. The first offered up this default criticism of conservatives by the left: "Perry Plan Would Grant Big Tax Break To Wealthiest." Said another: "Obama Attacks Perry On Flat Tax." 

In a country and a world already turned upside down by escalating chaos and uncertainty, shouldn't voters be paying more attention to the continual flip-flops of a 64-year-old man who does not seem to yet know his core beliefs. Shouldn't it give these same voters pause when so many in the left seem to be cheerleading him on as they did John McCain in 2007? 

On the other hand, call me crazy, but as an independent conservative, when Barack Obama, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the New York Times team up to attack Rick Perry, it only serves to convince me that he is on the right side of the issue and must be advocating those common-sense and conservative values solutions. 

With the help of the GOP establishment and many in the mainstream media, Mitt Romney is trying to create a sense of inevitability and a growing and unstoppable momentum. That is not only his right; it's smart campaigning. 

But as Mr. Romney allies himself with the entrenched special interests to achieve his goal, potential Republican primary voters need to ask themselves a very important and timely question: What if "unstoppable momentum" turns into terminal velocity? What if their hopes and dreams for themselves and their families go splat against the ground? 

No matter what the media or the GOP establishment say, the truth of the matter is GOP primary voters are still in complete charge of the outcome of this race. Not one vote has yet to be cast.

There is still plenty of time to get educated on the issues and the candidates.Like "The Wizard of Oz," while the entrenched establishment and Mr. Romney try to divert attention from reality, it's time for voters to pull back that curtain, realize who is really pulling the levers and then make an informed decision. 

There is still time to beat the machine. 

• MacKinnon is a former White House and Pentagon official and author of the forthcoming memoir titled "Rolling Pennies in the Dark."   

Source:  IBD

Why is Romney Running Again?

Polls are showing Gov Perry with a double digit lead over Romney, the grassroots is impressed with him wherever he goes, and he can take on Obama because he has a solid record to stand on as Governor.  What's not to like that has the Bush 41 Establishment types all in a panic mode dropping article after article or sniping at him in interviews trying to take out Perry who just keeps going.  The last paragraph of this article from the American Spectator sums it up perfectly:

And success on the issues that concern the actual voters, rather than the opinions of establishment retreads, is the only foundation upon which any Republican can build a 2012 victory over Barack Obama. Regardless of which candidate wins the GOP presidential nomination, the President and his minions will use the same strategy. Because they cannot run on their record, they will promulgate a few disingenuous talking points about the real issues and then  launch a vicious campaign of personal vilification. Only a candidate with the support of rank-and-file Republicans, including Tea Partiers, and a clear record of success on jobs and health care will be able to survive and overcome this strategy. Rick Perry has what it takes and Mitt Romney doesn't.   

Think I am going to borrow David Catron's "opinions of establishment retreads" -- love the retreads comment because that is exactly what has been happening since the Nixon years -- same people brought back into Government from both sides.  Bet you won't find all the Bush #41 people in a Perry Administration.  Maybe that is what Rove and other 'retreads' are so concerned about -- no job in a Republican Administration.  Now that would be progress!

The funniest was Romney calling Perry a career politician when Romney ran in 1994, lost to Ted Kennedy or shall we say blew the race, then the Mormom Church made sure he was head of the Winter Olympics, went back to Massachusetts after that to run for Governor and then quit after one term to prepare himself to run for President not once but twice.  What is the difference everyone is pointing out -- Perry won his races and has a track record he can stand on as Ag Commissioner, Lt Governor, and Governor.  Perry couldn't afford to take off years to prepare to run for President like Romney. 

Romney self-financing his own races doesn't translate to votes like a candidate who gets small donors in large numbers donating their $20 to a campaign.  Then you have the Mormon stiff arming in the states to get their members to donate to Mormon candidates, but who will vote for another candidate in the secrecy of the ballot box.  That is part of the reason that Romney has lost all but the Massachusetts Governor's race when he relied on his time as head of the Olympics to propel him into office. Has his wife cut off his use of the family fortune this time that has been rumored?  Is that why Romney is trying to get all the money out of Wall Street?  What is he promising for their donations -- the status quo?  

Since leaving office in 2006, what has Romney been doing except telling people he is unemployed.  Where is the track record of achievement for the last five years?  He didn't even follow through on his promise to help McCain win in places like Michigan -- he never campaigned for him there or much of anyplace.  Rudy was all over helping McCain.  

Some establishment retreads have already complained that Oil and Gas is going to give big to Governor Perry and they will be in his hip pocket.  They don't know the Governor.  He understands their plight and what they have been going through with the excessive EPA regulations and Obama moratoriums on Gulf Oil Drilling which has costs thousands and thousands of jobs along the Gulf Coast.   At the same time he signed a law on using fracking to drill so all chemicals used are disclosed.  Sure doesn't sound like someone in their hip pocket or he wouldn't have wanted the fracking disclosure bill. 

Perry understands that this Country has an abundance of  oil and gas that is waiting to be drilled to help make the Country more self sufficient.  Unlike some candidates, he also understands that you have to take the environment into consideration where you want to drill.  It is foolish for any candidate to want to drill everywhere in the United States and shows a lack of knowledge about drilling for oil and gas.  The Everglades is not a good place to drill even with their abundance of oil because of the ecological factors involved while West Texas in the Permian Basin is perfect in spite of a beetle or a lizard.  The ecological damage from an oil spill in West Texas versus the Everglades is world's apart.  

You have oil and gas for Perry and Wall Street for Romney.  Oil and gas wants to create jobs for more Americans and have the country become more self sufficient and less dependent on foreign oil from OPEC.  Wall Street likes the status quo from the Fed along with the weak dollar and looks to be addicted to the Federal bailouts/stimulus packages while paying their CEO's big bonuses.  Perry wins that battle as well with most Republicans.

Why is the GOP establishment so against Rick Perry?  Are they afraid he will join the Congress is doing away with a lot of regulations and programs like No Child Left Behind (NCLB) that the Bush Family and others have made millions of dollars first with Neil Bush and then other family members with NCLB?  Do they prefer the status quo on the economy as the rich get richer and the middle class savings keep dwindling?  Is this all about money or about power or both?  This is so far over the top with the attacks, they have only served to galvanize his support among the rank and file grassroots Republicans and a lot of the local Tea Party.  

It is so obvious what is happening that site after site has caught on to the Bush 41/Rove/Romney attempts to take out Governor Perry and are not afraid to bring it out in the open.  Are the duo willing to try and split the GOP to give us Romney?  UGH!  What remains the biggest question is WHY?

Now the American Spectator comes along with the facts in this David Catron article that shows the Bush 41 establishment mantra of Romney can win against Obama not Perry is flat out wrong:

Political HayWhy Perry Can Beat Obama and Romney Can'tBy David Catron on 8.30.11 @ 6:09AM 

Most of the GOP establishment is uncomfortable with Rick Perry. Few have openly attacked the Texas governor, as Karl Rove did when Perry criticized Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. However, the grumblings of former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan​, a number of former Bush aides, and sundry other Republican luminaries have made it clear that they would prefer to see Mitt Romney as the GOP standard-bearer in 2012. Even inveterate RINO-basher Ann Coulter​ has said "Romney could actually beat Obama" and that Perry "won't live up to expectations." Coulter and the GOP establishment are wrong. Not only is Perry the favorite of rank-and-file Republicans, he is far better positioned than Romney to debate the President on the two issues that will inevitably dominate next year's campaign -- jobs and health care. 

On jobs, Perry has a story to tell that Romney can't hope to match. As the Wall Street Journal recently reported, "Some 37% of all net new American jobs since the recovery began were created in Texas." While most states have experienced anemic job growth since June of 2009, and eighteen governors have watched their states endure actual declines in growth, Governor Perry has presided over a state economy that has added 265,300 new jobs. That makes Texas the most prolific job generator in the nation. By contrast, Mitt Romney's record on job creation is lackluster at best. Job growth during his single term as Governor of Massachusetts was less than one percent, which "badly lagged other high-skill, high-wage, knowledge economy states like New York (2.7%), California (4.7%) and North Carolina (7.6%)." 

Consider this in the context of the upcoming presidential campaign: Rick Perry can contrast Obama's truly pathetic record on jobs with his own remarkable success. He can stand before the country in a debate and call out the President on his failed big-government agenda and say, as Charles Krauthammer recently phrased it, "Smaller government, I made it work, I created jobs." Romney, on the other hand, simply can't press the President on unemployment without being reminded that the Bay State "ranked 47th in the entire country in jobs growth" during his term as Massachusetts Governor. In other words, while Perry can go on the offensive, Romney would be reduced to defending his own record rather than highlighting Obama's abysmal performance on the economy. 

Romney's inability to press the President on job creation would be compounded by his impotence on Obamacare. At least half of the voters are still seething about that pernicious piece of legislation and the political skulduggery that was used to ram it down their throats. These voters will expect the Republican presidential nominee to go after the President on Obamacare, and Romney is utterly toothless on that issue. Why? The two-thousand page monstrosity that the White House and its legions of allies in the "news" media hilariously call the "Affordable Care Act" was modeled after the Massachusetts "universal coverage" legislation that Romney himself signed into law in 2006. And that ill-conceived law, commonly known as Romneycare, has been a fiscal and medical disaster for the Bay State. 

Thus, Romney can't criticize Obamacare's many offensive features without looking like a cheap political flip-flopper. He cannot, for example, credibly denounce the egregious individual mandate because it is modeled after a similar provision of Romneycare. Nor will his oft-repeated point that the Massachusetts mandate was enacted at the state level, and is therefore constitutional, cut much ice with the voters. They will be less interested in arcane nuances of the Commerce Clause than in the fact that they will be forced to buy government-approved insurance whether they want it or not. Likewise, Romney can't hit the President for producing a "reform" law that Obama's own administration admits will increase rather than decrease medical costs. His own health care "reform" law produced identical results. 

Rick Perry suffers from none of Romney's disabilities on health care. First, he isn't burdened by a failed health care albatross that will prevent him from aggressively going after the President on Obamacare. Unlike Romney, he can vehemently denounce the insurance mandate as an unconstitutional attack on individual liberty without having any similar abomination in his own record thrown back in his face. Moreover, because his record in Texas has emphasized the free market rather than state interference, he can credibly denounce the President's top-down approach to health care reform. While Romney must live down an Obama-like inclination toward government-imposed solutions, Perry's record demonstrates a clear bias in the other direction and allows him to more freely criticize Obama's big-government philosophy. 

This, of course, begs the following question: How do the results of Perry's approach compare to those of Romney's? Well, as Avik Roy recently put it, "If you're most concerned about runaway government spending, Perry is the clear winner. If the rising cost of health insurance is your primary worry, Perry wins there too." Among the reasons Perry wins in these areas is tort reform. In 2003, Perry convinced Texas voters to approve a cap on non-economic medical malpractice damages for physicians and hospitals. This initiative not only helped control the rise of health care costs due to defensive medicine, it helped deliver Texas from a growing problem that still bedevils Massachusetts -- physician shortages. In fact, tort reform has worked so well in this regard that the New York Times reluctantly reported its success. 

....

Read More at the  American Spectator