Peter

President Mitt Romney

Recommended Posts

http://libertynews.com/2011/12/19/tea-party-group-launches-effort-to-oppose-mitt-romney-in-final-stretch/

Mitt Romney Candidacy Ignites Tea Party Movement Revolt

New Tea Party Super PAC Aims to Galvanize Activists as Early Primaries Unravel

A newly formed Tea Party Super PAC is aggressively uniting tea party activists in a last minute effort to quell any potential momentum Mitt Romney may see in the final weeks before the Iowa Caucuses. The Super PAC, now in its second month of online, already has 40,000 subscribing members and a busy online presence.

http://notmittromney.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to fast after 7:30 last night and then get to the VA clinic early to give blood samples to make sure my medicines aren’t killing me. I survived, but I must have gotten up three or four times last night watching “Terra Nova” without thinking to get a snack, then remembered, “No Food you Dodo.” Snacks are bad but alcohol, even bourbon with a diet drink, can pack on the pounds especially during the holidays. I have gotten two pair of long, warm-up pants but I have not jogged in them yet.

That liberty News website is interesting, Adam.

An analyst wrote:

The tea party Super PAC now fully opposing Romney should provide a wake up call for the GOP primary electorate. The tea party movement is an incredibly energetic group of voters and forcing them to lose excitement in the general election, as happened with John McCain, could prove damaging later in 2012.

-Eric Odom

They did not like Newt either but supported Ron Paul. Ron Paul? For Real? Really? He is going to win? Bullshit. He would get 35 percent or less in a general election. That throws a wet blanket over their whole movement.

I don’t think we should compromise with principle during the primaries but after the first few contests we will need to pick a winner.

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any libertarian/objectivist/conservative that still have any doubts about where Romney stands, should watch or read the text of the interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, two days ago. http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/2011/12/18/mitt-romney-beating-back-gingrich-surge Wallace has him stuttering all over the place about what his positions are, but some things were made crystal-clear:

1) Romney is not against his Massacusetts RomneyCare (and by implication, ObamaCare). When pinned down on principles, he finally says that RomneyCare was "just fine for Massacusetts," and merely thinks each state (note, not individual) should choose the type of mandated health on their own, rather than a federal imposed system.

2) On regulation (of business enterprise, the financial markets, environment, etc): On principle, he is not opposed. Says regulation is a good thing. All we need is better regulation (and that he's the man to do it).

On most other subjects, he sounds like Bush trying to appeal to "conservatives," while really being a middle-of-the-roader. Ultimately, the public will not buy his equivocations. In debates, Obama will eat him alive, pointing out that RomneyCare was a model for ObamaCare. If you want another Bush (both of them), Ford, Nixon, etc., he's your guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry Biggers wrote:

When pinned down on principles, he finally says that RomneyCare was "just fine for Massachusetts," and merely thinks each state (note, not individual) should choose the type of mandated health on their own,

end quote

That is troubling. I heard part of it when it was broadcast the second time and I remember one of his reasons for not renouncing his Massachusetts’ mandated health care was that before the law eight percent of the people in his state were uninsured. Afterward, nearly 100 percent were insured. How is this not coercion? Federal and State laws insist that hospitals treat everyone who comes into their emergency rooms even if they cannot pay. So all of the people who pay for their medical care are also paying for the uninsured poor through higher costs.

Rush mentioned the best and most obvious political catch-phrase for Republicans, whoever is nominated in 2012 will be: “Are you better off than you were four years ago.” Also lifted from the Democrat playbook, we could use campaign manager of the year James Carville’s catch-phrase for Bill Clinton, “It’s the economy, Stupid.”

Or Rush mentioned Obama running on the questionable fact that the unemployment rate is eight percent. Since when is an eight percent unemployment rate considered low? It never has. Have the Wendy’s old lady or a voice-alike ask, “Wheeere’s the beef? Wheeere’s the jobs? Wheeere’s the change and hope? Wheeere’s my car keys?” He cannot run on his record.

We can do better than Saturday Night Live, and those moronic comedians, in writing some good lines for our nominee. I know Huntsman, for example uses things people email to him in his speeches and during the debates.

As Bill Perry’s favorite comedian, Larry the Cable Guy says, “Get ‘er Done!”

As an aside about SNL. Their skit about Jesus appearing next to a praying Tim Tebow in the locker room. What if Mohammed were to appear in front of a praying Muslim. Would the audience hoot in derision? I don’t think so. It is OK to make fun of Christians though.

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rasmussen December 21, 2011

Nationally Romney 17 Gingrich 38

Iowa Romney 23 Gingrich 18

New Hampshire Romney 33 Gingrich 22

South Carolina Romney 23 Gingrich 15

Florida Romney 24 Gingrich 19

Will that national average hold if Romney wins the first three or four primaries?

I went back and listened to most of the interview. Jerry, we are not going to get a Ron Paul / Objectivist style libertarian. I agree that the primaries are the time to push our values to the utmost.

In the interview, the economy and entitlement reform, are Romney’s first two concerns. I DO THINK he will preside in the manner of Paul Ryan, as much as or more so than Newt Gingrich.

Chris Wallace asked him, Are you just offering “fine tuning?”

No, Mitt said. Pass Paul Ryan’s plan.

On taxes, Mitt said he is not raising the tax rate on anyone. I think he will keep the tax rates stable for the rich. But he focuses on the middle class, because the rich are doing just fine. No taxes on capital gains or interest earned is his plan for the middle class, and no tax on savings at all. It was one of those read my lips kinds of declarations. Mitt will cut spending 500 billion in 26 days. Cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP then have a balanced budget amendment.

He will eliminate programs but not education which helps disabled children, but he will keep it small. On Romneycare Mitt said, freeriders are a national problem, so he would encourage States and people to have insurance. Give tax breaks to people with insurance, but on a state by state system, using the Massachusetts’ model. The 10th Amendment prohibits Obamacare.

Peter

Some notes I took from the Chris Wallace, Mitt Romney interview

China dumping steel cost one of Mitt’s steel mills that he invested in, and it went bankrupt.

In a one on one campaign with Obama, Mitt would ask, Mr. President how did your policies work?

Obama will go after him like Gordon Gecko, Greed is good. That picture of Mitt holding up dollar bills? That picture is about raising a large amount for an investment fund. Is Mitt a Fat cat, or Hardhearted? No. Free enterprise will be on trial. Profit is good. Loss means lost jobs.

Going against Newt. Newt called Ryan’s plan unreliable” right wing engineering. His global warming sitdown with Nancy Pelosi was when Cap and trade was being battled by Congress. Newt cut the legs out from under good republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry Biggers wrote:

Ultimately, the public will not buy his equivocations. In debates, Obama will eat him alive, pointing out that RomneyCare was a model for ObamaCare.

end quote

I will agree to disagree. Let me let you in on a secret. Mitt Romney has been the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party by HIS design, since the elections of 2008, but not by RINO (Republican In Name Only) decree. He is not a RINO and for proof look at his political stances on his site. As do the other nominees who saw the writing on the wall in 2010, he is philosophically compatible with the Tea Party but his conversion is more authentic. Some pundits say he can’t get more than 25 percent in a Republican primary election??? He has almost instinctively avoided pulling further ahead of the pack, WHICH HE COULD DO – he knows how, because the “head” gets cut off. His strategy is to win or come in second in Iowa then win in New Hampshire. He will always appear Presidential. He will always be who he is: a composed, thoughtful, driven Politician with OUR values, and let me say again, Mitt, who is a Mormon, possesses many of our essential values.

It has always fascinated me that “Religious Conservatives” can agree with Objectivists on so many issues using their reason, but their reasoned values have religion as a foundation for those political choices. I am wary of them for that reason but I will not spit on them for their beliefs. Objectivists should do some research, if you doubt me.

When the 2012 election comes, pull the lever for Mitt Romney if he is the Republican nominee, not Gary Johnson the possible Libertarian candidate.

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

blackhorse wrote:

Romney will be Bush III. We'll all get just a pittance of our liberty back...a pittance.

End quote

Those who won’t be elected will have little affect on the quality of our Constitutional Government. How much of our liberty will Ron Paul or Gary Johnson retrieve? Their role is philosophical and inspirational but not political. One of the points where I am in agreement with the Rational Anarchists is that republican, Constitutional Government is cumbersome and has “loopholes” within which power can be usurped. Let’s fix that. Are you willing to go down the road of rebellion? No? Want to join the trailer park trash at all the Occupy Wall Street protests who are tools for the reelection of Obama? No? Well, the alternative is to work within the system devised by the Founding Fathers.

We are at a crossroads. I don’t think Gingrich, Paul, Perry, Santorum, Bachmann, or Huntsman will win the primaries. In 2008 at this time, Huckabee and Hillary Clinton were the leaders. If any of the Republican nominees other than Mitt win the convention I will vote for them. Rand supported Dewey and Goldwater who were not perfect, because the alternative was much, much worse. YOU should go to Romney’s site and evaluate it. Do the right thing.

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Rand supported Dewey...

Peter

Source please...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two sides to the enemy and the death by design of one of our enemies arranged by our president does not mean that he is on our side rather that he is on the other side of the enemy camp.

We know that there were reports out of the philipines that someday they would hijack airplanes and fly them into our buildings. Our intelligence agencies practically ignored these reports rather than heighten alertness. That is one of the downsides to having a government which has gotten so involved in areas in which it has no business that it becomes incompetent at the very things it is meant to do.

Now the threat is that someday ships carrying explosives will enter many of our harbors to deliver fuel but rather will explode on a massive scale destroying hundreds of thousands of our people within range of our harbors possibly sucking oxygen from miles around causing deaths of millions. Why? In order to take down our economy and our country and replacing it with another government and bringing riches to already wealthy and powerful elites who are working on making this happen. I am told that our intelligence agencies and other entities have already been infiltrated.

Recall that Kennedy and Kerry were able to forbid entry of such vessels into the ports of Boston but new deals are in the process of being made to enable the seemingly peaceful use of many harbors along our coasts. Romney may have been involved in signing such deals suggesting that he is naive and not the one who should be in command. Be careful for what you wish for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter, IF Romney gets the GOP nom. I will vote for him, but only then. Obama must not be re-elected. If Romney becomes President (assuming he wins the nom. which he may not) then the work of liberty lovers everywhere must go in to overtime, because as Ayn rand new; the threat to freedom comes from the supposed good guys. Romney IMO is still Bush III - but better to be ruled by a fool than an enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote that Rand supported Dewey.

Adam asked : Source please...

I have known this since 1965. Rand has said this in a newspaper column. I think NB or BB have said this. Jennifer Burn’s in “Goddess of the Market” has said this. Where have you been?

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blackhorse wrote:

Peter, IF Romney gets the GOP nom. I will vote for him, but only then. Obama must not be re-elected. If Romney becomes President (assuming he wins the nom. which he may not) then the work of liberty lovers everywhere must go in to overtime, because as Ayn Rand knew; the threat to freedom comes from the supposed good guys. Romney IMO is still Bush III - but better to be ruled by a fool than an enemy.

end quote

Well said, but Mitt as a fool is very harsh. Let me convince you, because an ardent supporter is needed for the enlightenment. Mitt is honorable and does not lie but the charge against him is that he has convenient conversions for political reasons. Using that assumption then Mitt will correctly mirror those Tea Party policies that will garner him support in the primaries. THAT IS GOOD. And then he will mirror the mood of the country which is definitely more conservative than four years ago in the 2012 elections. THAT IS GOOD. And then in 2015 he will once again mirror the majority opinions of the electorate to get reelected in 2016, and that’s the rub. How popular will an incorruptible but “human”, Mitt become with the electorate after four years of no bullshit and less government, if a fashionable liberal emerges, or if the electorate leans left?

Is there a grain of truth in the above paragraph? If there is or if there isn’t I suggest we Objectivist activists keep the mood of the country in the land of the free: free markets, free press and internet, freedom of action, and fewer foreign entanglements. Do what I am doing. Use your abilities to further Objectivism and a strict interpretation of the US Constitution. See the info below from Romney’s site below, as ammunition.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Notes

From the official Mitt Romney for President web site as of January 1st, 2012:

Mitt Romney will rebuild the foundations of the American economy on the principles of free enterprise, hard work, and innovation. His plan seeks to reduce taxes, spending, regulation, and government programs. It seeks to increase trade, energy production, human capital, and labor flexibility. It relinquishes power to the states instead of claiming to have the solution to every problem.

Any American living through this economic crisis will immediately recognize the severity of the break that Mitt Romney proposes from our current course. He is calling for a fundamental change in Washington’s view of how economic growth and prosperity are achieved, how jobs are created, and how government can support these endeavors. It is at once a deeply conservative return to policies that have served our nation well and a highly ambitious departure from the policies of our current leadership. In short, it is a plan to get America back to work

Our next president must repeal Obamacare and replace it with market-based reforms that empower states and individuals and reduce health care costs. States and private markets, not the federal government, hold the key to improving our health care system.

Our country today faces a bewildering array of threats and opportunities. As president, Mitt Romney will safeguard America and secure our country’s interests and most cherished ideals. The unifying thread of his national security strategy is American strength. When America is strong, the world is safer. It is only American power—conceived in the broadest terms—that can provide the foundation for an international system that ensures the security and prosperity of the United States and our friends and allies.

A Romney foreign policy will proceed with clarity and resolve. Our friends and allies will not have doubts about where we stand and what we will do to safeguard our interests and theirs. Neither will our rivals, competitors, and adversaries. The best ally world peace has ever known is a strong America. The “last best hope of earth” was what Abraham Lincoln called our country. Mitt Romney believes in fulfilling the promise of Lincoln’s words and will defend America abroad in word and in deed.

end quote

“America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business,”

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 46 Economic Power vs. Political Power

A disastrous intellectual package-deal, put over on us by the theoreticians of statism, is the equation of economic power with political power. You have heard it expressed in such bromides as: “A hungry man is not free,” or “It makes no difference to a worker whether he takes orders from a businessman or from a bureaucrat.” Most people accept these equivocations—and yet they know that the poorest laborer in America is freer and more secure than the richest commissar in Soviet Russia. What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery? It is the principle of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion.

The difference between political power and any other kind of social “power,” between a government and any private organization, is the fact that a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force.

“The Objectivist Ethics,”

The Virtue of Selfishness, 33

When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

“What Is Capitalism?”

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 17

The action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual: everything man needs has to be discovered by his mind and produced by his effort. Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival . . . .

Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just received this in my inbox, from Mitt.

Peter,

You guys are great.

I’ve been overwhelmed by your support on the campaign trail. At recent events, so many of you have shown up that we’ve had to add overflow rooms.

We have all been working hard. After all, this isn’t just an election to replace a president — it is an election to save the soul of America.

Election Night in New Hampshire will be a great a chance to celebrate how far we’ve come. I want you to be there with me on January 10th.

Donate as little as $1 to be automatically entered to join me on Election Night.

I know that many of you are doing whatever you can to help: making calls, knocking on doors, sharing videos on Facebook, and chatting with friends and family.

None of us are taking this for granted. Every vote needs to be earned. And I’m hopeful that you’ll be able to witness the fruits of our labor in New Hampshire on Election Night.

Be there with me on Election Night —donate $1 or more today.

end quote

Wow. Just a buck, and he knew my name. My wife has already given him considerably more than that but I will think about another buck. That is brilliant advertising. Nobody is going to give just a buck. His sons are helping him in his campaign as well as his daughter Ann. It would be nice to be able to shake his hand if he wins.

Sigh. I am watching Dallas lose, but the Giants are worth supporting.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep an eye on Santorum...

I am. He promises to bomb Iran. How did he put it? He would -degrade- Iran's nuclear sites. You have to love that.

If he runs, all other things being equal I will vote for him. We need a stone killer at the helm.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ba'al Chatzaf wrote:

I am. He promises to bomb Iran. How did he put it? He would -degrade- Iran's nuclear sites. You have to love that. If he runs, all other things being equal I will vote for him. We need a stone killer at the helm.

end quote

ok. You got me. You are capable of sarcasm?

We have three carriers within striking distance which means three sea-going battle groups and hundreds of ships, and troops around the area in Qatar, UAE, etc., so stone killing can be done. Does a strike need to be done? A military analyst on Fox said it would take three days, and boots briefly on the ground. Should it be done?

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok. You got me. You are capable of sarcasm?

We have three carriers within striking distance which means three sea-going battle groups and hundreds of ships, and troops around the area in Qatar, UAE, etc., so stone killing can be done. Does a strike need to be done? A military analyst on Fox said it would take three days, and boots briefly on the ground. Should it be done?

Peter

Take me at my word, as I take you at yours. I don't care how many carriers we have nearby. If Our Leader has not got the balls to use them, they they are just toy boats floating in the sea.

We have spent a zillion dollars on weapons. Let us get our money's worth from them.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Santorum looks to be a spoiler, which I welcome with open arms. Romney is Bush III. Santorum, though he has his PORK record in the Senate, appears to be the most rational and CONSISTENT of all the candidates (not including wRONg Paul). Go Santorum go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blackhorse wrote:

As the primaries progress it will be either Perry or Santorum who will end up facing off against Romney the RINO.

end quote

Very astute. I am listening to Rush right now and he is exploring the rumor that conservative insiders are asking some to drop out so they can coalesce around one anti – Romney. That source may be Sarah Palin who said, “It is not Michelle Bachmann’s time.” I saw that on Neal Cavuto’s show just like Rush, where a guy from The Five is filling in. She must have been on for forty minutes yesterday and answered every question under the sun. Sarah has grown intellectually since 2008.

She is the source for the anti – Romney coalition. Rush thought that was good. He is not a Mitt fan though he will support him if nominated. He will not get behind any candidate at this time but I am pretty sure Rush would still be the happiest with Rick Perry. He spent five minutes saying Rick is not dumb and gave a good example of his intellect and poise.

He also mentioned that the reason Santorum is doing so well in Iowa and New Hampshire is because those are two of the few states with lower unemployment and the economy is not the main issue. So Rick Santorum’s character and his moral issues are hotter there.

It is 33 here and extremely windy, at 1:30pm and will go down to 13 degrees tonight. I will give the outside cats some extra Purina tonight and a bowl of heated whole milk which they love. Tomorrow I will go out for the first time this year and break the ice on the water tubs I keep for deer and other wild animals.

“I talk to the animals, to the animals . . . and the animals talk to me.”

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

I too, would support Bush III if he got the GOP nom, however I am holding out hope that either Perry or Santorum will defeat him. The American public is so afraid of Obama being re-elected that they are too willing to stand behind the most moderate candidate of the GOP field. Ayn Rand knew her stuff.-in order to get men of integrity and substance in office we need a public who values reason and substance. Political decisions based on fear always end up disappointing and running counter to real progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

I too, would support Bush III if he got the GOP nom, however I am holding out hope that either Perry or Santorum will defeat him. The American public is so afraid of Obama being re-elected that they are too willing to stand behind the most moderate candidate of the GOP field. Ayn Rand knew her stuff.-in order to get men of integrity and substance in office we need a public who values reason and substance. Political decisions based on fear always end up disappointing and running counter to real progress.

If that is the case, do not hold your breath until things improve. If you do, you will turn blue.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife just got two letters from Mitt in the mail. I retrieved one from the trash and it had what looks like a credit card in it with the words, “Romney- believe in America,” then “2012 member” below, next to his 1½ by 1½ inch color picture. On the back it says, “This card identifies you as a financial supporter . . . etc." Oh, and the amounts specified to contribute on the cardboard note the card was stuck to are $25, $38, $50, and Other $_ The 38 dollar amount baffles me. I think I will keep it just in case he wins.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

blackhorse wrote:

Santorum looks to be a spoiler, which I welcome with open arms. Romney is Bush III. Santorum, though he has his PORK record in the Senate, appears to be the most rational and CONSISTENT of all the candidates (not including wRONg Paul). Go Santorum go.

end quote

You wrote that on January 2nd. Hmmm, maybe you are smart. I have been looking around for reasons to support Santorum, “just in case.” I feel bad for Michelle Bachmann who is swallowing a morning after pill and withdrawing.

From a, not political doctor’s perspective, Santorum gets decent marks. The renowned epidemiologist Marc Siegel MD who is a practicing internist, an associate professor of medicine at NYU Langone Medical Center, and the Medical Director of Doctor Radio with NYU Langone and Sirius/XM Satellite Radio likes Rick. Doctor Siegel is also with the Fox News Medical A Team. Both Doctor Siegel and Rick Santorum want to enlarge and simplify private insurance accounts, expanding them across state lines, and Santorum wants to, “limit insurance usage to the sick.” Huh? I won’t go into that complicated issue but Santorum is not dumb. In contrast Doctor Siegel thinks RomneyCare turned Massachusetts’s into the most expensive state for medical insurance.

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...