Video title: Liberal Mitt's Greatest Hits: What Romney Doesn't Want You to See
Riiiiight. He went on one of the highest rated biz news outlets cause he didn't want to be 'seen'....uh huh, and Owe-bama has a 99% approval rating, unicorn's exist, and unemployment is at 2% nationally.
Riiiiight. He went on one of the highest rated biz news outlets cause he didn't want to be 'seen'....uh huh,
He went on the air because he was running for Governor of Massachusetts. That is what they wanted to hear there. Now that he is running for President as a Republican. We don't want to hear that liberal talk. Mitt says what he thinks you want to hear. Did you hear him talking about global warming. He was saying he was a believer. But not a for sure believer just possibly. He was trying to take middle ground. Again showing he will say what he thinks people want to hear.
Mike. I already knew this stuff. So don't think you have had any effect with this article.
Having said all that. I would take Romney over the thug in the White House any day of the week.
Out of the people still standing here is my picks.
I would take Romney over the thug in the White House any day of the week
Yep.
Personally, at the moment, I'd like to see Romney and Cain on the ticket, either combination.
48 months of businessmen in the Whitehouse would go a long way to getting the economy moving again. Right now, thats the only issue that matters to everyone.
I would take Romney over the thug in the White House any day of the week
Yep.
Here's the problem: We don't have any defense against a liberal Republican in the White House.
Look what happened under Bush -- he spent money like a drunken sailor and what got blamed for his failures? Bush's "extreme free market policies". Bush didn't have any free market policies. But that's what got blamed and the answer, of course, was more government.
With Obama in the White House, we know what to blame -- "Obama's extreme big government policies". It provides clarity. Liberal Republicans provide confusion.
LONG TERM -- we will be much better off with a Democrat destroying the economy than a liberal Republican destroying the economy, because it will provide clarity to the American people.
You are aware that the current GOP leadership - Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, et al. all voted for that spending, right?
Heck, all but four of the current GOP reps, including Michelle Bachmann, voted for the Paul Ryan plan to increase federal spending by $700 billion over 8 years while adding another $6 trillion to the national debt.
There are about 40 good people in the House and maybe a half dozen in the Senate. That's it.
All but 4 Republicans voted for more spending and higher debt.
Utter nonsense.
If you are talking about the Ryan budget, it decreased projected increases in spending and new debt by $4 trillion over the next 10 years. Is this enough? No. I preferred Tom Colburn's budget that reduced projected increases in spending and debt by $9 trillion over the next 10 years and gave us a balanced budget at the end.
But Ryan's proposal was much better than the massive new spending and debt that current plans call for, let alone what the nutty Kenysians want. Right now, I'll take any progress over no progress or making things worse.
