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.
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.
I agree with everything here, with a key exception.
This is not the 2006 GOP House Majority.
And in 2013 we will not realize a GOP Senate Majority given to the insane excesses of that now dead idiot from Alaska who demanded a 'bridge to nowhere' because he was wearing a comic book theme'd tie (eyes rolling).
The House dictates spending, the Senate ratifies it, the POTUS either signs off or veto's. I don't see how in the world barring a gigantic unforeseen emergency the next Congress, or the next POTUS, adds to the existing deficit.
There isn't any real leadership Congress and there isn't any sense of urgency.
Newt Gingrich is right about this -- Boehner should be passing a new bill every week to cut waste, streamline taxes, reign in our of control regulatory agencies, etc.
They aren't doing it.
Sure, they passed a budget and it died in the Senate. Yes, they passed one bill to cut the projected increase in the debt, and it died in the Senate.
Now, they are just sitting there doing nothing.
This is why people are pissed at the Congress.
We need clarity. Clarity would be the House passing a flat rate income tax; or consolidating the 72 federal welfare programs into 2 or 3 programs; or passing a sane and needed infrastructure bill that is paid for by spending cuts elsewhere; or passing a comprehensive "all of the above" energy bill that reigns in Obama's crazy regulatory Czars...
They should pass the bills and then blame Harry Reid for doing nothing. Instead, they are doing nothing and opening themselves up for attacks from Obama.
I don't trust that they will fight back against big government proposals from Romney. They will just go along like they did under Bush.
Sure, they passed a budget and it died in the Senate. Yes, they passed one bill to cut the increase in the projected debts, and it died in the Senate.
Now, they are just sitting there doing nothing.
They've actually passed ten or more bills that Reid blocked to date related to the economy, the deficit, trade, etc.
And lets be honest, its campaign season. Not by the choice of the House GOP, but the choice of the most desperate administration since Carter at this point in 1979.
Finally, I don't see any 'big goverment proposals' from Romney, and I am watching closely. That kind of thing flat out died with Owe-bama's insane stimulus that failed, and the equally insane Owebamacare.
Basically, what you are asserting here is Romney, or whoever the GOP nominee is, desires to be what Owe-bama undoubtedly will be, a one term failure.
Sorry, I don't see that kind of counter personal interest thing happening. I do understand the tendency towards a jaundiced viewpoint. I just think it requires ignoring multiple special elections, and a landslide last November, combined with ignoring political types think self preservation first.
They've actually passed ten or more bills that Reid blocked to date related to the economy, the deficit, trade, etc.
If so, then no one knows about them.
A great leader is part visionary and part salesman.
Boehner and McConnell are neither.
Boehner did not architect and lead the landslide in 2010, like Gingrich did in 94. Boehnher just happened to be there to benefit from the results. Now, he's not leading. This is a problem for them.
