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.
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.
