Romney Solidifies His Message: Pro-Free Enterprise, Anti-Washington

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Technically, it isn't hypocritical of him to say he hasn't served in DC, in spite of having run in 1994. I am fairly certain that he didn't consider that he would seriously beat Ted. And I see no reason not to take him at his word from the debate last year (where Newt critiqued him with the "pious baloney" line), that he ran just to provide competition to a typically unchallenged liberal.

Let me make certain I'm not misunderstanding you.

The man ran a campaign he knew he would lose, wasting his time and money, plus those of his supporters, and this is supposed to be a positive?

Please, spare us the noblesse oblige sob story.  Having already done this once, how can the GOP be certain that Romney isn't at it again, running a campaign he is convinced will ultimately fail?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Romney isn't pro-free entreprise.

He is pro-multinational. With him, small businesses would be screwed.

And just how does being "pro-multinational" (whatever that means), screw small businesses? Can you help me with some of this?

Because it gives an unfair advantage to the big corporations over the little ones.

How?  One thing economics most certainly is not is a zero-sum game.  Pro-multinational need not equal anti-everyone else or that equal pro-everyone else.  Give specifics instead of sound bites please.