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

[Politico]

"I happen to be the only candidate in this race, Republican or Democrat, who has never worked a day in Washington," Romney said. "I don't have old scores to settle or decades of cloakroom deals that I have to defend."

"In business, if you're not fiscally conservative, you're bankrupt," he said. "I mean, I spent 25 years balancing budgets, eliminating waste, and, by the way, keeping as far away from government as humanly possible. I did some of the very things conservatism is designed for--I started new businesses and turned around broken ones. And I am not ashamed to say that I was successful in doing it."

"I served in government, but I didn't inhale--I'm still a business guy. And I can't wait to get my hands on Washington."

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/live-stream-mitt-romney-cpac-speech-163639781.html

[Lief 🗽]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But not for lack of trying!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except for that whole making hundreds of millions of dollars from firing people thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or you're Bain Capital and you get a nice $50 million government bailout.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right, because you've lost all but one of the elections you've run in. You're like a nerdy kid who brags about never doing drugs despite the fact that he would have readily done them if the cool kids had just invited him to their parties.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And now you sound like a rapist.

[Politico]

But not for lack of trying!

No Republican could beat Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, because in Lief's World it is better if a distressed company goes bankrupt and EVERYBODY loses their job rather than undergoing a restructuring of the company, unfortunately having to lay off people in the process, but eventually getting the company back on solid footing (i.e., growing and hiring people again).

Let's see: Everybody becomes equally poor OR "some you win/some you lose"? I think I'll go with the latter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bain Capital manages approximately $60 billion in assets. Put another way, that is $60,000 million (I know some of our friends on the left failed math in school, and cannot differentiate between millions, billions, trillions, etc.). I do not know who told you that Bain received a $50 million government bailout on Romney's watch, but you need to stop reading them.

[Thomas D]

He didn't just lose to Ted Kennedy. He also ran for President 4 years ago and lost.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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 criticed him with the "pious baloney" line), that he ran just to provide competition to a typically unchallenged liberal.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

And now you sound like a rapist.

We need somebody to make Washington squeal like the pig it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gLN3QoN-q8

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

He didn't just lose to Ted Kennedy. He also ran for President 4 years ago and lost.

..and didn't run for re-election for Governor because he was going to have his arse handed to him.

[RI]

[MaxQue]

Romney isn't pro-free entreprise.

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

[Torie]

He didn't just lose to Ted Kennedy. He also ran for President 4 years ago and lost.

..and didn't run for re-election for Governor because he was going to have his arse handed to him.

And that is because Mittens governed as a "severe conservative" in a liberal state silly. Connect the dots.

[Torie]

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?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

He didn't just lose to Ted Kennedy. He also ran for President 4 years ago and lost.

..and didn't run for re-election for Governor because he was going to have his arse handed to him.

And that is because Mittens governed as a "severe conservative" in a liberal state silly. Connect the dots.

If Romney were to have lost a possible reelection in 2006, it would have been mostly because of George Bush (like Ehlrick in MD), and somewhat because of the big dig not being turn around. Indeed, most of Mitten's failures were within the DOT. It should be noted that polling was erratic on his approvals, according to SurveyUSA as I posted in the "Would Mitt Romney have lost big" or whatever that thread was called. He went from 56% disapproves in June 2006 to 48-48 in July 2006 and 48-49 in August 2006. Unfortunately for Mitten's, he ended in one of the troughs. But it should be noted that his numbers had previously always recovered and it is unfair to call him an abysmal failure or say that he was markedly unpopular based on only a three months sample from October to December of 2006, which would represent the peak effect of Democratic campaign efforts to tarnish his record.

Looking through the page of approvals from back then, there were points in which Haley Barbour, Christine Gregoire, Bob Riley and Ted Kulongooski were around -30 in their numbers. All of whom got reelected, mind you. He wasn't like a Bob Taft or a Frank Murkowski who remained dead once the numbers went down.

[Torie]

And just how does a Yankee who carpet bagged south know so much about the Bay State? I'm impressed! 

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Sometime around 2004, Mitt made a very real decision to seek the office of the Presidency in 2008 rather than a second term in 2006. The fingerprints of that decision were all over his actions in 2004, most notably his trip to Washington DC to ask for a gay marriage amendment. Romney is a smart enough guy to know that doesn't help his chances in Mass -- hell, his advisors were telling those of us manning State Rep and State Senate races in the state that year to avoid gay marriage like the plague.

Had Romney actually wanted to win re-election in 2006, he very well could have. But to do so, he'd have to stay closer to the middle -- and staying close to the middle doesn't win GOP primaries.

[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?

[MaxQue]

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.

[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.

[Politico]

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.

His econ score is -5.03. What else do you need to know? He's clearly clueless on economics. These people think that everything is about distribution or, to be more precise, using the government to redistribute. Even if their life depended upon it, they could not understand the concept of comparative advantage, let alone the idea that growth allows everybody to potentially gain a larger slice of the pie without it being at the expense of somebody else (positive-sum game). They do not understand why their policies create stagnation, which does indeed make the economy a sort of zero-sum game in the sense that one can only gain a larger slice of the pie if it is at the expense of somebody else and their slice. Then again, this is why liberal politicians love stagnation. It helps feed belief in the fallacies of their followers, and has everybody becoming increasingly in favor of dependency upon government.

[Politico]

I accidentally left out the best part of Romney's speech:

"Let me tell you, any politician who tries to convince you that they hated Washington so much that they just couldn't leave, well, that's the same politician who will try to sell you a bridge to nowhere."