gdp's Comments

Big Government : CPAC: Romney Tries to Be Not-Romney

Sun, 12 Feb 2012 04:41:49 +0000

First off, this author clearly doesn't have any clue about how Private Equity works, and Mitt's role in buying/selling/building companies. Second, this author somehow believes that Mitt was a mere consultant, severely understating the fact that Mitt was only a consultant at Bain for the first few years, and then built something, including major companies like Staples, Sports Authority and others, that mere consultants simply don't build. Third, still calling Mitt a "consultant" after turning around the Olympics and running the state of Massachusetts, is like calling Ron Paul "just a doctor" after decades of substantial legislative experience beyond his medical profession. There's a lot to be said of all the candidates, but it's hard to dispute that Mitt has FAR more turnaround experience than the other three. If you disagree, what have the other three done that even comes close? And, we're coming up on crunch time now and continuing to be fragmented across the Republican party. So it's time to stand up and be counted. Who are you voting for? We need to unite.

Big Government : CPAC: Romney Tries to Be Not-Romney

Sun, 12 Feb 2012 04:20:42 +0000

I agree that Walker and Christie have shown tremendous leadership and effective results so far. Neither one of them are running for President, so I'm not clear what your point is. Christie has endorsed Mitt Romney as the one he believes best equipped to do what Christie has done in New Jersey. Who are you voting for?

Big Government : CPAC: Romney Tries to Be Not-Romney

Sun, 12 Feb 2012 04:18:02 +0000

So balancing the budget in MA with almost an entirely democratic congress is Marxist? I think that a conservative who attempts and is able to move an extremely blue state to the right AT ALL is someone with much more substantive leadership experience, and potentially more help to the conservative movement than just another Republican in the south, where it's much easier to be elected and get something done. Give the guy some credit. MA is BRUTAL on Republicans, having lived there myself, and hardly able to find a conservative on the ballot. Mitt would be different running a center-right nation, as opposed to a far left MA. Leadership is situational, or otherwise you either don't get elected or you don't accomplish anything at all. BTW: What candidate are you standing up for in this election? It's decision time, and I can't find one past comment of yours that stands up for a candidate. It's certainly easy to take pot shots at every candidate, but if you want to make a difference and help us conservatives take the White House this election, you will need to take a stand. Otherwise, you're just creating the type of noise and confusion that will help Obama enjoy his second term. I'm with Mitt.

Big Government : CPAC: Romney Tries to Be Not-Romney

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:02:37 +0000

Marxist record? Kidding, right? Have you read about Marx and about Romney? Way off, there. He would run on his record, but "conservative" challenges are attack Romney from the left on free enterprise principles that Romney executed for 25 years in the private sector. That's his main record. Record in government? Four years in MA taking the state from a deficit to surplus, creating jobs, lowering taxes, and actually able to work with a congress from another party. Solid record and he runs on it. Do your homework.

Big Government : CPAC: Romney Tries to Be Not-Romney

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:33:53 +0000

Romney has spent his entire career doing one thing: turnarounds, taking the reins on terrible situations and fixing them. He turned around many companies, and even industries, as well as the pending fiscal disaster in the state of MA. What he did with the Olympics was stunning. Right now I believe we're in dire need of a turnaround as our deficit, debt, and economic issues are breathtaking. I agree that Mitt might not the most conservative of the candidates, but I'm convinced he can turn this country around. Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrinch have nothing in the remote ballpark of the type of turnaround work Romney has done. Thus, it all comes down to what is your top-most concern. if you're top concerns are social issues, then vote Santorum or another non-Mitt in the primaries, but keep in mind: a) most of the country's #1 concern is the economy and b) independents will not vote for Santorum or Gingrich in the general election. For me, the economy and our fiscal situation are in dire need of a turnaround specialist, and Romney is by far the best equipped for that specific mandate.

Commentary Magazine : The Real Reasons Conservatives Oppose Gingrich

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:41:21 +0000

In terms of the three issues: - Electability. Independents and moderates of all types - which are now the largest swing voting block in the country- will at least consider voting for Mitt Romney. The same can not be said of Newt, who repels independents and also women not named Palin. Romney/Obama is neck and neck, Newt loses by 10+%. - Temperament. We need someone who can bring a nation in crisis together and turn the ship around. Mitt is better prepared for this moment - by far - by turning around companies, the Olympics and the state of MA, which comes from having a level-headed temperament, suitable for crisis. - Conversative. Newt is left of Mitt on immigration. Newt is left of Mitt on free enterprise. Newt is left of Mitt on family values. Newt is left of Mitt on entitlement reform (see the above article.) Newt is also left of Mitt on government spending, as evidenced by all of the large government spending programs he keeps promising to every state. Newt = big government. I'm 100% confident that Mitt is the best qualified to not only win in November, but to succeed in the White House.

Big Government : Santorum Missed His Chance to Land Knockout Punch on Romney

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 02:33:26 +0000

Good point. I agree, he has not been clear on making those distinctions and should have by now. In a general election, he'd likely take the opportunity to press more on working with democrats, given the dismal approval ratings and stalled nature of Congress these days. But that said, it's certainly a tricky position in the primaries and is he would need to be careful about marginalizing the base.

Big Government : Santorum Missed His Chance to Land Knockout Punch on Romney

Sun, 29 Jan 2012 06:40:28 +0000

I assume you're kidding. If not, then dude, you need to get off those drugs. Now you're saying Romney isn't even a moderate? Wow. I guess as conservatives, we should simply give up on all the left-leaning states, you know, important ones like New York, Illinois, California, and Massachusetts where our larges cities, best universities and highest potential business opportunities are. So any Republican who's a governor of these states is a Marxist? Look at the type of impact that Chris Christie has had on New Jersey. A moderate Republican in office is FAR better than a far-left liberal in ANY state, and at ANY level of government. Mitt Romney winning in Massachusetts was a tremendous coup for the Republican party even if he did run from the center, which you simply have to do. I lived in Massachusetts and could hardly find a Republican on the ballot to vote for, so even having only moderates in office there does a lot more for our movement than having a "pure" conservatives that will not have an opportunity to make any sort of conservative impact on the state.

Big Government : Santorum Missed His Chance to Land Knockout Punch on Romney

Sun, 29 Jan 2012 05:28:58 +0000

Even if you characterize Mitt as "moderate" (which I disagree it, given how many areas where he's further right than Newt and Santorum, such as immigration and free enterprise) there is still a SUBSTANTIAL difference between Obama and Romney. Are you kidding me? Obama has helped push the most liberal agenda of any president we've ever had. Even taking health care off the table, the list is long where the candidates will differ: free enterprise (Dodd-Frank for example), government spending, defense, entitlement reform, environment (Romney would have moved forward with Keystone for example), and on and on. At least moderates will consider Romney, at least independents will consider Romney. Both of those groups (and women across the board by the way) CAN'T STAND Gingrich. Romney has also had a very different career path: private sector and executive (meaning execution) experience. Obama had never run anything in his life until Jan, 2009. There are many, many stark differences, in spite of what the non-Romneys believe. Taking health care off the table (which I believe are different anyway) tell me one substantive area where Romney and Obama have the same viewpoint?

Big Government : Santorum Missed His Chance to Land Knockout Punch on Romney

Sun, 29 Jan 2012 05:02:00 +0000

In the Republican primary, I can understand how RomneyCare and ObamaCare are going to be linked together by all the non-Romneys out there, particularly due to the individual mandate. I get that. However, there are substantial differences and in the general election, and Romney could draw distinctions, even if the individual mandate is a common thread between the two: - In terms of cost and exection, something done at the state level is very different than at the federal level. The bill in MA was 60 pages long. ObamaCare is 2100 pages. One word: Bureaucracy. - ObamaCare is MUCH more intrusive into corporations than RomneyCare, such as reporting, forcing companies to pay for 26 year-olds at home, etc. I beleive that Romney will work to repeal ObamaCare, and will be able to more than defend himself in a debate on the topic. Obama can attack the other candidates MUCH more than Romney. "What have YOU done to solve the heatlh care issues in the country?" Independents and others will care about that, and for them, RomneyCare would be an asset to Romney's general election campaign, assuming the base at least will vote no on Obama.

Big Government : Gingrich Sees Permanent US Moon Base by End of His Second Term

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:18:42 +0000

Makes no sense at all, given all we have to solve on this planet right now. High risk, low reward.

Big Government : The Fallacy of Gingrich as Unelectable

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 01:45:33 +0000

Don't be fooled by Newt's "true conservative" garbage. He's left of Romney on immigration. He's left of Romney on free enterprise. (See his leftist attacks on Romney.) He's left of Romney on entitlement reform. (Ask Paul Ryan.) He's left of Romney on climate change. (Ask Pelosi.) He's left of Romney on family values. While proving to be corrupt in office and in his personal life. Newt is a mirage. Sounds great, but that's where it ends. Newt is unelectable, just look at his national polling numbers.

Big Government : The Fallacy of Gingrich as Unelectable

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 01:39:00 +0000

Newt will lose to Obama, full stop. And the House will go back to the Democrats. Newt has too much baggage to win a general election and this will have a serious impact on the country through many other important elections in November. Every democrat and independent I know would at least consider voting for Romney, while at the same time having intense loathing for Newt. 2012 is absolutely critical to take back the White House, and Newt is a losing ticket. I wish it were otherwise, but I see our party not only shooting ourselves in the foot with Newt, but shooting off our leg. He's a one-trick pony: he can talk. But he can't execute and the majority of the nation can't stand him.

Big Government : Why Does Mitt Romney Want Low-Skilled Workers to Be Unemployed?

Sat, 14 Jan 2012 22:18:36 +0000

These Mitchell posts are starting to lose credibility in my opinion. Deceptive title (clearly not what Romney wants), quoting a paper in Oregon, not showing what the other candidates support, or going into proposals on pragmatic options on minimum wage from where we are today... pretty weak, Dan. Clearly Dan Mitchell is trying to bring Romney down while grasping at straws (see: Newt) but fails to take a stand on other candidates and their positions. If you think that Republicans are going to win any elections by focusing on abolishing the minimum wage, well, good luck with that, it's just not going to fly in this country at this time. If you're reasonable enough to accept that (not because it's the best answer, but because it's too hard of a sell to the American people right now) then what is the next best option? Indexing the minimum wage is simply a pragmatic acceptance of where we are today, not an indictment on all low-paying jobs.

Breitbart.tv : Watch The Movie Everyone Is Talking About: 'When Mitt Romney Came To Town'

Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:13:05 +0000

Careful about declaring Newt conservative and Romney not conservative, particularly if you're not going to share facts. Newt is clearly to the left of Romney on immigration. Newt is clearly to the left of Romney on free enterprise and capitalism, which happen to be the #1 issue in this election - the economy, and how to solve the deep issues we face. Newt is done and at this point, is only doing damage to the party. In spite of Newt's articulate nature and substantial knowledge that I do admire and respect, the people are definitely reminded of his incredible baggage, and just can't see a path to the White House. Newt as nominee = Obama's 2nd term.

Breitbart.tv : Watch The Movie Everyone Is Talking About: 'When Mitt Romney Came To Town'

Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:55:05 +0000

This video is one-sided trash, completely unhelpful to the dialogue, and harmful to the conservative position on the #1 issue in this election, which is the economy and allowing free enterprise to take its place again in the recovery. If you're interested in some of the realities around these companies and not just the deception, see this article below. Newt is shameful to endorse this, a complete hypocrit from what he attacked earlier, and clearly either doesn't understand how the economy is built, or doesn't truly believe in free enterprise. http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/01/12/the-bai...

Big Government : Since Romney Is Willing to Consider a VAT, Should Libertarians and Conservatives Be Willing to Consi

Sun, 25 Dec 2011 07:56:43 +0000

C'mon, now. He says he doesn't like the idea but would in essence, keep his options open. I hate the idea the a VAT as much as the next guy, but holding this up as a reason to dump him? Nah. Romney says he doesn't like it either as his first statement, and I'd be shocked if he ever did try to push a VAT forward. He knows we're in fiscal crisis, and in desperation, might need to keep some limited options open to avoid what happened to Bush Sr.

Breitbart.com : No votes, but things seem to be going Romney\'s way

Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:43:35 +0000

I would predict the opposite. We are heading into absolute crisis mode as a country, and that is where Mitt has spent his entire career - in turnaround situations with companies, the Olympic games and the state of MA. Jimmy Carter was a man who froze in a crisis, whereas, that is where Mitt Romney belongs. I would worry more about Romney when things are going well, but in crisis mode? There is no other candidate equipped as a leader like Romney is for this situation. Mitt's core skill set is intelligent problem solving, and that's exactly what we need right now. We're heading toward rock bottom, and I'm 100% confident that this nation would start to regain confidence as Romney comes up with viable solutions that at least most can get on board with.

Big Government : Romney and Cain Leading in Florida

Tue, 4 Oct 2011 17:53:02 +0000

Mitt Romney is the only candidate smart enough to solve our nation's foundational issues AND the only candidate savy enough to not shoot himself in the foot and lose in the general election. C'mon, we conservatives keep hoping for a white knight and then when we "find" one like Perry, he turns up to have all issues, and is almost guaranteed to say something incredibly stupid, offensive, or too religious that turns away the independents. There's too much at stake here to risk with a loose, unproven cannon. Elections these days are about not imploding (and no skeletons) and the only one on the stand capable of really beating Obama right now is Mitt Romney. You can hold out for the Ron Pauls, or new shiny conservative white knights all you want, but those will squarely land us with four more years of Obama. Let's win in 2012, Romney is acceptable to most conservatives, exciting to independents, and will run circles around Obama in a debate, unlike the other candidates.

Big Government : The Grade From Last Night’s Debate: Romney and Bachmann Clear Winners

Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:30:46 +0000

Mitt Romney is the smartest person up there, by a long shot. He's also the candidate who has solved the most complicated and impactful issues of anyone up there, also by a long shot. The reality is that the United States is in terrible trouble right now, and we need someone of extreme intellect who can solve some of our nation's historically deeply complex issues to turn our country around. There's only one issue that matters right now: the economy, and Romney is the only person who has the chops to solve it. Pure conservative? Maybe not, but I'm terrified of our future right now and I'm supporting the only candidate who I'm 100% convinced has the best shot of solving our nation's problems. We might not all like every solution, but all possibilities need to be on the table and the rest of the field is simply not equipped to turn this country around.