Cleveland Buck;1081819 wrote:That might work, except he has no problem with the thousands of other federal programs that violate the 10th amendment of the Constitution, or the ones that violate other parts of it either.

IggyPride00;1081815 wrote:No, he couldn't.

In 2012, the Republican/Conservative base has zero tolerance for a government mandate of any kind be it on the state or federal level.

The 10th amendment argument falls flat because being supportive of government mandates is not in step with Conservative values.

That is why Romney is boxed in so bad on the issue. Any way he argues it, Republicans don't want to hear it.

The Tea Party had the biggest Congressional victory in 100+ years on the back of outrage over Obamacare. To then nominate someone who ideologically agreed with everything in Obamacare (and implemented it himself when given the chance) cuts off that wave of enthusiasm at the knees.

How do you argue against Obamacare when you are supportive of all the ideas behind it. That is how you get yourself labeled a flip flopper in American politics.

IggyPride00;1081815 wrote:No, he couldn't.

In 2012, the Republican/Conservative base has zero tolerance for a government mandate of any kind be it on the state or federal level.

The 10th amendment argument falls flat because being supportive of government mandates is not in step with Conservative values.

That is why Romney is boxed in so bad on the issue. Any way he argues it, Republicans don't want to hear it.

The Tea Party had the biggest Congressional victory in 100+ years on the back of outrage over Obamacare. To then nominate someone who ideologically agreed with everything in Obamacare (and implemented it himself when given the chance) cuts off that wave of enthusiasm at the knees.

How do you argue against Obamacare when you are supportive of all the ideas behind it. That is how you get yourself labeled a flip flopper in American politics.

sjmvsfscs08;1081919 wrote:Why do you continue to make such incorrect generalizations??

IggyPride00;1081949 wrote:Have you seen how similar Willardcare and Obamacare are?

FairwoodKing;1082005 wrote:Right now the Repub candidates are right where I want them: fighting each other. Whoever the nominee is, he will be badly bruised. Obama will be able to run TV ads showing what the other Repubs have had to say about the candidate. It will not be a pretty sight. And I'm loving every moment of it!

majorspark;1082014 wrote:This happens in every presidential primary. An incumbent president running for re-election usually gets to stay out of it on his side.

"Conservatives don't trust Mr. Romney in part because he gives them little reason to do so," the Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote Thursday morning. "The former Massachusetts Governor also isn't winning friends with his relentlessly negative campaign."

"Now his political team's instinct will be to dig into its oppo research and savage Mr. Santorum," the Journal wrote. "This may get Mr. Romney to 50.1% of the GOP delegates, but he'd be a weaker nominee for it. The low GOP turnout in early primary states is one sign of his weakness. What Mr. Romney needs is to make a better, positive case for his candidacy beyond his business resume."

IggyPride00;1082045 wrote:Jim Demint has said recently he sees an increasingly likely chance that there will be a brokered convention for the Republicans. That would give someone like Chris Christie or some other white knight a chance to come in and save the party from Willard.

Turn out has been low at these primaries, and Erik Ericson of Redstate said this is the most depressed he has seen the CPAC convention in all the years he has been going because Willard inspires no enthusiasm.

The Wallstreet Journal Editorial board nailed the big problems with Romney dead on.



If Mitch Daniels didn't have a crazy wife he was trying to protect from the spotlight of a presidential campaign he would be the nominee by now. A midwestern governor with solid Conservative credentials that could have united the base. There was a big push to get him to run, but too many skeletons in the closet with his family to deal with the vetting process. It's too bad.

sjmvsfscs08;1082058 wrote:Considering Chris Christie was one of the first big names to endorse Mitt Romney, I find this post to be pretty funny.

You're running away from Romney because of many non-issues. Romneycare isn't an issue because he thinks states should do their own thing, why is that so hard for you to understand?

I understand if you want to rip on Romney for the deficit, because in my opinion he hasn't laid out a good plan yet. But to criticize Rommey on something that will never impact your life is rather foolish, in my opinion. You're not even recognizing that Romneycare has worked, for the most part, for the people of Massachusetts and that it is still just as popular now as the day it was passed for them. We live in a country where you are allowed to govern yourselves and if the people of Massachusetts want a liberal health care plan then the people in Ohio should be okay with that. Don't ****in move to Massachusetts then!

IggyPride00;1082062 wrote:You clearly are not making the connection as far as Obama and Willard sharing the same ideology that government (be it state or federal) should be able to force citizens to purchase Health care from private companies.

Conservatives, and a great deal of American citizens (remember the Tea Party) thankfully don't share this belief as far as the role of government in our lives.

Willard and Obama both agree that government on any level should be able to make such decisions, and it is wrong.

It is why after 6 years of running for President he can't close the deal. It is why Conservatives don't trust him.

As far as the Christie thing, if Willard can't get to the delegate number before the convention, all bets are off. Christie could very easily be drafted if he can win the vote count at the convention.

In fact, the new slogan in many conservative circles is "go for broker" because it will save them from a Willard candidacy.

pmoney25;1082289 wrote:Cracks me up that someone with Santorum voting record is attacking Mitt for not being conservative enough.

HitsRus;1082398 wrote:http://www.issues2000.org/Mitt_Romney.htm
http://www.issues2000.org/senate/Rick_Santorum.htm

here are the two candidates you've mentioned voting records.

I've posted this before, but apparently you missed it.

jhay78;1082454 wrote:Santorum doesn't need to attack Mitt- his flaws stand out quite well enough on their own.

http://www.redstate.com/tomjefferson/2012/02/10/mitt-romney-the-big-government-non-conservative-casting-rick-santorum-as-a-big-government-non-conservative/

fish82;1082269 wrote:It's still funny that Dick's name keeps getting blanked out. :laugh:

“ I was a severely conservative Republican governor.”

IggyPride00;1082584 wrote: It is like he thinks we are all stupid or something.

sjmvsfscs08;1082058 wrote:You're running away from Romney because of many non-issues. Romneycare isn't an issue because he thinks states should do their own thing, why is that so hard for you to understand?

sjmvsfscs08;1082058 wrote:But to criticize Rommey on something that will never impact your life is rather foolish, in my opinion. You're not even recognizing that Romneycare has worked, for the most part, for the people of Massachusetts and that it is still just as popular now as the day it was passed for them. We live in a country where you are allowed to govern yourselves and if the people of Massachusetts want a liberal health care plan then the people in Ohio should be okay with that. Don't fuckin move to Massachusetts then!