Tag Archives: Mike Murphy

Why I will now vote for Romney in the 2012 election (after opposing him, previously) Obamacare must be repealed,a third party will take time to build

I have previously passionately argued  against voting for Mitt Romney ,even if Obama won as a result (though I also doubted that Romney could win). I had considered voting for Gary Johnson, or for skipping the Presidential ballot and just voting for Republicans in the House and Senate.

I have changed my position and will now vote for Romney in 2012 .

My  reasons are as follows:

1. The court betrayed us by upholding Obamacare. The only remaining option for repealing this obscenity is to get Romney into office and a Republican Senate into power .
”But Romney won’t repeal it?”
We were able to prevent any Republican defections on Obamacare in 2009 by means of applying massive political pressure,if we do so again,then there is a slim, but reasonable,chance that we will succeed in pressuring the GOP into repealing Obamacare.
This is not some open ended thing where it does not matter if it is repealed in 2012 or in 2016. Once the ”benefits” kick-in, in 2014 then it will become exponentially more difficult to repeal it.
But to do so will mean that we cannot accept the “lesser of two evils” as a standard,where we will vote for any Republican,even if he supports keeping parts of Obamacare.
Imagine what the result would have been in 2009, had we called the Republicans and told them “You must not pass Obamacare,do you hear! But we’ll vote for you anyway”.

We would have lost all leverage .

This is not “practical”,it does not “buy us time”. It accelerates the decline,since the Democrats will set the standard, and the Republicans will know that we will vote for them irregardless of what they do.

You think I’m mistaken?

You think that the Republicans are ”good fellows, who just need a philosophy?”

But they have a philosophy: it’s a combination of mee-toism/second handedness (”what will the pundits say”), pragmatism (” we have to violate free market principles to save the free market”), & altruism (”people are hurting”)
And as to the claim that Republicans won’t take the voters for granted, let us look at one of the “well meaning but confused folks” who just need to be given a shot of courage;Mike Murphy on Sarah Palin :

“Most pundits thought I was wrong. Look at the crowds she can draw, I was told.
She “excites the base.”Phooey. Every presidential election
year brings forth some new nugget of conventional
wisdom from the media elite that totally misses the real
picture. Last year, the big wrong idea was this notion
that base voters have somehow become the new swing
voters. We are now told the party base – those voters who will vote for a bag of cement if it has an R or D attached to it – must be carefully appealed to, romanced and appeased.Under that funhouse reasoning, Palin was an inspired pick.Unfortunately for McCain, the actual swing voters, the independents who do determine the winner of the election, didn’t buy into this fantasy at all.”

To go forward, GOP must snap out of its Sarah Palin spell – Daily News

http://m.nydailynews.com/1.428766

Or as Mccain snickered: “where will they go”.

No,if we are to actually slow down this monstrosity then we must draw certain red lines:

1. Repeal Obamacare,completely

2. Oppose Cap and Trade.

3. Defend the U.S.

4. Oppose censorship.

If a candidate does not actually do any of these things, then we must be prepared to vote him out of office.

We must also work to have a fallback plan should Republicans betray us. We must look into the Libertarian Party as a possible alternative,or perhaps create a new party to replace the GOP (a “teaparty party” perhaps?) .

“But third parties can’t succeed!”

Google:”the Whigs”.

However neither a third party nor the Libertarian Party can win in 2012.

It will take time to build up a alternative.

I therefore would offer this advice (HT to Stephen Bailey)

Unless you live in a solidly red or blue state, vote for Romney.
If you live in a solidly red or blue state vote for Romney,Johnson,skip the presidential part of the ballot etc ,use your own judgement.

The U.S. has a electoral college system,it DOES NOT matter who gets the most votes. The election is determined by who wins enough electoral votes. If you live in one of the deepest red states, your state will go for Romney whether you vote for Romney,Johnson,Obama, John Galt,or stand on your head or don’t vote in the Presidential election at all. The same holds true for solidly blue states. (But make sure that your state IS actually solidly red or blue,check Realclearpolitics )
If you live in anything less than a solidly red or blue state ,vote
for Romney. And even if you live in a solidly red state ,you should attack Obama online ,and speak with any of your friends in swing states,and present the reasons I’ve given here for why they should vote for Romney . Do not lie,just explain your reasoning .

I plan to address this at greater length in future posts.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events, Obamacare, Objectivism, Politics

Mitt Romney:The Republican Suicide Pact of #2012 #tcot #tpp #tpe #teaparty #tlot

After losses, Santorum sets Penn as do-or-die | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/after-losses-santorum-sets-penn-key-test/463081?utm_source=WP%20TEMPLATE:%20Political%20Digest%20-%2004/04/2012&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20Political%20Digest

….”Wisconsinites have spoken!” Rep. Paul Ryan said as he introduced primary winner Mitt Romney at a victory party in Milwaukee Tuesday night. “Republicans are unifying!”….

RRD:The polls do tend to indicate that Wisconsin Republicans are unifying,but contrary to the delusions of Ryan there are a few races that remain before we have a nominee,much less “unify” behind such a nominee.For a example of the kind of wild enthusiasm Romney invokes among Conservatives I thought I would repost the following by Judson Phillips:

A letter to the Republican Establishment – Tea Party Nation

http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topic/show?id=3355873%3ATopic%3A1947168&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic

….” You proved you could get Mitt Romney nominated without conservatives. Of course you guys are the one’s who drove the Republican Party to the brink of political extinction in 2006 and 2008. Why should you pay attention to the Tea Party, the group that single handedly saved the Republican Party in 2010?

At this point, you need to buy a clue.

You cannot win the White House without us.

In surveys we have done, 25% of conservatives surveyed said they would not vote for Mitt Romney in the General Election. Barack Obama and the Democrats are going to set records, not only for the amount of money they raise, both legally and illegally, they are also going to set records for the number of dead people voting as well as people voting early and often. After all, it is the Chicago way.

If 25% of the Republican base is checking out, you are not going to win the White House.

So how do you get the conservatives you made a point of ignoring in the primary back into the fold?

First, someone better tell Romney to choose a conservative VP. Chris Christie isn’t a conservative.Neither is Tim Pawlenty. If you want a conservative, think Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Marco Rubio or Rand Paul.

If you give us another “moderate” or a liberal as the Vice President nominee, we will not be there. ”…..

RRD:I sympathize with Mr.Phillips,but think that he is naive if he expects Romney to care.I am also not sure what surveys he is referring to,my own ad hoc count,based on comments I’ve seen on Facebook and other sites,would be closer to 10-15% who will not vote for Romney in the general election,myself included.
Of those most will not vote for any presidential candidate and about a third are already setting up Gary Johnson 2012 signs on their lawns and placing Gary Johnson bumper stickers on their cars.I know of at least two bloggers(other than myself)who will not support Romney,and a number who will do so,but who will do so bitterly.

But back to why I believe Romney does not care:he lives in a alternate reality.

In Romneyland the way to get independent voters is to make “the conservative case for the Individual Mandate”,a position that puts him to the left of the Independent Voters he is courting.

In Romneyland Romneycare is a asset,not a liability(fn1)

In Romneyland everything that we have heard thus far,about Obamacare,Global Warming etc is simply something to be forgotten about,erased & ignored,once the general election starts.You see it’s like ”an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again ”.(fn2)

In Romneyland elections are not about beliefs and principles,they are about “electability”.(fn3)

It’s true that some believe that Romney will have no choice but to pick a Conservative,but that view is based on two assumptions,neither of which may be true:

1.That a conservative will accept the “honor”.

2.That Romney doesn’t take the base for granted.I believe that Romney’s view is much closer to that of the Republican strategist who once advised him;Mike Murphy.

This is Murphy’s view of both the Republican base & the Democratic base:

To go forward, GOP must snap out of its Sarah Palin spell Mike Murphy – NY Daily News

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/gop-snap-sarah-palin-spell-article-1.428766

…..”Look at the crowds she can draw, I was told. She “excites the base.”

Phooey. Every presidential election year brings forth some new nugget of conventional wisdom from the media elite that totally misses the real picture. Last year, the big wrong idea was this notion that base voters have somehow become the new swing voters. We are now told the party base – those voters who will vote for a bag of cement if it has an R or D attached to it – must be carefully appealed to, romanced and appeased.

Under that funhouse reasoning, Palin was an inspired pick.”….

And if Mr.Murphy is correct,(and this is the mindset of many of those advising Romney),if the base will vote for “a bag of cement if it has an R….attached to it” then why shouldn’t Romney follow the advice Murphy offered John Mccain:pick someone like Tom Ridge to show how “independent” you are.

Indeed,Jonah “try a little Pinochet(fn4)” Goldberg,(perhaps competing for the “most unprincipled and short-sighted conservative columnist award”) ,recently offered this gem of a column,in which he explains that Romney’s hypocrisy is irrelevant,since Obama is also a hypocrite,and that Romneycare will actually help Romney with some nano-segment of the population who mindlessly accept whatever the Today Show tells them about everything except for Obamacare and Romney:

Obamacare Will Be Romney’s Savior – Jonah Goldberg – Townhall Conservative Columnist

http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2012/04/04/obamacare_will_be_romneys_savior/page/full/

….” Indeed, throughout the debate season,Santorum and others constantly insisted that Romney can’t attack Obamacare.

The funny thing is: Even as they were saying he can’t attack Obamacare, Romney was — you guessed it — attacking Obamacare. Romney has been attacking Obamacare since its inception. “I’ll stop it in its tracks on day one!” he promises constantly on the stump.

… Yes, Romney might be inconsistent to attack Obamacare, at least on the mandate, but there’s no basis in reality to say he “can’t” attack it nonetheless.

Obama opposed the mandate vociferously when running against Hillary Rodham Clinton, but that didn’t stop him from fighting to make it the law of the land.”…..

RRD:Santorum made his best statement when he said:

…..“The debate right now is fundamental and there’s one candidate in this race who can actually make the contrast that is necessary to take the Republican position, conservative position,” Santorum said outside the Supreme Court on Monday. “There is one candidate who is disqualified to make the case.”….(fn5)

And no I am not endorsing him(fn6)
But Goldberg is equivocating when he says that Romney’s critics are wrong to say that he can’t attack Obamacare,what they clearly mean is that Romney cannot make a fundamental,political-moral argument against it without being hypocritical or rejecting his previous position.
And as to the claim that Romney’s
hypocrisy is irrelevant since Obama is also a hypocrite;so the GOP should seek to emulate a hypocritical Democrat,with the main distinction that Obama will have a overwhelming advantage in having the press point out Romney’s hypocrisy while ignoring Obama’s?

Goldberg:

….”Moreover, the broader bipartisan assumption that Romney will be hurt by Romneycare in the general election is deeply flawed.

First of all, Obamacare is unpopular (a fact a lot of political coverage conveniently overlooks). That’s why Democrats don’t talk about it on the stump, and neither did Obama for a very long time — until the Supreme Court forced him to re-acquire political ownership. If the court upholds the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Obama is not going to want to remind voters of his responsibility for an unpopular piece of legislation. If the court throws it out, Obama is not going to want to remind voters that his signature accomplishment — which distracted him from a bad economy and cost the Democrats the House — was so flawed that the court had to reject it. Either way, Obama will not be racing to talk about health care. But Romney will.”

RRD:To paraphrase Goldberg ”the funny thing is: Even as Goldberg is saying Obama won’t trumpet Obamacare, Obama
is–you guessed it trumpeting Obamacare”.Indeed,if Goldberg emerged from his pragmatist cave long enough to look at the world he would see that Obama has beamed with pride when speaking of something,which he does,in fact,regard as his “signature accomplishment”,and yes he has been doing so since before the case came up before the Court.The most notable recent case was in a 60 Minutes interview in which he boasted that he had achieved more in his first two years than any President had with the ”possible exceptions” of LBJ,FDR and Lincoln.
(fn7)
Obama is neither a pragmatist nor a fool.He will not make the election a referendum on Obamacare,but he will confidently defend it.Indeed,I would not rule out the possibility that if the law is thrown out,Obama would declare his intention to pass it again!Goldberg like many who have helped give “the stupid party” its name,does not seem to grasp that while he and others are focused on “beating Obama” Obama is quite serious when he says that he would rather be a “successful” one term president,than a “unsuccessful” two-term president.While the Republicans are dutifully playing their role of inspecting a centimeter of the bark of a particular tree,the left is laying multi-decade plans for cutting down the forest.

….”It’s often said that Obama will respond to Romney’s attacks by saying the mandate was based on Romneycare. Romney will respond, “Well, you did it wrong” and promise to repeal and replace the law. ”

RRD:Did what wrong?Force people to buy health insurance the wrong way?What is the right way to destroy liberty?On a state by state level?Did Obama institute Socialized Medicine the wrong way?What is the right way?
Will Romney explain to Obama the correct,conservative way to institute socialized medicine?

“Besides, Romney will have plenty of other lines of attack: the raid on Medicare, the rationing board, the tax hikes, the religious liberty issues, the creation of a vast new entitlement when the existing ones are crushing us with debt, etc.”

RRD:So Romney will argue that Medicare should not be cut when the existing entitlement programs are crushing us with debt?He will defend ”religious liberty” & defend the state government’s right to force people to buy health insurance & the state government’s right to force Catholic Hospitals to provide the Morning After Pill?
You didn’t know about that last?

Here:

FLASHBACK: Romney Does Flip-Flop and Forces Catholic Hospitals to Distribute Morning-After-Pill | LifeSiteNews.com

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1951/20/5120905

….”Meanwhile, the independents and moderates who dislike Obamacare, but who are not libertarians, will most likely see Romneycare as evidence that Romney is not one of the right-wing crazies the “Today” show keeps warning them about.”….

RRD:Mr.Goldberg who are these “independents and moderates who dislike Obamacare,but who are not libertarians”?I have heard of this exotic species,indeed Romney’s staff speaks of them to Politico(fn8),but I have yet to encounter them.Why do they dislike Obamacare,and is their dislike sufficient to vote for a man whom the Today Show will tell them day in and day out,is a heartless,ruthless,sociopath,who destroyed jobs for profit at Bain Capital,and who wants to kill them and drag them into a unneccessary war with Iran,while the children of the poor die from lack of health care?
I would submit to Mr.Goldberg that one cannot simultaneously be the kind of person who forms their opinions based on what the Today Show tells them,& yet oppose Obamacare & vote for Romney.
“This will kill that”
What’s more,given the reality(which does not seem to have sunk in with ideological con men like Goldberg and Fehrnstrom),that a politicians statements live on forever,and that the only issue is whether they will get wide coverage,they are just as likely to beleive that Romney is a deceitful hypocrite.

I will conclude by noting that many decades ago,Ayn Rand correctly identified many of the problems in the Conservative Movement in a article entitled “Conservatism:A Obituary”:

“Conservatives” — Ayn Rand Lexicon

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/conservatives.html

…..”If the “conservatives” do not stand for capitalism, they stand for and are nothing; they have no goal, no direction, no political principles, no social ideals, no intellectual values, no leadership to offer anyone.

Yet capitalism is what the “conservatives” dare not advocate or defend. They are paralyzed by the profound conflict between capitalism and the moral code which dominates our culture: the morality of altruism . . . Capitalism and altruism are incompatible”….

…..”What is the moral stature of those who are afraid to proclaim that they are the champions of freedom? What is the integrity of those who outdo their enemies in smearing, misrepresenting, spitting at, and apologizing for their own ideal? What is the rationality of those who expect to trick people into freedom, cheat them into justice, fool them into progress, con them into preserving their rights, and, while indoctrinating them with statism, put one over on them and let them wake up in a perfect capitalist society some morning?

These are the “conservatives”—or most of their intellectual spokesmen”…..

Footnotes:

fn1

Mitt Romney or not, GOP is coming for ‘Obamacare’ – Alexander Burns – POLITICO.com

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74629_Page2.html

…..“The debate right now is fundamental and there’s one candidate in this race who can actually make the contrast that is necessary to take the Republican position, conservative position,” Santorum said outside the Supreme Court on Monday. “There is one candidate who is disqualified to make the case.”

….”Romney and his aides view things differently: Since the outset of his 2012 run, they have privately predicted that “Romneycare” would be an asset in the general election that could help cast Romney as a kinder, gentler kind of Republican that swing voters can embrace.

More recently, Romney has sought to reassure conservatives by vowing to scrap the federal law “root and branch,” though he has also pointed to the Massachusetts law as an example of his compassion as a governor.”

fn2.

…”Host: Is there a concern that Santorum and Gingrich might force the governor to tack so far to the right it would hurt him with moderate voters in the general election?

Fehrnstrom: Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.”….

Mitt Romney: The Consummate Etch A Sketch | RedState

http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2012/03/21/mitt-romney-the-consummate-etch-a-sketch/

fn3.

Not a parody:Romney Surrogate: Electability Should Trump ‘Beliefs & Principles’ #aynrand #2012 – fightingstatism

http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/not-a-parodyromney-surrogate-electability-sho

fn4.

Try a little Pinochet – Sun Sentinel

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2006-12-22/news/0612210779_1_low-infant-mortality-civil-society-civil-liberties

fn5

see Mitt Romney or not, GOP is coming for ‘Obamacare’ – Alexander Burns – POLITICO.com

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74629_Page2.html

fn6.

Why Santorum Must Be Defeated – fightingstatism

http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/why-santorum-must-be-defeated

fn7

Obama: I’ll put my record up against any president

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/12/obama-ill-put-my-record-up-against-any-president/1

”PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, we’re not done yet. I’ve got five more years of stuff to do. But not only saving this country from a great depression. Not only saving the auto industry. But putting in place a system in which we’re gonna start lowering health care costs and you’re never gonna go bankrupt because you get sick or somebody in your family gets sick. Making sure that we have reformed the financial system, so we never again have taxpayer-funded bailouts, and the system is more stable and secure. Making sure that we’ve got millions of kids out here who are able to go to college because we’ve expanded student loans and made college more affordable. Ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Decimating al Qaeda, including Bin Laden being taken off the field. Restoring America’s respect around the world.

The issue here is not gonna be a list of accomplishments. As you said yourself, Steve, you know, I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR, and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history. But, you know, but when it comes to the economy, we’ve got a lot more work to do. And we’re gonna keep on at it.”…..

fn8

Mitt Romney or not, GOP is coming for ‘Obamacare’ – Alexander Burns – POLITICO.com

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74629_Page2.html

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events, Objectivism, Politics

Perhaps not,I explain why/Who will Romney pick as veep? A conservative. – WashPo #2012 #GOP

Who will Mitt Romney pick as vice president? A conservative. – The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/who-will-mitt-romney-pick-as-vice-president-a-conservative/2012/04/02/gIQAMtTuqS_blog.html?wpisrc=nl_pmfix

RRD:Of course notwithstanding the delusions of some Romney supporters,Romney is not,in fact the nominee.
But he is the most likely nominee,and speculation on who he would nominate is legitimate.

Cillizza floats the standard three candidates:Jindal,Christie and Rubio,and he argues,(not without reason) that Romney will follow in the footsteps of his predecessors & pick a ”opposite number” so to speak.

I am not convinced of that.

First picking a Vice Presidential Candidate is not like picking out a shirt or a car,neither the shirt or the car can refuse to be picked,a Vice Presidential Candidate can.

They may not believe that the Presidential Candidate will win,or they may not be ready,or like Mitch Daniels,they have family members who may object.

Second,Romney is a creature of the establishment,& one of the oft repeated claims of Rockefeller Republican Strategists is that Mccain made a blunder in choosing Palin,not simply because she was a unknown,(or a “incompetent” or the Liberal’s version of the Whore of Babylon and Jezebel rolled into one et-al),but that he made a mistake simply by choosing ANY conservative,since Mccain needed to differentiate himself from Bush & demonstrate his ”Maverickyness” (as Palin,or Tina Fey might have put it),by picking someone like…Tom Ridge,or even Joseph Lieberman.
Now of course most Republicans would recoil at the thought of picking a pro-choice Republican for the Vice Presidency,but after all,
they ”would vote for a bag of cement if it had a R after it” &
“where will they go”.

Liberal Republican Strategists have invested heavily in the idea that Conservatism is toxic,and that elections are won “from the center”.

And who do you think is advising Mitt Romney?

But Mccain did pick a Conservative?

Yes and “look what happened”,the Liberal Republican Strategists(LRS?)would say.

If you accept the deluded notion that your base has no choice but to vote for the party’s candidate
,if you accept the premise that morale is irrelevant,& that the base is “locked in”,then why not do whatever you think will win over the independents and pick the most liberal Republican “Modernizer” you can(with the added benefit of poking those ”wingnuts” in eye ,while you’re at it), (fn1)

It is important to remember that Romney includes among his advisors some of the same people who worked for Charlie Crist.(fn2)
And it is also important to recall that Romney,is,well,Romney.

He is a Northeastern,Liberal Republican.

Romney is the type of person who would readily accept the arguments of the LRS’ that the base ”has nowhere to go”.
The man lives in a wholly different world than the,average Republican,much less the average Conservative.

He may pick a Conservative,or a pseudo-Conservative like Christie,or he may pick a Moderate.
Time will tell,if he gets the.nomination.
My guess is that he does not want to ”repeat Mccain’s mistake”.
I wonder if Tom Ridge,or Colin Powell for that matter,is open to being the nominee.

Footnotes:

fn1.

Murphy suggests Tom Ridge as VP.

First Bad Idea From Murphy in A While – National Review Online

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/159744/first-bad-idea-murphy-while/jonah-goldberg

To go forward, GOP must snap out of its Sarah Palin spell Mike Murphy – NY Daily News

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/gop-snap-sarah-palin-spell-article-1.428766

”But facts are facts. An inexperienced governor of a small state, she lacked the experience to be President and brought nothing to the ticket except a surefire knack for exciting voters who were already reliably Republican. It was a strategically awful choice, and I said so – both on and off microphone – at the time. Most pundits thought I was wrong. Look at the crowds she can draw, I was told. She “excites the base.”

Phooey. Every presidential election year brings forth some new nugget of conventional wisdom from the media elite that totally misses the real picture. Last year, the big wrong idea was this notion that base voters have somehow become the new swing voters. We are now told the party base – those voters who will vote for a bag of cement if it has an R or D attached to it – must be carefully appealed to, romanced and appeased.

Under that funhouse reasoning, Palin was an inspired pick.”

RRD:Set aside for a moment what you think of Palin,note instead that Murphy believes that the party base ”will vote for a bag of cement if it has an R or D attached to it”;that is,that they do not care about who the candidate is,or what the candidate does,they are robots without political beliefs,without convictions,without ideals,without values,they are just useful idiots to be mocked,ignored,& betrayed with impunity & yet still be expected to go door to door,day after day,week after week,knocking on thousands of doors,making phone call after phone call,since they ”will vote for a bag of cement if it has an R …attached to it”.

I am reminded of the lines from Atlas Shrugged “Oh,you’ll always produce…”,& ”you’ll do something Mr.Rearden…”.
It also reminds me of the painting Ayn Rand mentioned in “The Money-Making Personality”,a monk,a missonary,returns from preaching the Gospel to the people,to speak with high ranking officials of the Catholic Church.His hands are bloody,cut,he has suffered tremendously for his beliefs.
He tells them of his struggle,and the results.
They are living in luxurious surroundings.
One of the Cardinals is asleep.
One of the Cardinals plays with a dog.
The third looks at the monk with a expression of bewildered contempt,as if to say “why spend your time on hard work,when you can have relax and have fun like we do”.

fn2.

See below:

Romney Campaign Run by Charlie Crist’s Political Aides

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/romney-crist-rubio-gingrich/2012/01/23/id/425195

RRD:For a contrary view see:

Romney’s Crist people aren’t really Crist people | Saint Petersblog

http://saintpetersblog.com/2012/01/romneys-crist-people-arent-really-crist-people/

RRD:Rubio also came to Romney’s defense,rather oddly calling the man who gave us Romneycare, a “conservative”,(perhaps because Romney endorsed him?)

Rubio: “Mitt Romney Is No Charlie Crist” | The Weekly Standard

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rubio-mitt-romney-no-charlie-crist_618433.html

RRD:My view?
Yes,Romney has many advisors,including those who have worked on the campaigns of Crist AND Rubio,and yes the fact that these people are among his advisors, doesn’t mean that he will take their advice.
However they are,nonetheless,his advisors,and they did,in fact ,advise Crist,and while taken in isolation, the fact that he has ex-Crist advisors is not that damning in and of itself,we are talking about Mitt Romney;someone who is known for pandering to liberals,and for reversing himself,someone whose senoir campaign advisor made the infamous Etch-a-Sketch comment,and someone whose aides reportedly told Politico that they believe that Romneycare would help Romney in the general election.

See:

Mitt Romney or not, GOP is coming for ‘Obamacare’ – Alexander Burns – POLITICO.com

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74629_Page2.html

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events, Politics