Posted on 12/20/2011 8:19:30 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
The Club for Growth wrote a white paper on Governor Romney back in 2007. Most of the information below is from that repory, but since Romney has been outspoken on several issues then, weve updated his record to reflect those positions.
...During his initial 2002 campaign Romney refused to sign an anti-tax pledge, but he pledged to balance the budget without raising taxes and touted his fulfillment of that pledge throughout his term. But the details suggest that he broke his verbal committment. Romney did not impose any broad-based tax hikes he imposed a slew of fee hikes.
He opposed Ballot Question 1 to eliminate the state income tax and proposed an auto excise tax on SUVs...
In 2003 the Governor refused to endorse the Bush tax cuts, earning the praise of Massachusetts liberal congressman Barney Frank and was even open to a federal gas tax hike.
In 2007, Romney continued to oppose the flat tax with harsh language, calling the tax "unfair."
...
(Excerpt) Read more at clubforgrowth.org ...
What say you?
Romney stinks.
Is another 4 years of Obama preferable?
I didn’t think so.
ANYBODY but Obama. That’s my campaign slogan.
He is perfect.
the States that have open primaries will have droves of Dem voters that like him
On so many issues RINORomney IS Obama.
Obama: I won’t raise taxes on anybody making under...
Then comes the cigarette tax, etc.
Romney imposes a slew of fee taxes.
He supported TARP like Obama. He is somewhat for Keynesian economics. Romney was soft on nonprime borrowers.
...
Just the tip of the iceberg.
Romney: Obama lite.
All of this most Freepers were already aware of.
If you want to make a difference this election, share this information with your friends and family, especially your Republican friends and family and do it quick!
We should have a contingency plan if he gets nominated.
How late into the election cycle to get a third party name on a ballot in all 50 states?
The point is that its Club for Growth.
Secondly, alot of stuff that was previously known has went down the memory hole and so people need reminders. We all do.
Third, some of this has gotten little attention.
Even better than sharing this with family and friends - fill the internet with this info.
Romney is a sorry POS. I would say that he stood zero chance of winning the nomination, but after all, look at the POS we have in the WH. There are plenty of voters with stupid stamped on their foreheads. I watched him on O’Reilly last night. As I watched it, he just reaffirmed what I already knew, Barry the Marxist Kenyan will slaughter him in a debate. ...not because Barry is a good debater, because he’s not and he sucks when he’s off the teleprompter, but because Mittens the dog abuser is a chicken sh*t wimp, just like McCain was. It will be a repeat of the 2008 election.
O’Reilly asked him if Hussein was a socialist. He hem hawed around forever then made some lame reply about not wanting to get into name calling, O’Reilly explained redistribution of wealth, Obamacare, etc. and asked him again, finally Mittens the dog abuser said something like let’s just says he’s a typical liberal Democrat. Are you effing kidding me? He doesn’t want to get into name calling??? I’m sure Axelrod and company were high fiving all over the place. Name calling and exposing Hussein MUST be done. If you don’t have the guts, get out of the race woosewad and leave it up to the ones that do have them.
At least Palin, Cain, Gingrich and Bachman have the guts to call him what he is. Newt called him an Alinsky radical at the last debate. McCain did more campaigning for Hussein that he did for himself. Mittens the dog abuser will do the same. How could he not?... he and Hussein agree on almost everything. God help us if he wins the nomination.
This video from the 2008 campaign was the defining moment for me. It was then that I knew McCain would never win the election.I can’t even imagine how loud the cheers were when team Hussein saw this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrnRU3ocIH4
They have plenty on Myth. That's why the want him.
Problem is, is that there isn’t any third party candidate that wouldn’t give the election to Obama.
The only exception is if Bloomberg AND Ralph Nader were both on the ballots of all 50 states. Bloomberg would stand a good chance to pull New York state from Obama, and Nader would give the purple states to the Republican by pulling away 4-5% of the vote from Obama in them.
Nader isn’t running...
So does Gingrich, who will by no stretch of the imagination defeat Obama.
Who is your candidate?
That Youtube vid is a good reminder what we get when the GOP establishment insists that the party nominee just has to be a Ford, a Bob Dull, I mean Dole, a McLame, a “Multiple-choice” Myth, etc, etc
I remember that speech from McCain. It sucked the enthusiasm out of the campaign, or actually, whatever enthusiasm there actually was.
Do you work for Fox? lol
On the other hand, in debating Obama's deeply-held talking points on what so-called "progressives" call the glorious "public sector" solutions to all our problems, Newt's understanding would allow him to sharply contrast how "public solution," lead to coercive control and slavery to government vs. the Founders' system of liberty through "individual enterprise" and benign(see Madison below) government influence and involvement. One idea leads to slavery and the other to individual freedom and opportunity.
From what well of understanding would Romney rebut, rebuke and expose the fallacies of Obama's views?
The Founders' principle of freedom for individual enterprise brought America from poverty and using the crude tools of ancient Europe to the most free, progressive and prosperous destination for oppressed peoples. See the following essay excerpted from "Our Ageless Constitution," a 292-page history of the ideas of liberty in America, again available after 20 years of being out of print.
"Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise." - Thomas Jefferson
"The enviable condition of the people of the United States is often too much ascribed to the physical advantages of their soil & climate .... But a just estimate of the happiness of our country will never overlook what belongs to the fertile activity of a free people and the benign influence of a responsible government." - James Madison
America's Constitution did not mention freedom of enterprise per se, but it did set up a system of laws to secure individual liberty and freedom of choice in keeping with Creator-endowed natural rights. Out of these, free enterprise flourished naturally. Even though the words "free enterprise' are not in the Constitution, the concept was uppermost in the minds of the Founders, typified by the remarks of Jefferson and Madison as quoted above. Already, in 1787, Americans were enjoying the rewards of individual enterprise and free markets. Their dedication was to securing that freedom for posterity.
The learned men drafting America's Constitution understood history - mankind's struggle against poverty and government oppression. And they had studied the ideas of the great thinkers and philosophers. They were familiar with the near starvation of the early Jamestown settlers under a communal production and distribution system and Governor Bradford's diary account of how all benefited after agreement that each family could do as it wished with the fruits of its own labors. Later, in 1776, Adam Smith's INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS and Say's POLITICAL ECONOMY had come at just the right time and were perfectly compatible with the Founders' own passion for individual liberty. Jefferson said these were the best books to be had for forming governments based on principles of freedom. They saw a free market economy as the natural result of their ideal of liberty. They feared concentrations of power and the coercion that planners can use in planning other peoples lives; and they valued freedom of choice and acceptance of responsibility of the consequences of such choice as being the very essence of liberty. They envisioned a large and prosperous republic of free people, unhampered by government interference.
The Founders believed the American people, possessors of deeply rooted character and values, could prosper if left free to:
|
|
Such a free market economy was, to them, the natural result of liberty, carried out in the economic dimension of life. Their philosophy tended to enlarge individual freedom - not to restrict or diminish the individual's right to make choices and to succeed or fail based on those choices. The economic role of their Constitutional government was simply to secure rights and encourage commerce. Through the Constitution, they granted their government some very limited powers to:
Adam Smith called it "the system of natural liberty." James Madison referred to it as "the benign influence of a responsible government." Others have called it the free enterprise system. By whatever name it is called, the economic system envisioned by the Founders and encouraged by the Constitution allowed individual enterprise to flourish and triggered the greatest explosion of economic progress in all of history. Americans became the first people truly to realize the economic dimension of liberty.
Footnote: Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part III: ISBN 0-937047-01-5
Just like Rush ... always new and uninformed people happening to check it via a friend or recommendation from some one at work
Never can facts be unnecessary. Even the youth will be legal to vote at 18 or is it 19? They need good information and presentation
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.