For instance, Mark Levin was correct the other day on Romney's lack of understanding on the minimum wage question from a conservative standpoint. His advocacy for indexed minimum wage is the "progressive" position, not the conservative and overlooks economists like Dr. Walter Williams who points out how minimum wage laws hurt youth and others.
Likewise, Romney's remark about "the poor" didn't indicate a callousness to "the poor." What it did fail to do, however, was to take advantage of the opportunity he had to present a case for a truly conservative solution for helping 'the poor' and all other citizens.
And, to win the battle for the minds and hearts of citizens, the nominee needs to be someone whose quickness of mind and ready familiarity with founding principles can refuse to "class" people by "rich," "middle class," "poor," etc. That is Obama's playground. It is how the collectivists/redistributionists classify and divide us, and it is how they avoid accountability for providing real solutions in economic matters.
Romney, as Krauthammer has pointed out, seems "incapable" of responding with and explaining conservative ideas.
To restore America's greatness will require leaders who, like America's Founders, have thought through the ideas which made America great, for it is the restoration of those ideas to the American mind which can give freedom back to the citizens and wrest power from the hands of "rulers" who use "poverty" as their vote-getting mechanism.
Would suggest readers here visit another thread recently referencing Jonah Goldberg's observations on Romney's "not speaking the language naturally," meaning he doesn't speak the language of conservatism.
My post there points out that the problem is much deeper than "language," as this matter of his full embrace of the idea of the minimum wage illustrates.
Romney's natural philosophy, as evidenced by these and other debate answers, are just indications that his well of thought on America's core constitutional philosophy is not very deep--and certainly does not include a grounding in the Founders' ideas sufficient to rebut, rebuke, and reveal Obama's firmly-held ideology.
As a result, his "private sector" experience, while impressive and to be commended, has not prepared him for preserving the ideas which made possible his personal success in the Founders' system.
Women, especially, should understand that each candidate brings "baggage." Some "baggage" is not as consequential to the cause of liberty for our children and grandchildren as other "baggage."
No baggage is as disqualifying for the man who will compete in the battle of ideas with Obama as a lack of deep understanding and ability to differentiate between the ideas of liberty and the ideas of tyranny.
That is why Mitt Romney is such a joke as a nominee. He’s not the fiscal conservative/social liberal that some of his supporters seem to prefer. He’s not a fiscal conservative at all! All of his demonstrated and spoken instincts are towards socialist thought and ideology. And he HASN’T even tried to flip-flop on his economic positions.
I don’t understand the pundits wishing he’d “learn to articulate conservatism.” Why would you expect him to learn that anymore than you’d expect that Dennis Kucinich or John Kerry to? Mitt Romney was born and bred a liberal. He CAN’T change. Why even ask him to when they are REAL conservatives we can nominate instead? For once even the men are acting like women, thinking this guy will “change” into their dream man if they just shower him with enough love and support.
Mitt Romney’s liberal record on economics follows. Here is all the evidence you need that he’s the next John Corzine, i.e. a liberal high-finance businessman who can’t be trusted...
*Socialized medicine under Romneycare
*Taxpayer-funded abortion through Planned Parenthood
*Raised taxes/fees to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in Massachusetts
*Wants taxes to be higher on people making $200,000 or more; even Obama only wants them higher on $250,000 or more
*The Wall Street Journal says his tax plan is “timid” and similar to Obama’s
*Thinks the poor are doing just fine by being stuck in the safety net, isn’t concerned with them
*Refused to speak out in favor of John Kasich’s efforts in Ohio to curb union abuses
*Believes the minimum wage should be indexed to inflation, a classic bleeding heart liberal job-killing policy
*Believes in the class warfare mantra that certain policies help some classes while doing nothing or hurting others