Is Mitt Becoming More Conservative?

The American Thinker ^ | August 31, 2012 | Rosslyn Smith

[Cincinatus' Wife]

...Protecting the middle class might be the theme of Obama's campaign ads, but the defining movement of this campaign came when Obama belittled the efforts of Main Street America when he stated that "you didn't build that." Those sneering words about smart, hardworking people revealed the ugly side of Obama's redistributionalist ideology. As in 2008, most of the media accept all the carefully scripted images of Obama as Gospel truth while they busy themselves trying to either hide or spin away all those extemporaneous words and deeds that display Obama's true beliefs and character as being either out of context or aberrational....

This campaign is coming down to two competing views of America. As it plays out, I think something very profound may be happening to Mitt Romney. Romney reminds me of a good many smart businessmen I have known. They live their own lives by a set of solid small-c conservative rules, but they are too busy solving smaller daily problems to think much about political conservatism as a coherent system. Such people often pay lip service to the left-of-center conventional media wisdom about big government and public morality even as they rigorously practice all the bourgeois virtues of thrift, hard work, neighborliness, sobriety, and sexual continence in their personal affairs.

....this very smart, very competitive man is facing an opponent who is perhaps the most rigidly ideological man ever to become president. Romney doesn't like what he sees happening to the nation, nor does he much like the person he is running against. Confronted with the problem of beating not just the person, but also the ideology, and then fixing what is broken, Romney may be discovering for the very first time that he is actually far more ideological than he ever thought he was.

[neveralib]

Tell me something, and please answer, you are a Romney supporter and vetted him carefully, did you know “throughout this campaign”, that Mitt was a “health of the mother” abortion supporter? Did any or all of you Romney supporters reading this know that, or is this a bombshell that just dropped on you?

I'm not a Romeny-bott or supporter and didn't "vet" him as you "purists" here have, but I HAVE "vetted" the one all you hate and it appears, would not be bothered if reelected...even if it means the end of our Republic as we have known it for 200+ years.

Ok, your turn: which is worse: taking a position on abortion which includes a "health/life of the mother exception," or one which SUPPORTS KILLING BREATHING, LIVING, HUMAN, BEINGS, which said babies have survived botched abortions: "Infanticide?"

For every issue you and your kind can muster against Mitt and reason to stay home or vote 3rd Party, I/we can come up with dozens of examples showing Dear Reader's position on same as much worse.

Go ahead, take your best shot(s)!!!

[Delhi Rebels]

Romney is trying to appear to be what he thinks people want him to be. He is a man without any core principles at all.

[joe fonebone]

ansel, you are beating a dead horse..

the people so blinded with removing fubo are willing and able to elect another socialist to take his place...

at best, you may be able to change the mind of 1 person on this site..

you will be called a racist (sound familiar)..

you will be told that if you do not vote for our socialist then you are voting for their socialist...

and so on and so forth..

but, you will not be told why you should vote for mcromney, other than “our socialist is better than their socialist”..

it needs to be put in terms that everyone can understand..

if you vote for a pro abortion candidate, then you back abortion... period... do not lecture me about your own moral stand on this subject if you are willing to give your vote to someone that stand for it..

if you vote for a gay rights candidate, then you back gay rights... period..

if you voter for a gun control candidate, then you back gun control... period..

if you vote for a person that has nominated more liberal judges to the bench than fubo, then you back liberal judges... period..

it is not the people that do not back mcromney that are the haters, racists, or non conservatives..

those that back the above are the non conservatives... period..

[LibLieSlayer]

Regardless of this election, almost everyone on FR is a conservative and even when we disagree... these personal attacks do nothing but harm all of us. I will not tell anyone not to vote for mitt. I will not call anyone names or accuse them of supporting obama or being a liberal if they do not... unless it is one of the paid trolls infecting FR during this election. I will post the truth to what I perceive as falsehoods.

Is mitt more conservative than obama? Well... almost anyone that has owned and/or run a business is more conservative than obama. mitt is who and what he is. If he gets elected... he has a chance to redefine himself. So far during this election, he has reaffirmed more of his progressive past than not. IMHO, YMMV (your mileage may vary) etc etc etc.

LLS

[neveralib]

So learning that he lied about his becoming pro-life, and the fact that he reversed himself again so easily, and so soon after locking up the nomination, not even waiting for the election, doesn’t mean anything to you?

So, learning that he who you and a few others here would has soon see reelected (such that y'all are blinded by your hatred) has lied about "everything" from day one (can you show me an example where he has ever been forthcoming or honest?) "doesn't mean anything to you?"

It's going to be Mitt or Dear Reader; no other choice, so who will it be?

Better yet, who(m) would you rather see as President???

[Cronos]

"I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother."

In the case of rape I believe an abortion is compounding the crime. in the case of life of the mother, I cannot judge a woman who has the unenviable position of choosing her life or her unborn child's -- the women who chose to save their child's life are saints.

For women whose health is at risk, this is again the mother's decision, and a difficult one.

But, let me remind you that the number of abortions for this are just 0.1% of all abortions. I got this number from the site http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/index.html -- Poland bans abortions except for: 1. rape, 2. health/life of mother and 3. health issues of the foetus --> I don't understand the meaning of the 3rd, but that's a separate point.

Right now, with these 3, there were only 640 killings in 2010 -- 0.1% of all conceptions.

in the US, by contrast which is freer, nearly 20 to 22% were aborted.

So, I extrapolate this to mean that only 0.1% of abortions are for: 1. rape, 2. health/life of mother.

We had move than 1 million deaths last year. If we can reduce this to 1,000 it is saving the lives of 999,000 -- we should aim for this

[LibLieSlayer]

Granted but who is the most recognized face in the TEA Party movement? Who has reporters and supporters flock to see and speak with her when she surfaces? Who is on nationwide TV fighting a war against the pop culture. Palin is a high profile person in the TEA Party movement. She didn't found it or create it... but she has nurtured it and promoted it and helped to elect members of it. I give her great kudos for doing that... plus she puts the leftards into hate filled meltdown.

LLS

[Cronos]

health of mother

as i said above -- look at the bigger picture, in countries where only "health of mother" or rape is allowed as justifications for abortion, the % of conceptions aborted is 0.1% -- focus. I am a guy and I cannot condemn a woman who believes her life is at risk. For those who believe their health is at risk -- I agree, this can be taken broadly, even mental health etc., but take the case of Poland where even that as an excuse does not lead to so many abortions as we have in the USA.

The 99.9% of abortions are just for population maintenance or to allow folks to have their fun and not bear consequences.

We need to focus on saving the 99.9%

[USS Alaska]

Wifey,

It's been a hard road but the both of us finally arrived as Romney supporters.

We battled very hard in the primaries, many times on different sides, some time on the same side, but never on Romney's side.

The primary is over and it is what it is and we can accept reality or become what many on FR have become, reality deniers.

A vote for any third party candidate or withholding your vote only helps obama.

It is simple logic, but you can witness, many FReepers that are usually logical, twist themselves into liberal pretzel logic spouters to defend their Romney hatred and their "reasons" for not voting for Romney.

I'm going to work, donate, call, poll watch and vote for Ryan/Romney 2012 and hopefully celebrate their victory in November. Is it Romney/Ryan or Ryan/Romney, whatever?

[mkjessup]

Regardless of this election, almost everyone on FR is a conservative and even when we disagree... these personal attacks do nothing but harm all of us

LLS, you know I respect you and any disagreements we have had, either now or in the past, have been cordial. However when the Romney-hating lynch mob cease their lying and offensive attacks on FReepers who recognize the danger of a second 0bama term and are voting for Romney & Ryan, they will not receive any less-than-friendly responses. Until that happens, they will receive a proportional response from me and from all thinking conservatives who are putting their Country first.

Hope you have a good weekend FRiend.

[mkjessup]

Get lost n00b troll. We’re on to you.

[albie]

I like it when Mitt reminded people about Carter and placed BO in the same category. Home run.

[USS Alaska]

maybe you will answer post 18 and whether you knew.

We all know that Romney, regardless of his flip-flops on several issues that rankle you, ain't NO OBAMA.

there are two real candidates that are on the ballot in November, Romney and obama, pick one.

A no vote, helps the incumbent.

[from occupied ga]

Is Mitt Becoming More Conservative?

He MIGHT be pandering to the conservatives a bit, but have his core values changed - not likely. Still even a socialist country club Republican like Willard is much better that the dedicated Marxist Kenyan currently befouling the white house. If Robert Mugabe had a son he would be like 0bama

[Timber Rattler]

You want to hook anti-Mormonism to this site, then be prepared to be shouted down by real conservatives who know better because there are more Mormons than just Romney running for office, and they are conservative.

Is the Mormon card all you GOP-E sheeple got?

[Zeddicus]

"Mitt is sure is starting to act conservative."

Keyword: act.

I see no substance to Mitt's economic policy whatsoever, regardless of what he says in flowery speeches. Let's look at what Mitt's official campaign cite says: How I'll Tackle Spending, Debt

As is typical, most of this platform position statement is fluff. The real numbers, the money shot, is in the 4th paragraph:

Any turnaround must begin with clear and realistic goals. By the end of my first term, I will bring federal spending as a share of GDP down from last year’s staggering 24.3 percent to 20 percent or below. This level is in line with the historical average and nears the tax revenue our economy generates when healthy. With economic growth of 4% a year, meeting this goal will require approximately $500 billion of spending cuts in 2016, and that would still allow us to undo the Obama administration’s irresponsible defense cuts.

This sure sounds good to anyone not really paying attention, but it is riddled with false assumptions and bad math.

He starts off with 2 accurate numbers: current spending IS running at 24% of GDP, and his 20% target IS in line with the historical average of spending vs. GDP. However, his next statement is a stretch: "This level is in line with the historical average and nears the tax revenue our economy generates when healthy".

That last bit in bold is the problem. Our tax revenue right now is $2.3 trillion, only 15% of GDP. Granted, the economy is extremely weak, but the 76-year average for revenue is still only 17% of GDP, so he's still off by $450 billion. The only time our revenues hit 20% of GDP in the last 30 years were the 3 years 1998-2000 - the peak of the dot com bubble, which was an aberration not likely to be repeated.

He also fails to account for the fact that since government spending is a component of GDP, reducing Federal spending will also reduce GDP and will, at least for a short to medium term, reduce revenues further. Not that this is a reason NOT to cut spending, just an accounting fact he ignores.

Then we go on to another HUGE false assumption, which completely blows his math out of the water: "With economic growth of 4% a year".

Full stop.

His numbers, much like Paul Ryan's budget plans, are entirely based on this assumption of sustained 4-5% economic growth. Why is this a problem? Because it's fantasy, and he gives us no clue as to how he's actually going to create this 4% growth.

Why is it fantasy? You only have to look at the history of the past 30 years. When you subtract out debt expansion, we have had NO net economic growth!

No net economic growth in 30 years?! Really? Really!

In 1980, GDP was $2.72 trillion and total outstanding public debt was $0.91 trillion. In 2011, GDP was $15.09 trillion, but public debt swelled to $14.79 trillion! We added $12.37 trillion in GDP at the expense of $13.88 trillion in new debt!

So no, you can't just go throwing around assumptions like "4% economic growth". The bottom line is, Romney's economic plan is smoke and mirrors and still dependent on continuing to run structural budget deficits forever.

[libertarian27]

Lies to get elected. We’ll be living in the United State of Massachusettes soon enough.

Right now we are living in Chicago - running very fast to the Southside.

ABO
(We'll deal with Romney when he gets in)