October 9, 2011

Mitt Cameron?

  4:42 pm

Always fascinating is the manner in which British and American political trends seem to flow in tandem, a dynamic that seems resolute to continue unabated. Despite President Obama’s attempt to form a “special relationship” with U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, manufacturing similarities between the two in order to provide a sense of validity to Obama’s own failed presidency, the reality is that President Obama is much more similar to ousted Labourite Gordon Brown than Cameron. Obama and Brown both emanated from the unreformed Old Left in their respective parties, and like Prime Minister Brown, I suspect that President Obama’s bid for re-election will not end well for the current White House occupant. Barring any major changes in the dynamics of the race for the Republican nomination over the next couple of months, an Obama loss will mean a Romney presidency, and that will give both the U.S. and the U.K. a very similar type of leader, one who, for better or for worse, breaks both from the revolutionary style of his party’s base and from the policy orientation of the opposition party.

The path that took the nations of the Anglosphere on both sides of the Pond to this moment has been similar for everyone involved. The Anglosphere’s rejection of Continental European models of social democracy three decades ago led to the rule of Reagan and Thatcher, who did their best to steer the Anglosphere onto a trajectory somewhat different from the rest of the Western world. Both were followed by tepid and somewhat embattled successors in George H.W. Bush and John Major, each haplessly reigning in the shadow of his predecessor. Then came the great NeoLiberal moment, with Bill Clinton and Tony Blair promising a Third Way for the Anglosphere that would marry economic freedom with domestic largesse, the latter financed via loose credit. George W. Bush then came onto the scene and continued the NeoLiberal domestic policies of buy-now, pay-later, adding to the credit card a series of adventures in the Middle East, efforts which were supported and endorsed by Blair.

By the late 2000s, though, the NeoLiberal-NeoConservative dream had been decimated from within, as easy credit turned into bad credit, resulting in a financial collapse, and as the denizens residing in the sands of Arabia stubbornly refused to trade Sharia for Snooki. This collapse in both economic confidence and geopolitical prowess took down both the Houses of Bush and Clinton and left the Anglosphere with two leftists who just happened to be in the right place at the right time: Gordon Brown and Barack Obama.

The notion that the Anglosphere longed to return to a pre-Reagan/Thatcher political model though was soon upended, as was demonstrated by Brown’s quick exit from 10 Downing and President Obama’s brief honeymoon prior to losing public confidence and giving Republicans their largest House majority in many decades. Were Congress able to call a vote of no-confidence in the Executive Branch, Obama would already be gone. And as things currently stand, the candidate who will depose Obama on behalf of the Republican Party bears many striking similarities to the current British Prime Minister who ended Brown’s reign and brought the Tories back to power.

Both Cameron and Romney emanate from upper-income backgrounds, a fact that was used against Cameron in his bid for Prime Minister and that has and will continue to be used against Romney as well. Both bring with them the sense of Noblesse Oblige that prevents them from taking on entitlements in the manner that more middle class conservative politicians such as Reagan and Thatcher were able to pull off. With the exception of Romney’s brief flirtation with the world of v-chips in personal computers during his 2008 campaign, neither Cameron nor Romney seem particularly angry at modern culture, and both are sufficiently urbane as to avoid the knuckle-dragger image that scares away urban and suburban educated swing voters.

Interestingly, both Cameron’s campaign last year and Romney’s campaign this year have involved reassuring voters that they will protect their nations’ most popular entitlements. Cameron specifically ran an ad campaign promising to “cut the deficit, not the NHS,” referring to the British National Health Service, something of a third rail over in the U.K. Meanwhile, Romney, when contrasting himself with Gov. Perry in recent weeks, has deemed himself the candidate who wants to “save Social Security.” In a way, both Cameron and Romney are running campaigns that give validation to core elements of the 20th Century welfare state of their respective nations, breaking from the more revolutionary elements of their parties that are seeking a more transformational endeavor.

Whatever one thinks of this approach, the reality is that David Cameron is now the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the leader of the Conservative Party, and that Mitt Romney will probably be the next President of the United States and the leader of the Republican Party. What lies ahead is anyone’s guess though. The fact that Labour now leads Cameron’s Tories in polls of British voters shows the difficulty that any conservative leader will face amidst continued economic malaise and unpopular spending cuts. The moment President Romney takes office, his demise will become the primary goal of such diverse figures as Hillary Clinton and Gov. Andrew Cuomo, all of whom will be humming “Hail to the Chief” as they prepare for the race for 2016. It’s certainly possible that both Cameron and Romney will succeed in their efforts to chart a new, center-right approach to governance in their respective nations that is neither a diet version of their left-wing opposition nor a storm-the-palaces approach as desired by those on their right flank. It’s also possible that such a strategy will end up pleasing no one, angering everyone, and paving the way for the return of Labour and the Democrats to the helm of the Anglosphere later in the decade.



by Oldest
by Best by Newest by Oldest

After reading "After America", I'm not certain the UK can be saved, although Cameron is definitely an improvement. The contributing factors of decline in Britain are well entrenched and gaining momentum.

Romney can save America though, and get us back on a substantial enough growth track to get the debt under control and restore confidence to the economy and the country. His problem is that 59 points are way too many for the electorate to make sense of. The country's problem is that it will take a lot more than the 3 or 4 points of any plan that it can successfully process to save the country.

It's therefore up to us to help Mitt out on the sales job.


Very, very interesting article Dave G.

Your chronological way of comparing the UK and US is quite compelling and accurate.

I would just quibble a bit here:

--- I see Romney cutting and reforming departments in the executive branch extensively, but I expect him to focus more on getting the economy going than on cutting SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. We all know that getting the economy going will do WONDERS for cutting the deficit. This is, while Cameron has focused MUCH more on cutting spending than lowering England's barriers to business and job creation.

I don't see Romney, or frankly anyone, including Bachmann, Perry, Cain, or even Ron Paul slashing grandma's Medicare and Medicaid funds. Instead, I see Romney (and any all the others) reforming entitlements for <55 year olds, with minor tweaks being sufficient to ensure sustainability.

What we're going to see out of a Romney presidency is an intense and stubborn focus on large-scale reforms to the way this government treats business. We're going to see a major cut in the corporate tax rate, we're going to see more trade deals (ones that work for us), and we're going to see a renewed optimism in the direction of this country. Take it straight to the bank and cash that sucker.

Matthew Kilburn

Its a question of realism. No candidate is going to go in and abolish social security, and while I don't doubt Rick Perry is honest about his opinions, his rhetoric is just that - rhetoric.

Our society simply isn't going to vote to cut off Grandma's Social Security check or take away her medicare card...in at least some part because it would leave them picking up the pieces. If grandma isn't getting her check from the government, then it will be her family sending her money, or else taking her into their homes - how many 40 or 50-somethings do you know who want their mother moving into the guest bedroom? This is the period in their lives where they are just experiencing an empty nest - the last thing most of them want is another dependent, particularly an elderly one.

and as for medicare? Well, how many people will be "checking out" a good bit sooner if we made major cuts to the program without a serious replacement?


Problem is Cameron has charisma, Romney plainly doesn't.

Obama has charisma, Brown plainly did not. Brown was ending 13 years of Labour government, Obama has only had 4 years in office. Certainly there are links between Romney and Cameron (and Cameron met Romney at Downing Street) but there are differences too, Cameron is more open in his concern about climate change and is also more open to gay unions. It should also be pointed out that Cameron is in many ways a mirror image of Blair, as perhaps a President Giuliani would have been of Bill Clinton. The US instead elected the more conservative George W Bush and has now elected the more liberal Obama in response. There is no doubt though both the political parties in both parties are now in ideological union with the more moderate Cameron and probably Romney leading the conservative parties and the centre left Labour and Democrat parties led by two left-wing liberals in Ed Miliband and Barack Obama. Finally, although it should be noted Labour now has a slight average lead, the Tories led a recent poll too and of course you have to remember they are in coalition with the LDs and the combined Tory-LD vote clearly outpolls Labour!


Good article, nice and accurate comparison.


Cameron is more open in his concern about climate change and is also more open to gay unions.

I don't think we can make an apples-to-apples comparison of these two nations on the specific issues. The UK will always be objectively to the left of the US. Even Thatcher, the UK equivalent of Reagan, was pro-choice. We have Social Security and Medicare. They have the NHS. I.e., they're third rail is to the left of our third rail. So that's why I think that Romney, circa 2012, is the most socially liberal the GOP nominee can be without losing the base. Someone who de-emphasizes social issues and who, by virtue of who he is, seems comfortable with modern culture is our version of the Cameron pro-gay-marriage-and-anti-climate-change position.

The big question is whether the Cameron/Romney model is sufficient to build a majority and to govern effectively. There are plenty on the Right in each country who claim that it is not.

Matthew Kilburn

Its not that Romney doesn't have charisma - he most certainly does, even those who I've spoken to who aren't mittheads can't help but be impressed when they hear him talk. His presence is powerful.

The problem is that a considerable segment of the party is looking for a candidate of rhetoric, they're convinced that its exceptionally easy to be President, and that Obama is just such a big-government-bleeding-socialist that he's managed to mess up what should otherwise be an incredibly simple task...and they think that if they just put the most outwardly, rhetorical conservative into office, he (or she) will take America back to it's glory days in a few short months.

It looks remarkably like the attitude Obama's own supporters had before his election.

Far from learning the lessons of Obama, many in our own party seem to have taken his supporter's viewpoint that we just need a simple guy like you or me who gets all the lines rights.

Its interesting that people want their kids, but not their presidents, to be harvard-graduate CEOs.


This comparison is completely bogus. What they have in the UK is an election where the Tories effectively tied Labour, and are only in power because they formed an alliance with the Lib Dems, who make Obama's democrats look like reactionaries. You can't exactly say he's leading some conservative revolution when he has to form a govt with the lib dems to do so. You also can't compare Obama, who was elected with a very healthy margin, to Brown, who was appointed to his position and who lost when he did run for PM. So, I'd say your entire post is inaccurate.


It is a well-known FACT that Mitt put himself through school.


According to everyoone on this site we should forget the voting and crown Romney the winner. I am not giving into that theory.

I never knew Romney put himself through school, but he was middle class so I guess it must be so.


"Mitt Cameron?" BINGO!!! If Mr. Romney was running for Prime Minister of Britain or some other European country, we Conservatives would rally around him as 'the best we can do.' But, we are Americans, we live in a Conservative country, we should do better than to just settle for somebody like Mr. Romney.


"It is a well-known FACT that Mitt put himself through school." C'mon! And the rest of us did not put ourselves through school???

Matthew Kilburn

Ohio Joe -

What is it, SPECIFICALLY, that you want to see done that you are convinced Romney won't do?

You tell us that, then we can debate about the practicality of it, the consequences of it, etc.



The problem is that a considerable segment of the party is looking for a candidate of rhetoric, they’re convinced that its exceptionally easy to be President, and that Obama is just such a big-government-bleeding-socialist that he’s managed to mess up what should otherwise be an incredibly simple task…and they think that if they just put the most outwardly, rhetorical conservative into office, he (or she) will take America back to it’s glory days in a few short months.

BINGO!!!!!!! NAILED it!!!!!!!



You seem a little bitter lately...

First of all, it was Perry, not Romney, that FOX News and many others were trying to crown as the nominee before even vetting him. Mitt has been working hard to gain support little by little for years.

Secondonly, Mitt's father was a self-made man and he wanted his children to be self-reliant.

Of course, learning from a successful dad and enjoying other advantages is a hugely beneficial. (It's called the "American Dream" remember?) But his dad had the kids doing chores like everybody else and working their way through school. I do believe Mitt got a little assistance from his dad (like any father would do if he could), but nothing like you are thinking.

Of course, his family had it easier then some others. Do you have a problem with that? Romney's no silver spoon feed inheritence whimp. He earned his fortune himself.

Why do we have so many class-warfare people in the GOP? We're not supposed to be the party of socially conservative welfare weenies...



Why do we have so many class-warfare people in the GOP?

Because "wealth" has become synonomous with "liberalism" - due to the party's renewed emphasis on social issues (which plays well in rural areas and poorly in suburban areas) since Roe V. Wade.


"Why do we have so many class-warfare people in the GOP? We’re not supposed to be the party of socially conservative welfare weenies…"

Seriously you must be tuning into a different party than I am. From where I sit all I hear from Republicans is how aweful it would be if millionaires had to pay a few more percentage points in taxes, and that's the party's one uncompromisable principle. If the GOP is really full of class-warfare practitioners they're not on the side of the lower classes.

Matthew Kilburn

"Seriously you must be tuning into a different party than I am. From where I sit all I hear from Republicans is how aweful it would be if millionaires had to pay a few more percentage points in taxes"

1% of the population gets 20% of the income, and yet pays 40% of the taxes. and you want them to pay even more? That does sound pretty bad to me.

Now, if everyone were paying their fair share, and we had the budget balanced, and it was a question of quickly paying off as much of our debt as possible, THEN I could certainly see asking the richest to ante up a little more.


From where I sit all I hear from Republicans is how aweful it would be if millionaires had to pay a few more percentage points in taxes, and that’s the party’s one uncompromisable principle.

And the aim should be what? To use the tax code to make sure that no one has more than someone else? Is there any limit to what government can or should do along with redistribution, entitlements, addictive handouts, and, I dunno, industrial production planning and design all the way down to unworkable solar panels and automotive engineering?



Being on the side of lower classes does not mean redistributing government cheese to them. Can I be more clear than that?


If we REALLY wanted to re-distrubute wealth, we'd cut the corporate tax and Sub-S tax rates DRASTICALLY.

Then, we'd be redistributing wealth from China back to the United States.


It doesn't matter which income bracket you tax higher. If you raise taxes on the rich, you are taking money out of the economy. If you raise taxes on the poor, you are still taking money out of the economy. The government doesn't produce anything. They're just supposed to be the policeman. We should oppose any expansion of government, no matter who pays the bill because we all lose and the economy doesn't do as well.


Its not that Romney doesn’t have charisma – he most certainly does, even those who I’ve spoken to who aren’t mittheads can’t help but be impressed when they hear him talk. His presence is powerful.

Although many Rombots are apparently oblivious to the reaction the other 75 to 80 percent in the party have when listening to Mitt, that lack of charisma is immediately palpable. His speechmaking has improved, but he still has a strange hollowness in his delivery that makes it sound empty and lifeless. He has a habit of speaking too quickly like a salesman trying to fast-talk you into something.

And the content of those speeches. My God, the content! There is little within to inspire that isn't undermined in the next rapid-fire staccato sentence full of heavy qualifiers, trap doors, and escape hatches. The reasoning for his proposals quickly degenerate into glib and unprincipled numerical targets that are as devoid of human spirit as they are lacking in inspiration.

The most striking thing in his defense proposal was that he couldn't come up with a principled reason for his proposal that wasn't immediately countered by arbitrary bean-counting. In that PBS interview, he said we should aim for defense spending amounting to some four percent of GDP. Why? Because it was statistically within the bounds of wartime and peacetime spending in America over the last 30 years or so. That's not a principled figure, but just one chosen to obscure the lack of an argument. Why not choose six percent or two percent? There's no vision to it. It doesn't inspire anyone to do or think anything in particular.


An interesting comparison Dave, but there's also a very crucial dynamic that Nick does point out. Cameron and the Conservatives are in coalition with the Liberal Democrats and Nick Clegg since no one got a parliamentary majority in the 2010 election. It would be like if the GOP had to team up with the Clinton Democrats to control the government. Basically we're seeing blue-yellow policies being implemented instead of true Blue Toryism. The way the 2012 elections are shaping up, it looks like the GOP is going to have the full control that Cameron lacks.

One of the key things about Cameron is the reason for his election as leader of the Conservative Party. Cameron was elected as Tory leader because he seemed to be the "Conservative Tony Blair", which was meant a youthful modernizer. When Cameron won, he did make a strong effort to show Britain that the Tories had become a party that wasn't stuck in it's Thatcherite past. Issues like global warming and gay marriage became Tory issues, not just Labour or Lib Dem issues. If Romney is the GOP nomine and he wins the election, he might also seek to modernize the GOP. The Party won't become tree-huggers, but it could become more moderate on some issues as a way of co-opting the Democrats.


You all bring up some good points, unfortunately I don't currently have the time to go into an in depth discussion on the issue. Certainly God's vengeance is above and beyond ours as He can look at things from all angles. I don't think God will prosecute complete retribution, as he would have to torture Hitler for something like 6 million lifetimes. However, I do think there will be an element of pain involved in God's punishment of this world's monsters. Beth suggests that we should view the world as all God's imperfect children with messing up that needs forgiven. This view is popular, and sounds very benevolent. However, I have a very difficult time viewing the Hitler's of this world as just having messed up like the rest of us. In order to view these monsters as the rest of us, I would have to close my hearts to the pain of the victims. Does this lack of sympathy for the torturers mean I'm not as far along in the sanctification process as you folk? Maybe, I'll leave that up to God. I'll also leave justice up to God, I am sure that with omniscience God is quite capable of figuring things out better than we are with our limited perspectives.


Sorry about #26 that was meant for an entirely different blog I was on in a different tab.


Way off the subject, but I can't help but think how funny it would be if somebody dressed as a Wall Street protester for Halloween.


For all the talk of redistributing money from the rich to the poor, this has proven inneffective. Why is this? After years of voting democrat, too many families still live in poverty. In spite of liberal spending in this regard, most on welfare rolls remain on the welfare rolls.

The solution is not a political solution.

The words of Ezra Taft Benson, Christian, and former President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are very applicable to today's discussion:

“The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. The world would take people out of the slums. Christ takes the slums out of people, and then they take themselves out of the slums. The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature.”

The gospel of Jesus Christ is better than any liberal social spending program.


27. Funny, I thought that was the most original argument I've seen here in a while, and I was about to cede the field due to its brilliance. 😀

Pragmatic Conservative

28. "Way off the subject, but I can’t help but think how funny it would be if somebody dressed as a Wall Street protester for Halloween."

A lazy, stinky, unemployed moron being exploited by leftists?


Also, even though the Conservatives are polling behind Labour right now, most Brits don't want Ed Miliband as Prime Minister. He's a relatively incompetent Leader of the Opposition and Cameron has, for the most part, been eating his lunch during Question Time. Miliband has had a couple of good moments, but for the most part, he's not worth too much as Leader of the Labour Party.


Way off the subject, but I can’t help but think how funny it would be if somebody dressed as a Wall Street protester for Halloween.

I think I just found my Halloween costume.


The Street Party is one of the more misunderstood phenomena I can remember.

They are NOT Democrats.

They are NOT liberals.

They are NOT Obama supporters.

They are far-left Communist nutjobs, mixed with a bunch of teenage unemployed hipsters. That's it. That is all.

I'll bet 30% of them probably don't know who the Vice President is.

20% probably don't know who the President is.

And I find it extremely ironic how the liberal media has been trying to portray these losers as anti-Republican. They are NOT protesting Republicans, they are protesting Obama and the bailouts he signed!


Cameron was elected as Tory leader because he seemed to be the “Conservative Tony Blair”, which was meant a youthful modernizer.

It's true that Cameron emerged as a response to Blair, just as McCain 2000 was a response to Clinton-ism, but one that got derailed because of George W. Bush. In fact, had McCain won South Carolina that year, he probably would have been the nominee and would have won that election and taken the GOP in a different direction. But now I think that we're way past a time when a mirror image of Clinton seems like a good idea. So much of Clinton's successes were due to the dot-com boom, and so much of the New Democrat agenda was based on replacing government programs with easy and loose credit, which has now been exposed as just as economically harmful as the government spending. Probably even more so; at least the old liberals used to tax in order to pay for stuff.

I think Romney will govern as a non-culturally divisive deficit-hawk/good-government-guy. I just don't know if that will make anybody happy.



What WILL make people happy is the renewed economic prosperity that will result from a Romney administration.



In a way, Labour did get the antithesis of Tony Blair when Gordon Brown became Prime Minister. He had the sober seriousness that Blair didn't have and was a far gruffer and less ameable leader than Blair. Brown was also a modernizer but much less interested in the spin and media manipulation of Blair and his group.

Interestingly, Brown was actually popular when he became Prime Minister, particularly after he handled the London Train Bombing. If he had actually summoned up the courage to call a general election in 2008, he might've won a 4th term for Labour like John Major did for the Tories in 1992. Brown's two biggest problems were 1.) the economy tanking when he was supposed to be Mr. Economy since he had served as Chancellor of the Exchequer and 2.) Labour looked tired and worn out after 10 years in power.


12. OJ,

“It is a well-known FACT that Mitt put himself through school.” C’mon! And the rest of us did not put ourselves through school???

That's not the point. The comment is to counter the false narrative that Mitt was handed his life on a silver platter, that he didn't have to really work for any of his success. Part of that narrative was that his education was entirely paid for by daddy. Not the case, i.e. as you said, much like the rest of us.



Lol. Isn't Ohio Joe so clueless sometimes?


39. With comments such as 12, I can see why you'd think that. However, in 2008 Ohio Joe was one of the top commenters here both in quantity and quality. He was also among the most level-headed and fair commenters. The results of national and local elections seem to have brought about a different attitude on his part, though. He is convinced that RomneyCare brought us ObamaCare and that is huge for him and I think it influences his less-than-positive comments on Mitt. I hope to see more of the old OJ, but he's gotta do what he's gotta do.

Btw, I totally agree with your comment in 15 re 7. I was thinking something similarly, that that was worded great! What it tells me is that certain segments of voters have gravitated to a unrealistic reality, one in which they will never be satisfied with anyone, hence the Bachmann mountain, the Perry mountain, and now the beginnings of the Cain mountain. Question is, who is influencing these voters to have these unrealistic expectations?


The way people pick the candidates they chose to support nowadays has changed..If they're educated and worked their rear end off to achieve the American dream, well, that's a bad thing....And if they don't agree with a candidate 100% then they couldn't possibly support them....We should learn the lesson from the rise of Obama who told us only what we wanted to hear with Platitudes and rhetoric speech...it might make us feel good, but it can't replace the leadership we need right now.


So what you're suggesting is that if elected Romney will be a flop like Cameron whose half measures will fail to tame the beast of out of control spending.

For once I agree with you.


Question is, who is influencing these voters to have these unrealistic expectations?

The premise is flawed. One man's realistic expectations are the next guy's unrealizable demands. In other words, the Paultards are too unrealistic and extreme in my view, based on what I think is achievable. But to them, I'm surely a misguided doubter who under-appreciates the dire need for their proposals.

Who defines what expectations are realistic or not?

As far as that goes, realistic or not, my hope at least is that -- whatever candidate we settle on -- he reverses many of the supposed reforms of the last two or three decades through personal action and persuasive force, and then gets those reformed reforms to stick for an appreciable amount of time. I think most people here would even agree with that idea. Where disagreement starts is the question as to what is sufficient, and as to who is the candidate best capable of achieving that goal.

So it really relies ultimately on our individual judgements as to what the individual candidates might achieve. The goal probably for everyone at this site comes down to wanting the American model of capitalism and freedom to prevail again nationally and internationally. We differ on who is best capable of delivering on the promise and how far it should go.


"Question is, who is influencing these voters to have these unrealistic expectations?" What unrealistic expectation? With respect, most of us realize that things are not going to change overnight no matter who get in. At the same time, it is not unrealistic to expect America to have a President that is more Conservative than your average Centre-Right European Prime Minister.


#16 Jerald...I am not bitter at all...if you knew me you would know that I don't waste my energy on bitterness, it is not fruitful to my life. You would also know that I do not have a problem with Romney being wealthy, good for him, that is what is great about this country you can achieve the American Dream. I don't have a problem if his Dad helped him through college , my husband and I helped our two children through college. Romney is a smart man and you are right he has been working since the last election building up support. His money that he earned is not a problem with me nor his faith. It is the some of the issues that he has flipped on...will he if he wins the nomination flip back to what got him elected as Gov??

I do not like the class warfare that is going on in this country. It will destroy us if we continue down that path.

I will stick with Perry !!


"The goal probably for everyone at this site comes down to wanting the American model of capitalism and freedom to prevail again nationally and internationally." I would hope so.


Yes I want our capitalism and our freedom to survive and for Obama to lose his job November 2012!!!


The way people pick the candidates they chose to support nowadays has changed..If they’re educated and worked their rear end off to achieve the American dream, well, that’s a bad thing….And if they don’t agree with a candidate 100% then they couldn’t possibly support them…

Oh, waa, waa, waa!

You know what, that kind of statement bolsters the impression of Mitt that he's distant by saying it's all for good reason and that folks should simply learn to live with it. No, the problem is that Mitt doesn't connect. Maybe the problem is Mitt's to correct, not the voters'.

Here's a tip: Mitt should stop trying to talk to folks like a guy who's trying to be overly cautious so as not to screw up some indefensible slip of the tongue in front of his respected elders -- or at least his girlfriend's parents. Mitt should avoid presenting himself as the guy sheepishly denying that he aims to get in their daughter's pants.

Instead, Mitt should talk to the nation with the confidence of a father and grandfather, and speak to the nation in inspiring tones to express that he believes in the people to do the right thing -- in particular if the overbearing nannying state is trimmed in its powers and ambitions. Isn't Mitt a grandpa? Why can't he talk to folks as if he knew of their fears and concerns? Why can't he get beyond caution and say he wants to return decision making and judgements about what's best for individuals back to individuals? And why can't he honestly emote about his concerns for the national family that he believes is failing to live up to its promise?

Try Not To Laugh At My 1.9 GPA perry

rick (gov. gardasil merck) perry has more flip flops than the rest of the field combined!!!




These people have nothing if they have to go back to '1992 and '1994 when Romney ran against Kennedy, and eight years before he held any elected office to dig something up.

Really, people are too busy to read ANOTHER Romney = flip flop story and watch a YouTube video from seventeen years ago.


I know we cannot take 4 more years of Obama. Our country may not survive his socialist agenda.

I will work for my candidate ,Perry, to be the nominee, and all of the rest of you who are posting here work for your candidate. Hopefully we will have a winning ticket for 2012.

God Bless!

Try Not To Laugh At My 1.9 GPA perry

God bless perry and his many, many flip flops!

Pragmatic Conservative

7. "The problem is that a considerable segment of the party is looking for a candidate of rhetoric."

Romney's straight on matter-of-fact criticism of Obama policies does not have the passionate fervor of the Tea Party rallies, but Romney’s positions are exactly what the Tea Party is espousing. They will love Romney after he starts implementing smaller government, cuts spending, and turns the economy around.


44. MarqueG. Excellent comment. Great points about individual judgements regarding what we feel the different candidates may be capable of achieving. Much of what goes on here in all the colorful varieties boils down to just that.

For example, I had commented elsewhere to Paul supporters that Romney would be likely to achieve more of Paul's agenda than Paul himself would be capable of doing if elected, due to his utter lack of executive experience--he'd be the pontificator-in-chief, unable to rally enough support from both sides of the aisle to achieve anything of substance. To your point, it's unlikely that anyone but Romney supporters would agree.

Pragmatic Conservative

43. "He’ll have to get through that trash to defeat Obambi."

The left wallows in trash, but Mitt will not have to go through it. He simply needs to press forward with his positive agenda for America. Romney can implement REAL hope and change, unlike the socialist that America unwittingly elected in 2008. Americans were duped into believing Obama could actually fulfill his hollow promises.


On the topic of how things are done in the U.K., their parliamentary debate process is fascinating to me. It requires those in power for the government and the opposition to be able to think on their feet and have a good command of the issues--much more so than here in the states. It's an interesting exercise to consider which of our candidates (and Obama) would succeed in such a system. Here is just one video of a random debate:

While it is true that such an open communication process does not exist here and, therefore, we needn't be concerned that a POTUS excel at this, on the other hand, I don't want to be embarrassed when our President engages in dialog with heads of state knowing that he/she is clearly seen as intellectually inferior. It's just one of many qualities/characteristics I look for in a President, though certainly not the only one.


....#49...Would it be better if Romney came on stage at his townhalls like he was filming an infomercial, or calling himself the white walnut and telling the crowd to get onboard the Romney train, or maybe telling people to mind their own business when asked a question he didn't want to answer, or how about turning into someone who can't stop talking about how great he is?.....That isn't Romney..what you see is what you get, he is what he is and that's fine.


@49 go listen to Romney Foreign Policy speech last week. i think you might find it full of "inspiring tones" as you request, spoken by a grandfather about the nation his grandchildren ought to inherit.

but if you are looking for the screamer in your voice over the top rhetoric where nothing gets done guy, i suggest you stick with Perry and lately Cain (which is very disappointing to me)


Romney's dad had no college education. He got rich anyways, though. That's pretty sweet. Just sayin'.

And Romney coulda dropped out of school and started a rock band once his dad got $$$. But he didn't. Just sayin'.

Time to coalesce.

Robin from Indiana

#13 You think this story somehow supported Rick Perry? I read the story saying that Obama is going to try and take Mitt Romney out, and this concocted protest was to help do that.


Here's what I expect out of 4 years of a Romney administration:

1. A balanced budget by the end of the term.

2. Energy independence.

3. A strengthened military.

4. Repeal of ObamaCare.

5. Lower, flatter taxes.

6. Streamlined bureaus, and fewer Federal Employees.

7. Higher SAT scores.

8. A return of our AAA Bond Rating.

9. Reduced union power.

10. Morning in America.


Mitt should stop trying to talk to folks like a guy who’s trying to be overly cautious so as not to screw up some indefensible slip of the tongue

Right, and you'd applaud him rather than crucify him I suppose.

The reason why Romney tactfully answers questions is because he knows that if we want to further a conservative agenda, then people have to be convinced. We don't need to persuade conservative republicans, we need to persuade independents, democrats and more liberal republicans. That's not going to be done with over-the-top rhetoric, it's going to be done with well reasoned, thought-out, logical explanations.

Watch Romney's interview with Judy Woodruff, and tell me Romney wouldn't effectively argue the conservative cause as President.

Pragmatic Conservative

MarqueG's main purpose is to complain about something as he searches for validation as a person. He wants other people to agree with him and bolster his complaint, after which they will give each other high fives and bask in the mutual validation.


#63....That was my reaction too, but I don't take the time to post it.

Good job...


"We don’t need to persuade conservative republicans" Ah, yes you do.


One critique of your social issue statement; for this election, social issues will be in their usual secondary role, as they usually are. However, you have to look at how far social conservatism has come. In 2000, W would not say he was pro-life and for overturning roe. It was the culture of life crap. 2012, the "moderate" in the race says he's pro-life, for overturning roe, and really emphasizes that he'll appoint con judges. This is a much different world than 2000 and especially 1996.

Comments are closed.

Recent Posts

Tweets by @Racefour

Search R4'16