Romney’s 2002 News Flashback: ‘My Views Are Progressive’
- Posted on December 13, 2011 at 10:51am by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
This is the clip you’re likely to hear a lot about in the coming days. Back in 2002, while campaigning for governor, Mitt Romney gave an interview to a local TV station while at a campaign stop. And now it’s starting to go viral. Why? Well, here’s what he said:
“I think people recognize that I am not a partisan Republican. That I’m someone who is moderate, and that my views are progressive.”
Here’s the video:
But here’s an important question: Is the video as damning as some might think?
Consider that the term “progressive” may not have had the same stigma in 2002 as it has now. Many already know that Romney is not the staunchest conservative in the field, and his policies as governor of Massachusetts have raised eyebrows (i.e. Romneycare). So then the question becomes: Is this Mitt admitting he’s an FDR-Teddy-Roosevelt-type progressive, or is this him trying to pander to a liberal electorate in Massachusetts before the term progressive was the dirty word it has become today in conservative circles?
You decide.
By the way, the video wasn’t unearthed by a liberal think tank. It’s the work of Andrew Kaczynski, a young college student who describes himself as a “moderate Republican.”
(H/T: Business Insider & Hot Air)
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 583 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 412 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 408 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 374 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 363 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 408 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 412 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 363 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 408 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (100)
West Coast Patriot
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 12:37pmI just had to say something here. I was just looking at Fox to see what they were saying and Rick from Happening now was telling everyone to go to Fox at Happening now to take a poll on who you would vote for if the Iowa caucuses were held today. He showed the present result having Gingrich @ 47.55%, Romney @ 21.33% and Paul @ 5.48%. I immediately went there to cast my vote. After voting it showed the present results being: Romney @ 30.15%, Gingrich @ 24.28% and Paul @ 23.29%!! Fox is showing over the air the wrong numbers. Fair and Balanced my A**.
Report Post »Top_Down
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 12:40pmJust look at how he ran Massacusetts, he ran it conservatively. During the election in Massachusetts, the libs had to understand that he would work with both sides. What is wrong with working with both sides. Romney also got in trouble for criticizing the Contract for America because he as governor could not just say he was going to be one sided and it was his way or the highway. So he worked with the 85% liberal legislature and passed very conservative means to correct their economy.
From the Boston Globe this shows his conservative history in a liberal state: “The first signs of life appear in the Massachusetts economy and the governor calls for a $225 million tax cut.” ( http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/05/11/romneys_real_agenda_is_national/ )
Yes he was still able to get this passed in a liberal state because he worked with the other side.
Report Post »Top_Down
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 12:43pmActually Gingrich’s numbers are dropping, Romney’s are staying the same and Bachmann and Santorum are increasing by a small margin. Gingrich in the Des Moine Iowa University poll shows Gingrich dropped to 24% (was 38% last week). Romney is consistent in second at 19%: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/12/us-usa-campaign-iowa-poll-idUSTRE7BB1VO20111212
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 12:53pmNewt Romney “are” a progressive aka creep.
Report Post »marion
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 4:09pmThe numbers were for New Hampshire. Don’t worry, I thought the same response at first. Iowa did have Newt ahead.
Report Post »ramburner
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 6:19pmThe polls have GOT to change! Now we see Romney in his own words, he is a Progressive! Newt is slick! Perry, Newt and Romney ARE NOT the man! Newt is a polished Romney in sheep’s clothing. He is really a democrat. Perry is a republicrat because he started as a democrat. Why do you think they are surging in the polls? Why are the media pushing all that they say? Something is NOT right when the media are actively promoting their message and slamming Bachmann and Santorum. The media finally wore a hole in Cain and he burst! WAKE UP America! If we elect Newt or Romney or Perry, we get Obama light! Whatever the media is doing, RUN the other way! We will only have this last chance to elect someone who will even try to bring us back to where we were before Wilson and FDR. Other than Potus; the 2012 election is a good time to clean house and get rid of ALL the Progressives in each party! Don’t know who they are? Then use this rule of thumb; if they have been in office for more than 2 terms – GET RID OF THEM! We MUST have Term Limits in order to keep this problem at bay and controllable in the future; otherwise this country is lost! Research the Candidates background on the web BEFORE voting. If they have voted for Progressive laws and pushed Progressive policies; chances are – THEY ARE PROGRESSIVE! Return to God and the Constitution. I’ll vote for Paul if he is the GOP nominee without hesitation! Bachmann is my choice. See people for who they are and change the polls!
Report Post »Clara88
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 7:35pmVeterans are supporting a VETERAN….Gov Rick Perry
Report Post »Our military deserves a Commander In Chief they can be PROUD of and RESPECT
GOD BLESS OUR BRAVE MILITARY AND OUR BELOVED BRAVE VETERANS
http://www.rickperry.org/veterans/
bullcrapbuster
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 12:36pmGarym……………trolling today are we??
Report Post »Ghandi was a Republican
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 12:27pmAgain.. The understanding of what a progressive is and the misnomer of it all is much better understood today than it was even in 2006. Wolf in sheep’s clothing! “Progressive” = regressive in man’s rights and where they come from. Any use of the word prior to this from any Republican can be excused. 2006 was a coming out party for G. Soreass and his charlatans.
Report Post »An accelerated coming out, full alinsky ahead! Words have contexts and “progressive” is a hijacked word like everything else ‘progressives’ twist!
flagkeeper
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 12:26pmDefinitely not good for Romney, but not as bad as attacking the very same capitalist success you praised so recently, or praising FDR and Andy Stearne, for that matter. There is merit to the idea that the term progressive was not seen the same as it is today. Romneys view on abortion was “progressive”, until he saw the fruit of that labor as governor. He was also willing to look at environmentalist policies until he saw how much they would cost as governor. Was he a conservative ideologue? No, but he did govern conservatively, especially as he saw the results of progressive policy first hand. So you point to Romneycare, which is a misonomer, because ther was and is no government provider of care in MA. How many of you even know that Romney never wanted a mandate? His proposal allowed for people to bond out or show evidence of self insurability. The legislature would not have it. He went there on a mission to fix the economy. You can’t be all things to all people, as someone will always be upset, so he changed what he could, for the better, and left when it was done. There is no real reason to think he would not do the same for America.
Report Post »garyM
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 12:16pmCheck out the statement where Romney said he lowered taxes 17 times in Mass as Gov with a democrat controlled state congress if you really want to expose him as a bold face liar!
Report Post »mad_hatter_
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 12:22pmAs he said, he has evolved. I am glad when any person finds out how stupid liberalism is and moves conservative. At least he is honest. He even said he was a moderate in the 1994 and in 2004 he was still discovering conservatism. Anyone that learns true conservatism will switch, which he did. Good for him.
Again as he said, he is a partisan Republican, fending on the side of Republicans, but his thoughts are progressive. Progress in Massachusetts is Conservatism. Wouldn’t you agree. Anyone that progresses in Massachusetts becomes Conservative.
Eitherway look at his conservative stances as governor. That is what is important. And that shows he is a Fiscal and Defense Conservative.
Report Post »GilbertAcct
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 3:42pmWatch out GaryM, you won’t find any rational thinking with Romney supporters when it comes to the actual numbers in MA. They choose to use Obama’s tactic of blaming anything and everything on Bush and the Republicans. I’ve laid out numbers that come straight from the MA CAFR, showing that taxes increased under Romney, spending increased, and long term debt per capita increased. The Romney supporters, like Obama, will go to great lengths blaming this on the democrats before him and the democrats under him. If you point out anything wrong with Romneycare, for example that has thus far cost 10x what Romney thought it would cost, the Romney fanatics blame this on the democrats after Romney… who completely destroyed his “libertarian” plan to socialize healthcare. If you point out Romney’s dishonesty in cherry picking a favorable poll that found that most people in MA like Romneycare, and show them many polls which show the exact opposite, the Romney lovers vilify you for “smearing” him and getting the info off of anti-Romney sites. The “smear” argument is used as a straw man to distract from the fact that you can prove the dishonesty of Romney.
Having said all that… don’t you support Gingrich? In my view, Gingrich makes Romney look like a knight in shining armor. How can you make good arguments against Romney while supporting Gingrich? He is not only dishonest, he is pure evil.
Report Post »Buck Shane
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 5:00pmROMNEY2012
Report Post »MAD_HATTER_
READRIGHTHERE
These posters appear to be Romney staffers playing politics.
Don’t bother with what they post; its just political sophistry.
These may even be the same person trying to appear to be a consensus.
garyM
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 12:10pmAs long as men put their confidence in other men instead of God, things will not change. Beck is the modern day Oprah, He built everyone‘s confidence in exposing Obama’s evil and now, well he just is herding sheep toward his fellow Mormon Romney. He herds sheep just like Oprah herded the sheepish housewife’s for years. People can’t think on their own anymore, well some can that are not blind sheep!
Report Post »flagkeeper
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 12:28pmYou, sir, are a fool.
Report Post »countryfirst
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 12:42pmThere is a saying “ that a sheep will stand still and cooperate when you shear them but will fight back when lead to slaughter”. I hope we are awaking and can now smell the butcher.
I fear only a civil war will clear out the corruption and unconstitutional process.
Report Post »DJEyeDub
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 12:52pmWhat an idiotic view. Indeed it would appear as if some people can’t think for themselves but those idiots seem to the all gathered in the Occupy movement – products of a “progressive” education system. Ive found that leftists think they are smarter, better and always right compared to anyone who has a differing opinion (such hypocrisy). Apples and oranges is Beck and Oprah. The USA is in serious trouble and morons such as yourself had best pay attention because you might not have a say in the very near future if you don’t.
Report Post »WhiteFall
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 5:16pmI suspect you are a religious bigot, anyone who has listened to Beck at all would know better then to try a smear like the one you stated, If Beck was to try to pull such a move like wouldn’t that line of reason suggest that he first try to line up Huntsman instead of Romney given his great friendship and respect for Jon Huntsman Sr? Stupidity if you ask me.
Report Post »sjohn70037
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 12:05pmThe GOP is just another big government political party. We are now doomed to 4 more years of that pos Barry. God help us all.
Report Post »garyM
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 12:12pmYou could be right, we had enough problems without someone who built his sheep herd and then caused division trying to get his fellow Mormon nominated!
Report Post »The-Real-Enrico
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 12:17pmPeople need to hold strong and reject these fakes and lier. Newt and Ronmey are the same.
Hold out and support Bachmann, Santurom and even Ron Paul. We need to reject these progressive rhinos!
Report Post »schroeder123
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 12:05pmMitt and Newtt are in the same category as I’m thinking.
Report Post »I’ll take Ron Paul. More common sense.
SunnyinVegas
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 4:55pmAgree, but I think we all need to focus on voting for the candidate WHO WILL BEAT OBAMA.
Report Post »JMJ6391
Posted on December 14, 2011 at 9:20amJust do a Google search on Ron Paul and racists remarks. Not saying if the stuff is true but it’s there.
The plan is already being laid out to label him racist. It’s already making the rounds on the internet.
Herman Cain had a chance to garner votes from Conservative minorities. He was accused with no proof. One down. Newt is now being attacked over remarks made years ago. Next…
Every candidate is being drugged through the mud until most people think they aren’t electable. Who will be left? Obama.
Why aren’t the Republican candidates vetting his past instead of going after each other? He is the one they have to beat. Make him unelectable by his own words, and any one of them can then be chosen by the voters.
Reagan had it right “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”
If these candidates keep attacking each other how will they reconcile their accusations against the candidate when it is time to support that candidate that wins the nomination and goes up against Obama?
The left will use every sleazy tidbit they are uttering now against the other candidates and by those words hand votes to Obama. He won’t have to bad mouth them, the other candidates are doing it for him.
They need to attack Obama‘s record instead of each other because we can’t survive another 4 years of this President’s policies.
Everyone is looking for President Perfect. Vote for Mr. 75% and a Senate that can back him and we go from there to fight another
Report Post »DagneyT
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 12:02pmOh goody another progressive GOP candidate in the top tier. Sigh
Report Post »qpwillie
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 11:53amI have a serious question. I have never heard Romney say he would repeal 0bamacare. I have heard him say he would make it optional for the states. An unconstitutional law should not be an option anywhere.
Has he actually ever said he would repeal it?
Report Post »garyM
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 12:06pmRomney has said allot of things only later to change his mind, he says whatever sounds politically expedient at the time! If he authored Mass heath care as Obama did National and said in his first book that his health care should be a pattern for the nation, what do you think?
Report Post »WhiteFall
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 4:44pmYes, he has clearly stated in three or four debates and in several interviews that he would immediately repeal it and that he would on his first day issue an executive order to allow states to opt out during repeal process
Report Post »flanny
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 5:00pmHe sure has
Report Post »Johnny Cocheroo
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 11:51amVote for Ron Paul – at least we’ll be financially sound.
I know his major issues lie in the area of international affairs but – what do you think will happen if we finally sink into financial oblivion? We sure as heck won’t be effectively managing international affairs.
Lets get Paul into office – & let him get our house into order. We can still take action if we have our treasure chest full.
If we let Newt or Romney get into office – we will have Obama lite for 4 years, then they will be destroyed by the media (remember what they did to Bush). Which leads to another democrat into office.
Report Post »MEDICINE TO THE DEAD
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 3:36pmI feel the same way now. I was for Cain but have always liked Paul. The only thing that had me voting Cain was Paul’s FP positions. But, then it hit me. What is more important right now? If the dollar crashes after the EU fails which is inevitable, FP won’t mean squat. A failing US economy and exponential growth of debt is more of a threat right now than any foreign country. Paul cutting a trillion and ending 5 bureaucracies, I have to back that. I just hope that we take the senate so that all isn’t just a wet dream. Plus, I just can’t stand Newt or Romney. Voting for them would make me sick and I just couldn’t look myself in the mirror and call myself a conservative if I did. Let get our priorities straight. Paul 2012
Report Post »convictobama
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 11:37amWow Blaze staff you have clarified my opinion you are biased against Newt!!
Report Post »When you stated
“Is this Mitt admitting he’s an FDR-Teddy-Roosevelt-type progressive, or is this him trying to pander to a liberal electorate in Massachusetts before the term progressive was the dirty word it has become today in conservative circles?”
So if its Romney he gets a disclaimer?
Newt gets trampled.
I get it now, Blaze wants Romney or Obama.
Sik Sik Sik….
nuthrdumkinsrvativ
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 12:12pmLets face it, we will get a Progressive out of this primary. The question is: How much respect and how many advisors will they have with a TEA party perspective? The problem is that the pundits, talk hosts, blogs and alternative media have not been focused on THEIR role in the process. The only way we will change the direction of the country is for the people to lead. For this to happen we need to educate and inform each other. For too long Conservatives have accepted the premise of arguments and thus lost the debate. Just as the word Progressive was deliberately chosen as a positive term and Reactionary as a negative when a LEFTIST defined the way the political spectrum is taught in schools.
Report Post »For example: Stop defending against Occupiers by saying that the rich pay 90% of taxes. Instead: The average earner of $1 million per year pays about $400,000 in federal income, payroll, state income, property and other local taxes in order to have $600,000 left to spend themselves. They chose how that money is spent while government agencies chose how to spend the rest. If you were to chose the best person to help you spend your money most wisely and efficiently would you chose a guy from the Department of Agriculture or a successful business man? And if you want to complain about those who “get away” with paying nothing, raising the rates that others pay only increases the advantage for those who have figured out how to avoid paying any.
Locked
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 11:27am“Consider that the term “progressive” may not have had the same stigma in 2002 as it has now. ”
I find it one of the great ironies and disheartening tragedies of our current political climate that “progress/progressive,“ being an ”intellectual,” and working for a bank are all vilified now. In an effort to name-call others, I feel like we often insult ourselves.
Romney’s “progressiveness” is likely not the horror we associate with Democratic “progressiveness.”
Report Post »wifezilla
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 11:34amOh really? Romneycare says otherwise.
Report Post »Dave In Idaho
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 1:00pmRomney Care is not Obama Care. One is within the states rights, one is far over reach of government power. Is Romney care big government? Sure, but it is what the people of Mass. want and a very large percentage of them are happy with it and it is absolutely within the boundaries of the constitution. I also am very suspect of clips that cut off after a buzz word is used, so I don’t put much stock in this.
Report Post »TeaParty_RonPaul_R3VOLUTION
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 11:25amwhy am I not surprised?
Report Post »wifezilla
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 11:33amBecause you are actually paying attention?
Report Post »garyM
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 11:23amIs this Mitt (I MEAN GINGRICH) admitting he’s an FDR-Teddy-Roosevelt-type progressive, or is this him trying to pander to a liberal electorate in Massachusetts before the term progressive was the dirty word it has become today in conservative circles?
SEE THE DIFFERENCE?
Report Post »ronaldreaganthegreat
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 11:21amBachmann, Bachmann,Bachmann, nuff said!
Tea:-)
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 11:24amPatriot Act!
Patriot Act!
Patriot Act!
Disqualified!
Ron Paul 2012!
Report Post »Johnny Cocheroo
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 11:59am@Reagan
Bachmann would be stronger if she had a larger vocabulary. Unfortunately, she just can’t get a good talking game going. She was on Glenn yesterday, Glenn asked her for some examples (a couple of different times) and all she gave were platitudes. I believe she would make a great president but Obama would destroy her (according to the general public)
Give Ron Paul another look. He is proposing serious cuts and looks like he can get it done. International affairs & Israel will manage itself for 4 years.
Report Post »The-Real-Enrico
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 12:02pm@V-MAN MACE You shouldn‘t attack Bachmann if you’re pro Paul. He is for abolishing the fed and etc.
We should focus the attacking if any on the front runners and the biggest progressive big government rhinos. Like Newt and Romney.
When you attack people with the same similar message you hurt your own. Support Paul without attacking Bachmann is only logical.
If we try to stop and tare down Newt and Romney for being the phonies they are. It will help Ron Paul who is in third or second. Attacking Bachmann is only hurting your message.
Report Post »The-Real-Enrico
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 12:09pm@JOHNNY COCHEROO
“Bachmann would be stronger if she had a larger vocabulary. Unfortunately, she just can’t get a good talking game going. She was on Glenn yesterday, Glenn asked her for some examples (a couple of different times) and all she gave were platitudes. I believe she would make a great president but Obama would destroy her (according to the general public)
Give Ron Paul another look. He is proposing serious cuts and looks like he can get it done. International affairs & Israel will manage itself for 4 years.”
You are sensible. I agree with your points. I lean more towards Bachmann(because of the foreign policy thing) I would hope she becomes more or articulate and historical. I would think she would beat Obama anyway.
Ron Paul would even be better than these progressive they are trying to spoon feed us.
Report Post »Obama_Sham
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 12:20pm@V
“Patriot Act!
Patriot Act!
Patriot Act!
Disqualified!
Ron Paul 2012!”
Career politician
Career politician
Career politician
Disqualified…
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 4:42pmThe-Real-Enrico
You’re delirious. My criticism of Michelle Bachmann for her vote for the unconstitutional Patriot Act Extension isn’t an “attack”.
It’s telling the truth.
—————————————————–
Obama_Sham
You‘re so pathetic that you can’t even get enthusiastic about your own choice of candidate. You can do nothing but attack Ron Paul and his supporters with baseless drivel.
UNVARNISHED RECORD!!
CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMPION!
RON PAUL IS HIRED 2012!!!
Report Post »BurntHills
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 11:17amsorry but today we are shaken up. do WE THE PEOPLE actually have much say in who the GOP nominates? where did McCain ever come from?
we would like more on Blaze exposing obama: we found this today and it is not on Blaze?!
By Selwyn Duke, The New American ..”"COLLEGE MATE: Obama was ardent marxist/leninist.”
But is it really fair to suggest he may be a Marxist? Or was there evidence for it all along?
Well, consider the words of John Drew, a man whom writer Paul Kengor calls “Obama’s Missing Link.” A contemporary of Obama’s at Occidental College three decades ago, Drew says that he himself was a Marxist at the time — and part of Obama’s inner circle. And what does he reveal?
Obama was an “ardent” “Marxist-Leninist” who “was in 100 percent, total agreement with [his] Marxist professors,” said Drew.
In fact, Drew states that while he was a more nuanced Marxist who tried to convince Obama that old-style communist revolution was unrealistic in the West, the future President would have none of it and considered Drew a “reactionary.”
Report Post »Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/12/12/college-mate-obama-was-ardent-marxist-leninist#ixzz1gQpbZGYY
RANGER1965
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 11:13amI think we can all agree that both Newt and Romney are big goverment wankers. The only real question is….If in the course of time it becomes evident that the race is between Newt and Mitt, who is the lesser of two evils?
It is obvious that Glenn believes that Mitt is the lesser, and it is just as obvious that the Tea Party believes it is Newt.
For my part I understand Glenn’s points, however his arguments against Newt are not compelling if they are compared too Mitt. I prefer Newt over Mitt by a large margin, and I believe my reasoning is sound.
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 11:11amPoliticans at work; they are among us.
Report Post »circleDwagons
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 11:08ami still can’t believe how much romney was supported in 2008, i doubt Glenn or “the Blaze” will do too much against romney. Glenn is on the radio now talking about world war and how he can’t support Paul. Paul who wants a strong homeland defence? how can we protect America if our forces are spread all over the world? we will be fighting for are own well being.
Report Post »garyM
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 11:28amThey haven‘t and they won’t do much against Romney, this article is suggesting that Romney was pandering to the liberal voters of Mass but yet they don’t think Newt would ever do that. If Newt were Mormon, he‘d be right up there with Romney on Beck’s chart! Romney is not running against TR, but some of the sheep think he is, watch the left hand and not the right! What Beck is doing is very damaging to the chances of getting rid of Obama in the 2012 election!
Report Post »circleDwagons
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 11:37am@ garym. i agree with you,in the end Beck will support romney if romney makes it all the way. i think romney will tank after NH. if he doesn’t win NH he is toast
Report Post »parmajohn
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 11:06amLets Look at Santorum While we have time
Report Post »Ruler4You
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 11:20amI agree, with great enthusiasm.
Newt nor Mitt should not be the GOP candidate, if conservatism is the direction the GOP as a grass roots (citizens) support group wants to go.
Unfortunately, money is the main attractor, on both sides of the political spectrum. People, citizens, won’t exercise their brains. They want media to tell them who to vote for. Mostly, IMHBLO, because they are not really Americans in the classic sense: Involved. Engaged. Interested.
Just living in America doesn‘t make you ’American.’ Remember? It’s an idea. And if you won’t engage in the idea, you reject, fundamentally, the idea of America.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 10:58amMitt & his father, George (Gov Michigan)… have always been PROGRESSIVES… just like Newt & Perry… and TR!
Report Post »JRook
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 10:58amRomney is the only candidate who has a chance of getting the independent vote. M. Bachmann and Perry are a joke. Newt is the reason most Republicans left the party and became independents. Ron Paul is the only rational and thinking candidate but he is too extreme for most.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 11:03amAccording to liberal wankers. You guys said the same lie about McCain, that really worked out well. Lying is the only thing liberals are capable of doing, don‘t know why so many people can’t figure out that one universal truth.
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 11:06amI am looking @ Paul, Bachman,& Santorum myself.
The only poll I care about is the one called “PRIMARY”
Report Post »nummy1
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 11:30amI don’t think anyone thought McCain could realistically win, four years ago… that was an utter mistake.
Report Post »The-Real-Enrico
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 11:50am@JROOK Stop spreading this lie. Anybody can beat Obama. The point is WHO SHOULD be beating Obama. I believe Newt and Romney could beat Obama just I believe Ron Paul and Bach man could beat him.
The point is why would we want to elect Romney or Newt?
@STOIC ONE
“I am looking @ Paul, Bachman,& Santorum myself.
The only poll I care about is the one called “PRIMARY” ”
I’m with you a 100%
Report Post »Johnny Cocheroo
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 12:06pm@the-real
Both Bachmann or Paul would have my vote (& many of my family too)
If it comes to Newt or Romney – I may actually cast a vote for Obama (& try again with a conservative in 2016), rather than let these Rino’s into office. Nothing good will come of another “moderate” or Obama-lite.
Report Post »quarter horseman
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 10:55amGo figure, that does not shock me at all
Report Post »rotcarpenter
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 10:53amNice attempt at spin, Jonathon. Will Glenn do a 2-hr show attacking Mitt now? Not likely.
Report Post »The-Real-Enrico
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 11:37am@ROTCARPENTERIf you ever listen to Glen show, he has for the last year be attacking Mitt Romney. He and everyone know he is not a conservative.
He knows like everyone else knows that the conservative base/Tea Party has been rejected Mitt Romney(like he has been as well). His point is why would you reject Romney but except Gingrich. Newt Gingrich is the front runner know not Romney. That is why he is talking about Gingrich! And it seems for some reason that the Tea Party conservative are or were trying to settle for Gingrich.
He doesn’t support ether of this progressive rhinos. You and many of you people are being fooled by the establishment or just making fools of yourselves.
I would agree that Gingrich is much better than Mitt Romney, but I don’t want ether of them. We need to stand up and reject both of these progressive rhinos!
Wake up!
Report Post »slr4528
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 3:19pmMitt has only been in government as a governor of the most liberal state in the country for 4 years and that is the extent of his career in government. He spent the rest of his career in the private sector restructuring companies..so they were profitable. The last thing that a business man wants is more government regulations. Romney is definitely in touch with the private economy and Newt is completely oblivious to the private economy.
Newt has spent 40 plus years in BIG GOVERNMENT either as a member of the House or profiting from Big Government as an Insider. Beck could go on for hours about Newts progressive history and big government solutions.
The only real progressive legislation regarding Romney on the other hand, is Romneycare a state solution that was endorsed by conservatives and Heritage. The people in MA wanted Universal healthcare whether Romney was governor or not. Romney worked with the 85% liberal legislature to craft a bill that made sense for the state of MA not a bill for the entire country.
While governor Romney reduced the 3 billion deficit to a 1 billion surplus. Romney vetoed in-state tuition for illegals. Romney gave the MA state police the authority to enforce immigration law,a law similar to AZ law. Romney vetoed Stem cell research and Romney vetoed government funded abortions. Romney vetoed over 800 bills from the MA legislature unfortunately since the liberals had a massive majority in MA they could easily overturn Romney’s vetos.
Report Post »