…Dear TeaPartyforRomney:
Thus I refute thee.
Carbon caps, c. 2007:
see also:
Stimulus, 2008, NRO:
So this is surely the time for economic stimulus. But — and this is the crucial point — the government can’t just make itself bigger and more oppressive in the guise of stimulating the economy. That would make matters worse. Nor should we forget that fiscal stimulus is but one part of the solution. As Christina Romer, Barack Obama’s designee as chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisors concluded from her study of the Great Depression, bad monetary policy was its greatest cause and good monetary policy was its most effective cure. The Fed should continue to expand the money supply. And, it should confirm that it will not tolerate deflation — the pain of inflation pales in comparison.
That being said, a stimulus plan is needed without further delay, and there are some things that Republicans should insist on.
The first is that tax cuts are part of the solution. Harvard professor and economist Greg Mankiw points out that recent research confirms that tax cuts have a greater multiplier effect than new spending — more economic bang for the federal buck. We should lower tax rates for middle-income families and eliminate their tax on savings altogether — no tax on interest, dividends or capital gains. Let’s also align our corporate tax rate with those of competing nations. These actions will rapidly expand consumption and investment, and right now, time is of the essence.
On the spending front, infrastructure projects should be a high priority. But because infrastructure projects involve engineering, environmental studies, permitting and contracting, they can take a long time to actually boost the economy. Spending to refurbish and modernize our military equipment is urgently needed, and it has a more immediate impact on the economy. A great deal of our armament was damaged or lost in the Middle East, and the rest is long overdue for maintenance.
We should also invest to free us from our dependence on foreign oil, not by playing venture capitalist, but by funding basic research in renewables, material science, combustion, nuclear reprocessing, and the like. During the 2008 campaign, virtually every candidate agreed on the need for an “Apollo-like mission” to achieve energy independence. Now is the time to start.
[…]
Republicans should also lay down a gauntlet: All new spending projects should be selected by the responsible federal agency according to published criteria, not by congresspersons and senators based upon favors and politics.
[…]
The Democrats may want to wait for Obama, but the country needs action now. Republicans can — and must — play an important role in shaping a stimulus bill that makes sense for America and lays a foundation for future prosperity and growth.
Governmental role in race- and gender- based affirmative action:
Gun Control, Meet the Press, c. 2007:
And yet the Romney fluffers insist Romney is better than President Obama.
Perhaps I need some special glasses that reveal the conservative Romney, kind of like those x ray glasses tat used to be sold on the back pages of comic books.
What, those x-ray glasses didn’t work? Really?
tat=that
Although, Blake, if you wanted an x ray glasses tat, you could find one.
Blake, you mean glasses like Rowdy Roddy wore when he came to chew gum and kick ass — but he was out of gum?
Why do want the bad man to win Jeff?
/sarc
Separated at Birth: Mitt Romney and …?
You know, it’s rather disconcerting when the now obscure cultural reference is obscure only because of the length of time that has passed.
Short version: Damn, have I dated myself.
Darth, heh.
Jazz Shaw, who has the temerity to describe himself as a former RINO, wants us all to know that
Obama’s going to do what Obama’s going to do. We all know this. His history of campaigning dirty is well known.
Now, if I thought for a minute that Romney and his surrogates would go after Obama the Mericless with the ferocity they’ve shown towards his Republican competitors, I might be willing to consider voting for him on prudential grounds.
Of course for that to happen, Romney would first have to stop pretending that Obama was merely inexperienced, misguided and in over his head, and start speaking the truth, regardless of whether or not the moderates could handle it.
This is from TeaPartyForRomney.com,
Funny isn’t it that these people with these posts like using clips and partial information. Hint anytime someone is in the middle of a sentence and the video stops or if it is a 6 second clip… it is most likely false.
VIDEO 1. If you go a few days after after this video was taken, he had an interview on TV. There, he was asked about this comment and his stance on Cap and Trade and the Kyoto protocal. He said, we are investigating it right now. We don’t want to do anything that will hurt the economy or business, called his ‘No Regrets Policy.’ WE THINK THAT THE FREE MARKET CAN DO IT BETTER THOUGH THAN A CARBON TAX OR CAP AND TRADE.
Now if you want proof of him not supporting Cap and Trade, go back to the RGGI, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, this was pushed on 9 states to do Cap and Trade. Romney was one of two to reject it because the science on Global Warming was not proven and that he would not do anything that would hurt the economy or business. There were better ways. ( Its on YouTube, I can’t access it on my work computer, so maybe later tonight.)
VIDEO 2. You greatest hits, yeah just look at how badly it is clipped. Go to our site and see full quotes and his documented stance on some of these issues, as many as we have accomplished.
NRO Article – Yes there was a Conservative ‘Stimulus’ full of tax cuts and breaking our way off of foreign oils and then the stimulus of giving out money to political friends etc. What is wrong with what he wrote right there. Conservatives everywhere spoke highly of tax cuts, re-arming our military after Clinton destroyed it, and finding ways off of foreign oils through exploration (by private funds), new nuclear plants (by private funds), and getting off buying fuels from other countries. I don’t get where the conservative alternative to Obama/Bush’s stimulus is bad.
VIDEO 3. In the last clip, CLIP, you missed the words he said before, using the free market to pressure companies by by them reporting whether they have women or not. The market will decide instead of the government. You miss that.
VIDEO 4. Romney was right when he said he worked with the pro-gun groups such as the NRA. He passed 8 pro-gun bill with the help of the NRA and GOAL. The assualt rifles ban was “70%” acceptable by the NRA and that is why they agreed to agree to it and then with that agreement Romney signed the bill. Both sides agreed and it made law abiding citizens’ access to gun easier. About the Brady bill he supported, you know that Reagan also supported it. Why is a background check so bad, to make sure criminals and mentally handy capped people cant get a hold of a gun. Do you want someone that has a gun violents crime in his history or someone that is mentally disturbed to get a gun, without a check? This is why Reagan signed it, and the fact that Brady was the man that took a bullet for him as President.
Look at the videos on our site, it proves that Romney is a fiscal, social, and defense conservative, and is a Tea Party candidate. There is no question. Next time use videos with full quotes and not piece meal.
I think if we look at enough video, we can see Romney supporting and opposing just about every issue that’s been around since … Romney’s been around.
Romney is less of a flip-flopper than Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, and Obama. And the same tricks of clips can be done on them.
And you and Mitt are just the guys to do ’em, too, I bet!
Incidentally, which “tricks” were done, exactly? Was it the part where I quoted and bolded, or the part where I posted video of this stuff coming out of his own mouth?
Dear mr Zach / TeaPartyForRomney —
I already linked your site. You needn’t come here and repeat what already appears there. We can all click and read.
But let me just do this quickly and be done with you:
1) he believes in anthropocentric global warming, and he believes the government must do something about it. It’s that “the government must do something!” part that is the problem, and they are not mitigated by his rote buzzword nods to “privatization.”
2) NRO article: look closely. Once again, Romney is calling on the government to “do something” about energy independence that involves taking money out of the private sector and using the government (or rather, committees within the government) to determine where the money goes.
This is precisely the kind of thing that gives us Solyndra, ethanol subsidies, etc.
— Is what’s wrong. Oh. And he was for TARP, as well. Which are a damn sight more problematic, constitutionally-speaking, than earmarks.
3) You keep suggesting that if the government uses free market forces to address “problems” it’s somehow okay and justified. What you don’t seem to understand is that some “problems” aren’t the government’s to get involved with. Romney — being a big government technocrat — doesn’t see that. It matters not to me how Romney plans to address his desire for a kind of soft quota system. It’s that he seems to believe that the market must be controlled and massaged. This was the idea behind Bakke, and now look at us.
4) Every GOP candidate tries to work with the NRA. It’s how they try to shore up some conservative cred. But Romney tries to play both sides of the fence, as he was clearly doing with Tim Russert. I don’t want a candidate who can’t defend core principles. I live in Colorado. We call “assault weapons” “back-up guns.”
Nothing you’ve said or posted “proves that Romney is a fiscal, social, and defense conservative, and is a Tea Party candidate.” It only proves that at particular times to particular audiences he has tried to sound like one — while my clips and quotes show that at other times in other contexts he tried hard not to.
You may think that politically savvy and pragmatic. But we here don’t much care for a floating set of beliefs that tend to change depending on the audience.
And in fact, that you pretend to speak as a TEA Party leader suggests to me that you don’t know what the TEA Party is about, anyway.
Thus, I refute thee.
“Every GOP candidate tries to work with the NRA”
A lot of Democrats too, remember Kerry wanting to “buy him a hunt’in license”?
At least Santorm looks comfortable holding a fine piece of hardware.
Every vote to give Romney the GOP nomination is a vote to re-elect Barack Obama.
When the government is directing “free market” forces, the forces cease to be “free market,” is another problem with that.
“Every vote to give Romney the GOP nomination is a vote to re-elect Barack Obama.”
you’re not severely conservative
Hey FastFactFree, how much is Romney paying you to troll sites and post pro Romney campaign talking points? Is Romney that worried? Does Romney have so much campaign cash that he can pay someone to shill for him on the web?
Insert obligatory flack and target statement here:
I think conservatives are getting royally pissed off at the blame conservatives game the Romney camp is running.
Speaking for myself, I know I am.
reading through the comments at Althouse, newrouter, I see it’s the same talking-point soi disant pragmatism that mocks Santorum for his theocratic do-gooderness, which is then coupled with the suggestion that he’s some big government Republican (despite the ratings I shared here recently — and despite what it seems to me are a more credible claim to growth toward a strong fiscal conservatism than a guy who thinks the government should control your health care) to conclude that there’s really no difference between Romney and Santorum, save that Romney is a doer and Santorum delivers a fiery speech.
‘
Plus, electability.
Hanging out with the “smart crowd” of late seems to be making people more and more intellectually lazy. It’s a mystery!
I comment on Jazz’s next effort at “blame conservatives” effort here.
I’m too extreme to be severe.
http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/02/newt-gingrich-attacks-mitt-romneymitt.html Rick Santorum should embrace the tea party.
As for Althouse, she voted for Obama, remember?
Yes, she did. She has seen the error of her ways since then.
Has she?
We’ll see — especially if it comes down to a choice between Santorum and Obama.
Well, she’s repented voting for Obama or at least she’s said so a few times.
I’m with you, though. We’ll see.
OT: How’s Mama feeling? Do you know the sex of the little one or are you going to be surprised? (You don’t need to reveal it. I’m just curious.)
I’m not certain, since I don’t follow Althouse all that closely, but I suspect that while she may see an error in her conclusion about Obama in the last election — conclusion, as distinguished from her “ways” . . . i.e., she may not see so much an error in her method of having reached that conclusion. But man, is that ever down into weeds I’d rather not have to busy with.
Well, sdferr, she is an attorney. So we can make convenience, rather than conscience of any conviction of hers.
You can’t really embrace something as amorphous as the Tea Party movement. All you can do is communicate that you share and understand their issues/concerns and that they should support you because your the one who can best represent their interests.
Wife’s doing well, leigh, though she’s reached the third trimester stage where she’s getting tired a lot more easily.
We do know the sex: we’re having our second son (if all goes well, knock wood!), who we’ve named Tanner, after the little pugnacious shortstop on the Bad News Bears who was willing to take on all comers, didn’t cave to bullies, and in the end became the most loyal of all the Bears to his teammates.
I’m glad to hear she’s doing well and that Satch will get a little brother to boss around. Tanner is a good name. I hope it’s all smooth sailing and a safe and easy delivery for you all.