► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Rockefeller Republicans’

About my post- “Another take on Romney, Bain Capital”, etc.

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 17 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2012, Headlines, Politics at January 14th, 2012 - 12:46 am

So many of you dumped on Romney, yet what I found remarkable was that there was not one post intelligently explaining who and why any other Republican, other than Romney, WOULD BE THE BETTER CANDIDATE!
All I read were attack upon attack on Romney, and an immature, childish dimocrat-like insult of Dick Morris, as if his decades of successfully winning campaigns all over the world were trivial matters, and the “Good Old Boy’s Club” slapping each other on the back, post after post, for their righteous indignation about all of Romney’s, in THEIR opinions, shortcomings.

Mitt Romney will depress Conservative turnout

by Phantom Ace Comments Off on Mitt Romney will depress Conservative turnout
Filed under Elections 2012, George W. Bush, Headlines, Progressives, Republican Party at January 5th, 2012 - 8:11 pm

The Republican Establishment is counting on Obama hatred for a Conservative turnout in November. The results of the Iowa Caucus says otherwise. Turnout was up slightly due to increase number of Independents attending due to the lack of a Democratic primary. However turnout for registered Republicans was down. Clearly Conservatives are demoralized about the prospect of supporting Romney.

DES MOINES, Iowa – Mitt Romney may have good reason to believe that his narrow victory in this year’s Iowa caucuses will help propel him to the Republican nomination. But the deeper results should worry Republicans hoping to beat President Obama in November.

Romney boosters have always argued that should he become the nominee, the desire to defeat Obama will be the only motivation the GOP base needs to become active, whatever its lingering doubts about Romney’s conservatism.

But this year’s caucuses not only confirm that many conservatives are still reluctant to embrace Romney, they suggest that the party regulars aren’t very energized.

[….]

It isn’t clear that Romney’s problems with these groups would disappear were he the nominee. I spoke to a number of supporters of other candidates who said they weren’t sure that they could vote for Romney — even in a general election against Obama.

This is a warning to the GOP elites. Conservati9ves don’t like Mitt Romney. Don’t count on Obama hatred to win.

Mitt Romney rejects Economic and Fiscal Conservatism

by Phantom Ace ( 2 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2012, Headlines, Mitt Romney, Progressives, Socialism at January 5th, 2012 - 1:56 pm

Mitt Romney is a Big Government Progressive. He views the state as the answer to America’s ills. Where he disagrees with Obama is on managing Socialism better. Either way a Romney Presidency will still lead to a financial catastrophe since he is not an Fiscal Conservative.

According to the polls summarized by RealClearPolitics, Mitt Romney has been unable to win more than 25% of the Republican vote for the party’s presidential nomination for more than a year. This is because the former Massachusetts governor is not a pro-growth Republican. Instead, his economic platform reflects a man who is devoutly  Keynesian, and who, as president, would not be able to reinvigorate the U.S. economy.

[….]

Eliminating the death tax is certainly positive because it would unleash more capital into the economy. A 25% corporate tax rate would only cause the U.S. rate to be equivalent to the average rate for OECD countries. As a result, U.S. corporations would not gain a meaningful competitive advantage. And only extending current income tax rates and limiting the tax exemption on capital gains, dividends, and interest are unacceptable. But Romney’s defense of not completely eliminating the tax on capital gains, dividends, and interest is shocking.

[….]

Based on the supply-side economic model, Mitt Romney and his tax platform will hurt the very people that he is trying to help. His plan will scarcely benefit middle and lower income Americans, effectively delivering four more years of the current economic stagnation. The wages and livelihoods of middle and lower income Americans will only begin to improve when investable capital becomes abundant, and what Mitt Romney is proposing will not make investable capital abundant. If Mitt Romney understood the supply-side model and specifically how capital formation increased real wages, he would never make such a defense.

Romney’s defense is rooted in the belief that those who have suffered the most economically deserve to have more money in their pockets. This is the Keynesian prescription of putting money into people’s pockets to spur consumer demand. More money in people’s pockets does nothing for capital formation, which is why Keynesian stimulus plans do not work.

The fact that Romney and Santorum are the top 2 choices for the GOP speaks volumes about the Party. It’s becoming clear the Republican Party is an economically Leftist party. Republicans obviously want Big Government and wealth redistribution, as long as it’d done by the GOP. After this election, Economic and Fiscal Conservatives will need to rethink our membership in the Republican Party. Why vote for as Party that just feels it can manage Socialism better. The Tea Party was all for nothing.

Big Government Progressives won in Iowa last night

by Phantom Ace ( 143 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2012, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Liberal Fascism, Mitt Romney, Progressives, Republican Party, Socialism at January 4th, 2012 - 11:30 am

As an Economic/Fiscal Conservative last night’s result was very disturbing. Mitt Romney who is a Rockefeller Progressive Republican came in 1st place.  This is a man who wants a Vat Tax, praised Islam, supports Occupy Wall Street and laid the blueprint for Obamacare. Next up is former PA Senator Rick Santorum, who gives the appearance of being a Conservative because of his social stances. However the truth is, Santorum is a Big Government Progressive.

Rick Santorum is very much like the early 20th Century Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. In his speech to Iowa voters last night, Santorum called for redistribution of wealth to  the poor. He justified through biblical grounds, something the early 20th Century Progressives did. Although he has some good economic Conservative ideas like no tax for manufacturing, his emphasis on the government micromanaging economic winners is not Conservative. Santorum also called for a Wilsonian spread Democracy foreign policy. This type of foreign policy costs money and resources. It requires big government.

Economic and Fiscal Conservatives have been shut out of the GOP power structure since Ronald Reagan. It was been various flavors of Progressivism that has dominated. You have the Rockefeller wing of the GOP still in charge of the party apparatus. Then you have Religious based Progressives who justify Big Government on religious grounds. It’s a tragedy that after the Tea Party movement, Iowa GOP voters want Some form of Big Government. Erick Erickson stated it best:

If Rick Perry drops out of the race it will be the ultimate failure of the tea party movement to see the race come down to two or three big government conservatives. Romney and Santorum both hide behind compassionate conservatism to expand the state to suit their purposes.

I agree with this statement. Clearly what I thought was the Tea Party movement isn’t. If Rick Santorum becomes the alternative to Romney, it will be the ultimate failure of a movement that was dedicated to Economic/Fiscal Conservatism and limited government. Both Romney and Santorum represents different visions of Progressive government.

Is this really the best the Republican Party could do? If so, maybe its time for Economic and Fiscal Conservatives to seek a new home. Clearly, the GOP is not the Party of Economic freedom and limited government. Just because Santorum wants a culture war, doesn’t like Gays and is against Abortion doesn’t make him a Conservative.

Here is Santorum in his own words defending what he views as Conservatism.

One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. You know, the left has gone so far left and the right in some respects has gone so far right that they touch each other. They come around in the circle. This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

Individualism is at the heart of Conservatism. By rejecting individual liberties all Rick Santorum is calling for Religious Progressivism. This is not a Conservative world view. Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are Progressives and if this is the choice the GOP wants, then the Party is not Rightwing. It is clearly dominated by other variants of the Progressive cancer. Big Government is Progressives under any justification.