Gov. Mitt Romney Suspends Campaign for US President
tags:
Stumble ThisGovernor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts makes his exit speech to the campaign for the Republican nomination. After coming in behind Sen. John McCain in the recent Super Tuesday debate, it was decided that he could not win the Presidential election.
With now only one front runner, it will be interesting to see if more question time is given to the underdogs in the race, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul?
With now only one front runner, it will be interesting to see if more question time is given to the underdogs in the race, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul?
I think it's good he crashed and burned, it showed that the undue influence the GOP had over it's voters wishes is gone, he was being pushed for by everyone in high positions, Hannity "on-the-pulse-with-conservative-movement" douchebags, talk hate radio pundits Rush and the vote still come through for McCain, who was deemed 'unelectable'.
Edit - Romney spent $18 million. Ouch.
(btw $18 million is a drop in the bucket compaired to the $287 million they guy is worth.)
Um, I'm sorry, but if your answer to every economic problem is "cut taxes and slash entitlements," you do not understand how the economy works (much less understand it in a nuanced way).
Moreover, there would be little room for "Mittens" in any Democratic administration given what he said here. He essentially accuses the Democrats of being cowards who want to surrender to Al Qaeda (I bet C-SPAN has the full speech up somewhere if you doubt me). Frankly, the statement is beyond reproach, and shows that he doesn't understand politics or the so-called "war on terror," either.
Maybe they could invent a cabinet position for him, though. How about "Secretary of Douchebaggery," or "Deputy Secretary of Letting the Dogs Out?"
Romney's economic policies screamed "4 More Years of Bush", we are talking free trade, no increases in taxation, slight to moderate increases to minimum wage and increased federal spending.
That doesn't make alot of sense to me considering the federal deficit has ballooned to unsustainable levels, there has been rampant overspending with regards to the federal government and if anything we need to reverse some free trade policies to assure that the middle class still exists.
Regressive lax taxation with regards to the upper classes should be curbed, and bring back progressive tax policies and abolish 'trickle down economics'.
Tax cuts for the rich don't mean the poor get wealthier, it means the rich get richer and the poor get even more poor and are then forced to live on credit cards, shopping at Walmart buying goods from China.
You said: "I don't know what is greater, your ignorance or your aversion of the issue."
Almost certainly my ignorance, but it's not because of this issue. And I'm not avoiding anything. You made a claim about Romney's qualifications to serve under a Democratic president. I responded by pointing out that, in my opinion, most of his statements on the economy throughout the course of his campaign have been nothing but right-wing boilerplate. They haven't shown a nuanced understanding of the economy or a desire to be honest about our place in the world market (He's gonna bring all those auto industry jobs back to Michigan! Just you wait and see!). Moreover, I claimed that statements he made (in this video, no less!) about the Democrats and the war show him to lack sound political and strategic judgement. I'd say that lacking good judgement should pretty much disqualify you from having any cabinet position in any administration, but I guess that's just me trying to skirt the issue. Oh, wait...
The fact is, your suggestion was ill thought out. It would be as ludicrous as me saying that Romney, if he'd won, should've made Ralph Nader his Secretary of Labor.
"He's got the Reganomics thing going on. And despite how you feel about Regan, he did the economy justice."
First of all, his name was Ronald Reagan. Second, do you mean the "Reaganomics" that GHWB called "voodoo economics?" Or are you talking about the Reaganomics that no less a conservative than Mike Huckabee says is "more concerned with Wall Street than Main Street?" No, Ronald Reagan did not "do the economy justice" (mostly for the reasons Farhad points out above). And in the areas where he wasn't as awful as he could've been, it was largely because he had been embarrassed by the failure of his more ideologically driven first 2 years in office, and was forced to the left. As blogger Ezra Klein puts it:
"This is a guy who raised taxes six years in a row...passed a massive amnesty bill, wildly increased the size of the federal government, exploded the deficit, saved Social Security by instituting a large payroll tax, and expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit. Not to say he didn't have his conservative dogma humming along quietly in the background, but the last seven years of his administration saw him somewhat chastened, and far more deal-oriented."
So more Reaganomics? If that term means "fucking the economy up for 2 years until the situation becomes so bad politically that I have to try to pass some half-assed fixes that wouldn't be nearly as good as what the Democrats would have done all along," then I'll pass. So will any Democratic nominee for president, thankfully.
Finally, I'd point out that even though I thought what you said was stupid, I didn't downvote your comment. It was pretty cheap that you did so to me, but it's your character and reputation at stake when you do such things, not mine.
> Trickle down doesn't.
and who coined the term, "voodoo economics"?
anyone? anyone? bueller?