TW: Mitt Romney is not stupid he is merely a political pretzel amidst a party increasingly driven by teabaggery.
From Taegen Goodard:
"Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian."
-- Mitt Romney, defending the individual mandate to buy health care in the Wall Street Journal back in 2006. Romney now criticizes the same mandate in the recently passed national legislation.
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Re-TARP-ed
TW: I have yet to meet a financial industry professional who does not believe our financial system was on the brink of collapse last fall. Not collapse as in another bank would have gone down like BofA, or the market would have gone down even more, but collapse as in your ATM would not have worked for awhile perhaps a long while and if that had happened for even a day or two things would have gotten real interesting really fast.
That said now that the world (for now at least) has not fallen apart, certain panderific folks are going to come out of the woodwork to claim TARP was not necessary. There were fools like Mike Pence saying as much at the time and I would expect intellectually challenged folks like Palin to make such claims. But Mitt Romney knows better. He is something worse- a pander monkey, a tendency he exhibited often during the Republican primaries.
From James Pethokoukis at Reuters:
"OK, here is what the front runner (at least according to the online betting markets) for the 2012 GOP nomination said at the Value Voters summit over the weekend:
'When government is trying to take over health care, buying car companies, bailing out banks, and giving half the White House staff the title of czar – we have every good reason to be alarmed and to speak our mind!'
Now that does sounds like a repudiation of TARP. And here is what Mitt Romney told me in March:
'The TARP program, while not transparent and not having been used as wisely it should have been, was nevertheless necessary to keep banks from collapsing in a cascade of failures. You cannot have a free economy and free market if there is not a financial system. … The TARP program was designed to keep the financial system going, to keep money circulating in the economy, without which the entire economy stops and you would really have an economic collapse.'
Now that does sound like an endorsement of TARP. If Romney liked it then and doesn’t like it now for policy reasons, I think that is OK. But if that is the case, he should explain is reasoning and change of mind. Of course, the cynical explanation is that Romney now realizes that among many conservative GOPers, endorsement of TARP is almost a disqualifier for the 2012 nomination. So he is trying to muddy his support a bit..."
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/09/21/did-romney-flip-flop-on-tarp/
That said now that the world (for now at least) has not fallen apart, certain panderific folks are going to come out of the woodwork to claim TARP was not necessary. There were fools like Mike Pence saying as much at the time and I would expect intellectually challenged folks like Palin to make such claims. But Mitt Romney knows better. He is something worse- a pander monkey, a tendency he exhibited often during the Republican primaries.
From James Pethokoukis at Reuters:
"OK, here is what the front runner (at least according to the online betting markets) for the 2012 GOP nomination said at the Value Voters summit over the weekend:
'When government is trying to take over health care, buying car companies, bailing out banks, and giving half the White House staff the title of czar – we have every good reason to be alarmed and to speak our mind!'
Now that does sounds like a repudiation of TARP. And here is what Mitt Romney told me in March:
'The TARP program, while not transparent and not having been used as wisely it should have been, was nevertheless necessary to keep banks from collapsing in a cascade of failures. You cannot have a free economy and free market if there is not a financial system. … The TARP program was designed to keep the financial system going, to keep money circulating in the economy, without which the entire economy stops and you would really have an economic collapse.'
Now that does sound like an endorsement of TARP. If Romney liked it then and doesn’t like it now for policy reasons, I think that is OK. But if that is the case, he should explain is reasoning and change of mind. Of course, the cynical explanation is that Romney now realizes that among many conservative GOPers, endorsement of TARP is almost a disqualifier for the 2012 nomination. So he is trying to muddy his support a bit..."
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/09/21/did-romney-flip-flop-on-tarp/
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Meet the 2012 Republican Nominee
TW: He was a frightfully dull campaigner in 2008 and he will likely get a strong challenge from a cultural conservative of some sort (my money right now is on Haley Barbour, assuming unlike several of his peers he has kept his winky in order), but Mitt Romney will be the 2012 Republican nominee.
He has economic chops and those will come in handy if the economy is still struggling as it very well might be come 2011 (when the Republican nominee will be chosen in substance, they do not go for the long, drawn out primary seasons). As the story mentions while other candidates get the pub he is quietly accumulating his own warchest.
From Economist:
"IN FIVE months, Sarah Palin's political action committee SarahPAC raised $733,000. That's not bad for a governor whose political base in Alaska is not that large, and whose last five months have largely been spent fighting bad headlines and family turmoils. But another relevant number for Mrs Palin might be $1.4m. That's how much Mitt Romney, the erstwhile presidential candidate from Massachusetts, raised in an identical period from January to May.
It may be too early to discuss Mrs Palin's plans for 2012, but Mr Romney seems like a sure bet to run again for the presidency. Working under the radar, while his fellow Republicans have been imploding in one way or another, Mr Romney has quietly banked campaign funds, spoken at candidate events, and carved out some work as a commentator on financial issues. Mrs Palin has reportedly raised $200,000 since announcing her resignation from office, but she can only do that once. For all the attention she's getting, the people who typically choose the party's nominee are quietly promoting a safer, richer, less-bloodied-by-the-2008-election choice."
He has economic chops and those will come in handy if the economy is still struggling as it very well might be come 2011 (when the Republican nominee will be chosen in substance, they do not go for the long, drawn out primary seasons). As the story mentions while other candidates get the pub he is quietly accumulating his own warchest.
From Economist:
"IN FIVE months, Sarah Palin's political action committee SarahPAC raised $733,000. That's not bad for a governor whose political base in Alaska is not that large, and whose last five months have largely been spent fighting bad headlines and family turmoils. But another relevant number for Mrs Palin might be $1.4m. That's how much Mitt Romney, the erstwhile presidential candidate from Massachusetts, raised in an identical period from January to May.
It may be too early to discuss Mrs Palin's plans for 2012, but Mr Romney seems like a sure bet to run again for the presidency. Working under the radar, while his fellow Republicans have been imploding in one way or another, Mr Romney has quietly banked campaign funds, spoken at candidate events, and carved out some work as a commentator on financial issues. Mrs Palin has reportedly raised $200,000 since announcing her resignation from office, but she can only do that once. For all the attention she's getting, the people who typically choose the party's nominee are quietly promoting a safer, richer, less-bloodied-by-the-2008-election choice."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)