via Memeorandum -- Hate to link TP, but it looks as though Mitt's die hard dedication to free enterprise has its limitations when an election is on the line. He'll be handing out a lot more than fifty bucks from his own pocket when Mittens is through if he ever sees the White House.
Before a GOP presidential primary debate in Nevada, the state with the highest foreclosure rate in the nation, Mitt Romney said that the government should not try and prevent foreclosures. “Let it run its course and hit the bottom,” Romney explained.
That was then. Fast forward to Florida today. Why is Mitt Romney not defending capitalism and shifting Left? Oh, that's right, he wants to hit Newt on the housing issue. Typical Romney, his position is what it needs to be for that day's political situation. What's the point in electing someone when you have no idea what they'll do from day-to-day. He also seems pretty erratic these days. Hmm. Must be the pressure.
The idea that somehow this is going to cure itself all by itself is probably not real. There’s going to have to be a much more concerted effort to work with the lending institutions and help them take action which is in their best interest and the best interest of the homeowners.


Maybe you should have thought twice before linking TP or at least found the original comment in context:
http://www.lvrj.com/multimedia/Five-questions-with-Mitt-Romney-
132028338.html
Who needs Axelrod to go after Romney from the left - which they are continuing to do - when we've got so-called conservatives to do their work for them.
Posted by: ljm | Monday, January 23, 2012 at 03:19 PM
"There's going to have to be a much more concerted effort to work with the lending institutions and help them take action which is in their best interest and the best interest of the homeowners."
Ummmm, isn't that pretty similiar to what Bubba Clinton thought when he put the Community Reinvestment Act on steroids, loading up the GSEs with bad debt that the American taxpayer is now picking up the tab for?
Good God, we have really given ourselves a choice, haven't we? Seems our choices are now a Northeastern statist or a man who keeps telling us how Americans are railing against the "elite establishment" when he was part of that "elite establishment" for two decades but now wants to present himself as the ultimate outsider.
2008 all over again.
Posted by: tired of the b/s | Monday, January 23, 2012 at 03:19 PM
This format won't highlight the link provide in my post above but the link is actually provided in the TP article. It's incredible to me that TP would be more responsible in their reporting on Romney than the conservative Riehl is here.
Florida in on suicide watch in Florida.
Posted by: ljm | Monday, January 23, 2012 at 03:35 PM
Romney has ZERO core beliefs- a calculating opportunism has taken their place
Who would keep Mitt honest re his conservative sounding platform... Boehner and McConnell?
We need to have a president to the right of all those guys, Newt's Laffer-endorsed agenda sounds like the ticket to me
Posted by: Reaganite Republican | Monday, January 23, 2012 at 03:44 PM
Reaganite Republican, don't forget Laffer also supported Cain's insane 9-9-9 plan. Political wh0res, all of them.
Posted by: tired of the b/s | Monday, January 23, 2012 at 03:51 PM
It's not about doing their work for them! It's about calling a spade a spade! Hey Dem Losers, can we still use that term about a white guy who's one of our own, is that okay with you, Losers? It's about not nominating as the Republican presidential nominee, someone who's flip-flopped as much, and is as out of touch, as John Effing Kerry.
Posted by: A Stephens | Monday, January 23, 2012 at 03:52 PM
Valid point, 999 was a non starter for me due to VAT
Opening another federal revenue channel was precisely opposite of what we need to be doing
Posted by: Reaganite Republican | Monday, January 23, 2012 at 04:01 PM
BTW as for Laffer- if you've seen the clip, it was a pretty raving endorsement and
there's no fudging the fact that Newt is tabling a Reagan-Kemp agenda, straight-up
Posted by: Reaganite Republican | Monday, January 23, 2012 at 04:03 PM
Stephen, I thought it was about winning back the white house in 2012. I thought it was about getting and keeping conservatives in positions so that they could promote conservatism.
Attacking Romney from the left in this way is something new and dangerous in republican politics.
Posted by: ljm | Monday, January 23, 2012 at 04:08 PM
"I thought it was about winning back the white house in 2012"
It is. That is why we don't want Flip Floppney.
We can't win the election without the conservative base. Newt has the base all fired up.
Romney can start by telling his surrogates to stop talking down to the base, perhaps that will help....
Posted by: Ricky | Monday, January 23, 2012 at 05:34 PM
Um...ljm, lying...from any POV...is wrong, stupid, and your MO.
"The president’s latest refinancing plan was based in part on a proposal by R. Glenn Hubbard, Columbia University’s business-school dean and a senior economic adviser to Republican front-runner Mitt Romney.
If the president’s effort “is the mass refinancing we suggest, it could be a very big deal,” Mr. Hubbard said in an interview Monday.
Hubbard told NPR, “It looks like a good plan; I’m glad they’re doing it.” But Hubbard also has a different role these days: leading the Economic Policy Team for the campaign of 2012 GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.
Romney last week said that the government has no role in trying to prevent foreclosures, telling the editorial board of the Las Vegal Review-Journal that government should not try to stop the foreclosure process. However, Romney did add that “I think the idea of helping people refinance homes to stay in them is one that’s worth further consideration.” So will he follow Hubbard into supporting Obama’s plan?
Now, refute that--
1. Hubbard is a Mittens man
2. even Obama is not suggesting suspending foreclosures
3. it is not a conservative position for the Federal govt. to "help people refinance their homes"
4. what Romney and his Hubbard propose is MASSIVE Federal interference in contract
Posted by: Ragspierre | Monday, January 23, 2012 at 05:36 PM
"I thought it was about winning back the white house in 2012"
It is. That is why we don't want Flip Floppney.
We can't win the election without the conservative base. Newt has the base all fired up.
Romney can start by telling his surrogates to stop talking down to the base, perhaps that will help...
*************
"Attacking Romney from the left in this way is something new and dangerous in republican politics."
As dangerous as when Romney attacked from the left during the social security debate?
Posted by: Ricky | Monday, January 23, 2012 at 05:38 PM
"Attacking Romney from the left in this way is something new and dangerous in republican politics."
As dangerous as when Romney attacked from the left during the social security debate?
Posted by: Ricky | Monday, January 23, 2012 at 05:41 PM
Mr Riehl you system is all messed-up. Apologies for the double post!!
Posted by: Ricky | Monday, January 23, 2012 at 05:42 PM
The president’s latest refinancing plan was based in part on a proposal by R. Glenn Hubbard, Columbia University’s business-school dean and a senior economic adviser to Republican front-runner Mitt Romney.
If the president’s effort “is the mass refinancing we suggest, it could be a very big deal,” Mr. Hubbard said in an interview Monday.
Hubbard told NPR, “It looks like a good plan; I’m glad they’re doing it.” But Hubbard also has a different role these days: leading the Economic Policy Team for the campaign of 2012 GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.
Romney last week said that the government has no role in trying to prevent foreclosures, telling the editorial board of the Las Vegal Review-Journal that government should not try to stop the foreclosure process. However, Romney did add that “I think the idea of helping people refinance homes to stay in them is one that’s worth further consideration.” So will he follow Hubbard into supporting Obama’s plan?
Posted by: Ragspierre | Monday, January 23, 2012 at 05:46 PM
"We can't win the election without the conservative base." If Romney is the nom the red states will still vote red. Despite Newt's desired proclivity to open marriage, if Newt is the nom, the purple states will more than likely "swing" blue.
Posted by: ljm | Monday, January 23, 2012 at 05:47 PM
"If Romney is the nom the red states will still vote red."
Taking the base for granted. Floppney and his people just don't get it!!
Posted by: Ricky | Monday, January 23, 2012 at 05:54 PM
"Despite Newt's desired proclivity to open marriage, if Newt is the nom, the purple states will more than likely "swing" blue."
Another lie, based on unsupported hearsay.
REALLY churning those out today, ljm...!!!
The truth is on suicide watch in ljm's skull.
"If Romney is the nom the red states will still vote PINK."
As in the enthusiasm of 2008...without Palin.
Posted by: Ragspierre | Monday, January 23, 2012 at 06:09 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/the-fix/StandingArt/poll0123.jpg?uuid=LGNwjEXwEeGV6tPXuqbevg
That will scare Ann, Jenn, SE, ljm, and all the other hysterical girls.
Posted by: Ragspierre | Monday, January 23, 2012 at 06:10 PM
Tim Thomas, a staunch conservative didn't go to the White House today.
God Bless the best Goalie in the land.
Posted by: sickofrinos | Monday, January 23, 2012 at 06:32 PM
"If Romney is the nom the red states will still vote red"
That's the establishment mentality. In other words conservatives are expected to check their principles at the door because we're supposed to line up behind our betters. How did that work out for R's in 08?
I'll continue to hammer this point, self-identified conservatives consistently make up 40% or so of the country. Coalescing that 40%, + small government, strong defense, pro-life, and fiscally conservative independents and Democrats produces results like November 010.
Only establishment Republicans have a problem with those results because they're organic & bottom-up, and that very fact says to the establishment that we don't need them, that we don't want them, and that the door can't hit them on the ass quickly enough.
I'm still supporting Santorum, but if Newt is the nominee I will be more than okay with it. Yes, he's got a past, both politically and personally, that I'm not entirely comfortable with. And yes, he has been the establishment. But today, he is carrying the conservative fight to the insider Republican elites. That's a good thing for conservatives, and using that 40%+ figure above, I'd suggest it's a good thing for the country.
Posted by: A Stephens | Monday, January 23, 2012 at 08:45 PM
This is a solid Newt site. There is no positive word about Mitt anywhere. He has a lot to offer and you have made up your minds no matter what your public position is.
Posted by: jandrake | Monday, January 23, 2012 at 11:06 PM
I'm not a Newt guy. I'm Santorum by default, my girl chose not to run.
You're right, I have made up my mind about Romney. Liked him for what he did in SLC, I was predisposed to like him when he entered national politics, but at this point I've seen enough of him to know who he is, and as we say in the South, that dog won't hunt.
Posted by: A Stephens | Monday, January 23, 2012 at 11:12 PM
I interpret Mitt's new comment (an utter flip flop) as "I intend to pick winners and losers as the leader of your government". I know he just says 'help them make the right decision', but this sure as hell isn't a free market he's talking about.
Posted by: Dustin | Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 01:09 AM
He ran Mass. like it was a collectivist state.
Why does mitt continue to shake his head when he has finished b.sing a response?
He looks like a bobble-head doll.
Posted by: sickofrinos | Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 03:44 AM
Newt needs to really go after Mitt when he brings up the Washington insider angle. We have a Washington outsider in the WH and he is learning on the job and growing government. At this time we need someone who knows how Washington works to fix it.
Newt may appear erratic and advocated liberal leanings but when he was in Washington he lead as a conservative. Romney on the other hand, cannot name one thing he did as a conservative when he was in the governorship.
Santorum is the most conservative of the bunch but he cannot win so I think Newt is the one who can bring a coherent message for conservatives. I do not see Romney giving Tea Partiers at place at thetable. But with Newt we have a chance to make some changes to the GOP.
Posted by: Ria | Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 03:53 AM
MSNBC and Brian Williams are the loser on the debate last night. When the debate will be over? It is getting so boring and tired. Gingrich won the debate; Romney is worse because he keep continue to tell to flip flop on every issues. He is just like former Pres. George HW Bush. Romney will not get my vote.
Posted by: m | Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 04:28 AM
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/01/mitt-romney-praises-hezbollahs-healthcare-system.html
Interesting clip from a few years ago (which is important to keep in mind).
Note the part at the end, where Mittens lists our moderate allies in the war with Islamism. How many are still "moderate" by any definition?
Posted by: Ragspierre | Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 09:31 AM
Wow, just wow. Is Romney so obtuse as to not know that Hezbollah's use of health care aid is for exactly the same purpose the Democrats and Obama use it for? It's bribery, blackmail and building dependency, nothing more.
Romney's depth of comprehension is frighteningly shallow.
Posted by: A Stephens | Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 10:31 AM
Cuber has been using slave-doctors around the world for decades to project wonderfulness.
Old Collectivist trick.
They duped Fat Mikey Moore...
but, hell, how hard is THAT...????
Posted by: Ragspierre | Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM