The Iowa debate: The ten thousand dollar bet—“Mother of Mercy, is this end of Mitt?”

The Center by Jerry Morgan

 I feel sorry for Mitt Romney, not because he had what seemed to be an almost insurmountable lead amongst all GOP candidates and has slowly watched it slip away as Newt Gingrich climbed stealthily in the polls to the head of the leader board and Ron Paul, a candidate that most people snickered at, is now likely to outpoll him in the Iowa caucuses. Yes, Mitt may not finish better than third in Iowa, despite committing to spend tons of money on campaign ads and scheduling a blitzkrieg of appearances over the next few weeks. 

If the truth be told, I believe it is all over for Mitt. He is like the front runner in the New York Marathon who gets passed just before entering Central Park where the real race for the finish begins. Or perhaps more like the front runner turning for home in the Kentucky Derby who gets passed before they can straighten out for the stretch run. Perhaps he will fade like Rudy Giuliani did in 2008, without even winning a single primary. More likely, though, he will hang on at least for a few more months like Mike Huckabee did against John McCain. There is a chance he will fight tenaciously to the finish like Hillary Clinton did against Barack Obama. One can think of many more analogies, but few if any that show the front runner that has been passed by like he was standing still ever coming back to win. In 2008, he held on until after Super Tuesday, when John McCain emerged as the clear winner. At this point it is doubtful that he will do better or even as well as his 2008 showing. But that is not why I feel sorry for the man; he has my pity because it has become abundantly clear that Mitt no longer knows who he is. 

Mitt has become whatever his campaign managers advise that he needs to be. When he ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002 he was for a woman’s right to choose (although he and his family would never consider abortion), as was he when he ran against Ted Kennedy and lost in 1994. Throughout his term of office as Governor, he was a staunch advocate and friend of the Gay Rights movement, in favor of civil union, although he stated that he favored a constitutional amendment that the institution of marriage is only between a man and a woman.

It is no small wonder that this political hack is having trouble figuring out just what the real Mitt Romney stands for when I doubt he knows himself. While I believe that in his heart, Mitt may be closest to my own political, moral, and philosophical views of any of the candidates, it would only be a guess, and I am not willing to cast my vote on my ability to read minds. Mitt, may I offer you a bit of advice from a very wise man: “to thine own self be true”.

The Left by Y.I. Wearblack

Unlike many Liberals, I am not going to hold Mitt Romney accountable for his flip-flops. People have a right to change their minds, even if it is for political gain. I saw Romney on C-Span the other night and heard him explain how he arrived at his positions. It wasn’t all that convincing, but I shall give him the benefit of the doubt. He claims to be pro-life, and if elected President, I haven’t the slightest doubt that he will sign any legislation that restricts or abolishes a woman’s right to get an abortion. As far as his position on healthcare, why shouldn’t I believe him? If he gets elected he will do everything in his power to repeal The Affordable Care Act and let the system run as it did before. He says he endorses the Ryan budget and a balanced budget amendment, and I believe if he is elected he will sign that budget and campaign to change the constitution. I believe that he has taken the pledge never to raise taxes and if elected President, I believe he would never raise taxes. He claims to come from the business world and therefore knows how to create jobs. That I don’t believe; the type of business he conducted at Bain capital gave him no insight into the complex shell game of macro-economics. His economists will be right-wing remnants of the out of favor Austrian school of economics. Their policies is what got us into this liquidity trap in the first place. Unlike the other Republicans, I think he will be more cautious about getting us into another war, but less reluctant than Barack Obama. He would definitely nominate conservative judges to the courts, utilize Bush advisors on foreign policy and continue the culture war on every front to solidify his base. 

As to whether or not Republicans will nominate him: on the plus side of the ledger he stands a better chance of  beating Obama than does Newt Gingrich, on the negative side he is a .1 percenter.  A .1 percenter is amongst the elite Americans who control 5% of the wealth in this country.  Mitt clearly does not relate to the average American as per the huge gaffe he made in the Iowa debate, offering a ten thousand dollar bet with Senator Perry when the average Iowan and average American could never contemplate that large a wager.  Mitt has in the past endorsed many of the Democrat’s platforms including healthcare and a woman’s right to choose. Yes, he is a definite flip-flopper and as Governor Perry pointed out, he was a strong advocate for the Massachusetts brand of healthcare, strongly recommending in the first edition of his book, that the  Massechusetts model serve as a guide for all the other states in the union.


As a result of his chameleon-like qualities, the GOP party base feels a basic mistrust for Romney; that he is a New England liberal, who governed as a liberal when he was in office, that he is faking it and will move farther to the left than most Republicans are comfortable with. Then there is the likability factor. That is also a negative for Romney. He is an inelastic, plastic, every dyed hair in place, anti-charismatic individual. Despite his best efforts he does not relate well to an audience. In fact, the cadence of his speech and the tenor of his intonations, make him irritating to listen to, bordering on nauseating. He is also a Morman, a religion looked upon by more than would care to admit in the party core, as a fringe, if not cult relilgion. That's two strikes out of three. At some point he will likely have to go mano a mano with Newt in order to win the nomination and so far, in every one on one confrontation Newt has come out the winner.  finally, it is difficult if not impossible for a Republican to win the nomination without the strong support of the likes of O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh. So far, Romney does not have the support of the Conservative media. They hated McCain but they abhor Romney. This was evident in the oft repeated Bret Baier interview. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/tense-bret-baier-confronts-mitt-romney-over-health-care-mandate/

If Romney were to somehow win the nomination, which is looking more unlikely each day, I predict he will lose the election. He has taken the pledge not to raise taxes on the rich. He will make the argument that it is class warfare, but that is a losing argument. Also, by endorsing the Ryan budget he has declared that he would end Medicare.  Finally, he has endorsed a balanced budget amendment which means drastic cuts to social programs because of his pledge never to raise taxes. Despite a bad economy, the middle class will lean to Obama on these issues. His hard stance on immigration has alienated Latinos, and despite his statuesque, Presidential-like posture in the debates, he folds under pressure. I predict he will lose the debates with Obama. I am a firm believer in “black swan events.” Anything can happen in an election and usually does. But as Gus Sands said to Roy Hobbs in “The Natural” I think you’re a loser.” Sorry Mitt.

The Right by Dwight Cameron

As a fiscal conservative, I don't trust Mitt Romney.  There is something about his plasticized slickness that raises a red flag . . . one that says be wary.  Aside from this, there are more than a few tangibles which make me uncomfortable.  

He says he will repeal ObamaCare by giving each state a waiver.  But, according to my careful scrutiny of the program, he will not be able to grant these waivers until 2014.  In the interim, Obama’s program will become deeply entrenched into the bureaucratic framework and the practice of healthcare, which will make it more difficult if not impossible to remedy.  A direct defunding and immediate repeal is the manly way to proceed.  

There’s no denying that Mitt does have a history of changing his mind depending on the audience he's trying to woo.  These deep-rooted flip-flops do not give me confidence in knowing where he really stands.  Yes, this tends to be true of politicians in general, but his selling point is that he is not a politician.

I strongly disagree with his immigration policy as to illegal aliens.  Sending all 11 million back will require an unbelievable dragnet permeating the length and breadth of our great country.  Once we stem the flow of new immigrants by building a fence (or some other solution), we can then try to “legalize” the status of longer-term illegal residents by making them pay a fine to get a green card.  If they wish to become citizens they then should go to the "back of the line" but from their quasi-legal status in the U.S. not from their home country which is what Romney wants to do.

A place where his penchant for big government shows is in his capital gains tax proposal.  He picks winners and losers by picking an arbitrary income level and saying that those taxpayers below this level get the lower rate while those above it will pay a higher CG tax rate.  Capitalism works best with the free flow of goods, labor and capital.  A high CG tax creates a barrier to the flow of the latter.  A "millionaire" with a long-term holding of a stock may hold it to avoid the paying the tax although there may be other investments which will net him better gains (and a better economy for everyone else).  For a very long term investment much of the CG will be merely equal to the effect of inflation since a dollar in 1950 is probably worth $20 or more today.  Hence the CG tax on $100 of 1950s  XYZ  stock, sold for $2000 today will be entirely due to inflation since the stock has not really changed in value.   My point is that a policy should apply equally for all taxpayers and the government mandating who wins and who loses is not a conservative doctrine.  

The only thing positive that I can say for Mitt is that he may be able to attract moderates.  If this is so, he has a better chance of beating Obama than his rivals. As much as I don't trust Romney, I am sure he will be far better than the current occupant of the White House.  Thus, if he happens to win the Republican nomination I will have no problem voting for him.