John Kerry’s tax rate was in the 13% range, and the tight wad moved his multimillion dollar boat to a different state to keep from paying MA sales and property taxes.
That’s what Rick Santorum said on CNN after tonight’s debate. Santorum said his problem with Romney is not that he made one flip flop on abortion because afterall people can change postions. But Santorum said his concern was the combined flip flops Romney has made. Whatever he meant by that.
Interesting comments by David Brooks. I can imagine the narrative from the Obama campaign if Romney gets the nomination: it will be class warfare, envy, etc. Romney will be portrayed as part of the greedy rich. But when I see Romney up there on the podium debating, I can imagine him debating Obama and doing quite well. The whole campaign he has tried to make the issue one of defeating Obama and highlighting Obama’s failures. Now Obama has vetoed the oil pipeline which represents a huge opportunity for the GOP. If Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional that would be another opportunity… its not over yet, folks.
Why would Romney expand access to government-subsidized health care if those plans would cover elective abortions? David French of Evangelicals for Mitt says that argument is a “classic example of not understanding what an actual governor of an actual blue state has to face.”
French argues that by going to the Heritage Foundation for advice and using what leverage he had, Romney got the best deal he could in Massachusetts. “Doing nothing wasn’t a realistic alternative,” he says. “People need to get over the idea that he’s coming out of Texas. He’s coming out of Massachusetts.”
“Mitt Romney did not have the option of saying . . . that there won’t be government involvement in Massachusetts health care,” says French. “He was a conservative governor facing a veto-proof [Democratic] supermajority in both houses dead-set on a particular kind of health care reform.”*I don’t think the class warfare rhetoric from Obama is going to work; Americans are fed up of being divided. The irony of the Obama in 2008 saying he was basically going to be post partisan and now pandering to his base, more partisan than ever.
This thread is for Mitt.
I’m not considering voting for him for Pope or for bishop, but rather for POTUS and would base my vote on his qualifications for that office, not on the tenets of his religious faith. I dare say that many Americans would not buy into our Catholic beliefs either.
So would you vote for a Satanist with a nice smile and a way with money?
If he were the best candidate for POTUS, meaning that he had survived the primaries and the debates to come out on top,and had the support of his party, and had a program that I approved of, then yes, I would.
This thread is for discussion of Mitt Romney. It’s not just people posting about how much they like him.
Because we live in a time when people are beginning to question the greater gap of inequality today in our country between the 1% and the rest of us, questioning the growing gap between the richest and the middle class and the poor. And a greater degree of fairness is on the minds of many Americans even if not so here on this forum. Romney’s tax rate could be higher if the Republicans would simply go along with raising tax rates on him and others at his income level. But Obama couldn’t even get them to agree to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest and go back to the Clinton rates.
You Know that the candidates have to have a lot of money to campaign. This has been the case for years.