The Case for Mitt Romney

  • Share
  • Read Later
Michael Reynolds / Pool / Getty Images

Mitt Romney does not naturally inspire adulation. In school, he should have been voted least likely to engender a cult of personality. It is almost surprising to hear crowds at his rallies chant his name.

A President Romney would be utterly unburdened by messianic expectations. If he’s elected, the American public will have hired him to do a job, not to save the planet or redeem our politics. Thankfully. We’ve had enough self-styled heroic government to last us a good long time.

President Romney’s task would be simple, if not easy: to reform government for the 21st century and put it on a basis more conducive to private-sector growth and long-term national solvency.

(MORE: Read the Case for President Obama)

He and running mate Paul Ryan are the candidates of change at a time when our future depends on it. The welfare state is in crisis around the Western world, especially in Europe but also here at home—acutely in such states as California and Illinois. It is creaking under dated assumptions, aging populations and the unavoidable truth of the age-old axiom that you can’t spend money that you don’t have.

What have been drags on Romney’s appeal as a candidate might suit him in doing this job. He really does care about the data. He is bloodlessly efficient and highly rational. An important player in the transformation of the private sector at Bain Capital, he now might get a leading role in the modernization of American government.

For all his invocations of hope and change, President Obama has governed as the last President of the 20th century. He hasn’t reformed government, he has merely made it larger. His re-election campaign reeks of intellectual and policy exhaustion. It released a purported second-term agenda with more glossy pictures of him than text, just 14 days before the election. His campaign continually resorts to the small-minded and demagogic in defense of a manifestly inadequate status quo.

(PHOTOS: Last Days on the Road with Romney)

Any proposed restraint on the unprecedented peacetime levels of spending and debt is portrayed as unhinged radicalism and the end of the social safety net. Yet under the much maligned Ryan budget—broadly endorsed by Romney—taxes as a percentage of GDP would be slightly higher than their average over the past several decades. Ten years hence, federal spending would still be at a higher level of GDP than in the Clinton years, when tumbleweed didn’t roll in the streets.

The achievement of the Ryan budget is to point a way toward long-term balance without tax increases. The dirty secret is that Obama’s central fiscal initiative, a tax increase on the rich, would raise only $80 billion annually at a time of yearly $1 trillion deficits. Eventually, funding current levels of government will mean broad-based tax increases on the middle class. The President offers no other way out. His $4 trillion “balanced” plan to cut the deficit is little more than a dressed-up talking point. Half the savings were already achieved in the debt-limit talks or come via the inevitable drawdowns of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The President’s budgets have failed to get any votes in the Senate for two years running.

(MORE: The Quiet Eye of the Election)

The health care entitlements, Medicare and Medicaid, are the biggest drivers of the debt. Even Obama says Medicare is unsustainable on its current trajectory. Romney wants to block-grant Medicaid to the states so they can experiment to improve it. And at considerable political risk, he endorsed a far-reaching reform of Medicare (although it wouldn’t kick in for 10 years). This is the “premium support” proposal that Democrats routinely say, falsely, would cost seniors $6,400 more a year.

The proposal would guarantee existing Medicare benefits, then invite insurance companies (and a version of the current Medicare program) to bid on providing those benefits. The government would set its level of payment at the second lowest bid, and seniors would choose their preferred option. There is no reason for seniors to pay more than they do now. The popular Medicare drug benefit is a similar premium-support plan and—shockingly for a government health program—has been coming in under cost projections.

Of course, Romney also famously wants to repeal Obamacare. The President’s signature health care program is a sprawling $2 trillion mess sold under false pretenses. The government’s own scorekeepers say it won’t control costs. Medicare’s actuary says its cuts to the program—crucial to paying for the reform law—are so draconian that they are unlikely to happen. The Lewin Group, a respected health care consultancy, says employers could dump millions of people out of their health plans. Much of the expansion in insurance coverage comes through Medicaid, which traps its recipients in a second-class health care system.

(PHOTOS: America Votes: Election 2012)

Romney has talked (if vaguely) about a free-market alternative that would make it easier for people to own their own insurance. A tax credit for individuals to buy their own insurance could cover tens of millions more people. Properly designed high-risk pools could limit the problem of sick people unable to get coverage. Such a plan could achieve the same goals as Obamacare at a fraction of the expense while encouraging more innovation and cost control in the health care system.

Romney’s tax plan, similarly, aims for greater efficiency. All things being equal, most economists prefer a tax system with lower rates and fewer loopholes and deductions. This is what Romney proposes, in broad strokes, for both income and corporate taxes. The President makes it sound like an impossible dream, but this is the same construct—lower rates, fewer loopholes—behind his own proposal for corporate taxes.

Romney promises a regime of regulatory restraint. His Environmental Protection Agency, in particular, can be trusted not to interfere with the revolutionary oil and gas boom driven by fracking or to impose a cap-and-trade system by administrative fiat. The same cannot be said of the President’s EPA, filled with people who share the goal he used to talk about (though no longer) of making electricity more expensive in order to combat climate change.

(MORE: Romney’s Edge: Moderate Mitt Takes Florida By Storm)

Not all of Romney’s program will be achievable, obviously. The tax reform won’t have a smooth trip through the congressional sausage factory. And some of Romney’s promises are unwise. One hopes that if he really labels China a currency manipulator on “Day One,” he spends Day Two figuring out how to avoid a trade war. But the thrust of Romney’s agenda would be good for our finances and our economy. It would begin to reverse the tide of federal spending in the short term and improve the fiscal outlook in the long run. Businesses could look forward to lower tax rates, modest regulation and cheap energy. (The last is especially important to manufacturers.)

The President’s case for re-election has been weak, in keeping with the weakness of his record. Let’s stipulate that he inherited a punishing recession. But the argument that Bush’s policies “got us into this mess” (and by extension, that Romney’s would do the same) is better partisanship than history. In 2007, years after the Bush tax cuts, the budget deficit was all of $161 billion. There is no plausible economic theory by which tax cuts caused the housing bubble and subsequent financial crisis.

The mantra that Obama saved us from another Great Depression rings hollow since the recession officially ended in June 2009, before any of his policies had a chance to take effect. He shot $800 billion on the stimulus and got nothing for it except some pleased spendthrift allies in Congress. His faith was in a simplistic Keynesianism that said willy-nilly government spending could cure the downturn. Alas, the economy is more complicated than that.

His green-energy program has been an expensive fizzle. By one estimate, the green jobs created by the stimulus cost $5 million a pop. After all the subsidies, renewable energy increased from 7.2% of total energy consumption in 2008 all the way to 9.4% in 2011. The Department of Energy predicts that renewables will still constitute less than 11% of total energy consumption in 2035.

The vaunted auto bailout, the second half of the Joe Biden rallying cry “Osama bin Laden is dead, GM is alive!” doesn’t bear much scrutiny. The GM bailout cost some $35 billion. For that kind of coin we could have saved Borders, Tower Records and Circuit City Stores. GM certainly could have gone through a less politicized and more thoroughgoing traditional bankruptcy (with some government financing if necessary), without getting liquidated. Amusingly, at the same time the President touts a witless “new economic patriotism,” he brags about saving Chrysler so it could be promptly handed over to an Italian company, Fiat.

Foreign policy hasn’t figured very much in the campaign, although it has played out against the backdrop of the unraveling of Obama’s Mideast policy, punctuated by the debacle at Benghazi, Libya. At the beginning of his Administration he acted as if the mere advent of himself as President would secure our position in the region. Not so. His drone strikes have been admirably deadly, and he made the right call on bin Laden, but otherwise we are worse off than we were four years ago. Iran is closer to a bomb. Egypt is in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. Iraq is sliding the wrong way. Pakistan hates us. And the President looks willing to quit in Afghanistan no matter the consequences.

In the final days of the campaign, the President is pounding away at Romney’s trustworthiness, because the former Massachusetts governor isn’t consistent enough for his taste. This is rich. Obama ran to Hillary Clinton’s left in 2008 and then sounded beguilingly moderate in the general election. He embraced the basic legal architecture of George W. Bush’s war on terror as President after denouncing it for years. He was against the individual mandate before he was for it and insisted it wasn’t a tax before his legal team told the Supreme Court the opposite. He was for same-sex marriage before he was insincerely against it, before he was for it yet again.

This would have seemed shocking to say just four years ago, but another reason to hope for the retirement of President Obama is that it would improve the tone of our politics. Whatever his failings, Romney is unlikely to demonstrate the same high-handed contempt for the other party that Obama has, or the same shocking classlessness. It’s impossible to imagine Romney ever publicly calling anyone a bulls—-er. Mitt Romney is a prudent and decent man who seeks to be a center-right President for a center-right country. Hire him.

Lowry is editor of National Review

(MORE: Read the Case for President Obama)

(MORE: Election Nightmare Scenarios: What Could Happen on Nov. 7?)

MORE: 5 Counties That Could Decide the Presidency

243 comments
MarcusTaylor
MarcusTaylor

THERE IS NO CASE TO VOTE FOR ROMNEY/RYAN

"The cost of not releasing the returns are clear. Therefore, he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them." - George Will, July 15, 2012 concerning Romney's 2009 Tax Returns

"This is a man without a core, a man without substance, a man that will say anything to become president of the United States." ~ Rudy Giuliani about Willard "Mitt" Romney

When a Romney rally welcomes someone wearing a 'Put the White Back in the White House' t- shirt, that tells you all you need to know about Romney/Ryan ... their slogan is ... WE'RE THE WHITE GUYS...

Listenbeheard
Listenbeheard

You should call in to this interactive audio project and talk about the election. Make your voice heard.

http://listenbeheard.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/todays-topic-is-the-election-again/Today’s topic is the election (again)

Hello. How are you? It is finally here. This cycle’s topic is the election. This is a two-parter everyone. What do you think will happen with the election? After, how do you feel about the results? Please call in multiple times. I want to hear from people from all over with all sorts of different opinions on this one. You. I want to hear from you.To answer, dial 347-765-0148 or email a voice memo to listenbeheard@gmail.com. That number is just for you. Nobody will ever answer that line and you never have to say your name. If you call the number, please pick a place where you have the best phone reception possible. I would love to hear from you on this topic by midnight November 24, 2012 eastern time. Do note, the line will cut out after three minutes. You can just again.Of course, the line is always open for anything you have to say or want to talk about it. At times, I may share these answers wider than this blog, but i will always treat your voice with respect.I want to hear from you. I really do.

MayaLeon
MayaLeon

In this article, I read fewer real facts than misconstrued ones, jargon, and unilluminating negative opinionsdesigned to force the reader into confusion and intimidated submission. For example, this statement: "Butthe argument that Bush’s policies “got us into this mess” (and by extension, that Romney’s would do thesame) is better partisanship than history." First of all, the focus here is Bush's policies, not Republicanpolicies, thus a clear misconstruing of facts, trying to make Obama into a hypocritical, secretly partisan-loving two facer. Secondly, this quote is taken out of context. The author again construes the fact thatObama said Bush "got us into this mess" and easily makes the leap that he is naturally referring to Romneyas well by virtue of their sharing the same political party. Thirdly, to say this "is better partisanship thanhistory" is a throw away without meaning. The author does not back up what this is supposed to implywhatsoever. One can only wonder what is meant by this. They purport to describe what this means whenthey say, "In 2007, years after the Bush tax cuts, the budget deficit was all of $161 billion. There is noplausible economic theory by which tax cuts caused the housing bubble and subsequent financialcrisis." Apparently, the point is to blame Obama for the greed implicit to Wall Street with this jargon-likereference. Surely, Barack Obama is the reason for the values of modern capitalism, a value system that hasbeen in the works since the end of World War II. Furthermore, the author does nothing to display the factthat very same kind of greed implicit to the housing bubble is the very same individualistic greed thatRomney has also displayed by virtue of his operations with Bain Capital. 

What is more, the author claims "Pakistan hates us," but what about the fact that America regainedl its cloutas a fair and democratic nation in the eyes of the world as a result of Obama's administration? There is noquestion that a Romney administration would weaken the restructured ties we have with out foreign allies. 

Making the case that Romney would be a better president than Obama because he is less charismatic andless likely to win a personality contest is a pretty feeble attempt at covering up Romney's big-picturestrategic and humanitarian weaknesses into a strength, deeming his less developed ability to inspirecommunal togetherness and inspirational human warmth as a strength. I'm not sure how Romney being"bloodlessly efficient and highly rational" helps us build a balanced society where efficiency andeffectiveness, rationality and gut feeling, individuality and collectivism, feed on each other synergistically. 

There are yet more things to be critiqued about this argument for Mitt Romney, but I'm stopping here. If anew brand of radical capitalism hiding behind the mask of moderation suits you, by all means vote forRomney. However, if a balanced, insightful, and humanitarian approach to this country’s leadershipappeals, certainly Barack Obama is the human for the job.

RaysTIME
RaysTIME

The first few paragraphs of this endorsement are fairly solid reasons for the potential upside of a Romney presidency, but the writer fumbles badly at the end with the duplicitous absolution of the Republican party's behavior toward President Obama from day one.  "Shocking classlessness" and "high-handed contempt" have been on full display these past four years and were crystalized for posterity by a congressman from South Carolina yelling out "You Lie" to the President during a nationally televised State of the Union speech. 

Alexander
Alexander

I saw a great bumper sticker the other day.

Actually it was two bumper stickers side by side.

The one on the left said: (on two lines, the second using a much larger font)

AFTER JANUARY 21, CAN YOU STILL USE 

                           OBAMACARE ?

and

the one on the right said (on two lines, the second using a large HaLLOwEeN style font):

OR WILL YOU BE STUCK WITH

               V a P o R -C a R e  ?

They had a good point.  Even if Romney does scrap OBAMACARE,  he shouldn't do it until he's signed the bill for it's replacement.

Otherwise it's like giving 30 days notice of vacating an apartment before finding a new place to move to.

Otherwise it's like quitting your job before having a new job lined up.

I don't think Romney will be so callous as to toss away Obamacare before it's replacement is ready to replace it.

On second thought,  it's NOT like giving 30 days notice of vacating an apartment before finding a new place to move to.

On second thought,  it's NOT like quitting your job before having a new job lined up.

It's like Romney doing it FOR you!

peterb
peterb

A  ROMNEY WIN:   on day 1~The wealthy 1% will be laughing all theway to the bank, again. All of the CEO’s holding on to those huge bonuses.Credit Card company’s back in the driver seat, no regulations.  The Tea party back in you face for norights for women, gay people, people in need , less Fireman, Police, andTeachers & education. If you consider yourself working class or retiredworking class… look forward to loss or reduced health care & health care ata higher cost than you’ve seen ever. TheLoss of your mortgage deduction & others and more of the tax burdenon the middle class~ broadening the tax base… this is what they mean.AlsoMitt has already given a view of how he would handle the rest of the world byslapping them in the face, declaring some as enemies with his arrogant approach.Everyone knows he is a proven liar over and over .. who will deal w/ that?Ifyour kids are about to enter collage~ beware it will cost you plenty and with nogovernment help. Allof are cars will be burning OIL for years to come! This is not progress. Don’tbe fooled it is a matter of Trust.

JonDivine
JonDivine

Nonsense.  The Obama stimulus did turn the tide, and did pour into the stock market that created the V-shaped recovery.  There was liquidity issue without the stimulus.  The stimulus provided the liquidity.  That money went into the stock market, which went to corporation for investments, which saved many jobs.  So, as an analyst, your analysis has contributed anal yeast.

ScubaDiver
ScubaDiver

I'm a moderate Democrat.  I'm uncomfortable with the high level of deficit spending, which is why I have been trying to maintain an open mind for this election.  I was very interested in what both of 'The Case for' articles in Time had to say.  RIch Lowry had my attention for a few paragraphs, which focused on what I think Romney's primary strength is - reforming organizations to improve efficiency.  I think our government could use a healthy dose of that.  Lowry then lost me by spending the next two pages on what was essentially an attack ad - there wasn't much at all about why Romney would be good except that he wouldn't be Obama.  I know that's how much of this campaign has been run but i was really hoping for more.  EJ Dionne's piece, though containing some Romney bashing, was a much more positive message that provided something to vote for, not just against.

I'm concerned about the extremes of both parties.  But as I look at which fringe element has the biggest impact on the functioning of each party, I'm much more concerned about the impact of the far right than I am the far left.  The strategy of the far right seems to be to drive as big a wedge as possible into the electorate just over the center (say 53/47%) and divide us as much as possible.  And that strategy seems to have permeated the Republican party.  And the results of that have been a meltdown of our ability to compromise to address our most pressing problems.  And Lowry's piece just reinforced those concerns.  

So thank you Time for two articles that helped crystallize the choice in this election, at least for one voter.  

sunlitweb
sunlitweb

Mitt Romney and the entire top tier of the GOP scares me. Especially when I read articles like this one by Jonathan Chait of NY Magazine. In this article he clearly describes what bullies the GOP really are. In his endorsement of Mitt Romney, David Frum (former economic speech writer for GWB) claims that congressional Republicans have "shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics..." Then goes on to describe how the extremism of the GOP will destroy Obama and bring him to impeachment in 1215 if he is reelected. Frum tweeted this to his followers: "Vote Republican. It's too dangerous to leave us in opposition."The article goes on to say that by 2000, "the House Republicans had turned Washington into an ungodly mess, shutting down the government, conducting endless witch hunts, culminating in a wildly unpopular crusade to impeach Bill Clinton." Then says,that once GWB was in office they "abandoned their fanatical opposition and became a law-passing machine working in lockstep with a Republican president."The article is well worth reading.That is what we are looking at. A machine that will not stop until they rule this country. Liberals will have to step up the game, and soon to prevent a total overthrow by the radical right.

WilmerRojas
WilmerRojas

It seems that Mr. Rich Lowry lost his facts along the way. How rich is that!

jbpolitickle
jbpolitickle

When has Mitt ever experienced true financial difficulties?  This might be why he easily makes comments against those with not much money -which is most of the country.  Has he ever done anything without a huge personal safety net behind him?  If you don't like Obama how is Mitt the answer?  He will not be entirely honest about his income or be specific about his tax plans. And you must admit he makes a lot of gaffes.  And don't forget when you vote for Mitt you encourage horrendous to keep happening such as Trump's hairdo.

CharlesWilton
CharlesWilton

Sophistry; Reasoning that appears sound but is misleading or fallacious. "wisdom in appearance only."

Witnesstoitall
Witnesstoitall

America needs change and not for some vague or mythic reason. We need to pay our debts. Like with individuals that means actively paying more (higher taxes) and cutting expenses. Ryan has it half right, for sure and Romney is a pragmatist; he lies w/ ease. Thus it shouldn't concern us that he promises to keep our bloated military spending in tact. He's a do-whatever-it-takes kinda guy.

Not a good Mormon. Not a good Christian. Just a full speed ahead manipulator.

MikeeK
MikeeK

Rich - a trade war with China would be a net plus for us. They need us more than we need them since there are other low cost places to use that don't manipulate their currency, but there aren't any other giant economies built on the backs of 70% consumer spending.

Leftcoastrocky
Leftcoastrocky

Romney does NOT have a real plan to improve the economy or reduce the deficit. But worse than that, he has proven he CANNOT BE TRUSTED. Think Progress reported that most of what Romney said in the first presidential debate was a distortion or lie. Politifact said that two-thirds of Romney's statements during his long campaign range from "half-true" to blatant lies. And even this week, Romney is running an extremely deceptive ad in Ohio.

brownmouse77
brownmouse77

My fellow Americans-   "His Environmental Protection Agency, in particular, can be trusted not to interfere with the revolutionary oil and gas boom driven by fracking or to impose a cap-and-trade system by administrative fiat."   

Our family just returned from a trip to China to adopt our daughter, where the sky is so filthy from smog we DID NOT SEE THE SUN  or blue sky for 3 weeks. All 6 of us traveling (3 adults, 3 young children) developed bronchitis from the filty air. The rivers stunk and floated with dead fish. As my husband said, "China was filthy from the sky to the ground"   I invite anyone who is against Clean air regulations to go to Bejing, or Shanghai, or Guangzhou, and see what a world without government regulation of the environment looks like, and not be terrified of the future for your children.    IT was like a horror film from the future, but it was real.  

Sure, China's economy is booming without all those "pesky environmental laws"  but at what cost?  I'll tell you.  The precious child we adopted has limb deformities the doctor thinks are linked to pollution.  She is a God sent blessing and a treasure to us, but as her mother, I will fight will all my heart to make sure we protect our American environment here so other children don't have to be born with deformities from the greed of an unregulated private sector destroying our air, sky, and groundwater.  

misterwilder
misterwilder

How did Republicans become what they are now?

They learned their techniques from a master...and all too well...

From a report prepared during the war by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler's psychological profile:

"His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."

MikeHunter
MikeHunter

Yet another article from a partisan hack.  Anyone with half a brain who has been paying attention would know that Romney cannot be trusted.  He changes his position as often as people breathe.  That isn't just a liberal opinion either.  Check out youtube, there are tons of videos showing Fox News and every single republican who was in the primaries totally eviscerating Romney over the fact he can't be trusted, the fact he wouldn't release more than a few years of tax returns is just icing on the cake.  Don't get me started on the "wonk" Ryan... he can't even explain their tax plan.  Obama is far from perfect, but at least I have somewhat of a general idea of what his positions are.  All I am certain about Romney is that he is against gay rights and women's choice.  Bottom line, I would never vote for someone who I don't trust - and the record is clear, Romney is an etch-a-sketch.  Everything in your article was just Bologna - and you have the unmitigated gall to insinuate Obama is a flip-flopper.  Good grief!  What a fricken joke!  Seriously... how can you sleep at night?  You absolutely know you're full of it. 

BobJan
BobJan

This article should just say "Get rid of the lobbyists" and the politicians would then be able to do their jobs correctly and efficiently. As long as there are lobbyists the politicians will sell themselves to the highest bidder. Voting for someone and having them elected doesn't guarantee that they will do the job. They are beholden to the lobbyists and Grover Norquist. By the way, "just who the heck" is Grover Norquist. Is he some kind of hypnotist that he has all the republicans signing pledges. I thought they were hired by the American voter to do what's right for America, not the Koch brothers or any other gazillionaire.

LauroAndrea
LauroAndrea

I was hoping to read a real case for Mitt Romney. Instead I got another article written for a deadline's sake.Why do you need to pound into Obama to make a case for Romney? I don't get it. If he is good and worth the job, there's no need to stomp on what his rival has done. Can you not elevate him on his own virtue. The guy does have a record already. He was governor and a lousy one at that.

There is only one thing going for Mitt Romney and that is Obama fatigue. His biggest sell is the toss-coin probability that he will be better. This is the worst argument for voting a president into office.

Where Obama's failure to deliver is due more to his lack of aggressiveness and lack of partisan cooperation on otherwise sound policies, I can see that common sense and cohesiveness guides his policy. Sure he lacks the Clinton punch and personality to reach across the aisle but at least I know where he is. 

Gabe
Gabe

How exactly are you measuring size of government here Lowry?  Because public employees have decreased under Obama.  Federal tax rates are at the lowest they've been in almost 100 years.  Sure government spending as a % of GDP is up, but that's because we're in a depression and GDP itself is down.  Surely you're not thinking that a government fighting two wars AND dealing with the worst recession since the great depression is well-suited towards cutting spending, are you?Here's my problem: You know perfectly well how government works.  You know that governments do NOT operate like a household.  You know that Obama hasn't increased the size of government in any meaningful way at all, except for a health care reform which simply adds more customers to PRIVATE plans.  You know these things, but you don't care.  Vote Romney: Because if you believe in fantasies then he's maybe possibly better than Obama.

RajSharma
RajSharma

@Alexander Poor Romney...he is in dustbin of history. Now wait for Tag Romney or ...

justin
justin

@Alexander 

What's the big deal with Romney doing something for you?  It'll be his job, as president!

It's not like it's a brand new idea for him.

When his Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, etc friends die,  he Baptises them  Mormon by Proxy for the afterlife.  

As President,  he'll be in a position to do that for soldiers coming home in body bags who never had the chance to be Baptized Mormon in their earthly lives!  If you've given your life for your country,  you deserve the chance to become God of your own planet.  In fact,  parents of fallen Jewish soldiers will call this a Matzvah, and thank him, and also think of him in their prayers!

justin
justin

@JonDivine 

Thats one of the reasons I'm pissed at Obama.  Now that I've become financially able to buy a house, the market has dried up,  and those houses that do appear on the market are listing for more than they would have just six months ago.  And before I even get to see them,  they've already entered Pending state (meaning an offer has been made and accepted, and unless the buyer's financing gets screwed up, escrow will soon close)

justin
justin

@valmach When you call them "Mitt's supporters"  you're being sarcastic, right?  

Or am I missing something?   Does this mean that Mitt believes that people have no gender in the "pre-existence" (that time before the God of this planet placed their souls into earthly bodies).  I suppose the idea that the soul lacks gender could have something to do with his great grandparents generation's proclivity for polygamy.  Same sex marriages would naturally seem to be a proper subset of that.

Oh, wait... they had a revelation from planet Earth's god that polygmy was no longer desirable when the U.S. told Utah that it couldn't become a state if they continued to practice polygamy.  Presumably same sex marriages probably had to disappear at the same time as polygamy.

Amazing the parallel between that and the 1978 revelation from the same planet's God allowing blacks the Mormon priesthood (and permission to set foot on temple grounds in a capacity other than as a servant) that just happened to coincide with an unrelated ultimatum by Jimmy Carter that they would lose their tax exempt status otherwise.  (Another explnation given is that they wanted to build a temple in Peru, but there were so many obstacles to checking the purity of the local's bloodlines that God had to make the 1978 revelation (which was subseqently ratified by the then curently sitting "Quorum of the Twelve Apostles").  Either, or both (or neither) may be the actual explanation. Such things are difficult to determine when books of religious doctrine keep getting rewritten and politically incorrect doctrines (such as the "seed of Cain" doctrine) vanish into thin air and have their very existence denied. (Such denials would have more weight if they burned the documentation and rookie saints did not proudly give access to photocopies without realizing what they contain.  But they're just like my Aunt Sue.  They can't throw anything away! (Unlike Aunt Sue, they don't look like hoarders as they seemingly can afford unlimited storage space,   

ascanius001
ascanius001

@WilmerRojas NRO has devolved into a journalistic fact-free zone with the likes of Lowry, Steyn, Lopez, and Goldberg.  Bill Buckley would be appalled.

justin
justin

@jbpolitickle He may have felt cheated once, when a toy ordered using cereal boxtops saved up in his piggy bank never arrived

Alexander
Alexander

@jbpolitickle Your message reminded me of a logic class I took for GE credit in my University's philosophy department about 35 years ago.

The two statements:

  1. He will not be entirely honest about his income or be specific about his tax plans.
  2. He will not be entirely honest.

are logically completely equivalent!

:)

Alexander
Alexander

@jbpolitickle Good point.  I had to laugh at a joke headline: "Mitt Romney's Financial Difficulties".  That's one of the biggest oxymoron's of the November elections.

Alexander
Alexander

@brownmouse77 

You just described what Los Angeles' air was like before clean air regs.had a chance to do their job.  Even in the 1970's, if You drove up Mount Wilson and looked down on the ciiy, it looked like it was encased in an inverted bowl of orange jello!  The 1950's were reportedly much worse, but I didn't have a chance to witness them, although Wikipedia says that things got so bad one year, that due to heavy smog, the city shut down both schools and industry for most of a month

Thank god for smog checks and smog controls.  Does anyone remember the last stage 3 smog alert in L.A.? How about the last stage 2 alert? stage 1 alert anyone?  There have been nearly 0 stage 1 alerts this century.

I remember the alerts in the 70's when children and senior citizens had to stay indoors, and there were restrictions on driving, although I no longer recall the details.

(With regard to particulate pollution, L.A. is still the worst in the U.S. mostly because the L.A. basin doesn't get the kind of rainfall that other cities rely on to clear particles from the air. 15 inches a year is just not enough!)

I'm very glad you were able to remove your daughter from that environmental hellhole, and wish that she could have escaped it's effects altogether.

frankinwa
frankinwa

@brownmouse77 

Don't confuse them with facts brownmouse...most folks who count themselves as part of the current most extremist Republican Party in history have been brainwashed over countless years by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, et al...

They refuse to listen to moderate members of their own party who plaintively cry that Republicans must gravitate toward the center lest the GOP cease to exist as a meaningful political force as America's population moves inexorably away from predominantly white toward a majority of "people of color"...

Our shared hope for our children and grandchildren will be fulfilled as older, angry white men die off and are replaced in the electorate by a generation of young Americans who embrace tolerance, social saftey nets for those less gifted or otherwise crippled by unfortunate turns of events in their lives, and a repudiation of the "culture of greed" that has arguably gripped our society for the past 20-30 years...

Their is hope for American and Americans...and it continues with the re-election of President Barack Obama...  :-)

God Bless you and your family brownmouse77!

Cherish the day,

Frank

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@misterwilder Where do you thinks the Marxist and Socialist lies come from. Its what Goebbels used to scare the German people to get Hitler elected to power in the early 30's. Learn you history folks or watch it repeated.

Mprobe
Mprobe

@MikeHunter It's interesting that when you disagree with liberals they just get madder than they already are. They can't be confused with facts and usually end up name calling, like bigot and racist. Mike, I suggest a bottle of scotch on election night. You probably will need it.

ahandout
ahandout

@DS1 Politics and Love.  Don't think those two go together unless you are Anthony's Weiner.

Have you ever heard of George Orwell.  Read "Politics and the English Language." 

In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics’. All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. 

LauroAndrea
LauroAndrea

@BobJan I'm sure that there are a few who write the ultimate graphic novel in their heads about assassinating a few lobbyists. They are part of what's wrong with the ultra-capitalistic society. Americans have been sold all the wrong things by the AynRandish capitalists. From gas guzzling cars, to guns, to fried fatty foods- all in the interest of making mega-bucks.

Somewhere along the way they wove the Bible into American capitalist freedom just to suit their purpose. For all their talk of Jesus and the Bible on the right, every politician is governed by money- as you mentioned, the highest bidder.

My biggest wish for an Obama presidency is that he can appoint new judges to the SC and overturn this campaign funding stupidity where billions are used to buy votes. When people are struggling to put food on the table and they see this kind of wealth thrown around, it breeds a very deep resentment that may spill into a class war and plunge us into a Bolsheveik Revolution redux.

LauroAndrea
LauroAndrea

@Gabe See? this is why everyone who seems to write a positive article on Romney is always accused of partisanship or (gulp) racism. It's because it's based on a wishful image of a man who has no position on anything.

He had a dismal record as a governor, as a businessman and as a human being. How can Lowry expect him to be anything else? Because he hopes he will be ? Oh wow yes. 

Personally if Romney pointed out the stuff that went wrong in the previous Bush  admin and said he would fix those things- like the banks, Wall Street, Health Care, the wars, the spending then he would be a viable candidate to vote for.

Sinspreader88
Sinspreader88

And not to mention Romney also has zero experience his economic plan is horrible when he worked at bain capital 22% of his investments went bankrupt, he has no experience when it comes to foriegn policy for christ sakes he insulted britan our greatest ally. The man is a bust and why the GOP backed him is confusing to me.

Sinspreader88
Sinspreader88

Its just another Republican flaunting his chest trying to the the biggest pile of poo he can at people. His article has no basis other then opinion, and thats why I think he shouldn't be a political reporter.

frankinwa
frankinwa

@Mprobe @MikeHunter 

Mprobe...I agree with your suggestion of a bottle of scotch...if that's MikeHunter's beverage of choice to celebrate with...because he will have alot to celebrate following Barack's re-election next Tuesday evening...

Appears that you turn to a bottle of scotch to escape reality and drown your sorrows...in that case, drink up on Tuesday night yourself!

Cherish the day (and both of your families),

Frank

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@ahandout @DS1 Or David Vitt and his hookers. And that family values Republican is still in congress, while Weiner did the right thing and resigned. Guess in your world e-mailing pictures of your junk is worse than actually cheating on your wife with prostitutes.

LauroAndrea
LauroAndrea

@Sinspreader88 I agree. Punditism seems to be the recent fad for anybody who can string words together. Dont get me wrong-I mean I have read very good articles from actors, and people I didn't think were capable of clear reasoning.

Punditing on dumb positions is just essay writing gone hoo-ha. It doesn't not appeal to common sense and good argument.