I too am becoming more comfortable with the idea of Romney as a candidate. And I’m realizing it has more and more to do with the fear of Perry getting crucified by the MSM in the general election, a la Sarah Palin, thereby giving Obama a chance he should never have.

And I agree that this flier is over the top. GOPers shouldn’t act like Dems to get elected. But if Perry were to come out with his “so, therefore…” he could quell a lot of the angst and criticism.. Social Security is a “monstrous lie, so therefore … What, exactly? His USA column did little to address that issue. Perhaps he’ll debut something in tonight’s debate.

While I have a slight preference to Perry over Romney, Romney’s economic plan made me feel comfortable about where this is going.

Likewise, I think the above is below the belt.

Pawlenty in his Romney endorsement tried to say that Perry wants to kill Social Security during his Fox News bit today and I thought that was a bit over the top as well.

Perry nicely explains what he wants to do in today’s USAT …. from here on out if Pawlenty / Romney / Bachmann try to paint him as killing social security then Perry should just trot out something like:

“Apparently, you and your staff are unable to read well documented and detailed plans that are freely published on the internet.”

I have no problem with the candidates debating the issues. In fact, that’s the reason many people are republican, because our party can intellectually discuss ideas…where as the left simply calls people names if they don’t agree with their way of thinking. The person with the best ideas should come away being our nomimee, not the one that falsely trashes another nominee. What I would really love is to be able to vote FOR a nominee and not get stuck holding my nose again. I am sick and tired of candidates that stick their finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, and find it actually refreshing when a candidate tells the truth. For this reason alone, I admire Rick Perry and will fully support him in the primary.

. . .who will allow himself to be lied about until the moment in a very public forum where he can point to something like this flier, and force his opponent to defend themselves. In very specific terms. Slowly and methodically pointing out every break with reality, until they are left squirming on a hook of their own making.

I know we have forgotten what a Conservative who is willing to fight back looks like, but just wait. Living in Texas, I have the luxury of having watched what he did to KBH. She was crucified by her own words and actions. Romney will provide ample opportunities for this technique, and Obama of course offers up a buffet table.

John McCain. The MSM hopes they can stick us with another McCain who will keep the conservative home.

“How can we trust anyone who wants to kill Social Security?”

How can we trust any candidate who would allow a bold face lie to be published? How can we trust a scumbag that would, in effect, write a flyer that the Democrats will be proud to use in the General?

I will celebrate when Perry relegates Romney to the Harold Stassen Club of of Perennial Losers.

Much better picture now of “who” he is.

I think, ultimately this primary should be as much about the character and integrity of the candidate as their individual policy perspectives. Whether or not the flyer was sanctioned by Romney matters not; this kind of behavior does not belong in an honest, factual discussion of policy. It simply categorizes Romney and his campaign as just another RINO preservation effort; an anathema to the conservative party. The same principle applies to the other candidates: if the behavior exemplified by this particular incident is tolerable or excusable as “politics” then what is to differentiate them from Captain Zero’s party or its minions in the LSM?

When the primary is concluded and the election campaign begins, I would like to see the primary issue become a referendum on the practice of using race, threats of violence, and political chicanery to foist deleterious regulations upon the country. By that time we will have already clearly and distinctly differentiated the candidate from the incumbent.

It appears pretty clear that Romney intends to burn down the party if he is not chosen as the nominee.

To resort to demagoguery and blatantly dishonest fear-mongering disqualifies him as the nominee in my book.

This is a favorite tactic of Mitt’s — he takes a position on an issue that is the opposite of his previous position, then he viciously attacks a rival for holding the same position as Mitt’s original one. Eg, Social Security.

This is why he is seen as opportunistic and fundamentally untrustworthy. Because he is!

I just don’t think I can hold my nose again and vote for him. Romney turned negative because he is behind and desperate and now positively despicable. Perry just got a new volunteer. Gig ‘em Aggies!

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship.” – Unknown, usually attributed to Alexander Tytler (probably a paraphrase of some sort), and often quoted by Ronald Reagan.

I guess he wants the “establishment” veep spot.

I hope it gives you comfort, For me? Not so much.

Romney made it to the number two spot on the ballot by dishonestly smearing and tearing down of other candidates in 2008 and this is to be expected from an unprincipled hack with no core philosophy beyond believing should be president because Daddy wanted him to.

The man is a flip flopper…he’s never had a consistent policy on ANYTHING…until now…when he refuses to say he made a mistake in passing Romneycare in Mass….what does that say about him…that the one place he’s ever decided to stand his ground is on Romnycare of all places.

To be sure…this flier is contemptible and I’m glad this has opened your eyes…my only question is…What took you so long?

Romney is the establishment candidate.

He supports two of the major things that conservatives rail against – Romneycare and Man Made Global Warming and the governmental regulation to stop/reverse it,

His is a failed politician, otherwise he would be a career politician.

He is a wall street insider. Where does he stand on more bailouts?

He is a liar and a deceiver. The evidence is his former denouncement of social security as a “criminal enterprise” and his now championing of the status quo.

Romney failed to beat McCain and now people suddenly tout him as the only electable choice. It makes no sense.

Romney 2012 will be McCain 2008 – but without all the McCain pizzazz.

This diary says a) At least up til now, I, Leon, wouldn’t pitch a hissy fit if Mitt got nominated, and) this document is a piece of garbage which puts a bit of question into my (Leon’s) brain.

At least that’s how I read it, Brother Leon…

And Romney just sat himself up for a major blow.
Unforced error.
Or was it a setup? Doesn’t much matter I guess.
If Perry can gather himself up to deliver an uppercut…
Possibly an outline of a plan to save SS that makes sense, and I am sure he has one…Romney will very soon regret this.
I can hardly wait for the debate.

but from what I’m reading Rush warned Bachmann and Romney to not attack Perry in the debate tonight for his Ponzi scheme comments. Apparently Rush said that he is not endorsing Perry, but that he will go to bat for Perry if Bachmann and Romney start attacking him. I just heard him say yet again, that he isn’t endorsing Perry YET, but has spent quite a bit of time proving Perry correct. Rush doesn’t endorse, but to even add his YET to his comment, many will take that as an endorsement. Go Rush! I’m not a big fan of Beck’s, but it seems that he is really liking Perry also. Levin has spoken positively about Perry. Hannity endorses everyone that sits across from him on his show, even Democrats.

Yep… Limbaugh said “Yet”. I will confirm your post, from my own ears. It was a “rare possible endorsement”

then he needs to get out of the 2012 kitchen and focus on governing Texas.

Perry has called social security a Ponzi scheme on numerous occasions. He can either own that remark or he can apologize for it. Crying “He’s picking on me again” is just not presidential.

Always suspected Romney was a RINO, he is from Massachusetts, invented Obamneycare, and believes in man made global warming. He may be a businessman, but he likes the idea of big government and will not undo the things that Obama has done to over regulate the country.

I am over 60 and as a teenager I was told that I needed to set money aside for my future because Social Security would not be there for me. Adults knew back then that the number of workers contributing would be less and therefore the money would not be there. Also, Johnson had recently signed a bill that changed the amount of income that could be taxed. Then when I was in my 20′s, Carter changed the fund from being set aside for just that to making it part of the general fund.

And Rush today talked about how in the past Romney called SS a failed program.

Perry is not a RINO. Huntsman is also a RINO, we need to stay clear of him also. The rest are not RINO’s, what ever their strengths or weaknesses, they are not big government RINO’s.

or does Romney’s logo look like a squashed and chopped version of Obama’s?

Just askin…

Oh and after the nonsense Romney pulled last campaign, it is pretty obvious nothing is beneath him.