Deseret News | Right wing group still likes Mitt for 2012

Reader comments
Right wing group still likes Mitt for 2012

Page:
1
2
Next >

Careful what you wish for, Rush | 12:17 a.m. March 1, 2009

If Rush Limbaugh wants Obama to fail, he is a short-sighted man indeed. George Bush's failures have caused a lot of grief for Republicans and Democrats alike. Both sides of the aisle should be wise enough to want our president to succeed for a change.

Be Honest and not selective | 2:19 a.m. March 1, 2009

You need to be honest and not *selective* regarding what Rush said. I believe reporting the explanation that Rush gave about why he wants Obama to fail would be appropriate. Hint: It has something to do with turning America into a "soup kitchen"...

Anonymous | 2:56 a.m. March 1, 2009

It is sad that Rush and his friends are so out of touch with the average American. He still does not get it that we American's need better then devise speech. We are a Great Country and a Great People. We have seen what the Republicans have done to this country and we demand Change. sorry Rush

Comments continue below

Bob Newsome | 5:42 a.m. March 1, 2009

We, as members of the Church, live in exciting times. As a member, Ive looked forward to the emergence of prominent political leaders who were also members of the church. I hear of the connection of the influence of Mormon Elders and the Constitution and have confidence in their leadership.
We have 2 dominant political philosophies at this time. And we have a prominent Mormon Elder on each side. Harry Reid is synonymous with Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is synonymous with Rush Limbaugh. Which should we listen to? If Mormon, Moroni, Nephi and Jacob were alive today, which philosophy would they be most aligned with? Or will there yet be the emergence of Mormon Elders who will let their religion trump their socioeconomic status or political philosophy?
I sure hope so.

liberal larry | 6:39 a.m. March 1, 2009

On paper Mitt should be a very attractive choice for president, he is brilliant, rich, moderately good looking, no criminal record, a "successful" businessman, photogenic family , etc. The problem is that he is a terrible politician. Not only does he come across as stiff, and insincere, but he let the Mormon thing become an issue. The republicans are doomed, in 2012 if they try to run Romney, or Palin. And after that lame rebuttal speech Jindal isn't looking to hot either. They need someone with a moderate stance and a lot of charm. Maybe someone from a small, well run, western state, with a lot of national appeal, who has a rich dad? Let me see.........

Fact Check | 6:56 a.m. March 1, 2009

Correction: Mitt took 20 percent of the vote at the straw poll (not 30 percent as the article suggests). But it was still a first place finish. Mitt is the best hope for Republicans in 2012. We need someone in the White House who actually understands the economy. Can't wait for 2012.

Huckabee | 7:00 a.m. March 1, 2009

yeah whatever, RW likes Mitt until they have to vote for him and his 'Mormon' beliefs. Shake yourselves RW you can't have it both ways. He wasn't such a bad person/choice versus what we have today!

Rush taken out ot context | 7:04 a.m. March 1, 2009

If some of you would bother to actually read the entire statement from Rush Limbaugh about Obama and his policies, you would understand that he wants Obama's policies to fail. "Jan 16, 2009 ... I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them.
I don't want them to succeed." Please educate yourself before commenting on something you obviously have not fully researched. Sounds bites are the tool of those who hope people are too lazy to actually read the entire quote. Oh, and I too hope Obama's policies fail. And YES, I have actually read what he wants to do and I am watching what he IS doing.

MItt Rocks | 7:23 a.m. March 1, 2009

Mitt in 2012. If we have a country left. If Obama and his sleazy crowd of Rahm Emanuel Types haven't pillaged our wallets and our futures so badly that there will be anything to salvage. I guarantee you that after another couple of years of the Obama left-wing crowd (Pelosi, etc.), this country will be so Changed that we won't recognize it. Liberal judges, higher taxes, gov't run and mandated health care, EPA telling us whether we can use double-ply toilet paper, government mandated curriculum (politically correct in its revisionism) in public schools, cradle to grave socialist state, ACORN voter fraud, marijuana legalized (just read that yesterday). Every day brings a new outrage from this Obama Administration. A whole lot of Americans will be wanting a refund. And Mitt's just the guy. He has my full support. He actually RAN a business, well, dozens of businesses, all successfully. Unlike Obama -- who only ran ACORN.

Bias showing | 7:31 a.m. March 1, 2009

Let's see, when did DN have a headline or lead, "Left-Wing Radical Groups Love Obama" when referring to support for the president by ACORN, etc.???

Socialism | 8:02 a.m. March 1, 2009

Obama's administration is like watching a slow car wreck!!!!!!

$13.00 to $8.00 a week is going to influence so many.

The oracle | 8:37 a.m. March 1, 2009

Is Limbaugh endorsing Romney?

Again, Stop These Articles | 9:02 a.m. March 1, 2009

No more conjecture about Mitt Romney at this point. Stop, stop. Live in the now.

I am not impressed that the Right Wing likes him. That's no endorsement at all.

xscribe | 9:35 a.m. March 1, 2009

@Rush Taken Out of Context: Exactly what is taken out of context? If Rush wants Obama's politics and plans to fail, then he wants the President to fail; to wit, he wants Obama's economic stimulus plan to fail, hence he wants America to stay where it is right at this moment so Republicans can get back into office. I understand that there are very different political differences of opinion here, but to hope that Obama's plan fails, at least at the moment, is reprehensible. I think us Democrats are getting tired of hearing that this country is becoming socialist. This country will not become a full-blown socialist country. But the mere fact that the superwealthy right-wingers don't want to help out the less fortunate, while their bonuses are 3 times as large as a 95% of American's salaries is pure greed. There's nothing out of context about that. Rich people who do not wish to help those less fortunate to achieve the American dream should feel ashamed!

A.E | 9:37 a.m. March 1, 2009

@Rush taken out of context

What is the actual difference between wanting Obama to fail and his policies to fail? It's the same things, i.e. more hard times for a troubled economy. And why would Rush wish more suffering? So that the Republicans can take charge again. Come on. Stop playing with semantics here and be honest.

+1 Bias Showing | 10:08 a.m. March 1, 2009

That is such a reactionary headline.

Jim Chase | 10:31 a.m. March 1, 2009

"Again, stop these articles" - You sound about as ignorant as you likely are on the subject.

What makes an "anonymous" writer credible enough to make such a statement?

The poll is what it is.

Sad Commentary... | 11:12 a.m. March 1, 2009

What's happening now is an abuse of our country, and of our constitution. A total disregard for our founding fathers and all their hard work to build into America the freedom, peace and liberty that we all enjoy. Freedom means we have free choice - so long as we don't hurt or damage others this is beneficial. But you can't take your uber-liberal beliefs and cram them down another groups throat, and force them to accept your beliefs and call it a freedom. Rich people are free to choose, why should they be forced to share what they work hard for - that's socialism. I'm not rich, and I'm also not a part of this entitlement movement that is sweeping through our seemingly good people. Come-on....live and let live. Mitt is a great guy....but great guys are rarely the most popular. It's sad that Americans wouldn't prefer a president who is decent and moral and a God-fearing (respecting) successful business man. Why must we insist on someone who is suave and oh so polished and also entitled, rather than someone who revears the founding fathers vision for our freedoms?

True conservative | 11:13 a.m. March 1, 2009

There is so much bull in these comments that it is hard to know where to start. First, why is the CPAC described as a right-wing group? Even the Deseret News has a liberal bias. Second, a conservative is not the same thing as a Republican. I'm a conservative first and foremost, not a Republican. The Republicans did start this spiral toward socialism, and now the Democrats want to take it all the way. Third, as far as the advice to the Republican Party that it should be more moderate. Give me a break, what do you think John McCain was? That's exactly why we lost. We need a true conservative to run, not a wishy-washy moderate. True conservatism embodies four things that should appeal to all people: Limited government, low taxes, strong national security, and unlimited opportunities. These four things encompass everyting America should be about. If Obama and Reid and Pelosi take us away from this, I hope they fail, too!

The Raging Patriot | 1:05 p.m. March 1, 2009

The socio-economic illiteracy, as well as a lack of basic intellect, displayed within these comments is shocking. If one were to devise a plan specifically designed to devastate our economy, the actions of President Obama could not be more perfect; the stimulus packed with, yes, earmarks and superfluous spending that has NOTHING to do with stimulating anything other than pet commie-lib projects, raising taxes, and continuing the atrocious spending of the previous administration. Yes, any intellectually capable and honest person would want President Obamas policies to fail. President Obama wants to change the US into a European socialist, nanny state.

Also, every time he opens his mouth, you can almost count on the market taking a double digit dive the following day.

Yeah, Obama is the Dont blame me, I voted for the other guy President.

Romney | 1:11 p.m. March 1, 2009

Mitt is the most articulate proponent of an alternative to Obama's phony change. All that Obama is doing is returning to the Clinton years, which weren't all that great anyway. Romney is somebody who can lead us in a new direction and bring the luster back to America. It reminds of Reagan's campaign slogan: "Let's make America great again."

@+1 Bias Showing | 1:15 p.m. March 1, 2009

Yeah, I agree 100%. The DN sounds like the HufPo or DailyKosKrazies with it's headline for this story.

MITT | 1:16 p.m. March 1, 2009

If all the RE-PUBLICAN PARTY has to offer is MITT THE FLIP, SARAH-LITE and BOBBY JINGLE they are BEGGING to remain as the minority party.

Matching the trio above with RIGHT-WING-COMEDIAN MUSH LIMPBAUGH could make it impossible for the RE-PUBLICANS to regain majority status for years.

Hey, maybe not such a bad idea after all!

A. E. | 1:43 p.m. March 1, 2009

@True conservative

You want Obama to fail, too? Because? And if he doesn't fail and the country thrives, is that a bad thing? Seriously?

Yes | 2:20 p.m. March 1, 2009

It is very disturbing how quickly Obama is putting policies into place that will ultimately give him more power & will rob the rich to pay the poor. I'm not rich, but it is unfair to take the money that has been earned out of the pockets of those who work hard, sacrifice & take risks to give to those who will not work or are in the country illegally. There must be a plan for those who can not work, but it must be done across the board. Moving the census to the white house was very disturbing. I hope Obama's plans fail too...but they are succeeding because some people who should be conservative thought it would be cool to elect a young charismatic black president...and didn't care what his policies were or didn't care to find out what they were. You have to hand it to him though...he told us exactly what he was going to do before he was elected and he is doing it. We could have had Mitt except for the pride of some of the republican base. I agree that the headline was very slanted.

learn from history | 2:23 p.m. March 1, 2009

Too bad the democrats and the Obama supporters dont take a lesson from history. (Our country has been through this before in fact seversl times. The times we recovered the fastest was when taxes were cut and the wealthy were not punished but encouraged to do thingsd that created jobs. These bail outs are socialism at its finest. If people took responsibility for their own actions instead expecting the goverment to bail them out after a bad decision we would all be better off!!

to: A.E. | 2:28 p.m. March 1, 2009

Didn't I say why? Read the comments again. I think history has shown that what he wants to do fails everywhere it's been done. Look at Japan in the 90s and America in the 30s. Roosevelt didn't turn America around with the New Deal. It actually extended the depression. WWII ended the depression. We have too many lawyers in Washington and not enough historians. Too bad they don't teach history in school anymore. You might know someting then. I want the country to thrive, but it won't under socialism.

Utahn in DC | 2:29 p.m. March 1, 2009

Too many are putting party above country. We should want President Obama to succeed. That is patriotism, not slogans and partisan dogma. Whether Romney will succeed depends on his ability to stand for something, deliver it in a way that resonates with the voters, and connect with the middle class. He utterly failed at this in 2008. As for me, President Obama gets my support, because I love this country.

Mark B | 2:41 p.m. March 1, 2009

CPAC meets every year. Who won the straw poll last year? I don't know, but I would bet it wasn't McCain. Is the CPAC influence greater or less than a year ago? An honest person would have to say it's less. Yet a straw poll taken 3 years and 9 months before the next election is big news at the DN. Now, why would that be? Do you think the headline would have been a little smaller if Mitt had finished 3rd or 4th? You folks need to get a grip. Anyone hoping for an Obama failure would probably be happier living in Costa Rica.

History Nut | 3:07 p.m. March 1, 2009

Mitt may understand the economy but he's a terrible politician and can never win. He'll get pilloried for his changed positions on critical issues. Flip Flop ads will hit new heights. And, of course, the evangelical wing of the party will sit on its hands rather than put a Mormon in office. And finally, Mitt's statements about putting illegals in camps will really play well with the fastest growing voter demographic in the country.

I hope the Republicans nominate him just so we we will have four more years of the most honest Presidency in my recollection.

Lute | 3:25 p.m. March 1, 2009

How would we characterize Mitt as a candidate, especially since we've had so little time to forget? Pat Robertson without the TV show? Reagan with twice the hair dye? Forbes without the charm? Bush, but not as close to earning a medal in Vietnam? Dole without the sense of humor? Or maybe Cheney with twice the size of "Gitmo"?

to: Utahn in DC | 3:41 p.m. March 1, 2009

The Founders loved this country too, but they didn't support King George! Maybe your problem is that you're in DC.

Deseret Dawg | 4:08 p.m. March 1, 2009

Mark B. - In answer to your specific query, Romney won the straw poll both in 2008 and 2007.

In general, the straw poll indicates that as of right now, the most powerful tag team the Republicans could deploy in 2012 would be Romney-Palin.

Unlike Barack Obama, who looks like a stoop-shouldered, skinny metrosexual, Romney looks and acts like a man who just stepped out of central casting in Hollywood. He is a natural for the Presidency. And Sarah Palin's infectious enthusiasm is matchless; she'd make a superb running mate and lightning rod so she could say on the campaign trail what Romney couldn't say, and get away with it. And both are actually conservative, which is what the Republican Party should be.

The only Republicans who win nowadays are True Conservatives. Jason Chaffetz, Chris Buttars, and Curt Bramble are the best examples.

njp | 4:20 p.m. March 1, 2009

RUN MITT RUN!!

gene | 4:33 p.m. March 1, 2009

Did anyone hear what Mitt said about a President
failing? It is not good for the country! Of course the way out faaaar right probably hate him for that analysis!! All they think is Party above all!Just like the way out left!Tho Iam GOP it was 2 democrat
congressmen in Illinois that caused Illiinois to
formally apologize to the Mormon Church for the way
officials treated the church back in the Joseph Smith days!! Hmmmmm?! 6 Democrat congressmen didn't support Obamas lunacy!!
As for Mitt being a bad politician..stiff,etc.
Good! Just be a problem solver that is what the country needs not some slick speaker,etc!
Mitt's Political history reminds me of Ronald
Reagan who supported pro-choice at one time,changed his mind, failed to get the nomination the first time, the USA took a nose dive and the Gipper came back and went to the whitehouse!
Reagan was conservative but not some way out
unrealistic person !!

A.E. | 4:57 p.m. March 1, 2009

@True conservative

Actually I minored in history at that bastion of radical liberal thought--BYU.

xscribe, grow up | 5:13 p.m. March 1, 2009

Suggesting: "Rich people who do not wish to help those less fortunate to achieve the American dream should feel ashamed!" is pathetic. Please tell us "rich people" what we need to do to help those who are less fortunate that we are not already doing? At what point will the donations of the "rich" meet with your expectations? Do you need to do anything to be worthy of their "help?" Or are you one of those with a hand out who thinks that because you are alive you are owed something? You live in a country which offers freedom. That is no guarantee that you will get "rich", it is a guarantee you have the right to work and choose your own path. Not everyone who is "rich" was handed their wealth. Stop envying those who are "rich" and at least try to stop whining. You have absolutely NO IDEA how much the "rich" do to help those less fortunate.

liberal larry | 5:13 p.m. March 1, 2009

I think a straw poll of enlightened liberals would definitely endorse a republican ticket of Romney/Palin. It would confirm the old saying "that when republicans want a firing squad, they arrange the shooters in a circle." Such a ticket would pit the Evangelicals against the Mormons, and the "high" conservatives against the "low" conservatives, (to use David Brooks' terminology). It would be fascinating to watch, in a perverse way.

KM | 5:37 p.m. March 1, 2009

Whether we want Obama to fail or not, doesn't mean alot. He will fail of his own accord. Why? Because his philosophy is flawed. You can't make something from nothing. We don't have the money to pay for the special interest spending that he is espousing. He is not fixing anything, he is buying votes.

Jack in Colorado | 5:38 p.m. March 1, 2009

This Presidency is honest? Let's see, They honestly nominated three to Cabinet posts who honestly had to pull out because of honesty issues, taxes and grand jury investigations. They honestly don't give two hoots about how to pay for all this spending they are doing. They honestly want to take this country into the European nanny-state of chaos, and last but not least.....there are folks who honestly think that now that President Obama is in office that the government will pay for them to have a new house, new car, that they won't have to work anymore and that they can have someone else pay for it.

Yup, that's honesty in government all right.

to: History Nut | 5:58 p.m. March 1, 2009

Just what is your definition of honest? Oh, that's right. We have one standard for liberals and another for everyone else. The hallmark of liberalism is hypocrisy. And yes, conservatives do understand the economy and how it works. Liberals, on the other hand, believe their food comes from the store, that light comes from the switch, and that gasoline comes from the pump. Mitt may be a born-again conservative, but it is good when people see the light.

D | 6:16 p.m. March 1, 2009

Uh, Buttars is definitely not a good example to be using right now...

Re: True Conservative | 6:16 p.m. March 1, 2009

1. CPAC=Conservative Political Action Committee. In other words it is indeed a right-wing group (conservatism is on the right side of the political spectrum). Therefore, the headline makes perfect sense.

xscribe | 7:15 p.m. March 1, 2009

@xscribe, grow up: You're right, I don't know how much the rich help the poor. Why don't you explain it to me. By the way, my wife and I both work, have two kids, and have zero debt. We're a responsible middle-class family, and have never, ever received a handout. We donate to charities we feel are worthwhile. I think, however, we have differences of opinion about just how much money the super-rich really need to have. I don't think taxing them higher puts much of a dent in their lifestyle. I believe in a society that treats everyone as equal. Where have I heard that phrase before, that everyone is equal?

Re: xscribe | 7:50 p.m. March 1, 2009

"we have differences of opinion about just how much money the super-rich really need to have. I don't think taxing them higher puts much of a dent in their lifestyle. I believe in a society that treats everyone as equal."

So you want everyone to be treated equally, except when it comes to taxes? How ironic.

FYI, America was founded on the idea of equal opportunity for all, not Karl Marx's idea of equal result for all.

Price | 8:34 p.m. March 1, 2009

If the Republican party is not united in 1012 it will be a repeat of 2008. We had about 10 canidates tearing each other apart, too much religious bigotry,while the Democrats were complimentry and civil to each other. If the Republicans do that again it may be 2016 before they get back in power. Mark my word, and learn from you past mistake, and put in a true Republican, not a RINO. Watch the media, and don't let them destroy our party.

Anonymous | 8:46 p.m. March 1, 2009

This president is definitely putting a damper on achievement. I'm pulling my money out of the stock market, out of the bank and hope I just make enough money to survive...so they won't take it all away. I like the voluntary approach to giving, which I do, but this compulsory plan is ruining the economy. Look at the stock market.

Shaun McC | 8:47 p.m. March 1, 2009

One of the biggest problems we are facing as a nation is the enmity between the "conservatives" and the "liberals". I, for one, am sick and tired of both sides blaming the other while they both mortgage our futures and our children's futures on massive government. If you want to listen to someone that actually makes sense and has disavowed the approach of both Republicans and Democrats, look up Chuck Baldwin. I don't agree with him 100%, but he understands the constitution and how we are destroying it. I voted for him because understands the importance and uniqueness of true liberty. The two major parties aren't interested in anything but getting the other guy out and getting power for themselves. It's not about what is good for the country. Sad.

Pat | 9:42 p.m. March 1, 2009

The best guidance this country could possibly get would BE with Mitt Romney at the head of this MESS and Sarah Palin in the vice Presidency!
Jabber on, folks, but Romney is strong, smart, steady and STEEPED in american TRADITION.

Sarah Palin is smart, gracious, determined, strong, hard working, honest and 100% a person with what is needed most in D.C..... COMMON SENSE!

Both Romney and Palin are cultured and mannerly, while brave enough to take strong stands. They both would never shame nor embarass this nation... what a gift that would be.........

Howard | 11:04 p.m. March 1, 2009

I've read all the comments with interest on whether or not we want the President's policies to succeed or fail. If you want to see what happens when the liberals run the show, look to California. Yes we've had republican governors, but its been a long time since we had a true conservative. The Democrats have controlled the legislature since the mid 80's and look where California is now. California's tax revenue has grown each year; however, the number of government employees has grown faster. The only way California can support it's debt load is to continue to raise taxes and fees. Currently the top tax bracket in California kicks in at $42K, so if you believe the President can fund all of his program on the backs of the wealthy think again.

The government doesn't not create long-term jobs and the numbers it uses are questionable. Orem is going to install 9 street lights and create 900 jobs, how can 9 street lights create 900 jobs; however, if Mr. Rich Fat Cat opens a factory he can create 900 sustainable jobs. The private sector creates the jobs.

Page:
1
2
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.