The Mitt Romney Thread

[scandal 951]

Jindal is a fundamentalist evangelical type. Fuсk him.

You don't think he deserves better than to be ranked below Ron Paul?

Seriously, Paul should be the cutoff point. Everyone above him should be taken as a serious candidate, everyone below him is a raving lunatic. Paul himself is lunatic material after all. Jindal is no lunatic and he belongs above that line regardless of what you think of his politics.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Jindal is no lunatic ...

I respectfully disagree.

[Ban Hammer 13,490]

Jindal is a fundamentalist evangelical type. Fuсk him.

i thought he was your homeboy?

[웃 910]

Governor Romney’s Statement on House Passage of Healthcare Bill.

March 22 2010

"America has just witnessed an unconscionable abuse of power. President Obama has betrayed his oath to the nation — rather than bringing us together, ushering in a new kind of politics, and rising above raw partisanship, he has succumbed to the lowest denominator of incumbent power: justifying the means by extolling the ends. He promised better; we deserved better.

He calls his accomplishment "historic" — in this he is correct, although not for the reason he intends. Rather, it is an historic usurpation of the legislative process — he unleashed the nuclear option, enlisted not a single Republican vote in either chamber, bribed reluctant members of his own party, paid-off his union backers, scapegoated insurers, and justified his act with patently fraudulent accounting. What Barack Obama has ushered into the American political landscape is not good for our country; in the words of an ancient maxim, "what starts twisted, ends twisted."

His health-care bill is unhealthy for America. It raises taxes, slashes the more private side of Medicare, installs price controls, and puts a new federal bureaucracy in charge of health care. It will create a new entitlement even as the ones we already have are bankrupt. For these reasons and more, the act should be repealed. That campaign begins today."

Edited March 23, 2010 by Lord Infamous

[웃 910]

Romney: We need a leader, not a politician

6/10/2010

USA Today

Has it come to this again? The president is meeting with his oil spill experts, he crudely tells us, so that he knows "whose #### to kick." We have become accustomed to his management style — target a scapegoat, assign blame and go on the attack. To win health care legislation, he vilified insurance executives; to escape bankruptcy law for General Motors, he demonized senior lenders; to take the focus from the excesses of government, he castigated business meetings in Las Vegas; and to deflect responsibility for the deepening and lengthening downturn, he blames Wall Street and George W. Bush. But what may make good politics does not make good leadership. And when a crisis is upon us, America wants a leader, not a politician. We saw leadership on Sept. 11, 2001. Then as now, black billows seemed to come from the center of the earth. Lives had been lost. The environmental impact was immeasurable. The looming economic impact from lost tourism was incalculable. Into the crisis walked Rudy Giuliani. While that was an incomparable human tragedy, how the mayor led New York City to recover is a useful model for the president.

Rudy camped out at Ground Zero — he didn't hole up in his office or retreat to his residence. His presence not only reassured the people of New York that someone was in charge, it also enabled the mayor to assess the situation firsthand, to take the measure of the people he had on the ground, and to understand the scope of the crisis.

The president has many critical matters that demand his attention, but brief and tardy tours and being photographed with a smudge of oil on a sandy beach don't work on any level. There is no substitute for being there.

In a crisis, the leader must gather the experts — federal, state, local, public and private — not to discover who is to blame but to secure their active and continuous involvement until the crisis is resolved. There is extraordinary power inherent in an assembly of brilliant people guided by an able leader. In virtually every historic national crisis, our most effective leaders gathered the best minds they could find — consider the Founders in Philadelphia, Lincoln with his "Team of Rivals," Roosevelt with scientists and generals seeking to end World War II, Kennedy with the "Best and Brightest" confronting the Cuban missile crisis.

What happens when men and women of various backgrounds, fields of expertise, and unfettered intellectual freedom come together to tackle a problem often exceeds any reasonable expectation. Ideas from one may cross-fertilize the thinking of another, yielding breakthroughs. The president of MIT told me that the university spent millions of dollars to build a bridge connecting two engineering departments that had been separated by a road — the potential for shared thinking made it more than worth the cost.

But even a gathering of experts won't accomplish much unless a skilled leader uses their perspective to guide the recovery. So far, it has been the CEO of BP who has been managing the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The president surely can't rely on BP — its track record is suspect at best: Its management of this crisis has been characterized by obfuscation and lack of preparation. And BP's responsibilities to its shareholders conflict with the greater responsibility to the nation and to the planet.

The president must personally lead the effort to solve the crisis. He cannot delegate this quintessential responsibility of his presidency in the way he delegated the stimulus bill, the cap-and-trade bill and the health care bill. It may be an instance of learning on the job, but it is a job only he can do.

The first rule of turnarounds is to focus time, energy and resources on what matters most. The president simply cannot treat this crisis like another of his many problems. The oil disaster could hurt millions of families, slam the regional economy, kill untold numbers of non-human lives and irreparably damage the planet. Among other things, he must not hold more rock concerts at the White House — I understand James Carville's venting: His hero fiddled as oil churned.

Finding fault is easier than finding answers. And worse, it paralyzes many of the very people who may be needed to solve a crisis. When Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast states, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco went on the attack; Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour went to work. His state's recovery is textbook; hers is not.

President Obama's instigation of criminal investigations of BP at this juncture is classic diversion politics — and worse, it will engender bunker mentality at a time when collaboration and openness are most critical. BP's actions and inactions are reprehensible; it must be made to pay the billions upon billions of dollars that this spill will ultimately cost. But call out the phalanx of lawyers later — solve the crisis today.

The president can learn a good deal from the crisis leadership of men and women in government and in business. Giuliani is a notable example, but so too are Washington, Adams, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan and Kennedy. In a time of national crisis, we look to our president to acknowledge, as Harry Truman did, that it is at his desk where the buck stops.

And even at Day 52, it's better late than never.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts,was a Republican presidential candidate in 2008.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-06-10-column10_ST_N.htm

[웃 910]

Obama's worst foreign-policy mistake

By Mitt Romney Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Given President Obama's glaring domestic policy missteps, it is understandable that the public has largely been blinded to his foreign policy failings. In fact, these may have been even more damaging to America's future. He fought to reinstate Honduras's pro-Chávez president while stalling Colombia's favored-trade status. He castigated Israel at the United Nations but was silent about Hamas having launched 7,000 rockets from the Gaza Strip. His policy of "engagement" with rogue nations has been met with North Korean nuclear tests, missile launches and the sinking of a South Korean naval vessel, while Iran has accelerated its nuclear program, funded terrorists and armed Hezbollah with long-range missiles. He acceded to Russia's No. 1 foreign policy objective, the abandonment of our Europe-based missile defense program, and obtained nothing whatsoever in return.

Despite all of this, the president's New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New-START) with Russia could be his worst foreign policy mistake yet. The treaty as submitted to the Senate should not be ratified.

New-START impedes missile defense, our protection from nuclear-proliferating rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. Its preamble links strategic defense with strategic arsenal. It explicitly forbids the United States from converting intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos into missile defense sites. And Russia has expressly reserved the right to walk away from the treaty if it believes that the United States has significantly increased its missile defense capability.

Hence, to preserve the treaty's restrictions on Russia, America must effectively get Russia's permission for any missile defense expansion. Moscow's vehemence over our modest plans in Eastern Europe demonstrate that such permission would be extremely unlikely.

The treaty empowers a Bilateral Consultative Commission with broad latitude to amend the treaty with specific reference to missile defense. New START does something the American public would never countenance and the Senate should never permit: It jeopardizes our missile defense system.

The treaty also gives far more to the Russians than to the United States. As drafted, it lets Russia escape the limit on its number of strategic nuclear warheads. Loopholes and lapses -- presumably carefully crafted by Moscow -- provide a path to entirely avoid the advertised warhead-reduction targets. For example, rail-based ICBMs and launchers are not mentioned. Similarly, multiple nuclear warheads that are mounted on bombers are effectively not counted. Unlike past treaty restrictions, ICBMs are not prohibited from bombers. This means that Russia is free to mount a nearly unlimited number of ICBMs on bombers -- including MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles) or multiple warheads -- without tripping the treaty's limits. These omissions would be consistent with Russia's plans for a new heavy bomber and reports of growing interest in rail-mobile ICBMs.

Under New START, the United States must drastically reduce our number of launchers but Russia will not -- it already has fewer launchers than the treaty limits. Put another way: We give, Russia gets. And more troubling, the treaty fails to apply the MIRV limits that were part of the prior START treaty. Again, it may not be coincidental that Russia is developing a new heavy-load -- meaning MIRV-capable -- ICBM.

New-START gives Russia a massive nuclear weapon advantage over the United States. The treaty ignores tactical nuclear weapons, where Russia outnumbers us by as much as 10 to 1. Obama heralds a reduction in strategic weapons from approximately 2,200 to 1,550 but fails to mention that Russia will retain more than 10,000 nuclear warheads that are categorized as tactical because they are mounted on missiles that cannot reach the United States. But surely they can reach our allies, nations that depend on us for a nuclear umbrella. And who can know how those tactical nuclear warheads might be reconfigured? Astonishingly, while excusing tactical nukes from the treaty, the Obama administration bows to Russia's insistence that conventional weapons mounted on ICBMs are counted under the treaty's warhead and launcher limits.

By all indications, the Obama administration has been badly out-negotiated. Perhaps the president's eagerness for global disarmament led his team to accede to Russia's demands, or perhaps it led to a document that was less than carefully drafted.

Whatever the reason for the treaty's failings, it must not be ratified: The security of the United States is at stake. The only responsible course is for the Senate to demand and scrutinize the full diplomatic record underlying the treaty. Then it must insist that any linkage between the treaty and our missile defense system be eliminated. In a world where nuclear weapons are proliferating, America's missile defense shield must not be compromised. As currently drafted, New START is a non-starter.

The writer was governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/05/AR2010070502657.html

[웃 910]

Grow jobs and shrink government

By Mitt Romney August 18, 2010

IT'S NOT happening the way President Obama had planned. Unemployment blew past his 8 percent ceiling and hasn't looked back. Private sector investment in new jobs and capital has languished. Even the head of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, has resigned.

Almost every action the president has taken has deepened and lengthened the downturn. The private sector has retreated, frightened by his agenda and paralyzed by the uncertainty, lack of predictability, and outright hostility he has engendered.

His policies are anti-investment, anti-jobs, and anti-growth. Raising taxes — with a 15 percent hike on certain small business corporations, new taxes to pay for ObamaCare, and an increase on the dividend tax from 15 percent to nearly 40 percent — depresses new investment throughout the economy. Promoting an open-ended cap-and-trade tax dissuades expansion by employers in the energy sector. Bowing to the demands of unions to tilt the table in their favor — with proposals for card check and mandatory arbitration as well as the installation of a labor stooge at the National Labor Relations Board — chills new hiring.

Hostility toward foreign trade — by delaying agreements with Colombia and South Korea and by threatening punitive taxes on US businesses that compete abroad — stalls opportunities for new jobs at home. The so-called stimulus that focused on government spending and bailing out states and unions has boosted GDP only modestly and temporarily; the latest stimulus reincarnation will likely do no better. All the while, the president's failure to address the looming deficits, national debt, unfunded entitlement liabilities, ballooning Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae liabilities, and incalculable government pension obligations causes employers and investors to ask whether the dollar will be worth very much in the future, and thus, they hold back. The policies of the president and congressional Democrats are job killers.

Thanks to the innovative, can-do spirit of the American people, the economy will recover, even with the burdens the president has put upon it. But to speed the recovery and to ensure its long-term ascent, it is time to adopt a bipartisan growth and jobs agenda. Republicans made mistakes when we were in charge, yes, but Democrats pointing that out doesn't absolve them for the mistakes they are making today. Job and income growth can only come from a growing, successful private sector. Of course, government can create innumerable public sector jobs, but in doing so, it supplants the private sector and ultimately depresses the prosperity of its citizens.

A pro-job, pro-prosperity government works to create the conditions that enable businesses of all sizes to grow and thrive. These should include aligning corporate taxes with those of other developed economies, eliminating special corporate tax breaks that lobbyists have inserted over the years, and preserving the Bush tax cuts — especially for small business.

To give an immediate boost to jobs and investment, permit businesses to write off in 2010 and 2011 the capital investments made in those years rather than over time. Aggressively negotiate and sign trade agreements with other nations to promote American exports. Adopt an energy policy that will actually eliminate our dependence on OPEC and hostile states. Preserve our balanced labor-management rules and regulators. Rather than raising the tax on investment dividends, eliminate it and the tax on capital gains and interest for all households earning less than $250,000 a year.

Reshape government programs to ultimately put spending in balance with revenues. Restructure entitlements to make them fiscally sustainable, honoring our commitments to seniors. Rather than opening the door to ever-increasing demands from states for bail-outs, take action to enable the states to solve their unfunded pension obligations. And tame the growth of government by limiting the political power of public employee unions.

The president said last week that Republicans have no economic ideas other than lowering taxes on the wealthy. This brief agenda is not the only refutation: Republicans in Washington and in states like New Jersey and Texas are promoting and implementing economic policies that do what the president has not: grow jobs and shrink government. It's time for a growth and jobs agenda to replace the special interest political agendas that we have endured over the past decades. So much is at stake — a strong economy provides for the strong defense which preserves our liberty and promotes peace.

http://www.boston.co...ink_government/

Edited August 18, 2010 by Lord Infamous

[^_^ 5,021]

Republicans in Washington and in states like New Jersey and Texas are promoting and implementing economic policies that do what the president has not: grow jobs and shrink government.

Nothing Christie has done in New Jersey has helped with our jobs situation. The hope is it will one day, but it hasn't happened yet.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Legacy member

[웃 910]

Romney: Tax deal, bad dealUSA Today12/14/2010

Death and taxes, it is said, are life's only two certainties. But in the wake of President Obama's tax compromise with congressionalRepublicans, only death retains the status of certainty: The future for taxes has been left up in the air. And uncertainty is not a friend of investment, growth and job creation.

The deal has several key features. It reduces payroll taxes, extends unemployment benefits and keeps current tax rates intact. So far, so good. But intermixed with the benefits are considerable costs of consequence. Given the unambiguous message that the American people sent to Washington in November, it is difficult to understand how our political leaders could have reached such a disappointing agreement. The new, more conservative Congress should reach a better solution.

The deal keeps current tax rates from rising to pre-Bush era levels for two years. But in 2013, unless Congress acts again, rates will increase dramatically.

Extension temporary

Of course, delay now is better than an immediate tax hike. But because the extension is only temporary, a large portion of the investment and job growth that characteristically accompanies low taxes will be lost. When entrepreneurs and employers make decisions to start or expand an enterprise, uncertainty about tax rates translates directly into a reduced propensity to invest and to hire. With only a two-year extension, investors know that before their returns are realized, tax rates may be jacked up to the levels favored by President Obama. So while the tax deal will succeed in temporarily putting more money in the hands of consumers, it will fail to deliver its full potential for creating lasting growth.

It will also add to the deficit. In many cases, lowering taxes can actually increase government revenues. If new businesses, new investments and new hiring are spurred by the prospects of better after-tax returns, the taxes paid by these new or growing businesses and employees can more than make up for the lower rates of taxation. But once again, because the tax deal is temporary, a large portion of this beneficent effect is missing. What some are calling a grand compromise is not grand at all, except in its price tag. The total package will cost nearly $1 trillion, resulting in substantial new borrowing at a time when we are already drowning in red ink.

Part of the tax deal is a temporary reduction in payroll taxes. The president was insistent, however, that only the employee's payroll taxes be reduced — the portion paid by the employer is to remain the same. Again, the president is looking to get more money into the hands of the consumer to boost near-term spending. But by refusing to lower the cost of hiring a new employee, he fails to encourage what the American people want even more than lower taxes — more good jobs. Like the income tax deal, the payroll tax deal will add to the deficit.

For those without jobs, the tax compromise extends unemployment benefits for 13 months. A decent and humane society must have a strong safety net for the unemployed. I served for 15 years as a lay pastor in my church and saw the heartbreak of joblessness up close; a shattering loss of faith in oneself is but only one of many forms the suffering can take. Nonetheless, the vital necessity of providing for those without work should not be used as an excuse to ignore the very real problems of our unemployment system.

In this, as in so many other arenas of government policy, unemployment insurance has many unintended effects. The indisputable fact is that unemployment benefits, despite a web of regulations, actually serve to discourage some individuals from taking jobs, especially when the benefits extend across years.

Redo jobless benefits

The system is also not designed for a flexible economy like ours in which some employees move from job to job for short periods, and are therefore ineligible for unemployment compensation when they are faced with a protracted spell without work.

To remedy such problems we need a very different model, perhaps establishing individual unemployment savings accounts over which employees would exercise direct control when they lose their jobs, or putting in place financial incentives for employers to hire and train the long-term unemployed. One thing is certain: While we cannot rebuild our flawed system overnight, we are surely not required to borrow the funds to pay for it. In spending $56.5 billion to extend benefits, the deal is sacrificing the bedrock

Republican principle that new expenditures be paid for with offsetting budget cuts.

President Obama has reason to celebrate. The deal delivers short-term economic stimulus, and it does so at the very time he wants it most, before the 2012 elections. But the long term health of our great engine of prosperity will remain very much in doubt. To the twin inevitabilities of death and taxes, we may now have to add persistent high unemployment.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-12-14-column14_ST_N.htm

[웃 910]

Romney flexes muscle in first NH Primary poll while Palin and others lag behind

Former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney holds a commanding lead in New Hampshire in the early stages of the race for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination, according to a new survey

commissioned by NH Journal and conducted by Magellan Strategies. The survey is the first statewide survey of Granite State Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in 2011.

Romney leads former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin by 23 points, with Romney earning 39% and Palin earning 16%. Mike Huckabee (10%), Newt Gingrich (8%), Texas Congressman Ron Paul (7%),

former MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty (4%), Rick Santorum (3%) and MS Gov. Haley Barbour (1%) all trail significantly behind. Romney finished second to Sen. John McCain in the 2008 New Hampshire

Republican Presidential primary.

Edited January 8, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[^_^ 5,021]

A big warning sign for Mitt Romney

An array of Republican heavyweights who backed Mitt Romney’s 2008 presidential bid are not yet committed to - and in some cases, downright skeptical of - the former Massachusetts governor’s all-but-certain 2012 campaign.

In each of the traditional early states, top Romney supporters from the last campaign tell POLITICO that they’re hesitant to get behind the nearest thing the GOP has to a frontrunner.

[웃 910]

Governor Romney Discusses the Current Crisis in Egypt on Good Morning America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWMystAltik

Edited February 1, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[웃 910]

[^_^ 5,021]

And we interrupt this Romney cheerleading session with this important message.

Mitt Romney: No Apology for Individual Health Care Mandate

On the kick off to his "No Apology" book tour Mitt Romney is on message – refusing to apologize for the Massachusetts health care law that, like President Obama’s federal legislation, requires citizens to buy health insurance.

“I’m not apologizing for it, I’m indicating that we went in one direction and there are other possible directions. I’d like to see states pursue their own ideas, see which ideas work best,” Romney told me.

So what does the conservative activist base think about this? Here are comments from the thread on Free Republic.

Why is this guy even in the news?

Are they going to use their Palin-Free month to push Romney?

posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:31:14 AM by digger48

******

Looks like Romney will be the MSM’s favorite GOP loser candidate.

posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:33:45 AM by grumpygresh (Democrats delenda est)

******

Romneycare should have been brought to court several years ago and have established a precedent that would have put paid to Obamacare before it passed Congress.

posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:34:17 AM by AU72

******

When your single biggest accomplishment as governor is a massive and ever worsening economic and bureaucratic nightmare, you really don’t have a viable leg to stand on.

posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:37:27 AM by Fantasywriter

******

Romneycare and Gay Marriage==Nitmitt’s legacy

And he wants us to vote for him for Prez?

Ain’t gonna happen.

posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:38:00 AM by exit82 (Democrats are the enemy of freedom. Sarah Palin is our Esther.)

******

If he gets the nomination, its 4 more yars of Obie-Won

posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:38:29 AM by GeronL (http://www.stink-eye.net/forum/index.php)

******

“Romneycare” is going to be an Anvil around Romney’s neck if he decides to run.

posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:38:42 AM by Old Retired Army Guy (tHE)

******

If Republicans listen to the Democrat media again to pick their candidate, the party should be tossed on the ash heap of history, and a new Conservative Party should take its place.

posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:41:12 AM by kittymyrib

******

All hail our conservative frontrunner!

Makes 1996 seem great.

posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:42:23 AM by Sybeck1 (Memo to Mitt Romney: Just go away.............)

******

Let me apologize to you Mitt.

I'm not voting for you, sorry.

posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:43:27 AM by Zuben Elgenubi

******

We should be glad Mitt is making this terrible mistake. Guarantees we wont be stuck with him for 2012.

posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:43:27 AM by freespirited (Truth is the new hate speech. -- Pamela Geller)

******

Maybe this means Romney is eschewing plans to become president in favor of becoming an author.

posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:44:42 AM by skeeter

******

Romney OWES it to his wife to give up and go away.

Romney should stop abusing her (and his dog and the GOP).

posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:45:13 AM by Diogenesis (Si vis pacem, para bellum)

******

I didn’t know Mitt was one of the Ditzie Chicks/

posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:49:30 AM by tumblindice (Governor Moooooooooooooooooooooooonbeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm)

******

I will not vote for Romney never - we would be better off with Obama horror and getting our opposition numbers up in the Senate and House. Seems like there was some reality check on this in 2010 at least.

I am not for third parties solutions but if Romney is the pick I will vote Conservative party.

posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:50:44 AM by RushingWater

******

Even McCain couldn’t make me vote third party, but Romney could do it.

posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:53:25 AM by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)

******

Another book? Is he still envious at Palin’s success? I wonder, will he once again try to pad his numbers through bulk orders from his PACs?

posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:59:17 AM by ABQHispConservative (Fire all the damn rino!)

******

OMG, Mr. Romney has Palin envy.

posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 12:04:33 PM by TWhiteBear (Islam is an ideology with several elements of Judeo Christian traditions)

******

on the plus side, I think he just shot himself in both feet and the a*s when it comes to landing the 2012 nomination

posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 12:04:50 PM by Buckeye McFrog

******

If he’d admit it was a mistake he could help us all. Instead his selfish pride is more important to him

posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 12:06:12 PM by Tigercap

******

Don't want Obama?

Then don't vote for Romney.

posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 12:06:44 PM by Allegra (Hey! Stop looking at my tagline like that.)

******

Romneycare is a millstone around his neck. He’s damned if he apologizes and damned if he doesn’t apologize.

Mittens has nobody to blame but himself.

posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 12:11:07 PM by Buckeye Battle Cry (At DiDi's Used Guns, if we can't kill it, it's immortal - DiDi Snavely, Proprietor)

They don't sound impressed. LI, why do you?

[웃 910]

And we interrupt this Romney cheerleading session with this important message.

we now return you to your regularly scheduled program...

Mitt Romney on Healthcare on The View

Feb 1, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgyxg3RDaFs&feature=feedlik

Edited February 2, 2011 by Lord Infamous