Mitt Romney

Watch GOP Frontrunner Mitt Romney Praise Liberal Lion Ted Kennedy For His Role In Passing RomneyCare


Despite copious evidence to back up the connection, GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney has yet to admit the link between the Massachusetts health care overhaul he signed into law as governor and the federal overhaul President Obama passed last year. You can understand why he's declined: Given that Romney is running as an establishment conservative for the Republican nomination, the friendly connection to the rival party's leader and his most prominent policy achievement would be, well, kind of awkward.

But when the Massachusetts law first took effect, Romney did praise a different prominent liberal collaborator as one of the law's "parents" whose work was "absolutely essential" to passage: former Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, a longtime universal coverage advocate whose proposed 1975 health care overhaul was ditched after the Congressional Budget Office estimated that it would cost three times what Kennedy's staff had claimed.

Via Mother Jones, here's the video:

One other thing to note is that Romney praises Kennedy for helping make the case that federal support was necessary to fund the state-based coverage expansion. Romney likes to criticize President Obama for cutting Medicare and raising taxes in order to fund ObamaCare. But of course, as a governor, Romney didn't have the option to cut back on Medicare, a federal program. So, with the help of Sen. Kennedy, he convinced the feds to kick in another way, with expanded Medicaid funding that ended up paying for half of the program's publicly budgeted cost

NEXT: Out of the Venn Diagram, Endlessly Rocking

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ignore the distractions by reason‘s shills for Big Party. The Today Show said Cain is the frontrunner now.

    1. Yes. The “Anyone but Romney” crowd (of which I am a member) seems to have decided on Cain.

      1. Voting for a guy with a scant record of experience, on whom the party faithful have largely projected their fantasies and dreams, and hoping that it will abolve the institutional sins of racism. . . seems like I heard that one before.

        1. I heartily reiterate Abdul’s comments, verbatim.

          If only there was a dude with a diverse range of relevant experiences; that would let us look at the track record instead of projecting our pre?xisting beliefs onto a non-entity.

          1. I am fine with any of the GOP candidates. They are ALL much better than Obama ever was or will be for our Country.

          1. I can’t believe that the Taxed Enough Already party members are backing this 999 plan. What it does is raise taxes on the poor while dropping taxes on the upper middle class and wealthy. It really should be the Nein Nein Nein plan!

            This faithful TEA party member will be voting for the person that Rush Limbaugh called the complete package with all three legs of Conservatism – Mitt Romney!

            (Oh, you may not remember? That’s what Rush said just three years ago. Romney hasn’t changed in that time…)

            1. ANY of the GOP are better than President Zero… ANY….
              We will win if we stick together after the primary and DEFEAT OBAMA.

              Rush is terrific…
              Proud Tea Party member who will vote Nov 2012…… for Cain, Romney, perry, gingrich, bauchman, Paul (Dear God I hope I do not have too )..:)

            2. Cain’s got 999 problems, and the rich ain’t one.

        2. But Cain has been a regional fed chairman and a CEO. He does have a track record of experience. He has a hundred times the resume Obama did in 2008. I think there can be valuable experience outside of being a politician.

          1. Isn’t his track record out there and a little open for everybody to read than Maobama’s?

          2. I really like Cain. I’d just prefer it if some of these political neo-phytes didn’t start at the top.

            What’s wrong with Herman Cain running for governor, or representative, or senator, or mayor of a large city?

            1. He lost when he ran for US Senate, he lost when he ran for president before, and he’ll lose again.

      2. Decided on Cain… for now. Watch what happens when the flavor of the month passes. The way I figure, if Rudy Guliani decides to run about a month before the first primary/caucus, he has a good shot at the nomination. No re-vetting process, and the 15% who’ve “decided on Cain” will throng to the next none-of-the-above candidate.

        1. You get vetted each time you run for office. Not right out of the gate, but eventually.

  2. Elect Romney, go ahead, see what you get.

    1. You’ll get a proven leader who understands the economy. If you don’t think that is better than the inexperienced ideologue we’ve had for the last 3 years, then you clearly don’t understand how this nation should be run.

      1. Romney didn’t get the economy when he passed Romneycare or supported TARP.

  3. Did Ted Kennedy’s praise for and work on No Child Left Behind kill Bush among Republicans in 2004?

    But, yeah, Romney is silly.

    I think I’d just as soon have Obama plus a Republican Congress than Romney plus same.

  4. How is Romney the frontrunner when the primaries haven’t even started yet? The man lost–and lost early–to McCain for God’s sake!

    I’m just going to say it: Mitt Romney will not win the GOP nomination. He won’t even come in second.

    1. I don’t think he will either. I think it is going to be the Herminator, which kind of scares me to be honest.

      1. His regime of mandatory low-quality pizza is to be feared.

        1. I haven’t ate there in I bet 20 years. But back in the 80s Godfather’s was quite good.

          1. I hope so, John, for your sake. The Epsiarch is not as forgiving as I am.

            1. I have a lot of foodie street creed. More enough to make up for a few drunken visits to Godfather’s in my youth. Yeah, I enjoyed it. What about it?

              1. Oh, nothing. Really, it’s okay.

  5. What kind of a sick old fuck pastes fake eyebrows on and doesn’t spend enough on a decent adhesive to make sure the disgusting things don’t start falling off under hot lights?
    Jesus Christ, is Ron Paul the most embarrasing fucking candidate ever to throw his hat in the ring, or what? The fucking fake eyebrow looked like a slug that clawling down his ugly mug. Made me want to fucking puke.

    1. Arf! Arf! Arf!

    2. Give it up, Max. As obnoxious as you are, there’s no way you could ever compare to the White Idiot franchise in terms of combining degree of irritation with volume of trollspam. You may as well retire with dignity.

    3. Your language illustrates your intelligence level – re-invent yourself into someone who can utilize civil discourse.

  6. I think I’d just as soon have Obama plus a Republican Congress than Romney plus same.

    I’d agree, except for judicial nominations.

    And, yes, a Republican Senate would put the brakes on some of the more ridiculous judges, but we’d still wind up with a more lefty “social justice” judiciary with Obama making the noms.

    1. Bashing the wise Latinas early are we?

    2. I agree. No Obama under any circumstances.

  7. It’s Romney’s “turn”. He’s going to go full retard because it’s his last chance. Count on it.

    1. God I hate that “it is my turn” bullshit. If Romney wasn’t fit to be President in 2008, how is he fit now? He hasn’t served in public office or done anything except run for President in the last four years. How is he any different? It would be one thing if he were someone like Ryan or Christie who are new to the national scene and can spend a few years running a state or serving in Congress to get better prepared for the job. But Romney didn’t do any of that.

      1. I’d be surprised if the GOP thinks that way. People forget, but Clinton would’ve been easy to beat in 1996 if the GOP hadn’t focused on running the guy whose turn it was.

        1. Respectfully disagree. The economy was booming in 1996.

      2. It’s how the GOP works. When it’s your turn, you get the nomination, even if you’re a lame duck.

        Romney time.

        1. I think that may be changing.

        2. Well, they did intentionally avoid doing that with Bush. They got cocky in 2008, and they may be today as well.

      3. john,
        it wasn’t about fitness; it was about Huckabee raising the Mormonism-as-cult meme to the fundie Iowa crowd, causing Romney to not do well in the Hawkeye Cauci and things moved from there.

        Early primaries are about momentum. Before anyone knew it, John “the left’s favorite Repub” McCain had grabbed a lead and the establishment fell dutifuly in line in promoting the most hapless nominee in recent memory. I don’t care that Romney has not served the past four years; hell, Cain has NEVER served and to many, me included, that is more a benefit than a liability.

        He ran a state; he has run a business; he ran an Olympics. If you don’t like him, fair enough. There are other options, any of which has to be an improvement over the organizer-in-chief, particularly if Congressional control changes.

        There were new faces that came and went, Bachmann and Perry chief among them. Cain is gaining traction. Will he be the guy? Don’t know but he beats Obama. Besides, Reagan was not “fit” in ’76 but was in ’80; Clinton was practically booed off hte convention floor in ’88 but nominated in ’92; and just who the hell was Obama prior to ’08.

        1. I think Romney didn’t get traction in 2008 because he is a liberal Republican and McCain had that block. He will never appeal to conservatives, so where was his base? Now with McCain out of the way he gets the establishment oversee an orderly decline and be the the tax collector for the welfare state vote. And thus is a threat to win. But this is not 2008. And the field being weaker than 08 actually hurts him because it will allow the rest of the party to coalesce around an alternative candidate sooner.

        2. Obama gave a hugely popular speech at the DNC convention in 2004, which is what put him on the national stage in the first place. It’s likely he ran for prez so soon so that the momentum of that speech didn’t dissipate. His Senate career was fairly unspectacular.

      4. Interesting point. Why would you want the guy who came in second the last time he ran? Look at what a failure Reagan was in 1980 after not getting the nomination in 1976.

  8. It’s funny how Mitt Romney’s Chappaquiddick moment is the guy who actually drowned a girl at Chappaquiddick.

  9. I think Romney’s State vs Fed argument with regards to healthcare legislation is pretty sound.

    1. Yeah, except

      (1) He argued at some point (in some book or other, since “edited” out) that it was a good national model.

      (2) It shows that he is a centralizing, top-down micromanagement technocrat. If its the kind of thing he would do as Governor, its the kind of thing he’ll do as President.

      1. He changed his mind about (1). It baffles me that we spend all day trying to change people’s minds at this site and then castigate them when they do it.

        And I’d prefer (2) over the buffoon with no control over his underlings currently occupying the WH.

        1. I disagree, I think that Obama is a buffoon who also is a micromanager. He’s just not very good at it.

  10. you don’t like Romney. We get it. Many of us got the first time you said it.

    1. And you like him?

      1. just asking how many times Reason has to say it does not like him in order to feel the point has been made.

        1. I’d be happy with about twice a week.

  11. How can you not like a guy who plans to bring back Bush’s foreign policy advisers?

  12. Romney is a Republican Bill Clinton–a pandering scumbag who will say or do whatever he thinks will get him elected. If he’s the nominee, I’ll vote for Obama.

  13. It’s Romney’s global warming hoax denialism that’s the deal breaker for me.

    1. Does that mean he believes in global warming?

    2. Romney said global warming is occurring and we need to study whether or not man has a role in it rather than pass economy crushing laws based on limited information. Which part of that bothers you?

      1. It’s that part about making sense. The only way to be a “true” conservative these days is to hold fast to the idea that no amount of evidence from any source can ever be powerful enough to persuade someone that they may have ever been wrong about the possibility that Global Warming is real. After all, it has been shown that there are some weaknesses in the theory. Therefore, the only responsible position is to say that there is no merit to the theory or any reason for anyone to even suggest that answers should be sought. After being a lifelong conservative Republican, I’m really starting to get sick of the idiots in our party.

  14. The fact that Romney was as chummy with Senator Teddy the Murderer as he was just goes to show you what being a Taxachusetts Republican means.

    McCain will look down right Libertarian next to Mittens if Romney gets the nomination.

    I still think he would be better than President Not My Fault, but a baked potato would be a vast improvement over him at this point.

  15. I think I’d vote for the shit-spewing duck if it came between Romney and Obama.

    1. If the past is any indication of the future, the Libertarian Party will provide with an opportunity to do just that.

  16. I supported Romney back in 2008, though since then I’ve had a change of heart and prefer Johnson and Paul. I don’t know if it was Suderman who said it, but the most frustrating thing about Romney is that he’s like the consultant that you know is feeding you shit, yet you still want to like him. I always want to defend the guy even though I know he’s wrong on so much. Maybe it’s that I feel he’ll be unfairly discounted because of his Mormonism or sleek looks. Maybe it’s because he doesn’t smirk or wear three inch thick ties like Perry.

    I’ve met Romney a couple times in person, and he’s actually a pretty awkward guy, which you don’t get when he’s on stage. I’ve heard this from a few other people, so I don’t think it’s because he was talking to a prole like myself.

    1. I’d prefer Paul too, or even Johnson, but politics is the art of the possible. Both of them would be electoral dead meat if their opponents actually felt the need to drag out their positions on the drug war for instance. (to some extent Johnson already is, because he wears that position on his sleeve)

      Also even the most benign possible interpretation of Ron Paul’s newsletter scandal — that he spent years renting out his name for big bucks without checking what was being printed under it — would absolutely skewer him if he ever became enough of a threat to the big boys.

    2. My girlfriend and I met Romney and had exactly the opposite experience. I thought he was much more genuine and personal than he appears on television.

      Johnson and Paul would have absolutely no ability to reach across the aisle OR even work with his own party, for that matter. While there may be a substantial segment of the population that agrees with the Libertarian agenda, the fact is, most people don’t. If you put a pure idealogue like Paul or Johnson in office, you would have complete deadlock for four years with little to nothing accomplished.

      Romney is the only one in the race who has demonstrated an ability to impose dramatic change with a legislature composed mostly of the other party. In Massachusetts, he inherited massive deficits and rising unemployment. He immediately slashed spending and left the state with a huge surplus and rising employment. I know he’s flip-flopped on some social issues, but the economy is so much more important to me in this election, and I don’t know what advantage he would have by flopping back to previous social issues that would anger his base once President. I think he’s a really strong candidate.

      1. That is the mark of a seasoned politician. One can look you in the eye to enchant you. Not many people have that talent; I think you’re born with it.

  17. If we’re going to elect a guy who comes off like a game show host, can’t we at least find one who channels Richard Dawson rather than Bob Eubanks?

    1. Richard Dawson would be great. I’d also accept Gene Rayburn.

      1. Yeah, I’d go to war for Gene Rayburn.

        1. He’s restore American greatness, with a microphone and sexual innuendo.

      2. Groucho Marx.

        1. Another good one.

  18. He’d.

  19. Despite copious evidence to back up the connection, GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney has yet to admit the link between the Massachusetts health care overhaul he signed into law as governor and the federal overhaul President Obama passed last year.

    If the “link” you’re talking about is a causal link, ie MassCare “paving the way for” ObamaCare (not a flerking strawman, it’s been in Reason blog posts), you’ve provided zero evidence to back that particular assertion up. You would have to show that ObamaCare would have been impossible or at least less likely to occur if MassCare hadn’t occurred.

    If you’re talking about the “link” of “the same people working on the two plans” then you’re peddling some damn thin gruel at the guilt-by-association soup kitchen. Dennis Kucinich pushes universal health care and drug legalization, but that doesn’t mean there’s a significant “link”.

    1. What about “link” in the sense of, “hey, they’re pretty similar, except that one is at the state level and the other at the federal?”

      Personally, I understand the argument of a) “Massachusetts is a really liberal state and I did the best with the political reality” (the second part of this is essentially the Medicare Part D argument, note) and I’d love it if Romney were a consistent federalist everywhere, but it doesn’t seem that way.

      I think federalism is great, but that doesn’t meant that I want someone behind a policy I dislike at a state level to get a federal position. If drugs were currently a state matter, I’d be wary of a governor that banned them in his state becoming President.

  20. I’ve read this piece several times, but somehow I keep missing the part about how conservatives praised Romney at the time for fending off socialized medicine, and how they supported an individual mandate (which, by the way, is the only thing the MA plan has in common with Obamacare) as advancing efforts to instill individual responsibility in people. So-called conservatives need to stop re-writing history in their efforts to bash Romney. Real conservatives understand you don’t govern by cramming your ideas down someone’s throats (that’s not how Reagan did it), and Romney is the only viable Republican he’s demonstrated an ability to get something done when the political odds were stacked against him.

    1. Conservatives, including the Heritage Foundation, which endorsed Romney’s health care plan. What so many haters are shockingly ignorant to, is that the Health Care system predating Romney’s plan was nowhere even close to a free-market system. It is extremely frustrating to listen to simpleton analysis of a complex issue and hear people make conclusions that have no basis in reality.

  21. Romney seems very intelligent. During the debates he is the only candidate I see that understands the complexity of the economy. I’m a one issue voter this year.

    1. to hrs44: Yes, that is the mark of a seasoned politician. One can look you in the eye and mesmerize you into fawning over his (alleged) brilliance. I suggest you leave your enchantment at the door, and peer deeper into the REAL Romney, where I think you’ll find — as I do — him smeared with “socialist lite” — maybe not so lite.

  22. Of course, nobody mentions the fact that every State government takes medicare funding from the Federal Government. Romney isn’t any different from any other Governor. Cain has no record of holding political office, so he has the advantage of never taking a position on any tough issues. He’s preferable to Obama, but his 999 plan is joke, and his “chief economist” who helped develop the plan doesn’t even have a degree in economics. Romney, in spite of the rampant, illogical rants against him, has a proven record of fiscal responsibility and knowledge and is manifestly superior to any other candidate in the race. If you don’t believe me, take a look at what he did with the Massachusetts budget when he was in office and what it looked like before he got there.

  23. Federal Reserve insider unfit to lead economic recovery, charges Revolution PAC.

    From his faulty recession predictions in 2008, to his support of TARP to his resistance to a Federal Reserve audit, GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain is unqualified to shepherd America to honest economic recovery, asserts Revolution PAC.

    As conservatives, including Rep. Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich, rally for fiscal transparency, Cain ? a former Kansas City Federal Reserve chairman ? continues to dismiss the push for a thorough audit of the public-private agency. While Cain asserts in his new autobiography, “I don’t think you’re going to find anything to audit on the Federal Reserve,” Paul’s Domestic Monetary Policy subcommittee has overseen a GAO investigation of the Fed’s crisis response emergency lending that uncovered$16 trillion in emergency loans to foreign banks.

    Cain’s pattern of misjudgment and obfuscation is not a recent phenomenon. Just one week before the economic collapse and subsequent banker bailouts in 2008, he went on the record to defend the strength of the financial markets and suggest an “imaginary recession.”

    “He was completely clueless about the condition of the economy right up to the moment of collapse,” notes Revolution PAC Chairman Tom Woods.

    Cain proceeded to wholeheartedly back, in big government liberal fashion, the controversial Troubled Asset Relief Program, which he deemed a “win-win for the taxpayer.” He flippantly argued, “The ownership by the taxpayers is going to be relatively small and nowhere near the amount needed to be called nationalization. So what’s the problem?”

    “We need sweeping, systemic changes, carried out by a real supporter of the free market who sees the whole picture,” Woods urges, “not trivial tinkering by Herman Cain or his friend Mitt Romney, whom he endorsed in 2008.”

    Woods continues, “Dr. Paul specifically warned in 2001 that Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve, whose NASDAQ bubble had just burst, were in the process of creating a housing bubble. That Ron Paul is the candidate best equipped to lead us back to economic prosperity is nearly undisputed.”

    A recent Harris Poll revealed that Ron Paul would prevail over Barack Obama 51 percent to 49 percent in a general election race. Paul stands at 13 percent in New Hampshire, site of the first-in-the-nation primary.

    Revolution PAC is bolstering Ron Paul’s consistent, constitutional message with targeted TV advertising campaigns complemented by billboards and radio ads in key primary states. Proceeds will support the airing of game-changing commercials, like the game-changing Plastic Men” in the months to come. Unlimited donations by individuals, businesses and organizations can be made to Revolution PAC.

    Huffington Post Provides Proof That Herman Cain Lied At The GOP Debate…..06228.html

    Cain Also Thinks the Fed Missing $9 Trillion Is Unimportant
    Herman Cain made it clear tonight in his answer to Ron Paul’s question about auditing the Federal Reserve that he simply doesn’t think it’s important.

    In 2009, the Federal Reserve admitted it could not account for $9 trillion. This is not a misprint. It wasn’t $9 million. Not $9 billion.

    $9 trillion.

    Does it have to get to $999 trillion, Mr. Cain, before you think the Federal Reserve issue is important?
    Cain’s Favorite Fed Chairman: “Print More Money”

    In the Bloomberg GOP Debate, Herman Cain said that Alan Greenspan was his favorite Federal Reserve Chairman. That the TARP-supporting, financial crisis-denying Cain would think Greenspan had a good head for economics should be no surprise, since he shows himself to speak like a true insider does.…..ZUpZ_onC2k

  24. Comparing the Candidates on TARP

    Let’s face it: The Cookie Monster is as good, if not better, than most journalists in highlighting this crucially important distinction between Ron Paul and Barack Obama, Herman Cain and Mitt Romney concerning TARP:…..2EqhZND1_I

    ObamaCare Advisers Were Also RomneyCare Advisers

    Writes James Antle at The American Spectator:

    “Records show that Mitt Romney aides met a dozen times with the White House to discuss health care reform, according to reports that are sure to refocus attention on the similarities between Obamacare and Romneycare. The Massachusetts health care plan Romney signed into law was an inspiration for the federal legislation, signed by Barack Obama, that the Republican frontrunner has pledged to have repealed.

    It’s worth noting that at least two of the aides, Jon Gruber and John McDonough, are liberal Democrats, the latter a former aide to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. The Romney campaign has downplayed Gruber’s role in crafting the Massachusetts law. These facts could either be mitigating, since it isn’t shocking a Kennedy aide would visit the Obama White House, or one could argue it revealed the liberal imprimatur on the Massachusetts health care law even during the design phase.”…..KfuS6gfxPY


    Cain/Paul on the Housing Bubble

    Of course, there is no comparison. One was absolutely right and the other was absolutely wrong. No one is perfect and this is especially true of politicians, but to be so horribly wrong?even arrogantly wrong?about one of the worst financial crises in American history does not bode well for anyone seeking this nation’s highest office.

    Would anyone hire Cain as an economic adviser? If not, then why would anyone hire him for president?

    Video: Cain/Paul Comparison on the Housing Bubble

    Once again, there is no comparison. Paul saw the crisis coming because he understood the economic factors that were creating it, particularly Federal Reserve interest rate policy. Cain did not see it coming because he still does not understand basic economic truths, hence his notion that Fed policy isn’t important or deserving of scrutiny. (Stunning comparison, must view!)…..n0EApd5wgw

  26. Rommney is unelectable, and as for Ted Kennedy, his coffin, now desecrating the ground at Arlington should be removed and reburried in a Boston sewer, a far more appropriate site than Arlington which should be reserved for those brave men who died serving our country, not some cowardly fat drunk who’s liberal stupidity did nothing but drag our country down.

    1. Eward Peterson, I agree. Moreover, I’d vote for a ham sandwich if it were a choice between it and the Barack One.

  27. Hey look! A candidate who’s bipartisan!

  28. Can any of you idealogues tell me why TARP was so bad? TARP was the consequence of years of prior terrible policies. TARP was the only option. Of all the spending that has been done in the last 20 years, TARP is probably the least offensive, because it was actually paid back into the treasury. Romney, Cain and Huntsman are right about TARP. Anyone that disagrees, I’d love to hear an articulate counter. I’m not too hopeful.

    1. The problem with TARP is that there has never been a full accounting of what the payouts and returns were. Keep in mind that AIG went belly up, and that money has never been paid back, and probably never will.

      Keep in mind also that the taxpayers took a dive on Government Motors — we only got about half of the TARP money back when the company went public.

      While the vast majority was paid back, a good amount wasn’t and there will never be an accounting of that.

      What is most offensive about TARP is that it paid off the cronies, while wiping out the bondholders. And it overrode the well-respected bankruptcy laws.

  29. Why vote for socialist lite (Romney) when you can get the real thing? (Obama).

  30. As we all know, this will come back to kick Romney in the BeHind… 🙂

  31. Why oppose Romney? Let me count the ways… This is just one more reason to beware of John McLame’s evil twin. But Romney has money and an organization they say. Do those establishment dunderheads think the Tea Party has gone away because they’re not marching in the streets? What if Palin endorses Cain in Iowa and starts making speeches with him? Romney is way far from a done deal.

  32. The reason that he was thanking Kennedy was that he had inserted language in a bill that provided the state with huge benefits in Medicaid reimbursements for trying this new program. Without the Medicaid reimbursements, the sponsored insurance would have been impossible, and complete coverage would not have happened.

    What was he supposed to do — not acknowledge the state’s Senior Senator that funneled $2 billion into the state’s coffers?

    You also have to realize at that time, that Kennedy and Romney were meeting together on a number of issues, and had gotten to know each other quite well. There should be no knock against a governor that knows how to use his relationship with a very powerful senator to the state’s advantage.

  33. Most of the anti-Romney comments have to be from liberals who clearly see Mitt as the biggest threat to beating Obama. It’s the independents that will determine who the next POTUS will be – Romney is polling very well with the Indy’s – much better than Obama. In most polls, he’s doing better than any other candidate against Obama. Romney has been running a very smart campaign. He’s done very well in the debates. I will take anyone of the republican candidates over Obama – any true conservative would – Romney’s looks to be our best shot at beating Obama.

  34. I have been a ‘religions and politics junkie’ for MANY years. The people of the United States need to understand that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are DEVOTED Mormons. Mormons took a solemn vow upon their endowment,(recently it has been removed from the order for them to fit the ‘Christian image’ better) to avenge the death of Joseph Smith. Mormons view the U.S. Constitution as almost sacred. Their intention is to ‘save’ the constitution, and turn the United States into a Mormon Theocracy. They have infiltrated the government for many years, and now is the time to try for the Presidency of the U.S.A. The United States government is the target of this vendetta. Joseph Smith was the first Mormon to run for the presidency…something very few Americans know….but his venture was nipped in the bud when he was killed in an attempted lynching. Mormons have been in a revenge mode ever since….They even made it a part of their ‘endowment ritual’ to take revenge against the United States Government. This is recorded in their historical documents. Mitt Romney took this solemn oath when he was endowed….A Mormon can’t undo this oath.It is good until the third and fourth generation of those that swear. Are you listening folks? This is serious business for this group. They have reiterated the ‘prophesy’…. since Joseph’s time….that Mormons would rescue the United States Constitution, when it is hanging by a thread. Please read the articles at: Ioni Omni Speaks. All of the writings have been well researched, and are true. Mormons can believe in any ‘god’ they want to. It doesn’t matter to me if they believe that their god lives on a planet near the Star, Kolob, and has a physical body that came to Earth in order to impregnate Mary. All of that weirdness is to be judged by The One True God. Not me. But the political implications NEED TO BE Paid Attention To.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.