[TheRealThing]

I hate to hear that Romney withdrew because it makes it more likely that the GOP elitists will be able to manipulate the nomination process to ensure that another RINO runs in 2016. The last thing that I want to see is another Bush v. Clinton campaign - unless it would be a Christie v. Clinton race.

I Republicans must run a moderate, why can't it be Ohio's John Kasich or Wisconsin's Scott Walker? Both men have outstanding records as governors and would have appeal among conservatives.I don't know anybody who is excited about a Bush III presidency and I don't think any amount of campaign cash will light a fire under the base if Bush gets the nomination.

I agree wholeheartedly. But speaking of the record, both Walker and Romney's were stellar. Both walked into a situation characterized by overwhelming fiscal problems to get resolved, left behind by governors too weak willed to make choices.

The picture we are left with in comparing the Walker/Romney examples, with that of Obama goes as follows. Voters faced the same choice as the one you cited above in 2012. And yet as I have mentioned, Romney's campaign manager was so terrified of the RomneyCare deal that he wouldn't call out the many things Romney did so well in Massachusetts. Therefore, when all the lies started to swirl, instead of using the record to call Dems out for their innuendo, there was silence from the Romney camp. So, if Jeb really did sign up Matt Rhoades to lead his campaign, we'll just have to see.

But, in returning to the choice mentioned above. We have the excellent examples of fiscal management demonstrated by the governors, who now enjoy state surpluses. And then there is the 20 plus trillion in debt example of Obama. What else could a campaign ask for, unless it would be a disastrous foreign policy record? And after all, is that not what governing is all about? Managing the people's money instead of handing it out in an effort to appease the handout crowd with the side effect of seizing political power? I really don't know where some of these political hacks get their ideas. But take the movement among the left where universal health care is concerned.

The love affair with that notion has been ongoing for some time now, as the first major push for passage occurred during the Clinton era using first lady Hillary at the point. They couldn't make it work back then on purely financial grounds but, the following 20 years of rationalizations have mitigated the laws of mathematics. So much so that suddenly, in 2009, universal health care was a financial slam dunk. Regular folks were to get an average of 2500 dollars a year back in savings, resultant of the glorious efficiency of the newly reformed health care industry. In fact, the whole thing would not cost the American tax payer "one dime."

Not one dime huh? Here is the latest revelation regarding the cost of ObamaCare to the TAXPAYER; "A bombshell report from the Congressional Budget Office reveals that it will cost the federal government $50,000 for every person who gets health insurance under Obamacare law.
According to the Daily Mail.com, the astounding figure was "buried" in a 15-page section of the nonpartisan organization's budget forecast for the next 10 years."

Read http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/CBO-rep...z3QPvk4hsu

LOL, they say that truth is stranger than fiction. Not so with this administration, the fiction rules, and from a much stranger perspective. Let's hope that Republicans will learn the art of speaking plainly this time around. :biggrin: