In the latest Monday Message posted at LP.org and sent to the Libertarian Party email list, LP national executive director Carla Howell writes
I ran for governor against Mitt Romney in 2002 in Massachusetts. I read his every press release, read every major newspaper article about him, and followed his every move throughout his governor campaign — and in each of the four years he served as governor.
Mitt Romney IS Big Government — to the core.
Which is why I nearly fell off my chair one day when I was asked by a libertarian, “Aren’t you glad to have Mitt Romney as your governor? He’s pretty libertarian, isn’t he?”
It is critical that voters know the truth about Big Government Mitt Romney. Please forward the below column to every voter you know who would consider voting for him.
Howell goes on to provide a detailed analysis of Romney’s record as Governor. Excerpt:
The Massachusetts state budget was $22.7 billion a year when he took office in January of 2003.
When he left office four years later, it was over $25.7 billion – plus another $2.2 billion in spending that the legislature took “off budget.” (Romney never reminds us of this fact.)
The net effect of budgets proposed and signed into law by Mitt Romney? An additional $5.2 billion in state spending – and a similar increase in new taxes. Every year.
He claims to have done a good job as governor of liberal Massachusetts in light of the fact that it’s a “tough state” for poor “conservatives” like him. He infers his hands were tied by the predominantly Democratic legislature.
But when it comes to tax and spend policies, he’s not only in lockstep with the Democrats. He leads the way.
Each of the four years Romney served as governor, he started budget negotiations by proposing an increase of about $1 billion in new government spending. Before the legislature even named a budget figure.
Romney initiated massive new spending – without any prodding.
The legislature responded with a handful of line item budget increases. Romney agreed to some of them and vetoed others. The media helped him out again by making fanfare of his vetoes and portraying him as tough on spending – after he had already given away the store!
The Romney-Kennedy Alliance
But his grande finale was the worst of all: RomneyCare, Mitt Romney’s version of socialized medicine.
By his own admission, he didn’t plan his socialized medicine scheme until after the 2002 election.
During Romney’s governor campaign, he convinced voters that his Democrat rival would be worse – because she would saddle us with socialist tax-and-spend policies, he said.
But soon after he was elected, Romney started the drumbeat for socialized medicine. Three years later, he signed RomneyCare into law.
Voters of Massachusetts did not vote for RomneyCare. Mitt Romney foisted the granddaddy of Big Government expansions upon them without warning. He championed it from the beginning. Again, without any prodding from his Democrat rivals.
According to wikipedia the results of the 2002 election Howell refers to were:
R: Mitt Romney 1,091,988 votes (49.77%)
D: Shannon O’Brien 985,981 (44.94%)
Green-Rainbow: Jill Stein 76,530 (3.49%)
Libertarian: Carla Howell 23,044 (1.05%)
Independent: Barbara Johnson 15,335 (0.70%)
All others: 1,301 (0.06%)
Jill Stein is currently the leading candidate for this year’s Green Party presidential nomination, while Romney is at the moment leading the pack of Republicans in the polls and (very narrowly) in the one contest that has already taken place in Iowa.
The next one is tomorrow in New Hampshire, where polls currently have 1988 Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul in second place to Romney in the Republican contest.
Stein is also in New Hampshire, participating in Occupy events in Manchester and Keene.
45 responses so far ↓
1 George Phillies // Jan 9, 2012 at 1:36 pm
This is an absolutely superb press release. It discusses a Republican Presidential candidate, entirely in terms of his total opposition to Libertarian ideas.
2 NewFederalist // Jan 9, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Not at all like the stuff from Root! Go Carla!
3 matt cholko // Jan 9, 2012 at 8:26 pm
I fail to see the purpose of a message like this. It barely mentions the LP. It talks about a leading presidential candidate from another party, but fails to mention any LP presidential candidates – or even the fact that there ARE Libertarian Party candidates for the voters to consider.
So, what’s the point?
4 Nominate Dr. Ron Paul to be the 2012 Libertarian Party POTUS Candidate ! // Jan 9, 2012 at 10:15 pm
Matt C. if you have been busy and unable to pay attention Romney is setup to roll to the R nomination. He can very well have this wrapped up (the way the MSM would push it) before 45 states even vote! Romney MUST be stopped now, if possible or he may be the next POTUS. Ms. Howell knows Romney first hand (as I suspect Dr. Phillies does) Romney won’t be good for Ls ! Stop the avalanche and let the R race play out until the Spring anyway. The MSMedia is attempting to close this down to Obama vs Romney ! They save money if they don’t have to cover a drawn out Primary race. I have no problem with Ms. Howell warning us and asking us to share with friends and family in upcoming caucus/primary states! There’s no one perfect running this year (I decided not too) so we must hope for the best possible L as well as D, R, G, AE, CP, ……..
SEVEN {7} Reasons Why Mitt Romney’s Electability Is A Myth – http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2011/12/27/7_reasons_why_mitt_romneys_electability_is_a_myth/page/full/
MittvMitt.com: The story of two men trapped in one body – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9njHHyRI7g&feature=player_embedded
Federal Records Show Romney Campaign Bought And Paid For By Big Banks – http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2011/10/federal-records-show-romney-campaign-bought-and-paid-for-by-big-banks/
5 Thomas L. Knapp // Jan 9, 2012 at 11:13 pm
“Romney is setup to roll to the R nomination.”
Not even close.
If he was as inevitable as his supporters would like to believe, he should have been able to top 35% and keep all his competitors below 20% in Iowa. Instead, he ended up in a statistical tie there with two of his competitors above 20%.
If he doesn’t break 40% in New Hampshire tomorrow, his campaign is in trouble. And he probably won’t.
If he doesn’t win South Carolina and Florida after a poor showing in New Hampshire, he’s done.
6 matt cholko // Jan 9, 2012 at 11:17 pm
My point is that the LP’s Monday message doesn’t mention anything about the LP. If Ms. Howell wants to address the presidential race, that’s fine. But mention something about the LP candidates at least.
7 Michael H. Wilson // Jan 9, 2012 at 11:35 pm
Right on Matt! I just get tired of mentioning that point.
If the LP does not promote its own ideas then who in hell will?
8 Critique Paul, Get Death Threat // Jan 9, 2012 at 11:36 pm
Yes, we also need press releases like those. But one at a time.
9 Michael H. Wilson // Jan 10, 2012 at 12:04 am
re what Tom writes @ 5 this Talking Point Memo piece is interesting. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/01/newts_friend_antes_up.php?ref=fpblg
10 Nominate Dr. Ron Paul to be the 2012 Libertarian Party POTUS Candidate ! // Jan 10, 2012 at 12:45 am
So Scumbag Pompus Ass Leroy Newt is in the back pocket of the hardline Jews. Guess what, he’s not the only one. So Romney loses. Tell us who wins ???????
11 Thomas L. Knapp // Jan 10, 2012 at 1:35 am
MHW@9,
Adelson’s just the first. He has a longstanding relationship with Gingrich.
Once the rest of the not-yet-committed big money really smells Romney’s blood in the water, they’ll throw in as well, and Gingrich is the most likely object of their affection.
I’ve said this before, but let me be clear: Gingrich will be the GOP nominee.
Write that down, and if I’m wrong I’ll submit meekly to the subsequent mockery.
12 Libertarian Party Needs Your Support // Jan 10, 2012 at 2:45 am
“Eighty percent of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, and a majority think Obama is doing a bad job. This is scarcely surprising since 30 million Americans are without work or work part-time.” – Alexander Cockburn
https://www.lp.org/contribute
carla.howell@lp.org.
Dear Friend of Liberty,
Will you donate to help fund ballot access petition drives in New Hampshire and South Dakota?
https://www.lp.org/contribute
We’re starting these petition drives for full party access early so we can get them out of the way efficiently before the frantic peak period in 2012. Most states don’t allow us to start this early.
Battlestar Liberty: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXnKoMQoBNU&NR=1
Libertarian Party Commercial Campaign – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb4CTi1d0hQ&NR=1
13 Robert Capozzi // Jan 10, 2012 at 9:23 am
11 tk, NG, huh? That is interesting, in a disturbing way. While NG is the most articulate, he gives me a Nixon-level crazy vibe. With BHO’s money, that could be a landslide.
Might create ops for an LP ticket with RP or GJ to, at least, show…meaning 5+%.
Gingrich could lead to a GOP implosion. (Licking chops!)
14 Thomas L. Knapp // Jan 10, 2012 at 9:49 am
RC@12,
I have a soft spot for Newt because he had a lot to do with making me realize the GOP wasn’t really pro-freedom or likely to become so (a Firing Line debate on drug legalization — Buckley, ACLU head Ira Glasser, and a federal judge with the same last name as me arguing for; arguing con were Pat Schroeder, Charles Wrangel … and Newt!).
But yeah, he thinks he’s Winston Churchill. He worries me, and I don’t look forward to the prospect of a Newt presidency (which is unlikely; Obama’s looking fairly well set to win re-election).
15 Humongous Fungus // Jan 10, 2012 at 9:54 am
@12 don’t forget AE
LP 5%+….Paul yes, Johnson – I’m betting against it
16 Robert Capozzi // Jan 10, 2012 at 9:57 am
13 tk, Gingrich also increases the chances that AE will be a serious effort. So he again plays a kind positive role by being so whack…
17 Humongous Fungus // Jan 10, 2012 at 10:01 am
@6 Seems OK to me to point out the bad points and hypocrisy of Republican frontrunners.
Part of it may be to help Paul, who is polling second last time I checked. Not that the LP is even slightly likely to have any noticeable impact there.
But part of it is to counteract the longstanding practice of establishment Republicans to campaign on libertarian rhetoric on economic issues which is entirely at odds with their record.
Nothing wrong with pointing that out.
18 Brian Holtz // Jan 10, 2012 at 10:05 am
Tom @11, there are about 400 InTrade $10 Newt-gets-nominated shares available for under $0.50, so putting $200 where your mouth is now would earn you $40,000 in the next few months — if you’re right.
19 paulie // Jan 10, 2012 at 10:44 am
TLK,
Romney wins (narrow, true) in IA, NH, SC and FL will make him very hard to beat. Can you point to past examples of nominees who lost all the early states? This morning I surfed past a stat that no one has won since ’52 who did not come in 1st or 2nd in NH. I don’t think Gingrich will come in second.
Nationwide, Republicans find Romney most acceptable and most electable, so I’m guessing he’ll win the nomination and lose the election.
The only way I see him beating Obama is if AE and/or Paul send it to the House.
20 paulie // Jan 10, 2012 at 11:16 am
http://realchange.org/gingrich.htm
Much more at link above….
21 paulie // Jan 10, 2012 at 11:35 am
While you are there check out http://realchange.org/romney.htm and http://realchange.org/santorum.htm
22 paulie // Jan 10, 2012 at 12:41 pm
According to the poll of 500 likely voters surveyed over Sunday and Monday (Suffolk), Romney is at 37 percent, Paul at 18 percent, Jon Huntsman at 16 percent, Rick Santorum at 11 percent, Newt Gingrich at 9 percent.
If that holds up Gingrich will have gotten 4th in Iowa, 5th in NH, and behind Santorum in both.
23 Critique Paul, Get Death Threat // Jan 10, 2012 at 12:47 pm
SC is very much not like NH or IA. On the other hand, Romney has the support of the Republican Clown Car–so many opponents that they split the vote.
HOWEVER!
The Republicans now use proportional voting. In NH, with a 10% cutoff so it really matters if Santorum and Gingrich get 11% or 9%– If they are both above, Romney wins 5 NH delegates, the antiRomney probably wins 7, and Romney is now behind.
Curiously, I expect that at least one of Romney’s opponents is smart enough to figure this one out and tell the public at every opportunity that Romney is behind.
24 George Phillies // Jan 10, 2012 at 12:49 pm
Of course, there is a question of which way the Paul delegates will go, but the AntiRomney can skip over that and under R convention rules they can go for 102 ballots — 103 if they want to break the old record — without budging.
25 paulie // Jan 10, 2012 at 1:13 pm
cnn.com:
A CNN/TIME/ORC poll of likely South Carolina Republican voters taken after last week’s Iowa caucuses showed Romney with a commanding lead over his nearest rival.
Romney had the support of 37% of Republicans, followed by Rick Santorum at 19%, Newt Gingrich at 18% and Texas Rep. Ron Paul at 12%.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who is staking his campaign on South Carolina, is lagging far behind at 5% but remains ahead of former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman at 1%.
Perhaps more eye-popping than his wide overall lead, Romney outpaces his opponents in nearly every category and demographic. He bests his rivals among men, women, born-again Christians, tea party sympathizers, college graduates, low-income voters, city dwellers and rural Republicans.
26 Thomas L. Knapp // Jan 10, 2012 at 1:15 pm
BH@18,
Actually, I’ve been trying to find a way to fund an InTrade account for precisely that purpose. I won’t be going in $200, though . My usual bet size is the cost of a nice steak dinner for two.
27 Thomas L. Knapp // Jan 10, 2012 at 1:29 pm
Paulie @19,
“Romney wins (narrow, true) in IA, NH, SC and FL will make him very hard to beat.”
The word you’re looking for is “would,” not “will.”
He probably won’t win South Carolina. If he doesn’t break 40% in New Hampshire today, that goes from “probably won’t” to “almost certainly won’t.”
He almost certainly won’t win Florida. If he doesn’t break 40% in New Hampshire and win South Carolina, that goes from “almost certainly won’t” to “not a chance in hell.”
Yes, it would be unusual for a GOP candidate to lose both Iowa and New Hampshire and then win the nomination, but this is an unusual situation:
1) The presumptive frontrunner got embarrassed in Iowa and is about to get embarrassed in New Hampshire. He’s bleeding in the water.
2) All the sharks except one have already pretty much exhausted both themselves and their resources.
The one who hasn’t is Gingrich, whose support network just got a fresh infusion of money and who’s hunting in his own clearly marked territory, where he’s been running a competitive ground game for months.
Romney is moving from a show of weakness on what everyone assumed was his strong ground, and into territory where he was marginal from the beginning.
Gingrich has held on through territory where he was marginal, and is now moving into territory where he’s strong.
Unless you believe that the Republican Party’s establishment and rank and file are about to turn 180 degrees on foreign policy, it’s down to Romney and Gingrich … and Romney’s blown his advantages.
28 Robert Capozzi // Jan 10, 2012 at 1:29 pm
I LOVE the idea of sending it to the House. I would not be surprised if RP would like that, too.
It’s my practice to vote L or not vote. I’d certainly vote RP or GJ, as I voted BB in 08, when I rooted BHO. I would root Romney this year, but BHO were Gingrich to get the nomination. Gingrich is almost as scary as McCain. Santorum, too. Perry would be a push…
29 paulie // Jan 10, 2012 at 1:49 pm
Latest polls I’ve seen have him at 37% in both NH and SC, and his nearest rivals – different people in each state – about half that.
I don’t feel like looking it up again but I believe I saw that he is ahead in FL as well. And three wins in a row will make it hard for anyone to break in by that point. SC
has pretty much always (maybe even always) gone with either the IA or NH winner – counter-examples welcome.
He was never the presumptive frontrunner in IA, in fact until close to the end he was concentrating on NH because it was a “foregone conclusion” he would lose IA. Even in the last few days of IA polling a Paul win looked plausible, and Santorum kept it lively til 3 AM.
As for NH if he gets close to or at double what anyone else gets I would not call that embarrassing by a long shot.
Given that Santorum was pretty much ignored until about two weeks ago, and still largely ignored until the virtual tie in IA, I suspect he has barely begun to tap his.
Ron Paul is probably already tapping his and is unlikely to get any big surge of support that he is not already getting.
Huntsman, I don’t think has much going after tonight, even if he comes in second.
Perry is most likely finished after SC. If not SC, then FL.
Right now Santorum is ahead of Gingrich in both NH and SC, so while it is possible that Gingrich could coalesce the anti-Romney vote that won’t go for Paul, he’s a long way from doing it and Santorum may have the better shot at it.
Not a chance of that.
Paul’s best shot at getting some momentum going was a win in Iowa. Third place killed that, even though it was a close 3rd. Huntsman seems to have momentum in NH and may keep Paul to 3rd there too. Even if not, SC and FL don’t look good.
At best Paul can hope for 5 caucus wins later on, a big convention speech and some platform fights. Maybe a VP spot for Rand if he’s very, very lucky.
30 Thomas L. Knapp // Jan 10, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Paulie @29,
“Latest polls I’ve seen have him at 37% in both NH and SC, and his nearest rivals – different people in each state – about half that.”
Correct.
37% in New Hampshire is not a win for Romney.
He is the “made for New Hampshire” candidate — the presumptive national front-runner, a northeastern moderate who governed the state next door for four years and even has a home in-state.
He should have had 50% nailed down easily, and less than 40% will be a major embarrassment.
If he can’t break 40% in New Hampshire, his South Carolina lead evaporates.
At this point, most of Romney’s loss becomes Newt Gingrich’s game.
Huntsman and Santorum mask that effect in New Hampshire, but neither of them guys have had any long-term ground game in South Carolina to follow up with.
The four candidates with real ground presences in South Carolina before this week are Romney, Gingrich, Perry and Paul.
Perry dug himself into a hole early and hasn’t managed to get out. It seems unlikely that he’ll experience an unexpected surge at this point.
Paul has a natural ceiling imposed by the fact that his candidacy demands a complete GOP about-face on foreign policy.
Romney is losing his grip on the “maybe Romney” vote, and the “not Romney” vote has to coalesce somewhere. The logical place for it to coalesce is around Newt.
31 George Phillies // Jan 10, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Recall that by SC we may know if Romney won in Iowa. They are still doing the actual vote counting, and there are already known errors — though Santorum to his credit was willing to say that he thought they cancelled. Also, Iowa chose no delegates.
Rand Paul’s politics are sufficiently different from his father’s that that’s purely a matter of dynastic politics.
Gingrich was ahead in SC and FL until iowa, and Romney know has his little issues. One of the companies visited by Bain Vultures was in — South Carolina. A steel mill. The foundation of American national security. Gingrich gets to sell ‘Romney chose profit over protecting America’.
32 paulie // Jan 10, 2012 at 2:24 pm
More from http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/08/politics/south-carolina-primary/index.html?hpt=hp_bn3
Santorum, according to conversations with more than two dozen Republican operatives and activists here, is best positioned to emerge at the strongest Romney challenger in South Carolina.
While he and Gingrich were statistically tied in the CNN poll, Santorum’s near-victory in the Iowa caucuses seems to have awakened a sleeping army of evangelicals and anti-abortion activists who have been searching for a candidate to get behind.
Charleston County Republican Party Chairwoman Lin Bennett told CNN she stopped by Santorum’s Lowcountry headquarters in Mount Pleasant on Tuesday night, once it became clear Santorum would have a big night.
“It was so crowded, I could hardly get in the door,” said Bennett, who is neutral in the Republican race.
She attributed the fresh enthusiasm, in part, to the groundwork Santorum began laying in the state beginning in 2009.
“He has been around here doing that eyeball-to-eyeball thing, like he was doing up in Iowa, the retail politics,” Bennett said. “He has a ground game here that is ready to be set loose.”
33 Thomas L. Knapp // Jan 10, 2012 at 2:40 pm
@32,
I’m sure Perry and Huntsman already have, or soon will, plant similar stories.
Now is not the time for Santorum to “set his [ground game] loose” in South Carolina. Three months ago was. But at the time he was busy on the ground himself in Iowa and didn’t have the money to put others on the job in South Carolina. He’s trying to get a three-month job done in two weeks, and it’s not going to happen.
34 Robert Capozzi // Jan 10, 2012 at 3:57 pm
29 p: Paul’s best shot at getting some momentum going was a win in Iowa.
me: My sense was that Paul was building that momentum going into Iowa, but he was taken down largely NOT on policy, but on NewsletterGate. I’m still beside myself on that handling. Oh well….
35 paulie // Jan 10, 2012 at 4:04 pm
@34 Yep.
36 Thomas L. Knapp // Jan 10, 2012 at 5:02 pm
@34, @35,
I’m not sure that Paul was “taken down” at all.
He performed fairly close to what he’d been polling at.
If anything hurt him, it was the weather. It was decent weather. His supporters tend to be more enthusiastic and dedicated than the average caucus-goer. They’d have come out to support him in a blizzard, when a lot of the “Romney … sigh … I guess …” crowd would have stayed home.
37 Robert Capozzi // Jan 10, 2012 at 5:25 pm
tk 36, my recollection is that Paul popped into second place in the IA polls, when Gingrich got taken down. Then in the last week or so, NewsletterGate coverage smacked him, and Santorum surged into second place.
I also recall that Paul’s numbers never moved all that much, true. But his upward momentum was blunted and reversed a bit.
38 Thomas L. Knapp // Jan 10, 2012 at 5:40 pm
RC@37,
Here’s the whole Iowa poll track.
Paul had a brief bump in the week of December 18th, up from the high teens and into the 24% range, with the high outlier at 28%. Then he pretty much settled back down into 20-22% for the last two weeks leading up to the caucus.
That’s not much of a drop. It’s more like how bumps tend to go — quick steep increase, then a little bit of a dropoff.
Over the course of Iowa polling, Paul averaged 21.5%. He floated between 20 and 22% in the two weeks coming up to the caucus. And on caucus day he actually got 21.4%.
I just don’t see any Newslettergate depression (or any other kind of depression) there.
The newsletter thing got its first big airing leading up to Iowa last time around. This time around, people who wouldn’t support him because of the newsletters didn’t drop him — they never came to him in the first place.
That may be different in later states. Last time around, most GOP primary voters weren’t paying attention to him at the late stage, because McCain had it sewn up. If it still looks like a fight later in this primary season, the newsletters might be used to tear the bottom out of his campaign.
39 Robert Capozzi // Jan 10, 2012 at 5:48 pm
tk 38, thanks for finding this, but I think yer misreading the data. Look at the chart below the table, which you reference. In August, RP was mostly below 10%. He had a run from about 10% to 25% from later Nov. to Dec. Then, he hit his peak about 2 weeks before the caucuses, which was about the time NewsletterGate Part II came out.
Agreed?
40 Willis T. French // Jan 10, 2012 at 6:27 pm
With Capozzi on this one.
It was not a huge hit, but it was a hit. 5% is all it took to go from 1st to 3rd. And he was first in the polls for a while going into the caucus.
I did some calls for him and did get some people who earlier had been for him and then heard newsletter stories and were not for him any more, or who considered him and dropped him from consideration because of that. It topped any issue position as a reason given by such people. Granted I was not conducting a scientific poll, but a poll nevertheless of hundreds of real Iowa voters.
41 Thomas L. Knapp // Jan 10, 2012 at 6:57 pm
RC@39,
I’m looking at the same timeline as you, but don’t agree with your opinion as to causation.
Every bump has a drop-off, every surge comes to an end.
If that end is due to some kind of unflattering disclosure, intense attack, or public faux pas, it’s generally larger than the 2.x% dropoff from peak that Paul’s ended in.
Paul took a 2.x% drop off peak in the two weeks before the caucus. That’s margin-of-error type stuff.
Look at previous dropoffs.
Depending on which poll you want to take as dispositive, Cain’s drop in the first two weeks of November, when the sexual harassment thing hit, was at least 10% and possibly as much as 20%.
Gingrich went from 31.x% to 14.x% under withering attacks, in the two weeks between December 12th and Christmas.
That’s what a dropoff from an attack or error looks like. 2.x% is “I’m the one in 50 people who got excited about Ron Paul, then my dad sat me down and told me to stop scaring the neighbors and cover up that sticker on my car if I want him to pay for my senior trip.”
42 Thomas L. Knapp // Jan 10, 2012 at 6:59 pm
Willis @ 40,
Ah, someone who actually talked to people in Iowa instead of just running numbers through syllogisms.
If you say the newsletters suppressed Paul, I believe you.
43 Thomas L. Knapp // Jan 10, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Only 4% reporting in New Hampshire at the moment — presumably absentee ballots and such.
Romney at 37%, Paul in second at 24%. Everyone else at 15% or less (Huntsman 15, Gingrich 14,, Santorum in 5th place at 10).
If those are absentee/early votes, Paul is probably a little over-represented (activists often vote early), Santorum a little under (his “surge” and Iowa tie are recent).
David Weigel tweeted Manchester Ward 5 earlier as going for Paul over Romney. Don’t know if that was an exit poll or what (polls don’t close for another 15 minutes).
I’ve put Mitt’s “make or break” at 40%. I see some of the more famous pundits/experts put it at 37%.
44 Wayne Root: ‘A Lesson in Capitalism for Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry’ | Independent Political Report // Jan 17, 2012 at 2:48 pm
[...] from LPHQ Executive Director Carla Howell, Mitt Romney = Big Government, previously posted at IPR here. [...]
45 Marcene Montesi // Apr 26, 2012 at 1:47 am
Newt Gingrich’s ‘tude and conservative track record couldn’t save his joke of a campaign. He actually offers to help presumptive GOP nominee Mitt defeat President Obama.
Leave a Comment