Mitt Romney for President

Posted:
in PoliticalOutsider edited January 2014
For some time now I've been putting disclaimers in my posts about not endorsing a given candidate despite my defense of him/her on given issue or attack. However, I've been certain for a month or so on my choice: Mitt Romney.



Why I Support Romney



Mitt Romney has the business and political experience, personality, and strength of character to do the job. He is a former governor and corporate executive. He has real world experience in creating jobs and making tough decisions as an executive.



Romney's economic proposals are conservative, but not radical. He proposes regulatory reform and tax reform for business and the middle class, which are the backbone of the economy. He will get tough on China with their cold trade war. He will represent America around the world as the exceptional nation it is. America will lead under Romney...we will not merely present ourselves as "part of the pack." Romney will have a clear an consistent foreign policy. He will not bow before foreign leaders and apologize for America on foreign soil. He will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, and will not hang Israel out to dry. He will trust the judgement of the military when it comes to adjusting troop levels and reassessing operations.



He seeks to reduce the federal government with caps on government spending relative to GDP. As governor, he eliminated a projected $3 billion deficit. He opposes Obamacare and will direct the secretary of HHS to offer waivers to all 50 states his first day in office. As one of the only governors in the nation to enact a real healthcare plan in his state, he understands the issue better than the other candidates, and much better than President Obama. Romney also understands the role of the federal government relative to the roles of the states, and the people. He is positive, yet aggressive. He is an excellent debater and speaker.



From a personal standpoint, he's a man of faith who has been faithful to his wife for over 40 years.

He's not the Washington insider like Gingrich, nor does he come off as mean-spirited and condescending as Gingrich can at times. He's more realistic than Ron Paul, more substantive than Perry, not as rightwing as Bachman and Santorum, has a better grasp of issues than Cain, and not milktoast like Hunstman. He's consistently been at the top of the polls that matter. That's because of one reason: He's been the best choice since day 1.



This is not say I agree with Romney on everything. I oppose a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, for example. Fortunately, I don't think that has much chance of happening. I am not as stringently-pro life as he is. I don't view him as a flip flopper, but he will have to continue to explain the differences in his healthcare plan and his change of position on abortion (both of which I think he's done more than sufficiently, but nevertheless it will be an issue). I also would prefer a more aggressive economic plan, and one to modernize and consolidate our troop deployments.



I would be interested to read your honest thoughts and opinions about Romney as compared to the other candidates and President Obama.



SDW
«13456735

Comments

  • floorjackfloorjack Posts: 2,726member
    At least he had to make a payroll once in his life. Where as Obama bummed around Hyde Park, chilled in Springfield and peacocked in DC before running for president.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,323member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post


    At least he had to make a payroll once in his life. Where as Obama bummed around Hyde Park, chilled in Springfield and peacocked in DC before running for president.



    Watching the media and liberal elite cover for Obama and go after Romney for his healthcare plan and changing one of his positions will be entertaining. Let's watch them defend the indefensible.
  • mumbo jumbomumbo jumbo Posts: 1,633member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Watching the media and liberal elite cover for Obama and go after Romney for his healthcare plan and changing one of his positions will be entertaining. Let's watch them defend the indefensible.



    No.



    Watching people like you who went fucking apeshit when Obama's legislation passed, now learning to love Romney even though he supports death panels in his anti-American, communist health care reforms: that is going to be fascinating.
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    Conservative elite.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Mitt Romney represents the establishment Republican view: grow government overseas, pretend to reign it in domestically.



    The end result is the same: more government.



    No, thanks.
  • sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    The bottom line: Regardless of the politics, is mainstream America open-minded enough to vote for a man who belongs to a cult in which polygamy is practiced? Should Romney's adherence to Mormonism be an issue? Should *any* candidate's religious/spiritual leanings, or lack of .. a personal/private matter.. be an issue for discussion?



    Like the rest of the big money candidates, Romney has baggage, way more than enough to destroy the political career of any liberal.



    And he's a full fledged member of the Chicken Hawk Hall of Shame.



    I think I'll pass on Mitt Romney, elitist.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Point of clarification: Those practicing polygamy are not members of the same church Romney is a member of. Romney's church excommunicates anyone found to be practicing polygamy.



    That said, your confusion on the subject is probably shared by most people and whether or not it should be an issue for discussion, it is.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,298member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    For some time now I've been putting disclaimers in my posts about not endorsing a given candidate despite my defense of him/her on given issue or attack. However, I've been certain for a month or so on my choice: Mitt Romney.



    I'm glad to see these threads about the candidates come up. It's almost as much fun as watching various leftist board members lose their minds.



    Quote:

    Why I Support Romney



    Mitt Romney has the business and political experience, personality, and strength of character to do the job. He is a former governor and corporate executive. He has real world experience in creating jobs and making tough decisions as an executive.



    I think the concern is that this experience shows a clear fear of making the big decisions and the desire to steer clear of controversy reflects someone who would make those big decisions not so big.



    Quote:

    Romney's economic proposals are conservative, but not radical. He proposes regulatory reform and tax reform for business and the middle class, which are the backbone of the economy. He will get tough on China with their cold trade war. He will represent America around the world as the exceptional nation it is. America will lead under Romney...we will not merely present ourselves as "part of the pack." Romney will have a clear an consistent foreign policy. He will not bow before foreign leaders and apologize for America on foreign soil. He will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, and will not hang Israel out to dry. He will trust the judgement of the military when it comes to adjusting troop levels and reassessing operations.



    I would endorse all of these. They are a very good platform.





    Quote:

    He seeks to reduce the federal government with caps on government spending relative to GDP. As governor, he eliminated a projected $3 billion deficit. He opposes Obamacare and will direct the secretary of HHS to offer waivers to all 50 states his first day in office. As one of the only governors in the nation to enact a real healthcare plan in his state, he understands the issue better than the other candidates, and much better than President Obama. Romney also understands the role of the federal government relative to the roles of the states, and the people. He is positive, yet aggressive. He is an excellent debater and speaker.



    I honestly don't even begrudge him the health care issue. We Republicans complain that the states ought to be laboratories running different solutions to problems that we can then apply on a grander scale. He was a Republican running within a very liberal state that wanted health care and undertook it. If the results are too expensive or disasterous that is their right to undertake and it is appropriate within the state role versus the federal role.



    Quote:

    From a personal standpoint, he's a man of faith who has been faithful to his wife for over 40 years.



    Well I've personally had dozens of Mormon friends and while some Christian folks get weird about the religious differences (there are indeed many) that doesn't bother me as they are profoundly good people. As for the faithful, we have to see who David Axelrod dredges up in Illinois before we can affirm that completely.



    Quote:

    He's not the Washington insider like Gingrich, nor does he come off as mean-spirited and condescending as Gingrich can at times. He's more realistic than Ron Paul, more substantive than Perry, not as rightwing as Bachman and Santorum, has a better grasp of issues than Cain, and not milktoast like Hunstman. He's consistently been at the top of the polls that matter. That's because of one reason: He's been the best choice since day 1.



    I honestly think that in the past Gingrich didn't understand how the media works, he was a bit too self-important and things just came out wrong. Now I think he understands the echo chamber and will say certain things playing to the biases of the media so that their agenda will be exposed when they impode on themselves with partisan fury. My complaint with Romney here is that he just appears to be avoiding the media. I don't that as partisan and adversarial as this media is, that it can be avoided or ignored. That type of approach is really what I really think haunts us from 2008 with McCain and how Palin instead of a huge strength sort of became a neutral factor. McCain simply was too leery of the media and thus the media defined her in the absence. Perry does feel like too much of an intellectual lightweight for what we need right now. He also for better or worse evokes too much of Bush too soon. Huntsman doesn't even register. He is there because of the media. Santorum and Bachman are just side shows and honestly I think Bachman got in to try for VP which wouldn't be impossible at all too imagine.



    Quote:

    This is not say I agree with Romney on everything. I oppose a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, for example. Fortunately, I don't think that has much chance of happening. I am not as stringently-pro life as he is. I don't view him as a flip flopper, but he will have to continue to explain the differences in his healthcare plan and his change of position on abortion (both of which I think he's done more than sufficiently, but nevertheless it will be an issue). I also would prefer a more aggressive economic plan, and one to modernize and consolidate our troop deployments.



    I honestly don't think he even has to spend much time dealing with these matters except to wonks like us. The majority of the country cares about the economy, jobs and not spending ourselves into oblivion to fix the first two. Anyone who can address that credibly and who won't be destroyed by the partisan media can probably beat Obama at this stage. Obama is incredibly damaged as a candidate.



    Quote:

    I would be interested to read your honest thoughts and opinions about Romney as compared to the other candidates and President Obama.



    I think Romney suffers a bit from what happened to Bush or what the Republicans have had happen to them from Rockefeller Republicans in general. The North-East tends to yield these Republicans like both of the Bush presidents who seem to fail in core conservative issues when push comes to shove. Bush I failed on raising taxes and on nominating David Souter after the bruising Thomas confirmation. Bush II failed on keeping the response to 9/11 appropriate, keeping spending under control. To the credit of both of them, they've done fairly well for the Supreme Court in my opinion.



    So the problen with Romney is not policy because most people can alter prior or devise a great policy to run on for a national campaign. The real issue comes down to what someone is going to do in the midst of a fight. Romney really strikes me as someone who seeks to avoid the confrontation at almost all cost and as someone who will cede several small points to avoid even having to address the large one. This is the sort of thing we got from McCain, from Dole when he ran. They can adopt the right plan (Dole famously adopted a huge tax cut and picked Kemp as his VP to shore up his conservative cred) but all this side of the party always comes across as someone who will avoid the big battle and toss out the consensus spin to keep their backside safe.



    This is why the Tea Party/Paleocon side of the party has no passion for Romney and why they had no passion for McCain until he grabbed Palin. They want someone who understands the battleground and is willing to fight. They don't want someone to fight stupidly or fight just to pick a fight, but someone who can engage and move the bar forward with regard to the public and what needs to be done.
  • brbr Posts: 8,313member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    Point of clarification: Those practicing polygamy are not members of the same church Romney is a member of. Romney's church excommunicates anyone found to be practicing polygamy.



    That said, your confusion on the subject is probably shared by most people and whether or not it should be an issue for discussion, it is.



    There's nothing wrong with polygamy so I wouldn't hold it against him either way. Funny how the convicted conman Joseph Smith's original words are no longer good enough for the current church, though.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,323member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post


    No.



    Watching people like you who went fucking apeshit when Obama's legislation passed, now learning to love Romney even though he supports death panels in his anti-American, communist health care reforms: that is going to be fascinating.



    So you are saying that Romney's plan is the same as Obamacare? Well, that's not correct. And he's never favored a federal implementation of that plan. I oppose mandates, but they are more palatable (and legal) at the state level. It's just an area of disagreement I have. Since he's not proposing something similar nationally, I'm fine with it.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    The bottom line: Regardless of the politics, is mainstream America open-minded enough to vote for a man who belongs to a cult in which polygamy is practiced? Should Romney's adherence to Mormonism be an issue? Should *any* candidate's religious/spiritual leanings, or lack of .. a personal/private matter.. be an issue for discussion?



    Like the rest of the big money candidates, Romney has baggage, way more than enough to destroy the political career of any liberal.



    And he's a full fledged member of the Chicken Hawk Hall of Shame.



    I think I'll pass on Mitt Romney, elitist.



    Not surprising those are your thoughts. Though as it was pointed out, polygamy is not a part of mainstream Mormonism at all. As for religion, I would say "no" for the most part. There may be some exceptions. For example, electing a Muslim or Jewish President would have clear foreign policy and foreign relations consequences. But should their beliefs be an issue? Not for any mainstream religion I can think of.



    As for "baggage" that list and site are a joke. He's got no baggage to speak of. Many of those claims are half truths, totally inaccurate, or the result of a biased perspective. For example, he never hired illegals. He had a lawn company that hired them without his knowledge. He found out and told them to fix it, which they said they did. A year later, he found out that more illegals were employed. He then fired the company. Just a quick example of something that is not even close to how it seems from the biased perspective. The other items are just questionable statements in the form of exaggerations, misstatements, etc. Every person in public life has some of those.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    I'm glad to see these threads about the candidates come up. It's almost as much fun as watching various leftist board members lose their minds.







    I think the concern is that this experience shows a clear fear of making the big decisions and the desire to steer clear of controversy reflects someone who would make those big decisions not so big.



    I don't know about that. Can you elaborate? I think he doesn't involve himself because we wishes to appear above all of the echo chamber nonsense.



    Quote:







    I would endorse all of these. They are a very good platform.









    I honestly don't even begrudge him the health care issue. We Republicans complain that the states ought to be laboratories running different solutions to problems that we can then apply on a grander scale. He was a Republican running within a very liberal state that wanted health care and undertook it. If the results are too expensive or disasterous that is their right to undertake and it is appropriate within the state role versus the federal role.



    I agree. I don't like the solution, but given that he was a GOP governor in one of the bluest states, I can understand it. It's really not relevant anyway. He has stated repeatedly that he doesn't favor such an approach nationally (no matter what the media tries to make his words mean) and will work aggressively to neuter and then repeal Obamacare.



    Quote:



    Well I've personally had dozens of Mormon friends and while some Christian folks get weird about the religious differences (there are indeed many) that doesn't bother me as they are profoundly good people. As for the faithful, we have to see who David Axelrod dredges up in Illinois before we can affirm that completely.



    My thoughts as well. I don't know many Mormon's personally but those I've encountered and seen all seem to be wonderful, decent people. Except for Andy Reid of the Eagles. I could do without him



    Quote:



    I honestly think that in the past Gingrich didn't understand how the media works, he was a bit too self-important and things just came out wrong. Now I think he understands the echo chamber and will say certain things playing to the biases of the media so that their agenda will be exposed when they impode on themselves with partisan fury. My complaint with Romney here is that he just appears to be avoiding the media.



    Sorry to deconstruct this part, but...yes, I think you might be right about Gingrich...but he still tends to have those arrogant, angry and condescending moments. On occasion they are fun, but after awhile one starts to wonder how often he's like that. As for Romney, I don't think he's avoiding anything. It's the media making a horse race out of it. Gingrich is not going to win the nomination, and most people know it. But that wouldn't be any fun for the cable news folks, would it?



    Quote:





    I don't that as partisan and adversarial as this media is, that it can be avoided or ignored. That type of approach is really what I really think haunts us from 2008 with McCain and how Palin instead of a huge strength sort of became a neutral factor. McCain simply was too leery of the media and thus the media defined her in the absence. Perry does feel like too much of an intellectual lightweight for what we need right now. He also for better or worse evokes too much of Bush too soon. Huntsman doesn't even register. He is there because of the media. Santorum and Bachman are just side shows and honestly I think Bachman got in to try for VP which wouldn't be impossible at all too imagine.



    It will be Rubio, I think. Agreed on the other points.



    Quote:



    I honestly don't think he even has to spend much time dealing with these matters except to wonks like us. The majority of the country cares about the economy, jobs and not spending ourselves into oblivion to fix the first two. Anyone who can address that credibly and who won't be destroyed by the partisan media can probably beat Obama at this stage. Obama is incredibly damaged as a candidate.



    True...it's more of a primary issue. I also think that Romney's more upbeat tone and speaking ability/debating ability will be hard for Obama to overcome.



    Quote:







    I think Romney suffers a bit from what happened to Bush or what the Republicans have had happen to them from Rockefeller Republicans in general. The North-East tends to yield these Republicans like both of the Bush presidents who seem to fail in core conservative issues when push comes to shove. Bush I failed on raising taxes and on nominating David Souter after the bruising Thomas confirmation. Bush II failed on keeping the response to 9/11 appropriate, keeping spending under control. To the credit of both of them, they've done fairly well for the Supreme Court in my opinion.



    So the problen with Romney is not policy because most people can alter prior or devise a great policy to run on for a national campaign. The real issue comes down to what someone is going to do in the midst of a fight. Romney really strikes me as someone who seeks to avoid the confrontation at almost all cost and as someone who will cede several small points to avoid even having to address the large one. This is the sort of thing we got from McCain, from Dole when he ran. They can adopt the right plan (Dole famously adopted a huge tax cut and picked Kemp as his VP to shore up his conservative cred) but all this side of the party always comes across as someone who will avoid the big battle and toss out the consensus spin to keep their backside safe.



    This is why the Tea Party/Paleocon side of the party has no passion for Romney and why they had no passion for McCain until he grabbed Palin. They want someone who understands the battleground and is willing to fight. They don't want someone to fight stupidly or fight just to pick a fight, but someone who can engage and move the bar forward with regard to the public and what needs to be done.



    I used to think that about Romney as well, but his debate performance convinces me otherwise. He was aggressive without being mean. He was negative as needed, but not unfair. After watching him in the first few debates, I was convinced he would be the nominee. Romney has some flaws, but he's also got some real strengths and intangibles (for example, he carries himself like a President, he speaks like a President, he even has that sort of Reagan-esque tone of voice to an extent). I don't discount these in elections, particularly this one. And the President must do more than govern...he must represent. I think he does that well. By contrast, I think Obama really fails in these areas, almost as much as he does on policy. He's simply not likable anymore.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,323member
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...blican_primary



    Romney still has a commanding lead in NH, and that's the one that matters.
  • brbr Posts: 8,313member
    It's cool to see that you are on board with a self-described progressive.



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=dMcjJEXt9To
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,323member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    It's cool to see that you are on board with a self-described progressive.



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=dMcjJEXt9To



    Out of context and intellectually dishonest on your part.
  • brbr Posts: 8,313member
    He was running for Governor of Massachusetts at that point so he needed to pander to liberals. Now he's pandering to the right. He's a serial panderer.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,298member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    He was running for Governor of Massachusetts at that point so he needed to pander to liberals. Now he's pandering to the right. He's a serial panderer.



    I'm with BR on this one. Remember when BR posted that thread about how Obama won a peace prize before starting a bunch of wars and then killing loads of civilians with drones?



    That was a great thread right!
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,323member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    I'm with BR on this one. Remember when BR posted that thread about how Obama won a peace prize before starting a bunch of wars and then killing loads of civilians with drones?



    That was a great thread right!



    Yeah, it went on for pages too. Ah, the memories.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,323member
    Interesting, our lefty members have very little to say about Romney other than trying to paint him as a progressive.



    That smell you notice is lefty fear.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,298member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Interesting, our lefty members have very little to say about Romney other than trying to paint him as a progressive.



    That smell you notice is lefty fear.



    I think there are serious reservations people have with the man. It's going to be hard to argue that you are a great business leader when your job largely reflected the problems most people have with Wall St. which is manipulation of money and contracts rather than growing and making something. This doesn't make him a terrible person, I'm simply saying it limits the appeal of his narrative.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,323member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    I think there are serious reservations people have with the man. It's going to be hard to argue that you are a great business leader when your job largely reflected the problems most people have with Wall St. which is manipulation of money and contracts rather than growing and making something. This doesn't make him a terrible person, I'm simply saying it limits the appeal of his narrative.



    I really don't think it does, because I don't think there is anywhere near the anti-Wall Street sentiment that is claimed. And the issue is not how he compares to the other candidates, but how he compares to Obama. In this sense his Wall Street credentials can be an asset.



    My point, however, was that even folks like BR and Mumbo don't really have anything to slam him on. We've been through the healthcare thing, been through the abortion position thing, etc. All that's left is the vague narrative that he has "no core" and "changes positions with the wind," neither of which is really supported by the facts.
  • fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    I have been away for far too long. I too support Romney. I have enjoyed reading his book and it is clear to me that what really makes him stand out against The President is his view of America. I find Romney to have the right view of America and this is step one in rolling back some of the many failings of President Obama. Our country faces many challenges and I believe Romney will step up and lead our nation through the process of dealing with some of these challenges. Just last night on the republican debate I appreciated how he brought up the "balance sheet" of our nation and the 62 trillion in unfunded liabilities yet remaining outstanding as we move forward in time in addition to the 15 trillion in national debt. I think he would make for a great president despite some of his perceived shortcomings as one who panders to different people differently.



    I think Romney would be a vast improvement over our current president.



    Fellows
Sign In or Register to comment.