or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Mitt Romney for President
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mitt Romney for President

post #1 of 693
Thread Starter 
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
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 693
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.
post #3 of 693
Thread Starter 
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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #4 of 693
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.
post #5 of 693
Conservative elite.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #6 of 693
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.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #7 of 693
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.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #8 of 693
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.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #9 of 693
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.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #10 of 693
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.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #11 of 693
Thread Starter 
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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #12 of 693
Thread Starter 
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...blican_primary

Romney still has a commanding lead in NH, and that's the one that matters.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #13 of 693
It's cool to see that you are on board with a self-described progressive.

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

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #14 of 693
Thread Starter 
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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #15 of 693
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.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #16 of 693
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!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #17 of 693
Thread Starter 
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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #18 of 693
Thread Starter 
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 can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #19 of 693
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.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #20 of 693
Thread Starter 
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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #21 of 693
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
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #22 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.

It doesn't have to be anti-Wall Street. It's simply hard to declare you know how to get America working again when your business experience didn't involve building or making anything and instead was about manipulating or ripping apart something. It is the same sort of claim as when Newt hit him about not being a career politician because he hadn't gotten elected. It is truth and concisely makes the point. Even Cain could have easily claimed to have done a lot more business-wise than Romney.

He does compare favorably to Obama, but again, Obama is smart enough to have a narrative to counter this and it plays favorably. Wall St. doesn't get America working, Main Street does and guy who throws down $10,000 bets doesn't know what Main Street needs. I'm not saying that at all sound reasoning, but it is the type of argument Obama could put forward.

Quote:
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.

Leadership isn't a readily quantifiable thing in terms of just the facts. A small anecdote to illustrate this, I played football all through high school. Every year we had guys who looked like the football type come and try out. They were big, strong, made crazy eyes to look all psyched up. There was one problem. You could tell they didn't like getting hit. You could see it really quickly. It wasn't a factual thing because they had the characteristics that you won't put into a football play with regard to size, build and showing up and acting the part. It's just when it came time to put helmet on helmet or the choice was take punishment or give it, they just..........well I don't know that's sort of the point. Something didn't allow them to push through. You can't have discomfort with controlled aggression an taking and giving some punishment if you want to play football. Whatever it is that makes someone want to do that, they have to want it and follow through on it.

Romney has calculated what it takes to be president. He has checked all the right boxes. However when I look to see if he wants to give and take some hits, I don't see that desire there. It seems like he bypasses that time and time again. This is why people don't see that core in him or sense he is willing to go to the mat on conservative issues. It really doesn't matter if you have a position or not. The reflection of if you really have it is what you will absorb and risk for it since anyone can claim or check a box.

I mean Romney's the front runner here and is letting a guy like Gingrich, hell several guys like Gingrich get into and even take the nomination away from him. Where's the aggression? Where is the willingness to take what is his and what he wants? I know that sounds arrogant but darn it, you've got to have a little if you want to rule the entire free world. It takes some arrogance to say I ought to do what millions of others cannot do.

I don't see that in him. It's clear lots of people don't see that in him. He checks the boxes well enough but clearly the reason Newt has even had a chance is because they see a very flawed man but he isn't afraid to take and give hits. Hell (and to this I can really relate) he seems to like the hits. Everything I see and read about Newt shows he relishes the opportunity to go take on Obama and try to win. Romney seems always to be limiting access, limiting his own opportunities like he hopes to run out the clock. That doesn't fly with me.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #23 of 693
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.

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

Romney is a flip floper and cares only about big business and not the average joe.He changes position so often like we change our briefs everyday.He is a double talker and cannot be trusted. Obama is no bargain either.
post #24 of 693
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Romney is a flip floper and cares only about big business and not the average joe.He changes position so often like we change our briefs everyday.He is a double talker and cannot be trusted. Obama is no bargain either.

What an in-depth, balanced analysis. Goodbye.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #25 of 693
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It doesn't have to be anti-Wall Street. It's simply hard to declare you know how to get America working again when your business experience didn't involve building or making anything and instead was about manipulating or ripping apart something. It is the same sort of claim as when Newt hit him about not being a career politician because he hadn't gotten elected. It is truth and concisely makes the point. Even Cain could have easily claimed to have done a lot more business-wise than Romney.

He does compare favorably to Obama, but again, Obama is smart enough to have a narrative to counter this and it plays favorably. Wall St. doesn't get America working, Main Street does and guy who throws down $10,000 bets doesn't know what Main Street needs. I'm not saying that at all sound reasoning, but it is the type of argument Obama could put forward.

Obama cannot compare to Romney in terms of business experience either way. Romney was a CEO, regardless of whether he made widgets or investments. Obama's only hope is to paint him as a Wall Street guy. I don't the bet thing will stick. For one thing, it's early and doesn't seem to have done any damage thus far.

Quote:


Leadership isn't a readily quantifiable thing in terms of just the facts. A small anecdote to illustrate this, I played football all through high school. Every year we had guys who looked like the football type come and try out. They were big, strong, made crazy eyes to look all psyched up. There was one problem. You could tell they didn't like getting hit. You could see it really quickly. It wasn't a factual thing because they had the characteristics that you won't put into a football play with regard to size, build and showing up and acting the part. It's just when it came time to put helmet on helmet or the choice was take punishment or give it, they just..........well I don't know that's sort of the point. Something didn't allow them to push through. You can't have discomfort with controlled aggression an taking and giving some punishment if you want to play football. Whatever it is that makes someone want to do that, they have to want it and follow through on it.

Romney has calculated what it takes to be president. He has checked all the right boxes. However when I look to see if he wants to give and take some hits, I don't see that desire there. It seems like he bypasses that time and time again. This is why people don't see that core in him or sense he is willing to go to the mat on conservative issues. It really doesn't matter if you have a position or not. The reflection of if you really have it is what you will absorb and risk for it since anyone can claim or check a box.

I mean Romney's the front runner here and is letting a guy like Gingrich, hell several guys like Gingrich get into and even take the nomination away from him. Where's the aggression? Where is the willingness to take what is his and what he wants? I know that sounds arrogant but darn it, you've got to have a little if you want to rule the entire free world. It takes some arrogance to say I ought to do what millions of others cannot do.

I don't see that in him. It's clear lots of people don't see that in him. He checks the boxes well enough but clearly the reason Newt has even had a chance is because they see a very flawed man but he isn't afraid to take and give hits. Hell (and to this I can really relate) he seems to like the hits. Everything I see and read about Newt shows he relishes the opportunity to go take on Obama and try to win. Romney seems always to be limiting access, limiting his own opportunities like he hopes to run out the clock. That doesn't fly with me.

I don't agree with that at all. He's been aggressive, focused and positive overall. However, he's also gone after people. He did so with Perry and Cain in the debates, and has gone after Gingrich in ads. The latest debate was different. Romney saw no advantage in being aggressive. In fact, Newt was already sliding before the debate. Better to let the soon to be also-rans go kamikaze on Newt than drive your own negatives up on national TV. He'll accomplish the same thing in advertising and campaigning, where going negative is not as perilous to one's own negatives. Part of what I think will win Romney the nomination and election is his steadiness. His campaign has been methodical and effective. And he's showed more passion and wit in debates than he did in the past. So yeah...I don't agree.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #26 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post



I don't agree with that at all. He's been aggressive, focused and positive overall. However, he's also gone after people. He did so with Perry and Cain in the debates, and has gone after Gingrich in ads. The latest debate was different. Romney saw no advantage in being aggressive. In fact, Newt was already sliding before the debate. Better to let the soon to be also-rans go kamikaze on Newt than drive your own negatives up on national TV. He'll accomplish the same thing in advertising and campaigning, where going negative is not as perilous to one's own negatives. Part of what I think will win Romney the nomination and election is his steadiness. His campaign has been methodical and effective. And he's showed more passion and wit in debates than he did in the past. So yeah...I don't agree.

I am with SDW. I think you have expressed exactly my views here.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #27 of 693
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

I am with SDW. I think you have expressed exactly my views here.

Fellows

Great to see you, Fellows. Hope all is well.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #28 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Obama cannot compare to Romney in terms of business experience either way. Romney was a CEO, regardless of whether he made widgets or investments. Obama's only hope is to paint him as a Wall Street guy.

Painting him as a Wall Street guy when you have the crazy inability to be logically consistent and will stir up "occupy" envy while receiving plenty of big donor bucks is very easy. It's party of Romney's personal narrative and it's clear Obama never relies on reality or actions but rather on personal narratives and discussion of them. Romney will fall right into that pattern/problem just like McCain did. This is why having a guy who can continually articulate the big plan is part of the solution for electing a Republican president. I'd say one of the reasons Gingrich even had problems in the mid-90's is because Clinton (who in my opinion is still one of the best pure politicians I've ever seen) had both narrative and policy down pat. Gingrich with his army brat, history professor and GOPAC/grow the conservative majority narrative has a decent narrative as well but it isn't something he cares to dwell on. He'd much rather move on to the future and the plan to get there. Romney in that regard just responds to what he is fed question wise and recites his answers.

This is again, why Gingrich is more media savvy in my opinion. The media LOVES digging into and defining via intent or past actions. Clinton was the man from Hope. Obama was the historical figure with hope and change. All the Republicans are idiots and hateful based off any completely irrelevant point they care to seek out or repeat endlessly.

Romney's narrative is Wall Street. It is the 1%. It is born into and a life of privilege. It is a man who is out of touch be it a $10,000 bet or whatever else they care to hang their attacks on. It is that he is the man who will never understand Main Street or the troubles of regular people because he has never been a regular person for even one day in his life. When asked about a time when he had to basically prioritize due to hard time or limited finances, he couldn't even address the question. The media is slobbering waiting for that. Nothing helps Obama make his care for class warfare better than a guy who comes from family money and inherited wealth.

Quote:
I don't the bet thing will stick. For one thing, it's early and doesn't seem to have done any damage thus far.

Why would it do any damage so far? The media had their knee jerk reflex but have since let it go for now since no Republican candidate will make a big deal about it. However ask youself how many times they've repeated Gingrich's criticism of Romney's Wall Street background. Once Obama decides to make an issue of it (along with other class based issues) they will repeat it endlessly.

Quote:
I don't agree with that at all. He's been aggressive, focused and positive overall. However, he's also gone after people. He did so with Perry and Cain in the debates, and has gone after Gingrich in ads.

First his attempt to go after Perry ended in a giant gaffe. I mean when you can't easily get past Perry in a debate that says something bad right there by itself. (Although to his credit Perry has gotten much, much better.) Going after someone in ads isn't the same. Obama with his compliant media basically gets hundreds of hours a day in free ads. The only way to counter this will be head to head encounters where the endlessly repeated media narrative is confronted by reality. This is why people are very excited about Gingrich declaring he will force debates with Obama and will follow him around confronting and addressing whatever Obama addresses wherever he addresses it. Either Romney won't be able to fund raise on the same and thus his attacks on ads won't be on the same level as Obama's level of attacks (much like Clinton/Dole 96) or he will have to self finance to close the gap which plays right into the rich, above the norm, Wall Street vs. Main Street narrative that the media can repeat endlessly.

Quote:
The latest debate was different. Romney saw no advantage in being aggressive. In fact, Newt was already sliding before the debate.

There is always an advantage to being aggressive when you are trying to win an office. He doesn't have to be callous or caustic but lack of aggression is a problem. I mean the guys support has topped out at 25% and he's waiting for something to come to him? That right there is the problem. Newt's support like all polls oscillates a bit. This is true of all upper tier candidates and certainly Romney's has gone up and down that 3% based off the which polls are adding to the average when.
Quote:
Better to let the soon to be also-rans go kamikaze on Newt than drive your own negatives up on national TV. He'll accomplish the same thing in advertising and campaigning, where going negative is not as perilous to one's own negatives. Part of what I think will win Romney the nomination and election is his steadiness. His campaign has been methodical and effective. And he's showed more passion and wit in debates than he did in the past. So yeah...I don't agree.

Romney got through the debate and that is about all he did. Gingrich has the best moment in the debate in my opinion here at 1:13 starting with painting a picture. He let's the media in on their own joke about what they've been calling him or repeating about him, (they smile at how smart they must feel) and then addresses it in a funny way. He then paints a great narrative about how our own decisions are enabling our enemies and once enabled, we have to go have a interventionist foreign policy to help address our refusal to take care of energy needs at home. This plays so much better than Paul prattling on about how there's basically no scenario under which he would deal with Iran and people who would must hate Muslims. Romney never gave an answer to a single question that had such clarity, such lucidity and got such an enthusiastic audience reaction. Also Gingrich has at least one of these per debate when having to share the stage with several people. In a one on one, there likely would be three to four of these per debate.

People get it once Newt explains it. That is what moves the needle. You could see right there by linking Iran having war exercises in a major trade canal and how Canada is going to send business to China how all our enemies or at minimum competitors are made stronger, how we are made weaker and how the burden is then double for us all due to bad policy. He goes on to note how Welfare Reform had to be passed three times and basically signed over the objection of Clinton but the Congress pressed it because it was the right thing to do.

One final bit is notice how Gingrich smartly cites several pieces of legislation already being worked on, who is moving them and what they include in each debate. This is the guy who will move that needle so quickly with regard to legislation going through Congress. The reality is that the Federal Government is tremendously slow in how it addresses problems. The fiscal year that the first president (and this was true of Obama as well) has to operate under is completed before he even comes into office. Gingrich showing such knowledge of pending legislation means he can know what is already in the pipeline and what can be quickly modified or perhaps just passed wholesale and move up those changes that much more quickly. Imagine instead of a president getting elected, putting together their team, putting together a giant omnibus bill, sending it to Congress with sponsors and spending several months getting it passed and signed if instead he walks in day one and declares 50% of what he wants is already 90% done and sitting in a committee or in reconciliation and send it on up and get is signed on day one.

I would suggest that there hasn't been a Republican candidate ever that understands how to move legislation like Gingrich. The man was Speaker for goodness sakes. He knows every legislative trick in the book. I'd also say that after the Contact with America and his time as Speaker, he clearly understand (and has the lumps to show for it) the concept of political capital, spending it wisely, and striking while the iron is hot. I'm certain he keeps citing all these bills because it is signaling they could quickly be completed and sent up for quick signature that would make imperfect changes but move the needle on the Republican agenda 50% towards completion with minimal political capital spent.

That would be something to be excited about for sure!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #29 of 693
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Painting him as a Wall Street guy when you have the crazy inability to be logically consistent and will stir up "occupy" envy while receiving plenty of big donor bucks is very easy. It's party of Romney's personal narrative and it's clear Obama never relies on reality or actions but rather on personal narratives and discussion of them. Romney will fall right into that pattern/problem just like McCain did. This is why having a guy who can continually articulate the big plan is part of the solution for electing a Republican president. I'd say one of the reasons Gingrich even had problems in the mid-90's is because Clinton (who in my opinion is still one of the best pure politicians I've ever seen) had both narrative and policy down pat. Gingrich with his army brat, history professor and GOPAC/grow the conservative majority narrative has a decent narrative as well but it isn't something he cares to dwell on. He'd much rather move on to the future and the plan to get there. Romney in that regard just responds to what he is fed question wise and recites his answers.

Romney has had an excellent big picture, and has shown command of the relevant details. Obviously Obama is going to attack him on his Wall Street background, but he should be able to counter that pretty easily by basically saying "at least I worked in the private sector...at least I've had to make a payroll." As for the big picture, his "Believe in America" is a good slogan, particularly the way this President has represented the country.

Quote:

This is again, why Gingrich is more media savvy in my opinion. The media LOVES digging into and defining via intent or past actions. Clinton was the man from Hope. Obama was the historical figure with hope and change. All the Republicans are idiots and hateful based off any completely irrelevant point they care to seek out or repeat endlessly.

That won't change. The media is going to do that to the GOP nominee regardless. Reagan was an idiot. Bush I was a wimp. Bush II was the idiot prince. Dole and McCain were old and senile. Goldwater was going to blow up the world. Ford was stupid and clumsy.

Quote:

Romney's narrative is Wall Street. It is the 1%. It is born into and a life of privilege. It is a man who is out of touch be it a $10,000 bet or whatever else they care to hang their attacks on. It is that he is the man who will never understand Main Street or the troubles of regular people because he has never been a regular person for even one day in his life. When asked about a time when he had to basically prioritize due to hard time or limited finances, he couldn't even address the question. The media is slobbering waiting for that. Nothing helps Obama make his care for class warfare better than a guy who comes from family money and inherited wealth.

All of that might be true to an extent. But the question is whether it matters, and how he handles it. I thought he handled it superbly in the debate the other night. He said "I didn't grow up poor, so if that what you're looking for, I'm not your guy. However, my father did, and taught me...." And I think if this comes down to Obama having to make it about class warfare against a guy that was actually successful in the private sector, that's a negative for Obama.

Quote:

Why would it do any damage so far? The media had their knee jerk reflex but have since let it go for now since no Republican candidate will make a big deal about it. However ask youself how many times they've repeated Gingrich's criticism of Romney's Wall Street background. Once Obama decides to make an issue of it (along with other class based issues) they will repeat it endlessly.

I think Obama will look pretty stupid doing that, especially since at that time it will have been nearly a year since it happened.

Quote:


First his attempt to go after Perry ended in a giant gaffe. I mean when you can't easily get past Perry in a debate that says something bad right there by itself. (Although to his credit Perry has gotten much, much better.)


You mean with the bet? He went after Perry many times before that. I've watched all but maybe one debate. Romney positively crushed Perry. He went after Cain too. But he didn't do it in a stinging way. He smiled as he said things like "you weren't responsible for the oil and gas in the ground in Texas...if you did claim that then it would be Al gore saying he invented the internet." He went after Cain on 9-9-9 as he discussed state sales tax and made good points. Overall, Romney has had excellent debates every time, perhaps with the exception of the second to last one.

Quote:

Going after someone in ads isn't the same. Obama with his compliant media basically gets hundreds of hours a day in free ads. The only way to counter this will be head to head encounters where the endlessly repeated media narrative is confronted by reality.

Not in a primary. That is what I meant. He didn't need to go after Gingrich in that debate. The other candidates did it for him. The rest he will do with ads and his far superior organization.

Quote:
This is why people are very excited about Gingrich declaring he will force debates with Obama and will follow him around confronting and addressing whatever Obama addresses wherever he addresses it. Either Romney won't be able to fund raise on the same and thus his attacks on ads won't be on the same level as Obama's level of attacks (much like Clinton/Dole 96) or he will have to self finance to close the gap which plays right into the rich, above the norm, Wall Street vs. Main Street narrative that the media can repeat endlessly.

Romney's fundraising will be huge. It's already huge. His organization will be on par with Obama's, if not better. I do like Gingrich's notion of following Obama around, though.

Quote:


There is always an advantage to being aggressive when you are trying to win an office. He doesn't have to be callous or caustic but lack of aggression is a problem. I mean the guys support has topped out at 25% and he's waiting for something to come to him? That right there is the problem. Newt's support like all polls oscillates a bit. This is true of all upper tier candidates and certainly Romney's has gone up and down that 3% based off the which polls are adding to the average when.

I've heard that line before. It depends on how you look at it. Romney has been extremely consistent while others have been rocket ships that fall to Earth. I don't buy the whole "he can't break 30%" line. No one really has done that, except Romney in New Hampshire.

Quote:

Romney got through the debate and that is about all he did. Gingrich has the best moment in the debate in my opinion here at 1:13 starting with painting a picture. He let's the media in on their own joke about what they've been calling him or repeating about him, (they smile at how smart they must feel) and then addresses it in a funny way. He then paints a great narrative about how our own decisions are enabling our enemies and once enabled, we have to go have a interventionist foreign policy to help address our refusal to take care of energy needs at home. This plays so much better than Paul prattling on about how there's basically no scenario under which he would deal with Iran and people who would must hate Muslims. Romney never gave an answer to a single question that had such clarity, such lucidity and got such an enthusiastic audience reaction. Also Gingrich has at least one of these per debate when having to share the stage with several people. In a one on one, there likely would be three to four of these per debate.

Gingrich had his share of problems in that debate. Bachmann hurt him badly on Freddie Mac. Romney had an overall good debate without any clear mistakes or major standout moments. He did have some nice answers. I thought Gingrich was better in the first hour than the second.

Quote:

People get it once Newt explains it. That is what moves the needle. You could see right there by linking Iran having war exercises in a major trade canal and how Canada is going to send business to China how all our enemies or at minimum competitors are made stronger, how we are made weaker and how the burden is then double for us all due to bad policy. He goes on to note how Welfare Reform had to be passed three times and basically signed over the objection of Clinton but the Congress pressed it because it was the right thing to do.

One final bit is notice how Gingrich smartly cites several pieces of legislation already being worked on, who is moving them and what they include in each debate. This is the guy who will move that needle so quickly with regard to legislation going through Congress. The reality is that the Federal Government is tremendously slow in how it addresses problems. The fiscal year that the first president (and this was true of Obama as well) has to operate under is completed before he even comes into office. Gingrich showing such knowledge of pending legislation means he can know what is already in the pipeline and what can be quickly modified or perhaps just passed wholesale and move up those changes that much more quickly. Imagine instead of a president getting elected, putting together their team, putting together a giant omnibus bill, sending it to Congress with sponsors and spending several months getting it passed and signed if instead he walks in day one and declares 50% of what he wants is already 90% done and sitting in a committee or in reconciliation and send it on up and get is signed on day one.

I would suggest that there hasn't been a Republican candidate ever that understands how to move legislation like Gingrich. The man was Speaker for goodness sakes. He knows every legislative trick in the book. I'd also say that after the Contact with America and his time as Speaker, he clearly understand (and has the lumps to show for it) the concept of political capital, spending it wisely, and striking while the iron is hot. I'm certain he keeps citing all these bills because it is signaling they could quickly be completed and sent up for quick signature that would make imperfect changes but move the needle on the Republican agenda 50% towards completion with minimal political capital spent.

That would be something to be excited about for sure!

Obviously you're for Gingrich. I don't discount many of the strengths you've listed, but I think you're ignoring a lot of Newt's negatives. Personally he's not as likable. He's prone to outlandish musings. He's been all over the place ideologically at times. He has to be smartest one in the room. The Freddie Mac thing is going to hang around his neck for some time. He can also come off as arrogant and too sharp. I think he'd have a much harder time with minority and younger voters, and probably women. On the plus side, he's extremely intelligent and experienced from the legislative perspective. He understands history. He's an out of the box thinker. He's an excellent debater. I just think he's not as electable. You can't underestimate the importance of the campaign's theme, of optimism, of the ability to portray one's self as a positive and dynamic leader. Gingrich is all about intellect...he lacks charisma. Romney wipes the floor with him here.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #30 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Romney has had an excellent big picture, and has shown command of the relevant details. Obviously Obama is going to attack him on his Wall Street background, but he should be able to counter that pretty easily by basically saying "at least I worked in the private sector...at least I've had to make a payroll." As for the big picture, his "Believe in America" is a good slogan, particularly the way this President has represented the country.

I've easily said that Romney checks all the boxes. He does everything you are supposed to do to run for president. I don't arguing you've had to try to make a payroll will fly. The counter is that when you've got a quarter billion in family, you don't have to worry about payroll or you made it by laying off thousands which again plays into the 1% argument.

Quote:
That won't change. The media is going to do that to the GOP nominee regardless. Reagan was an idiot. Bush I was a wimp. Bush II was the idiot prince. Dole and McCain were old and senile. Goldwater was going to blow up the world. Ford was stupid and clumsy.

I don't think Gingrich or Romney can be portrayed as stupid. They'll have to be cruel and heartless.

Quote:
All of that might be true to an extent. But the question is whether it matters, and how he handles it. I thought he handled it superbly in the debate the other night. He said "I didn't grow up poor, so if that what you're looking for, I'm not your guy. However, my father did, and taught me...." And I think if this comes down to Obama having to make it about class warfare against a guy that was actually successful in the private sector, that's a negative for Obama.

Obama has grown his food stamp nation quite a bit. The presumption that private enterprise holds the answer cannot be assumed. It must be articulated and presented. Look I'm not saying Obama will crush Romney in debates. Obama isn't any sort of super debater. I figure he would just hold serve because that's all he has done through all the Republican debates. He hasn't messed up and he hasn't lost ground due to debates. I just want someone who will gain ground in those debates.
Quote:
I think Obama will look pretty stupid doing that, especially since at that time it will have been nearly a year since it happened.

Obama does lots of stupid things. The media covers for him or repeat it without context so it sounds important and new. This is the same media that noted Sarah Palin was in a beauty contest, that presented fake Bush commander letters from the early 70's while ignoring all of Kerry's war protests, etc. A year isn't any big deal at all for them.

Quote:
You mean with the bet? He went after Perry many times before that. I've watched all but maybe one debate. Romney positively crushed Perry. He went after Cain too. But he didn't do it in a stinging way. He smiled as he said things like "you weren't responsible for the oil and gas in the ground in Texas...if you did claim that then it would be Al gore saying he invented the internet." He went after Cain on 9-9-9 as he discussed state sales tax and made good points. Overall, Romney has had excellent debates every time, perhaps with the exception of the second to last one.

I consider those to be the low hanging fruit. It's like saying you made Joe Biden look bad.

Quote:
Not in a primary. That is what I meant. He didn't need to go after Gingrich in that debate. The other candidates did it for him. The rest he will do with ads and his far superior organization.

Shouldn't his far superior organization and fundraising have him above 30% nationally after one complete cycle and this far into a second? You speak like something that hasn't happened at all yet is a foregone conclusion when the man has had trouble gaining support and getting elected He's one exactly one election and both times he ran he ended up writing his own campaign big checks. He can't write a check big enough to beat Obama nor even match him.

Quote:
Romney's fundraising will be huge. It's already huge. His organization will be on par with Obama's, if not better. I do like Gingrich's notion of following Obama around, though.

Romney beat McCain in fundraising for the period of time he was a candidate in the last election. It didn't bring people to the ballot box.

Quote:
I've heard that line before. It depends on how you look at it. Romney has been extremely consistent while others have been rocket ships that fall to Earth. I don't buy the whole "he can't break 30%" line. No one really has done that, except Romney in New Hampshire.

Romney did about the same last cycle. The reality is he goes south and gets badly crushed. The results are looking much the same this time.

Quote:
Gingrich had his share of problems in that debate. Bachmann hurt him badly on Freddie Mac. Romney had an overall good debate without any clear mistakes or major standout moments. He did have some nice answers. I thought Gingrich was better in the first hour than the second.

I disagree. Bachmann looked ridiculous. She's having to assert she is right because she's a candidate amounts to "I said it and thus it is so." She did no better in the prior debate with her "Newt Romney" or nonsense about trying to co-opt 9-9-9.

Quote:
Obviously you're for Gingrich. I don't discount many of the strengths you've listed, but I think you're ignoring a lot of Newt's negatives. Personally he's not as likable. He's prone to outlandish musings. He's been all over the place ideologically at times. He has to be smartest one in the room.

I'm not ignoring them. I'm saying quite the opposite that given a different time or different opponent, he wouldn't have a shot.

Quote:
The Freddie Mac thing is going to hang around his neck for some time. He can also come off as arrogant and too sharp.

Something a half decade old will hang around his neck, but a gaffe a year old will look ridiculous? Be consistent. Anyone can "come off" a particular way when the talking heads want to focus on that rather than on substantive issues. They can focus on such things when there aren't big issues to discuss or perhaps when the candidate is not aggressive and ends up discussing and debating the minutia instead of pushing the big plan.

Quote:
I think he'd have a much harder time with minority and younger voters, and probably women.

So far he is considered to be taking heat for being one of the least strident on illegal immigration. (He wouldn't throw grandma back over the border.) I think young voters like big ideas and Newt will do well there just like how Ron Paul draws similar enthusiasm.
Quote:
On the plus side, he's extremely intelligent and experienced from the legislative perspective. He understands history. He's an out of the box thinker. He's an excellent debater. I just think he's not as electable. You can't underestimate the importance of the campaign's theme, of optimism, of the ability to portray one's self as a positive and dynamic leader. Gingrich is all about intellect...he lacks charisma. Romney wipes the floor with him here.

Sorry but I think Romney has absolutely zero charisma. This is why people are calling him the Republican Al Gore. He lost against Kennedy, managed to be elected one time. He manages to bring in the money to pay off his campaigns after he quits but in all cases he has to write big checks to get the message out and hope the enthusiasm catches up later.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #31 of 693
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I've easily said that Romney checks all the boxes. He does everything you are supposed to do to run for president. I don't arguing you've had to try to make a payroll will fly. The counter is that when you've got a quarter billion in family, you don't have to worry about payroll or you made it by laying off thousands which again plays into the 1% argument.

That argument is falling on its face as we speak. I just don't think the majority of people listen to class warfare. It's a center-right country, and I just don't think most people care.

Quote:

I don't think Gingrich or Romney can be portrayed as stupid. They'll have to be cruel and heartless.

True...Gingrich will be the "heartless" one. As for Romney, the Wall Street and "flopper" thing will be all they have.

Quote:



Obama has grown his food stamp nation quite a bit. The presumption that private enterprise holds the answer cannot be assumed. It must be articulated and presented. Look I'm not saying Obama will crush Romney in debates. Obama isn't any sort of super debater. I figure he would just hold serve because that's all he has done through all the Republican debates. He hasn't messed up and he hasn't lost ground due to debates. I just want someone who will gain ground in those debates.

Romney can be quite pointed in debates. It's not a question of whether he's better than Gingrich. He's better than Obama, which is the point. And as for Gingrich, remember that charisma, tone and delivery are as important in national debates as content. I mean, look at Gore.

Quote:


Obama does lots of stupid things. The media covers for him or repeat it without context so it sounds important and new. This is the same media that noted Sarah Palin was in a beauty contest, that presented fake Bush commander letters from the early 70's while ignoring all of Kerry's war protests, etc. A year isn't any big deal at all for them.

Good point.

Quote:



I consider those to be the low hanging fruit. It's like saying you made Joe Biden look bad.

Well I was under the impression that you were saying he had trouble with Perry. All I'm saying is he didn't...nor with any of the other candidates.

Quote:

Shouldn't his far superior organization and fundraising have him above 30% nationally after one complete cycle and this far into a second? You speak like something that hasn't happened at all yet is a foregone conclusion when the man has had trouble gaining support and getting elected He's one exactly one election and both times he ran he ended up writing his own campaign big checks. He can't write a check big enough to beat Obama nor even match him.

No, I don't think it's surprising to see his poll numbers under 30% nationally, nor do I think it's indicative of problems for him. It's because of the Tea Party influence, who wants someone more conservative. The problem is there is no electable person who meets their views. They want to get rid of Obama more than anything though, which is why you keep seeing people come back to Romney after flirting with the flavor of the month. I really look at it as people seeing if there is anything better out there.

Quote:

Romney beat McCain in fundraising for the period of time he was a candidate in the last election. It didn't bring people to the ballot box.

Fine, but that's a different situation. The GOP is all-in for Romney this time. Last time, "they" for were for McCain. And Romney may have won had it not been for Huckabee splitting the conservative vote after he knew he couldn't win.

Quote:

Romney did about the same last cycle. The reality is he goes south and gets badly crushed. The results are looking much the same this time.

We'll see. Too early to tell.

Quote:



I disagree. Bachmann looked ridiculous. She's having to assert she is right because she's a candidate amounts to "I said it and thus it is so." She did no better in the prior debate with her "Newt Romney" or nonsense about trying to co-opt 9-9-9.

She may have hurt herself, but it still hurt Newt. Look at the polls. He's tanking in Iowa.

Quote:

I'm not ignoring them. I'm saying quite the opposite that given a different time or different opponent, he wouldn't have a shot.

Something a half decade old will hang around his neck, but a gaffe a year old will look ridiculous? Be consistent. Anyone can "come off" a particular way when the talking heads want to focus on that rather than on substantive issues. They can focus on such things when there aren't big issues to discuss or perhaps when the candidate is not aggressive and ends up discussing and debating the minutia instead of pushing the big plan.

You're comparing a joke bet to taking $1.2 million from Freddie Mac?

Quote:


So far he is considered to be taking heat for being one of the least strident on illegal immigration. (He wouldn't throw grandma back over the border.) I think young voters like big ideas and Newt will do well there just like how Ron Paul draws similar enthusiasm.

I just don't see it. Maybe I'm wrong.

Quote:

Sorry but I think Romney has absolutely zero charisma. This is why people are calling him the Republican Al Gore. He lost against Kennedy, managed to be elected one time. He manages to bring in the money to pay off his campaigns after he quits but in all cases he has to write big checks to get the message out and hope the enthusiasm catches up later.

Whoever is calling him a Gore is totally off base. He was a little stiff in 2008, but he's far better now. As for Kennedy, Romney was pretty close...and this was Ted freaking Kennedy in Massachusetts. Come on. I don't really see why you bring that up anyway...it's not relevant to who will win now.

By the way, here is the kind of "big picture" thing Romney is talking about:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...nts/52076252/1
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #32 of 693
Thread Starter 
So...Romney wins by eight votes. I've long said that if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, it's probably over. Bachmann is likely dropping out today, and Perry will be doing so by the end of week (most likely). Hunstman is a non-factor. Gingrich is on his death bed.

As for Santorum? He's a paper tiger. No real money, no real organization. It's highly doubtful he can make it a two man race with Romney's organization and backing of the GOP establishment. McCain is endorsing Romney today as well.

Edit: I forgot to mention Paul. His third place finish is not good. He really needed to win or come in a strong second. It's much worse for him in NH, where Romney holds at 43-14 advantage, with Santorum at 6 and Gingrich at 7.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #33 of 693
Huckabee won in Iowa in 2008. McCain came in 4th. Anything can happen over the next few months.

Considering Ron Paul is running on only grassroots support and is the anti-establishment candidate, I think he did surprisingly well. I wouldn't count him out yet.

Santorum's success is puzzling. Something smells fishy. Iowa allows same-day registration for their caucuses, so I'm wondering if there wasn't some type of organization that pulled some last-minute stunt to get people out to register Republican and vote for Santorum. That's the only explanation I can come up with since he was polling so low and hadn't raised nearly as much money as other candidates.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #34 of 693

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #35 of 693
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Huckabee won in Iowa in 2008. McCain came in 4th. Anything can happen over the next few months.

Santorum is nothing like McCain. McCain had an infrastructure and money, as well as appeal to moderate Republicans.

Quote:

Considering Ron Paul is running on only grassroots support and is the anti-establishment candidate, I think he did surprisingly well. I wouldn't count him out yet.

He did not do "surprisingly well." He needed to outright WIN Iowa to have any shot whatsoever, and even then it would be an extreme long shot. There is no way he's going to overcome a 33 point deficit in a week in NH.

Quote:

Santorum's success is puzzling. Something smells fishy. Iowa allows same-day registration for their caucuses, so I'm wondering if there wasn't some type of organization that pulled some last-minute stunt to get people out to register Republican and vote for Santorum. That's the only explanation I can come up with since he was polling so low and hadn't raised nearly as much money as other candidates.

That might be possible, but I think it's that Santorum went "Iowa or Bust." He put everything into Iowa, visiting it hundreds of times, moving his family there with him, visiting all 99 counties, etc.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #36 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

He did not do "surprisingly well." He needed to outright WIN Iowa to have any shot whatsoever, and even then it would be an extreme long shot. There is no way he's going to overcome a 33 point deficit in a week in NH.

He received the same number of super delegates (7) as Romney and Santorum. That's what really counts. So in reality, it was a 3-way tie.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #37 of 693
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

He received the same number of super delegates (7) as Romney and Santorum. That's what really counts. So in reality, it was a 3-way tie.

The 7 delegates don't really matter. "Winning" matters for him. This contrasts with Romney, who didn't need to "win"...merely do well. Paul's position in other states and his position within the party dictate that he needed a solid win to build momentum. He didn't get that. He's going to get creamed in NH, and then party's over unless he hits it big in SC.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #38 of 693
Oops, I meant delegates, not super delegates. But you get the point.

Ron Paul's momentum has been steadily building and will continue to build now that he is clearly a top tier candidate. He's in it for the long-haul and so are his supporters. It's going to be an interesting ride.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #39 of 693
Romney is a RINO. What's the point of winning, or even having a party, if you don't have different ideas to the other guy?
post #40 of 693

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Mitt Romney for President