Mitt Romney for President

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.

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.

Conservative elite.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

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.

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

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

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!

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 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

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.


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.

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.

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

Fellows

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.


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.


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.


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.

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!

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.


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


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.

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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

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.

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.

Some interesting information in CNN's entrance poll results.

Particularly this:

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.

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.

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?