Romney 2012?

I'd be interested in reading any of someone's pro list for Romney.

Er - He's bipedal.

DrewDad wrote:

I'd be interested in reading any of someone's pro list for Romney.

I have learned from Paul Krugman that judging candidates works best if you ignore campaign rhetoric and look at their actual records, their actual policy proposals, and any overarching policy manifestos they might have written.

• I kind of like Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts, where he helped introduce a universal-healthcare system that inspired Obamacare. Also, as Sozobe mentioned, he pursued reasonably liberal-ish policies on abortion and gay rights.
• I have read, and somewhat liked, Romney's programmatic book No Apologies. He comes across as a reality-based, well-informed politician pursuing policies that are reasonably adapted to promoting the general welfare.

.
It's not a very long pro list. My con list would be longer. But you did ask for my pro list, so here you go.

Foofie has told us his 'pro' for Romney on a number of threads.

Romney is a WASP.

I gotta say -
It does scream by its absence -
the lack of ANYone on the right making ANY positive case for Romney.

edgarblythe wrote:

Er - He's bipedal.

Heh.
But Ed - doesn't it say something that in all this time, no Republican or conservative - leaning person on A2K has mounted an argument that even TRIES to promote why Romney should be president. The BEST they seem to be able to manage is ever-more acidic attacks on Obama - where's their candidate's selling points?

On what do you base the opinion that sans his obligation to the wackadoodles he would be a good president ?

snood wrote:

On what do you base the opinion that sans his obligation to the wackadoodles he would be a good president ?

Can I really trust your position as just not reflecting eternal loyalty to the Democratic Party?

On what do you base the opinion that sans his obligation to the wackadoodles he would be a good president ?

Foofie wrote:

snood wrote:

On what do you base the opinion that sans his obligation to the wackadoodles he would be a good president ?

Can I really trust your position as just not reflecting eternal loyalty to the Democratic Party?

Y'know, Foofie -
I never really even remember noticing anything you posted until about the last month or so, and since that time it seems you post nothing but smug, diversionary crap designed only to provoke and instigate. So after about a month of waiting for you to engage with any thoughtfulness or substance in any thread I'm reading, I've come to the conclusion that you are a perfect inductee to the ranks of those whose drivel I never have to bother to read.

So I'll put my last response to you in language I'm sure you will understand, and I say them with conviction...

Suck my big black ignore.

- His willingness to tell flat-out whoppers. He's still coasting on a reputation as a basically nice (if boring) guy, but he's been doing some really sleazy stuff on the stump. Not just standard tweaks and evasions but major misrepresentations, and repetitions of lies that have been proven to be lies.

snood wrote:

On what do you base the opinion that sans his obligation to the wackadoodles he would be a good president ?

Comparatively speaking. He would be more progressive than Bush, if less so than Obama. If he were free to pursue the policies such as improving on Obamacare, for instance, it would make him better than we otherwise expect.

But he says he's going to repeal it.

Cycloptichorn

edgarblythe wrote:

snood wrote:

On what do you base the opinion that sans his obligation to the wackadoodles he would be a good president ?

Comparatively speaking. He would be more progressive than Bush, if less so than Obama. If he were free to pursue the policies such as improving on Obamacare, for instance, it would make him better than we otherwise expect.

But he says he's going to repeal it.

Cycloptichorn

Friday is the second anniversary of ObamaCare. It is past time to abolish the program, root and branch. The Supreme Court will soon have a crack at this; arguments about the program's constitutionality open before it next week. But whatever the justices decide in what is certain to be a landmark decision, the case against ObamaCare extends far beyond questions about its constitutionality. President Obama's program is an unfolding disaster for the American economy, a budget-busting entitlement, and a dramatic new federal intrusion into our lives.