Romney 2012?

@Finn dAbuzz,

Or, perhaps we are actually sincere.

I know, that's hard for someone like you to swallow.

I, for one, appreciate McG's honesty.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Hard for me to believe, yes.

0 Replies

Finn,
I understand the history of exchanges among us of differing political bents on A2K would not lend itself as a foundation, but...

Sometimes we just have to "act as if".

As if if we are people acting in good faith who disagree with each other. As if we can dispassionately look at the others' opinions of their putative candidate and provide counterpoints that potentially add to each others' knowledge and/or awareness.

I honestly cannot see why someone trying to weigh everything in the light of what's best for the longterm health of the country would prefer Romney over Obama. But I really would at least try to understand any case that could be made for Romney over Obama. No, I'm not saying I think I could consider voting for Romney. But I would give serious thought to any cogent argument that could be made. I think McG made an honest effort, and that's all I asked for.

As far as my "real motive" for starting this thread...

The long-running thread of Sozobe's titled "Obama 2008?" has a lot of venom dispersed throughout in the form of barbs back and forth between those that differ politically.But it also has some real substantive, interesting and stimulating argument about why the man is or is not a good choice to be in the white house. Why can't we do the same with the man opposing Obama?

2 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

I honestly cannot see why someone trying to weigh everything in the light of what's best for the longterm health of the country would prefer Romney over Obama. But I really would at least try to understand any case that could be made for Romney over Obama. No, I'm not saying I think I could consider voting for Romney. But I would give serious thought to any cogent argument that could be made. I think McG made an honest effort, and that's all I asked for.

I'll respond, regardless of to whom you addressed your post, since my answer has a new point. We do not really live in one united country. That's why there are red states. They were once blue states (the solid South). So, not everyone votes for the same agenda for the country. If one is not a conservative, then one might not understand that there are people who vote based on values (for the country) that others do not subscribe to.

I will not vote for Romney as a vote against Obama. I will vote for Romney, since I just believe Presidents are just titular heads of a vast enterprise called the United States of America, and the Republican party best correlates to my personal vision for the future of that vast enterprise. I suspect there are many people that vote like me, even though the charade is about voting for an individual.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Quote:

I will not vote for Romney as a vote against Obama. I will vote for Romney, since I just believe Presidents are just titular heads of a vast enterprise called the United States of America, and the Republican party best correlates to my personal vision for the future of that vast enterprise. I suspect there are many people that vote like me, even though the charade is about voting for an individual.

Quote:

The most quoted speech at CPAC this year was Mitt Romney's, but my vote for the most significant goes to Grover Norquist's. In his charmingly blunt way, Norquist articulated out loud a case for Mitt Romney that you hear only whispered by other major conservative leaders.

They have reconciled themselves to a Romney candidacy because they see Romney as essentially a weak and passive president who will concede leadership to congressional conservatives:

All we have to do is replace Obama. ... We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. ... We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don't need someone to think it up or design it. The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate.

The requirement for president?

Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States. This is a change for Republicans: the House and Senate doing the work with the president signing bills. His job is to be captain of the team, to sign the legislation that has already been prepared.

source

I take it you agree.

0 Replies

Romney is far too arrogant to be rough shod over by congressmen. Remember that he has experience at top levels of government and knows how the game is played. That is why he being so careful with his campaign and not making bold statements about what he will do as President. He will wait until after the convention and then his ads will both attack Obama's presidency, character and how the government has been run. At the same time, he will promote his own positives and what he will do as President.

I saw an interesting thing the other day. A left wing person and a right wing person were being interviewed and they were discussing what happened in Wisconsin. The left wing guy was talking how the Republicans outspent the Dems 8:1 and that is why Walker won. The right wing retorted that yeah, when the Republicans outspent in Wisconsin in 2012, it was all about money, but when Obama outspent McCain in 2008 6:1 it was all hope and change.

It was a funny thing. I may not have the quote accurate, but that's the gist of it. I see Romney having access to more money then Obama and I hope it's enough to get him elected.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

That's a good point about money, but I do think there is some difference in where it comes from.

The Obama campaign had many, many more small donors than McCain did. When many many people are contributing $10, that does tend to be about hope and change more than when corporations and individuals are contributing the maximum allowed by law to protect their interests (or just to keep doors open -- some of them contribute to both campaigns, not out of any personal preference but just for access).

Meanwhile, the Obama/ McCain campaign race happened before Citizens United, which allows for a lot more money from wealthy individuals and corporations. So far, yes, that's benefiting Romney more than Obama.

3 Replies

@sozobe,

Good points.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

That may be smart politics but it only re-enforces what many people already know about him. Namely that he don't have any positions and is only interested in getting 51 votes. If he takes a stand on immigration he knows it will get him in trouble either way, so he just hems and haws and guys like you will spin into good political games as though that is a good thing.

Moreover, I wouldn't be so sure Romney wouldn't be beholden to congress. Congress is beholden to big corporations and donors and so is Romney. They all will toe the line.

2 Replies

a romney pro - for the first time america could have first ladies

0 Replies

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

That may be smart politics but it only re-enforces what many people already know about him. Namely that he don't have any positions and is only interested in getting 51 votes. If he takes a stand on immigration he knows it will get him in trouble either way, so he just hems and haws and guys like you will spin into good political games as though that is a good thing.

Moreover, I wouldn't be so sure Romney wouldn't be beholden to congress. Congress is beholden to big corporations and donors and so is Romney. They all will toe the line.

Today at the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, Obama got a real zinger in on Romney. He said "Your previous speaker told you that if he makes a promise to you, he will keep it. Well, he promised that if he was elected, he would veto the Dream Act. I think we should take him at his word!"

0 Replies

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

That may be smart politics but it only re-enforces what many people already know about him. Namely that he don't have any positions and is only interested in getting 51 votes. If he takes a stand on immigration he knows it will get him in trouble either way, so he just hems and haws and guys like you will spin into good political games as though that is a good thing.

Moreover, I wouldn't be so sure Romney wouldn't be beholden to congress. Congress is beholden to big corporations and donors and so is Romney. They all will toe the line.

He hems and haws to the press. Read his campaign page where his platform is laid out. I doubt seriously that he wants to be seen on the Daily show contradicting himself like Obama has been with the latest Executive Privilege thing. link

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

He hems and haws to the press. Read his campaign page where his platform is laid out.

Uh, yah. If his platform is so clear, why can't he just be honest with it with the press? Surely one's platform isn't something to hide. Why does he have to 'hem and haw' to the press?

The answer is clear - because he lies constantly about what his positions are, depending on which group he is talking to.

The platform on his website is not consistent with his current message -

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/immigration

Quote:

Oppose Amnesty

Mitt Romney opposes amnesty because he believes that it acts as a magnet encouraging illegal immigration. The last amnesty law passed in 1986 granted legal status to 2.7 million illegal immigrants. In the decades since, the illegal immigrant population has quadrupled. Mitt believes that an amnesty should not be permitted to happen again. Illegal immigrants who apply for legal status should not be given any advantage over those who are following the law and waiting their turn. Mitt absolutely opposes any policy that would allow illegal immigrants to “cut in line.

But, from his speech yesterday:

Quote:

June 21, 2012, 6:46 pm60 Comments
Romney’s Immigration Speech
By LAWRENCE DOWNES

Mitt Romney gave his big speech on immigration policy today and announced his big idea: He said the U.S. should offer a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children by their parents.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/romneys-immigration-speech/

So, which one is it? Which one is the true Romney position - that he supports a DREAM-act like bill, or that he categorically opposes all amnesty for illegal aliens (which children who were brought here most certainly are)?

And you wonder why we call the guy a fake asshole.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
He hems and haws to the press. Read his campaign page where his platform is laid out.

Uh, yah. If his platform is so clear, why can't he just be honest with it with the press? Surely one's platform isn't something to hide. Why does he have to 'hem and haw' to the press?

The answer is clear - because he lies constantly about what his positions are, depending on which group he is talking to.

The platform on his website is not consistent with his current message -

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/immigration

Quote:
Oppose Amnesty

Mitt Romney opposes amnesty because he believes that it acts as a magnet encouraging illegal immigration. The last amnesty law passed in 1986 granted legal status to 2.7 million illegal immigrants. In the decades since, the illegal immigrant population has quadrupled. Mitt believes that an amnesty should not be permitted to happen again. Illegal immigrants who apply for legal status should not be given any advantage over those who are following the law and waiting their turn. Mitt absolutely opposes any policy that would allow illegal immigrants to “cut in line.

But, from his speech yesterday:

Quote:
June 21, 2012, 6:46 pm60 Comments
Romney’s Immigration Speech
By LAWRENCE DOWNES

Mitt Romney gave his big speech on immigration policy today and announced his big idea: He said the U.S. should offer a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children by their parents.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/romneys-immigration-speech/

So, which one is it? Which one is the true Romney position - that he supports a DREAM-act like bill, or that he categorically opposes all amnesty for illegal aliens (which children who were brought here most certainly are)?

And you wonder why we call the guy a fake asshole.

Cycloptichorn

Did you read the rest of the article? You know, the part that says

Quote:

Actually, it’s much less than that. To qualify for Mr. Romney’s plan, an illegal immigrant would first have to serve in the military...
And, unlike Mr. Obama, who at least has a proposal for more comprehensive immigration reform, even if it’s going nowhere, Mr. Romney limits the scope of his solution to that small group of people. For the rest, he seems to be offering what he once called “self-deportation” or forced deportation.

I don't read that as support for a dreamact-like bill at all. Your post is invalid.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Quote:

He hems and haws to the press. Read his campaign page where his platform is laid out. I doubt seriously that he wants to be seen on the Daily show contradicting himself like Obama has been with the latest Executive Privilege thing

Are you saying that if Romney says something now on immigration, he might just turn around and say something else later, so rather than risk that, he will say nothing and that is something you admire?

1 Reply

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

Quote:
He hems and haws to the press. Read his campaign page where his platform is laid out. I doubt seriously that he wants to be seen on the Daily show contradicting himself like Obama has been with the latest Executive Privilege thing

Are you saying that if Romney says something now on immigration, he might just turn around and say something else later, so rather than risk that, he will say nothing and that is something you admire?

Admire? I don't recall saying that. Please do not put words in my mouth.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

You said Romney didn't want to end up looking he was he going to contradict himself which is why he hems and haws to the press.

Quote:

He hems and haws to the press. Read his campaign page where his platform is laid out. I doubt seriously that he wants to be seen on the Daily show contradicting himself like Obama has been with the latest Executive Privilege thing

1 Reply

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

You said Romney didn't want to end up looking he was he going to contradict himself which is why he hems and haws to the press.

Quote:
He hems and haws to the press. Read his campaign page where his platform is laid out. I doubt seriously that he wants to be seen on the Daily show contradicting himself like Obama has been with the latest Executive Privilege thing

Right. That is my take on the matter. Until the convention, Romney needs to remain vigilant for the ever-seeking "gotcha" moments. That's all the press really cares about. Not his, or any other politician really, actual platform.

So, Romney plays the dog and pony show that modern politicians play. Obama does it, Romney does it, Bush did it, Clinton did it (and how!), etc.

Is it really that shocking that he doesn't want to labeled a flip-flopper like Kerry was? Instead, you guys complain about him not being specific.

Face the facts. Most of you dislike Romney and will find whatever flaws you can to justify your not liking him. I understand that. It's human nature. Just like some people don't like Obama and go to any length of their own to justify it.

I just ask that you be fair in your justifications. Don't use bad arguments and poorly thought out attacks in doing it.

0 Replies

@snood,

Maybe "we" can.

In any case,made all the case I need to vote for Romney over Obama. Again, since they are so diametrically opposed, and will be the only viable choices, I don't know why a more detailed explanation would be required.

I'm hoping that as Mitch Daniel did in Indiana, Romney will turn the country from it's current disastrous path, and lead us back to real hope and an emerging prosperity for most Americans.

Now you and others may say he can't fulfill that hope, but I think there is a good chance he can, and until he tries and succeeds or fails, no one will have the answer.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

You're splitting hairs. His website clearly states:

"Mitt absolutely opposes any policy that would allow illegal immigrants to “cut in line."

ANY policy. It doesn't matter if he tacks on conditions - he's supporting a policy that would explicitly allow illegals to cut in line.

Quote:

I don't read that as support for a dreamact-like bill at all.

Well, it clearly is support for a policy that directly contradicts his platform on his website. So, I can't agree that he has a clear message on this or any other issue.

Also unanswered is the question: why does he have to 'hem and haw' to the press?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know