The Official Mitt Romney Thread

[Kelly]

I don't see whats so scary about Mitt. If he were to some how win its not like he would be some kind of radical. I'd take loss to Mitt over any other republican any day. But i just can't see him winning. The most Mitt can hope to do is set him self up as a viable alternative to Obama and hope that the economy get worst right before election day. Obama will still win if he turns out his base in key states. Most of the Independents that voted in the last election will stay with the same candidates they voted for in 2008. Only a few will switch to Romney. Independents like the play it safe when voting in midterms. I can't see Romney winning the popular vote but i can see him winning the electoral college.

Obama's key states have fewer electoral votes these days....a close race has a far different look than it did a decade ago.

 

[Slushy]

Mitt must win Ohio. Plain and simple. And I can see him picking Rob Portman for that reason alone.

He passed a universal healthcare bill with an individual mandate in Massachusetts and is now running against "Obamacare" by calling it socialism.

Romney explained that the system works on a state level, but not on a federal one.

 

[Kelly]

And that there are things in the Massachusetts plan that did not work, and he would change if were still the governor.

History shows that choosing VP's for a win in certain states, doesn't work.

 

[Smashlilman]

Mitt must win Ohio. Plain and simple. And I can see him picking Rob Portman for that reason alone.

He passed a universal healthcare bill with an individual mandate in Massachusetts and is now running against "Obamacare" by calling it socialism.

Romney explained that the system works on a state level, but not on a federal one.

That's an extremely weak argument. What's funny to me is if Obama Care was never passed and he was running against a Medicare for all Democrat, he would be arguing that Romney care should be a model for Heath care for the nation. It's blantly obvious that He's changed his mind purly for political reasons. The problem now is that the plan has the Obama stink on it so he has to run away from it.
[YT]SBFQKxLMPy4[/YT]

 

[Matt]

Mitt must win Ohio. Plain and simple. And I can see him picking Rob Portman for that reason alone.



Romney explained that the system works on a state level, but not on a federal one.

Ohio isn't necessarily a must win for Romney. If he wins PA and Florida he can afford to lose Ohio.

 

[Slushy]

I think he has a better chance of winning PA than FL. It's way too risky of a gamble. No Republican has ever won the election without carrying the Buckeye State, and a Democrat has only won twice without Ohio (Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy) in the last 116 years.

That's an extremely weak argument. What's funny to me is if Obama Care was never passed and he was running against a Medicare for all Democrat, he would be arguing that Romney care should be a model for Heath care for the nation. It's blantly obvious that He's changed his mind purly for political reasons. The problem now is that the plan has the Obama stink on it so he has to run away from it.

[YT]5zh0EiPLCqU[/YT]

 

[DACrowe]

You really think Obama supported gay marriage because he thought it was "morally and ethically right?" Sigh. Then there's nothing else left to say.

Your argument was "Romney flip-flops!" Well...so has Obama. Posting a bunch of examples of the former doesn't change the fact that the latter did. And via various pollsters (including New York Times/CBS News - not a pro-Romney set of guys), people think his move was 100% calculated and thus not believing him.

But only Romney is terrible for flip-flopping and Obama isn't? Gotcha. As I said, we're done here.

Did I say it wasn't calculated? Of course it was politically calculated. The only that wasn't was timing. I imagine he wanted to say it later closer to the election, however Biden forced his hands. Whatever the case may be though, he did take a morally strong stance. While it will help him with some younger voters and gay donors, he made winning states like North Carolina, Virginia and Indiana (which he is trying to win) much harder. It'd be better politically for him to say nothing and wait until after the election to reveal his thoughts on the matter. He obviously is trying to use it to help him with certain constituent groups, but he took a stand on the right side of history and it will hurt him in certain parts of the country....particularly swing states he's trying to win.

Also, your dismissive nature of moral equivalency between the two is false because you are taking one example of Obama changing his position, and his admitting it by taking the time to do a singular interview on that position change, and making it equal to the countless of times Romney has changed his position. Romney has changed his position on everything. There is barely a single issue he has not been on both sides of. If that doesn't scare you, it should. The man lacks a moral center or set of principles. You can hate Obama all you want, but for the most part you know where he stands. Romney has built his career on sand. It is always changing.

 

[DACrowe]

I think a lot of independents will jump ship if they feel that Obama has failed.

Regarding Romney, I agree. He and Obama's differences are minimal. Both are pro-big business corporatists. Same coin, different sides. I'd rather see Romney win now and be very beatable in 2016 to someone like Brian Schweitzer, Kirsten Gillibrand or Sherrod Brown than have four years of almost identical policies under Obama only to lose the White House to a radical conservative in 2016 (history dictates that unless there is a strong VP candidate which Biden is not, the White House changes parties after a two termer...and Republicans will see the rejection of the moderate Romney as a call to move further right....President Rand Paul or Chris Christie....God help us).

You play with fire, Matt. Again, my friend who refused to vote in 2000 because of the same logic was outraged over the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, the discrimination of gays in 2004, the legalization of torture and the tax cut giveaways that gutted our surplus.

You vote for Romney, you can't whine when he starts closing departments and selling the government piece by piece to the lobbyists or when he invades Iran.

Romney explained that the system works on a state level, but not on a federal one.

Romney tap danced and lied about changing his position. If he believes HCR is socialism and unconstitutional, then by the Fourteenth Amendment Romneycare is every bit as unconstitutional and socialistic as Obamacare. And I guarantee you anti-healthcare advocates will take that to court if the SCOTUS strikes down Obamacare in part or whole. Romney just tried to explain how what he once considered his signature achievement is so different from a plan that he once said should be implemented nationally.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Ohio isn't necessarily a must win for Romney. If he wins PA and Florida he can afford to lose Ohio.

If Romney loses Ohio then he's already lost Pennsylvania which is the more Democratic of the pair.

 

[Matt]

You play with fire, Matt. Again, my friend who refused to vote in 2000 because of the same logic was outraged over the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, the discrimination of gays in 2004, the legalization of torture and the tax cut giveaways that gutted our surplus.

You vote for Romney, you can't whine when he starts closing departments and selling the government piece by piece to the lobbyists or when he invades Iran.

I won't whine, I'll just attempt to remove him from office and vote for someone more worthy than he or Obama could ever be.

And if you think that Obama (who has entered a free trade agreement with Colombia and reformed healthcare in a way that forces us to give money to massive corporations) isn't selling our country to lobbyists, you're just being naive and towing the party line. Obama is as much a tool of the lobbyists as Romney. Furthermore, Romney won't invade Iran unless our country or Israel is attacked by Iran or an Iranian sponsored terrorist in which case Obama would do the same exact thing. They are the same candidates and will effectively be the same presidents, you allow a letter beside a name to blind you from far better options (like a Brown/Schweitzer ticket....drooooool).

 

[DACrowe]

And if you think that Obama (who has entered a free trade agreement with Colombia and reformed healthcare in a way that forces us to give money to massive corporations) isn't selling our country to lobbyists, you're just being naive and towing the party line. Obama is as much a tool of the lobbyists as Romney. Furthermore, Romney won't invade Iran unless our country or Israel is attacked by Iran or an Iranian sponsored terrorist in which case Obama would do the same exact thing. They are the same candidates and will effectively be the same presidents, you allow a letter beside a name to blind you from far better options (like a Brown/Schweitzer ticket....drooooool).

I'm a pragmatist. Obama plays within the system to get things done to help people. Some of the process and results aren't pretty. But he's done more to help the Middle Class and social equality than any president since Johnson. Romney will use the power not to try and get things done without stepping on the toes of big business, he will sell the country whole to big business because he honestly thinks that's what is best. As for Iran, Romney is surrounded by the same neocons Bush had around him. Romney's saber rattling may be just to try and make Obama look weak on foreign defense (a bad fight for Romney to pick to begin with), but it shows he has the same gun-ho "America, **** Yeah" worldview as many of the pro-military industrial complex Republicans who ran the military for eight years before Obama. After seeing what they left in their wake, putting them in charge again for at least four more years is idiotic, in my opinion.

 

[Matt]

I'm a pragmatist. Obama plays within the system to get things done to help people. Some of the process and results aren't pretty. But he's done more to help the Middle Class and social equality than any president since Johnson. Romney will use the power not to try and get things done without stepping on the toes of big business, he will sell the country whole to big business because he honestly thinks that's what is best. As for Iran, Romney is surrounded by the same neocons Bush had around him. Romney's saber rattling may be just to try and make Obama look weak on foreign defense (a bad fight for Romney to pick to begin with), but it shows he has the same gun-ho "America, **** Yeah" worldview as many of the pro-military industrial complex Republicans who ran the military for eight years before Obama. After seeing what they left in their wake, putting them in charge again for at least four more years is idiotic, in my opinion.

Obama has done more for the middle class? Wait....you're serious?

You're not being pragmatic at all. You're simply accepting defeat. Pragmatism would be accepting that Obama is the same as every other post-Carter Democrat who plays by Reagan's rules and is sucking the corporate teet just as much as any Republican. Pragmatism would be letting the other guy win so he can take the fall. Pragmatism would be rejecting Obama to force the party to nominate a real Democrat who would actually help the middle class in 2016 as opposed to just accepting the one who talks a big game but still ******es big business.

 

[Smashlilman]

I'm a pragmatist. Obama plays within the system to get things done to help people. Some of the process and results aren't pretty. But he's done more to help the Middle Class and social equality than any president since Johnson. Romney will use the power not to try and get things done without stepping on the toes of big business, he will sell the country whole to big business because he honestly thinks that's what is best. As for Iran, Romney is surrounded by the same neocons Bush had around him. Romney's saber rattling may be just to try and make Obama look weak on foreign defense (a bad fight for Romney to pick to begin with), but it shows he has the same gun-ho "America, **** Yeah" worldview as many of the pro-military industrial complex Republicans who ran the military for eight years before Obama. After seeing what they left in their wake, putting them in charge again for at least four more years is idiotic, in my opinion.

Obama has pretty much been using moderate republican solutions to solve liberal issues. That's just the way he operates.

 

[DACrowe]

Obama has done more for the middle class? Wait....you're serious?

32 million Americans with health insurance that hadn't had it before, many of them from the working class and poverty, an end (unless the SCOTUS rules otherwise) of pre-existing conditions which are used to screw middle class Americans who are covered out of health insurance. The formation of the Consumer Protection Agency whose sole mission is to protect average Americans from being screwed over by price gouges, fine print and predatory lending by the financial sector. Student Loan Reform which has taken banks out of the federal loans process and saves students money on surcharges. Rules that allow small business owners (most of whom are middle class) not to be overcharged for the use of debit card machines. The rescue of Detroit when the private industry turned its back and Mitt Romney suggested let the entire city go bankrupt.

Yes, Obama has done more for the Middle Class than at least Ford-through-W. You can point to problems in many of the bills and the fact that he passed a lot of them by trying to soften these things for special interests (though clearly not enough when Wall Street is fleeing to Romney 2-to-1), but that's how he got them done in the most polarized Washington since before the Great Depression. You will say he hasn't done enough. I'll say he'll do more than Mitt Romney who will roll all that back and likely close departments as he outsources public interests to the private sector while you'll shake your fist in useless anger.

You're not being pragmatic at all.

No, I am. Hoping that Martin Sheen or President Palmer will come riding in on a white steed as a progressive white knight in 2016 is delusional and dangerous.

 

[Kelly]

I hope no progressive is coming in on anything in 2016.....

 

[Smashlilman]

I hope no progressive is coming in on anything in 2016.....

There's a 90% chance it'll be Hillary. You don't get that close to the Nomination and then just give up.

 

[Kelly]

There's a 90% chance it'll be Hillary. You don't get that close to the Nomination and then just give up.

Well, if she AND Obama were smart she would be his VP for this election, and the democrats would have someone in office for the next 12 years....If it is Obama's HUGE EGO keeping him from bringing Hillary on then his EGO is bigger than I thought it was....I would tell him to stuff his ego and bring her on. If she is saying no, it is an easy fix...all he has to do is promise to be a huge campaigner for her in 2016. Again, I think his EGO is involved and it may get him beat.

 

[rowan sjet]

Yet another 'etch-a-sketch' moment for Romney:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWRJnVjVKrE

It's not even that he's changed his opinion from what he originally said, its that he can't come up with an opinion now. And yet he stands by it apparently.

 

[DACrowe]

Well, if she AND Obama were smart she would be his VP for this election, and the democrats would have someone in office for the next 12 years....If it is Obama's HUGE EGO keeping him from bringing Hillary on then his EGO is bigger than I thought it was....I would tell him to stuff his ego and bring her on. If she is saying no, it is an easy fix...all he has to do is promise to be a huge campaigner for her in 2016. Again, I think his EGO is involved and it may get him beat.

She sincerely doesn't want to be his Veep. And either way it's a smart move. If she is sincere about retiring, then the VP position is a thankless job after serving as Secretary of State. If she wants to run in 2016, she already has Obama's support and she doesn't have to be associated with his Administration if things go poorly for four years....four years she can spend campaigning and building a donor base.

Hillary doesn't want to be Veep and it's smart. Besides, despite Joe's big mouth, I do think Obama likes having Biden around as a more cautious voice.

 

[DACrowe]

Yet another 'etch-a-sketch' moment for Romney:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWRJnVjVKrE

It's not even that he's changed his opinion from what he originally said, its that he can't come up with an opinion now. And yet he stands by it apparently.

"I Stand By What I Said, Whatever It Was"

Sums up Romney in a nutshell. Except he then has to flip flop on what he just said.

 

[SV Fan]

Yet another 'etch-a-sketch' moment for Romney:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWRJnVjVKrE

It's not even that he's changed his opinion from what he originally said, its that he can't come up with an opinion now. And yet he stands by it apparently.

Something tells me that quote will pop up in alot of ads.

 

[Kelly]

She sincerely doesn't want to be his Veep. And either way it's a smart move. If she is sincere about retiring, then the VP position is a thankless job after serving as Secretary of State. If she wants to run in 2016, she already has Obama's support and she doesn't have to be associated with his Administration if things go poorly for four years....four years she can spend campaigning and building a donor base.

Hillary doesn't want to be Veep and it's smart. Besides, despite Joe's big mouth, I do think Obama likes having Biden around as a more cautious voice.

Well I'm glad that you and Hillary are close.

And I don't believe she will go with VP either, my statement was simply saying what I thought would be the best thing for her to do, and for the democrats if they want a (D) in the White House for the next 12 years...

As far as "sincere".....I don't believe that is a word you can put with any politician this day and age....

 

[DACrowe]

Well I'm glad that you and Hillary are close.

And I don't believe she will go with VP either, my statement was simply saying what I thought would be the best thing for her to do, and for the democrats if they want a (D) in the White House for the next 12 years...

As far as "sincere".....I don't believe that is a word you can put with any politician this day and age....

Hillary has given countless comments and interviews about not wanting to be veep. Given that it's May and she still refuses and talks about "retiring" at the end of the year, I really do believe her when she s ays she doesn't want it. I don't know her personally so I'm not sure if she really wants to retire or if she really just wants to put some distance between herself and Obama (in case he's reelected and unpopular in 2016) as well as get a head start or organizing her 2016 campaign.

Either way, my point is she doesn't want it. So, criticizing Obama for being egotistical and the Dems for being dumb for not picking her in your previous point is a bit silly, given that she wouldn't take the position in the first place.

 

[MaceB]

I'm trying to understand the logic here. So....If Obama were to dump his current VP for a politically stronger campaign candidate (Hillary), then it would be a selfless act and for the best; but if instead he sticks with Biden, (who has done a good job for 4 years and who understands fully the duties of the office) then it would have to be because Obama is an egotist. Clearly there's no other assumption that could be made as to why Obama would stick with his current VP other then that he is too in love with himself.

 

[Kelly]

Hillary has given countless comments and interviews about not wanting to be veep. Given that it's May and she still refuses and talks about "retiring" at the end of the year, I really do believe her when she s ays she doesn't want it. I don't know her personally so I'm not sure if she really wants to retire or if she really just wants to put some distance between herself and Obama (in case he's reelected and unpopular in 2016) as well as get a head start or organizing her 2016 campaign.

Either way, my point is she doesn't want it. So, criticizing Obama for being egotistical and the Dems for being dumb for not picking her in your previous point is a bit silly, given that she wouldn't take the position in the first place.

Tell me one person that has been asked thus far and has said..."oh yeah, I'll be Veep if asked...." None that I know of...

But, I agree, I don't think she will do it....I was simply saying she should. If they bring her the scenario would probably be that in August Obama is down by 20 points and it would be a hail mary.....do I think that will happen, no...not really.

Also, I didn't say that the dems were stupid for not picking her, and as far as Obama's ego, there is nothing silly about what I said....according to him he is the 4th best President and tight....