The Official Mitt Romney Thread

[Kelly]

Well I meant the total lack of charisma.

I agree, he could win.

ah...gotcha.

 

[SentinelMind]

Christie/Rice 2016!!

 

[Thundercrack85]

Christie/Rice 2016!!

Interesting combination.

 

[enterthemadness]

Christie/Rice 2016!!

Santorum/Bachmann

Don't forget that the Christian far right has taken over the GOP. Christie seems okay...don't know enough about him, but he makes national headlines and has said the war on drugs has failed. He needs to lose a bit of weight though. As for Rice...I dunno. Wasn't she in the Bush administration? Ugh.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

What about Rice/Christie....? That would really make the campaign snap, crackle and pop!

 

[craigdbfan]

No Christie, I can't stand that Fred Flinstone look alike.

Give me Rubio anytime of the day over him.

 

[hitmanyr2k]

- Or don't forget how the Obama campaign has tried to paint Romney as a corporate raider who shipped jobs to China and Mexico. Ignoring the fact that Bain Capital under Romney did not perform any hostile takeovers that corporate raiders do and the jobs shipped overseas that the Obama campaign claims, happened after Romney left Bain Capital.

Long read, but informative. I think there's a reason Romney doesn't go into detail when it comes to his dealings while at Bain capital. He sure as hell wasn't the job creator he pretends to be. Looks to be quite the opposite.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...tory-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829

 

[Thundercrack85]

So, he can't run on his business experience, he can't really run on his governorship (since he's trying to disown his old political views)... well, he still has the Olympics.

 

[Scooter]

Which cost a fortune in Government money.

Not that Romney hasn't done just fine at milking the government when it suits his purposes, the most obvious instance being the incredible $1.5 billion in aid he siphoned out of the U.S. Treasury as head of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake – a sum greater than all federal spending for the previous seven U.S. Olympic games combined. Romney, the supposed fiscal conservative, blew through an average of $625,000 in taxpayer money per athlete – an astounding increase of 5,582 percent over the $11,000 average at the 1984 games in Los Angeles.

(Quoted from that Rolling Stone article for quick reference.)

 

[SV Fan]

Which cost a fortune in Government money.


(Quoted form that Rolling Stone article for quick reference.)

Are you trying to tell me Mitt Romney didn't build that?

 

[SV Fan]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...campaign-be-dictated-by-fact-checkers/261674/

Here in Tampa, the new assertiveness is getting its first test on a big stage, and so far the results are not encouraging. As Ben Smith of BuzzFeed haspointed out, the Romney campaign is simply swatting aside the media's objections to its welfare ad: "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," said Neil Newhouse, a Romney pollster.

Who cares about facts right

 

[bell110]

I''ll give Romney sort of a free pass on this

1. he probably was talking to a bunch of christians on the far right and actually doesn't feel the need to do this

2. did he say that it would block it for everybody or was it just something that is added to your computer that you have the right to use(or uninstall)

All that being said being in the Party that believes in the market determining how stuff works, should 3rd party porn blockers be an issue for the private markets to create? Having the Government decide to block your porn is the definition of big government.

Mormons are very morally conservative. I absolultely believe he'd want to do that and he's not just pandering to the far right. I bet it won't be an optional thing either because you already have tools to block porn on your computer.

I think anybody with an iota of sense knows that Republicans are not really for smaller government. Like I said in an earlier post, I have know idea how that idea came about.

Santorum/Bachmann

Don't forget that the Christian far right has taken over the GOP. Christie seems okay...don't know enough about him, but he makes national headlines and has said the war on drugs has failed. He needs to lose a bit of weight though. As for Rice...I dunno. Wasn't she in the Bush administration? Ugh.

If Romney doesn't win, I can't see the Republicans swinging even further right. And Bachmann is a joke. She'd be worse than Palin because at least Palin was unknown and we had only a little over two months to learn how crazy she was.

 

[SV Fan]

I think anybody with an iota of sense knows that Republicans are not really for smaller government. Like I said in an earlier post, I have know idea how that idea came about.

I think the Tea Party sort of really pushed it, but it's also a talking point from the higher ups(ie Democrat <fill in the name> wants large government). I guess one can argue when they say it they mean cut down on regulations, but in all reality it's such a broad term it looks bad when they use it as a slogan when in so many ways they don't practice what they preach

If Romney doesn't win, I can't see the Republicans swinging even further right. And Bachmann is a joke. She'd be worse than Palin because at least Palin was unknown and we had only a little over two months to learn how crazy she was.

Hard to say where the republicans will go. It does seem there is a few people in the Republican party(I am looking at Jeb Bush or even Chris Christie) who see the need to move the party slightly closer to the middle if they want to attract more people, but the people who generally vote in primaries seem to like the candidates who sway farther to the right

I personally think if Romney loses the blame should go on the state of the republican party more then himself. I think if the Party was more reasonable as a whole it would reflect better on him and he wouldn't have to say some things he does to appease the base(which generally doesn't do well with swing voters), but they probably will look at it as he was to moderate to win and we need somebody more conservative

 

[bell110]

I think the Tea Party sort of really pushed it, but it's also a talking point from the higher ups(ie Democrat <fill in the name> wants large government). I guess one can argue when they say it they mean cut down on regulations, but in all reality it's such a broad term it looks bad when they use it as a slogan when in so many ways they don't practice what they preach

I think it goes back way before the Tea Party was formed. I agree, they think big government is just in the form of taxes and regulation. For some reason they don't see that regulating morality is a far worse form of big government. But yeah, it's just a talking point that some people buy into somehow.

Hard to say where the republicans will go. It does seem there is a few people in the Republican party(I am looking at Jeb Bush or even Chris Christie) who see the need to move the party slightly closer to the middle if they want to attract more people, but the people who generally vote in primaries seem to like the candidates who sway farther to the right

I personally think if Romney loses the blame should go on the state of the republican party more then himself. I think if the Party was more reasonable as a whole it would reflect better on him and he wouldn't have to say some things he does to appease the base(which generally doesn't do well with swing voters), but they probably will look at it as he was to moderate to win and we need somebody more conservative

I think donors and the party should start moving away from the socially conservative crowd. The more time passes, the more the country is moving to the left on those issues. If Republicans keep pandering to the social conservatives they are going to shoot themselves in the foot. That's why I can't see Santorum or Bachmann ever getting close to becoming president.

 

[Kelly]

I think it goes back way before the Tea Party was formed. I agree, they think big government is just in the form of taxes and regulation. For some reason they don't see that regulating morality is a far worse form of big government. But yeah, it's just a talking point that some people buy into somehow.



I think donors and the party should start moving away from the socially conservative crowd. The more time passes, the more the country is moving to the left on those issues. If Republicans keep pandering to the social conservatives they are going to shoot themselves in the foot. That's why I can't see Santorum or Bachmann ever getting close to becoming president.

I don't know that I would call it moving further left....I think most are still just right of center on most issues....and are somewhat like me, in that they don't necessarily think that abortion is a means to an end....but they don't want to tell another person how to live their lives. If Republicans would begin "that dialogue" they would win over more Independents like myself. Because they pretty much have them on the fiscal issues, and could even have them on the government funding of abortions....as in, don't spend my money on elective surgery....Independents would move with them on that as well. As far as Gay Rights....they need to let people live their lives. Those Independents may not agree with homosexuality, but they are not going to tell someone they can't get married and have the same rights as them. If Republicans will move that direction, they would pull more Independents to their party, than push away. I don't think Independents thinking on social issues is necessarily moving left of center, I think it is being pushed that direction by total abrasive dialogue of the far Right....

 

[bell110]

I don't know that I would call it moving further left....I think most are still just right of center on most issues....and are somewhat like me, in that they don't necessarily think that abortion is a means to an end....but they don't want to tell another person how to live their lives. If Republicans would begin "that dialogue" they would win over more Independents like myself. Because they pretty much have them on the fiscal issues, and could even have them on the government funding of abortions....as in, don't spend my money on elective surgery....Independents would move with them on that as well. As far as Gay Rights....they need to let people live their lives. Those Independents may not agree with homosexuality, but they are not going to tell someone they can't get married and have the same rights as them. If Republicans will move that direction, they would pull more Independents to their party, than push away. I don't think Independents thinking on social issues is necessarily moving left of center, I think it is being pushed that direction by total abrasive dialogue of the far Right....

I don't see how the right is pushing those issues left. People are just disagreeing with those issues more and more. 50 years ago African Americans couldn't even vote. As those hard core segregationists started getting old and dying out, and the Baby Boomers started being in charge, we now have a black president. We have for the first time a president that is open to gay marriage. Eventually, it will be accepted on a broader basis when Gen X and Y are in charge. It isn't the Republicans that are pushing it, it's the population that gets more liberal each passing generation.

 

[Kelly]

I don't see how the right is pushing those issues left. People are just disagreeing with those issues more and more. 50 years ago African Americans couldn't even vote. As those hard core segregationists started getting old and dying out, and the Baby Boomers started being in charge, we now have a black president. We have for the first time a president that is open to gay marriage. Eventually, it will be accepted on a broader basis when Gen X and Y are in charge. It isn't the Republicans that are pushing it, it's the population that gets more liberal each passing generation.

The right isn't pushing the issues left, I didn't say that....they are pushing Independents who are right of center.... left.

 

[Kelly]

I don't see how the right is pushing those issues left. People are just disagreeing with those issues more and more. 50 years ago African Americans couldn't even vote. As those hard core segregationists started getting old and dying out, and the Baby Boomers started being in charge, we now have a black president. We have for the first time a president that is open to gay marriage. Eventually, it will be accepted on a broader basis when Gen X and Y are in charge. It isn't the Republicans that are pushing it, it's the population that gets more liberal each passing generation.

No...they are not becoming more "liberal" they are simply moving further to the center, or just left of it....polls do not show that this country is becoming more "liberal"...if you are speaking of 18 year olds...yes. But that population is small right now, those that are around 35+ are still right of center at this point....it will be awhile before we can say that this country is becoming "liberal"...

And really I think we are just looking at it differently as in degrees of liberalism...that's all.

 

[Kelly]

Christie/Rice 2016!!

Rice/Chrispy 2016

 

[enterthemadness]

Rice/Chrispy 2016

cereal box tie in promo.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Romney wasted a lot of time saber rattling Iran and Russia in his speech. Are we really supposed to believe he's going to be anymore effective dealing with them than Obama is, currently?

 

[Kelly]

Romney wasted a lot of time saber rattling Iran and Russia in his speech. Are we really supposed to believe he's going to be anymore effective dealing with them than Obama is, currently?

I think my dogs could be more effective than Obama is at the moment. Do nothing...is a pretty low bar.

But here is the thing....I'm fine with "do nothing...." I wish more President's would take that stand....

Let us take ourselves into space...
Let us develop our own energy resources...

Let them eat each other alive...

 

[hippie_hunter]

Long read, but informative. I think there's a reason Romney doesn't go into detail when it comes to his dealings while at Bain capital. He sure as hell wasn't the job creator he pretends to be. Looks to be quite the opposite.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...tory-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829

You are aware that the Rolling Stone has quite often put out hit pieces on conservative politicians to help the more progressive candidates that they support? But asides from that, it's blatantly obvious that Romney is overstating his record as a job creator by a long shot, but he isn't the cartoonishly evil corporate raider that the Obama campaign paints him out to be.

 

[SV Fan]

You are aware that the Rolling Stone has quite often put out hit pieces on conservative politicians to help the more progressive candidates that they support? But asides from that, it's blatantly obvious that Romney is overstating his record as a job creator by a long shot, but he isn't the cartoonishly evil corporate raider that the Obama campaign paints him out to be.

Romney may not be as bad as people like Obama or Gingrich(well at least in the primaries) paint him out to be, but he is not as good as his campaign paints him out to be, he falls somewhere inbetween

I would love to see him answer a question about all the businesses he borrowed money/got grants from the government then soon after he drained the assets he files for bankruptcy and makes millions in the process. I do think it's a legitimate question to ask him how that works and do you think that's fair that he made money after screwing taxpayers(mostly at a state level). It should also be pointed out their are a few cases he raided the employees well earned pensions before liquidating the company then put the taxpayer on line to cover that when they filed bankruptcy. Maybe what he did is not illegal by the law of the land but it doesn't make it right or ok. Personally I don't know why the Obama campaign didn't push the money Bain got from grants from state governments a bit more

 

[Scooter]

You are aware that the Rolling Stone has quite often put out hit pieces on conservative politicians to help the more progressive candidates that they support? But asides from that, it's blatantly obvious that Romney is overstating his record as a job creator by a long shot, but he isn't the cartoonishly evil corporate raider that the Obama campaign paints him out to be.

Well, obviously no need to read this one then. Thanks for saving me the time.