Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Romney, The Inevitable Nominee


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is what I was going to say - the issues are different for everyone, so they should be whatever individual Americans think they should be.

The buck doesn't stop with Obama regarding the economy, though. He doesn't have that kind of singular power - our government wasn't set up that way.

Yes, that's true, but I think the perception that Obama had 4 years to improve the economy and is responsible for his handling of it is out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman

Yes, that's true, but I think the perception that Obama had 4 years to improve the economy and is responsible for his handling of it is out there.

Absolutely. But I don't think Americans put all of the blame on Obama, nor should they; the buck doesn't stop with him. Furthermore, he did inherit a bad situation. and I think the results of the last Congressional election have shown that Americans recognize Congress' part in it too. It all depends on how much things pick up between now and November. I never thought Obama (or McCain, had he won) would get a second term, but now I'm not so sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama will have to answer the now famous question...and subsequent questions. Stated best back in 1980.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UQvm1dJ4jw

Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?

Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was 4 years ago?

Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was 4 years ago?

Is the course of the last 4 years what you'd like to see the country follow for the next 4 years?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. But I don't think Americans put all of the blame on Obama, nor should they; the buck doesn't stop with him. Furthermore, he did inherit a bad situation. and I think the results of the last Congressional election have shown that Americans recognize Congress' part in it too. It all depends on how much things pick up between now and November. I never thought Obama (or McCain, had he won) would get a second term, but now I'm not so sure.

Many don't put all of the blame on Obama, but he was in charge, claimed he had a solution for the economy, and delivered it. The results have been underwhelming, and many Americans do blame him, rightly or wrongly. I guess we don't see it the same way.

You really think Obama has a chance at a second term? Why do you think so?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Many don't put all of the blame on Obama, but he was in charge, claimed he had a solution for the economy, and delivered it. The results have been underwhelming, and many Americans do blame him, rightly or wrongly.

see 'do nothing' Congressional House led by GOP, driven by TeaParty

see GOP... the party of NO!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last week I read Romney's entire bio on wikipedia. I must say, in all honesty, the man is very impressive. He has succeeded in just about every major thing he as tried to accomplish in his life, minus his Mormon mission trip in France and his 2008 presidential bid (but even then he did quite well).

Everyone should go read is bio if they don't know much about him, Turned around many companies in the business world, took Massachusetts from deficit to surplus as Governor, while implementing near-universal health care for about the same cost they spent on health care before (aka not having to raise taxes).

I like the fact that he focused heavily on stats/data and hard analysis in both is business and gubernatorial career to achieve success. The only things that scare me are his Mormon beliefs (you have to be at least a little odd to believe that stuff), and the fact that what he would do with foreign policy are a complete mystery since he has no previous record to show on it (ie: wasn't a congressman) and he has been known to lie in his campaigns based on what he thinks voters want to hear therefore it's hard to believe anything he really says about how he will handle ie: Iran.

But when it comes to handling the economy I think Mitt is head-and-shoulders above Obama in terms of qualifications, and unless he makes some huge gaffes he has a very good chance of beating Obama in 2012. The fact that his GOP opponents are weakly attacking him on his business successes shows he doesn't have many holes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

see 'do nothing' Congressional House led by GOP, driven by TeaParty

see GOP... the party of NO!

Those are great talking points waldo, but far from the truth. Republicans have only been in control of the house for a year. Obama had full control of congress for the first two years of his presidency. He had a 75 vote majority in the house, and a veto proof majority in the senate. He wasted it all on a failed trillion dollar stimulus, and health reform nobody likes, that doesn't solve any of the problems of soaring cost.

I agree though that Republicans have been the party of no for the last 12 months though. No to bad policy that cripples America. Unfortunately, Obama just keeps going. Apparently Obama's ready to ask for another trillion dollars, on top of the trillion he already receieved during last summer's debt ceiling raise. This guy wipes his butt with trillion dollar bills. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Last week I read Romney's entire bio on wikipedia.

the wiki edit history showcases a rigorous attempt to present an unblemished/untarnished image - is it no wonder there isn't a single significant criticism appearing within the wiki article? Which, of course, flies in the face of the 'expert opinion' labeling this the weakest GOP field - ever!

in any case, I'm quite sure the Dems are ready to play off 'RomneyCare', his moderate positions, predator 'capitalist', etc. I expect they're a bit disappointed the GOP circus-show may be completely over before it gets to Florida... perhaps in the run-up to North Carolina, Gingrich and Perry can help make, even more than so far, future attack ads for the Dems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree though that Republicans have been the party of no for the last 12 months though.

quite right - the party of NO and against some of the same legislation they themselves have previously proposed... now simply against it because Obama is presenting. Way to, 'put party before country', hey?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are great talking points waldo, but far from the truth. Republicans have only been in control of the house for a year. Obama had full control of congress for the first two years of his presidency. He had a 75 vote majority in the house, and a veto proof majority in the senate. He wasted it all on a failed trillion dollar stimulus, and health reform nobody likes, that doesn't solve any of the problems of soaring cost.

I agree though that Republicans have been the party of no for the last 12 months though. No to bad policy that cripples America. Unfortunately, Obama just keeps going. Apparently Obama's ready to ask for another trillion dollars, on top of the trillion he already receieved during last summer's debt ceiling raise. This guy wipes his butt with trillion dollar bills. :rolleyes:

why can't we agree that both parties have sucked at their job?

this is due to the power of special interest groups who fund many of their elections. the problem is that without the support of the special interest groups, most politicians have little chance of being elected. once they are elected, they must return the favour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

quite right - the party of NO and against some of the same legislation they themselves have previously proposed... now simply against it because Obama is presenting. Way to, 'put party before country', hey?

Being against legislation that was previously supported in the past isn't necessarily putting party before country. If that's the case, then Democrats have previously supported income tax rate cuts, even to the top rate. So if they aren't for it now, like they were in the past, does that mean they're putting party before country? :rolleyes:

Are they being the party of no? No to oil exploration. No to clean coal. No to Keystone. No to real entitlement reform. No, no, no, no, no. That's all you get from them. See how easy it is! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
So if they aren't for it now, like they were in the past, does that mean they're putting party before country?

the debt default scenario pretty much sums up the extent the GOP is prepared to go... the tea party infection is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative. In any case the idiocy behind the tax pledge says it like nothing else can... Grover Norquist is actually running the U.S. government! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

All Romney has to do to lose the nomination is actually make a statement of some kind... any kind.

And here is an example of the kind of statements that Romney makes, and why he needs to say as little as possible.

Romney: Income inequality is just 'envy'

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- According to Mitt Romney, the nation's growing focus on income inequality is all about envy.

"You know, I think it's about envy. I think it's about class warfare," the leading Republican presidential candidate said Wednesday on The Today Show.

When asked if there are any fair questions about wealth distribution, Romney replied, "It's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like."

Romney has accused President Obama of promoting the "bitter politics of envy." The president is ramping up his talks about the nation's growing income divide and the shrinking of the middle class. He is focusing on the tax benefits afforded to millionaires and executives.

A growing number of Americans are latching onto the idea of income inequality, which prompted thousands of people to participate in Occupy Wall Street-type protests around the nation last fall.

About two-thirds of the public believes there are "very strong" or "strong" conflicts between the rich and poor, according to a Pew Research Center report released Tuesday. That's up 19 percentage points since 2009.

Romney, who is one of those millionaires, says he's distancing himself from what he calls "a very envy-oriented, attack-oriented approach."

From this it appears that Romney represents the status quo, that the wealthy deserve their entitlements and those who are not born with an economic advantage are just jealous and, irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the debt default scenario pretty much sums up the extent the GOP is prepared to go... the tea party infection is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

Complete nonsense. What is psyhcological is a President and a party that thinks it can borrow a trillion dollars every year with no negative impact. I mean, he's asking for another trillion dollar hike in the debt ceiling. 8 months after he just got a trillion dollar hike. Is he insane? Seriously? And if Republicans don't go along with giving him trillion after trillion after trillion, THEY'RE seen as the insane ones! :lol: That's how ridiculous it's gotten.

In any case the idiocy behind the tax pledge says it like nothing else can... Grover Norquist is actually running the U.S. government! :lol:

No, they've just heard the same story several times in the past. "We'll give you spending cuts later, for tax increases up front." And each time, the spending cuts never go through. So this time, sane people actually want to see some real entitlement reform and spending cuts get implemented before raising any taxes. It's completely logical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the wiki edit history showcases a rigorous attempt to present an unblemished/untarnished image - is it no wonder there isn't a single significant criticism appearing within the wiki article? Which, of course, flies in the face of the 'expert opinion' labeling this the weakest GOP field - ever!

I thought of that for sure, but then there must be a ton of others who wish to edit it to include some criticisms etc. We'll see what it looks like in Oct. lol.

His accomplishments are still what they are. ie: You can't edit around being cum laude at Harvard law & business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Complete nonsense. What is psyhcological is a President and a party that thinks it can borrow a trillion dollars every year with no negative impact. I mean, he's asking for another trillion dollar hike in the debt ceiling. 8 months after he just got a trillion dollar hike. Is he insane? Seriously? And if Republicans don't go along with giving him trillion after trillion after trillion, THEY'RE seen as the insane ones! :lol: That's how ridiculous it's gotten.

No, they've just heard the same story several times in the past. "We'll give you spending cuts later, for tax increases up front." And each time, the spending cuts never go through. So this time, sane people actually want to see some real entitlement reform and spending cuts get implemented before raising any taxes. It's completely logical.

Pretty sure Obama has Cut more then Bush and Republican congress EVER did. So I guess we know who can and can't cut so that is a another false argument from you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure Obama has Cut more then Bush and Republican congress EVER did. So I guess we know who can and can't cut so that is a another false argument from you.

No kidding. If Shady wants to talk about borrowing money, we can talk about the amount of money Bush and Cheney borrowed to take the country into two wars. But for their argument to work, you have to ignore and also apologize for the previous administration's outrageous spending.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure Obama has Cut more then Bush and Republican congress EVER did. So I guess we know who can and can't cut so that is a another false argument from you.

He's spent more than Bush could ever dream of. You're pretty funny!

Link to post
Share on other sites

No kidding. If Shady wants to talk about borrowing money, we can talk about the amount of money Bush and Cheney borrowed to take the country into two wars. But for their argument to work, you have to ignore and also apologize for the previous administration's outrageous spending.

Bush was horrible on spending. Obama's even worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's spent more than Bush could ever dream of. You're pretty funny!

But also cut more then Bush ever did. Infact today Obama asked congress for the authority to merge 1000 Federal agencies to cut down on redundancy. We all know what Republicans do cut taxes raise spending Bush showed us that. Obama has shown us in 4 years he was willing touch things Bush never did in 8.

To stop looking like a hypocrite on spending Shady you should support Garry Johnson because we both know the Republicans are never going to cut anything. They had 6 years and never did a thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...