Okay, let's get serious! Mitt Romney '12!

[DomCasual]

I will admit that I love this guy!

So, what are your thoughts on his electability, at this point? I love the way he's dealing with the Mormon issue this time around. (Did anyone see him on Piers Morgan?) I love that he seems disciplined to stay on point with the economy. And I love how there isn't a strong Republican candidate, at this point, who seems likely to challenge him.

I grew up in an Evangelical Christian family, and am now LDS. I am realistic about how Evangelicals feel about Mormons. But without Huckabee, Romney seems to be in a decent position to get at least some of the Evangelical votes.

Thoughts?

[DomCasual]

Romney tied with Obama in most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (ahead, among registered voters).

http://langerresearch.com/uploads/11...2_Politics.pdf

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

I'm sorry, I thought you used "serious" and "Mitt Romney" in the same title. Weird.

He'll have to track so far right of his actual positions just to get nominated, THEN he'll have to fight back to the middle to get elected... good luck with that. His old stances on abortion and healthcare will doom him with the Christians, especially when the dirty ads start running (and you know they will).

I actually like ol' Mittens. And he may be the best shot the R's have. But with his past, isn't he really a RINO?

[Smiling Assassin27]

Dude, the Mormon thing is gonna be a huge hurdle for him. I mean, when he has to deal with the likes of this:



..you know he's gonna have an uphill battle. It's truly disgraceful but then, that's what American voters and American media have become. But Romney's a weak candidate despite his ability to raise money. He can't win states like WA or OR and he's reinvented himself way too often to have any credibility. His Mormon faith will be a problem, but his policy will be an even bigger one.

[DomCasual]

Originally Posted by TheElusiveKyleOrton

I'm sorry, I thought you used "serious" and "Mitt Romney" in the same title. Weird.

He'll have to track so far right of his actual positions just to get nominated, THEN he'll have to fight back to the middle to get elected... good luck with that. His old stances on abortion and healthcare will doom him with the Christians, especially when the dirty ads start running (and you know they will).

I actually like ol' Mittens. And he may be the best shot the R's have. But with his past, isn't he really a RINO?

He's definitely moderate, if nothing else.

I don't know. Regarding his "flip-flopping" - and I realize this is going to sound like justification, a little - but I have changed dramatically through my adult life. I don't have any issues with that concept. Perspective changes you. I'd even go as far as to say that my moral and ethical baseline is much different today than it was twenty years ago.

My hope is that the Republican Party realizes that they aren't going to get an extremist in the White House in 2012. I like to think that there are enough rational people in the party that they wouldn't be able to get an extremist through the Primaries. The crazies seem to be the outspoken ones who keep getting face time. But I think there are a lot of intelligent, decent people in the party that will vote for a reasonable choice.

[DomCasual]

Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27

Dude, the Mormon thing is gonna be a huge hurdle for him. I mean, when he has to deal with the likes of this:



..you know he's gonna have an uphill battle. It's truly disgraceful but then, that's what American voters and American media have become. But Romney's a weak candidate despite his ability to raise money. He can't win states like WA or OR and he's reinvented himself way too often to have any credibility. His Mormon faith will be a problem, but his policy will be an even bigger one.

You should read the article that went with that cover, though. It was surprisingly positive. That said, I'm not a big fan of Newsweek, in general.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Originally Posted by DomCasual

He's definitely moderate, if nothing else.

I don't know. Regarding his "flip-flopping" - and I realize this is going to sound like justification, a little - but I have changed dramatically through my adult life. I don't have any issues with that concept. Perspective changes you. I'd even go as far as to say that my moral and ethical baseline is much different today than it was twenty years ago.

My hope is that the Republican Party realizes that they aren't going to get an extremist in the White House in 2012. I like to think that there are enough rational people in the party that they wouldn't be able to get an extremist through the Primaries. The crazies seem to be the outspoken ones who keep getting face time. But I think there are a lot of intelligent, decent people in the party that will vote for a reasonable choice.

I get what you're saying, and I actually agree that with maturity comes the desire to evaluate a situation and find the best solution for this place and time. However, I don't think that's what Romney has done with his flip flops.

His changes of heart are based on being electable, nothing more, IMO. He's going to have some serious issues because he seems so disingenuous on all these different things, ESPECIALLY a biggie like healthcare. He signed it into law in (liberal) Massachusetts because it was politically expedient to do so. He's distancing himself from that now because it's politically expedient to do so.

Do you really think his change of heart on healthcare is based on further study of the situation?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by DomCasual

He's definitely moderate, if nothing else.

I don't know. Regarding his "flip-flopping" - and I realize this is going to sound like justification, a little - but I have changed dramatically through my adult life. I don't have any issues with that concept. Perspective changes you. I'd even go as far as to say that my moral and ethical baseline is much different today than it was twenty years ago.

My hope is that the Republican Party realizes that they aren't going to get an extremist in the White House in 2012. I like to think that there are enough rational people in the party that they wouldn't be able to get an extremist through the Primaries. The crazies seem to be the outspoken ones who keep getting face time. But I think there are a lot of intelligent, decent people in the party that will vote for a reasonable choice.

Good one!

[Smiling Assassin27]

Originally Posted by DomCasual

You should read the article that went with that cover, though. It was surprisingly positive. That said, I'm not a big fan of Newsweek, in general.

Yeah, I've read it. But the cover just seems so tacky and demeaning, and is definitely exhibit A of a double standard. No way in hell that they'd take these liberties with a Kennedy or an Obama. Mitt's got an uphill battle but he reminds me of Obama with better economic sense--and that's not necessarily a good thing, but a trained seal would be better than our current President.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27

Yeah, I've read it. But the cover just seems so tacky and demeaning, and is definitely exhibit A of a double standard. No way in hell that they'd take these liberties with a Kennedy or an Obama. Mitt's got an uphill battle but he reminds me of Obama with better economic sense--and that's not necessarily a good thing, but a trained seal would be better than our current President.

There's one vote for Palin.

[DomCasual]

Originally Posted by TheElusiveKyleOrton

I get what you're saying, and I actually agree that with maturity comes the desire to evaluate a situation and find the best solution for this place and time. However, I don't think that's what Romney has done with his flip flops.

His changes of heart are based on being electable, nothing more, IMO. He's going to have some serious issues because he seems so disingenuous on all these different things, ESPECIALLY a biggie like healthcare. He signed it into law in (liberal) Massachusetts because it was politically expedient to do so. He's distancing himself from that now because it's politically expedient to do so.

Do you really think his change of heart on healthcare is based on further study of the situation?

Well, in fairness, he wisely isn't claiming to have a change of heart on healthcare. He's defended it as recently as a couple days ago. Here are a few of his recent comments about the matter:

"Our plan was a state solution to a state problem, and his plan is a power grab by the federal government to put a one-size-fits-all plan across the nation..."

"Our experiment wasn't perfect -- some things worked, some didn't, and some things I'd change."

"One thing I would never do is to usurp the constitutional power of states with a one-size-fits-all federal takeover. The federal government isn't the answer for running health care any more than it's the answer for running Amtrak or the post office."

So, is it semantics? Probably, for the most part, it is semantics. But that's going to be his position.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

There's one vote for Palin.

Good to see you chose not to disagree with the premise, however. There's TWO votes for Palin.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Originally Posted by DomCasual

Well, in fairness, he wisely isn't claiming to have a change of heart on healthcare. He's defended it as recently as a couple days ago. Here are a few of his recent comments about the matter:

"Our plan was a state solution to a state problem, and his plan is a power grab by the federal government to put a one-size-fits-all plan across the nation..."

"Our experiment wasn't perfect -- some things worked, some didn't, and some things I'd change."

"One thing I would never do is to usurp the constitutional power of states with a one-size-fits-all federal takeover. The federal government isn't the answer for running health care any more than it's the answer for running Amtrak or the post office."

So, is it semantics? Probably, for the most part, it is semantics. But that's going to be his position.

His spin on this that it's a state v federal issue is weak, especially for those who support market based healthcare solutions (good or bad). This is one issue he's gonna have problems extricating himself from. I could see a guy like Herman Cain taking him to the woodshed on something like this.

[DomCasual]

Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27

Yeah, I've read it. But the cover just seems so tacky and demeaning, and is definitely exhibit A of a double standard. No way in hell that they'd take these liberties with a Kennedy or an Obama. Mitt's got an uphill battle but he reminds me of Obama with better economic sense--and that's not necessarily a good thing, but a trained seal would be better than our current President.

It is tacky and demeaning. Recently, as it pertains to stuff like this, the Church's PR department has taken the approach of not getting too defensive. It's like a kid in elementary school that keeps making fun of your shirt. You know that if you ignore him, his short attention span will cause him to look for a different target - one that will respond to his taunts.

The Newsweek cover is actually, from what I understand, from the poster for the Book of Mormon play on Broadway.

[Rigs11]

he's a socialist with his healthcare plan, right righties?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by DomCasual

Well, in fairness, he wisely isn't claiming to have a change of heart on healthcare. He's defended it as recently as a couple days ago. Here are a few of his recent comments about the matter:

"Our plan was a state solution to a state problem, and his plan is a power grab by the federal government to put a one-size-fits-all plan across the nation..."

"Our experiment wasn't perfect -- some things worked, some didn't, and some things I'd change."

"One thing I would never do is to usurp the constitutional power of states with a one-size-fits-all federal takeover. The federal government isn't the answer for running health care any more than it's the answer for running Amtrak or the post office."

So, is it semantics? Probably, for the most part, it is semantics. But that's going to be his position.

Well, one thing about Romney, he'd be much more adept at turning the U.S. government over to Wall Street control than Obama has been. Obama is more of a lawyer. Although he has been able to effectively capitulate to Wall Street at every instance, I think that Romney, with his junk bonds background, would be much more pro-active.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Originally Posted by DomCasual

It is tacky and demeaning. Recently, as it pertains to stuff like this, the Church's PR department has taken the approach of not getting too defensive. It's like a kid in elementary school that keeps making fun of your shirt. You know that if you ignore him, his short attention span will cause him to look for a different target - one that will respond to his taunts.

The Newsweek cover is actually, from what I understand, from the poster for the Book of Mormon play on Broadway.

The church is doing exactly the right thing in not getting involved. There's not a whole lot it can do to aid Romney with this issue, so they should just keep on keepin' on. I'm not a Mormon, but that cover really kinda pi$$ed me off just from a simple perspective of fairness. It's not hard to see what Newsweak is trying to get their reader to infer about this guy.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Well, one thing about Romney, he'd be much more adept at turning the U.S. government over to Wall Street control than Obama has been. Obama is more of a lawyer. Although he has been able to effectively capitulate to Wall Street at every instance, I think that Romney, with his junk bonds background, would be much more pro-active.

Take your pick, wall street, union thugs, or the anthony weiner's of the world. Some choice.

[TonyR]

Mr Romney himself has already been on record as being worried about [climate change], and the only reason he would back off that belief in the context of a Republican primary would be that he is trying to gin up votes among a sceptical primary electorate. In standing by his professed belief as the campaign gets underway, he is resisting (in this case, at least) the incentive to flip-flop, and while that shouldn't be a cause for celebration, it is.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ.../good-strategy

[Obushma]

Biggest ****ing RINO since John McCain.

[DomCasual]

Originally Posted by Obushma

Biggest ****ing RINO since John McCain.

Who's your candidate, then?

[Obushma]

Originally Posted by DomCasual

Who's your candidate, then?

The only true Conservative running for president, Ron Paul.

And Dom, don't vote based on The DC. The Constitution is hanging by a thread, Romney will tear it right apart.

Here's an article you might like. I'm personally agnostic, but I have respect for every other individuals beliefs.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/ro...creator-50858/

You as a member of the LDS faith, should easily find respect for this mans views as you know how the federal government treated the LDS faith in the beginning.

[BroncoInferno]

IMO, Romney has the best shot at Obama in the general, but I have my doubts that he can make it out of the primaries. The votes of the bat**** wing (tea-baggers, fundamentalist Christians) needed to get the nomination will be tough for him to win.

[24champ]

Originally Posted by DomCasual

I will admit that I love this guy!

So, what are your thoughts on his electability, at this point? I love the way he's dealing with the Mormon issue this time around. (Did anyone see him on Piers Morgan?) I love that he seems disciplined to stay on point with the economy. And I love how there isn't a strong Republican candidate, at this point, who seems likely to challenge him.

I grew up in an Evangelical Christian family, and am now LDS. I am realistic about how Evangelicals feel about Mormons. But without Huckabee, Romney seems to be in a decent position to get at least some of the Evangelical votes.

Thoughts?

I watched him on Piers, he handled himself much better than he did in 2008. He also indicated that this will likely be his last major interview until after Labor Day, he's going to remain low key and let the other GOP candidates make idiots of themselves over the airwaves.

By the way, Romney polls well against Obama unlike the other Candidates.

The ABC-Washington Post poll showed Obama and Romney on 47% each among all Americans surveyed, and Romney on 49% and Obama on 46% among registered party members, who are among those most likely to vote.

Another poll published by Public Policy Polling shows Romney in the lead in the early key states of the Republican nomination battle. Romney was widely predicted to take New Hampshire and Nevada but struggle in social conservative Iowa and hardline rightwing South Carolina.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...tt-romney-poll


Romney is also expecting good poll numbers out of South Carolina, tomorrow.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by 24champ

Romney is also expecting good poll numbers out of South Carolina, tomorrow.

I don't doubt Romney would poll well against Obama in SC (Donald Trump would, too, for that matter), but, given that the fundamentalist wing of the GOP controls the party down here, I would be VERY surprised if he is the leader amongst the primary candidates. If he is, my prediction would be that that is solely based on name recognition, and that it would not be a lead that held up through the primary season. We'll see, I guess. I've lived here too long.