Wednesday, May 18, 2011

A Question for the "Anyone But Romney" Crowd. Don't You Want to Win?

It really is getting hilarious. All last week.....Daniels This......Daniels that. This morning it's, Perry this.........Perry That!

This isn't going to be a long post because I'm trying to understand those Anti-Romney folks strategy to win if one of their reluctant phantoms ran and won the nomination.

Lets assume the following:

Obama vs Romney
Obama vs Phantom

Assuming that 99.9% of Republicans want to oust Obama and would cast a vote for a toaster as long as it was a Registered Republican in the general, lets assume in the scenario above, that both Romney and the phantom both take the Republican vote in there separate contests against Obama.

IS THAT ENOUGH TO WIN?

In order to beat President Obama, you need a candidate who can win over a LARGE PORTION of Independents. Mitt Romney has always done great with this group who for the most part seem to be a little more moderate than many Republicans. A Phantom, would NEED THIS STRENGTH as well.

Also, Lets assume there are some discruntled Democrats who are really not enthused about President Obama.....Bad economy?.........Maybe out of work........? I admit that it would be hard to make a dent into the Democrats voters hearts, but what if it was possible because of the bad economy? Democrats having a hard time in this economy would hurt just as bad as any Republicans do. Which possible candidate might have a chance of siphoning off some of those supporters? Romney? a Phantom?

I think Republicans need to decide real quick before we start bashing one another in the primaries, that anything said bad about an opponent, will be hard to take back. Independents and others will be watching the contests as well.

One last question:

Do you need the WHOLE PIE to satisfy your political appetite, or could you be satisfied with 70-90% of it? No candidate out there is going to please you 100% and win the nomination because as he/she pleases you, he/she dis-pleases someone else.

If Obama is re-elected, we get NO PIE!

59 comments:

Sam said...

We need to nominate

(1) A known quantity
(2) A proven fundraiser
(3) A strong person
(4) Who has no scandals or personal baggage
(5) Who can be trusted in the Oval Office
(6) Can convince moderates to vote Republican
(7) Has tried something on health care (to combat "Well, you want to repeal Obamacare, what have you done?")

It's Mitt, folks. He can win, and would make a far better president than Obama.

Tracey said...

Love this post. So true. Romney is positioned to take on Obama like no other. Obama will be formidable opponent. We should not kid ourselves. Obama will blame the republicans and lie which he does quite well. Romney will look like the adult in the race.

Anonymous said...

Bos,

This is right up there as one of your best.

You need to post this at MRC and Race as well.

zeke

Anonymous said...

POWERFUL stuff here!

OhioJOE said...

"Do you need the WHOLE PIE to satisfy your political appetite, or could you be satisfied with 70-90% of it? No candidate out there is going to please you 100% and win the nomination because as he/she pleases you, he/she dis-pleases someone else." I suppose Mrs. Palin does not please me 100%, but 98.5% is close enough. If you give me a check box, I suppose I could easily give Mr. Romney a 70 to 90 % check mark. However, he has some serious strikes against him and he and his supporters have continued to show rather poor judgement time after time.

"If Obama is re-elected, we get NO PIE!" And what pie are we going to get if Mr. Romney wins. I was not born yesterday; Many in the Romney camp will make sure that the Midwest and South get economically ripped off under a Romney administration. In today's America, we play for all the marbles. In short, in Mr. Romney wins, we get virtually no marbles, unless he is so bloodied that he is politically forced to give us a few marbles.

tim said...

Ohio Joe,

I think you've lost your marbles. What are you talking about?

BelieveInAmerica said...

The health care reform bill that President Ronald Reagan passed in 1986 is known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act or EMTALA. There is a plethora of information available online on EMTALA, including amendments which have been made to the original bill. Here are just a few sources:
https://www.cms.gov/EMTALA/
https://www.cms.gov/EMTALA/
http://www.aaem.org/emtala/
http://www.emtala.com/faq.htm
When President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1985, it included the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) legislation. Ostensibly, it was supposed to address the problem of “patient dumping” by hospital emergency departments.

Violation of EMTALA could result in fines of up to $50,000 per violation to both the hospital and the physician and loss of Medicare reimbursement. EMTALA provided a classic lesson of what happens when a business activity, which provides a product or service at a price, is compelled by government to give its product away free. When it happens, everyone loses. Both the producer and the buyer lose to those who “take,” protected by the power of the federal government.

Since 1986, EMTALA has grown and spread, unstoppable, like a plague pandemic. Because of increased “regulatory guidance” and judicial action, EMTALA mandates now cover virtually every area of a hospital and its satellites. It was not long before it began strangling the health care system and our medical providers.

The EMTALA grew to mean that anyone who enters with an ‘emergency,’ now defined as including: cough, headache, hangnail, cardiac arrest, herniated lumbar disc, drug addiction, alcohol overdose, gunshot wound, automobile trauma, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive infection, mental problem, or personality disorder, must be treated. Any patient coming to a hospital requesting ‘emergency’ care must be screened and treated until ready for discharge, or stabilized for transfer – whether or not insured, ‘documented,’ or able to pay. A woman in labor must remain to deliver her child.

The impact of EMTALA on medical care in America was dramatic. Between 1993 and 2003, 60 California hospitals closed because over half the cost of services they provided could not be collected. Three years later, another 24 California hospitals verge on closure for the same reason. In Arizona, 38 medical centers reported losses of $153 million because of foreign nationals who had to be treated free under EMTALA. Now, three years later, many of those hospitals have closed or further reduced services.

Ambulances from Mexico came to American hospitals with indigents because the drivers know that EMTALA requires the hospital accept patients who show up on the doorstep. Within a decade we saw reduced availability of medical care because of the burdens imposed by EMTALA and immigrants on health care systems. In smaller towns, such as Bisbee, Arizona, they were forced to reduce their operating expenses to pay for the free medical care they were compelled to provide. They fired 35 of their 130 employees and eliminated services, such as a maternity ward, to continue to meet the federal dictate to provide free care to those who cannot pay for it.

In Tucson, which provides the only trauma center near the border, the hospital there wrote off $12 million for unreimbursed medical care year after year. Four hospitals closed in the San Diego area, (Calexico Hospital, Harbor View Medical Center, Kaiser El Cajon and Scripps Memorial Hospital East County), making Southern California the region with the greatest number of closures, at 15 hospitals, or 65 percent, of closures largely due to losses because of unreimbursable medical costs provided to illegal immigrants.

Under EMTALA, the choice is either treating the indigent for whatever reason they demand care, or getting slammed hard with Federal fines and lawsuits.

More http://rofasix.blogspot.com/2010/11/emtala-provides-preview-of-obamacare.html

Anonymous said...

Does the former half term gov play marbles now? Ellie

Anonymous said...

Bosman, you just keep getting better and better!

I'll take the 70-90% please, and make it Marionberry with a little ice cream on top.

-Martha

Doug NYC GOP said...

OJ,

To qoute yur gal..."WTF"????

Who in the Romney camp wants to "rip off" the South and Midwest? What's with this marble talk?

It seems every few weeks you manufacturesome new evil a President Romney will perpatrate on the nation. It's comical on one level, but it undermines you credibility as a serious person.

Do us all a favor and take you comments at 12:5pm and explain them. You made a lot of baseless charges three yo either need to re-tract or explain.

Anonymous said...

70-90% works for me.

Romney 2012!

dd

DanL said...

I am getting really nauseous over the ongoing Messianization of Romney. Personal visceral reaction aside, let me make a few points.

Romney has been polling very well against Obama in NH and MI. We have a decent shot at winning NH, but a slim chance of winning MI. If I were to bet, I would bet that Obama takes MI. Mitt will probably win NV, but lose CO and NM. Further, Mitt has been producing very disappointing numbers in VA and NC. So even if Mitt wins MI, NH, and NV it is likely a wash with losses in VA, NC, CO. But to our avid readers here Mitt is gauranteed some sweeping victory over Obama. Ok, whatever.

Even if that scenario holds out, I am unconvinced that Mitt would better for America long term than Obama. In the short term, yes he would be better, but long term I do not believe Mitt will do anything to arrest America's forward trajectory to insolvency. He won't cut defense in any meaningful way and has indicated that he is unsure about addressing Medicare and SS.

Repeal and replace Obamacare? Ain't gonna happen. Republicans would need 60+ senate seats and we just aren't going to get to that number in 2012. Mitt's repeal and replace slogan is just that, an empty campaign slogan that he knows perfectly well he has no chance of passing. It is as much smoke and mirrors as Huck's endorsement of the Fairy tax.

Finally, Mitt has a long track record of doing what is politically expedient. He does not have the will or resolve to make any meaningful changes. I am not even sure if he actually believes that things need to change. I do not trust him.

So, 8 years of President Romney gives us what? I firmly believe that he would keep the status quo with only minor, cosmetic budget changes. Obama won't have a democratic congress for the next four years so he can't enact any more sweeping changes like Obamacare. But Romney won't a republican congress and lacks the fire and resolve to push through his own legislation. Four years of either will keep the status quo entrenched.

But if Mitt wins in 2012, then we don't have a chance to elect someone in 2016 who really will fight to reform the budget and debt. We will be stuck with President Finger in the Wind. Then in 2020, the pendulum will swing back, as it always does in American politics, and we will have a democrat president. Our window of opportunity for real reform will have been squandered on Romney.

Doug NYC GOP said...

Way to see into the the future Dan. You wouldn't have the set of Powerball numbers handy would you?

Who would say has the "will or resolve to make any meaningful changes. I am not even sure if he actually believes that things need to change."?

Bill589 said...

I think it will come down to Mitt and Sarah. They both appear to follow Reagan’s eleventh commandment pretty well, and as far as I know they haven’t disparaged each other. Stress their own positives and especially stay away from the left-like ridicule of ‘quitter’ or ‘flip-flopper’.

I hope it can stay that way so that whoever wins starts out strong against Obama, with a unified GOP and TPM. I think united we stand, divided we fall, when it will come to beating the billion dollar man.

DanL said...

Doug, when you don't have a cogent rebuttal handy you resort to ridicule.

I know that you would never, ever admit that Romney's political career has been a summation of political vacillations and so my criticisms of Romney are just as quickly and summarily dismissed here as any negative comments about Palin would be at C4P. So I hesitated to even write a response as I knew that those several minutes it took me to write it were minutes of my life I could never get back. I'll be more careful in the future as to my use of time.

I would have responded to your second paragraph, but in your haste to stomp out all dissent, your fingers got ahead of your brain and you left out a word or two, thereby rendering the meaning of the paragraph oblique.

Right Wingnut said...

I agree with what Dan said. The difference is, he can say it without getting slammed by the Romney crowd.

So....18 months out from an election, and you have conclusive evidence that Romney is the ONLY one who can beat Obama? What a crock of sh!t!

Watch this morph into a Palin thread now...

Right Wingnut said...

Bill,

The Dems cam up with the billion dollar figure to intimidate potential opponents. It's on the same level as Mitt suggesting that he's willing to self finance if necessary. It means nothing.

DanL said...

RW, I really can't get away with criticizing Romney. I am pretty confident that I don't have any credibility here because I have been brash enough to criticize Romney a few times. I normally would have just walked on by after reading Bosman's blog, but I couldn't help myself. I had to appeal to reason one last time.

BOSMAN said...

Dan,

"I am getting really nauseous over the ongoing Messianization of Romney. Personal visceral reaction aside, let me make a few points.'

Not as tired as I am over the continuos attacks on Mitt Romney by the very same folks that supported him in 08.

"Even if that scenario holds out, I am unconvinced that Mitt would better for America long term than Obama. In the short term, yes he would be better, but long term I do not believe Mitt will do anything to arrest America's forward trajectory to insolvency. He won't cut defense in any meaningful way and has indicated that he is unsure about addressing Medicare and SS.'

As to cutting the Defense spending, Romney stated that he would look for waste there and put a stop to that. As to "addressing Medicare and SS", WHY THE HELL would he run on that!

Do you really believe a LOUD VOCAL promise of doing that would sitt well with most voters 50 and over. Give me a break!

"Repeal and replace Obamacare? Ain't gonna happen. Republicans would need 60+ senate seats and we just aren't going to get to that number in 2012. Mitt's repeal and replace slogan is just that, an empty campaign slogan that he knows perfectly well he has no chance of passing. It is as much smoke and mirrors as Huck's endorsement of the Fairy tax."

It won't with OVER ENTHUSIASTIC folks like you supporting Republican tickets.

"Finally, Mitt has a long track record of doing what is politically expedient. He does not have the will or resolve to make any meaningful changes. I am not even sure if he actually believes that things need to change. I do not trust him."

You no Dan, When you write, I rarely see you use qualifiers like, IMHO. 99.9% of his supporters would disagree with you on that. Don't you think?

"We will be stuck with President Finger in the Wind"

Yeh, He's got a history of sticking his finger to the Wind:

Governor of MA....Ma Health Care
Olympics
CEO at Bain

Ge I didn't know you could be that successful by sticking your finger into the wing. Thanks for telling me this Dan.

OhioJOE said...

"It seems every few weeks you manufacturesome new evil a President Romney will perpatrate on the nation. It's comical on one level, but it undermines you credibility as a serious person."

For starter, it is comical to me that you get to dictate who are the serious people and who are the serious candidates, but hey. For the record, I do not think Mr. Romney himself is evil, but you seriously expect me to believe that the high up elites in the Romney camp do not want to screw certtain regions of the country. That is not Winning The Future. These are the same people who gave us TARP, Mandates and NY-23 to new a few things. These folks do not compromise with Conservatives unless they are politically forced to do so.

BOSMAN said...

OJ,

Instead of throwing the bull shit out there about Romney wanting to screw certain parts of the country, why not back it up with something more than a delusion.

Anonymous said...

Dan, Romney 'has indicated that he is unsure about addressing Medicare and SS'? Where??

It' not true, he talk about it all the time. It's also in his book--and very clear.

I think you might be referring to a recent question he was asked about whether or not AMERICA is ready to address entitlement reform, not Romney himself, and he replied that he didn't know. Of course, a large number of Americans don't want their entitlements cut.

I hope Romney get the chance to prove you wrong on a few things. Not better than Obama?, please. Sure, some good guys may run in 2016. But none are perfect, or guaranteed to win, either. Better to take our shot with Romney than gamble on 2016.

It's that whole 70-90% thing.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

Dan, I wish you would take the time to listen to some of Romney's speeches, and read the op eds or book. I can't believe you think he's such a liar. It' basically what you are saying.

One thing I do know is that Romney does what he says he's going to do. It's pretty well known that Romney kept every campaign promise. He is not a liar, nor a man without principles.

That's not to say he is perfect or anything. After all, he is a politician, like all the rest.

-Martha

DanL said...

Martha, "It's pretty well known that Romney kept every campaign promise." Ya, sure.

"Romney: I want to make it very clear that I'm not going to raise taxes. As governor of Massachusetts, I made it very clear there, and I did not raise taxes.

Technically, this is true, but it's also misleading. Romney did not raise anything called a tax during his tenure as governor, but he did increase state revenues by raising various types of fees. In 2003, Romney doubled fees for court filings (which include marriage licensing fees), professional registrations and firearm licenses. Romney also quintupled the per gallon delivery fee for gasoline (money that is supposed to be for cleaning up any leaks from underground fuel tanks). All told, the fees raised more than $400 million in their first year. Romney also “closed loopholes” in the corporate tax structure, a move that generated another $150 million in increased revenue."

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_candidates_debate_round_2.html

Bill589 said...

America will have to address entitlement reform. We have no choice. Either now when it hurts, or in our children’s time when it maims, or maybe in our grandchildren’s time when they have no choice, and it crushes.

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." T. Paine

BOSMAN said...

Dan on Romney keeping his campaign promises:

"Technically, this is true"

BRAVO!!!!

Fees do not affect you if you don't use the service.

If I need a professional/broker's certificate/license to practice in MA, Why should you supplement it? Why should I supplement yours?

If you need a license for a service YOU pay for it, NOT ME.

Actually Romney made lots of money for the state by doing other this also like charging for advertising (billboards) in view/near major Highways.

Anonymous said...

Dan, I've read it many times that Romney kept every campaign promise, and I've never seen one person refute it. I guess you can look for evidence to the contrary.

You're exactly right about the fees. They were not taxes. Promise kept. I don't see a lot of people complaining about the fee increases, either.

Paul Ryan's plan also calls for closing tax loopholes. I have to admit, I don't know a lot about the subject.

-Martha

DanL said...

Martha and Bosman, you and Romney are being very, very disingenuous about the fees/taxes. Your smug, patronizing, condescension won't win Romney any votes. I dare say that most voters will see right through that flimsy argument without any problem.

DanL said...

Martha, I never said anything about Ryan or his plan. Nor was I objecting to closing tax loop holes. I was refuting the meme that Romney kept all his promises. Your red herring won't fly with me.

CF said...

Dan -

The difference between a "fee" and a "tax" is that a fee only affects people who actually use the service for which the fee is charged.

A tax is an umbrella, "skin in the game" charge on everyone whether they want it or not.

I applaud Romney's approach to raising money - charge only the people that want to have the service. Leave the rest of us alone.

BOSMAN said...

Dan,

"you and Romney are being very, very disingenuous about the fees/taxes. Your smug, patronizing, condescension won't win Romney any votes. I dare say that most voters will see right through that flimsy argument without any problem."

Dan they'll buy it....Know Why?......Because there's nothing to buy.

MA residents aren't complaining. Out of state residents aren't complaining. They only folks complaining are the ones like you who, when asked, Did Romney raise taxes answer:

"TECHNICALLY" he didn't

And are upset because IT'S TRUE!!!!!!

CF said...

And concerning the "finger in the wind" comment about Romney.

Romney is the only Governor with the courage to fundamentally change Health Care in his state, and he's the only Governor with the courage to find other methods to pay for things (fees instead of taxes).

Romney has been about the only Governor in recent memory to actually have the guts to do things differently in his state. He's the only candidate I can see that wouldn't be "sticking his finger in the wind".

He has not only the COURAGE to change things, but he's proven that he understands how to do it (something Palin doesn't). He proved that in business, running the Olympics, and running Mass.

DanL said...

I don't care a rat's rear end about Romney raising fees. What I object to is the false meme that Romney kept all his campaign promises. Splitting hairs over fees/taxes is analogous to Bill Clinton saying that he didn't have sex with Lewinski because it was only oral. Your efforts to distinguish between fees and taxes is just as offensive to anyone who can think for themselves as slick Willy saying it depends on what the definition of is is.

BOSMAN said...

BTW Dan,

Who's your candidate who will take down Obama with:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Organization
FIRE IN THE BELLY
Win enough I N D E P E N D E N T votes?

CF said...

Dan-

If you don't understand the difference between a fee on something that an individual chooses to use, and a tax that is mandated on every individual on threat of prison, YOU'RE the one who is offending peoples' intelligence.

BOSMAN said...

Dan,

Fees are fees!

Know Why?

Because they're NOT TAXES!

DanL said...

"If you don't understand the difference between a fee on something that an individual chooses to use, and a tax that is mandated on every individual on threat of prison, YOU'RE the one who is offending peoples' intelligence."

Ya, I'm too stupid to fit in with the Romney cronies. I'd better go vote for Palin hadn't I? Is this your game plan for winning votes, to call voters stupid if they see right through your BS?

DanL said...

"Fees are fees!

Know Why?

Because they're NOT TAXES!"

Sure, that may be true in a text book definition. But how about we poll Americans and see how many agree with you. I bet that your spin would only be believed by a small percentage of voters.

CF said...

Dan

So you criticize us for calling the voters stupid, but then you ask us to poll Americans to find out that they don't know the difference between fees and taxes?

Aren't you calling Americans stupid by claiming they won't know the difference?

BOSMAN said...

To tax:

(from the Latin taxo; "I estimate") is to impose a financial charge or other levy upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay is punishable by law

A fee:

A fee is the price one pays as remuneration for services.

BOSMAN said...

My last post reminds me of the scene from. "Miracle on 34th St". When the mailmen carried all the mail into the court room mailed to SANTA CLAUS and dumped it.

So if the Post office say's Santa Exists, then doesn't a dictionaries definition prove these 2 terms are different?

gggeorgewashington said...

If I may, please;

“IT IS VERY POSSIBLE THAT RON PAUL CAN WIN 2012!” Here are three different media outlets showing that only Mr. Ron Paul has a shot to contend with Obama 2012, and they are actually nearly dead even.
Please look;
http://politics.videosift.com/video/Poll-Suggests-Ron-Paul-Can-Beat-Obama-in-2012

http://2012obama.com/presidential-polls/ron-paul-vs-obama-in-2012-presidential-election/

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/04/survey-ron-paul-dead-even-with-obama-in-hypothetical-2012-race/1

Constitutionally, legislatively, and morally, Ron Paul has no equal. His 22 year voting record speaks for itself.


Please help give America back Her Constitution.

Ron Paul for President in 2012.

Thank You

Anonymous said...

my word dan L what spin! wow!

Revolution 2012 said...

A fee is not a tax!

Don't believe me though, because I'm just a Romney supporter.

Revolution 2012 said...

Bos,

There is a Santa Claus, Right?

Anonymous said...

"Michael do you have any articles you would recommend that tell us more of who Romney is. Enquiring minds wanna know." -Facebook friend. With what article would you respond?
MikeZ

Dave said...

Wow, What set Dan off today?

I thought Bosman made some excellent points in his article:

What other Republican out there could attract Independents like Romney. Anyone to far to the right, would scare them off.

And BEST POINT of All, Most of the pie is better than no pie at all. I can live with 5 out of six slices.

Right Wingnut said...

If we get Romney, which piece of pie don't we get?

hamaca said...

RWN--I was wondering the same.

Anonymous said...

RW, I don't know, but does anyone offer the whole pie? Sure doesn't seem like that person exists.

-Martha

BOSMAN said...

RWN,

"If we get Romney, which piece of pie don't we get?"

That can only be answered by the INDIVIDUAL!

Anonymous said...

Romney is the only guy with any real chance of beating Obama, but in all reality Obama will win reelection. Any real candidate should wait until 2016 to run.

James Taylor said...

So to sum everything up: Romney does better with the independents.

While I'm not a Romney supporter because of how he polls, this surely has to have some sway on those who want to replace President Obama. I feel that electability is a subject that hasn't been meaningfully examined yet this nomination cycle, and I think Bosman does a great job of emphasizing it here.

James Taylor said...

Sorry for the grammatical ambiguity. I am a Romney supporter. My support for him does not hinge on polling.

Steve Foster said...

Well, I see DanL's point. Romney does seem to take great care to "technically" keep his promises, even when observers can choose to disregard or manoeuvre around the technicality. I take it as a demonstration of his integrity, since technicality in gray areas is also important to my own sense of honesty; while others with more binary views may find his behaviour somewhat legalistic.

DanL's statement that seemed the most foreign to me was, "Repeal and replace Obamacare? Ain't gonna happen", followed by a consideration of Congressional partisanship. I would submit to DanL that Romney's governship, and particularly his work on health-care, was a compelling example of the bilateralization of an issue that had needlessly polarized legislators. Health-care is a bane of the free market, and reform should have been a Republican priority all along. Romney, in his state, seized back the conservative initiative, and was thus able to contribute toward a flawed but workable compromise owned by both sides -- a scenario miles away from the national version, which was drafted by only one party, and is now upheld by only one party.

So, when DanL tries to count Senate heads and predict filibusters, I think he's operating on a familiar political model that nevertheless doesn't exactly apply to Romney, who, though still standing on one side, appears to respect ideas above labels, and to govern as if he believes that political consensus is a necessity rather than an impossibility. I'm not wholly convinced that a Romney Congress absolutely must contain 60-plus Republicans.

Anonymous said...

DanL,

I missed the fireworks yesterday. Hopefully a new day brings a little more calm.

After your sour and extensive prognostication on a Romney Presidency, I made a much needed joke and asked you a legitmate question. (see below) There was no point to make, I was interested in your answer.

I'll chalk it to being in high spirits yesterday, that you dismissed my comments as mere ridicule.

So let me rephrase things. You feel a Romney Presidency would only address our problems marginally and for window dressing. Fine, that's your opinion.

Who do you see as the person, who is going to all that you think needs to be done and why?

Thanks.

And don't forget to laugh once in awhile

"Way to see into the the future Dan. You wouldn't have the set of Powerball numbers handy would you?

Who would say has the "will or resolve to make any meaningful changes. I am not even sure if he actually believes that things need to change."? "

Doug NYC GOP

Doug NYC GOP said...

Steven Foster,

You make some very good points about Romney and how he governs. He does respect ideas and looks to build bridges.

I think one of the great intangibles Romney brings to the race, which has yet to be fully developed or realized, is his lack of polorization.

When voters step into the botth in 2012, we will have gone through 12 of the most bitter and divisive political cycles in memory. The GWBush and Obama years have turned a lot of people sour to politics, with all the bickering, while problems mount up.

In many ways I think Romney's image as a problem solver first, rather than a partisan fighter, will be a great benefit. The "I can get things done" sublinimal effect should not be discounted out of hand.

While I don't see the country ever uniting politically, I can see the country calming down somewhat, when problems begin too be addressed and turned around.

GetReal said...

DanL,

I just wonder what Romney did recently to turn you from pretty much a soft supporter of his to someone so vehemently anti-Romney that you now state Obama would be preferable.

It reminds me of a certain poster on Race402012, I'll call him A.X. ;) When A.X. decided to change horses and back Huck instead of Romney, he didn't just no longer prefer Romney, he pretty much HATED the guy...even though he had very recently supported him.

I know you can't speak for him, but what gives with you?

Its one thing if you found another candidate you prefer, or just don't want to support Romney anymore, but you seem pretty bombastic about it, and that didn't seem to be your personality before.

Anonymous said...

Romney is a moderate.
He says whatever is necessary to get what he wants. He has never held a controversial position that he didn't flip flop on.
I would rather lose than have a phoney liberal republican win.
As long as the house of reps stays its current course, I could live without a republican president.