Contrast that with Obama who is digging in his heels over every confrontation with the GOP. Instead of coming to the middle over the debt limit, he wants to force the issue the way he did with Obamacare. Unlike Clinton, I don't think Obama has any inclination to work with the GOP to get anything done. And the right is too fractured to really stand up to him. The purists won't offer solutions that could actually pass, instead they offer up boilerplate proposals that are sure to lose and sure to alienate independent voters. The McConnells of the party are only too willing to go along with Obama and give him unilateral authority to raise the debt limit.
If Obama wins, I suspect that there will still be enough McConnell types left in the Senate to give Obama his agenda. I am reluctantly forced to return to backing Romney as he is the only candidate that I think is viable to beat Obama. My big concern with Romney is that he is too much like McConnell and won't fight the democrats in Congress to get real changes passed into law. But I am convinced that an Obama second term would be a disaster, unlike Clinton's second term.
Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.
27 comments:
I trust Romney more than you do. I could be wrong, but I do trust him more than that.
Whoever.......is POTUS (Republican!).......will NEED a Rep House and Senate if we want to get things done. There will be much more accomplished by having the majority. And, since we've seen in recent past, having both houses and the WH did NOT promise WISE spending, WE, the People, will have to be awake and pressuring our leaders to get IT done. We all need to accept some blame for being asleep in the voting booth, or too apathetic to get there in the first place.
Romney's resume is much more impressive than the others. I'm sure I'm NOT voting for a Preacher in Chief....or anyone who "uses" their religion to "buy" votes.
I want a qualified, experienced person to turn around the direction of our country. I will look to my own ecclesiastical leaders for my spiritual guidance.
Dan,
If you don't think Mitt would fight the Dems in congress, what makes you think he would be effective in fighting Obama? I fear that they will be in agreement on far too many issues. In addition, he lacks the ability to attack Obama on some issues (health care, climate change, etc.) without looking like a total hypocrite.
RWN, he has "attacked" Obama on the health care, already. He is NOT for cap and trade. That's not a secret.
Romney did stand up to the Dems in MA but did try to work them. He vetoed a number of things the Dems wanted but he wasn't demeaning and ridiculing of then like Obama has been to the Repubs.
The line that Romney is too much like Obama is an "ignorant" swipe at him. Either one doesn't do any research and critical thinking or one is so biased that one doesn't care.
I also have serious concerns about a lack of enthusiasm for a Romney candidacy among the base.
In addition, the man has won exactly ONE election in his political career. In 2008, he won exactly ONE primary despite out-spending all of the other candidates combined and having the best organization. Was it because McCain was such a compelling candidate? Nobody here can credibly answer that question in the affirmative. Conservatives didn't trust him, and he lacked the ability to connect with the voters.
RW,
the problem is, who else is there in the race? I gave Bachmann a serious, but short lived, look before deciding against her. But I was fair while evaluating her. If Palin were to jump in I would give her a second chance, but she would have to really impress me. I detest Huntsman, Johnson, and Perry. No way do I vote for them. I was giving serious consideration to Ron Paul for a while, but just can't quite bring myself to vote for him. I don't think Pawlenty is any better than Romney. I once did, but he has pandered too much over the last few months for me to trust him any more than Romney. Since he sucks in the polls, I have just written him off.
I am reminded of the song...if you can't have the one you love, love the one your with. Romney is not close to my first choice, but he appears to be who we will be stuck with. I can continue to snipe, or I can try to look for positives. And even if I don't find much to be positive about, I can at least stop criticizing.
DanL
Well Dan L, while I still do not understand where you and RW were coming from earlier this afternoon, I did enjoy this particular article. I do not agree with everything that have written here, but I at least understand where you are coming from with regards to this post.
RW,
FYI, in 2008, Romney won THREE primaries - Michigan, Mass and Utah.
Look like it's time for another in a series of seemingly endless factual corrections you find yourself needing to make.
hey dan,
i agree with your post that a osama reelection would be terrible and disastrous.Ive seen the polls where the gop is not happy with the current field, well if this is the field we have then you just have to go with the best one we got and that clearly is romney. Until other potential candidates grow a pair and jump in already (palin,perry, giuliani, etc) they dont exist as far as im concerned.
Ok Doug. Perhaps I was wrong. 3 primaries. MA, MI, and UT. Is that suppose to inspire confidence>
I was thinking of Michigan, where his dad was governor. I'm sorry I forgot about his home state of Massachusetts and the Mormon capital of the world, Utah. Silly me.
OJ, We're not always going to agree on everything. No hard feelings on my end. :)
I have a tendency to be blunt. I mean no offense.
Just don't want people walking away witht he wrong idea.
Besdies as someone way smarter than me said earlier today on another subject..."And more than that, this is a dramatically different social and political climate that we live in."
DanL,
I get where you're coming from. I just can't bring myself to support any of them right now. I used to think Perry would be acceptable, until I started looking in to his record.
Doug, I thought Utah was a primary state, and I truly didn't think about MA. It wasn't intentional.
I personally am "excited" about the Romney choice!
I think it extremely dishonest....or ignorant...to think Romney has done any more flip flopping than the current man in the WH or a number of other candidates and talking heads. Different subjects, perhaps, but Mitt is more trustworthy than some of these candidates, especially those that use "religion" to further their political careers. THAT I find most distasteful.
I would hold the greatest hope in correction for America with a Romney presidency!
No problem...I was quoting DanL from earlier BTW from the comment box.
Everyone seemed a little edgy today.
Shake it off and enjoy summer.
Thanks for writing this, Dan.
It is a shame that perhaps the biggest motivation for much of the party will be anti-Obama rather than pro whichever candidate gets the nomination.
There's talk about the need for party unity around the nominee. I'm concerned that significant groups within the GOP may not want to unify under any circumstance if their candidate is not selected.
If Mitt wins the election, he will have to step up to the plate in ways no other President has had to do. He will need to draw from his experience in slashing organizational waste. He'll need a limited number of clearly defined, measurable, and communicated objectives that move the country in the direction it needs to go. He needs to not get sidetracked. He'll need a leadership team onboard and engaged with a sense of urgency that drives through the needed changes or they get removed in favor of those who will produce.
I could go on and on, but it will be the challenge of his life, as with any POTUS, of course.
Hamaca,
I have tons of respect for Mitt's business experience. If that is the Mitt who is president then we might just make some positive advancement as a nation. That is what I will try to focus on going forward.
I also think he did a decent job as governor. And I don't give a crap about the mandate. I won't get into the negatives that I think he has because I have done that at length in the past. It is time for me to just shut up about that and to put a positive outlook on things. Optimism is really what this country needs most right now, so I should start.
DanL
RW,
I was excited about the prospect of a Daniels candidacy. Really excited. Since he announced he isn't running I have been in a pretty big funk. I have been looking around a lot at other candidates (even Rick Perry for about a day). I totally understand your lack of enthusiasm. Currently I feel the same way. But I am going to try to change that. My wife often tells my 5 year old that she can choose to be happy. I should take that to heart and choose to be optimistic.
DanL
Doug,
I'm sorry that I was a jerk to you today.
DanL
Dan,
Business is different from politics in so many ways, it's almost impossible to excel at both. It's also unrealistic to expect someone to be nearly perfect in both.
In business, one often has to be nimble, willing to make decisions, then often do an about face when conditions, the competition, etc. change. That. does. not. work. in. politics. And that is why politicians don't get things done--because they care too much about their image. And that is the very reason I want one of the most capable business/financial/consultant guys in the country to get in there and do what he does best.
I don't care that it means he sucks as a politician. All the more power to him! That's the whole point. Politicians are so afraid to do this or that for fear of offending this constituency or that. That's why there's paralysis in D.C.
I don't want someone who can connect with me. I'm likely to have more respect for them as a prospective POTUS if they don't. This isn't some touchy-feely facebook contest--it's about leading the country in its much needed turnaround. It'd better be someone who's been successful in life! I don't care how they come across if it means they're all business.
This is part of why I support whom I support--and why politics is ridiculous.
Hamaca,
You just described how so many people view Mitt!
...And that is why politicians don't get things done--because they care too much about their image....That's the whole point. Politicians are so afraid to do this or that for fear of offending this constituency or that....
He has a history of going along, just to get along. Now is the time for bold, principled leadership. Mitt has not shown that in public office.
RWN,
I realize that's being said. In the same way Sarah has been incorrectly stereotyped, so has Mitt.
Mitt had a lot to learn about political PR and not letting others define you and is still paying the price.
RW, you said you voted for romney 08, well if palin doesnt get in and the current field is all we have to choose someone from to defeat obama, i trust that you will vote romney again.
DanL,
I was a little surprised at your tone today, considering we have never clashed in the past.
No harm done and all is forgiven and forgotten.
I understand your funk about Daniels, I felt that way when Romney lost in 2008. Who ever your candidate of choice turns out to be, I wish you peace of mind and spirit.
RW,
I don't think it's fair or accurate to say Romney "goes along, just to get along." If you are referring to HC reform, that was being crafted by the Dems even before he was elected. If anything Romney stepped in try and craft something more acceptable to all parties concerned. A "Going along to get along" Governor would let the Legislature draft everything and just rubber stamp it. That was not the Romney record.
Interesting numbers in the WSJ poll about Principles and Comprimise. The Very Conservative voters want principles upheld and as you move towards the center, comprimise approval increases.
Remember the Reagan rule of thumb...if you get 70-80% of what you want, comprimise and take the deal. That's how leadership and governance works.
Holding out for 100% on every issue only works behind a radio microphone.
Post a Comment