Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Thoughts on concession speeches

Just a short blog post.

First, I only really listened to Santorum's and Romney's speech. Both of which I found excellent! Santorum made a lot of very good points, clarified the direction he would like to take the country if he were elected, and, most importantly, directed his barbs at the right person - Obama. If he were to keep up this rhetoric and discontinue his idiotic calls to Democrats to bring Romney down (instead of intelligently calling on Democrats to vote for himself as a leader who could get things done), then Santorum could rise to my number 2 choice again. I give Santorum a LOT of credit for focusing on the correct opponent in his speech last night, for having a positive and upbeat speech. He wasn't bitter, angry, and didn't send any barbs at Romney, Gingrich, or Paul. I also credit Santorum for graciously (and very briefly) calling Romney with a congratulations call.

Romney's speech was also excellent. It was his 2nd best speech to date. Romney's Florida speech was the best, in my opinion, so far. His NH speech is a close 3rd. His speech included all of the talking points and rhetoric he has included in his campaign stump speeches so far. He also focused his barbs on the correct opponent, Obama. He remains my #1, far ahead of his competitors for a myriad of reasons.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.


Anonymous said...

Machtyn, I didn't hear Rick, because honestly, I stopped listening to his speeches. He tends to drone on and on. But if he has decided to go positive, I'm all for it. Maybe he has learned that what he was doing didn't work.

I listened to Romney, and I think he did very well, too. He's not perfect, but I'm not necessarily looking for an orator. Sometimes I really wish he would not use prepared remarks at all, but speak frankly from his heart. He does so much better on those occasions.

The one thing I seriously wish Romney would stop doing on the trail is wearing those horrible jeans. They don't look good on him, and he doesn't look like himself. He's a slacks and button-down shirt kind of guy. I know Ann supposedly thinks he needs the jeans, and who am I to know, but when I see him, I think he's not being himself.

This is a serious job. I don't care what the other guys wear, I wish Romney would wear the attire that the occasion calls for. He looks so much better in slacks.


Lionhead said...

Talking about speeches, let's have a look back to 2008, the Romney victory speech in Michigan:

Ah, we'll fight for national health care?? And now we'll fight to repeal it?? Is it real or is it Memorex? It is on the video tape.

Some here refuse to see how Romney's religion reflects back on his character. They say the same of Santorum. Look at this objectively & decide if some of these beliefs are rational:

The vetting process for Romney is really showing some big warts on his personna.

Anonymous said...

Lionhead, scrapping the bottom of the barrel with your pal, RW, I see.


Lionhead said...

Hi Martha, if showing the truth is scraping the bottom of the barrel, I'll be right down there looking for it.

BTW, how's that Ann Coulter endorsement workin' out for you? ;)

She must be part of that lower denominator folks huh?

Machtyn said...

Santorum's team calling for an "Al Gore" do over in MI. Perhaps Santorum wishes to keep playing the whiner's card.

Anonymous said...

Lionhead, what truth? Your opinion, or anyone's opinion about the Mormon church is not truth.

No candidate should have to submit his faith's theology, actions, or mistakes up for public ridicule. Whatever the Mormon church did or did not do in the past has no bearing on Romney's candidacy or fitness for office. He's proved that time and time again.

People like you and RW wish to make Mormonism the issue because you don't have anywhere else to go.

And, Ann Coulter's article is working out fine. She's brave and right.


Anonymous said...

My sentiments exactly,Martha. Thank you for your rational and intelligent comments.

Anonymous said...

Anon, thanks!


Lionhead said...

Martha, we meet again. IMHO, I think his character & belief system are to be considered in a person running for President. His religion, not much, unless it effects his belief system.

Romney has demonstrated an elite side & a reptilian side of his personality. The elite side shows he can do or say as he pleases, reflected in his "I am who I am" statement yesterday. So, if you have the same feelings, obviously you'll accept that. Without honest, plain speaking on positions, I am who I am means very little. We've been trying to define Romney for months now, but he's most elusive. His father George had much more humility & compassion than his son exhibits. Moreover, George was a self made man; Mitt is not. George created a car business, Mitt created a prediator private equity business. Mitt managed the Olympics, but depended on Gov't money, not creating the funds for the Olympics.

His reptilian side, the dark side of Mitt, is him at his primitive self. Completely self absorbed, win at all costs, kneecap any opponent in any way possible to win, obfuscate the truth, destroy Gov't records, buy up hard drives, increase taxpayers costs in the leasing arrangements aka other people's money (OPM). So, where pray tell might a person learn such things? Either through his life experience, family, education, religion, or DNA. One or a combination will do. The tenets of the Mormon faith seem to be built around hierarchial men who claim to have visions & such. Well, one might look at other faiths that have gone awry built upon such a belief system. One comes to mind as it's always in the news, Islam.

While you ponder this, look around on this blog & see how some of the posters & commentors have very similar belief systems. From what I've read, most are Mormon. Draw your own conclusions. To me, I see things in Romney I personally don't want to have in any President, Democratic or Republican. It's just a logical point of view.