feedback.pdxradio.com » Politics and other things

Run Romney, Run!

(45 posts)
  • Started 3 years ago by Master of Disaster
  • Latest reply from dodger

  1. The race for Presidential Nominee for America's largest third party ( ) is heating up:

    While Romney made his candidacy official in New Hampshire, political heavyweights Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani caused a stir of their own with visits to the first-in-the-nation primary state. And rumblings from Texas Gov. Rick Perry, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota further undercut Romney's standing as the closest thing the GOP has to a front-runner.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_romney2012

    To borrow what NoParty usually says:
    Run Romney, run!
    Run Palin, run!
    Run Giuliani, run!
    Run Perry, run!
    Run Christie, run!
    Run Bachmann, run!
    Run all conservatives, run! Don't stop and concede if you don't win!

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 01:44 PM #
  2. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,969

    I think perry is serious, btw.

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 02:36 PM #
  3. Perry is not running. Texas is a disaster and Perry is toting around a ten gallon hat full of political liabilities. That aside, can you imagine the branding and unfortunate visual messaging from a George W Bush looking/sounding, secessionist curious, cowboy clone from Texas running against the nation's first African American President?

    It aint' gonna happen. He's just looking for ink and money making opportunities. The only reason he’s even being mentioned and cajoled from conservative land is the available candidates are so laughably poor he looks reasonable by comparison.

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 02:54 PM #
  4. Remember Gov. Perry talked about secession, he ain't going anywhere.

    It should be fun watch the social conservatives shoot down the Mig ttster. Get out the popcorn.

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 03:01 PM #
  5. Mittens is setting himself up as the candiate who has a prayer in a general. I actually think he's doing a pretty good job of it. The GOP field is just embarassing. If he can win Iowa out of the gate (really, socially conservative land) and then follow up with topping the New Hampshire primary, you're looking at the GOP's 2012 presidential nominee.

    It's 2008 all over again. And just as was the case with McCain, he'll pick some far right fucking loon as his VP candiate to help bolster his weaknesses with the religious nut jobs.

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 03:13 PM #
  6. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,969

    Yes. I forgot he was the succession guy. LOL!! Cooked for sure.

    As for Mitt, I can't wait to see what other morbid stuff comes from this particular vetting. You know there will have to be one. Maybe it's juicy.

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 03:22 PM #
  7. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,272

    Have we forgotten that Mitt could not win a key primary in 2008 that he was supposed to win? This despite his primary opponent (McCain) seeing his campaign fall apart months before the first primary.

    The reason so many Republicans are still thinking about jumping into the race is that Romney has few friends in the party and isn't well liked - and this guy is the FRONTRUNNER. I personally think it has nothing to do with his religion. He's just not a guy people like. He has a long history of flip-flopping; he once endorsed some very liberal positions and has since simply changed them all. As McCain said in 2008 of Romney in a debate: "He really is the candidate of 'change.'"

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 04:16 PM #
  8. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,961

    Romneycare will hang around his neck like an albatross, no matter how he tries to explain it away.

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 05:25 PM #
  9. What a dofus Romney is:

    Mitt Romney says U.S. is "only inches away from ceasing to be a free market economy.”

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/02/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-us-only-inches-away-ceasing-be-fr/

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 07:07 PM #
  10. "What a dofus Romney is:

    Mitt Romney says U.S. is "only inches away from ceasing to be a free market economy.”"

    Why does that make him a dufus? Because he didn't admit we ceased to be that a long time ago?

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 07:14 PM #
  11. edselehr

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,193

    A quote explaining why the Truth-O-Meter pegged "FALSE" to Romney's comment:

    "It has long been the conservative view that there is only so much freedom out there and if government grows in size then this necessarily diminishes freedom," Bartlett said. "Thus if spending is 25 percent of GDP, then we are three-quarters free, and if it grows to 40 percent, then we have lost 15 percent of our freedom and are only 60 percent free. This, of course, is nonsense, because it implies that the greatest freedom exists in anarchy … and that freedom is the only thing anyone cares about."

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 07:29 PM #
  12. paulwalker

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,248

    I predicted Romney would be the front runner in the GOP race well over a year ago, right here. That prediction was shot down by many. Yes, he still has problems, but I believe he is the best hope for the GOP in the general, and if he can stay on message, he will do well.

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 08:47 PM #
  13. Skybill9

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 10,000

    OK, be honest;

    Scenario: Both candidates are 100% equal. Both candidates meet EVERY issue/concern you have to a T. Both candidates are Independents so there is no Republican/Democrat issue.

    Question: Who would NOT vote for Romney SIMPLY because he is a Mormon?

    Personally, while I think Mormonism is a cult, I wouldn't not vote for him because he is a Mormon any more than I wouldn't vote for someone because they are Jewish, Catholic, Methodist, Protestant or Christian.

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 09:01 PM #
  14. skeptical

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,026

    Rajneesh?

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 09:20 PM #
  15. Brianl

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,205

    "Personally, while I think Mormonism is a cult, I wouldn't not vote for him because he is a Mormon any more than I wouldn't vote for someone because they are Jewish, Catholic, Methodist, Protestant or Christian."

    There are a LOT of fundamentalist Christians in the Bible Belt to whom it DOES matter. I'm with you, I don't care, but many do.

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 09:50 PM #
  16. Skybill>> "Question: Who would NOT vote for Romney SIMPLY because he is a Mormon?"

    Personally, I don't care what religion he is, but there are many fundamentalist who would not vote for him for that very reason. He could be an atheist for all I care.

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 09:51 PM #
  17. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,878

    Run like a Mother F'er Mit!

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 09:51 PM #
  18. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,878

    Skybill>> "Question: Who would NOT vote for Romney SIMPLY because he is a Mormon?"

    Catholics

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 09:51 PM #
  19. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,969

    LOL!!

    Was thinking the same thing Trix.

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 10:02 PM #
  20. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,878

    And that includes a HUGE "LEGAL" Mexican/American vote so Romney is toast!

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 10:05 PM #
  21. Skybill9

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 10,000

    All good posts, but I was really referring to us here on the board.

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 10:06 PM #
  22. Mrs.Merkin

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,436

    "Question: Who would NOT vote for Romney SIMPLY because he is a Mormon?"

    Me.

    I think many people will be turned off by that fact alone. His main concern will not be for the well-being of all Americans, he will be answering to his higher power first and foremost, which is the leadership of the LDS church. He will simply function as their puppet.

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 10:08 PM #
  23. paulwalker

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,248

    Nope. Not what his record indicates in Mass.

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 10:12 PM #
  24. edselehr

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,193

    Wasn't the same said about Kennedy and his fealty to the Pope?

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 10:16 PM #
  25. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,969

    There is enough wrong with his economic policy to reject him.

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 10:17 PM #
  26. Paul>> "Nope. Not what his record indicates in Mass."

    That's why the GOP will reject him. Sarah Palin has already shot that across the bow.

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 10:35 PM #
  27. "I think many people will be turned off by that fact alone. His main concern will not be for the well-being of all Americans, he will be answering to his higher power first and foremost, which is the leadership of the LDS church. He will simply function as their puppet."

    Then you wouldn't vote for a Catholic, would you? Any Catholic would be a puppet for the pope.

    And a Presybterian would be a puppet for the Presbyterian Church.

    And Obama would be a puppet for Reverened Wright.

    What does that leave us? We can only vote for atheists?

    Posted on June 2, 2011 - 11:39 PM #
  28. edselehr

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,193

    "We can only vote for atheists?"

    Athiests and Muslims: two groups who can never aspire to be president in this day and age. But maybe someday...

    Posted on June 3, 2011 - 12:29 AM #
  29. Skybill9

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 10,000

    I think an atheist would have a better chance than a muslim of getting elected!

    Posted on June 3, 2011 - 12:38 AM #
  30. edselehr

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,193

    Athiest = zero chance
    Muslim = less than zero

    I think it's shameful.

    Posted on June 3, 2011 - 12:42 AM #
  31. Brianl

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,205

    "Nope. Not what his record indicates in Mass."

    If Romney was running on a platform based on what he did in Massachusetts, I'd consider him.

    But he is running AWAY from that platform.

    As far as his religious faith, I look at it this way: Jimmy Carter was a profoundly spiritual man, who despite his misgivings as POTUS, was a very honorable, and forthright man who really tried to do the right thing. His faith did not get in the way of his job.

    George W. Bush proclaimed himself to be a deeply religious man, but his actions as President spoke otherwise.

    It's not the faith, it's the person.

    Posted on June 3, 2011 - 05:58 AM #
  32. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,969

    It's totally shameful. There can be no religious test for public office. That's how we are supposed to play it here.

    If we take the ideas of equality and personal freedom seriously, then we can't have that test.

    Founders got that one right. Way too many of us missed a day in school somewhere.

    Posted on June 3, 2011 - 07:09 AM #
  33. warner

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,378

    Couldn't care less that he's Mormon. Why, some of my best friends... er nevermind.

    Seriously, I don't care. But, I don't trust him as far as I could throw him. He doesn't really stand for anything, besides himself.

    Posted on June 3, 2011 - 10:40 AM #
  34. Brianl

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,205

    "Seriously, I don't care. But, I don't trust him as far as I could throw him. He doesn't really stand for anything, besides himself."

    I think he's proven in the past that he stands for something. Unfortunately, he sold out solely to placate the Neo-Conservatives and the religious right.

    Posted on June 3, 2011 - 11:07 AM #
  35. Mrs.Merkin

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,436

    Hey, you guys asked and I answered honestly.

    At this point in time, I would not vote for him because of his religion/cult. And I don't like his record or current platforms either. So there.

    (Of course, if he flip-flops back to pro-choice, or our only other candidate choice is Sarah Palin, then yes, I would do flip-flops myself.)

    Posted on June 3, 2011 - 11:09 AM #
  36. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,969

    Yeah, no worries! If he were a really great candidate, but for the religion, it would be a different discussion.

    Posted on June 3, 2011 - 12:25 PM #
  37. skeptical

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,026

    Mitt is now saying global warming is real. Hmm.

    Posted on June 3, 2011 - 01:07 PM #
  38. As thorough readers of this forum may recall, I mentioned in a couple of other threads that the smartest thing Mittens could do is to embrace his health care reform record from Massachusetts. It’s the single, greatest legislative accomplishment of his political career and he’s pretending it never happened.

    This is, of course, to pander to the Tea Party a.k.a. the GOP base. By doing so I doubt he’s going to engender any greater goodwill than currently exists from those people; they consider him a fraud in the cultural conservative department and this move is unlikely to remedy the situation. And by doing so he may be fatally wounding himself for the general if he ends up the Republican nominee.

    This decision on his part (to run against his own record on health care) may very well end up being the single dumbest thing he’s ever done. This is saying quite a bit if you followed the unfocused, flip flopping, tone deaf, mess of a campaign his organization ran in 2008.

    Despite what you may hear from the uniformed on the matter, President Obama's Health Care Reform law is a (mostly) conservative piece of legislation which encompasses many of the proposals made by Republican legislators in years past when the party wasn't fundamentally ruled by religious lunatics and the gleefully ignorant. The law Romney passed in Massachusetts is very similar and has resulted in 98% of the state’s residents having insurance coverage, (in contrast, Perry’s state, Texas, is dead last in the nation in this regard) and they’ve managed to do while at the same time lowering costs in many fundamental ways.

    If he was smart and principled, and incidentally I feel he’s neither, he would run on his record in defiance of the clowns that make up the GOP base. I still think he’d end up surviving the gauntlet of anti intellectualism that is the GOP primaries, (his opponents are almost universally unelectable circus clowns) and he would be in far better position to face the president in the general.

    And I’ve said it before and feel compelled to say again: If you apply critical reasoning to any religion, they’re all equally ludicrous. I find it highly ironic the good ole’ Christian folk take issue with Romney’s “cult” as this is as clear a case of the pot calling the kettle black as you’re likely to encounter anywhere in life.

    It’s all equally nonsensical.

    I judge Mittens on his record and what he claims to stand for. The problem is he misrepresents the first and changes the second every time the wind shifts.

    Posted on June 3, 2011 - 02:11 PM #
  39. Double post; apologies.

    Posted on June 3, 2011 - 02:11 PM #
  40. Romney earns his second "Pants on Fire" from politifact.

    "A few months into office, (President Barack Obama) traveled around the globe to apologize for America."

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/03/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-traveled-around-glob/

    Posted on June 3, 2011 - 04:59 PM #
  41. Mrs.Merkin

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,436

    "Then you wouldn't vote for a Catholic, would you? Any Catholic would be a puppet for the pope. And a Presybterian would be a puppet for the Presbyterian Church. And Obama would be a puppet for Reverened Wright. What does that leave us? We can only vote for atheists?"

    Oh, puhleeze!

    You'd easily pick a militant anti-abortion atheist over a Republican/Catholic pro-choicer. Admit it.

    Posted on June 4, 2011 - 12:47 AM #
  42. "You'd easily pick a militant anti-abortion atheist over a Republican/Catholic pro-choicer. Admit it."

    Most definately.

    Posted on June 4, 2011 - 08:07 AM #
  43. What I'd be interested in is what would happen to politics if something like a Constitutional Amendment or a Supreme Court decision declared that their predecessors in the Court have already ruled on the topic and an abortion falls under the First Amendment, which would effectively force anyone and everyone to move on. I for one think it would move the country in the right direction.

    Posted on June 4, 2011 - 11:14 AM #
  44. edselehr

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,193

    Roe v. Wade was decided on constitutional principles, the principle of privacy. It's not explicitly state in the Bill of Rights like the First Amendment is, but is widely considered to be an amalgam of the 1st, 9th and 14th amendments, along with the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections.

    So the right of a woman to have an abortion has already been determined to be constitutional. Yet the debate continues. So MoD, I don't think any additional constitutional validations of the right to have an abortion will make an iota of difference to those who are staunchly anti-abortion.

    Posted on June 4, 2011 - 11:40 AM #
  45. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,878

    Is Mitt a flip-flopper?

    Posted on June 4, 2011 - 02:20 PM #
  46. dodger

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 960

    In response to the title of this thread: OK!

    http://thepage.time.com/2011/06/07/49-46/

    Posted on June 7, 2011 - 10:42 AM #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.