re: Someone make the case for Romneyen>frfr>en By Mournblade Comments: 1010, member since Sat Oct 24, 2009
On Sun Feb 05, 2012 04:56 PM
Edited by Mournblade (82386) on 2012-02-05 17:18:56
chevy wrote:
We need a real conservative but don't think it's going to happen.
”Elect the most conservative candidate who can win”
Frankly, I think any of the present Republican candidates can beat Obama. Regardless who eventually runs, we must not forget to vote for a conservative House and Senate. Afterall, they are the ones that write the legislation.
I know its difficult, but I DID ask people to make a case for Mitt. Complaints about the other candidates, we've seen plenty of that. If you could tell me something about Mitt that would make me want to vote for him, I surely would appreciate it.
Mit stands a chance of winning in the general.
Mit is a happily married family man without a lecherous past and bitter ex-wives.
Mit has actually ran and won in a STATEWIDE race in a liberal state, proving his ability to get votes across a large demographic, not just in his right leaning home district.
Mit is not one of the most hated politicians in the US.
There are no pictures or videos of Mit collaborating with another of the most hated politicians in America.
Mit can get more female votes than just his wife and daughters'.
Mit actually has executive experience.
Mit has more business experience than dealing with his wife's excessive jewelry bills.
Mit can win in northern states, not just the south who will vote republican no matter who the candidate is.
Mit has not pissed off homos.
Mit has not pissed off blacks.
Mit has not pissed off hispanics.
Mit has not pissed off women.
Mit is not considered by the media to be the devil incarnate.
Because some elections are so important that the ONLY thing that should be considered is the ability to defeat the incumbent.
Justice Clinton
Justice Frank
President Biden
EVERY 5-4 victory at the Supreme Court
etc.
re: Someone make the case for Romney (karma: 3)en>frfr>en By jeanv Comments: 21379, member since Sun Sep 11, 2005
On Sun Feb 05, 2012 07:29 PM
jerrylewissux wrote:
Mit stands a chance of winning in the general.
Because some elections are so important that the ONLY thing that should be considered is the ability to defeat the incumbent.
Oh. OK. What counts is winning. No matter under which banner. Obama Lite very OK.
You can just choose the color of your Obama.
Illinois Obama vs Massachussets Obama.
Christian Obama vs Mormon Obama.
Black Obama vs white Obama.
Romneycare = Obamacare at the state level
Romney supported the bailouts
Romney is for gun control
Romney is pro-choice
Romney was Party kommissar at Bain&Co
Romney's taxes stifled job creation in Massachussets
Obama has been plowing the US, Romney will sow the seeds of socialism.
Mit stands a chance of winning in the general.
Because some elections are so important that the ONLY thing that should be considered is the ability to defeat the incumbent.
Oh. OK. What counts is winning. No matter under which banner. Obama Lite very OK.
You can just choose the color of your Obama.
Illinois Obama vs Massachussets Obama.
Christian Obama vs Mormon Obama.
Black Obama vs white Obama.
Romneycare = Obamacare at the state level
Romney supported the bailouts
Romney is for gun control
Romney is pro-choice
Romney was Party kommissar at Bain&Co
Romney's taxes stifled job creation in Massachussets
Obama has been plowing the US, Romney will sow the seeds of socialism.
Funny considering that your next president is even more of a socialist than Obama.
One of many things that you don't understand, is that unless someone hated like Newt is the nominee, the republicans will keep the House and gain the Senate in 2012.
So even if Mit were to lose to Obama, Obama can't get his leftist agenda thru congress.
He still can do serious damage with regulations and with judge appointments, but he'll have nowhere near the power as he did when first in office.
A double edged sword though, the congress can also force laws on a president Romney and make him keep his promises and sign them.
That's the danger of nominating Newt, he won't win the Presidency and he'll probably cause the loss of the House.
Speaker Pelosi
Majority Leader Reed
Justice Frank
Justice Clinton
President Biden
Mit stands a chance of winning in the general.
Because some elections are so important that the ONLY thing that should be considered is the ability to defeat the incumbent.
Oh. OK. What counts is winning. No matter under which banner. Obama Lite very OK.
You can just choose the color of your Obama.
Illinois Obama vs Massachussets Obama.
Christian Obama vs Mormon Obama.
Black Obama vs white Obama.
Romneycare = Obamacare at the state level
Romney supported the bailouts
Romney is for gun control
Romney is pro-choice
Romney was Party kommissar at Bain&Co
Romney's taxes stifled job creation in Massachussets
Obama has been plowing the US, Romney will sow the seeds of socialism.
re: Someone make the case for Romneyen>frfr>en By Tiberius Comments: 10747, member since Tue Feb 11, 2003
On Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:03 PM
chevy wrote:
I read it but I'm not buying that anybody but obama crap. It's that kind of talk that got us obama in the first place.
We need a real conservative but don't think it's going to happen.
We got McCain because he encouraged Democrats to cross over in open primaries to vote for him while Huckabee stayed in the race to draw away enough votes to keep Romney from getting over the top.
re: Someone make the case for Romneyen>frfr>en By WineandCoke Comments: 18796, member since Wed Apr 16, 2003
On Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:21 PM
We need a real conservative but don't think it's going to happen.
---
Folks, I don't think you're even going to get a fake conservative like Romney. But I could be wrong.
That said, if Obama does win, you think he should give Newt an administration job as an expression of thanks for all he did to attack Mitt? Maybe name him first U.S. ambassador to the moon?
re: Someone make the case for Romneyen>frfr>en By jukinj3 Comments: 15924, member since Tue Apr 08, 2003
On Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:03 PM
WineandCoke wrote:
We need a real conservative but don't think it's going to happen.
---
Folks, I don't think you're even going to get a fake conservative like Romney. But I could be wrong.
That said, if Obama does win, you think he should give Newt an administration job as an expression of thanks for all he did to attack Mitt? Maybe name him first U.S. ambassador to the moon?
W&C you are one f the sane Liberals. I have but one question to ask you. Do you think that you and the majority of Americans are better off than you were four years and 6 trillion deficit dollars ago?
A few years after Mitt Romney graduated from Harvard Business School, he returned to share a simple, timeworn lesson in an unusual way.
Invited to give a presentation on balancing work and family, he began by telling students that they were like multinational corporations, recalled Clayton M. Christensen, who organized the event. “You have the same question as General Electric,” said Mr. Romney, then a young father and a management consultant. “Your resources are your time and talent. How are you going to deploy them?”
He drew a chart called a growth-share matrix with little circles to represent various pursuits: work, family, church. Investing time in work delivered tangible returns like raises and profits.
“Your children don’t pay any evidence of achievement for 20 years,” Mr. Romney said. But if students failed to invest sufficient time and energy in their spouses and children, their families could become “dogs” — consultant-speak for drags on the rest of the company — sucking energy, time and happiness out of the students. The presentation was a hit: Mr. Romney had proved the value of family time based not on emotion but on yield.
That day, Mr. Romney was not only displaying his hallmark brand of almost comically analytical reasoning but also returning to the place where he first absorbed it. From 1971 to 1975, he simultaneously earned business and law degrees from Harvard.
When he arrived, he was the son of a Republican luminary — George W. Romney, who had run the American Motors Corporation before becoming governor of Michigan — who was still insecure about his own talents, according to family members, former classmates and professors. When he graduated, he was an academic star and a hot recruit, convinced he could play on a bigger field than he had previously dreamed. He had found two new homes: in Massachusetts, a state he would eventually govern, and in finance, a field he would eventually help shape.
Those years also help illuminate who Mr. Romney is now: a Republican candidate for president accused of having no core convictions, a once-moderate governor suspected of tailoring his views for political expediency. Nearly four decades ago at Harvard, Mr. Romney embraced an analytical, nonideological way of thinking, say former classmates and professors, one that both matched his own instincts and helped him succeed. On a campus rife with political and social ferment, he willfully distanced himself not only from politics, but also from larger ideological frameworks and heated debates.
Eager, driven and tremendously hardworking, he mastered the Harvard Business School method of literally looking at the world on a case-by-case basis, approaching each problem completely on its own terms and making recommendations based on data.
In the classrooms where Mr. Romney distinguished himself, there were no “right” answers — no right questions even, just a daily search for how to improve results. The Mitt Romney classmates knew then was a gifted fix-it man, attuned to the particulars of every situation he examined and eager to deliver what customers wanted.
“Mitt never struck me as an ideologue outside matters involving church and family,” said Howard Brownstein, a classmate. “He is a relativist, a pragmatist and a problem solver.”
Overprepared
On the first day of business school in fall 1972, Mr. Romney took his assigned seat in the amphitheater-like classroom, slid his name card into a slot where it would be visible to the professor and panicked.
Stewart DeBruicker, his marketing professor, had interrogated a student who gave answers so polished that the rest of the class sat stunned. “These guys are going to be so much better,” he later reminisced to his eldest son, Tagg, who shared his father’s reaction in an interview.
No matter that Mr. Romney had already attended Stanford as well as Brigham Young University as an undergraduate, and one year of Harvard Law School; no matter that his father was by then the secretary of housing and urban development serving under President Richard M. Nixon, and that everyone in the class knew the Romney name, or that the marketing genius who was called on had been warned ahead of time, as students discovered later. Growing anxious “is the way he approaches everything; he’s rarely overconfident,” said the younger Mr. Romney, who eventually earned his own Harvard M.B.A. “He doesn’t take anything for granted and overprepares.”
That was why Mr. Romney was cramming a law degree as well as a business one into four packed years at Harvard: as a kind of insurance for success, to give him more options and training, classmates said. Besides, George Romney, who never graduated from college, had insisted on the law degree. “My dad wanted H.B.S.,” Tagg Romney said, referring to the business school. “The joke is they compromised and did both.”
Initially, Mitt Romney seemed to be preparing to become his father, albeit with a fancier education — he planned to return to the Midwest and become an auto executive. He carried a hand-me-down briefcase with the initials G.W.R. around campus, telephoned his father when a law school project touched on housing policy and wrote a paper on a statute governing automobile dealerships. (“Quite good, not brilliant,” the professor, Detlev F. Vagts, rated it in an interview. “I felt his research was relatively easy.”)
One day Colin C. Blaydon, a finance professor, gazed up into the amphitheater to see a familiar face: George Romney, sitting in on his son’s classes.
Unlike George W. Bush, who was a year behind him in business school and was immortalized in the yearbook blowing a huge bubble of gum, Mr. Romney had limited interest in socializing. (The two barely met, but if Mr. Romney had known where Mr. Bush “was gonna go, I would have been on him like white on rice,” he later told The Atlantic.)
And unlike Barack Obama, who attended Harvard Law School more than a decade later, Mr. Romney was not someone who fundamentally questioned how the world worked or talked much about social or policy topics. Though the campus pulsed with emotionally charged political issues, none more urgent than the Vietnam War, Mr. Romney somehow managed to avoid them.
“Mitt’s attitude was to work very hard in mastering the materials and not to be diverted by political or social issues that were not relevant to what we were doing,” said Mark E. Mazo, a former law school study partner.
Instead, Mr. Romney threw his energy into being the best. Nearly all business school students formed study groups to help them digest the constant flow of cases, but Mr. Romney recruited a murderers’ row of some of the most distinguished students in the class. “He and I said, hey, let’s handpick some superstars,” said Howard Serkin, a classmate.
Every day for an hour, the all-male group — there were relatively few women in the program back then — sat at a semicircular table outside the classroom and briefed one another on the reading material. It was an exercise in mutual protection, since any of them could be called on in class and their performance would affect their grades. Mr. Romney served as a kind of team captain, the other members said, pushing and motivating the others.
“He wanted to make straight A’s,” Mr. Serkin said. “He wanted our study group to be No. 1.” Sometimes Mr. Romney arrived early to run his numbers a few extra times. And if his partners were not prepared, “he was not afraid of saying: ‘You’re letting us down. We want to be the best,’ ” Mr. Serkin added.
The students were experiencing the most unusual, distinguishing aspect of a Harvard Business School education: in every class, even accounting, there were no textbooks, no theories of management, just the school’s vaunted set of cases — one-page summaries of real-life corporate situations.
The case study method “doesn’t start with the theory or even principles,” said Kim B. Clark, a friend of Mr. Romney’s who later became dean of the school. “It starts with ‘All right, what is going on? What does the data tell us?’ ”
The cases did not even lay out questions. Students had to analyze the material, sometimes just a paragraph long, figure out the company’s problems and pose solutions. “The case study method is like trying to train doctors by just showing them [sick] patients, rather than by showing them textbooks to depict what a healthy patient should look like,” said Mr. Brownstein, the former classmate.
Mr. Romney was in his element. His class performances were outstanding; his peers described him as precise, convincing and charismatic. He won the high grades he craved, becoming a George F. Baker Scholar, a distinction awarded to the top students in every business class, and would graduate from the law school with honors as well.
The education “played to his natural instincts to be a problem solver, to be a person who thrived on facts and data,” Mr. Clark said. But he also had an advantage over some other students: the many hours he had spent discussing work with his father had given him insight into the life of a top executive, said Steven C. Wheelwright, a friend from back then who became a Harvard Business School professor.
Socially Apart
If Mr. Romney melded with the school intellectually, he kept some distance from it socially. He was married and a parent. In the liberal precincts of Cambridge, he and his wife, Ann Romney — pictured wearing matching sweaters at a fall 1973 business school clambake, with their two sons on their laps — seemed like they were from “out on the prairies,” Mr. Brownstein said.
The future governor abstained from things many other students were doing: drinking coffee or alcohol, swearing, smoking. (Sometimes he made little coughing noises around smokers, Mr. Brownstein remembered, politely letting them know he disapproved.) When classmates visited the Romneys’ tidy home in suburban Belmont, they felt as if they were visiting a friend’s parents, not members of their own generation, and the young couple’s closest friends came from the Mormon church.
Some who knew Mr. Romney thought his faith contributed to his success at Harvard. He was becoming a leader in the Boston church; earlier, he had spent two years as a missionary in France, acquiring salesmanship and leadership skills, according to Mr. Wheelwright, a fellow Mormon. “You’ve learned a set of principles that are very much what the Harvard Business School happens to be looking for, but also what successful business leaders are like,” he said.
The Romneys did let outsiders into their world, sometimes inviting study group members to their weekly “family home evening,” a night Mormons traditionally set aside for husbands, wives and children to spend time together. (Mr. Brownstein remembered Mrs. Romney showing him her basement: in accordance with Mormon custom, she had a year’s supply of food stored in bins and freezers.)
Mr. Romney’s relationships, even with other church members, had a pattern: he was supportive, earnest and trustworthy, said a dozen friends from those years. But he was not particularly open; confessing frustration or turmoil was just not his way.
One night Mr. Mazo, his law school classmate, watched Mr. Romney wince as he realized the jacket he was wearing had a Camp David logo on it. Mr. Mazo assumed his friend was being modest and did not want to flaunt his father’s presidential connection.
Perhaps, but what Mr. Romney did not discuss was that his father’s experience in the Nixon cabinet was bruising. The two longtime rivals loathed each other and clashed over housing policy. By the summer of 1972, Mitt Romney’s mother, Lenore Romney, even wrote a pleading letter to a top Nixon adviser about what she described as the president’s “low regard” and poor treatment of her husband.
Seeing a parent struggle in the spotlight is the classic trial of the politician’s child, but Mitt Romney said almost nothing about the situation to anyone. He put up with the occasional friendly taunts from his study group members — “If your father had gotten to be president, more doors would be open and you wouldn’t have to study so hard.”
Mr. Romney talked plenty about business, though — the role of the corporation and executives, the ways the old model he had grown up with were changing. By 1973, the economy was sinking, in part because of an oil crisis. But at the same time, businesses were using new technologies, from electronic calculators to mainframe computers, to analyze and exploit data more fully than ever before.
“He was there at this epicenter where you had a few people who realized that these changes opened up enormous opportunities,” Mr. Clark said.
Mr. Romney never seriously considered practicing law. “He wanted to make money, he wanted to solve problems,” said Mr. Serkin, his former classmate. (In Mr. Romney’s world, money is “how you keep score,” he added.)
About a year before he graduated, he attended a recruiting session for the Boston Consulting Group, a small firm in the new field of management consulting. Kenneth Woolley, a Stanford business graduate and a fellow Mormon who led the presentation, told the students that by joining his firm, they would have “the opportunity to deal with business problems at the very highest level at a very young age,” he recalled later. “When you’re 25 years old, you’re looking at problems at the C.E.O. level.” Mr. Romney was enthralled; a few months later, he had a job offer.
Today, Mr. Romney does not speak much about his business school degree. But he remains quite attached to the star study group he put together all those years ago, faithfully attending dinners the men hold every five years.
Clustered around a small table, reviewing cases with them, Mr. Romney was in his comfort zone, observed Stephen M. Waters, another member of the group, and he does not miss a chance to return to that setting. Mr. Romney even showed up the year he was put in charge of cleaning up the troubled 2002 Olympic games, stopping by for an hour before flying to Athens for a meeting of the International Olympic Committee.
“It was like a case in the old days,” Mr. Brownstein recalled. Mr. Romney analyzed it the same way, telling the graying group five things that had to be fixed and how he was going to do it.
The men gathered most recently in 2009, after Mr. Romney’s unsuccessful presidential bid. His old friends asked him about the experience, and he pointed out how much simpler decisions are in business than in politics. “You end up taking into consideration things that wouldn’t be important in a business decision,” Ronald J. Naples remembers him saying.
Viral Internet story says Mitt Romney helped locate missing teen daughter of Bain Capital partner
A number of readers recently have asked us to fact-check a story about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The story, currently circulating on email, Facebook, and blogs, says that Romney helped a colleague of his at Bain Capital locate his missing teenage daughter.
"In July 1996, the 14-year-old daughter of Robert Gay, a partner at Bain Capital, had disappeared," the story reads. "She had attended a rave party in New York City and gotten high on ecstasy. Three days later, her distraught father had no idea where she was. Romney took immediate action. He closed down the entire firm and asked all 30 partners and employees to fly to New York to help find Gay’s daughter. Romney set up a command center at the LaGuardia Marriott and hired a private detective firm to assist with the search. He established a toll-free number for tips, coordinating the effort with the NYPD, and went through his Rolodex and called everyone Bain did business with in New York and asked them to help find his friend’s missing daughter. Romney’s accountants at Price Waterhouse Cooper put up posters on street poles, while cashiers at a pharmacy owned by Bain put fliers in the bag of every shopper. Romney and the other Bain employees scoured every part of New York and talked with everyone they could – prostitutes, drug addicts – anyone.
"That day, their hunt made the evening news, which featured photos of the girl and the Bain employees searching for her. As a result, a teenage boy phoned in, asked if there was a reward, and then hung up abruptly. The NYPD traced the call to a home in New Jersey, where they found the girl in the basement, shivering and experiencing withdrawal symptoms from a massive ecstasy dose. Doctors later said the girl might not have survived another day. Romney’s former partner credits Mitt Romney with saving his daughter’s life, saying, ‘It was the most amazing thing, and I’ll never forget this to the day I die.’
"So, here’s my epiphany: Mitt Romney simply can’t help himself. He sees a problem, and his mind immediately sets to work solving it, sometimes consciously, and sometimes not-so-consciously. He doesn’t do it for self-aggrandizement or for personal gain. He does it because that’s just how he’s wired."
We can’t speak to what this episode says about Romney’s deeper character, but we can verify the facts of the episode. In fact, we did so when this story came up during the 2008 presidential election season.
Back then, the story was circulating because of television ad created by Romney’s campaign. It featured Gay crediting Romney with helping reunite him with his daughter.
As we reported then, based on contemporary news reports, the girl sneaked away on July 6, 1996, to go to a rave party in New York City, where she took the drug Ecstasy. She had told her parents she was playing tennis.
When she didn't return, Boston-based Bain Capital, where Romney was founder and CEO, essentially shut down to help search for Gay's 14-year-old daughter Melissa.
Bain Capital's 50 employees went to New York, where they convinced more than 200 other people to help search the streets for two days. They printed and passed out fliers. Romney clearly had a leading role in the company's operations, but news reports from the time also said other Bain partners helped coordinate the search effort.
According to news reports, the teen was found in suburban New Jersey. A teen-aged boy, who took her in after her partying, called authorities late on July 11.
Lt. David Peterson of the Montville Township Police told PolitiFact four years ago that police reports do not mention Romney personally. But Peterson, as well as reports at the time, agreed that the Bain Capital search generated important attention to the case of the missing girl.
"The thing was it was a 911 caller that saw her on Channel 7 and called in," said Peterson, who recalled waiting for the girl to be picked up from Montville police station.
Gay says Romney helped "save" his daughter, though previous reports have differed on the condition she was in. The line in the retelling now circulating -- that doctors told Gay she might not have lived another day -- comes from a Boston Globe report in 2002.
Newsday, for its part, reported in July 1996 that "Melissa's parents said she was physically unharmed though she appeared 'very fragile.' The family's doctor had examined the girl and pronounced her in fairly good condition. ..."
"She was not harmed," Robert Gay said at news conference after she was found, according to the New York Daily News. "She was in tears. We just gave her hugs and brought her back home."
By all accounts, the effort by Bain employees was central to the effort to locate the girl, and Romney reportedly played a significant role in that effort. We give the account now circulating a rating of True.
re: Someone make the case for Romneyen>frfr>en By Reed Comments: 11738, member since Sat May 24, 2003
On Mon Feb 06, 2012 01:06 AM
Edited by Reed (65322) on 2012-02-06 01:09:32
MadRusski wrote:
By Reed Comments: 11157, member since Sat May 24, 2003
On Sun Feb 05, 2012 04:10 AM
Everyone's telling me I should fall in line and support this guy, but nobody can tell me why.
Because Newt called Paul Ryan's budget "right wing social engineering". Because Newt accused Romney of greed: why do you need 300M? wouldn't 100M be enough? Because Newt aligned with Pelosi out of all people on Global warming. Because Newt caters to illegals and is every bit as "compassionate conservative' as Bush was/
I like listening to Newt. He is brilliant. But he is Obama of the right. Believer in his intellectual superiority and right to govern the stupid peasants with an iron huge Gooberment fist.
Which leaves Romney as a lesser evil
You're talking about another candidate, which isn't what I asked for.
Newt vs. Ryan budget, he didnt' attack it, he was talking about tactics. Totally taken out of context.
re: Someone make the case for Romneyen>frfr>en By Gringodiablo Comments: 10751, member since Wed Feb 18, 2004
On Mon Feb 06, 2012 08:03 AM
Johnny_Ola wrote:
Romney is not my first choice and I believe he is a bit of an empty suit and won't bring the kind of change we will need to fix this country. That said, I think he is basically a decent honest man with good business sense, proven ability to govern,and will be a million times better than Obama. I also believe, unlike Newt, he can BEAT Obama.
I really dread seeing what Obama will do in a second term and not giving a shit about being reelected.
Once Paul is out, I'm going to have to back Romney.
Paul is going the distance. I doubt he'll win the nomination, but he'll pick up more delegates than most folks expect.
And Paul and Romney are about equal when it comes to beating Obama. The whole mantra of milquetoast=electable is only true so as far as it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Paul does better with independents then the other candidates, and with Democrats as well. You could actually have a nominee who was both actually conservative and with broad-based appeal.
I read it but I'm not buying that anybody but obama crap. It's that kind of talk that got us obama in the first place.
We need a real conservative but don't think it's going to happen.
I must respectfully disagree, it is not massive numbers of votes that put Obama in office, it is massive numbers of people staying home on election day that put Obama in office.
Do you really think Obama's election fund doesn't spend money to divide conservatives as much as it spends to draw voters?
re: Someone make the case for Romney (karma: 2)en>frfr>en By Reed Comments: 11738, member since Sat May 24, 2003
On Mon Feb 06, 2012 08:09 PM
Edited by Reed (65322) on 2012-02-06 20:10:42
Edited by Reed (65322) on 2012-02-06 20:11:52
Edited by Reed (65322) on 2012-02-06 20:16:21
jerrylewissux wrote:
Mit stands a chance of winning in the general.
What tells you that? Seeing voter turnout in the republican primaries in the states that Romney won drop precipitously from the 2008 GOP primaries. For example, voter turnout in Florida dropped over 25% from 2008 GOP primary (unlike in South Carolina, where Gingrich won and turnout was up something like 30%). That, to me, is a very scary statistic. The GOP voters are supposed to have very high voter intensity because we want to get Obama out, so why would turnout drop so much? Turnout is likely depressed due to Romney and the GOP's scorched earth campaign against Newt.
Voter intensity dropping to below 2008 levels (a very down year for republicans) = Obama reelection.
Mit is a happily married family man without a lecherous past and bitter ex-wives.
Happily married family man. Gotcha.
Mit has actually ran and won in a STATEWIDE race in a liberal state, proving his ability to get votes across a large demographic, not just in his right leaning home district.
Not sure that this is a point in his favor. Romney did win one state-wide race in Massachusetts, running as a unwaveringly pro-abortion, social moderate. Do we want to hold up winning an uber-liberal state like mine as a positive?
Gingrich only had to win his district, not the entire state of Georgia, of course. But he DID win state-wide in a REPUBLICAN state (South Carolina) and if his campaign is to continue past Super Teusday he'll have to win some more states.
Mit is not one of the most hated politicians in the US.
Again, that's a matter of opinion. I personally can't stand the son of a bitch, so telling me he's not hated doesn't really give me a reason to vote for him.
There are no pictures or videos of Mit collaborating with another of the most hated politicians in America.
Are you sure about that? Romney signing MA healthcare law, flanked by a who's-who of MA leftist assholes, including Fat Boy Ted Kennedy
Mit can get more female votes than just his wife and daughters'.
I should hope so! But so can Newt. Gingrich carried majority of women's votes in SC, for example.
Mit actually has executive experience.
Okay, another point for Mitt.
Mit has more business experience than dealing with his wife's excessive jewelry bills.
That's just stupid. Now I suppose you'll criticise Newt for attacking Romney's wealth?
Mit can win in northern states, not just the south who will vote republican no matter who the candidate is.
Again that's just opinion, and personally I'd be more worried about if he can win southern states, not the northern states that Obama will probably win anyway. There is absolutely zero chance that Romney will win Massachusetts against Obama, for example.
Mit has not pissed off homos.
Mit has not pissed off blacks.
Mit has not pissed off hispanics.
Mit has not pissed off women.
He hasn't? And you know this how?
Homos, okay he allowed gay marriage, if you think that means gays don't hate him, but I wouldn't necessarily consider that aa plus nationwide.
Blacks, nothing particular comes to mind except that he's a rich white guy running against a black democrat and for the life of me I can't recall any black person, in the media or out, professing love for Romney during his term as governor or since. If you think Romney's going to get more than 5% of the black vote, then that's your opinion but I wouldn't want to bet the house on it.
Hispanics, let's not forget Mitt's feigned outrage when Newt said he wouldn't be rounding up Mexicans that had been living in this country for 25 years or more and throw them the hell out of the country. I wouldn't be so sure that Hispanics would favor that, but then again they probably know that Mitt was simply pandering to those dumb redneck GOP primary voters anyway.
One thing that strikes me is the way you carve up the electorate into groups based on sex and race and leave only the white mens' opinions as unimportant. You sure you aren't already voting for Obama? You sure sound like a democrat.
Mit is not considered by the media to be the devil incarnate.
That by itself should tell you something!
They may be restrained for now, but do you really think that will continue after he wins the nomination? Mitt or Newt or any other republican will be considered by the media to be the devil incarnate. Are you for real with this BS?
Personally I don't give a flying fuck what the media says, because in my opinion, THEY are the fucking devil incarnate!
Because some elections are so important that the ONLY thing that should be considered is the ability to defeat the incumbent.
Justice Clinton
Justice Frank
President Biden
EVERY 5-4 victory at the Supreme Court
etc.
Again, I'm looking for reasons to believe that he has that ability, and so far I'm coming up waaay short!
But hey, you did just manage to add two points to the list for consideration:
happily married family man
executive experience
re: Someone make the case for Romneyen>frfr>en By Reed Comments: 11738, member since Sat May 24, 2003
On Mon Feb 06, 2012 08:23 PM
TheMadPoet wrote:
chevy wrote:
Mournblade wrote:
It's obvious, not many read my post above.
Oh well.
I read it but I'm not buying that anybody but obama crap. It's that kind of talk that got us obama in the first place.
We need a real conservative but don't think it's going to happen.
I must respectfully disagree, it is not massive numbers of votes that put Obama in office, it is massive numbers of people staying home on election day that put Obama in office.
Do you really think Obama's election fund doesn't spend money to divide conservatives as much as it spends to draw voters?
Take a look at what Romney's scorched-earth attack ad blitz did to voter turnout on Florida primary, and then re-read your post.
re: Someone make the case for Romney (karma: 1)en>frfr>en By Reed Comments: 11738, member since Sat May 24, 2003
On Mon Feb 06, 2012 08:26 PM
LTKilling wrote:
let me tell you the future
OBAMA WILL WIN
the Republicans are fucking idiots
Yup. And if they lose to that asshole again, a whole lot of people are going to conclude that there is no point to being a republican if they can't beat a marxists scumbag like him, and what's left of the party will crumble.
re: Someone make the case for Romney (karma: 2)en>frfr>en By chevy Comments: 10157, member since Tue Nov 16, 2004
On Mon Feb 06, 2012 09:07 PM
South Carolina Voter Turnout Topped Earlier Republican Contests
By Greg Giroux - Jan 23, 2012 12:00 AM ET
The Republican primary in South Carolina had record turnout, with bigger gains in voter participation than in Iowa (STTLIA) and New Hampshire earlier this month.
The Jan. 21 South Carolina vote drew 602,000 Republicans, a 35 percent increase over 2008 participation, as former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich defeated former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the front-runner in national Republican polls. Gingrich received 40 percent of the vote compared with Romney’s 28 percent.
Yet Republicans beat the previous record of 573,000, set in the 2000 primary, in part because there was no Democratic primary and the pool of registered voters is much larger than a dozen years ago. South Carolina increased its voter registration to 2.8 million from 2.1 million in 2000, the last time Republicans had a competitive primary and Democrats didn’t.
What tells you that? Seeing voter turnout in the republican primaries in the states that Romney won drop precipitously from the 2008 GOP primaries. For example, voter turnout in Florida dropped over 25% from 2008 GOP primary (unlike in South Carolina, where Gingrich won and turnout was up something like 30%). That, to me, is a very scary statistic. The GOP voters are supposed to have very high voter intensity because we want to get Obama out, so why would turnout drop so much? Turnout is likely depressed due to Romney and the GOP's scorched earth campaign against Newt.
Or vice versa, Newt's ads against Romney, but that won't change how republicans feel about Obama.
Voter intensity dropping to below 2008 levels (a very down year for republicans) = Obama reelection.
You're talking about the primary and equating it to the general. Apples and Oranges. Obama isn't in the primary.
Not sure that this is a point in his favor. Romney did win one state-wide race in Massachusetts, running as a unwaveringly pro-abortion, social moderate. Do we want to hold up winning an uber-liberal state like mine as a positive?
When you're trying to take votes away from liberal you sure do. Especially when the conservative vote is in the bag.
Gingrich only had to win his district, not the entire state of Georgia, of course. But he DID win state-wide in a REPUBLICAN state (South Carolina) and if his campaign is to continue past Super Teusday he'll have to win some more states.
Among republicans he won, but unless our "Democrats vote on Wednesday" campaign does well, that don't mean jack.
Again, that's a matter of opinion. I personally can't stand the son of a bitch, so telling me he's not hated doesn't really give me a reason to vote for him.
Are you sure about that?
[img]3.bp.blogspot.com . . . F2s/ByuU2NsroIU/s1600/Romney_health_signing_608-thumb-608x431-38430.jpg[/img] Romney signing MA healthcare law, flanked by a who's-who of MA leftist assholes, including Fat Boy Ted Kennedy
Neither one is as damaging among independent and centrist dems as is pelosi. She's poison except to the uber-leftist while for some reason people like Kennedy. And don't forget its a FEDERAL mandate that many object to, while they don't worry about a state mandate being passed in their state.
I should hope so! But so can Newt. Gingrich carried majority of women's votes in SC, for example.
Republican women.
That's just stupid. Now I suppose you'll criticise Newt for attacking Romney's wealth?
Absolutely, he sounded like someone from occupy Wall St.
But I condemn them both for breaking the 11th Commandment.
Again that's just opinion, and personally I'd be more worried about if he can win southern states, not the northern states that Obama will probably win anyway. There is absolutely zero chance that Romney will win Massachusetts against Obama, for example.
This make no sense Reed. The south didn't vote to elect Obama, you think they will vote to re-elect him?
And what makes you think that Newt stands a better chance of winning northern states than Romney?
The south will vote republican, period. Obama is not a good ole boy souther democrat governor.
He hasn't? And you know this how?
Lack of irate protesters following his every step.
Homos, okay he allowed gay marriage, if you think that means gays don't hate him, but I wouldn't necessarily consider that aa plus nationwide.
Don't think it's much of an issue except to extremes on both sides, and their vote is cinched, only turnout matters.
Wanna see record democrat turnout? Nominate Newt.
Blacks, nothing particular comes to mind except that he's a rich white guy running against a black democrat and for the life of me I can't recall any black person, in the media or out, professing love for Romney during his term as governor or since. If you think Romney's going to get more than 5% of the black vote, then that's your opinion but I wouldn't want to bet the house on it.
Same as above, turnout is all that matters.
Obama could be on live TV starting a nursing home fire then tossing live babies into the fire and he'll get the black vote. Same for any democrat really.
Hispanics, let's not forget Mitt's feigned outrage when Newt said he wouldn't be rounding up Mexicans that had been living in this country for 25 years or more and throw them the hell out of the country. I wouldn't be so sure that Hispanics would favor that, but then again they probably know that Mitt was simply pandering to those dumb redneck GOP primary voters anyway.
Would Newt win more hispanics than Romney in a general? Probably, but more for religious reason I think.
But Obama's forcing Catholic institutions to provide the morning after pill may negate that issue and prove to be Obama's biggest fuck up.
But as above, if Juan McCain couldn't win them, it only about turn out.
One thing that strikes me is the way you carve up the electorate into groups based on sex and race and leave only the white mens' opinions as unimportant. You sure you aren't already voting for Obama? You sure sound like a democrat.
I figured that was coming, you're not for Newt therefore you must be for Obama. Just didn't expect it from you.
I think Newt would be the best president out of the bunch. Have so since he won Speaker. I'd rather him than Rubio, Jindal, or Christy.
But he can't win.
And the "guilty white man" of 08 is now the "angry white man" of 2012, it's their old ladies we have to worry about.
And it's not just votes Reed, I mean we all know that homos are a small percentage that will always vote democrat. It's the effect they can have on turnout, and if you want to energize them, nominate Newt.
That by itself should tell you something!
They may be restrained for now, but do you really think that will continue after he wins the nomination? Mitt or Newt or any other republican will be considered by the media to be the devil incarnate. Are you for real with this BS?
No, they'll be biased as usual, but Dick Chenney running with Donald Rumsfield would get better press than Newt will.
Personally I don't give a flying fuck what the media says, because in my opinion, THEY are the fucking devil incarnate!
Couldn't agree more, but you obviously get news from many places, unfortunately many do not.
Again, I'm looking for reasons to believe that he has that ability, and so far I'm coming up waaay short!
But hey, you did just manage to add two points to the list for consideration:
happily married family man
executive experience
When you go to the horse races, you bet on the horse you think will win. Not the one with the best coat, or prettiest main.
Santorum and Paul have a better chance in the general I'm afraid.
Don't like it, and don't like the 4th branch having so much influence in the selection of the executive branch, but that's where we find ourselves.
It's all about turnout this year, and apathy on the left is a good card to hold.
Obama's taken care of apathy on the right.
re: Someone make the case for Romneyen>frfr>en By jerrylewissux Comments: 18878, member since Sun Mar 09, 2003
On Mon Feb 06, 2012 09:39 PM
Edited by jerrylewissux (59052) on 2012-02-06 21:45:12 .
Reed wrote:
What tells you that? Seeing voter turnout in the republican primaries in the states that Romney won drop precipitously from the 2008 GOP primaries. For example, voter turnout in Florida dropped over 25% from 2008 GOP primary (unlike in South Carolina, where Gingrich won and turnout was up something like 30%). That, to me, is a very scary statistic. The GOP voters are supposed to have very high voter intensity because we want to get Obama out, so why would turnout drop so much? Turnout is likely depressed due to Romney and the GOP's scorched earth campaign against Newt.
Or vice versa, Newt's ads against Romney, but that won't change how republicans feel about Obama.
Voter intensity dropping to below 2008 levels (a very down year for republicans) = Obama reelection.
You're talking about the primary and equating it to the general. Apples and Oranges. Obama isn't in the primary.
Not sure that this is a point in his favor. Romney did win one state-wide race in Massachusetts, running as a unwaveringly pro-abortion, social moderate. Do we want to hold up winning an uber-liberal state like mine as a positive?
When you're trying to take votes away from liberal you sure do. Especially when the conservative vote is in the bag.
Gingrich only had to win his district, not the entire state of Georgia, of course. But he DID win state-wide in a REPUBLICAN state (South Carolina) and if his campaign is to continue past Super Teusday he'll have to win some more states.
Among republicans he won, but unless our "Democrats vote on Wednesday" campaign does well, that don't mean jack.
Again, that's a matter of opinion. I personally can't stand the son of a bitch, so telling me he's not hated doesn't really give me a reason to vote for him.
Are you sure about that?
[img]3.bp.blogspot.com . . . F2s/ByuU2NsroIU/s1600/Romney_health_signing_608-thumb-608x431-38430.jpg[/img] Romney signing MA healthcare law, flanked by a who's-who of MA leftist assholes, including Fat Boy Ted Kennedy
Neither one is as damaging among independent and centrist dems as is pelosi. She's poison except to the uber-leftist while for some reason people like Kennedy. And don't forget its a FEDERAL mandate that many object to, while they don't worry about a state mandate being passed in their state.
I should hope so! But so can Newt. Gingrich carried majority of women's votes in SC, for example.
Republican women.
That's just stupid. Now I suppose you'll criticise Newt for attacking Romney's wealth?
Absolutely, he sounded like someone from occupy Wall St.
But I condemn them both for breaking the 11th Commandment.
Again that's just opinion, and personally I'd be more worried about if he can win southern states, not the northern states that Obama will probably win anyway. There is absolutely zero chance that Romney will win Massachusetts against Obama, for example.
This make no sense Reed. The south didn't vote to elect Obama, you think they will vote to re-elect him?
And what makes you think that Newt stands a better chance of winning northern states than Romney?
The south will vote republican, period. Obama is not a good ole boy souther democrat governor.
He hasn't? And you know this how?
Lack of irate protesters following his every step.
Homos, okay he allowed gay marriage, if you think that means gays don't hate him, but I wouldn't necessarily consider that aa plus nationwide.
Don't think it's much of an issue except to extremes on both sides, and their vote is cinched, only turnout matters.
Wanna see record democrat turnout? Nominate Newt.
Blacks, nothing particular comes to mind except that he's a rich white guy running against a black democrat and for the life of me I can't recall any black person, in the media or out, professing love for Romney during his term as governor or since. If you think Romney's going to get more than 5% of the black vote, then that's your opinion but I wouldn't want to bet the house on it.
Same as above, turnout is all that matters.
Obama could be on live TV starting a nursing home fire then tossing live babies into the fire and he'll get the black vote. Same for any democrat really.
Hispanics, let's not forget Mitt's feigned outrage when Newt said he wouldn't be rounding up Mexicans that had been living in this country for 25 years or more and throw them the hell out of the country. I wouldn't be so sure that Hispanics would favor that, but then again they probably know that Mitt was simply pandering to those dumb redneck GOP primary voters anyway.
Would Newt win more hispanics than Romney in a general? Probably, but more for religious reason I think.
But Obama's forcing Catholic institutions to provide the morning after pill may negate that issue and prove to be Obama's biggest fuck up.
But as above, if Juan McCain couldn't win them, it only about turn out.
One thing that strikes me is the way you carve up the electorate into groups based on sex and race and leave only the white mens' opinions as unimportant. You sure you aren't already voting for Obama? You sure sound like a democrat.
I figured that was coming, you're not for Newt therefore you must be for Obama. Just didn't expect it from you.
I think Newt would be the best president out of the bunch. Have so since he won Speaker. I'd rather him than Rubio, Jindal, or Christy.
But he can't win.
And the "guilty white man" of 08 is now the "angry white man" of 2012, it's their old ladies we have to worry about.
And it's not just votes Reed, I mean we all know that homos are a small percentage that will always vote democrat. It's the effect they can have on turnout, and if you want to energize them, nominate Newt.
That by itself should tell you something!
They may be restrained for now, but do you really think that will continue after he wins the nomination? Mitt or Newt or any other republican will be considered by the media to be the devil incarnate. Are you for real with this BS?
No, they'll be biased as usual, but Dick Chenney running with Donald Rumsfield would get better press than Newt will.
Personally I don't give a flying fuck what the media says, because in my opinion, THEY are the fucking devil incarnate!
Couldn't agree more, but you obviously get news from many places, unfortunately many do not.
Again, I'm looking for reasons to believe that he has that ability, and so far I'm coming up waaay short!
But hey, you did just manage to add two points to the list for consideration:
happily married family man
executive experience
When you go to the horse races, you bet on the horse you think will win. Not the one with the best coat, or prettiest main.
Santorum and Paul have a better chance in the general I'm afraid.
Don't like it, and don't like the 4th branch having so much influence in the selection of the executive branch, but that's where we find ourselves.
It's all about turnout this year, and apathy on the left is a good card to hold.
Obama's taken care of apathy on the right.
