President Mitt

[_harmony]

Why did no one post this when it happened? Are we totally without interest in the future of the world?

http://www.mittromney.com/

The announcement has been made!

[_sock puppet]

In 2008, I was as I yet remain vehemently opposed to the candidacy of Mitt Romney. I doubted myself in 2008. I thought it was due to some anti-Mormon animus on my part.

But now in 2012, I realize that my opposition to Romney has nothing to do with his religion being LDS. That is because of Jon Huntsman's prospective candidacy. He's LDS, and I could support Huntsman, depending how he defines himself on the issues (as opposed to how his opponents and the media will define him).

Back to Romney, though, which is the topic of the OP. My views on abortion are very clear and distinct, but I have voted for candidates who advocate differently from me regarding abortion. Their views, like mine, became more clear over time. The more one thinks about it, the more one's core views come to light and give the individual direction on this fundamental matter regarding individual life and the power and sanction of society.

Romney has flipped on abortion more than once. His 2008 response to the accusation of being a flip-flop? If you want to get elected to be the governor of Massachusetts, you cannot be against abortion. Of all the unprincipled, opportunistic reasons, he takes the cake.

I think for Romney, his candidacy is simply an indulgence of his narcissism to be adulated as president. I find that utterly disgusting.

[_1 Iron]

Romney has one strong point as a candidate - he has proven success in turning around a wayward and dangerously troubled ship in the 2002 Olympics. If he can remind American's of Clinton's famous words about what really matters (hint: it's the economy) he has a strong chance at winning the National election.

But, and it's a big but, he has to first win the Republican nomination. Given that every (R) candidate is challenged by some sector of the party, I think Romney has even bigger problems to overcome: with a party that is divided between extreme conservatives who will cling to Palin's message that RomneyCare is ObamaCare he is going to have to find a way to convince his own that he is conservative enough to make big spending cuts while convincing the base that he is still supportive of traditional republican sectors. His big business ties will help him with some and hurt him with others.

Personally, I am unsure that any candidate from the republican party can win and be the right person to help turn the nation to a better direction. The extreme conservative elements of the party have yet to present a rational view of the state of the economy for me to consider them viable. Much like Obama found with Gitmo and terror-defense, I suspect that anyone who gets into office will find that somethings that seem so obvious from the outside when decried by one's base become more obviously challenging when seen from the view of the Commander-in-Chief.

As voters, I think we have our work cut out for us this cycle if we hope to fulfill the fore-fathers vision of an informed electorate.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

You want to see how fair-minded this Ex-Mormon Terrible Apostate is?

I'd vote for Mr. Mitt. Hopefully he could un-fuck President B. Hussein's idiocy...

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_1 Iron]

Hi Dr. C,

To be open about my political leanings, I am a registered Independent and do not overtly support any party.

That said, I have mixed feelings about President Obama's last 2 years in office. Unlike some, I thought his pursuit of healthcare reform was drastically needed and the blow-up we saw was the result of poor leadership on the part of both Republicans as well as Democrats. Many, many people I have discussed the healthcare reform bill with seem to have little understanding of what it actually entails, which is too bad. Not because I think it is perfect, but because I think the best way to get out of the woods is to take a bearing from where you really are as well as know where you are trying to get to. At this point, the discussion about where we really are as a nation regarding healthcare is flawed. For example, the fact part of the healthcare bill had to stipulate that a reasonable percentage of health insurance costs went to actual health care, rather than profit or other corporate needs is telling yet missing from most critiques.

That said, the recent housing price numbers show that the new home-buyers tax credit only served to artificially inflate home prices for a brief period of time. The housing bubble that led to the unprecedented and unwarranted sense of wealth felt by the nation during much of the last decade will continue to weigh-down any attempt at a recovery, in my opinion, and programs that recreate the problems rather than purging them are flawed to say the least.

This is where my optimism is most challenged: if I knew a family that was living on borrowed funds and subsequently fell on hard times I would not view their calls for a return to the good times as rational. Instead, I would think they had failed to learn a valuable lesson from which they could move on. In the case of our nation, we have been like this family, and I do not think we can get back to the same comparable level of wealth and job creation that we enjoyed only a half-decade ago. Yet, I think that both parties are falsely tied to ideas that are not much different than the hypothetical family I describe above. Both parties have blind spots in regards to how the corporate/government collaboration has to work in order to make progress. And this makes it hard to create real progress. Again, we haven't been able to articulate well where we even are, let alone where we are going or how best to get there.

Romney has some interesting experience with both sides of this issue. But the election cycle is young and I am very interested to see how both sides present the issues, the solutions, and the ultimate destination. Personally, "I believe in America" and "Win the Future" are depressingly basic and don't lead me to expect too much. But we'll see.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Mr. Iron,

I understand.

My position simply lies with our currency. Sure I'd like whatever to happen whenver, but hyperinflation is a bitch. We're starting to experience that because our politicians are idiots. The bottom line is this Administration & the GOP is damned our worlds up because it can't control its own spending. It's insanity.


V/R
Dr. Cam

[_The Nehor]

Romney has flipped on abortion more than once. His 2008 response to the accusation of being a flip-flop? If you want to get elected to be the governor of Massachusetts, you cannot be against abortion. Of all the unprincipled, opportunistic reasons, he takes the cake.

Why is choosing to represent the views of the people you represent a bad thing?

There are several changes in the law around here I would like to make but the people as a whole would not. Would it be dishonest of me not to campaign on every belief I have?

[_sock puppet]

Romney has flipped on abortion more than once. His 2008 response to the accusation of being a flip-flop? If you want to get elected to be the governor of Massachusetts, you cannot be against abortion. Of all the unprincipled, opportunistic reasons, he takes the cake.

Why is choosing to represent the views of the people you represent a bad thing?

There are several changes in the law around here I would like to make but the people as a whole would not. Would it be dishonest of me not to campaign on every belief I have?

Since when is wanting someone who will be a leader instead of a placeholder reflecting nothing more than the oscillating will of the people? We have the technology these days to have instant votes by the electorate on issues. Why have any position but the pollster-in-chief? Romney is a spineless wimp, not a leader. Maybe that attracks you, The Nehor.

[_Joseph]

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18623

Harmony, it was posted.

[_The Nehor]

Since when is wanting someone who will be a leader instead of a placeholder reflecting nothing more than the oscillating will of the people?

We have the technology these days to have instant votes by the electorate on issues. Why have any position but the pollster-in-chief? Romney is a spineless wimp, not a leader. Maybe that attracks you, The Nehor.

I like healthy moderation between following the will of the people, using your own best judgment, deciding based on what you think the people would choose if they knew all the facts, rationally weighing the benefits and penalties to future generations and ignoring what short-sighted people want now, etc.