President Mitt

[_honorentheos]

Whenever I hear someone say they think the President doesn't matter, I am reminded of this.

The republican form of government that was envisioned by the founders and enfranchised in the constitution is based on a simple but profound truth - it is unreasonable to expect enough of the mass population to be more fully informed on an issue than an elected representative could become. The solution isn't in jumping wildly to a truly democratic national executive; certainly not before we can prove we are able to participate in a simple election without jingoism and bias politics (i.e. - how a person looks on camera, how nice they smile, etc.) becoming the tools of the trade. When the political machine can not assume that their only job is to get voters to "not vote for the other guy" then we may be working our way in the right direction. Until then, the idea is just a revamp of the French Revolution.

[_harmony]

Whenever I hear someone say they think the President doesn't matter, I am reminded of this.

The republican form of government that was envisioned by the founders and enfranchised in the constitution is based on a simple but profound truth - it is unreasonable to expect enough of the mass population to be more fully informed on an issue than an elected representative could become. The solution isn't in jumping wildly to a truly democratic national executive; certainly not before we can prove we are able to participate in a simple election without jingoism and bias politics (i.e. - how a person looks on camera, how nice they smile, etc.) becoming the tools of the trade. When the political machine can not assume that their only job is to get voters to "not vote for the other guy" then we may be working our way in the right direction. Until then, the idea is just a revamp of the French Revolution.

Not only is it nearly impossible to get people to register to vote, the number of registered voters who actually vote is dismal. It's entirely logical that the number of registered voters who actually educate themselves about the issues and candidates is even worse.

[_sock puppet]

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.

Good to know, The Nehor, that you'd have voted for Stephen A Douglas in 1860. He certainly fit that description much better than Abraham Lincoln did.

Maybe that can be Mitt Romney's campaign slogan: "America got it wrong in 1860, Elect Mitt Romney in 2012."

[_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.

Good to know, The Nehor, that you'd have voted for Stephen A Douglas in 1860. He certainly fit that description much better than Abraham Lincoln did.

Maybe that can be Mitt Romney's campaign slogan: "America got it wrong in 1860, Elect Mitt Romney in 2012."

I disrespectfully disagree.

[_Joseph Antley]

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.

When/where did Romney respond that way?

[_moksha]

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

Good point Nehor. When in Warthogland, do as the Warthoglanders do (then change to a more reasoned stance when you actually get the Presidential candidacy bid).

[_jon]

As a non-American I don't have a dog in this fight so my views may not be valid.

But I would venture that it should be difficult for a sensible voter to want a President who has a track record of being 'two-faced'.

Two examples:
As a member of the Church he was against pornography whilst at the same time personally benefitting from the proceeds of pornography as a Marriott board member.
As a member of the Church he covenants to put the Church first in all things whilst at the same time holding political office where the sate/country comes first.

I know that these aren't the only examples of Romney's flip flop approach to what he stands for, but i think they should be enough to question the validity of his candidacy.

[_Fiannan]

Come on guys, compared to Obama Mitt is hardly a flip-flopper. Okay, maybe he is to a degree and Obama is just a pathological liar. There can be a difference.

[Guest]

Come on guys, compared to Obama Mitt is hardly a flip-flopper. Okay, maybe he is to a degree and Obama is just a pathological liar. There can be a difference.

But the only choice is not between Obama and Mitt. There are honorable, principled people already in the field of those seeking the Republican nomination.

[_sock puppet]

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.

Good to know, The Nehor, that you'd have voted for Stephen A Douglas in 1860. He certainly fit that description much better than Abraham Lincoln did.

Maybe that can be Mitt Romney's campaign slogan: "America got it wrong in 1860, Elect Mitt Romney in 2012."

I disrespectfully disagree.

I wouldn't have it any other way.