• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why do people say Mittens Romney is electable?

rocket88 said:
There is a significant faction in the Republican party that wants it to be the party of "far right whackos." They want to purge their ranks of "RINOs," which usually means anybody who will shake hands with a Democrat and be civil rather than punching them in the balls.
Click to expand...
I am to the left of the positions Romney pretends to have, and I despise him. It's not just about political ideology, but many of us want a candidate that we can trust. Romney is just going to work for the lobbyists.

Also, he is probably not going to win, hence he will cause huge conflicts in the Republican Party. No wonder that Democrats like him, but he is a disaster for the Republican Party.
 
Thorgasm said:
I disagree. He has spent too much time on FNC and is in the habit of blurting soundbites for that audience which won't jive with independent voters who don't watch FNC.
Click to expand...
Please don't ignore my arguments.

That issue is a minor issue, compared to the conflicts Romney can cause.
 
Camlon said:
Please don't ignore my arguments.

That issue is a minor issue, compared to the conflicts Romney can cause.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that Newtie was essentially drummed out of the Congress by his own party. He's not exactly what you would call a consensus builder.
 
Camlon said:
Please don't ignore my arguments.

That issue is a minor issue, compared to the conflicts Romney can cause.
Click to expand...

I think they are equally bad.

Huntsman is the only reasonable one in the race.
 
AdamT said:
Don't forget that Newtie was essentially drummed out of the Congress by his own party. He's not exactly what you would call a consensus builder.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. He is not Romney. At least that means he has some values he believes in and will fight for. He will hopefully lose in 2012, and then Republicans can find a better candidate in 2016.Romney however is going to create huge conflicts in the Republican Party if he loses, because the Tea Party is going to blame the Republican establishment who forced Romney upon Republican voters, while the establishment is going to blame Tea Party for not voting for Romney. If that happends do you think Tea Party will ever accept a moderate again?
 
Last edited:
liblady said:
do you wonder, at all, WHY you've been reduced to that? if you can't get the votes using your ideal candidate, so be it. romney really is the candidate who would attract the most fence sitters, right? if obama wins another 4 years, perhaps your party should begin re-thinking about what's best for america instead of catering to far right whackos.
Click to expand...
You need not include me with the GOP. I was a loyal member for many many years. It is because the party no longer thinks what is best for the country and has moved far to the left and has adopted the corporate whoring which has also invaded the democratic party and now is its puppet master just as is the GOP. True conservatism would never allow such corporatism, as it is against its very principles.

The problem with the GOP establishment attempting to trade in their base for the centrists and conservative leaning blue dog dem crowd is that it fractures the conservative base. I don't mind a hearty debate among which conservative is best suited to run, but its when the establishment runs a candidate who is against conservative principle. Sadly though, there are not any other truly appealing candidates out there. Romney will likely end up with the nomination since none of the others seems to have a clue on how to run a campaign. It becomes a lose lose for the country since even if Romney wins we will still be dealing with the same problems that we are facing currently. Romney will just be doling out the candy to other corporate whiny children.
 
conservativeguy said:
Romney has won only one election is his political career. He lost 2 and avoided defeat by not running in another. He ran for the senate in Massachuesetts and lost. He ran for governor and won. He didn't run for a second term as governor since he would lose. He ran for the republican nomination for president and lost. It seems to me every other republican candidate has won considerably more races than Mittens......why is this turkey considered to be the most electable in the crowd? He has alienated the conservative base and he is an Epic flip flopper. I think the democrats know he is about as personable as BO, which means the more people see him the less they like him.......which is why they are trying to push Romney as the most electable when that could not be any further from the truth. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Because that is the media telling you to elect Mitt Romney. They want another lib in office just in case that candidate does not hand Obama his second term.
 
Camlon said:
Doesn't matter. He is not Romney. At least that means he has some values he believes in and will fight for.

He will hopefully lose in 2012, and then Republicans can find a better candidate in 2016.

Romney howeber is going to create huge conflicts in the Republican Party if he loses, because the Tea Party is going to blame the Republican establishment who forced Romney upon Republican voters, while the establishment is going to blame Tea Party for not voting for Romney. If that happends do you think Tea Party will ever accept a moderate again?
Click to expand...

The truth is that Newt has flip-flopped almost as much as Romney. The Many Egregious Flip-flops of Newt Gingrich -- Daily Intel
 
If we could have the "Old" Romney back....I wouldn't be so concerned about him getting elected. I actually have a lot of respect for Romney. He's an intelligent guy who actually has a very good record of turning around failures. What I am most concerned about, however, is his movement to appease the right-wing over the last decade. We cannot afford to elect someone who is going to actively push the right-wing's radical social agenda. Our Supreme Court hangs in the balance right now. We cannot allow another activist right-wing judge that will favor corporations over workers and turn back the clock on civil rights.
 
Camlon said:
Doesn't matter. He is not Romney. At least that means he has some values he believes in and will fight for. He will hopefully lose in 2012, and then Republicans can find a better candidate in 2016.Romney however is going to create huge conflicts in the Republican Party if he loses, because the Tea Party is going to blame the Republican establishment who forced Romney upon Republican voters, while the establishment is going to blame Tea Party for not voting for Romney. If that happends do you think Tea Party will ever accept a moderate again?
Click to expand...
Are you SERIOUSLY using the word "values" in the same sentence as Gingrich? LOL.....the fact that Gingrich is even a serious contender shows the hypocracy that lies at the core of the GOP.
 
AdamT said:
The truth is that Newt has flip-flopped almost as much as Romney. The Many Egregious Flip-flops of Newt Gingrich -- Daily Intel
Click to expand...
Hardly. All politicians flip flop sometime. Problem with Mitt Romney is that he has no core. Can you name on conservative position he has, that he hasn't flip flopped. Newt Gingrich do have evidence to prove that he will fight for conservative causes.

Another problem with Mitt Romney is that all special interests, financial insiders, and beneficiaries of the corrupt, government/corporate power wants him. Why are Wall Street only giving money to Romney? One of the biggest issues for both Republicans and Democrats is to stop corporatism.

Thirdly, a Romney loss would be a disaster for the Republican Party. The Tea Party is going to blame the Republican establishment who forced Romney upon Republican voters, while the establishment is going to blame Tea Party for not voting for Romney. If that happends do you think Tea Party will ever accept a moderate again?

I can understand that Democrats want Romney, you want to destroy the Republican party.
 
disneydude said:
Are you SERIOUSLY using the word "values" in the same sentence as Gingrich? LOL.....the fact that Gingrich is even a serious contender shows the hypocracy that lies at the core of the GOP.
Click to expand...
No, it shows that Republicans don't want Romney.

And, Gingrich may have been a despicable person, but he has proven that he will fight for conservative values.

We cannot afford to elect someone who is going to actively push the right-wing's radical social agenda. Our Supreme Court hangs in the balance right now.

We cannot allow another activist right-wing judge that will favor corporations over workers and turn back the clock on civil rights.
Click to expand...
Don't worry. He won't. While he was in Massachusetts, many of his appointees were liberal. Liberals should love this guy. He will be a crony capitalists, but I guess most liberals can live with that because at least he won't make too many changes.

If he wins he is not going to do a word of what he is saying, so you don't have to worry about anything he says. That is why no liberals on this site criticize Romney for any right wing statements he makes.

Also, if he loses then he will cause conflicts within the Republican Party, which will make it really easy for Democrats to win in 2016.

As a liberal you should try to get Romney elected. Join your brothers.
 
Last edited:
Camlon said:
Hardly. All politicians flip flop sometime. Problem with Mitt Romney is that he has no core. Can you name on conservative position he has, that he hasn't flip flopped. Newt Gingrich do have evidence to prove that he will fight for conservative causes.

Another problem with Mitt Romney is that all special interests, financial insiders, and beneficiaries of the corrupt, government/corporate power wants him. Why are Wall Street only giving money to Romney? One of the biggest issues for both Republicans and Democrats is to stop corporatism.

Thirdly, a Romney loss would be a disaster for the Republican Party. The Tea Party is going to blame the Republican establishment who forced Romney upon Republican voters, while the establishment is going to blame Tea Party for not voting for Romney. If that happends do you think Tea Party will ever accept a moderate again?

I can understand that Democrats want Romney, you want to destroy the Republican party.
Click to expand...

Did you even bother to read the cited page? Gingrich has done hard flip-flops on many major issues, sometimes in a matter of days. You call that a core?
 
nijato said:
Mitt is only electable in the relative sense... compared to the rest of the field this time around.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Mitt knows how to make people think he stands for what they stand for. That is a great skill for a politician. He comes across to the mainstream voters as being at least sane, which is better than some of the contenders. He has a history of being able to bring financially failing entities back from the brink.

He is not Cain and not Perry.

He is a major flip flopper, however. What does he really believe?
 
AdamT said:
Did you even bother to read the cited page? Gingrich has done hard flip-flops on many major issues, sometimes in a matter of days. You call that a core?
Click to expand...
Yes, I read it. I need to know what you are talking about. The list is fine, although I disagree with the Ryans plan, since it more looks like a rephrasing of what he said. Also, some of those issues are not important at all, like I didn't even bother to read the last point. He has proven that he believes in conservative causes by being a Speaker of the House, so he does have some credibility, but all politicans flip flop once in a while.

However, Romney does not have any credibility because he has flip flopped on, mandates, cap-and trade, climate change, and Libya, AND on abortion, taxes, homosexual marriage, free trade, gun control, and immigration. All of this while he was governor.

But this is only one of my point. If you are going to complain about me ignoring your arguments, then you better not ignore mine.
 
Camlon said:
Yes, I read it. I need to know what you are talking about. The list is fine, although I disagree with the Ryans plan, since it more looks like a rephrasing of what he said. Also, some of those issues are not important at all, like I didn't even bother to read the last point. He has proven that he believes in conservative causes by being a Speaker of the House, so he does have some credibility, but all politicans flip flop once in a while.

However, Romney does not have any credibility because he has flip flopped on, mandates, cap-and trade, climate change, and Libya, AND on abortion, taxes, homosexual marriage, free trade, gun control, and immigration. All of this while he was governor.

But this is only one of my point. If you are going to complain about me ignoring your arguments, then you better not ignore mine.
Click to expand...

I think Newt would disagree with you, unless he's flip-flopped on flip-flopping, too.

"In 2004 Gingrich repeatedly bashed then Democratic nominee for President John Kerry, saying his flip-flop on Iraq war funding disqualified him from being president."

The money quote, offered by Gingrich to Neil Cavuto on September 17, 2004, goes like this: "You can't flip-flop and be commander-in-chief."

I guess flip-flopping on Iraq is a disqualifying offense, but not Libya? :shrug:

Anyway, I agree that Romney is worse. But Newt is really bad, too. I'd lay odds that he will flip-flop on immigration in the next few weeks.
 
Camlon said:
I can understand that Democrats want Romney, you want to destroy the Republican party.
Click to expand...

Well the Republican candidates are doing that fine on their own :)
 
AdamT said:
I think Newt would disagree with you, unless he's flip-flopped on flip-flopping, too.

"In 2004 Gingrich repeatedly bashed then Democratic nominee for President John Kerry, saying his flip-flop on Iraq war funding disqualified him from being president."

The money quote, offered by Gingrich to Neil Cavuto on September 17, 2004, goes like this: "You can't flip-flop and be commander-in-chief."

I guess flip-flopping on Iraq is a disqualifying offense, but not Libya? :shrug:

Anyway, I agree that Romney is worse. But Newt is really bad, too. I'd lay odds that he will flip-flop on immigration in the next few weeks.
Click to expand...
I am no newt supporter. I just think Newt would damage the Republican party less. We can't just think about the 2012 election, what about long term consequences. If Newt is picked and loses, then that will show the GOP establishment that they need to find candidates who are more trustworthy than Romney. If Romney is picked and loses, then the establishment and the Tea Party is going to hate each other.
 
Camlon said:
I am no newt supporter. I just think Newt would damage the Republican party less. We can't just think about the 2012 election, what about long term consequences. If Newt is picked and loses, then that will show the GOP establishment that they need to find candidates who are more trustworthy than Romney. If Romney is picked and loses, then the establishment and the Tea Party is going to hate each other.
Click to expand...

The sooner the Tea Party fades away the better it will be for everyone -- including the GOP.
 
disneydude said:
Are you SERIOUSLY using the word "values" in the same sentence as Gingrich? LOL.....the fact that Gingrich is even a serious contender shows the hypocracy that lies at the core of the GOP.
Click to expand...

I learned Thanksgiving that most of my repub family say they support Gingrich:(
 
AdamT said:
That makes sense, as far as it goes, but it rather begs the question: what, if anything, does the libertarian view have to say about who decides when life begins?
Click to expand...

Libertarian ideology actually doesn't really speak to that at all. The issue with it, of course, is that there is no actual way to indisputably "prove" that it is unquestionably one way or another. It is ENTIRELY opinion based weighing on the individuals views of the situation and the various evidence pointing any way. There's no universal law or truth that somehow would make it unquestionable in its nature to the extreme majority of people. Its at best a social construct of when society decides, through some function (Be in through a judges decree, passage of law, or just common societal norm), that such should occur. And in that case, again, libertarian philosophy doesn't mandate which end of the discussion a libertarian falls on in terms of their belief of what that societal choice SHOULD be.
 
Zyphlin said:
Libertarian ideology actually doesn't really speak to that at all. The issue with it, of course, is that there is no actual way to indisputably "prove" that it is unquestionably one way or another. It is ENTIRELY opinion based weighing on the individuals views of the situation and the various evidence pointing any way. There's no universal law or truth that somehow would make it unquestionable in its nature to the extreme majority of people. Its at best a social construct of when society decides, through some function (Be in through a judges decree, passage of law, or just common societal norm), that such should occur. And in that case, again, libertarian philosophy doesn't mandate which end of the discussion a libertarian falls on in terms of their belief of what that societal choice SHOULD be.
Click to expand...

I would argue whether or not it's provable (I would say that it is), but I think the salient point is that the Supreme Court has spoken on this issue, and the question is, do libertarians accept the role of the SC in our government?
 
AdamT said:
I would argue whether or not it's provable (I would say that it is), but I think the salient point is that the Supreme Court has spoken on this issue, and the question is, do libertarians accept the role of the SC in our government?
Click to expand...

The Supreme Courts rules not golden though.

1) You could still pass a Constitutional Amendment, which would overrule the SC
2) You could still push for cases to challenge Roe v. Wade and believe that the SC got the law wrong

There's nothing in Libertarian philosophy that says once a SCOTUS ruling as been given that it can never again be challenged or that a libertarian must think it is correct. Quite the contrary, there's numerous rulings by the SCOTUS that libertarian philosophy would likely disagree with and push to challenge. Now, if a libertarian was saying we just need to make abortion illegal and to hell with what SCOTUS says...that'd be problematic, but I don't think I see that often.

Additionally, Roe v. Wade doesn't so much as make a definitive answer on person hood of the child in the womb but rather sets up a sort of pseudo-scale for when the rights of the two principles within the situation (child and mother) outweigh the rights of the other.
 
conservativeguy said:
Romney has won only one election is his political career. He lost 2 and avoided defeat by not running in another. He ran for the senate in Massachuesetts and lost. He ran for governor and won. He didn't run for a second term as governor since he would lose. He ran for the republican nomination for president and lost. It seems to me every other republican candidate has won considerably more races than Mittens......why is this turkey considered to be the most electable in the crowd? He has alienated the conservative base and he is an Epic flip flopper. I think the democrats know he is about as personable as BO, which means the more people see him the less they like him.......which is why they are trying to push Romney as the most electable when that could not be any further from the truth. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Didn't people question Obama in the same manner?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom