A Romney nomination almost assures Obama’s election.

I'm Supposn said:

A Romney nomination almost assures Obama’s election.

Many if not most Republicans were all opposed to Massachusetts Romneycare but then Governor Romney, Republicans and Democrats passed and enacted it. Romney was the liberal governor of a liberal state. Massachusetts voters will not repeal Romneycare.

Despite Republican leaderships’ opposition and a U.S. Supreme Court challenge, Romneycare is now federal law.

It’s conceivable that a Republican could be elected president in 2012, but in my opinion that cannot occur if Romney is nominated.
Romney is a chameleon with no core convictions. He’s was more liberal when ran and served as governor. He was a proponent and the governor that signed off on and enacted Romneycare.

I expect every Obama speech will begin, end, and within its main body mention and praise Romney for the exact model of federal Romneycare. He’ll make mention of it during every debate. Romney’s candidacy would leave the Republicans appearing to be illogical fools and will make Obama’s re-election more certain.

Romney is the choice of Republican leaders. It is my opinion that Ron Paul followers in particular will prevent Romney’s nomination on the first ballot. If Romney’s fails to be nominated on the first ballot, I don’t believe the Republicans will be so foolish as to nominate him.

Romney’s nomination would almost assure Obama’s election.

Respectfully, Supposn

Click to expand...

So obviously you are supporting Romney for creating RomneyCare, right?

joko104 said:

So obviously you are supporting Romney for creating RomneyCare, right?

Click to expand...

Well, he created it before he opposed it....

joko104 said:

So obviously you are supporting Romney for creating RomneyCare, right?

Click to expand...

Joko, Transcript of the topic “What’s intolerable is an Obama or Romney administration” posted May 6, 2012, 11:15AM on the US Partisan Politics and Political Platforms board:

What’s intolerable is an Obama or Romney administration.

I prefer a liberal victory; I would respect a conservative victory.


I faulted President Obama because rather than striving to lead his party on domestic issues he continuously acquiesced and surrendered. I gave up on him and the Democratic Party when they failed to discuss the federal budget and taxes on to the floors of both houses prior to the 2010 elections. It was both cowardly and politically stupid.

In 2010 voted for the Green Party’s congressional candidate. I wasn’t particularly opposed to her foreign policy opinions but our nation’s economy is my upmost concern and it we do not share the same priorities. I will no longer vote for the lesser of two evils because the result is the election of an additional evil.

In 2011 Obama’s tone changed a few months prior to the general election. I wasn’t going to vote for a change of tone in the last quarter. There was no Green Party candidate; for the first time since 1959, I didn’t vote in the primary or the general election. The 2010 elections were no less than what the president and his party deserved.

Since then the president has continued in the same tone, but because he still hasn’t asked Senator Harry Reid to bring taxes and the federal budget onto the senate floor, Democratic sponsored legislation cannot reach the U.S. Senate floor.

[Republicans led by the Tea Party will Filibuster to block any vote for a Democratic sponsored bill; but it’s important to force their blocking tactic be accomplished with a vote on record so they must take responsibility for their actions.
Otherwise the right wing’s able to continue obstructing and suffer no consequences due to their mischief].

I had intended not to vote in 2012. I‘d prefer risking government opposed to what I advocate, rather we governed by those that do not continue in some general direction.
But if Romney becomes the Republican nominee, it’s a choice between Obama who (on domestic issues) does not strive to “hold the course”, rather than Romney who has NO core beliefs or direction. Romney will go in ANY direction that’s expedient at the moment. What he advocates on Monday may be what he will diametrically oppose next week.

Romney acts upon his belief that the voters have no memory. He can present directly opposing statements in differing places, to differing audiences and still be elected.

I would regret Democrats’ defeated by conservatives but there’s at least hope that voters experiencing the failures of conservative policies would remedy their errors.

Democrat’s defeat by Romney’s inconsistent administration reacting only due to expediency would be intolerable. After such an administration’s detriment to our economy, the debate between liberals and conservatives will remain unresolved; we will have learned nothing.

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn said:

A Romney nomination almost assures Obama’s election.

Many if not most Republicans were all opposed to Massachusetts Romneycare but then Governor Romney, Republicans and Democrats passed and enacted it. Romney was the liberal governor of a liberal state. Massachusetts voters will not repeal Romneycare.

Despite Republican leaderships’ opposition and a U.S. Supreme Court challenge, Romneycare is now federal law.

It’s conceivable that a Republican could be elected president in 2012, but in my opinion that cannot occur if Romney is nominated.
Romney is a chameleon with no core convictions. He’s was more liberal when ran and served as governor. He was a proponent and the governor that signed off on and enacted Romneycare.

I expect every Obama speech will begin, end, and within its main body mention and praise Romney for the exact model of federal Romneycare. He’ll make mention of it during every debate. Romney’s candidacy would leave the Republicans appearing to be illogical fools and will make Obama’s re-election more certain.

Romney is the choice of Republican leaders. It is my opinion that Ron Paul followers in particular will prevent Romney’s nomination on the first ballot. If Romney’s fails to be nominated on the first ballot, I don’t believe the Republicans will be so foolish as to nominate him.

Romney’s nomination would almost assure Obama’s election.

Respectfully, Supposn

Click to expand...

Respectfully, your off your rocker if you think Ron Paul is going to get anything but the "bums rush" at the convention. There are never any shinanagans with the GOP.
Mitters is your nominee and the rest of your post I would agree with. Romney is going to have a tough time in the debates with no specfics. He certanly can't run on cutting taxes on the rich some more. That's a sure loser and it leaves him back at Bain.

iguanaman said:

Respectfully, your off your rocker if you think Ron Paul is going to get anything but the "bums rush" at the convention. There are never any shinanagans with the GOP.
Mitters is your nominee and the rest of your post I would agree with. Romney is going to have a tough time in the debates with no specfics. He certanly can't run on cutting taxes on the rich some more. That's a sure loser and it leaves him back at Bain.

Click to expand...

Iguanaman, you may be correct. Other commentators claim that The Republican leadership is beefing up security to insure that those opposing Romney shall not be given any opportunity to be fully heard at the GOP convention.

Republicans fully support freedom of speech when free speech is equated with the purchase of time to be heard. What they actually advocate is access to voter’s limited to who can afford to pay for the priviledge.

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn said:

A Romney nomination almost assures Obama’s election.

Many if not most Republicans were all opposed to Massachusetts Romneycare but then Governor Romney, Republicans and Democrats passed and enacted it. Romney was the liberal governor of a liberal state. Massachusetts voters will not repeal Romneycare.

Despite Republican leaderships’ opposition and a U.S. Supreme Court challenge, Romneycare is now federal law.

It’s conceivable that a Republican could be elected president in 2012, but in my opinion that cannot occur if Romney is nominated.
Romney is a chameleon with no core convictions. He’s was more liberal when ran and served as governor. He was a proponent and the governor that signed off on and enacted Romneycare.

I expect every Obama speech will begin, end, and within its main body mention and praise Romney for the exact model of federal Romneycare. He’ll make mention of it during every debate. Romney’s candidacy would leave the Republicans appearing to be illogical fools and will make Obama’s re-election more certain.

Romney is the choice of Republican leaders. It is my opinion that Ron Paul followers in particular will prevent Romney’s nomination on the first ballot. If Romney’s fails to be nominated on the first ballot, I don’t believe the Republicans will be so foolish as to nominate him.

Romney’s nomination would almost assure Obama’s election.

Respectfully, Supposn

Click to expand...

I think you underestimate Romney's fundraising abilities. I concur Obama is more likely than not to be re-elected. However, Romney will put up a good fight.

Smart said:

I think you underestimate Romney's fundraising abilities. I concur Obama is more likely than not to be re-elected. However, Romney will put up a good fight.

Click to expand...

Romny will fight till he drops...romney has nothing better to do, hes got more cash then he can spend...hes 65 not going to start a new career and most importantly he believes hes ENTITLED to be president....he will fight and then leave kicking and scratching if he loses....

Romney has succeeded to purchase Republican state primaries. Opposition within the party is so great that I’m not certain that he’s got the GOP nomination under lock and key.

I don’t doubt that the Citizens United decision won’t lead to the purchase of many local elected offices. To a lesser extent it will purchase some state wide primaries and elections.
I doubt that the Koch brothers, Romney and other multi-millionaires will be able to purchase the Oval office.

Respectfully, Supposn

If this was any other modern day POTUS election, neither candidate would stand a chance. Obama has had a weak 1st term, much like Carter had. He has underperformed in every aspect of his job. The GOP has countered with a candidate who is the polar opposite of what nearly all conservatives desire and many moderates, which is a change in direction. Romney is the political poster child of the status quo. No matter how he wraps it, he ends up saying he will do the same only better. It will be a close election. I do not see anything drastically altering the landscape of this election. So long as that remains the same, I predict Obama winning by a slim margin, similar to the margin Bush won in 04.

00timh said:

The GOP has countered with a candidate who is the polar opposite of what nearly all conservatives desire...

Click to expand...

Definitely. Unfortunately the conservative Republicans we really wanted to run for president stayed on the sidelines.

johnny_rebson said:

Definitely. Unfortunately the conservative Republicans we really wanted to run for president stayed on the sidelines.

Click to expand...

yes, most did. Also, there just are not many within the GOP establishment, and I am willing to bet that they had already established that Romney was going to be their guy from well back. Any real conservative never stood a chance. Regardless of who wins, we are stuck with the status quo for at least 4 more years. I am really torn about who I want to win. Part of me thinks that an Obama victory would accelerate the process of real change within conservative ranks and perhaps the GOP, whereas a Romney win will stall it for 4 years at least. Romney may not be as detrimental for the country, but not by a lot. We will still be headed on the wrong path. My hope is that regardless, a significant portion of real conservatives push for change after the election or hold Romney's feet real close to the fire if he wins the election.