• 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.

Moderate Mitt

Fiddytree said:
The more you delve into political history, the more you can see the impacts and the structures of government, and how they interact. Elections gain meaning, and so do the inaugural addresses. In the year 2001 when Bush was sworn in, it was hard not to remember eggs being thrown during the procession.
Click to expand...

And by the time he left office, being booed.
 
joko104 said:
Why keep Obama out of this? MANY Democrats - nearly half - wanted Hillary instead of Obama. Not only did Obama NOT keep ANY of his primary campaign promises (vowing to not sign renewal of the Bush tax cuts - doing exactly opposite, closing Gitmo and didn't etc).

So why would ANY Democrat vote for Obama?

The OP is flawed because it asks why would Republicans vote for a less than perfect candidate, when Obama has to imperfections to extremes himself. Obama was a collection of "shifts" from his campaign vows of 2008 to doing 100% the exact opposite after elected.
Click to expand...

See this is what pisses me off. I ask a simple question about Romney and I had a simple request because I wanted this topic to stay on topic. Not only did you not answer my question but you decided to change the question up. If you want to discuss why democrats are voting for Obama then by all means go open up another ****ing thread.......... OH WAIT......There is already a dozen threads like that.

As much as I want to correct you, I refuse to let trolls like you take over this thread. If you can't answer the question then GET OUT !!!!
 
rcart76 said:
A question to all conservatives.

Given that "Moderate Mitt" was unveiled in the first debate, would you have voted for this version in the primaries? Explain why?
Click to expand...

I didn't vote for him in the Primary and I won't vote for him in the General Election either. He is NOT a Conservative in any way, and therefore he will NOT ever get my support.
 
Ron Paul.

Romney has always been Multiple Choice Mitt.
 
rcart76 said:
A question to all conservatives.


Given that "Moderate Mitt" was unveiled in the first debate, would you have voted for this version in the primaries? Explain why?


The reason I am asking this is because there are many conservatives that didn't want Mitt both privately and publicly. He did his best to sell himself as a extreme conservative during the primaries with no room for errors. Now all of a sudden this man is the conservative Messiah. Why the change of heart about Mitt?



BTW. Please keep Obama out of this. This is a honest question about Romney erratic shift to the middle.
Click to expand...

All that's been discussed before, but hey here you go, form a guy who voted Obama last time and is no great fan of Romney (I wanted Huntsman to grow a pair and step up).

1) radicals sway the primary process, so candidates must adjust (this is the same on either side of the aisle).
2) candidates who are not incumbants only express goals - we really cannot know what they're going to do until their butts hit that custom made chair. I don't think Romney will destroy America.
3) I don't find Romney unacceptable in any form his campaign has taken. That's not to say I don't disagree with some of his positions. However, I do find Obama's performance, the real deal when his butt was in the chair, unacceptable.
4) if the congressional makeup stays the same or is slightly moved in republicans' favor (something I believe will happen), Romney is the only candidate that can get anything done in the next four years.
 
Tigger said:
I didn't vote for him in the Primary and I won't vote for him in the General Election either. He is NOT a Conservative in any way, and therefore he will NOT ever get my support.
Click to expand...

Tigger. We may disagree on many things, but one thing I do is respect you as a conservative. Many of my conservative friends here in Dallas supported the tea party movement and wanted change in Washington. I challenge them on one question. "Do you want change in Washington or do you just want Obama out of office no matter what republican it is?"

All of them said that they wanted a true conservative in the white house because there are too many RHINOS in Washington already. OKay I said that was a fair statement.

Now fast forward to the present, I ask my friends do they think Romney is a true conservative and why were voting for him. all of them with the exception of 2 said that they don't care who it is as long as Obama is out of the office. So I said " then it wasn't about restoring conservatism, it was about your team getting the white house". The other two were like you and they said they refuse to vote for Romney because he will hurt the conservative movement because he is not fiscally conservative.
 
clownboy said:
All that's been discussed before, but hey here you go, form a guy who voted Obama last time and is no great fan of Romney (I wanted Huntsman to grow a pair and step up).

1) radicals sway the primary process, so candidates must adjust (this is the same on either side of the aisle).
2) candidates who are not incumbants only express goals - we really cannot know what they're going to do until their butts hit that custom made chair. I don't think Romney will destroy America.
3) I don't find Romney unacceptable in any form his campaign has taken. That's not to say I don't disagree with some of his positions. However, I do find Obama's performance, the real deal when his butt was in the chair, unacceptable.
4) if the congressional makeup stays the same or is slightly moved in republicans' favor (something I believe will happen), Romney is the only candidate that can get anything done in the next four years.
Click to expand...

Okay that is a fair response. Okay my next question is which Mitt Romney do you think will show up in the oval office if he was elected? Many talk about his bipartisan approach in Mass, but keep in mind he didn't really have a choice considering he was "behind enemy lines". Just like democratic governors in deep red states. I'm curious as to how Romney is going handle a republican led congress and a democratic run senate with all the partisan between them.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
We have here moderate Mitt, then we have Conservative Mitt, then he goes back to moderate Mitt, then back to Conservative Mitt. Its all about who Mitt is trying to appeal to.. He has no grounds and no firm positions.
Click to expand...

Actually it'd be more accurate to go "We have here conservative-leaning moderate mitt, then we have conservative Mitt, then he goes back to conservative-leaning moderate mitt, then back to Conservative Mitt."

From Massachusetts to the Primary to the early Campaign to the later Campaign....Mitt's been all over the Right side of the spectrum, but it's all been on the right side of the spectrum in a majority of ways. Which is why it's not turning the base off as much as it potentially could.

As I've said in other threads. There's been Moderately Conservative Governor Mitt, there's been Joe Conservative Primary Mitt, there was Typical Republican Early Candidate Mitt, and there's been Moderate Republican Mitt in the last little bit....but I'd take any of those Mitt's over Obama at this point.

I do'nt have a solid idea of EXACTLY who Mitt is, but I do have a general idea of where who he is falls within.
 
rcart76 said:
Okay that is a fair response. Okay my next question is which Mitt Romney do you think will show up in the oval office if he was elected? Many talk about his bipartisan approach in Mass, but keep in mind he didn't really have a choice considering he was "behind enemy lines". Just like democratic governors in deep red states. I'm curious as to how Romney is going handle a republican led congress and a democratic run senate with all the partisan between them.
Click to expand...

Honestly don't know, but then I didn't know which Obama would show up either. I just hoped it would be the one that never showed. But with Romney, I think he has the capability to be the GOP's version of Clinton (second term). Clinton managed to strike a good working balance with congress by his second term. I believe Romney has that capability.

Will that be the one who shows? Don't know, but what I do know is that the Obama I wanted to show never did. So I go with the hope.
 
Zyphlin said:
Actually it'd be more accurate to go "We have here conservative-leaning moderate mitt, then we have conservative Mitt, then he goes back to conservative-leaning moderate mitt, then back to Conservative Mitt."

From Massachusetts to the Primary to the early Campaign to the later Campaign....Mitt's been all over the Right side of the spectrum, but it's all been on the right side of the spectrum in a majority of ways. Which is why it's not turning the base off as much as it potentially could.

As I've said in other threads. There's been Moderately Conservative Governor Mitt, there's been Joe Conservative Primary Mitt, there was Typical Republican Early Candidate Mitt, and there's been Moderate Republican Mitt in the last little bit....but I'd take any of those Mitt's over Obama at this point.

I do'nt have a solid idea of EXACTLY who Mitt is, but I do have a general idea of where who he is falls within.
Click to expand...

Then again, you have his liberal legislation as governor.
 
Muddy Creek said:
Then again, you have his liberal legislation as governor.
Click to expand...

Well that should absolutely delight you, and it makes a case for Romney's ability to make deals across the aisle.
 
clownboy said:
Well that should absolutely delight you, and it makes a case for Romney's ability to make deals across the aisle.
Click to expand...

Really? So, is he going to be a liberal, dealing across the aisle with the moderates and right wing tea party, or a right wing tea partier dealing with liberals and moderates, or a moderate, dealing across the aisle with the tea party and liberals?
 
Muddy Creek said:
Really? So, is he going to be a liberal, dealing across the aisle with the moderates and right wing tea party, or a right wing tea partier dealing with liberals and moderates, or a moderate, dealing across the aisle with the tea party and liberals?
Click to expand...

So, when Romney signed all that so-called liberal legislation YOU brought up, there were no right-wingers in the MA legislature? No liberals or tea party type folks?
 
clownboy said:
So, when Romney signed all that so-called liberal legislation YOU brought up, there were no right-wingers in the MA legislature? No liberals or tea party type folks?
Click to expand...

Who cares? You said his going from right winger to moderate and being a liberal governor was an asset. I'm just asking which president do you think he will be? What will be the focus of his policies? Think the right wingers will be pissed if he starts legislating and siding with the liberals in Congress? Pushing a liberal agenda?
 
clownboy said:
Honestly don't know, but then I didn't know which Obama would show up either. I just hoped it would be the one that never showed. But with Romney, I think he has the capability to be the GOP's version of Clinton (second term). Clinton managed to strike a good working balance with congress by his second term. I believe Romney has that capability.

Will that be the one who shows? Don't know, but what I do know is that the Obama I wanted to show never did. So I go with the hope.
Click to expand...

You have the tea party conservative and the norquist conservatives saying that they will not increase taxes at all. On the other side you have Pelosi and the Dems not willing to strike a deal that does not include tax increases. This is the worse that I have seen washington and I don't think Romney has the balls to make things work. Keep in mind Pelosi and the dems were upset at Obama for caving in to republicans during the debt deal. Why would they compromise with a sitting republican president who is not likable on either side. They are going to be setting up the table for Hilary in 2016 (pretty much what the republicans did for this election).

Whether it is Moderate Mitt or Cheesy Grits Mitt, neither one is Reagan or Clinton.
 
clownboy said:
Well that should absolutely delight you, and it makes a case for Romney's ability to make deals across the aisle.
Click to expand...

He can be willing to make all the deals he want but it won't mean squat if neither side is willing to budge on principles. I foresee a civil war within the republican camp if Romney is elected.

You have the tea party conservatives that want to stand their ground on their principles and then you the others who want their republican president to succeed so they can keep the power. I find it hard to believe that a deal would be struck without any new taxes on the table.
 
rcart76 said:
He can be willing to make all the deals he want but it won't mean squat if neither side is willing to budge on principles. I foresee a civil war within the republican camp if Romney is elected.

You have the tea party conservatives that want to stand their ground on their principles and then you the others who want their republican president to succeed so they can keep the power. I find it hard to believe that a deal would be struck without any new taxes on the table.
Click to expand...

You overestimate the number of far right and far lefters in congress. Especially right after an election. After the election, most tack towards center.
 
clownboy said:
You overestimate the number of far right and far lefters in congress. Especially right after an election. After the election, most tack towards center.
Click to expand...

Really ??? Not in 2008.
 
rcart76 said:
A question to all conservatives.


Given that "Moderate Mitt" was unveiled in the first debate, would you have voted for this version in the primaries? Explain why?


The reason I am asking this is because there are many conservatives that didn't want Mitt both privately and publicly. He did his best to sell himself as a extreme conservative during the primaries with no room for errors. Now all of a sudden this man is the conservative Messiah. Why the change of heart about Mitt?



BTW. Please keep Obama out of this. This is a honest question about Romney erratic shift to the middle.
Click to expand...

We all know that Romney is no Conservative and that he is a moderate. We also know a Conservative or Liberal could not get elected in this country as president because most people are moderate or lean right. I know you said not to mention Obama but he got elected because he pretended to be a Moderate in faact he was a flaming Liberal.
He won't be able to do that again.
 
Fiddytree said:
Alright, aside from Romney having a problem with being a flip-flopper, I have to ask this.

Are you serious?



Doesn't this seem like a standard strategy for any candidate? You talk to the bases during the primary season (especially important for those considered moderate, which Romney was), and then you pivot to the center toward the general election. This is so obvious I could get responses for most high school students about this.

What, did you expect conservatives to say "screw it" and not vote for Romney at all? Didn't you consider that they think Obama is a far worse alternative, and that they are either willing to "plug their nose" or forget altogether how much they didn't like Romney only months ago? Please. People vote to who best represents their ideology.
Click to expand...

I hadn't thought of the us election process actually having such insincere pandering to be built in.

Absolutely great approach. Stand on principles until you win the primary then whip out another set of principles to win the election. And if the princples you whip out aren't working in the election, whip out another set until you get it right. Pffff.
 
Jonsa said:
I hadn't thought of the us election process actually having such insincere pandering to be built in.

Absolutely great approach. Stand on principles until you win the primary then whip out another set of principles to win the election. And if the princples you whip out aren't working in the election, whip out another set until you get it right. Pffff.
Click to expand...

The primaries are meant to get a dedicated base support you among the other choices within a political Party. It makes the most sense to grab these guys, and then move to try to suck out moderates in the other Party and the remaining undecided. In order to do that, you have to adapt to the situation. Otherwise, you're just stuck getting 40-49%. It's standard practice, and it makes good sense. You wouldn't want them to be so set up within their own parties to only offer what Republicans would like, would you?
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
No, I'd say over all his run in Massachusetts was a right leaning Moderate
Click to expand...

A pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-universal health care, environmentalist, tax raising right leaning moderate?
 
Fiddytree said:
The primaries are meant to get a dedicated base support you among the other choices within a political Party. It makes the most sense to grab these guys, and then move to try to suck out moderates in the other Party and the remaining undecided. In order to do that, you have to adapt to the situation. Otherwise, you're just stuck getting 40-49%. It's standard practice, and it makes good sense. You wouldn't want them to be so set up within their own parties to only offer what Republicans would like, would you?
Click to expand...

Call me naive, but I never realized that the system is designed to foster lying. Integrity I guess is not a valued commodity in politics. consistency of purpose and vision is not required.

I find it incredible that there is not political price to pay since you explain its an actually strategy. Its pretty pathetic, however "smart" it might be tactically.
 
The whole reason why people voted for Mitt in the primaries was because he was Moderate!!
The general consensus of conservatives said that they didn't like Mitt, but they needed someone to win against Obama.

That is what the majority of conservatives I have talked to have said, and what was largely demonstrated in all the endorsements and media.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom