Why do people say Mittens Romney is electable?

[Keridan]

Does that include birth control? Would it be libertarian to tell a woman she can't use contraceptives? Or, can a libertarian force a woman to have unprotected sex? Is it libertarian to dictate what a pregnant woman can eat, or when and how much she exercises?

Until conception, there is no being that will, left alone and excluding tragic complications, become a person.

 

[AdamT]

Until conception, there is no being that will, left alone and excluding tragic complications, become a person.

Statistically there is. If you allow contraception you are absolutely preventing many many beings from becoming persons.

 

[Keridan]

Statistically there is. If you allow contraception you are absolutely preventing many many beings from becoming persons.

Contraception is when it is still her body only and not host to another person. If she is trying to dictate that it doesn't create the PTB, that is her choice. After that, there are two bodies involved.

If you want to get more involved in this, there are other threads for abortion, but I'm demonstrating how it could be a libertarian philosophy to be pro-life.

Edit: I note the hypocrisy that my getting on the subject is off main topic, btw. I was intending to give a quick answer.

The only thing I really have to add to the OP is that I get a kick out of the name "Mittens".

 

[AdamT]

Contraception is when it is still her body only and not host to another person. If she is trying to dictate that it doesn't create the PTB, that is her choice. After that, there are two bodies involved.

If you want to get more involved in this, there are other threads for abortion, but I'm demonstrating how it could be a libertarian philosophy to be pro-life.

Edit: I note the hypocrisy that my getting on the subject is off main topic, btw. I was intending to give a quick answer.

The only thing I really have to add to the OP is that I get a kick out of the name "Mittens".

Well, I guess I see what the argument is, but IMHO it's still a sophistical attempt work anti-libertarian religious views into the libertarian philosophy.

 

[Catawba]

"Thoughts?"

Er. no. No one wants Romney. He will get the GOP nomination though. That illustrates the suckage that is the GOP. Why think about him. He will win the GOP nomination by default (spending the most money) and by being the least insane out of a gaggle of truly mentally unwell GOP candidates. Romney is a chameleon. He is stands for...whatever it takes. LOL! He will lose to the devil we know.

I think your description of Romney's situation is the most accurate of any I've seen in the thread.

 

[apdst]

Why do people say Mittens Romney is electable?

Libbos are saying, not the people. The reason they're saying it, is because Mit is the only Republican candidate that Obama has any kind of chance at. Mit's nomination would cause people to stay home an not vote and that's the only thing that Obama can hope for.

 

[nota bene]

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?

Why are you calling Romney "Mittens"?

 

[Kali]

Why are you calling Romney "Mittens"?

I wondered too but it has caused me to have a huge giggle fit. I giggle as typing this. I guess Mit= Mittens.. Wonder if he lost his kittens:lol:

 

[Kandahar]

Libbos are saying, not the people. The reason they're saying it, is because Mit is the only Republican candidate that Obama has any kind of chance at. Mit's nomination would cause people to stay home an not vote and that's the only thing that Obama can hope for.

None of the other Republican candidates (except Jon Huntsman) have demonstrated the kind of professionalism necessary for a winning presidential campaign. Newt Gingrich may be smart, but he's undisciplined and has no filter whatsoever; he says whatever idea pops into his mind and would run a trainwreck of a campaign. Rick Perry and Herman Cain are simply not knowledgeable on much of anything that a president needs to be knowledgeable about...and Herman Cain is completely unqualified to boot. As for someone like Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, or Ron Paul...well, let's just say that the notion that elections can be won by being MORE radical (or "true to one's principles" depending on one's perspective) might appeal to the diehard partisans, but it has historically been a losing proposition for whichever party has embraced it.

 

[apdst]

None of the other Republican candidates (except Jon Huntsman) have demonstrated the kind of professionalism necessary for a winning presidential campaign. Newt Gingrich may be smart, but he's undisciplined and has no filter whatsoever; he says whatever idea pops into his mind and would run a trainwreck of a campaign. Rick Perry and Herman Cain are simply not knowledgeable on much of anything that a president needs to be knowledgeable about...and Herman Cain is completely unqualified to boot. As for someone like Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, or Ron Paul...well, let's just say that the notion that elections can be won by being MORE radical (or "true to one's principles" depending on one's perspective) might appeal to the diehard partisans, but it has historically been a losing proposition for whichever party has embraced it.

You say that, because you're thinking like a Libbo and you mistakenly think that most Americans think the same way. The fact is, most Americans are anywhere from center-Right to far-Right in their point of view as to how the government should be run.

There is no Leftist majority in this country, by any means and you need to stop thinking that there is, lest you get very disappointed next November.

 

[apdst]

None of the other Republican candidates (except Jon Huntsman) have demonstrated the kind of professionalism necessary for a winning presidential campaign. Newt Gingrich may be smart, but he's undisciplined and has no filter whatsoever; he says whatever idea pops into his mind and would run a trainwreck of a campaign. Rick Perry and Herman Cain are simply not knowledgeable on much of anything that a president needs to be knowledgeable about...and Herman Cain is completely unqualified to boot. As for someone like Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, or Ron Paul...well, let's just say that the notion that elections can be won by being MORE radical (or "true to one's principles" depending on one's perspective) might appeal to the diehard partisans, but it has historically been a losing proposition for whichever party has embraced it.

You say that, because you're thinking like a Libbo and you mistakenly think that most Americans think the same way. The fact is, most Americans are anywhere from center-Right to far-Right in their point of view as to how the government should be run.

There is no Leftist majority in this country, by any means and you need to stop thinking that there is, lest you get very disappointed next November.

 

[Kandahar]

You say that, because you're thinking like a Libbo and you mistakenly think that most Americans think the same way.

Nope, it's got very little to do with ideology. I'm merely pointing out that the people who tend to win presidential elections tend to be reasonably knowledgeable, reasonably well-disciplined on the campaign trail, and reasonably mainstream in their political views. There are only two Republican candidates who meet all three of those criteria: Romney and Huntsman.

The fact is, most Americans are anywhere from center-Right to far-Right in their point of view as to how the government should be run.

Actually most people are centrist, by definition. :2wave:

There is no Leftist majority in this country, by any means and you need to stop thinking that there is, lest you get very disappointed next November.

If you had actually bothered to read what I wrote before foaming at the mouth, you might have noticed that I neither said nor implied there was. I said that none of the candidates other than Romney and Huntsman have demonstrated the kind of professionalism necessary for a winning presidential campaign.

But you know what, I really don't feel like arguing the point since you're just going to assume it's all a sinister plot to get you to nominate a loser. So you're right, go with a surefire winner: I think the Bachmann/Santorum ticket is your key to victory. :roll:

 

[PeteEU]

He is electable for the following reasons.

1.) The GOP field consists of freaks and wackos. Even with all his faults, it makes Romney look some what normal. Not that he stands a chance against Obama.
2.) The only real competition is Huntsman who does not have the money and Ron Paul who is borderline freak/wacko, but more importantly is too old.

To win over Obama the GOP needs a candidate that can appeal to independents and make the democrats not turn out, all in the while having some pull on the GOP faithful. Romney might have a problem with the last one (will depend on how much the GOP faithful hate Obama and can tolerate the stench of Romney.. basically how desperate they are), but he certainly dont have a problem with the first two. On the flip side all the other candidates (minus Huntsman) make independents flee, Democrats turn out. Of course the faithful GOPers will turn out for them, but that wont matter.

 

[haymarket]

Libbos are saying, not the people. The reason they're saying it, is because Mit is the only Republican candidate that Obama has any kind of chance at. Mit's nomination would cause people to stay home an not vote and that's the only thing that Obama can hope for.

First, it is revealing that you do not see liberals or progressives as part of the American people. That pretty much makes a very large statement about your views.

Second, nothing supports your self imposed belief that Romney would be the weaker candidate against President Obama. Do some research on polling and you will see the opposite is true.

Third, While perhaps you would stay home (although I doubt that) independents would not likely join you. Most political observers here are astute enough to realize that any candidate must win the independents in the middle to be elected.

I would much rather have Obama run against Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, or Paul than Romney. Romeny is the only one with any chance of capturing the middle where the election is won.

 

[00timh]

Mitt is the only front-runner who can win any sizeable amount of Democrat & Independent votes.

And that folks is what the GOP establishment has been reduced to. betting the ranch on the guy who sleeps with the enemy... I find it interesting that so many of the GOP candidates has spikes in the polls and sparks interest. It seems that of conservative voters, they are clinging to anything that even remotely sounds conservative. Anything, anyone but Romney and the GOP corporatist establishment machine. I am finding it likely that Obma will win another 4 years due to the bloodshed of the GOP establishment vs. the conservative body of the party. All we conservatives are asking for is a voice, and at this point most of us don't care anymore who or where it comes from.

 

[rocket88]

There is no Leftist majority in this country, by any means and you need to stop thinking that there is, lest you get very disappointed next November.

Wait, I thought everyone who voted for Obama is a Commie. Wouldn't that make 52% "Raging Communists out to destroy America" in 2008?

most Americans are anywhere from center-Right to far-Right

More are center-Right than far-Right. I think most Americans probably fall between center-Right and center-Left. The key word being "center." Romney is a centrist, therefore he's more electable than his far-Right opponents, because most Americans will consider voting for him. Bachmann, on the other hand, can barely get a majority in her district, which is specifically drawn to be a Republican safe seat. In 2008, she only got 46%, but won because of an 3rd party candidate getting 10%.

 

[haymarket]

And that folks is what the GOP establishment has been reduced to. betting the ranch on the guy who sleeps with the enemy... I find it interesting that so many of the GOP candidates has spikes in the polls and sparks interest. It seems that of conservative voters, they are clinging to anything that even remotely sounds conservative. Anything, anyone but Romney and the GOP corporatist establishment machine. I am finding it likely that Obma will win another 4 years due to the bloodshed of the GOP establishment vs. the conservative body of the party. All we conservatives are asking for is a voice, and at this point most of us don't care anymore who or where it comes from.

That is pretty much right on the money. I suspect that Romney has far more in common with Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon,Gerald Ford and George Bush Sr. than he does with the vast majority of GOP activists today. He is a classic Republican in the Wall Street mold. It is only because of the extreme radicalization of so much of what passes or pretends to pass for the GOP today that Romney is looked upon as the enemy.

 

[nota bene]

I don't think Romney has a lot in common with Nixon or Bush I. Would be interested in learn what parallels you see with Ford.

 

[Zyphlin]

Can you expand on how the government telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body can be in line with libertarian principles?

In my pad right now so will simply repost a post of mine from a cain thread where someone said his stance on abortion was the TRUE libertarian view.

The short summary, it depends on ones view as to whether or not a child in the womb should or should not be considered a person under the law. If no, then pro-choice would be in line with libertarianism. If yes, then pro-life would be in line unless you wished to argue its mandatory under libertarian philosophy to believe that the state should not be able to act if a parent attempts to kill their 3 month old. Essentially, that the state can't act in protection of a child's rights

His views represent libertarianism if he believes that the child should not be considered a person under the law until birth. IF he believes that, then his view is consistant with libertarian ideology as any influence by the government would be on behalf of no one and simply oppressive to the woman. Thus, an unnecessary government intrusion.

HOWEVER

If his view is that the child should be considered a person under the law then his view point is completely split from libertarianism. Libertarianism is NOT anarchism, those are two seperate things. Libertarianism allows for government involvement in specific instances, on such thing is for protection of rights being infringed upon by another. In this case, if he believes the child should be considered a person under the law, then its a legitimate libertarian believed function of government for the government to act as a protector of a child whose having a potential major right violated. If his belief in regards to the child falls here, then he is actually completely going 180 degree's against libertarian philosophy. TO say otherwise would be to suggest libertarians are in favor of removing laws that say the state could step in and take your child into protective custody if you attempt to kill them, which would be untrue.

So whether or not his view point can fall in line with libertarian philosophy relies 100% on his own personal view point as to whether or not the child in womb should be legally considered a person under the law or not. If no, then he's in line with his supposed beliefs. If yes, then he's running counter to it.

The third option of course is that he thinks what it should be considered under the law should be a matter of the people since there is no true way to 100% unquestionably declare it one way or another OTHER than opinion and as such that determination should be a state issue, not a federal issue.

 

[liblady]

And that folks is what the GOP establishment has been reduced to. betting the ranch on the guy who sleeps with the enemy... I find it interesting that so many of the GOP candidates has spikes in the polls and sparks interest. It seems that of conservative voters, they are clinging to anything that even remotely sounds conservative. Anything, anyone but Romney and the GOP corporatist establishment machine. I am finding it likely that Obma will win another 4 years due to the bloodshed of the GOP establishment vs. the conservative body of the party. All we conservatives are asking for is a voice, and at this point most of us don't care anymore who or where it comes from.

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.

 

[Thorgasm]

Why are you calling Romney "Mittens"?

Because he didn't even know that Romney's first name is really Willard.

 

[Camlon]

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.

Romney is also the candidate who 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 you care at all about the Republicans, which you don't. Then Newt Gingrich is a better candidate.

 

[rocket88]

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.

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.

 

[Thorgasm]

Newt Gingrich is a better candidate.

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.

 

[AdamT]

In my pad right now so will simply repost a post of mine from a cain thread where someone said his stance on abortion was the TRUE libertarian view.

The short summary, it depends on ones view as to whether or not a child in the womb should or should not be considered a person under the law. If no, then pro-choice would be in line with libertarianism. If yes, then pro-life would be in line unless you wished to argue its mandatory under libertarian philosophy to believe that the state should not be able to act if a parent attempts to kill their 3 month old. Essentially, that the state can't act in protection of a child's rights

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? If everyone is free to make their own legal determinations then it becomes much less like a coherent ideology and more like a collection of stuff you just feel really strongly about. Immigration would be another tough topic for Paul's brand of libertarianism, which is ably argued here: A Libertarian