Thread: Mitt Romney

Originally Posted by cpwill

1. Any Republican that can't bring in the Tea Party movement loses in 2012. The numbers don't lie.

For the nomination, yes. However, when it comes to beyond that, there will need to be something else.

Originally Posted by cpwill

Furthermore, it's about time the Conservative wing retook the party; the 'moderates' had their time and they got us destroyed. The American people aren't interested in milktoast.

Ah, but what is really needed is someone who's primary platform is a small-government conservative . You can make an argument that this will put Romney to the side, but frankly, there are few others among this peers that lean in the same direction.

Originally Posted by cpwill

2. Romney strikes me as a snake-oil salesman. He suffered a change of heart in too many key (for election) convictions too quickly for me to buy that they were all genuine.

I'll be honest, and maybe I'm wrong, but I've always viewed governors and presidents as two separate entities. I have no problem with a instituting universal health-care in his/her state, the Constitution puts no limits there, but if asked whether the plan should be on a federal level and the politicians says yes, then they're obviously going overboard. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've yet to see Romney say this.

Originally Posted by cpwill

3. Healthcare. Its' currently the Republicans biggest bat to beat Democrats with in 2012. Except for Romney, who would be hard-pressed to explain why when he did it it was okay, but when they do it, its' bad. He would sound needlessly partisan, whiny, and petty; which is precisely the opposite note to strike in the upcoming election cycles.

Ok, good point. I've never really thought of it from that angle, which disappoints me. I figured that if he said that roles of governors and presidents are different (and made this distinction well), then he would gain (or at least his detractors would not be as effective) from this legislation.

Originally Posted by The_Penguin

For the nomination, yes. However, when it comes to beyond that, there will need to be something else.

for the nomination and the election. McCain was hurt by alot of things; but critically those area's that came out strong for Bush in 2004 didn't come out for him in 2008. In a three-way race, a Democrat picks up 36% of the vote, a Tea Party candidate 23%, and Republicans 18%; with 22% undecided. Now undoubtedly in an actual presidential election with a "non-tea-party" Republican ticket some of that portion would hold their nose and vote (R), but a significant enough portion will refuse to do so (angry at the Party for ignoring them, and refusing to give their credibility any more to the one-defacto-party system) that Obama will win hands down. How well do you think Bob Dole would have done if Ross Perot had taken another 12% of the vote in 1996? That's what 2012 will look like. The Conservative / Tea Party movement right now is the political base in this country with the energy and the momentum behind it; just as Obama's base did in 2008. Republicans can get on the train, or they can stay off it, but it's the only train leaving the station.

Ah, but what is really needed is someone who's primary platform is a small-government conservative . You can make an argument that this will put Romney to the side, but frankly, there are few others among this peers that lean in the same direction.

I can only think offhand of one national-level Republican with solid Tea Party credentials who can claim to be running on a small-government platform. Romney isn't that candidate. Huckabee is a big-government conservative of the style of Bush (that we neither want nor need), McCain is no longer an option, and Ron Paul is a little too far off the reservation to ever pull the Party people in.

I'll be honest, and maybe I'm wrong, but I've always viewed governors and presidents as two separate entities.

see, I've always thought that way about Congressional careers and the Presidency. Legislation is all about compromise. But Governing? that's an apples-to-apples Executive comparison. That's why (all other things being equal) the American people prefer to elect Governors over Senators; the feeling that they have "experience" being "the guy in charge".

I have no problem with a instituting universal health-care in his/her state, the Constitution puts no limits there, but if asked whether the plan should be on a federal level and the politicians says yes, then they're obviously going overboard. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've yet to see Romney say this.

he hasn't but it's immaterial. The fact that he thinks government performing this sort of thing even at the state level means he doesn't share the core free-market beliefs of the conservative wing of the party.

also, i find it difficult to believe that the Tea Party folks are going to be all that particularly interested in the "nuance" of his situation. It strikes me as more of the "smells like a rat, dump it overboard" persuasion.

Ok, good point. I've never really thought of it from that angle, which disappoints me. I figured that if he said that roles of governors and presidents are different (and made this distinction well), then he would gain (or at least his detractors would not be as effective) from this legislation.

I could see him gaining a very few (the David Brooks and other "moderate" conservatives who would be too uncomfortable with someone who actually believes all that stuff about small government and free markets). But I could see him gaining enough to make up for the massive numbers he would lose on the right.

***** Just to focus on some projected numbers here : On another thread I commented that those focusing on either Right to Life and/or 2nd Amendment made up about 10% of the National Electorate and perhaps 1/3 of those normally expected to vote in a GOP Primary. I was agreed with on this almost immediatly by someone here.

**** I'll add that probably those comprising these Tea Part gatherings probably have a slight (60%) majority from the earlier 10% grouping.

**** Are they important . In raw numbers & pivotal terms YES - but in order to win a General Election a Republican must crack some Blue States somewhere. More importantly California stays Blue barring something really overwhelming happening.

**** I started another thread yesterday pointing out that even IF Obama gets edged out by a Republican in 2012 it won't be by much in the Electoral Count and at age 55 in 2016 he just might go for it again. This is the edge the opposition has and it won't change for simple demographic reasons. No way a Republican gets well over 300 Electoral Votes in 2012. I suspect Karl Rove would agree here.

Romney is one of those guys of a type that highly partisan liberals LOVE to say, "oh, if only they had run HIM, I could have voted Republican."

Then, of course, if the Republicans actually end up running "him," there's suddenly a litany of reasons why they can't vote for him "now," because he "changed," yadda yadda . . . as there were a snowball's chance in Hell they were ever going to vote Republican, whomever they ran.

Originally Posted by Drecq

In all honesty...Mitt is a Nazi...pure and simple. That is strictly my personal opinion based on the information I have been given...which as we all know information can be sporadic and not 100% clear, but what I have heard of his policies he is a Nazi Reformist of the Republic Party and I don't vote Republican at all but I as soon have McCain then Romney.

You obviously have no idea what a Nazi even is. Please read a book or two on the subject... rise and fall of the third reich is a good place to start.

Originally Posted by cpwill

1. Any Republican that can't bring in the Tea Party movement loses in 2012. The numbers don't lie. Furthermore, it's about time the Conservative wing retook the party; the 'moderates' had their time and they got us destroyed. The American people aren't interested in milktoast.

2. Romney strikes me as a snake-oil salesman. He suffered a change of heart in too many key (for election) convictions too quickly for me to buy that they were all genuine.

3. Healthcare. Its' currently the Republicans biggest bat to beat Democrats with in 2012. Except for Romney, who would be hard-pressed to explain why when he did it it was okay, but when they do it, its' bad. He would sound needlessly partisan, whiny, and petty; which is precisely the opposite note to strike in the upcoming election cycles.

Think it is possible to bring in the Tea Party crowd without turning off moderates?

Originally Posted by cpwill

for the nomination and the election. McCain was hurt by alot of things; but critically those area's that came out strong for Bush in 2004 didn't come out for him in 2008. In a three-way race, a Democrat picks up 36% of the vote, a Tea Party candidate 23%, and Republicans 18%; with 22% undecided. Now undoubtedly in an actual presidential election with a "non-tea-party" Republican ticket some of that portion would hold their nose and vote (R), but a significant enough portion will refuse to do so (angry at the Party for ignoring them, and refusing to give their credibility any more to the one-defacto-party system) that Obama will win hands down. How well do you think Bob Dole would have done if Ross Perot had taken another 12% of the vote in 1996? That's what 2012 will look like. The Conservative / Tea Party movement right now is the political base in this country with the energy and the momentum behind it; just as Obama's base did in 2008. Republicans can get on the train, or they can stay off it, but it's the only train leaving the station.

Find common ground and build on it. The idea of small-government seems like the good start (I believe that's the common complaint.)

Originally Posted by cpwill

I can only think offhand of one national-level Republican with solid Tea Party credentials who can claim to be running on a small-government platform. Romney isn't that candidate. Huckabee is a big-government conservative of the style of Bush (that we neither want nor need), McCain is no longer an option, and Ron Paul is a little too far off the reservation to ever pull the Party people in.

Governor of Nevada I believe. You showed me a link to the guy on WS before, long time ago. You don't happen to still have it, do you?

Originally Posted by cpwill

see, I've always thought that way about Congressional careers and the Presidency. Legislation is all about compromise. But Governing? that's an apples-to-apples Executive comparison. That's why (all other things being equal) the American people prefer to elect Governors over Senators; the feeling that they have "experience" being "the guy in charge".

Ok, hard to argue here.

Originally Posted by cpwill

also, i find it difficult to believe that the Tea Party folks are going to be all that particularly interested in the "nuance" of his situation. It strikes me as more of the "smells like a rat, dump it overboard" persuasion.

Same here. Politics tends to be a pretty barbaric form of debate (at least in my opinion) and the little intricacies that are appreciated elsewhere are largely ignored .

Originally Posted by cpwill

I could see him gaining a very few (the David Brooks and other "moderate" conservatives who would be too uncomfortable with someone who actually believes all that stuff about small government and free markets). But I could see him gaining enough to make up for the massive numbers he would lose on the right.

Well, perhaps. But as Harshaw said, I don't see it happening. Despite the delusional ego-stroking of some on the left who view themselves as 'superior', when a Democratic/more liberal candidate is threatened, the usual protocol is to back together like a herd .

Originally Posted by Harshaw

Romney is one of those guys of a type that highly partisan liberals LOVE to say, "oh, if only they had run HIM, I could have voted Republican."

Then, of course, if the Republicans actually end up running "him," there's suddenly a litany of reasons why they can't vote for him "now," because he "changed," yadda yadda . . . as there were a snowball's chance in Hell they were ever going to vote Republican, whomever they ran.

Witness the 2008 Presidential Election.

Originally Posted by the makeout hobo

Think it is possible to bring in the Tea Party crowd without turning off moderates?

Absolutely. Opposition to the Bailouts, belief that the Stimulus isn't helping, Opposition to Healthcare "Reform", and Opposition to increased taxation are all majority positions within America, and they make up the driving issues of the Tea Party movement. Were we witnessing (say) a strong drive of big-government social conservatives then we would have to worry about a balancing act. But with regards to the Tea Party movement, what we are seeing is truly a split between the elite and popular classes, more than a classic conservative / moderate split.

Originally Posted by The_Penguin

Find common ground and build on it. The idea of small-government seems like the good start (I believe that's the common complaint.)

yup. we live in a central-right nation; and one which is currently sick from trying to stomach a massive increase in the size and spending of government. It will reach for a small-government purgative like a morning hangover for water.

Governor of Nevada I believe. You showed me a link to the guy on WS before, long time ago. You don't happen to still have it, do you?

Indiana, fella named Mitch Daniels. I don't recall what link you are referring to, but here's a piece: The American Spectator : Blade Runner

But he suffers from 1. charisma (lack thereof) 2. energy (see #1) and 3. solid identity within the tea party regular-folk crowd. He's a policy wonk, not a regular citizen like you and me; who recognizes on a fundamental level how out of control our government is.

I think, that he would provide excellent balance, however, as a VP pick on a Palin ticket. For those worried she can't talk to much good or sound smarterer than themselfs; please meet the former head of the OMB . Plus he would put Biden over his knee and absolutely spank him in a VP debate.

Ok, hard to argue here.

The old saw is that every Representative thinks he would make a good Senator and every Senator thinks he would make a good President. The trick is to keep good conservative Senators in the Senate so we A) don't lose their vote and B) don't lose the election.

Same here. Politics tends to be a pretty barbaric form of debate (at least in my opinion) and the little intricacies that are appreciated elsewhere are largely ignored .

yeah but a wise man doesn't try to fight the current; he guides it.

Well, perhaps. But as Harshaw said, I don't see it happening. Despite the delusional ego-stroking of some on the left who view themselves as 'superior', when a Democratic/more liberal candidate is threatened, the usual protocol is to back together like a herd .

well, it's in their ideology. conformity to ones' superiors.