• 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.

Norquist: Romney Will Do As Told

rcart76

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
1,321
Reaction score
649
Location
Dallas, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Norquist: Romney Will Do As Told

All we have to do is replace Obama. ... We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. ... We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don't need someone to think it up or design it. The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate.


So that is why they wanted Romney to win !!!

If Romney don't respond to this he will look like Norquist *****.
 
Samantha Bee on the Daily Show took down Norquist a month ago, it was classic.

Just watched that. Pretty pathetic, but you thinking thats a take down is even more so.
 
Why is this a bad thing?

Congress is supposed to legislate, not the President.
 
Precisely. The imperial presidency is a recent invention, it would be nice if we went back to the Congress (y'know, the people?) as the driver of the agenda.
 
Norquist: Romney Will Do As Told

So that is why they wanted Romney to win !!!

If Romney don't respond to this he will look like Norquist *****.

That's a calculation, not assured outcome. The piece states, "They have reconciled themselves to a Romney candidacy because they see Romney as essentially a weak and passive president who will concede leadership to congressional conservatives..." To date, Romney has not, in fact, made any explicit or implicit guarantees along those lines. Moreover, if one wants to judge how a leader will conduct himself, a good indication is to look back at how he/she led when in power. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Governor Romney's choices in Massachusetts, one finds a leader who would likely govern pragmatically and not ideologically.

In my opinion, I don't believe Norquist meant to paint Romney as weak and compliant. I suspect his larger point is that Conservatives are not looking for an activist President, but one who would contribute to reducing the size and scope of government, and that Romney would fit the bill. However, he took a blunt approach that carries risks, especially if Romney feels the need to demonstrate strength early on.
 
I believe him. Romney will just be a puppet for John Boner. he will do whatever boner and McConnell tell him.
 
Odd comment about the imperial presidency and the role of congress...

Just recently Obama was attacked for not submitting a budget request and then when was sent, for it being shot down.

So we gonna whine about his 'lack of leadership' or a Republican House not approving their own budget?

The Ryan budget couldn't get passed either.

Norquist is becoming another marginalized right wingnut, along with Armey and Rove.
 
I simply don't trust Romney.

To start with, he has a liberal track record.

Even if he started to govern as a conservative, every president wants to do something "different" so they have a legacy.

Romney would likely stray from the promises he made to conservative voters in the primaries.
 
Odd comment about the imperial presidency and the role of congress...

Just recently Obama was attacked for not submitting a budget request and then when was sent, for it being shot down.

So we gonna whine about his 'lack of leadership' or a Republican House not approving their own budget?

The Ryan budget couldn't get passed either.

Norquist is becoming another marginalized right wingnut, along with Armey and Rove.

Neither side in Congress is serious enough about a budget. Jesus Christ could submit a budget to Harry Reid right now and he wouldnt put it for a vote. Reid has zero interest in being held responsible for anything more than running for his seat again.

The House is at least making attempts at budgeting and fiscal issues, the Senate? Not so much.
 
The comment I responded to was diminishing the role Willard would have in federal budgets. The posters are of the opinion that is for Congress to do and yet the right constantly slams Obama for not putting a budget request forward.

Now you are being a bit sly about the House, unlike the Senate the House rarely has to have a super majority to pass something. Yet the Paul Ryan's budget, and he is the Chairman of the Budget Committee has FINALLY gotten his budget voted on almost 2 years after winning control of the House. Thats not progress, thats posturing.

It is faint praise indeed to compare a 2 year in the making vote, (on a budget that has zero, I say again NO chance of ever passing in the Senate), to the deadlocked Senate.

Back on topic, Norquist is a marginal player attempting to regain some of the limelight he so craves...
 
I simply don't trust Romney.

To start with, he has a liberal track record.

Even if he started to govern as a conservative, every president wants to do something "different" so they have a legacy.

Romney would likely stray from the promises he made to conservative voters in the primaries.

Who do you think would not?
 
I don't trust Romney either.
Mormons just care about Mormons.
 
The comment I responded to was diminishing the role Willard would have in federal budgets. The posters are of the opinion that is for Congress to do and yet the right constantly slams Obama for not putting a budget request forward.

Now you are being a bit sly about the House, unlike the Senate the House rarely has to have a super majority to pass something. Yet the Paul Ryan's budget, and he is the Chairman of the Budget Committee has FINALLY gotten his budget voted on almost 2 years after winning control of the House. Thats not progress, thats posturing.

It is faint praise indeed to compare a 2 year in the making vote, (on a budget that has zero, I say again NO chance of ever passing in the Senate), to the deadlocked Senate.

Back on topic, Norquist is a marginal player attempting to regain some of the limelight he so craves...

Jesus jumping Christ...NO ONE voted for Obama's budget. How about he assemble a budget that isnt unicorn farts, hope and fairy dust.
 
So, according to Grover Norquist, should Mitt Romney win the 2012 presidency he'll be Norquist's bitch! Interesting...

Looks like some people need a reminder of how merely being a "team player," a yes-man and towing the party line versus not sticking up for your principles can garner you tons of criticizism and do harm to your political career.

Chris Christie: Rick Santorum ?awful? at GOP debate - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com

Rush Limbaugh: I 'Cringed' At Rick Santorum's Team Player Comment

Santorum Put on Defensive Amid Attacks After Republican Debate in Arizona - Bloomberg

Are Republicans essentially saying that's what they want from Mitt Romney? That he'll merely be a puppet to political special interests? Interesting...Isn't that how things got so screwed up in this country over the years in the first place? I'll even go one further...

Ever since Obama's come into office, he's had to defend actions from his Administration on such matters as Fast and Furious, Sonlyndra, the Consumer Watchdog director position (the official title escapes me at the moment) and now the Secret Service scandal. But at every step along the way, he's shown that he won't be a pushover about any of it. Folks are still trying to critisize him over the Stimulus, GM and PPACA, but none have really hit the mark in a way that sinks his presidency.

Still, if Republicans want a "puppet" for a President, you go right ahead and throw your vote away for Mitt Romney, the non-leader. Because that's what he will be if he is elected. He won't fight for HIS agenda. Instead, he'll just do as he's told by a man who himself hasn't the balls to run for the highest office in the land himself....the freakin' coward!
 
Last edited:
I guess if Willard doesn't want to be a good little lap-dog, Grover can just make him ride on top of the GOP bus.
 
I don't really see the point. The reason the Ryan budget didn't get through was because 57 senators voted against it, not that Obama wouldn't sign it. Romney can sign it, but congress will not vote in favor of it. The only purpose of having a non leader like Romney is Supreme Court appointments. However, apart from a liberal judge there is no one likely to retire in the period 2012 -2016. Also, Romney has a terrible track record of hiring supreme court justices. In Massachusetts, the majority of his appointments are liberals.

The disadvantage of electing Romney is 2016. In 2016, we are stuck with Romney who probably will lose. At the same time, we will probably lose the congress as well. There are many good candidates who can run in 2016. It is better to wait.
 
Is no one really bothered by Norquist's influence over the republican party? His actions really center around bankrupting the country. Is he trying to hand the keys to the US over to China? That's where his strict policy of draining the US government and starving it into submission is going to do. The same way that a bigger and richer company drives a smaller one out of business, that's where Norquist is taking the US.
 
Is no one really bothered by Norquist's influence over the republican party? His actions really center around bankrupting the country. Is he trying to hand the keys to the US over to China? That's where his strict policy of draining the US government and starving it into submission is going to do. The same way that a bigger and richer company drives a smaller one out of business, that's where Norquist is taking the US.

It's actually more telling that Romney has not called out Norquist on his comments. I guess Romney really is Norquist's Bitch.
 
Back
Top Bottom