• 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.

Mitt Romney: a portrait in cowardice

AdamT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
17,773
Reaction score
5,746
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
He's talked about how, in the'94 Senate election, his stand on the Department of Education was used against him. Apparently his response to that is to refuse to take a stand on anything. I guess that's also one way to avoid adding to the list of flip flops.

seven major issues on which Romney has refused to take a stand:

1. Romney won’t say whether he would undo Obama’s decision to end deportations of DREAM-eligible immigrants. Romney and his campaign passed up numerous opportunities over the weekend to say whether he agreed with the substance of the Obama administration’s order to stop deporting some young undocumented immigrants and whether a President Romney would rescind the order, saying only, “We’ll look at that — we’ll look at that setting as we– as we reach that.”

2. Romney won’t say whether he’d support the Paycheck Fairness Act. Romney repeatedly dodged questions about whether he’d support the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill to crack down on wage discrimination and close the wage gap between men and women. His campaign didn’t respond to five requests by the conservative Washington Times seeking his stance on the bill.

3. Romney won’t specify which tax loopholes he’d close. Asked yesterday which tax deductions he would eliminate to offset his massive proposed tax-cuts for the rich, Romney refused to offer any specifics on a plan that he has admitted is so vague it cannot even be scored, saying only, “We’ll go through that process with Congress.”

4. Romney won’t say which federal agencies he’d eliminate. At a private fundraiser, Romney reportedly told donors he would eliminate or combine “a lot of departments in Washington,” but that he was “probably not going to lay out just exactly which ones are going to go.” Why? Because he feared telling the voters his plans before the election might hurt his political chances, just as it did in his 1994 Senate race.

5. Romney won’t say whether he supports the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Romney’s campaign refused to say whether he would have signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a law that helps women hold employers accountable for discriminating in the pay practices based on gender. Romney said, “I’m not going to go back and look at all the prior laws and say had I been there which ones would I have supported and signed.”

6. Romney won’t say whether he’d support full reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Offering only general support for renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, Romney would not specify whether he supported the bipartisan Senate version or the GOP House rolllback bill. His spokeswoman said only that he “hopes [the bill] can be reauthorized without turning it into a political football.”

7. Romney won’t say whether say whether he’d eliminate the “carried interest” tax break for private equity partners. Romney’s campaign has refused to answer questions about whether he supports eliminating the “carried interest” tax break for private equity partners, even when asked directly, saying only that we should probably “take a close look at to see if we’re treating capital gains as capital gains or are we treating, in some cases, carried interest as capital gains when it’s more like ordinary income.”

The 7 Major Issues Mitt Romney Won't Take A Position On
 
Last edited:
:wow::2brickwal:no:

You know, if you tried to make a point without the mindless histrionics yu might actually have people take your posts seriously.
 
I want a stance on issues you can safely take a stand on. There are some issues that require that you actually be in the seat of power before you can give a true, confident answer. I think Obama and Gitmo is a prime example of this. Prior to winning the presidency and gaining access to all of the information, Obama ran on the promise to close Gitmo and made it his first order of business to sign the executive order to that effect.

But Obama had to back track on that promise once he learned the intricacies of the situation. He ends up looking like an empty suit and a broken-promises-politician, even though he likely had good intentions and reasonable justifications for his goals with Gitmo.

The fact of the matter is, without abusing the EO, Romney won't be able to do any of the things he was asked about without the legislature. He can make empty promises or say what he'd like to happen, and I'd be happy to see the latter....but at the end of the day he truly doesn't have the authority to do anything being asked of him in the above example.
 
I want a stance on issues you can safely take a stand on.

So why can't he take a stand on fair pay? Or Obama's immigration move? Or his tax plan, which is so vague it can't even be scored? IMO he's doing this for purely political reasons; he's calculating that he'll do better by keeping his mouth shut and taking some flak for being evasive than he would by being honest.
 
yep, romney is a *****
he has NO plan telling us what he would do as president
because he knows there is no chance he would be elected
 
So why can't he take a stand on fair pay? Or Obama's immigration move? Or his tax plan, which is so vague it can't even be scored? IMO he's doing this for purely political reasons; he's calculating that he'll do better by keeping his mouth shut and taking some flak for being evasive than he would by being honest.

I said I'd like him to express his views...but the article you posted is asking him to say what he's going to do. What can he do, without abusing executive orders? Whether he wants to rescind Obama's immigration EO or not, the proper channel is through legislation. That means he'd only be telling us what he wants the legislature to do.
 
Mr. Etch a Sketch hasn't determined yet which position will help him with voters yet....I suspect that he'll take a position...but hey....he can always shake his etch-a-sketch and change his position like he has done so many times before.
 
So why can't he take a stand on fair pay? Or Obama's immigration move? Or his tax plan, which is so vague it can't even be scored? IMO he's doing this for purely political reasons; he's calculating that he'll do better by keeping his mouth shut and taking some flak for being evasive than he would by being honest.[/QUOT


Maybe he is taking a page from Obama's playbook. Vote present!

You need to vet these posts with thee Chicago office before embarrassing yourself.
 
So why can't he take a stand on fair pay? Or Obama's immigration move? Or his tax plan, which is so vague it can't even be scored? IMO he's doing this for purely political reasons; he's calculating that he'll do better by keeping his mouth shut and taking some flak for being evasive than he would by being honest.

Is he going to be able to "keep his mouth shut" during the upcoming debates?
 
I want a stance on issues you can safely take a stand on. There are some issues that require that you actually be in the seat of power before you can give a true, confident answer. I think Obama and Gitmo is a prime example of this. Prior to winning the presidency and gaining access to all of the information, Obama ran on the promise to close Gitmo and made it his first order of business to sign the executive order to that effect.

But Obama had to back track on that promise once he learned the intricacies of the situation. He ends up looking like an empty suit and a broken-promises-politician, even though he likely had good intentions and reasonable justifications for his goals with Gitmo.

The fact of the matter is, without abusing the EO, Romney won't be able to do any of the things he was asked about without the legislature. He can make empty promises or say what he'd like to happen, and I'd be happy to see the latter....but at the end of the day he truly doesn't have the authority to do anything being asked of him in the above example.

So that's the justification for not even telling what he believes should be done? Isn't someone who wants to be President supposed to have a plan? Romney DOES have a plan but he won't tell us...it's a secret. That says something about the MAN and the PLAN.....and it does not sound good.

Otherwise we can just resign ourselves to the fact that Romney only wants to be President so he can cut his taxes even further. He doesn't give a hoot for the rest of us smucks.
 
I want a stance on issues you can safely take a stand on. There are some issues that require that you actually be in the seat of power before you can give a true, confident answer. I think Obama and Gitmo is a prime example of this. Prior to winning the presidency and gaining access to all of the information, Obama ran on the promise to close Gitmo and made it his first order of business to sign the executive order to that effect.

But Obama had to back track on that promise once he learned the intricacies of the situation. He ends up looking like an empty suit and a broken-promises-politician, even though he likely had good intentions and reasonable justifications for his goals with Gitmo.

The fact of the matter is, without abusing the EO, Romney won't be able to do any of the things he was asked about without the legislature. He can make empty promises or say what he'd like to happen, and I'd be happy to see the latter....but at the end of the day he truly doesn't have the authority to do anything being asked of him in the above example.


All well said and true. The OP is just more political hackery.
 
Is he going to be able to "keep his mouth shut" during the upcoming debates?

I expect when asked, his plan will be "not what Obama is doing, I know how to create jobs" That seems to be his standard answer, which is an oxymoron since he wants to layoff thousands of Govt. workers creating more unemployed, not more jobs.
 
I expect when asked, his plan will be "not what Obama is doing, I know how to create jobs" That seems to be his standard answer, which is an oxymoron since he wants to layoff thousands of Govt. workers creating more unemployed, not more jobs.

I would venture to say we'd be better off with more private sector jobs as opposed to more public sector jobs. There are probably thousands of government employees that are redundant. Why waste tax payer money on redundancy?
 
And besides, you like surprises when it comes to the commander in chief. Right?

Considering the fact that 99.9% of what a person says when they are running for President is either half-truths, lies or intentional misdirection, when have we NOT been surprised by who won the election?
 
So why can't he take a stand on fair pay? Or Obama's immigration move? Or his tax plan, which is so vague it can't even be scored? IMO he's doing this for purely political reasons; he's calculating that he'll do better by keeping his mouth shut and taking some flak for being evasive than he would by being honest.


Maybe he is taking a page from Obama's playbook. Vote present!

You need to vet these posts with thee Chicago office before embarrassing yourself.

I am sure it was approved by George Soros though
 
I said I'd like him to express his views...but the article you posted is asking him to say what he's going to do. What can he do, without abusing executive orders? Whether he wants to rescind Obama's immigration EO or not, the proper channel is through legislation. That means he'd only be telling us what he wants the legislature to do.

I think it's generally accepted that when a candidate talks about what he's going to do what he means is that that's what he's going to try to do. But even if you don't accept that, reversing Obama's just announced immigration policy is something he could do unilaterally. Why doesn't he have the balls to say it?

Personally I would have a hard time voting for someone who doesn't have the guts to say what he plans to do.
 
Romney seems so weak and indecisive !! He can't stand up to anyone not Rush or Ted Nuggent or that stupid congressman Allen West who said all Democrats in house are communist..Romney can't even trust he can win without lying constantly about President Obama and his record he constantly says things are worst than 3 and a half years ago..really Mitt ?? Where we're you ? cause U S was falling off a cliff financially it was a scary chaotic mess!! Of course it is better now! The economy would be full steam ahead if republicans had not blocked and stalled every effort this president has tried to keep it moving forward! And President Obama did NOT go around the world apologizing for the U.S. even Colin Powell called Romney out on that one! Romney cant even bring up enough courage to tell Grover Norquuist no! He signed the stupid pledge that he will never raise taxes!! What a coward!! Ugh
 
If Romney keeps this up, he's going to get destroyed when the debates come around.
 
He's talked about how, in the'94 Senate election, his stand on the Department of Education was used against him. Apparently his response to that is to refuse to take a stand on anything. I guess that's also one way to avoid adding to the list of flip flops.


Silly, he can't take too definitive a stand on anything, he's running for President.
 
Back
Top Bottom