• 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

R

rcart76

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
1,321
Reaction score
649
Location
Dallas, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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.
 
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...

Yeah, after Huntsman dropped out, I wanted Mitt Romney precisely because I thought he would end up being more moderate than the others. I prefer a somewhat conservative president, but one who is able to reach across the aisle, and I think Mitt Romney is able to do that.
 
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...

Alright, aside from Romney having a problem with being a flip-flopper, I have to ask this.

Are you serious?

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Anagram said:
Yeah, after Huntsman dropped out, I wanted Mitt Romney precisely because I thought he would end up being more moderate than the others. I prefer a somewhat conservative president, but one who is able to reach across the aisle, and I think Mitt Romney is able to do that.
Click to expand...

I commend you for that. I personally thought Huntsman was the only conservative I would have voted for. To me he was a more honest version of Mitt. I guess he wasn't "angry" enough for the base.
 
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...

While you do have a legitimate point that far too many politicians are guilty of doing this the OP still asks a legitimate question.
 
haymarket said:
While you do have a legitimate point that far too many politicians are guilty of doing this the OP still asks a legitimate question.
Click to expand...
"Far too many"?
"Guilty"?

I say candidates should do it on principle. Otherwise you're stuck with being Barry Goldwater shouting at an empty congregation.
 
Fiddytree said:
"Far too many"?
"Guilty"?

I say candidates should do it on principle.
Click to expand...

encouraging dishonesty to the electorate is something I would never support.
 
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...

I was one of the people that wasn't a Romney supporter in the primaries, but the reason I support him now has everything in the world to do with Obama. He has to go and Mitt Romney is the one and only person on the planet that can make that happen.
 
Given he's lied to either the far right or moderates, how can anyone believe this man and know what he will do in office. Ryan is his choice of VP and Ryan is anything BUT moderate.
 
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 am just going off what the Tea Party wanted. And Mitt doesn't fit that description. It's just funny to me that after all the tea party noise about real conservatives. They ended up sending the least conservative guy to the general election.
 
haymarket said:
encouraging dishonesty to the electorate is something I would never support.
Click to expand...

People need to be swayed and in order to do that you have to bend it.
 
rcart76 said:
I am just going off what the Tea Party wanted. And Mitt doesn't fit that description. It's just funny to me that after all the tea party noise about real conservatives. They ended up sending the least conservative guy to the general election.
Click to expand...

Part of it was that the Tea Partiers didn't have 1) cooperative candidates that could coordinate a strategy to ensure one of their possible representatives got the delegate count 2) Actual numbers to see it through
 
Fiddytree said:
People need to be swayed and in order to do that you have to bend it.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but Romney hasn't "swayed", he's literally contorted his beliefs.
 
Muddy Creek said:
Maybe so, but Romney hasn't "swayed", he's literally contorted his beliefs.
Click to expand...

He is swaying enough. The public polls and the electoral polls are working decently for him. Maybe not enough to get to the office, but it's working well enough.
 
Fiddytree said:
He is swaying enough. The public polls and the electoral polls are working decently for him. Maybe not enough to get to the office, but it's working well enough.
Click to expand...

And yet, Obama is now in the lead. Ever since Gallup was taken over by a corporation, I have little time for polls. They seem to want to shape public opinion, not report any truths, much like the corporate media.
 
Muddy Creek said:
And yet, Obama is now in the lead. Ever since Gallup was taken over by a corporation, I have little time for polls. They seem to want to shape public opinion, not report any truths, much like the corporate media.
Click to expand...

Just because someone is in the lead electorally doesn't mean that the campaign hasn't swayed. It hasn't swayed enough necessarily to win, but this is becoming a closer election than what many people thought (including myself) a few months ago.
 
Fiddytree said:
Just because someone is in the lead electorally doesn't mean that the campaign hasn't swayed. It hasn't swayed enough necessarily to win, but this is becoming a closer election than what many people thought (including myself) a few months ago.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Again, I think the media wants the people to care about elections as though they actually have meaning.
 
Muddy Creek said:
Perhaps. Again, I think the media wants the people to care about elections as though they actually have meaning.
Click to expand...

That's because they do have meaning.
 
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.
 
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...

Making his hard to vote for, I would think. But you need to look at his choice for VP. That to me tells me he's going to go hard and far right. This middle moderate Mitt is to get the moderate republicans believing again. He needs their votes.
 
I am fiscally conservative and more socially progressive so more moderate Mitt is what I have been expecting to happen from the beginning given his record. I, however, did not vote in the primary because I am not a republican and Romney was already so far ahead by then it would not have mattered either way. If I were a dyed in the wool conservative I would have likely voted for Santorum.
 
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...

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.
 
Muddy Creek said:
You hope. Sorry. A good friend died. I guess maybe this is where I should NOT be.
Click to expand...

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. That brings in a subplot of questionable legitimacy, and a great contrasting moment to what would happen only months later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom