Romney/Ryan Lose 2012 Election Thread

[Predicto]

Even though Perry is an idiot; what he says about Flip Flop Romney is true. Also, really; changing his core beliefs at 50-60.

Obama has nothing to worry about.

Obama has plenty to worry about. If the economy stays down, he could lose to anyone, even one of these clowns (and no, Huntsman is not a clown,...)

[Teller]

So you'll be cheering on 4 more years of Obama then?

Bite me.

[NoVaO]

Mitt Romney in a 1994 Debate vs. Senator Ted Kennedy...

I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice.

I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. We will not force our beliefs on others. And you will not see me wavering on that.

From Mitt Romney's 2002 Website...

On Abortion Rights -- As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's.

Mitt Romney in 2007...

Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. I changed my position. And I get tired of people that are holier-than-thou because they’ve been pro-life longer than I have. But I’m proud of the fact.

From Mitt Romney's website in June, 2011...

I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine. Roe was a misguided ruling that was a result of a small group of activist federal judges legislating from the bench.

I support the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. And as president, I will support efforts to prohibit federal funding for any organization like Planned Parenthood, which primarily performs abortions or offers abortion-related services.

[Spearfeather]

Anyone seen the " Tall Tales and Exotic Adventures of Little Barry " thread?

I can't seem to find it.

[Teller]

Anyone seen the " Tall Tales and Exotic Adventures of Little Barry " thread?

I can't seem to find it.

Fire it up!

(Just know that you'll be reported to Attack Watch if you do. And probably never heard from again.)

[Burgold]

If he is the nominee, I would design a campaign ad

Romney vs. Romney: YOUR Decide

And have candidate Romney debating himself on all the issues.

[mjah]

So Americans will have a choice between:

A) Obama
B) A pro-choice, health-care-mandate-signing, climate-change-accepting, weird-religion-having guy from a true blue state, and whose stated positions the GOP has already deemed completely unacceptable

Why, exactly, will rank-and-file GOP voters bother to go to the polls at all?

[Teller]

Why, exactly, will rank-and-file GOP voters bother to go to the polls at all?

Because that's not going to be the choice.

[Spearfeather]

Originially posted by honorary_hog

Fire it up!

(Just know that you'll be reported to Attack Watch if you do. And probably never heard from again.)

My WebCam:

[Bubble Screen]

I would vote for Romney or Perry any day before I would Obama. Obama has been a total failure...

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Because that's not going to be the choice.

What will be the choice then?

[mjah]

Because that's not going to be the choice.

Are you predicting that Romney will lose the nomination to someone else?

If he gets it -- and he will -- that will indeed be the choice.

[Larry]

So Americans will have a choice between:

A) Obama
B) A pro-choice, health-care-mandate-signing, climate-change-accepting, weird-religion-having guy from a true blue state, and whose stated positions the GOP has already deemed completely unacceptable

Why, exactly, will rank-and-file GOP voters bother to go to the polls at all?

For the same reason they'd go to the polls to elect a birther, tax increasing, evolution-denying, conspiracy-theorist, "gay people cause hurricanes" following, theocratic, person who believes that what's wring with the economy is that we aren't intentionally making it worse, overnight.

Because of the letter after his name.

[Spearfeather]

For the same reason they'd go to the polls to elect a birther, tax increasing, evolution-denying, conspiracy-theorist, "gay people cause hurricanes" following, theocratic, person who believes that what's wring with the economy is that we aren't intentionally making it worse, overnight.

Because of the letter after his name.

Don't know about any of that junk, but I think the " choice " is: Do you want Obama for four more years, or not?

[Buford]

Mitt Romney, the pretzel candidate
By George F. Will, Published: October 28

The Republican presidential dynamic — various candidates rise and recede; Mitt Romney remains at about 25 percent support — is peculiar because conservatives correctly believe that it is important to defeat Barack Obama but unimportant that Romney be president. This is not cognitive dissonance.

Obama, a floundering naif who thinks ATMs aggravate unemployment, is bewildered by a national tragedy of shattered dreams, decaying workforce skills and forgone wealth creation. Romney cannot enunciate a defensible, or even decipherable, ethanol policy.

Life poses difficult choices, but not about ethanol. Government subsidizes ethanol production, imposes tariffs to protect manufacturers of it and mandates the use of it — and it injures the nation’s and the world’s economic, environmental, and social (it raises food prices) well-being.

In May, in corn-growing Iowa, Romney said, “I support” — present tense — “the subsidy of ethanol.” And: “I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.” But in October he told Iowans he is “a business guy,” so as president he would review this bipartisan — the last Republican president was an ethanol enthusiast — folly. Romney said that he once favored (past tense) subsidies to get the ethanol industry “on its feet.” (In the 19th century, Republican “business guys” justified high tariffs for protecting “infant industries”). But Romney added, “I’ve indicated I didn’t think the subsidy had to go on forever.” Ethanol subsidies expire in December, but “I might have looked at more of a decline over time” because of “the importance of ethanol as a domestic fuel.” Besides, “ethanol is part of national security.” However, “I don’t want to say” I will propose new subsidies. Still, ethanol has “become an important source of amplifying our energy capacity.” Anyway, ethanol should “continue to have prospects of growing its share of” transportation fuels. Got it?

Every day, 10,000 baby boomers become eligible for Social Security and Medicare, from which they will receive, on average, $1 million of benefits ($550,000 from the former, $450,000 from the latter). Who expects difficult reforms from Romney, whose twists on ethanol make a policy pretzel?

A straddle is not a political philosophy; it is what you do when you do not have one. It is what Romney did when he said that using Troubled Assets Relief Program funds for the General Motors and Chrysler bailouts “was the wrong source for that funding.” Oh, so the source was the bailouts’ defect.

Last week in Ohio, Romney straddled the issue of the ballot initiative by which liberals and unions hope to repeal the law that Republican Gov. John Kasich got enacted to limit public employees’ collective bargaining rights. Kasich, like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, is under siege. Romney was asked, at a Republican phone bank rallying support for Kasich’s measure, to oppose repeal of it and to endorse another measure exempting Ohioans from Obamacare’s insurance mandate (a cousin of Romneycare’s Massachusetts mandate). He refused.

His campaign called his refusal principled: “Citizens of states should be able to make decisions . . . on their own.” Got it? People cannot make “their own” decisions if Romney expresses an opinion. His flinch from leadership looks ludicrous after his endorsement three months ago of a right-to-work bill that the New Hampshire legislature was considering. So, the rule in New England expires across the Appalachian Mountains?

A day after refusing to oppose repeal of Kasich’s measure, Romney waffled about his straddle, saying he opposed repeal “110 percent.” He did not, however, endorse the anti-mandate measure, remaining semi-faithful to the trans-Appalachian codicil pertaining to principles, thereby seeming to lack the courage of his absence of convictions.

Romney, supposedly the Republican most electable next November, is a recidivist reviser of his principles who is not only becoming less electable; he might damage GOP chances of capturing the Senate. Republican successes down the ticket will depend on the energies of the Tea Party and other conservatives, who will be deflated by a nominee whose blurry profile in caution communicates only calculated trimming.

Republicans may have found their Michael Dukakis, a technocratic Massachusetts governor who takes his bearings from “data” (although there is precious little to support Romney’s idea that in-state college tuition for children of illegal immigrants is a powerful magnet for such immigrants) and who believes elections should be about (in Dukakis’s words) “competence,” not “ideology.” But what would President Romney competently do when not pondering ethanol subsidies that he forthrightly says should stop sometime before “forever”? Has conservatism come so far, surmounting so many obstacles, to settle, at a moment of economic crisis, for this?