Romney/Ryan Lose 2012 Election Thread

[SKINS@THEGOALLINE]

Some very good news for Mitt in the polls popping up on RealClearPolitics this morning. Ohio even, Romney ahead in Florida and Virginia. He's got to be feeling great right now.

"I don't believe in polls, they're skewed in favor of the democrats . . . Oh wait, nevermind." ---- Dick Morris

[Koolblue13]

http://youtu.be/x-oS4WLui3Q

a voters guide to republicans. this was posted by a friend on FB today.

[HBnotBlades]

http://youtu.be/x-oS4WLui3Q

a voters guide to republicans. this was posted by a friend on FB today.

Does he not see the irony in touting all the great things that the republican party did when they were the more liberal party while chastising what were the conservative democrats?

[thebluefood]

http://youtu.be/x-oS4WLui3Q

a voters guide to republicans. this was posted by a friend on FB today.

While I understand what he's saying (i.e. that the Democratic Party, by and large, is full of **** and that radical liberals usually stoop to the same scare/coercion tactics radical conservatives use), it also cracks me up that he thinks the GOP truly believes in individuality and free markets. From where I stand, that is hardly the truth.

But, he's also right about the Democrats' record on race. They'll talk all day long about Lyndon Johnson and Jack Kennedy, but if you bring up the trail of tears or Jim Crow, they fall eerily quiet. As a matter of fact, I've been doing a story for a freelance gig and one of my interviewees (a Democrat) said the Democratic Party doesn't see the likes of Jackson and Gov. Wallace as a part of their "legacy" and even calls them precursors to the Republican Party.

Democrats, for the most part, don't seem all that willing to own up to their checkered past, claiming it was "a long time ago."

Just because something happened a long time ago doesn't mean you shouldn't acknowledge it or own up to it.

Still, I don't really like this guy's passive aggressive tone, even if I do agree with some of the stuff he says.

[RedskinsFan44]

Does he not see the irony in touting all the great things that the republican party did when they were the more liberal party while chastising what were the conservative democrats?

This. The parties have flipped on a number of issues. Look at old electoral maps - pre-1964 to the 80s and you will see the evolution. 68 is particularly interesting as the south was between parties:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showe....php?year=1968

[thebluefood]

This was published a few days ago, but I still found it to be an interesting read. I enjoy David Brooks' work for the Times and on the NewsHour. I've been trying to find more conservative columnists like him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/op...me&ref=general

Far from being an unthinking deregulator, Romney declared, “Regulation is essential. ... I mean, you have to have regulations so that you can have an economy work.” Instead of championing unfettered capitalism, he said he wanted predictable and workable rules. He criticized housing regulations that can’t give a clear idea of what a qualified mortgage is. He criticized financial regulations that favor big banks over small ones.

Romney didn’t describe a comprehensive governing philosophy, but he gave us a hint of a strong center-right pragmatic approach. It starts with 1986-style tax reform and Wyden-Ryan Medicare reform and then offers a glimpse of experimental pragmatism on most everything else.

Yes, it’s true. Romney’s tax numbers don’t add up. Yes, there’s a lot of budgetary flimflam. No, Romney still doesn’t have an easy answer to wage stagnation (neither does Obama). But Romney’s debate performance signals the return of Governor Mitt. Democrats call it hypocrisy; I call it progress.

[RedskinsFan44]

This was published a few days ago, but I still found it to be an interesting read. I enjoy David Brooks' work for the Times and on the NewsHour. I've been trying to find more conservative columnists like him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/op...me&ref=general

I like Brooks too.

MItt's shift to center was largely lost in the conservatives exhortations at the defeat of Obama. As to the tax numbers he so deftly avoided:

So, I asked one of the center's scholars Thursday what number Romney would have to use as a deduction cap in order to make "revenue neutral" the $4.8 trillion in cuts.

"It's a negative number," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, which joins with the Brookings Institution to run the Tax Policy Center.

"A negative number?" I said.

"There are not enough itemized deductions to offset his rate cuts," Williams said, adding that eliminating all itemized deductions for all income groups would not cover the tab for the proposed cuts."There's just not enough money there."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/

I also find it interesting that the fact that Romney effectively said he would increase the tax burden on the rich has been overlooked.

[NLC1054]

This was published a few days ago, but I still found it to be an interesting read. I enjoy David Brooks' work for the Times and on the NewsHour. I've been trying to find more conservative columnists like him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/op...me&ref=general

Problem is that just about every progressive or moderate position Mitt takes, his campaign immediately walks back. The regulation stuff was walked back, the pre-existing condition thing, his campaign walked back.

That's why he's called a hypocrite; there have been several times when who I'm guessing is the real Mitt slips through the cracks, but his campaign immediately walks back his positions. It's a tactic that allows him to appear moderate in front of a national audience without ever actually committing himself to a firm position on anything.

---------- Post added October-6th-2012 at 04:31 PM ----------

I also find it interesting that the fact that Romney effectively said he would increase the tax burden on the rich has been overlooked.

Because his campaign probably walked it back.

[thebluefood]

I agree, NLC. I think Mitt deserves to be called a hypocrite for his flip-flopping, but at the same time, I can understand why he did it.

Mitt Romney isn't stupid. People who say so aren't paying attention. He knew there was no way he could win the nomination with moderate rhetoric. Jon Huntsman tried it and look where that got him. Is Huntsman the more principled man? Absolutely. Would he have been a better candidate for the GOP? I think so; but Romney knows you can't win a Republican primary these days by being a moderate.

He knew if he actually stuck to his guns, it would've been Santorum accepting the nomination in Tampa. He put on a TEA Party mask and easily won the nomination. He did what he had to do to win.

Now that we're past the conventions, Mitt can be Mitt again and go back to being the moderate he actually is. Having said that, I think it's too little, too late, but it's been somewhat effective. If Mitt continues to "win" these debates, he might even win a swing state or two and keep it very close.

It's horribly dishonest and it's not going to win him fans within his party, but I can see the reasoning behind what hes been doing.

[RedskinsFan44]

I agree, NLC. I think Mitt deserves to be called a hypocrite for his flip-flopping, but at the same time, I can understand why he did it.

Mitt Romney isn't stupid. People who say so aren't paying attention. He knew there was no way he could win the nomination with moderate rhetoric. Jon Huntsman tried it and look where that got him. Is Huntsman the more principled man? Absolutely. Would he have been a better candidate for the GOP? I think so; but Romney knows you can't win a Republican primary these days by being a moderate.

He knew if he actually stuck to his guns, it would've been Santorum accepting the nomination in Tampa. He put on a TEA Party mask and easily won the nomination. He did what he had to do to win.

Now that we're past the conventions, Mitt can be Mitt again and go back to being the moderate he actually is. Having said that, I think it's too little, too late, but it's been somewhat effective. If Mitt continues to "win" these debates, he might even win a swing state or two and keep it very close.

It's horribly dishonest and it's not going to win him fans within his party, but I can see the reasoning behind what hes been doing.

It seems to me it would have been more effective to move to the center soon after he had the nomination sewn up. But he certainly caught a lot of people by surprise, and maximized his audience, by doing it at the debate. I think his credibility is shot, I have no idea what he really believes in beyond his desire to be President. Who's to say moderate Mitt is real? To be Governor of Massachusetts he had to take those positions.

[thebluefood]

It seems to me it would have been more effective to move to the center soon after he had the nomination sewn up. But he certainly caught a lot of people by surprise, and maximized his audience, by doing it at the debate. I think his credibility is shot, I have no idea what he really believes in beyond his desire to be President. Who's to say moderate Mitt is real? To be Governor of Massachusetts he had to take those positions.

As I've heard many say before: "I don't even think Mitt Romney knows who Mitt Romney is."

[Prosperity]

http://youtu.be/x-oS4WLui3Q

a voters guide to republicans. this was posted by a friend on FB today.

I was expecting this video to be funny

[mistertim]

I was expecting this video to be funny

It was mildly amusing in that Republicans and conservatives many times still, with a straight face, try to use the tired, old "the Nazi party had 'Socialist' in it's name, and we all know the Democrats are socialists, so Nazis were more like Democrats!" and "it was the Republicans who wanted to free the slaves so how could we possibly be racist?!" talking points. It was all just bait and switch, redefining, strawman arguments, and moving the goalposts. The guy went through an impressive number of logical fallacies in a short period of time, and he did it all with a condescending passive-aggressive delivery.

Given all of that, I'm frankly not too surprised that I can find tons of youtube videos of him giving a monologue opinion to the camera or being part of an echo chamber conservative panel but not a single one of him actually debating a person from the other side.

[NLC1054]

Mitt Romney is giving his big foreign policy speech and all I hear is "We need to spend more money on battles and wars we can't win and that the world wants even more involvement from Americans."

I don't want more war. The Middle East doesn't want more involvement from us.

If this guy gets elected our perception in the larger world with be harmed and we'll keep being in perpetual war...

[skinsmarydu]

Mitt Romney is giving his big foreign policy speech and all I hear is "We need to spend more money on battles and wars we can't win and that the world wants even more involvement from Americans."

I don't want more war. The Middle East doesn't want more involvement from us.

If this guy gets elected our perception in the larger world with be harmed and we'll keep being in perpetual war...

I watched it and got the exact same impression. MAKE LOVE, NOT WAR comes to mind.